2024 NFL Draft - Packers Focused

[CheezWizHed]

13 minutes ago, reillymcshane said:

I'm guessing the Packers go OL or DB in round one this year. I'm thinking defensive back. There's a nice group of them and if one falls that's great. 

Quinyon Mitchell looks like he'll be unavailable. He's rocketing up lists. Terrion Arnold looks like he'll be off the board as well when we pick.

Guys we may like who may be available include Cooper DeJean, Kool-Aid McKinstry, and Nate Wiggins. Any of these guys would work. I've seen DeJean linked to the Packers in various mocks. Ennis Rakestraw Jr. is interesting as well - but he is probably more of a round 2 type guy. 

Of course, you never know who will drop. 

Safety is an obvious need, but CB is actually a sneaky need for the Packers right now.  Alexander has had back issues.  Stokes has been injured for essentially 1.5 years, so who knows what his level of play will be when (if?) he is finally healthy.  And Valentine (being a 7th rounder) might be better suited to Joe Barry's heavy zone D than Hafley's heavy man D*.  Certainly some risk in your top 3 CBs.  Plus Nixon and Ballentine are both FAs. 

A CB in round 1 would not surprise me at all.  If it is a round 1 safety... I hope the guy is a gamechanger.  Seems like so many 2nd and 3rd round safeties have as much impact as the 1st rounders. 

* seems like Valentine played a lot of man in college, but often late round picks blossom because of the system and struggle in others.  I'd say this risk is probably much smaller than Alexander and Stokes' health risks. 

[Matt Breen]

53 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

Safety is an obvious need, but CB is actually a sneaky need for the Packers right now.  Alexander has had back issues.  Stokes has been injured for essentially 1.5 years, so who knows what his level of play will be when (if?) he is finally healthy.  And Valentine (being a 7th rounder) might be better suited to Joe Barry's heavy zone D than Hafley's heavy man D*.  Certainly some risk in your top 3 CBs.  Plus Nixon and Ballentine are both FAs. 

A CB in round 1 would not surprise me at all.  If it is a round 1 safety... I hope the guy is a gamechanger.  Seems like so many 2nd and 3rd round safeties have as much impact as the 1st rounders. 

* seems like Valentine played a lot of man in college, but often late round picks blossom because of the system and struggle in others.  I'd say this risk is probably much smaller than Alexander and Stokes' health risks. 

I think the safeties are more round 2 type guys. No biggies out there this year. DeJean, who has some decent size to him - could play inside or out - as needed. 

S Tyler Nubin in round 2 would be a nice add. The Athletic has him at the spot in their latest mock.

[GAME05]

I'd like to defer to the LambeauLeap guys and ask what I should be thinking of Rasheed Walker. He seemed to click toward the end of the season, but was it enough that we could pencil him in as our starting LT next year or is he more a "capable backup" type player just yet?

It seems the Packers like Myers for whatever reason and then it seems like every year there's questions of whether Tom will bulk up to play RT or if he's better off at guard. Overall I don't really know what to make of this offensive line and therefore what I should be rooting for come draft-time.

[patrickgpe]

Just did one on PFF. There are a ton of safetys that are 2nd day guys: Kinchens, Bullard,Bollack, Nubin. I'd hope we use a 2nd round pick on one of those guys. With the emergence of Walker, they don't really need a tackle as much as I thought, but I took one. Like others said they do need to do something at CB early with alexander's future in doubt and stokes struggling. I don't think Corum will be around in the 3rd in the real draft, but he was there. Packers like guys like Walker. Again WR isn't really a need but another weapon for Love isn't a bad thing. I wanted to take a Defensive front 7 guy but nothing came up that was obvious. 

[BrewerFan]

4 hours ago, GAME05 said:

I'd like to defer to the LambeauLeap guys and ask what I should be thinking of Rasheed Walker. He seemed to click toward the end of the season, but was it enough that we could pencil him in as our starting LT next year or is he more a "capable backup" type player just yet?

It seems the Packers like Myers for whatever reason and then it seems like every year there's questions of whether Tom will bulk up to play RT or if he's better off at guard. Overall I don't really know what to make of this offensive line and therefore what I should be rooting for come draft-time.

I don't think there's really much question where Tom fits. He was an elite OT this year and he was still small. I think Guard would be a bit of a waste of his talent. You can find guards easier than you can find athletes like him. I think he'd make a perfect Center, but that's likely out of the question after last year. 

I think LT is most likely his future position. That allows the Packers to draft a RT...if there is one available that they like and slide Tom over.

With Walker, he played well down the stretch. He had help on nearly 40% of his snaps though. 

[BrewerFan]

3 hours ago, patrickgpe said:

Just did one on PFF. There are a ton of safetys that are 2nd day guys: Kinchens, Bullard,Bollack, Nubin. I'd hope we use a 2nd round pick on one of those guys. With the emergence of Walker, they don't really need a tackle as much as I thought, but I took one. Like others said they do need to do something at CB early with alexander's future in doubt and stokes struggling. I don't think Corum will be around in the 3rd in the real draft, but he was there. Packers like guys like Walker. Again WR isn't really a need but another weapon for Love isn't a bad thing. I wanted to take a Defensive front 7 guy but nothing came up that was obvious. 

 

Mims is too big! 

I don't think Corum going toward the end of rd 3 is that much of a reach. He's got a lot of miles already and some injuries. I think that'd be a good value. I think he falls down because of that. Bucky Irvin is a guy who's underrated on PFF. 

I like Wilson. His combine will probably play a big role. I think if they draft a WRer, it's gotta be someone who can approximate Watson's skill set(so Troy Franklin, Legette, etc...) or a great value. Wilson could be that.

I did one as well. Graham Barton is a guy who most believe will move to G or possibly C. He feels like a prototypical Packers pick. Morgan is an extremely athletic OT. Him and Tom on the outside, the Packers would have a REALLY athletic OL. 

And Edggerin Cooper is an absolute beast at LBer. I think he's similar to Quay...but a little more physical. I didn't get the CBs here, but King from PSU would likely have been available. It's a give-and-take, but I like Valentine a lot. I think we'll go out and get a safety in FA. Less likely that we get a CB. Just not as much depth and top-end CBs are more expensive, but some of these needs will be addressed in FA. 

It's not perfect and I don't think Barton will be around at 41 either way, but a dominant OL should be our #1 priority. If DeJean was available for the 1st pick here, I might have gone with him and then gone OL, but he wasn't. These mocks will change so much by the draft...but giving Jordan Love help means giving him an OL that will dominate in the run game AND in pass pro. Smith is a guy who can play the slot as well. 

[Joseph Zarr]

The only nugget so far I have seen in the tea leaves of the scouting community is the Packers apparently love Edgerrin Cooper.

[BrewerFan]

2 hours ago, Joseph Zarr said:

The only nugget so far I have seen in the tea leaves of the scouting community is the Packers apparently love Edgerrin Cooper.

Not hard to see why. The Front office loves freak athletes. I wouldn't be surprised by the way the scouts are talking about him if he runs in the 4.4 range and has an RAS in the same range as Walker. He's the type of guy who could very easily end up in the 1st rd. 

That's what's funny about these mocks. In a few months when we pick, some people are going to talk about the steals and the reaches, how we could have gotten player X 10 spots further down and added another pick...and the Packers board is likely wildly different from all these other mocks. Broderick Jones for example. The Packers said they didn't have a 1st rd grade on any of the OL left when they took LVN...who like Gary, many thought was a reach. 

It'd be a little surprising after putting seemingly so little value in off-ball backers if they'd use 2 1sts in 3 years on them, but...I'm also in a similar place with the Packers front office as I am with the Brewers. They may not do what I want, but I trust their process and it's pretty hard to complain at this point!

 

[patrickgpe]

On 2/16/2024 at 4:29 PM, Joseph Zarr said:

The only nugget so far I have seen in the tea leaves of the scouting community is the Packers apparently love Edgerrin Cooper.

He fits the high RAS score player that the packers like 

[patrickgpe]

On 2/16/2024 at 3:51 PM, BrewerFan said:

Mims is too big! 

I did one as well. Graham Barton is a guy who most believe will move to G or possibly C. He feels like a prototypical Packers pick. Morgan is an extremely athletic 

Maybe Kool-Aid or Jean are better options. I like guys like Barton or Morgan as well and you are right they seem like more packer picks 

[BrewerFan]

55 minutes ago, patrickgpe said:

Maybe Kool-Aid or Jean are better options. I like guys like Barton or Morgan as well and you are right they seem like more packer picks 

I was kidding about Mims. I should have put that in blue. My bad. That's from the podcast with Nagler and Ross Uglem that said the Packers weren't taking Fuaga("they're just not") and then listed the heights and weights of players drafted going back the last 10 years. He was like an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than Sherrod...so he was too big was the issue that I don't actually think IS an issue. I just don't think they've drafted massive OT because...they're rare and the guys who are that big and can move are usually gone. 

I love Mims, I'd be all for it, Tom can play LT. Mims just wasn't on the board when I did mine.

[CheezWizHed]

On 2/16/2024 at 11:04 AM, GAME05 said:

I'd like to defer to the LambeauLeap guys and ask what I should be thinking of Rasheed Walker. He seemed to click toward the end of the season, but was it enough that we could pencil him in as our starting LT next year or is he more a "capable backup" type player just yet?

It seems the Packers like Myers for whatever reason and then it seems like every year there's questions of whether Tom will bulk up to play RT or if he's better off at guard. Overall I don't really know what to make of this offensive line and therefore what I should be rooting for come draft-time.

A proud shout-out to LL.net!

Tom at this point should be pretty obvious.. he is a player. The most valuable spot the could put him is at Tackle.  Moving him to LT isn't a terrible idea. Him playing at C or G is a waste at this point (please don't go back and see my comments from last offseason). 

Walker really improved also.  I don't know what his future is, but he clearly can be a starting OL in the league.  Bahk was likewise questioned after his rookie year (please don't go back and look at my LL.net comments either 😂).  Not saying Walker is going to be that good, but he is showing himself capable. 

But I don't think that should prevent us from drafting a tackle either.  At worst, you need a capable backup.  And at such a key position, you need to ensure a quality player.  Competition doesn't hurt anyone.  I don't think it is a lock that Walker will continue being a starting tackle.  

Myers did improve as the season went on (and oddly at the same time that Humphrey in KC struggled).  He played well enough and remains cheap enough to start another year.  But we have enough need at the interior OL to draft one.  Still need depth and competition.

On 2/16/2024 at 3:36 PM, BrewerFan said:

With Walker, he played well down the stretch. He had help on nearly 40% of his snaps though. 

Not doubting that, but do you have a source?  I'm curious if that reduced as the season went on.  He certainly didn't seem to have that much help at the end of the season. 

[BrewerFan]

2 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Not doubting that, but do you have a source?  I'm curious if that reduced as the season went on.  He certainly didn't seem to have that much help at the end of the season. 

No, it actually went up as the season went on. I'd have to search for it again, but IIRC was a PFF article breaking down the Packers' OL as the season progressed, which helped Love's improved play. It broke down the 1st half and 2nd half(basically Love's ascension). I'll look for it, but the two big adjustments were more quick throws(which coincides with better timing with his WRers) and more help with Walker and Tom's improved play.

 

2 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Tom at this point should be pretty obvious.. he is a player. The most valuable spot the could put him is at Tackle.  Moving him to LT isn't a terrible idea. Him playing at C or G is a waste at this point (please don't go back and see my comments from last offseason). 

I agree with G, but Center is so important in this offense...I don't know that it'd be a waste. But it's obviously not as important as OT and it's really hard to envision Tom willing to move at this point. He's a year away from likely getting a pretty sizeable extension. But unless something crazy happens(Bakh comes back and you draft an OT who is an immediate Day1 starter) it's incredibly unlikely. 

2 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Walker really improved also.  I don't know what his future is, but he clearly can be a starting OL in the league.  Bahk was likewise questioned after his rookie year (please don't go back and look at my LL.net comments either 😂).  Not saying Walker is going to be that good, but he is showing himself capable. 

But I don't think that should prevent us from drafting a tackle either.  At worst, you need a capable backup.  And at such a key position, you need to ensure a quality player.  Competition doesn't hurt anyone.  I don't think it is a lock that Walker will continue being a starting tackle.  

I agree with the first paragraph. Walker did improve as the season went on and he can be a starting OL in this league. I don't like the Bakh comparisons as he was quite a bit better after his 2nd year in the league. Or even as a rookie. It really wasn't that close. Bakh had established himself as a VERY good starter, especially after his 2nd year and he never had the questions about work ethic or discipline that Walker did. 

My argument would be the same as it's been. You can get by with Walker, but there are two positions you should always be looking to upgrade IMO. The OL and DL. I think Walker can be a decent starter. A guy you can get by with. But a draft class this talented at OT and just along the OL as a whole, a young skill group like the Packers have, as an armchair GM, I'd rather load up on difference makers. Not just guys who are good enough to get by with.

[CheezWizHed]

9 minutes ago, BrewerFan said:

I agree with the first paragraph. Walker did improve as the season went on and he can be a starting OL in this league. I don't like the Bakh comparisons as he was quite a bit better after his 2nd year in the league. Or even as a rookie. It really wasn't that close. Bakh had established himself as a VERY good starter, especially after his 2nd year and he never had the questions about work ethic or discipline that Walker did. 

My argument would be the same as it's been. You can get by with Walker, but there are two positions you should always be looking to upgrade IMO. The OL and DL. I think Walker can be a decent starter. A guy you can get by with. But a draft class this talented at OT and just along the OL as a whole, a young skill group like the Packers have, as an armchair GM, I'd rather load up on difference makers. Not just guys who are good enough to get by with.

I was comparing both of their first years as starting LT; Walker's second year and Bakh's first overall.  Many people felt Bakh was still better set for G (myself included), after his first year.  After his second, he was well-established.  Walker had an odd year his rookie year; so I give him a bit of a 'gimme'.  I don't think Walker is Bakh's equal...just that there are some parallels. 

[Matt Breen]

Let me ask this: if you had players at the following positions available when you selected for the Packers - with the exact same ranking - what position would you select? 

• Offensive tackle
• Offensive guard or center
• Cornerback
• Safety
• Edge
• Defensive tackle
• Quarterback 

[CheezWizHed]

45 minutes ago, reillymcshane said:

Let me ask this: if you had players at the following positions available when you selected for the Packers - with the exact same ranking - what position would you select? 

• Offensive tackle
• Offensive guard or center
• Cornerback
• Safety
• Edge
• Defensive tackle
• Quarterback 

It depends...  I think you have to know the health situation of Stokes and the depth of the draft at those positions.

Safety is easily our biggest need.  But if there are similarly ranked players in the second round (which looks like it this year), I'd defer.  So I think it comes down to OT and CB.  Both are in a similar situation with Valentine/Alexander vs Tom/Walker.  If Stokes' recovery (actually) looks positive, I'd lean OT.  If not... you normally play 3-4 CBs but only 2 OTs at one time...

Frankly, your first round should be reserved to drafting CBs, OTs, Edge, QBs, or WRs.  Those are the skill positions that seem to have a major edge over players in following rounds. 

Gs, Cs, TEs, RBs, DTs, MLBs, and Ss seem to be much easier to find in the second and following rounds that are nearly as good as their first round counterparts. Please don't waste your time listing the exceptions.  We know they are there, but they are exceptions for a reason.  The rarity of them proves my point. 

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Frankly, your first round should be reserved to drafting CBs, OTs, Edge, QBs, or WRs.  Those are the skill positions that seem to have a major edge over players in following rounds. 

I agree with this... if you're talking about the top 15-20 picks.  With the Packers picking at #25, that's getting close to 2nd round territory.

If the next Nick Collins, Darren Sharper, or LeRoy Butler is sitting there at #25 I would have no issues with that pick (and to your point about few exceptions, those are just former Packers).

[BrewerFan]

5 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Let me ask this: if you had players at the following positions available when you selected for the Packers - with the exact same ranking - what position would you select? 

• Offensive tackle
• Offensive guard or center
• Cornerback
• Safety
• Edge
• Defensive tackle
• Quarterback 

OT
DT
CB(barely over edge)
Edge
Center
Safety
Guard(I don't really see the two being equal as I think just about anyone who can play OT can play G...so Walker for example, I think he'd do alright at Guard).

If there is a QB ranked equally...I know this was sarcasm, but in the mocks I've done, there's usually a guy like McCarthy or Nix there and TB always offers 26+2025 1st. So I'd probably move back a spot or two(though I don't expect a team would give up a first). 
 

[BrewerFan]

5 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

Gs, Cs, TEs, RBs, DTs, MLBs, and Ss seem to be much easier to find in the second and following rounds that are nearly as good as their first round counterparts. Please don't waste your time listing the exceptions.  We know they are there, but they are exceptions for a reason.  The rarity of them proves my point. 

Not sure I'd include DT in that group. I'd flip DT and WR. The top WRers have been in later rounds probably as often as they've been there in the 1st the last decade. The best DT are much more likely to be first-round picks.

If you're talking about the Packers drafts specifically, I think that supports the WRer in Rd 2-3 even more. 

But I agree, draft capital and also represented in their salaries, G, C, TE, RB, S, LB they're not premium positions.

 

The position groups you listed are more positions you draft if there's an outlier(so a ND guard like Zach Martin of Quenton Nelson) or you've got a team that's right on the verge of competing and you're deep enough that you can target one player to plug one hole. Still not a great strategy, but if the 49ers take an OG/C, it'd make sense to me this year. 

Quote

I was comparing both of their first years as starting LT; Walker's second year and Bakh's first overall.  Many people felt Bakh was still better set for G (myself included), after his first year.  After his second, he was well-established.  Walker had an odd year his rookie year; so I give him a bit of a 'gimme'.  I don't think Walker is Bakh's equal...just that there are some parallels. 

Fair enough. But we did come back and draft Bulaga the year after he started and he was going to be the LT of the future after...IIRC, he won the LT job, was penciled in, and then had a season-ending injury. 

And then for a few years we had an elite OT duo. The way I look at it, with most of the OTs who seem like they're viable options, IF they fail, they'll still likely make really good OGs. Kinda akin to drafting a SPer, hoping they develop there, but if they don't, you're still likely to get value out of the pick. So I don't think you can really go wrong here. 

 

The Packers have also been wildly unpredictable in the 1st...so look at guys projected to go between 40-60 in the draft when the Packers pick...that'll probably be their first pick at the end of the 1st...

[CheezWizHed]

3 hours ago, LouisEly said:

I agree with this... if you're talking about the top 15-20 picks.  With the Packers picking at #25, that's getting close to 2nd round territory.

If the next Nick Collins, Darren Sharper, or LeRoy Butler is sitting there at #25 I would have no issues with that pick (and to your point about few exceptions, those are just former Packers).

Yeah, there are no absolutes... I'm speaking statistically. If you are sure someone is really going to turn out as special, you can go after them.  

However, all three of the safties you mentioned were second-rounders... so wasn't that my point? If we knew how a player would develop the draft would always look different.   There are quality safties in the second round. 

2 hours ago, BrewerFan said:

Not sure I'd include DT in that group. I'd flip DT and WR. The top WRers have been in later rounds probably as often as they've been there in the 1st the last decade. The best DT are much more likely to be first-round picks.

If you're talking about the Packers drafts specifically, I think that supports the WRer in Rd 2-3 even more. 

But I agree, draft capital and also represented in their salaries, G, C, TE, RB, S, LB they're not premium positions.

I was debating DT, but the Packer's history hasn't been so great.  But you are probably right when looking at the league.  Conversely, the Packers have a great history of 2nd round WRs, but the league #1s seem to be more from 1st rounders.  But fair point on either. 

[wallus]

9 hours ago, reillymcshane said:

Let me ask this: if you had players at the following positions available when you selected for the Packers - with the exact same ranking - what position would you select? 

• Offensive tackle
• Offensive guard or center
• Cornerback
• Safety
• Edge
• Defensive tackle
• Quarterback 

Cornerback

Safety

Offensive tackle

Offensive guard and center

Defensive tackle

Edge

[BrewerFan]

55 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

I was debating DT, but the Packer's history hasn't been so great.  But you are probably right when looking at the league.  Conversely, the Packers have a great history of 2nd round WRs, but the league #1s seem to be more from 1st rounders.  But fair point on either. 

Yeah, I guess I'd agree with the Packers history...but I don't put much stock into their history going back beyond Gutekunst. He's drafted quite a bit differently. Physical traits seem to be the priority and he's done better in the 1st rd.

We had a couple of pretty big hits in Clark, Raji, remains to be seen with Wyatt, but the jury is still out. Harrell was a miss, but Jones was serviceable. A miss, but at the end of the 1st, not a total bust. He was also a tweener in Capers defense. They moved him around. 

In any event, the big difference in this draft would be the Packers don't NEED a DT/Edge like they have when they drafted pretty much each DT. You'd take one kinda like Philly has. If there is a true difference-maker there, you take him. I see Newton from Illinois falling. Or the two UT DTs in this draft, Muprhy, a guy who has Grady Jarrett comps, or Sweat who could be a Vita Vea type with his pass rush ability and obvious ability to play the run at ~350. 

 

As for WRer, I think you're right, but it's surprising how many of the elite WRers were not 1st rd picks. It's not just a few exceptions. Guys like Hill, AB, Kupp, Puka, Davante, Diggs, Thielen, Metcalf, AJ Brown, McClaurin all the players the Steelers draft...

Just for my own curiosity I went back through Pro Football Reference and did a fairly lazy search using receptions and was a little surprised how many great WRs were not 1sts. The best mostly are. Chase, Jefferson, Lamb, but it's a wider spread that I'd have guessed.

 

[CheezWizHed]

I started poking around to see what effect the move to a 4-3 (if that is indeed what we do) would have on our roster.  For comparison, I looked at the Jets and 49ers defense (which some writers feel is what Hadley will do).  And both managed very similar players (from a weight point of view).

DE - Unlike the old Fritz Shumur days where DEs were around 300 lbs, the current 4-3 employs players very similar to 3-4 OLBs.  250-270 lbs (with certain understandable athletic exceptions in the 280 range).  I was wondering if we were going to have too many OLB types, but our OLBs are right in that range to walk right into that spot.

DT - Here again, the FS days of 310+ weights have diminished a bit with all the 4-3 DTs ranging more in the 300 lbs range +/- 5 lbs or so.  This probably spells the end to PS stalwart Ford and perhaps NT Slaton?  Brooks and Wyatt fit this range nicely.  Clark is athletic enough that I'm not worried about him.  Wooden actually fits more at the DE range (273) better, but obviously played inside all year, so I doubt that changes. 

LB - The old school MLB was often in the 240-250 range and the outside LBs around 230-240.  Again, that seems to have lightened up a bit... 215-220 lb LBs were fairly common on the roster, with 225-240 being the most common range for all. With the current roster, you could line up McDuffie, Walker, and Douglas pretty easily.  Even Wilson (FA) fits that mold pretty well - maybe better for him. But I think you cut Douglas and Wilson isn't that good to bring back as a starter.  That leaves the LB position perilously thin. 

So from a draft perspective:

• DE: We keep Smith and Cox steps into Enagbare's role while he recovers.  Maybe a lower draft pick for depth.  
• DL: Really nothing needed.  Late round depth, but very strong rotation right now even if Slaton is cut/traded.
• LB: Here is where there is a bigger need, IMO. If you keep Douglas, you probably have decent bodies to fill the 3 starters spots.  But you don't have any depth and need to acquire 3 backups at least. If Douglas is cut, you need a starter and 3 backups.  Not to mention that McDuffie and Douglas are probably more suited for the strong side OLB (or MLB) and we could use someone on the weakside that is excellent in coverage.

 

[BrewerFan]

I think the best way to guess what Hafley will do is to look at what he did at BC. He played a 4-3...but his DEs stood up. So really hard to tell the difference from a 4-3 to a 3-4 most of the time. Our roster is incredibly versatile. 

I don't think Slaton is on the cutting block. You still need run stuffers and he's very good at that. He's also cheap. No reason to not bring him back. Also, if Hafley is a good DC, he's going to adjust MUCH more than Barry did. So there will be games you'll need a the size. Also, we don't really have good run-stuffing DL other than Clark and Slaton. Brooks and Wooden are high-effort players, Wyatt is very obviously better as a pass rusher. 

*Campbell will very likely be cut unless he takes a pay cut. He's got almost 11M new dollars this year. He's not earned that after the last couple of years. I don't even know if they offer him the pay-cut.

I'd like to see Eric Wilson back. He was a pretty solid LBer for a couple of years with Minnesota and he's a really good depth guy and STs player. He's obviously not ideal, but he's experienced and as long as he comes back for the veterans minimum, I think he's worth keeping(not a hill I'd die on though).

 

I don't think much has changed(which I think was effectively your conclusion). You needed that second athletic LBer. That becomes an even bigger priority. You needed secondary help. Now you need a more athletic safety to roam around and play the single-high, a more physical one to play in the box. Not everyone is going to fit the role perfectly, but a pretty good year for both bigger, physical safeties and rangy safeties.

I'm still very much in favor of OL early, Cooper DeJean looks like a really fun player. Someone who could play the role Woodson played. But if we draft him, he has to say "IWWA" like Bulaga does. I feel like that should be mandatory.

[OldHeidelberg]

2 hours ago, CheezWizHed said:

 

DE - Unlike the old Fritz Shumur days where DEs were around 300 lbs, the current 4-3 employs players very similar to 3-4 OLBs.  250-270 lbs (with certain understandable athletic exceptions in the 280 range).  I was wondering if we were going to have too many OLB types, but our OLBs are right in that range to walk right into that spot.

 

 

 I was thinking of the days of Reggie White/Vonnie Holliday as power ends in the 4-3 and thought maybe Wyatt and Brooks could fit that role, especially on early downs. But you are probably right, times have changed and guys have to be freaks like Reggie to pull it off now. But I do think Hafley must have sold it as the guys we have are better fits for it or we wouldn't be changing. Just start with stopping the run, I think that part is still considered a strength of the 4-3.

The switch does require another LB and unless we score someone in FA(Devin White?) I expect one of our top 3 picks to land a starter there.