2026 NFL Draft Discussion

[patrickgpe]

I think this was one of Gutey's best drafts, even considering that he had no first roung pick. Addressed all needs, no massive reaches. Dennis-Sutton is probably my favorite pick. Also moving up to get the best kicker in the draft with ballsy. Gives McMannus real competition. 

[GAME05]

Moving 6ths and 7ths to get a guy they really like seems great to me. Usually we read these long write-ups about the guys after the draft and that's the last we ever read their names.

The run-stopper DL we got seems like he'll be a nice compliment to free up Wyatt to rush the passer more often.

Really impressive work from LouisEly yet again. And that you have the ability to match up picks with how they fit the Packers' schemes is a really great addition.

[JosephC]

Congratulations to Chris McIntosh and Luke Fickell.  First time since 1978 that a Badger has not been drafted.  At least we have one of them out of town.

[BrewerFan]

Packers UDFA's

https://packerswire.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2026/04/25/tracking-packers-undrafted-free-agent-signings-following-2026-draft/89735418007/

[LouisEly]

8 minutes ago, JosephC said:

Congratulations to Chris McIntosh and Luke Fickell.  First time since 1978 that a Badger has not been drafted.  At least we have one of them out of town.

Yep, all of those true juniors and redshirt sophomores that Fickell should have had drafted.  Chryst had nothing to do with that at all.

[JosephC]

11 minutes ago, LouisEly said:

Yep, all of those true juniors and redshirt sophomores that Fickell should have had drafted.  Chryst had nothing to do with that at all.

Two of Chryst's recruits were drafted.

[Jopal78]

8 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

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. 

No it doesn’t mean a thing. The Packers don’t typically draft players, regardless of round, who they expect to plug in as full time starters from day 1. Plus you’re forgetting. Morgan went on IR with an injury his rookie year after playing in six games.. this last year he played and played all the snaps in most of the games. He was just moved around in a different position every week. Maybe  your expectations are too high for an inexperienced guy to come out gangbusters while playing different spots or your memories wrong I don’t know.

I do know that where their rushing game finished with one group of lineman in one season and where it finished with a different group of lineman in different season has no bearing on each other and indicates nothing about developing talent. . You know that too. For example, maybe the passer was better in one year and opponents had to play pass coverage more and  the running game was better for it, or vice versa. Maybe the running back in one year was not good enough and was tremendous in another. Maybe one year’s slate of opponents were better at defending run than other years’ opponents that’s why I say it’s subjective because you believe it’s true not because there is empirical evidence which says so. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

They had no first round pick and 52nd overall was their first selection. I don't think anything they did was going to be "impressive," at least not in the immediate aftermath. 

[OldSchoolSnapper]

59 minutes ago, Jopal78 said:

No it doesn’t mean a thing. The Packers don’t typically draft players, regardless of round, who they expect to plug in as full time starters from day 1. Plus you’re forgetting. Morgan went on IR with an injury his rookie year after playing in six games.. this last year he played and played all the snaps in most of the games. He was just moved around in a different position every week. Maybe  your expectations are too high for an inexperienced guy to come out gangbusters while playing different spots or your memories wrong I don’t know.

I do know that where their rushing game finished with one group of lineman in one season and where it finished with a different group of lineman in different season has no bearing on each other and indicates nothing about developing talent. . You know that too. For example, maybe the passer was better in one year and opponents had to play pass coverage more and  the running game was better for it, or vice versa. Maybe the running back in one year was not good enough and was tremendous in another. Maybe one year’s slate of opponents were better at defending run than other years’ opponents that’s why I say it’s subjective because you believe it’s true not because there is empirical evidence which says so. 

It literally does mean something. It means exactly what I said. That their first round pick has not contributed on the field in any meaningful way through the first 2 years of the cheapest contract he will ever sign. That is significant for what's intended to be  contending team that claims it's in "win now" mode, and I'm sorry buddy, but no matter how many times you repeat it means nothing or zero or zilch, it doesn't make you correct or the authority on what meaningful is.  

And by the way, moving him around to a position he isn't good at is part of the development process, it was bad coaching, and a waste of his time. It's great that the Packers love versitile OL, but it's ok sometimes to just let a guy play at the position he's, you know, actually used to playing. Just like their Jenkins to C brilliance, it didn't work. That's part of developing your players. 

And for the record, the rankings I cited were never based on rushing or passing totals, they were composite advanced metrics on pass and rush blocking. I don't know how else to get this through your head, but it was an example used to illustrate a very simple concept: historically, the Packers have done a lot more with less investment on their OL. They have a long established history of having a good OL without a lot of assets invested in it. I can give you a lot of examples of that but you'd call it subjective. Right now, they have expensive assets tied up in a group that isn't very good at all. 

I find this runaround funny because it started with you claiming I was subjective when only one of us has used ANY actual data and that wasn't you. You're the one giving lectures on the definition of meaningful, which is as subjective as it gets. 

[CheezWizHed]

5 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

The right side of the their line and the center are average enough or better. Not so sure Banks is a starter quality player even though the Packers paid him to be one. He might be, and it's a testament to how bad line play has become. As of right now, his signing was a bad one. I would probably agree that Morgan won't be worse than Walker, mostly because Walker was atrocious last season and it's a little disturbing to me that it wasn't obvious to them from day one that Morgan should have been in there. 

Is Morgan a bust? Idk. He's a huge question mark though at an extremely important position and that they did nothing to solidify it makes me think he's coming along just fine. 

He can have a bright future and be a bad pick as of this moment. There's no ROI through 2 years on a first round pick, at a position they are weak. It's not like Rodgers sitting behind Favre for 3 years. 

Banks has been an average-ish for the 49ers.  He started very poorly for the Pack, but finished better.  I would suspect him to be "OK" as long as he is healthy.

The Morgan/Walker thing was challenging.  Coaches miscast Morgan as the flexible T/G type, and I don't think he did well at G.  Meanwhile, Walker steps into the LT role and does well with it initially.  In 2024, he was pretty good, which made it hard to replace him until Walker really struggled in 2025.  A weird situation that I put on the coaches more than the player. 

[CheezWizHed]

I was annoyed to see two 7th round picks used to move up in the 6th for a kicker... but then I remembered that 7th round picks are pretty much the same as an UDFA.  

Interesting that they seemed to be OK with Brandon, but they made it clear there will be a TC battle. 

[Jopal78]

2 hours ago, OldSchoolSnapper said:

It literally does mean something. It means exactly what I said. That their first round pick has not contributed on the field in any meaningful way through the first 2 years of the cheapest contract he will ever sign. That is significant for what's intended to be  contending team that claims it's in "win now" mode, and I'm sorry buddy, but no matter how many times you repeat it means nothing or zero or zilch, it doesn't make you correct or the authority on what meaningful is.  

And by the way, moving him around to a position he isn't good at is part of the development process, it was bad coaching, and a waste of his time. It's great that the Packers love versitile OL, but it's ok sometimes to just let a guy play at the position he's, you know, actually used to playing. Just like their Jenkins to C brilliance, it didn't work. That's part of developing your players. 

And for the record, the rankings I cited were never based on rushing or passing totals, they were composite advanced metrics on pass and rush blocking. I don't know how else to get this through your head, but it was an example used to illustrate a very simple concept: historically, the Packers have done a lot more with less investment on their OL. They have a long established history of having a good OL without a lot of assets invested in it. I can give you a lot of examples of that but you'd call it subjective. Right now, they have expensive assets tied up in a group that isn't very good at all. 

I find this runaround funny because it started with you claiming I was subjective when only one of us has used ANY actual data and that wasn't you. You're the one giving lectures on the definition of meaningful, which is as subjective as it gets. 

Oooh advanced metrics! To say one group was 3rd and one group was 20th?. I bet you yell at your TV during the games too, but we’ll agree to disagree on whether you have a clue what you’re talking about (even though the bad coaching thing is accurate).