Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Who do you got at RG next year?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Shanedorf


Joined: 18 Mar 2014
Posts: 1317
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:

I don't think they want 2 Lane Taylor types on that OL.

Now, (total hypothetical) if Lane Taylor had that year and then departed in FA last month (I realize he's under contract) and we had re-signed Lang then maybe they would be more open to a less athletic guard.

This was my thought as well in terms of what draft capital GB invests in drafting Lang's replacement. I'm not comfortable replacing both Sitton and Lang with Taylor-level OGs.

And as much as we focus on pass pro, on 3rd and short we need one pair we can win with - and that pair was Bulaga/Lang more than Bak/Taylor.
Adding the run-blocking prowess of Bennett helps there too
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vegas492


Joined: 30 Oct 2012
Posts: 1429
Location: Pewaukee, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

blankman0021 wrote:
vegas492 wrote:
fattlipp wrote:
What if Cam Robinson were to somehow fall to 29?
Could he play Guard?

Or would you draft him and stick him at RT and move Bulaga inside and keep Spriggs as a super back-up.

I've watched zero film on Robinson. But, Kirwan on Sirius XM seems to think that he would be a dominating guard. And an underwhelming tackle.


If you take Robinson at 29 you're hoping he's a 10+ year starter for you. While I think he could be that player, I just think you're going to get more impact out of a R1 CB, EDGE, or O. skill position.

No argument from me there at all. All I was getting at was that Kirwan isn't high on the kid as a tackle. If a team takes him...anywhere...guard is his position. And even there there are work ethic concerns.
_________________
From my perspective, and I don't know if Brett would say this [publicly] -- I know he's shared with me -- we would not be nearly as appreciative of everything that the Packers are had we not seen it from the other side," ---Ryan Longwell 2016
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19038
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
I'm hoping the year Lane Taylor had opens up our agility cutoffs on guard prospects. I mean it really isnt all that important for guards and it cuts off guys like Isidora and Dorian Johnson that I think could plug and play. I mean it definitely is a cutoff that's worked, but if you don't care about guard enough to pay them anyway, might as well just find some serviceable guys.


I don't think they want 2 Lane Taylor types on that OL.

Now, (total hypothetical) if Lane Taylor had that year and then departed in FA last month (I realize he's under contract) and we had re-signed Lang then maybe they would be more open to a less athletic guard.



Unless you take Lamp, I just dont see a guard in this draft that you could plug n play that meets Ted's previous standards.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NormSizedMidget


Joined: 28 Mar 2011
Posts: 17363
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CentralFC wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
Pugger wrote:
fattlipp wrote:
What if Cam Robinson were to somehow fall to 29?
Could he play Guard?

Or would you draft him and stick him at RT and move Bulaga inside and keep Spriggs as a super back-up.


I don't think they want to move Bulaga or Spriggs inside and it appears Ted and/or Mike don't put a lot of value in the guard position so I suspect they'll go in a different direction at 29 and pick up an IOL in a later round.


Look for Asiata in R3. Some rumors are out there via supposed talks to Packers lower-level scouts about interest, and the round matches the players value.


No earlier than #93.

Wouldn't shock me to see Asiata slip into the 4th Round.

He will turn 25 before the end of his rookie year and NFLDS apparently forgets to take the age of each prospect into account when they rank.


yeesh.

I still can't fathom how Cleveland thought Brandon Weeden was a redeemable first round selection. Blows my mind.


Danny Watkins lol. Remember him?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
CentralFC


Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 11262
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NormSizedMidget wrote:
CentralFC wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
blankman0021 wrote:
Pugger wrote:
fattlipp wrote:
What if Cam Robinson were to somehow fall to 29?
Could he play Guard?

Or would you draft him and stick him at RT and move Bulaga inside and keep Spriggs as a super back-up.


I don't think they want to move Bulaga or Spriggs inside and it appears Ted and/or Mike don't put a lot of value in the guard position so I suspect they'll go in a different direction at 29 and pick up an IOL in a later round.


Look for Asiata in R3. Some rumors are out there via supposed talks to Packers lower-level scouts about interest, and the round matches the players value.


No earlier than #93.

Wouldn't shock me to see Asiata slip into the 4th Round.

He will turn 25 before the end of his rookie year and NFLDS apparently forgets to take the age of each prospect into account when they rank.


yeesh.

I still can't fathom how Cleveland thought Brandon Weeden was a redeemable first round selection. Blows my mind.


Danny Watkins lol. Remember him?


Watkins wanted to fight fires. Weeden was just awful. I can respect the former a little more Laughing
_________________
Matts4313 wrote:
Those are the stats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CWood21


Moderator
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 48600
Location: mike23md on the dope sig
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fattlipp wrote:
What if Cam Robinson were to somehow fall to 29?
Could he play Guard?

Or would you draft him and stick him at RT and move Bulaga inside and keep Spriggs as a super back-up.


Don't believe for a second that Ted is seriously interested in Cam Robinson.
_________________

PackFan4Life wrote:
I have been pooping like a unicorn for two days and it is freaky.

bkobow05 wrote:
So this is what DCR feels like on Saturdays...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Unless you take Lamp, I just dont see a guard in this draft that you could plug n play that meets Ted's previous standards.


Your definition of plug and play must be different than mine. I count at least four players that could step in and play as rookies from Week 1.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wgbeethree


Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 3898
Location: Denver, CO via Racine, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Unless you take Lamp, I just dont see a guard in this draft that you could plug n play that meets Ted's previous standards.


Your definition of plug and play must be different than mine. I count at least four players that could step in and play as rookies from Week 1.


Lamp, Feeney, Asiata, Siragusa?
_________________

TytybearsFan21 wrote:
Justo knows nothing about sportz

justo wrote:
I would be a terrible coach/anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jaegybomb


Joined: 29 Apr 2016
Posts: 148
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd guess Lamp, Feeney, Dawkins, Moton.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19038
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lamp and Feeney for me. I just think.Feeney is one of those guys that is too early to go with our 1 and won't be there with our 2.

The others, no I don't consider day 1 starters.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wgbeethree wrote:
Lamp, Feeney, Asiata, Siragusa?

Jaegybomb wrote:
I'd guess Lamp, Feeney, Dawkins, Moton.


Lamp, Feeney, Moton, Asiata

Dawkins and Siragusa both compete, but probably aren't your Week 1 starters.

After those 6... you get into the developmental players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Chili


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 469
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lamp, Freeney, Moton and possibily Asiata.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Lamp and Feeney for me. I just think.Feeney is one of those guys that is too early to go with our 1 and won't be there with our 2.

The others, no I don't consider day 1 starters.


I disagree.

I think both Moton and Asiata also start Week 1. I'm not sure Asiata possesses a terribly high ceiling, but he's relatively clean. Ultimately, I don't think either ends up in Green Bay.

Thuney just started every game last season. They don't need to be a Top 50 selection to be a Week 1 starter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Packerraymond


Moderator
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 19038
Location: Oconomowoc, WI
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cadmus wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Lamp and Feeney for me. I just think.Feeney is one of those guys that is too early to go with our 1 and won't be there with our 2.

The others, no I don't consider day 1 starters.


I disagree.

I think both Moton and Asiata also start Week 1. I'm not sure Asiata possesses a terribly high ceiling, but he's relatively clean. Ultimately, I don't think either ends up in Green Bay.

Thuney just started every game last season. They don't need to be a Top 50 selection to be a Week 1 starter.


Thuney would be a top 50 pick in this draft.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cadmus


Joined: 22 Apr 2013
Posts: 2108
PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2017 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Packerraymond wrote:
Cadmus wrote:
Packerraymond wrote:
Lamp and Feeney for me. I just think.Feeney is one of those guys that is too early to go with our 1 and won't be there with our 2.

The others, no I don't consider day 1 starters.


I disagree.

I think both Moton and Asiata also start Week 1. I'm not sure Asiata possesses a terribly high ceiling, but he's relatively clean. Ultimately, I don't think either ends up in Green Bay.

Thuney just started every game last season. They don't need to be a Top 50 selection to be a Week 1 starter.


Thuney would be a top 50 pick in this draft.


Parker Ehinger
Alex Lewis
Joe Thuney

That's 3 from last year that were Week 1 starters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21 ... 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 20 of 29

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group