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

After Day 2, what are the weakest spots on the roster?
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Illustrated


Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 181
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:19 am    Post subject: After Day 2, what are the weakest spots on the roster? Reply with quote

Clinton-Dix fills a huge void at safety and much needed depth was added at WR, TE, and DL.

I think on Day 3 the most important positions for the Packers to hit are on the OL and across the board at LB. Wouldn't mind seeing another late WR or S.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13224
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tongue-Splitter


Joined: 30 Aug 2013
Posts: 2481
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep, I think day three is a trenches day. Maybe a late QB and I could even see a late kicker regardless of Crosby's good year last year.

Basically, any position with our remaining picks would be alright with me. I'm still happy as hell with our first three picks. Very content with our fourth pick.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Illustrated


Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 181
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.


What are the chances of finding a day one starting TE on the third day of the draft? I think if Ted and crew want to upgrade the starting TE position after this point they are going to need to do it through other means.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13224
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Illustrated wrote:
justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.


What are the chances of finding a day one starting TE on the third day of the draft?
I'm not sure, but Blake Anen is an athletic freak, Leonard was a solid 3rd, IMO, and there's always that Colt guy if you want to gamble.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
bkobow05


Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 46883
Location: Milwaukee, WI (PB87 on the RAD sig!)
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
There were no day one starting TEs left anyways. Might as well take the raw prospect with upside. Quarless can handle the starting duties. We won a Super Bowl with him there, after all.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AlexGreen#20


Joined: 13 Jun 2012
Posts: 6334
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's TE, and it's not particularly close. Even with the selection of Rodgers, we have a hodgepodge of backups and no starting caliber player. There isn't one left in this draft which really really sucks.

WR: We're now 4 deep at WR and have double coverage on the boundary and in the slot, possibly twice over based on what the guys currently on the roster have accomplished this season.

C: Some will say Center, but at this point, Tretter is clearly the best option available. With no guarantee that a late round pick beats out even Garth Gerhart, it's hard to see this being a wise place to invest draft capital.

DL: With the selection of Thornton, we're pretty much done here. My dreams of a playmakking big were crushed, but Thornton provides an intriguing option. He's a pure depth guy this year for a number of different spots, but there's intriguing future development potential.

ILB: We have one average to above average starter and three guys with starting potential. Unless a guy taken is going to immediately come in and own that spot, it just doesn't make sense to throw ANOTHER depth guy into that fight.
_________________
Remember who you are dealing with:
AaronCharles wrote:
I have to say, I see no way we don't start 1-4, with our schedule.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13224
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bkobow05 wrote:
justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
There were no day one starting TEs left anyways. Might as well take the raw prospect with upside. Quarless can handle the starting duties. We won a Super Bowl with him there, after all.
Does he really have upside, though? Combine says he's well below average athletically. http://mockdraftable.com/player/4595/ And that he gained weight after he left Cal.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
vang_evo9


Joined: 13 Aug 2011
Posts: 1088
Location: Fresno, CA
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Places where we need more serious competition at. LB, C, and maybe backup qb?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
bkobow05


Joined: 16 Dec 2005
Posts: 46883
Location: Milwaukee, WI (PB87 on the RAD sig!)
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
bkobow05 wrote:
justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
There were no day one starting TEs left anyways. Might as well take the raw prospect with upside. Quarless can handle the starting duties. We won a Super Bowl with him there, after all.
Does he really have upside, though? Combine says he's well below average athletically. http://mockdraftable.com/player/4595/ And that he gained weight after he left Cal.
lol the combine isn't the be-all, end-all. C'mon man. The same combine said that Aaron Curry was a sure fire all-pro. Blah blah blah.

Yes, he has upside. Lots of it. His play on the field should mean more than a friggin' workout. I don't know why you are putting all your stock into the combine.
_________________

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Illustrated


Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Posts: 181
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
bkobow05 wrote:
justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
There were no day one starting TEs left anyways. Might as well take the raw prospect with upside. Quarless can handle the starting duties. We won a Super Bowl with him there, after all.
Does he really have upside, though? Combine says he's well below average athletically. http://mockdraftable.com/player/4595/ And that he gained weight after he left Cal.


From the standpoint of actually playing the position he is raw and has upside.

He has good size and is a natural with the ball in his hands. Teach him the techniques of the position and he could be a very productive player.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dcerb44


Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3010
Location: Schofield, Wisconsin
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
bkobow05 wrote:
justo wrote:
TE still. Not sure starting TE got any better with the pick of Rodgers.
There were no day one starting TEs left anyways. Might as well take the raw prospect with upside. Quarless can handle the starting duties. We won a Super Bowl with him there, after all.
Does he really have upside, though? Combine says he's well below average athletically. http://mockdraftable.com/player/4595/ And that he gained weight after he left Cal.


There's quite a bit to like about the kid. Has quite a few plus abilities and is very green. Won't see the field soon though so I wouldn't mind another TE later in the draft. Possibly one of the guys you listed, maybe even Pederson in the 7th or UDFA.

Athletically Rodgers is limited, but it doesn't mean he won't turn into a nice player. Went through three of his full game tapes that I could get my hands on. Can see why TT might have taken him and based the pick on future projection of his natural ability. Time will tell though.
_________________


pf9 wrote:
This should definitely be McCarthy's swan song. If we're lucky Bret Bielema will come back to this state and coach the Pack next year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13224
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bkobow05 wrote:
lol the combine isn't the be-all, end-all. C'mon man. The same combine said that Aaron Curry was a sure fire all-pro. Blah blah blah.
Not looking at the right numbers. Same could be said about Gholston, etc. I would argue they actually had bad combines.

That's besides the point. Can he ever reach an upside where he can out play the slot he was selected at? I'm not so sure.
_________________
Pugger wrote:
Pugger? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
mikemike778


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 243
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stick to what works and pick up another OL in the 4th round.

He has already picked the best TE on his board but wouldn't do any harm to add another for competition in the 5th to double your chances of hitting. Maybe add another defensive back with the other 5th.

After that its pure BPA regardless of position.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikemike778


Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 243
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
bkobow05 wrote:
lol the combine isn't the be-all, end-all. C'mon man. The same combine said that Aaron Curry was a sure fire all-pro. Blah blah blah.
Not looking at the right numbers. Same could be said about Gholston, etc. I would argue they actually had bad combines.

That's besides the point. Can he ever reach an upside where he can out play the slot he was selected at? I'm not so sure.


Of course he can.

He can be the best TE in the league -on the flip side he may be out the league in 3 years. No one knows how he will develop. Having said that Q is only on a 1 year contract isn't he so there's a case for being able to use 2 TEs long-term so add ing another TE isn't a bad move.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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