Zero2Cool;415550Pretty much the best draft ever.


https://thedraftnetwork.com/mockdraft/JFOWtDDMq7



[attach]1780[/attach]

Yeah, if Drew Lock is there at #75
I'll eat my hat and everyone else's

My draft using the generator, I'd love if they came true!

My plan was to look for defense... but I couldn't help myself with some of the offensive guys.

Day 1
#12 WR D.K. Metcalf, Mississippi
#30 TE Noah Fant, Iowa

Metcalf has the physical potential to be the best WR in the NFL someday, if he's 100% healthy, then I struggled passing him up at #12... and Fant is said to be a young Jimmy Graham (whom I consider over sized WRs that they call TEs), but considering I think LaFleur is going to have 2 TEs sets with one being more of a receiver and one more of a blocker. The Packers basically get two large WR with great speed (for their size) on day 1.


Day 2
#44 S Nasir Adderley, Delaware
#75 S Deionte Thompson, Alabama

Adderley and Thompson both have GREAT athletically ability, I'd be shocked if they both fell this far, but FS might be the Packers biggest need right not considering Pettine would prefer to play man coverage and allow him to be more creative and free up front to set-up the defensive front. I'd gladly double dip for talented FS talent!
(also I've been saying move Josh Jones to coverage ILB for two years now, but they need more talent at Safety to do so)


Day 3
#114 RB Damien Harris, Alabama
A power RB might be the most over looked Packers need right now, because the excitement of Aaron Jones, but the Packers reportedly had interested in power RB Mark Ingram in FA but he signed with the Ravens... but LaFleur usually has a power RB starter and a quickness/speed guy finisher! Preferably both can be used as a receiver.

Harris is a no-nonsense RB with patience but when it's time to hit and use power, he's very ready! Has good pass catching hands, but he's not the faster or most athletic and isn't gonna burn by guys.

#118 IDL Daylon Mack, Texas A&M
Mack is a short-wide NT, but what makes him different is that at times he has an explosive first burst which you really don't seem from a NT, or if you do, they're drafted very high (B.J. Raji), but Mack isn't gonna get drafted so high, because he's not consistent with it and only has one pass rush move (the bull rush), but he's pretty darn good at it, keeping his feet moving! But since the OL knows what's coming he'll be easier to stop... but a DL coach that forces him to learn more moves and a coordinator that can creative use him as a physical linemen like Pettine likes and using scheme, he potentially could be very effective... especially since he'd get one on ones with Clark in there.

#150 OL Tyler Roemer, San Diego State
#185 OL Max Scharping, Northern Illinois
Physical college LTs, that might need to move to RT or OG, but I think they could be good OL still! Roemer MIGHT be athletic enough to stay at LT especially if they run more, Scharping (who went to high school in Green Bay) is less athletic and probably shouldn't be at LT.

#194 RB Bryce Love, Stanford
#226 RB/WR/KR Tony Pollard, Memphis
Simply Love is a great speed RB, who has durability concerns and tore his ACL the last game in college and last I heard projected might not be ready for the training camp and maybe not the start of the season (so start off on PUP).

Pollard is a great kick returner (and I'm projecting Gute is gonna draft a return man after drafting two STers last year). On offense, Pollard was basically asked to do a little of everything for Memphis, from WR, RB, TE, FB to wildcat QB... one thing for sure is that he's not a blocker in the NFL... but RB seems to be where coaches mostly projecting him.

beast;415561My draft using the generator, I'd love if they came true!

My plan was to look for defense... but I couldn't help myself with some of the offensive guys.

Day 1
#12 WR D.K. Metcalf, Mississippi
#30 TE Noah Fant, Iowa

Metcalf has the physical potential to be the best WR in the NFL someday, if he's 100% healthy, then I struggled passing him up at #12... and Fant is said to be a young Jimmy Graham (whom I consider over sized WRs that they call TEs), but considering I think LaFleur is going to have 2 TEs sets with one being more of a receiver and one more of a blocker. The Packers basically get two large WR with great speed (for their size) on day 1.


Day 2
#44 S Nasir Adderley, Delaware
#75 S Deionte Thompson, Alabama

Adderley and Thompson both have GREAT athletically ability, I'd be shocked if they both fell this far, but FS might be the Packers biggest need right not considering Pettine would prefer to play man coverage and allow him to be more creative and free up front to set-up the defensive front. I'd gladly double dip for talented FS talent!
(also I've been saying move Josh Jones to coverage ILB for two years now, but they need more talent at Safety to do so)


Day 3
#114 RB Damien Harris, Alabama
A power RB might be the most over looked Packers need right now, because the excitement of Aaron Jones, but the Packers reportedly had interested in power RB Mark Ingram in FA but he signed with the Ravens... but LaFleur usually has a power RB starter and a quickness/speed guy finisher! Preferably both can be used as a receiver.

Harris is a no-nonsense RB with patience but when it's time to hit and use power, he's very ready! Has good pass catching hands, but he's not the faster or most athletic and isn't gonna burn by guys.

#118 IDL Daylon Mack, Texas A&M
Mack is a short-wide NT, but what makes him different is that at times he has an explosive first burst which you really don't seem from a NT, or if you do, they're drafted very high (B.J. Raji), but Mack isn't gonna get drafted so high, because he's not consistent with it and only has one pass rush move (the bull rush), but he's pretty darn good at it, keeping his feet moving! But since the OL knows what's coming he'll be easier to stop... but a DL coach that forces him to learn more moves and a coordinator that can creative use him as a physical linemen like Pettine likes and using scheme, he potentially could be very effective... especially since he'd get one on ones with Clark in there.

#150 OL Tyler Roemer, San Diego State
#185 OL Max Scharping, Northern Illinois
Physical college LTs, that might need to move to RT or OG, but I think they could be good OL still! Roemer MIGHT be athletic enough to stay at LT especially if they run more, Scharping (who went to high school in Green Bay) is less athletic and probably shouldn't be at LT.

#194 RB Bryce Love, Stanford
#226 RB/WR/KR Tony Pollard, Memphis
Simply Love is a great speed RB, who has durability concerns and tore his ACL the last game in college and last I heard projected might not be ready for the training camp and maybe not the start of the season (so start off on PUP).

Pollard is a great kick returner (and I'm projecting Gute is gonna draft a return man after drafting two STers last year). On offense, Pollard was basically asked to do a little of everything for Memphis, from WR, RB, TE, FB to wildcat QB... one thing for sure is that he's not a blocker in the NFL... but RB seems to be where coaches mostly projecting him.

Nice post, man. A lot of work went into that.

I like Metcalf as a prospect, although I'd be scared to pull the trigger at 12. It's amazing how he could have such a ridiculous day at the Combine, confirming that he's the height-weight-speed guy everyone always thought he was, but put up some relatively lackluster numbers in college.

His struggles were mainly with things you have to get a feel for and can, in large part, learn by working on them. Catching, route running and body positining come to mind instantly. You just have to wonder if that was about not putting in the effort, not really needing to do so because he's always been physically dominant or just not having the vision yet.

That said, he did do a lot better in '18 before he went down and, like you said, if he does get those flaws you can work on out of the way, he might become one of the best in the league. I could see that happening in week 1 of 2019, but it could just as well be in week 1 of 2021.

I really like the Daylon Mack pick, as well. Pretty much the same story, though. Ridiculously explosive at 6'1 and nearly 330, but I've read in every scouting report that his work ethic and conditioning is very poor. Don't mind it as much with him, though, as we won't need him in year 1 as anything but a rotational player, with Clark on the roster.

sschind;415555So what you are saying is we should trade all our day 1 and 2 picks for day three picks.
Can you imagine the all pro team we could build.

For S&G I tried a first day draft with that strategy so check that out in that thread.

No.

When I juxtapose the consensus needs as opined the contributors to this site, specifically the

• A. pre-draft and pre-free-agency needs; with,
• B. post-free-agency draft preferences

I see a glaring a inconsistency andack of realization of this team's primary roster need and weakness...the Offensive Line.

As a reminder, Pre-free-agency the consensus needs, again as opined by contributors, were:

• 1A Edge Rush/DE
• 1B Offensive Line
• 3 Safety
• 4 TE
• 5 ILB
• 6 Slot

I may have slightly mis-ordered 3-6, but not significantly.

In what I think was a great free agency class, we have signed two stud, young Edge guys, a terrific safety, and a possible upgrade at RG who we are told, in a pinch, can play right tackle.


OK, tell me:

• If Bulaga goes down, as he does most years, and will move the new guy to tackle, WHO PLAYS RG?
• If Bhaktiari goes down, WHO PLAYS LEFT TACKLE?
• Is Lane Taylor healthy?He was supposedly healthy the second half of the year and didn't play well.WHAT IS PLAN B AT LEFT GUARD?
• WHO IS OUR BACK-UP CENTER IF LINSLEY GOES DOWN?

We are one or two offensive line injuries away from 6-10.

We are not the only people who do not seem to recognize our glaring Offensive Line deficiencies.
I listened to one of the PackersTalk podcasts and one of the experts was asked "what are the chance of taking ANY offensive linemen in the draft?" He replied 60%!!!!! Seriously!!!

And please, spare me the draft them in the fourth round and develop them argument.
We don't have the time.
IMO half of our top 6 picks should be on the offensive line.

I just hope the Lombardi avenue brain trust agrees.

Rockmolder;415569Nice post, man. A lot of work went into that.

I like Metcalf as a prospect, although I'd be scared to pull the trigger at 12.

===================

I really like the Daylon Mack pick, as well. Pretty much the same story, though. Ridiculously explosive at 6'1 and nearly 330, but I've read in every scouting report that his work ethic and conditioning is very poor. Don't mind it as much with him, though, as we won't need him in year 1 as anything but a rotational player, with Clark on the roster.

Yeah I've been thinking about that, and if we are indeed going to a 2 WR, 2 TE set (with 3 receivers and one blocker), it would make an interesting draft if we grabbed both Iowa TEs in the first round...

I honestly didn't know too much about Mack before had, but that explosiveness out of a wise 330 body is QUITE impressive, though nothing in terms for pass rush moves, so someone would have to scheme him open, but Pettine is good at scheming, so I thought between DT Adams, Mack and Lancaster, maybe they could replace Daniels (if Daniels gets a better offer as a FA else where).

But getting those two FS that late, which made me fall in love with that draft... of course that's because I think it's unrealistic.

KRK;415574OK, tell me:

• If Bulaga goes down, as he does most years, and will move the new guy to tackle, WHO PLAYS RG?
• If Bhaktiari goes down, WHO PLAYS LEFT TACKLE?
• Is Lane Taylor healthy?He was supposedly healthy the second half of the year and didn't play well.WHAT IS PLAN B AT LEFT GUARD?
• WHO IS OUR BACK-UP CENTER IF LINSLEY GOES DOWN?

We are one or two offensive line injuries away from 6-10.

Run the ball 45% of the time instead of 30% of the time, and the OGs will look a heck of a lot better.... and you can play this injury game at any position on the team and it's true, they lost two Safeties and then sucked, but you're ignoring that, they lost two WRs and they (other than Adams) sucked, they had two CBs (Alexander/King) get injured at different times, and the other CBs at times struggles and you're ignoring that...
This is an obsession of yours to blame everything that happened on the OL... when it's not the OL's fault that 70% of the play calls were passing, including a lot of long balls, which of course exposed the OGs... look at your winning teams that you keep hyping, a lot more running and a lot more short passes, their OLs aren't better in long developing pass plays which the Packers OL was asked to do too often.

KRK;415574And please, spare me the draft them in the fourth round and develop them argument.
We don't have the time.
IMO half of our top 6 picks should be on the offensive line.

I just hope the Lombardi avenue brain trust agrees.

Why should you be spared when you aren't sparing others from beating this dead horse? ...

The team would be stupid to ignore other positions just to focus in on only one, especially if the draft isn't heavy in that area... which this draft isn't that good in OTs. They should certainly grab one or two, but three in top 4 rounds is over kill and ignoring other positions.

Also if they're drafting half in the top 6 picks then two in the 4th round, which is exactly what you want to be spared from...

I noticed none of my questions were answer in opposition to my post. The 'injury game' generally can't be played will in teams without depth in certain areas.
The truth is our depth on the offensive line isn't very good and "running the ball' as the sole answer simply obfuscates the issue.
Sorry for beating a 'dead horse', but the carcass is still in the room.

Beast said:

In theory I got no problem with a drafting a new OT high in the draft (especially with Bulaga going into a contract year)... but the OTs talked about going in the 1st round this year have looked substandard to me compared to OTs in other 1st round years... and I'm thinking 2nd or 3rd round might be better.

I couldn't agree more....and you posted this BEFORE the Packers' free agency signing.
Now after other gaping needs were addressed in free-agency, you don't address the O Line in you mock draft, until pick #150 and #185. Other posts tend to do the same.

I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions

My Picks 12
Dwayne Haskins, QB
Ohio State

30
T.J. Hockenson, TE
Iowa

44
Kelvin Harmon, WR
NC State

KRK;415584I noticed none of my questions were answer in opposition to my post. The 'injury game' generally can't be played will in teams without depth in certain areas.
The truth is our depth on the offensive line isn't very good and "running the ball' as the sole answer simply obfuscates the issue.
Sorry for beating a 'dead horse', but the carcass is still in the room.

Beast said:
I couldn't agree more....and you posted this BEFORE the Packers' free agency signing.
Now after other gaping needs were addressed in free-agency, you don't address the O Line in you mock draft, until pick #150 and #185. Other posts tend to do the same.

I am simply stating that in my opinion that posters tend to underrate our need for quality and depth at these vital positions

I do agree that it is a bigger need than many people think but I do think that half of our top 6 picks might be a tad much unless its 2 4th rounders. While preparing for injuries is important I think it can be overdone if done at the detriment to other positions.
If we can get two starters out of the draft and and Turner we can slide Spriggs and Taylor back down to depth guys and we are looking much better.
Still needs to be addressed as you said but not quite as forcefully.

Right now, I'd say our top 4 needs are OL, S, Slot and TE.
If we address OL, S and one of the others with the top 3 picks I'll be happy although if the right EDGE guy falls I'll be happy with him as well.
Need to double dip on OL by the end of the 4th round though and I wouldn't even mind if both 4th rounders went that route.

sschind scolded:

I do agree that it is a bigger need than many people think but I do think that half of our top 6 picks might be a tad much unless its 2 4th rounders...,If we can get two starters out of the draft and and Turner we can slide Spriggs and Taylor back down to depth guys and we are looking much better. Still needs to be addressed as you said but not quite as forcefully.

Your rationale and perspective are spot on. Perhaps I slightly overstated the case.