2026 NFL Draft Discussion

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 hours ago, homer said:

You can't fill four positions with two picks.

Right and they acquired a CB and DL already via other methods and have done nothing on what was a bad OL. The worst spot on which is their LT, arguably the most important guy on the line. They still needed another CB badly, no issues there. DL depth never hurt anyone so again, the pick is fine.

BrewerFan has way, way more confidence in Morgan than anywhere else, I'll say that. This is a first round pick that hasn't played in his first 2 seasons, could not beat out a guy we let walk in FA for a one-year deal. His journey isn't over yet, but today he is a bad pick, bad player and we are relying on him to start. They have one backup OL who has played over 60 snaps. 

Real issue is that they have lost their historic ability to develop stellar offensive linemen from any round in the draft. and you are seeing the results.

We will see what happens...their best CB of the last 15 years was a UDA...so, whatever.

[Jopal78]

17 minutes ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Right and they acquired a CB and DL already via other methods and have done nothing on what was a bad OL. The worst spot on which is their LT, arguably the most important guy on the line. They still needed another CB badly, no issues there. DL depth never hurt anyone so again, the pick is fine.

BrewerFan has way, way more confidence in Morgan than anywhere else, I'll say that. This is a first round pick that hasn't played in his first 2 seasons, could not beat out a guy we let walk in FA for a one-year deal. His journey isn't over yet, but today he is a bad pick, bad player and we are relying on him to start. They have one backup OL who has played over 60 snaps. 

Real issue is that they have lost their historic ability to develop stellar offensive linemen from any round in the draft. and you are seeing the results.

I think we agree that strong OLs and DLs makes everyone else on the roster better, but I think your criticism maybe subjective rather than objectively based.

The Packers have only drafted 10 lineman since 2020. Of that 10 only 5 of them were taken before the 200th pick overall. Yet in a reality where >50% of all draft picks are misses, 3 of those 10 OL picks received second contracts from the Packers. And out of the 10 drafted since 2020, only Royce Newman is out of football (although admittedly Jacob Monk probably isn’t far behind). 

 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

19 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

I think we agree that strong OLs and DLs makes everyone else on the roster better, but I think your criticism maybe subjective rather than objectively based.

The Packers have only drafted 10 lineman since 2020. Of that 10 only 5 of them were taken before the 200th pick overall. Yet in a reality where >50% of all draft picks are misses, 3 of those 10 OL picks received second contracts from the Packers. And out of the 10 drafted since 2020, only Royce Newman is out of football (although admittedly Jacob Monk probably isn’t far behind). 

 

Have to include the UDAs which they are no longer getting the same value out of. 

Since you picked 2020 here is their OL in the 2021 season during which Bhaktiari (again, a 4th who became the best T in the league) did not play. They were decimated by injuries across the board and still ended up in the top 1/3 of the league.

Nijman
UDA

Runyan 
6th

Myers 
2nd

Lucas Patrick
UDA

Billy Turner 
Modest FA

Royce Newman
4th
 

Compare that to our group:

Jordan Morgan
1st

Tom 
4th

Sean Rhyan
3rd

Belton
2nd

Banks 
Expensive FA

 

They're a lot worse despite using more resources. Not good, but the Packers, not just the last 5 years, but for a looooong time, have had a widely admired ability to pick up great, not just good, OL from later rounds and the street. They are not doing that at the moment.

 

 

[JosephC]

I don't like the trade up for McClellan.  Domonique Orange, Chris Brazzell II, Ted Hurst, Daylen Everette, Emmanuel Pregnon, Gennings Dunker, Caleb Tiernan, Dani Dennis-Sutton all still on the board.  I don't have a problem with McClellan, but IMO there were just so many solid candidates left on the board that I would have been more than happy to settle for one of those guys considering the depth issues the Packers have at so many positions.  It's just like giving one of the two picks the Packers got for Wicks away (and yes, I realize the pick they traded away was their own 5th rounder, not the one acquired for Wicks...but the picks are only 7 selections apart).

Packers original pick was #82.  The Browns ended up trading up to #86 and gave up #105, #145 and #206 to get there.  I'm assuming, and probably a safe assumption, that the Browns would have made this deal with the Packers, and the Browns aggressive movement in last year's draft (once had 12 picks, ended up with 7) make them the ideal target to be on the phone for a potential trade down.  I'd gladly give up McClellan and take #105, #145, #206 and hold onto #160.

Right now we are 5 picks away from #105, and RB-Mike Washington Jr., WR-Skyler Bell, WR-Bryce Lance, OT-Jude Bowry, OG-Jalen Farmer, OL-Brian Parker II, EDGE-Dani Dennis-Sutton, CB-Will Lee III are still on the board.  I would have been happy with any of those players at #105, and would have been happy trading down #22 spots and still having a few of these candidates available.  Yes, even Will Lee III after taking Cisse, eliminate the "numbers" issue at CB right away and still have EIGHT picks left to continue to address depth.

[LouisEly]

If they're still on the board at #120, I think my preference in order would be:

DDS
Bryce Lance
Mike Washington
Drew Shelton
Charles Demmings

[JosephC]

Final day predictions.

Since Gutekunst took a CB first, I'm guessing he will be happy with Nixon, Valentine, Cisse, St-Juste and not take a second cornerback.  

4-120 = Adam Randall/RB/Clemson

5-153 = Drew Shelton/OT/Penn State (basically saw this as 50/50, Shelton or Oregon OT-Alex Harkey)

6-201 = Michael Heldman/EDGE/Central Michigan

7-236 = Jalen Walthall/WR/Incarnate Ward

7-255 = Matthew Hibner/TE/SMU

[LouisEly]

1 hour ago, JosephC said:

I don't like the trade up for McClellan.

Gutey said in his presser that they feel like McClellan can play nose tackle.  That's the only thing that kept him off of my mock list; I wasn't sure that he could.  But he was definitely the best iDL pass rusher available at that point (who is not strictly a 3-tech).

2nd team All SEC... he isn't some reach.

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

Have to include the UDAs which they are no longer getting the same value out of. 

Since you picked 2020 here is their OL in the 2021 season during which Bhaktiari (again, a 4th who became the best T in the league) did not play. They were decimated by injuries across the board and still ended up in the top 1/3 of the league.

Nijman
UDA

Runyan 
6th

Myers 
2nd

Lucas Patrick
UDA

Billy Turner 
Modest FA

Royce Newman
4th
 

Compare that to our group:

Jordan Morgan
1st

Tom 
4th

Sean Rhyan
3rd

Belton
2nd

Banks 
Expensive FA

 

They're a lot worse despite using more resources. Not good, but the Packers, not just the last 5 years, but for a looooong time, have had a widely admired ability to pick up great, not just good, OL from later rounds and the street. They are not doing that at the moment.

 

 

Again, you’re being subjective here and that’s okay. But why were they signing Billy Turner in the first place, unless they didn’t have anyone better?

Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Nijman didn’t get second contracts from the Packers after their initial four years. So none of those players are “good to great”.

I agree they’re taking a chance with Morgan. He’s got short arms and hasn’t shown much so far moving all over the OL. But Rhyan improved the C position when given a chance after not showing much moving all over , so it’s premature to say Morgan sucks at LT. Belton was fine as a rookie, Tom is fine. Banks was hurt most of the year, maybe he could be a bust but I’ll withhold judgment and see how he plays if/when healthy first. 

[LouisEly]

2 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Nijman didn’t get second contracts from the Packers after their initial four years. So none of those players are “good to great”.

IIRC, Runyan was a cap issue because of the gymnastics they were trying to do with Rodgers/Bakhtiari's dead cap stress.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

6 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Again, you’re being subjective here and that’s okay. But why were they signing Billy Turner in the first place, unless they didn’t have anyone better?

Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Nijman didn’t get second contracts from the Packers after their initial four years. So none of those players are “good to great”.

I agree they’re taking a chance with Morgan. He’s got short arms and hasn’t shown much so far moving all over the OL. But Rhyan improved the C position when given a chance after not showing much moving all over , so it’s premature to say Morgan sucks at LT. Belton was fine as a rookie, Tom is fine. Banks was hurt most of the year, maybe he could be a bust but I’ll withhold judgment and see how he plays if/when healthy first. 

What the heck does it even mean to say I'm being subjective here? You can't just throw that around like it's a thing. It's a message board and everyone is subjective. 

Their offensive line right now is "objectively" worse than it has been most of the last 20 years, and that's despite some pretty valuable assets tied up in it. I just laid out for you a very stark difference between today and the year you picked as the look back. It's pretty damn glaring. They have 20+ games started that year by UDAs. 

I didn't say Morgan sucks. I said he's a first round pick who hasn't played in 2 years. That's a very bad first round pick at this point in time. You need to get more out of draft capital than that. 

I think it's a very vanilla observation to say they have been worse at drafting OL. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

8 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

IIRC, Runyan was a cap issue because of the gymnastics they were trying to do with Rodgers/Bakhtiari's dead cap stress.

Yeah that is a seriously terrible argument for those guys not being any good. They rarely signed OL to large contracts because they had justifiably high confidence in finding new ones cheap and they had to pay Aaron Rodgers, and of course forked over the cash to protect his blindside with the best. They did it as well or better than any team in the league. They are not doing it anymore and that's how Aaron Banks happens. 

[homer]

CB and DL were big needs. OL is also a need. I'd have been fine taking an OL but they'll get one today. I also don't like trading up because as we seen Gute, can't figure out how to create depth. Getting more bites at the apple could help in that regard.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

1 minute ago, homer said:

CB and DL were big needs. OL is also a need. I'd have been fine taking an OL but they'll get one today. I also don't like trading up because as we seen Gute, can't figure out how to create depth. Getting more bites at the apple could help in that regard.

Yeah, that is the one saving grace. I actually have more confidence in him bolstering their offensive line this weekend. Probably don't want him looking for first round Ts anymore. 

[adambr2]

“We’ve always tried to take guys who have more left in development,” Gutekunst said. “He played at a high level this year. We think he’s going to really help us next year, and we think his upside’s really good. There’s not a lot of 20-year-olds in the draft. We took one one time in Kenny Clark, and that worked out pretty well. We hope this works out that well. No hesitation.”
 

Translation: don’t expect anything out of Cisse for at least two seasons. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

7 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

“We’ve always tried to take guys who have more left in development,” Gutekunst said. “He played at a high level this year. We think he’s going to really help us next year, and we think his upside’s really good. There’s not a lot of 20-year-olds in the draft. We took one one time in Kenny Clark, and that worked out pretty well. We hope this works out that well. No hesitation.”
 

Translation: don’t expect anything out of Cisse for at least two seasons. 

May not have a choice in that room. If he's an average NFL player it's entirely possible he outplays every corner they have at the moment. One injury and he's automatically getting significant time. 

I am not sure they win the Super Bowl without Sam Shields as a UDA his rookie year. 

[OldHeidelberg]

47 minutes ago, homer said:

CB and DL were big needs. OL is also a need. I'd have been fine taking an OL but they'll get one today. I also don't like trading up because as we seen Gute, can't figure out how to create depth. Getting more bites at the apple could help in that regard.

Yes, would have rather done a pick swap like giving Tampa our 4th for their 5th or something so we are not giving up a player for 7 spots. But Gutes did say McClellen really starting to stick out for them as the pick got closer but you have to get those right.  

[OldHeidelberg]

1 hour ago, Jopal78 said:

 

Runyan, Myers, Patrick and Nijman didn’t get second contracts from the Packers after their initial four years. So none of those players are “good to great”.

 

FWIW the Packers did give Patrick a 2 year extension

[Joseph Zarr]

This is the first time I sat out an NFL Draft in over 25 years. I went to an Air BnB with my wife to invest in our relationship. I say this to say:

Being separated - both physically and mentally - from the Draft itself makes me appreciate @LouisEly even more. I just love your level-headed approach. Thanks for all you do around this time of year.

[JosephC]

27 minutes ago, adambr2 said:

“We’ve always tried to take guys who have more left in development,” Gutekunst said. “He played at a high level this year. We think he’s going to really help us next year, and we think his upside’s really good. There’s not a lot of 20-year-olds in the draft. We took one one time in Kenny Clark, and that worked out pretty well. We hope this works out that well. No hesitation.”
 

Translation: don’t expect anything out of Cisse for at least two seasons. 

Clark played in 16 games and started 2 as a rookie.  He started 15 games in his second season.  If Cisse does not see significant playing time in year one, and if he's not starting in year two, then he is a bad pick (considering he would have to beat out the likes of Valentine and St-Juste to get one of those two starting corner spots).

[OldSchoolSnapper]

2 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Clark played in 16 games and started 2 as a rookie.  He started 15 games in his second season.  If Cisse does not see significant playing time in year one, and if he's not starting in year two, then he is a bad pick (considering he would have to beat out the likes of Valentine and St-Juste to get one of those two starting corner spots).

If he isn't playing this season, he blew out a knee or was an embarrassment. They have nothing there. I suppose another scenario is they find a gem today or off the street. Everyone knows that two starting corners is a bit of a joke anyway. Three of them are effectively starters. 

[Jopal78]

1 hour ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

What the heck does it even mean to say I'm being subjective here? You can't just throw that around like it's a thing. It's a message board and everyone is subjective. 

Their offensive line right now is "objectively" worse than it has been most of the last 20 years, and that's despite some pretty valuable assets tied up in it. I just laid out for you a very stark difference between today and the year you picked as the look back. It's pretty damn glaring. They have 20+ games started that year by UDAs. 

I didn't say Morgan sucks. I said he's a first round pick who hasn't played in 2 years. That's a very bad first round pick at this point in time. You need to get more out of draft capital than that. 

I think it's a very vanilla observation to say they have been worse at drafting OL. 

Quantify it then. That Morgan hasn’t played much in 2 years doesn’t mean a thing. Zero. So why do you say he’s a bad pick? Maybe because you “subjectively” think first round picks should be plug and play (I don’t disagree with you) but frankly that’s never been how the Packers draft so it shouldn’t be a surprise. 
 

Again saying one year’s group is better than another and somehow evidences a larger trend is your opinion and  is the definition of subjective. Thats okay, but you’re not basing it on anything but your own preference/opinion and thoughts. Even if  they scored more points, had more rushing yards, etc with one group than another those aren’t things with a direct cause and effect relationship. 
 

If it’s objectively worse tell us why? 

[adambr2]

9 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Clark played in 16 games and started 2 as a rookie.  He started 15 games in his second season.  If Cisse does not see significant playing time in year one, and if he's not starting in year two, then he is a bad pick (considering he would have to beat out the likes of Valentine and St-Juste to get one of those two starting corner spots).

Yeah, I am being a bit disingenuous and tongue in cheek because of our tendency to draft players that are often still in developmental stages and don’t contribute early (Van Ness, Gary, etc).

As you and others have pointed out, the Packers current CB room means Cisse would have to be disastrous not to contribute as a rookie.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

25 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

Quantify it then. That Morgan hasn’t played much in 2 years doesn’t mean a thing. Zero. So why do you say he’s a bad pick? Maybe because you “subjectively” think first round picks should be plug and play (I don’t disagree with you) but frankly that’s never been how the Packers draft so it shouldn’t be a surprise. 
 

Again saying one year’s group is better than another and somehow evidences a larger trend is your opinion and  is the definition of subjective. Thats okay, but you’re not basing it on anything but your own preference/opinion and thoughts. Even if  they scored more points, had more rushing yards, etc with one group than another those aren’t things with a direct cause and effect relationship. 
 

If it’s objectively worse tell us why? 

Yeah, sorry, but no. It means a ton. It's a high value asset that provided 0 return for 2 years. That's not meaningless. 

When you use a first round pick on a guy who hasn't played for half of the cheapest contract he's ever going to have, that's a bad pick as of the summer before his third season. I literally said "his journey isn't over yet" before you even jumped into the conversation. This isn't a controversial take.

I am basing it on much more than my own opinion and thoughts but you are choosing to be obtuse. I told you they were ranked in the top 1/3 of the league that year, with less investment which I documented for you, than last year's group which was considerably more expensive and ranked below 20th in rushing and passing. None of that is opinion. 

I'm shocked it's even remotely hot to suggest they've done a bad job developing their OL. The drafting has been mediocre to bad. The coaching which allegedly had guys playing the wrong position, has been bad and a waste of time for several of the guys. The one free agent splash was bad. It's all been pretty bad. 

[adambr2]

Mike Washington is my totally uneducated guess for our next pick.

[adambr2]

Cant argue with it, have added some good pieces on D for not having a 1st.