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

mccammon07's Great Mock
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mccammon07


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 900
Location: Washington State
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:51 am    Post subject: mccammon07's Great Mock Reply with quote

Greg Jennings is tagged and traded to Miami for their second round pick (42)
Awarded fourth round comp for Matt Flynn

For this mock I wil not be predicting FA

Draft
Round One (26)
Packers make trade with Cincinnati for picks (37 and 84)

Round Two (37, Cincinnati)
John Jenkins
Defensive Tackle
Georgia
Why: We beef up the middle and instantly become more versatile along the defensive line

Round Two (42, Miami)
D.J. Fluker
Offensive Tackle
Alabama
Why: There is too much uncertainty with Sherrod and we can’t wait another year

Round Two (55)
Markus Wheaton
Wide Receiver
Oregon State
Why: He fits our offense perfect and will help ease the pain of losing Driver and Jennings

Round Three (84, Cincinnati)
Duke Williams
Safety
Nevada
Why: Williams is a hard hitting FS that would strike fear in opposing receivers

Round Three (88 )
Christine Michael
Running Back
Texas A&M
Why: Injury prone but fits our offense perfectly and will compete with Harris for playing time

Round Four
Travis Long
Outside Linebacker
Washington State
Why: Love this kid, he can do it all

Round Four (Comp)
Kenjon Barner
Running Back
Oregon
Why: I am going to get ripped for this pick because we just drafted a RB. Barner provides us a speed back that can be our new return man with Cobb taking on a bigger role in the offense

Round Five
Bruce Taylor
Inside Linebacker
Virginia Tech
Why: Tough as nails type player who constantly gets to ball carriers

Round Six
Jake Stoneburner
Tight End
Ohio State
Why: He is not as athletically gifted as our other tight ends, but he seems to have “it”, I really like this kid

Round Seven
Trey Wilson
Cornerback
Vanderbilt
Why: Tons of potential, maybe a PS player this year

Let me know what you guys think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2777
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 9:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

How does your math work - the Packers have 7 million payroll carryover from last year and what 3 or 4 million additional for this year, so how do you commit 10.4 million franchise tag money on Jennings and still have money to put draft value on RFA's like Shields, EDS, and Crabtree and take a shot at keeping Brad Jones or Eric Walden. Add to that money tha thas to be set aside for rookie salaries and no money to extend Aaron Rodgers or Clay Mathews. If the Packers tag Jennigns team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SE500


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 530
Location: WISCONSIN
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will."

Any team that signs Jennings, tag or no trade, will do so with a long term contract. That part of your statement has no bearing. The Packers are every bit as able to tag Jennings as New England was able to last year with Welker, and will again this year if need so.

Granted, any time you tag a player you better have every intention of paying him. I believe there is little risk in tagging Jennings, worse case scenario we pay the man. We have LOTS of room and options to do so. Woodson will not be back with his present contract. We can cut or restructure Finley. Driver and Saturday gone. Others that could go.

As far as this draft goes, while any position is a possibility because in reality the board will dictate, an OT early is super unlikely. We have a great need at center, little need at OT. Bulaga will be back on the right side, Barclay obvious depth. Sherrod and Newhouse will both be healthy and both are left tackles. I believe Sherrod will really push the incumbant Newhouse, it's a great position to be in with these two younf left tackles. It's rgeat to add more talent anywhere, but we have much greater needs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 7964
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like or am fine with all the picks except Fluker. He won't be an NFL OT IMO. I think he would be atrocious in a ZBS at any position but especially OT.
_________________



Duff Man wrote:
MNPackfan32 wrote:
Josh Sitton, Mike Daniels

Average at best
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4102
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SE500 wrote:
"team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will."

Any team that signs Jennings, tag or no trade, will do so with a long term contract. That part of your statement has no bearing. The Packers are every bit as able to tag Jennings as New England was able to last year with Welker, and will again this year if need so.

Granted, any time you tag a player you better have every intention of paying him. I believe there is little risk in tagging Jennings, worse case scenario we pay the man. We have LOTS of room and options to do so. Woodson will not be back with his present contract. We can cut or restructure Finley. Driver and Saturday gone. Others that could go.

As far as this draft goes, while any position is a possibility because in reality the board will dictate, an OT early is super unlikely. We have a great need at center, little need at OT. Bulaga will be back on the right side, Barclay obvious depth. Sherrod and Newhouse will both be healthy and both are left tackles. I believe Sherrod will really push the incumbant Newhouse, it's a great position to be in with these two younf left tackles. It's rgeat to add more talent anywhere, but we have much greater needs.


That is just the typical gizmo trollin'. Sometimes you have to simply ignore it because he will not consider the other arguments, and he still thinks people make mock drafts to be accurate.

I agree on the Fluker idea. No need for an OT prospect this year unless you really get a deal. I would switch out Fluker with Barret Jones there, which is about the spot in the draft he could realistically still be available and that would take care of inside depth and meaningful competition for EDS. I also think getting Jenkins that late is a fantasy. That man is going to go much higher than that IMO. He is one of the few players that could actually play against the Alabama oline this year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gizmo2012


Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Posts: 2777
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PackFan4Life wrote:
SE500 wrote:
"team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will."

Any team that signs Jennings, tag or no trade, will do so with a long term contract. That part of your statement has no bearing. The Packers are every bit as able to tag Jennings as New England was able to last year with Welker, and will again this year if need so.

Granted, any time you tag a player you better have every intention of paying him. I believe there is little risk in tagging Jennings, worse case scenario we pay the man. We have LOTS of room and options to do so. Woodson will not be back with his present contract. We can cut or restructure Finley. Driver and Saturday gone. Others that could go.

As far as this draft goes, while any position is a possibility because in reality the board will dictate, an OT early is super unlikely. We have a great need at center, little need at OT. Bulaga will be back on the right side, Barclay obvious depth. Sherrod and Newhouse will both be healthy and both are left tackles. I believe Sherrod will really push the incumbant Newhouse, it's a great position to be in with these two younf left tackles. It's rgeat to add more talent anywhere, but we have much greater needs.


That is just the typical gizmo trollin'. Sometimes you have to simply ignore it because he will not consider the other arguments, and he still thinks people make mock drafts to be accurate.

I agree on the Fluker idea. No need for an OT prospect this year unless you really get a deal. I would switch out Fluker with Barret Jones there, which is about the spot in the draft he could realistically still be available and that would take care of inside depth and meaningful competition for EDS. I also think getting Jenkins that late is a fantasy. That man is going to go much higher than that IMO. He is one of the few players that could actually play against the Alabama oline this year.


I guess no one can make a point of discussion without getting insulted. New England tagged Welker last year because they intended to keep him and the Packers, as far as I can tell, do not intend to keep Greg Jennings. Are you one of those many who insisted last year that Green Bay would tag and trade Matt Flynn - and thank god they didn't. Jennings is not quite the investment but I will say one more time the math does not work, nor does it make any sense Miami would give up a high draft pick for an often injured WR who gets big money with no guarantees he will sign long term. I guess if the Packers do the dumb thing and dump a bunch of starters the math works, but that makes no sense to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 31135
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
How does your math work - the Packers have 7 million payroll carryover from last year and what 3 or 4 million additional for this year, so how do you commit 10.4 million franchise tag money on Jennings and still have money to put draft value on RFA's like Shields, EDS, and Crabtree and take a shot at keeping Brad Jones or Eric Walden. Add to that money tha thas to be set aside for rookie salaries and no money to extend Aaron Rodgers or Clay Mathews. If the Packers tag Jennigns team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will.
how many times must someone inform you that extensions are the natural outcome in tag and trades Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nfldraftguru1


Joined: 07 Feb 2009
Posts: 10032
Location: Whitewater, WI
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fluker is not a LT. Power scheme RT only.

Don't think we need 2 RBs, but am okay with them at those slots.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rbens06


Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 789
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

gizmo2012 wrote:
PackFan4Life wrote:
SE500 wrote:
"team are not going to jump the next day to trade for him to get a guaranteed 1 year of service for a 2nd round pick. Bottom line, the Packers will not tag Jennings for cap reasons and it ruins every mock draft that claims they will."

Any team that signs Jennings, tag or no trade, will do so with a long term contract. That part of your statement has no bearing. The Packers are every bit as able to tag Jennings as New England was able to last year with Welker, and will again this year if need so.

Granted, any time you tag a player you better have every intention of paying him. I believe there is little risk in tagging Jennings, worse case scenario we pay the man. We have LOTS of room and options to do so. Woodson will not be back with his present contract. We can cut or restructure Finley. Driver and Saturday gone. Others that could go.

As far as this draft goes, while any position is a possibility because in reality the board will dictate, an OT early is super unlikely. We have a great need at center, little need at OT. Bulaga will be back on the right side, Barclay obvious depth. Sherrod and Newhouse will both be healthy and both are left tackles. I believe Sherrod will really push the incumbant Newhouse, it's a great position to be in with these two younf left tackles. It's rgeat to add more talent anywhere, but we have much greater needs.


That is just the typical gizmo trollin'. Sometimes you have to simply ignore it because he will not consider the other arguments, and he still thinks people make mock drafts to be accurate.

I agree on the Fluker idea. No need for an OT prospect this year unless you really get a deal. I would switch out Fluker with Barret Jones there, which is about the spot in the draft he could realistically still be available and that would take care of inside depth and meaningful competition for EDS. I also think getting Jenkins that late is a fantasy. That man is going to go much higher than that IMO. He is one of the few players that could actually play against the Alabama oline this year.


I guess no one can make a point of discussion without getting insulted. New England tagged Welker last year because they intended to keep him and the Packers, as far as I can tell, do not intend to keep Greg Jennings. Are you one of those many who insisted last year that Green Bay would tag and trade Matt Flynn - and thank god they didn't. Jennings is not quite the investment but I will say one more time the math does not work, nor does it make any sense Miami would give up a high draft pick for an often injured WR who gets big money with no guarantees he will sign long term. I guess if the Packers do the dumb thing and dump a bunch of starters the math works, but that makes no sense to me.


First, Miami almost certainly will have talked to Jennings and his agent and know about the long term contract. Look at the history of franchise tagged players that have switched teams, they ALL signed a long term deal. Second, we might very well cut/restructure those guys anyways to give us more cap flexibility. Jennings would only be on the books temporarily. Third, Jennings has some injuries lately, but he would hands down be Miami's number one wideout and could really help Tannenhill develop.

With that said, I do agree with you that a tag and trade is unlikely, but based on an economic risk. In all likelihood TT would know the trade market for Jennings before he decides on the tag, but there is the chance that you risk tagging him and have to pay him. Like you said, New England wanted to keep Welker and it looks like the Pack are content with letting Jennings go. To risk having to pay Jennings and not be able to utilize those cap dollars on guys like Rodgers, Matthews, and Raji is a strong reason to scare off TT.

Overall, I agree with you that a tag and trade may be unlikely, but it is plausible and can work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4102
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one insulted you Gizmo, just making an observation. Having a minority opinion that you cannot convince others of has a burden that you need to accept. You consistently ignore all counterpoints made to yours and maintain that all mocks with the trade in it are not worth your time. Yet, you consistently make the time to make the same remark in each of them. If you are going to cry insult or feel insulted when you are called out on it, that is your problem. Mocks are made to learn about prospects, that is the point. They are not made to be accurate, that is a waste of time and energy to try and be accurate in a team mock offseason.

Back to the mock- like Stoneburner and cannot wait to see his measurements and performance at the combine. That man was getting some good looks under Tressel and has been very underused in the coaching change since. He stands a chance of getting drafted if he performs well at the combine and in the pre-draft process.


Last edited by PackFan4Life on Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NCPackFan


Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 2159
Location: Kinston, NC
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tag-n-trade MAYBE unlikely. Try HIGHLY unlikely, especially with the new CBA language, but I digress.


This isn't really that bad of a mock at all. Jenkins could slide down the boards a bit but I don't see it happening. I agree that Barrett Jones and Fluker should be switched out as well, we seem to have stockpiled a lot of RT's while ignoring the franchise LT position. If it gets too much worse, we might have to trade up in the draft one of these years to solve the issue if Newhouse plateaus in his progress or regresses.

Ny only real criticisms are with a couple of the latter round picks. I hate the Barner pick, he does not fit our running game at all and would be a complete waste of a pick. I don't like the Jake Stoneburner pick either. He has issues in pass-protection drawing holding penalties and he's soft. Travis Kelce is a better pick that, while burning an earlier pick in the draft, would solidify the TE position.

Also, the Bruce Taylor pick wouldn't be worth it either. Not aiming this at the OP in particular, but I'd like to remind everyone with an ILB in their mock that WE ARE STOCKED AT ILB... Seriously, we've had 5 guys outside of Hawk and Bishop that have proven they can step in and be somewhat reliable in case of injury. DJ Smith was a gem we found late in the draft, Brad Jones is one of the most versatile LB's we have and we should resign him simply for his coverage skills, Lattimore is improving year by year, Manning has potential coming out of his ears, and some thought Francois should replace Hawk after the Detroit away game in 2011. Please...no more ILBs people!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HyponGrey


Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 3730
Location: Down the road from NFL Films
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fluker doesn't fit, Michael is injury prone, Taylor is slow, Not big on Barner especially without a bigger workhorse back like Michael, Stoneburner is a no go because of who he is off the field.

Wheaton Williams and Long I like
_________________
justo wrote:
Bostick drove a guy 12 yards and finished off with a pancake and I'm not sure where my pants went.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SE500


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 530
Location: WISCONSIN
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"I agree on the Fluker idea. No need for an OT prospect this year unless you really get a deal. I would switch out Fluker with Barret Jones there, which is about the spot in the draft he could realistically still be available and that would take care of inside depth and meaningful competition for EDS. I also think getting Jenkins that late is a fantasy. That man is going to go much higher than that IMO."

That is just the typical packfan4life trollin'. Sometimes you have to simply ignore it because he will not consider other arguments, and he still thinks people make mock drafts for only one reason and care about his one dimensional opinion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PackFan4Life


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 4102
Location: De Pere, WI
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SE500 wrote:
"I agree on the Fluker idea. No need for an OT prospect this year unless you really get a deal. I would switch out Fluker with Barret Jones there, which is about the spot in the draft he could realistically still be available and that would take care of inside depth and meaningful competition for EDS. I also think getting Jenkins that late is a fantasy. That man is going to go much higher than that IMO."

That is just the typical packfan4life trollin'. Sometimes you have to simply ignore it because he will not consider other arguments, and he still thinks people make mock drafts for only one reason and care about his one dimensional opinion.


Just so everyone understands, I have two personalities, "Always Right" and "Never Wrong." They work in perfect harmony together. If anyone disagrees, it's a free country and they are allowed to be wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mccammon07


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 900
Location: Washington State
PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jennings is a perfect tag and trade player. He would instantly become Miami's #1 wideout, Philbin knows what kind of player he is getting with Jennings, Miami has an extra second round pick and would be willing to get a top 10 receiver "when healthy" for a second when they have another second round pick, and they would sign him to a long term contract.

As for Fluker, I drafted him in this draft because our running game stinks. I know alot of people think our line is fine, but it is holding back our high powered offense. We need to add some muscle on the line and make teams fear our running attack.
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  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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