HiAndTight

Two major ways I disagree with everything posted above- first, you're assuming that your own draft board matches with the other teams behind the Packers. If they wanted Gary and had reason to believe that another team wanted him, your trade-back scenario plays out in speculation only. As for another option, without knowing the Packers' board, it's very possible if not likely that they had Gary ranked enough ahead of the next tier of guys like Burns/Sweat/etc. that they didn't value the trade down there as much as you did. Second, that PFF article is weak. They rank him vs. the other Edge guys in the draft based on his pass rushing stats, while failing to acknowledge that he DIDN'T ACTUALLY PLAY EDGE in college. Maybe, just maybe, Winovich's numbers as an Edge are better since he actually played Edge? It's the equivalent of defending a thesis that Sean Jones was a better defensive end for the Packers than Santana Dotson was. Well, no crap. Only one of them actually played defensive end. There are a few highlights of him lining up on the edge...one of them vs the Badgers. He threw a very large man very long way and then chased down Taylor from behind. But I don't know how you can say the PFF article debunks the "scheme" or double team articles that are out there. They played him primarily inside. Often over the center inside. So....in that respect, sure, Wilkins would have been a better pick. If that's what you wanted. The Packers are starting him at OLB'er and if he struggles there, given that when he has the talent, Pettine will use a 4 man front consistently in pass rush situations, he can lineup as a 9 technique basically and rush the passer. But I was just disappointed to hear all the comparisons of production between Winovich and Gary. It's like comparing Kenny Clark and Fackrell(for example, I actually think Winovich is pretty good and am not a fan of ClarkFackrell). One position you're going to get more sacks just by accident. I think it should be a plus that the guy sacrificed and moved inside despite being more athletically gifted than the much smaller Winovich. Savage, I had no opinion, but if you think he's Earl Thomas, even if you don't like it, give up 2 4th round picks and draft him. Not a fan of a Center at #44. Especially not when he's unlikely to be able to even provide much protection at tackle. Would have rather seen a guy like Irv Smith there, but teams are placing a much higher emphasis on OL the last two years. Don't really have a strong opinion on a small-ish TE who's not a great blocker and not a great athlete either. Still waiting for that Campbell type in GB, that Ty Hill type player that Rodgers can hit on a simple drag and maybe get 60. I do know that at Rodgers age, we can't afford to be taking projects, and the Packers have acted accordingly, so they must believe that Gary can at least come in and be a helluva pass rush specialist early on while developing into an all-around player. And a quick side note-He says there's nothing wrong with his shoulder and he did 26 reps at the combine. Tough to knock 225 out 26 times with a bad shoulder unless you've really rehabbed and built up the surrounding muscles.

Well, first of all, nobody can stop Giannis. But Middleton? I think other than Toronto, they're as well equipped to slow Middleton down as anyone. They have young, long, athletic wings who they can use against both Giannis and Middleton. And Bledsoe will be able to beat Irvin..but Kyrie's gonna get his too, and when you take Lopez, your big rim protector out of the game and make him a non-factor in this series, he's gonna be getting to the basket and scoring a lot of points. Last year they played good team basketball but they counted on Tatum or other young guys who weren't and still arne't ready to be THEE guy. This year, they have that guy and I could see him putting up 30+ in this series. I think guys like Ersan, Mirotic and perhaps even Wilson may play a big role. Horford is gonna be a tough match up for us again this year. I'll go Bucks in 7. In fact, I'll just make the rest of my predictions, Bucks in 7, Bucks over Philly in 6(I'm calling an upset here, but it may be wishful thinking) and then Bucks over Hou in 7(that's not wishful thinking...my confidence is waining in the Dubs right now, despite the fact that they're better without Boogie). But I still see 4 teams(Tor, Bos, GSW and Hou) who I think are capable of beating us in a 7 game series.

Yeah, that's just a really obnoxious comment in my opinion. As though we're all neophytes who can't possibly look at the Celtics and see their talent, but instead just look at the latest series they played vs a team without it's best player. If we're going by how well a team looked in the 1st round, why wouldn't we be overly confident the Bucks would win? So...yeah, don't tell me why I think this is a tough matchup. Especially after I already said why. They're a team led by a guy who's been there before and hit big shots, they've got 2 young, long and extremely athletic defenders to throw at Giannis as well as a couple older and bigger ones. Horford gave us a ton of trouble last year and...and I really didn't think it needed to be explained that the Celts were a talented team. I think the Bucks are better, don't think they'll lose in 5, but just dismissing our opinions because it just has to be because of their first-round series is a bit annoying. Just to be clear, this was not directed at anyone in the thread, there are some good points here for why the Celtics are a tough matchup that I didn't consider. But I still think the Celtics will ultimately depend on hot 3 point shooting to beat the Bucks and that will happen only once in Boston. We'll see... Well, they're a good 3 point shooting team, so I think they'll likely have more than one game that they'll shoot good. My problem is the suggestion that people are just suddenly paying attention to this Boston team because of that 1st round series. Nobody cares about that. They showed some positive signs, but they played a team similar to the Bucks. Two teams missing their best players who would have only been marginally better with them.

I'm shocked....SHOCKED I tell ya that trwi7 would take one of the most popular TV shows of all time and complain about it! Guessing you had equal disdain for the Soprano's, the Wire...other shows that are escaping my memory at the moment?

Why even make this post. There's almost zero chance you believe that Craig Kimbrel is NOT a difference maker. If he's the same pitcher he's been his entire career, he's a big difference maker. If this is just your way to complain about the rotation and it's early struggles, then it doesn't really seem on topic.

What information do we have that suggests Kimbrel is going to be had for 9-12 million? Or that he'd even be cheaper than Kuechel? That's at best speculation that runs contrary to everything I've heard about the two thus far. I’ve answered that question in thread or multiple threads already. You've done so by massaging the numbers so they fit your number. You're working as both GM, Agent, AND player and saying, "why not do this," while ignoring the fact that the player has not given any indication AT ALL that he's willing to play for 9 million dollars this year. He wanted 6/118. His price has come down. I doubt it's fallen down below Britton or Ottavino.

point taken, my only point was that we don't know what really is going on, which turned out to be true. Hockenson's value was not falling as was speculated and he went about where I thought he would (7/8) You also literally said, "It's fun to speculate" but then added the caveat that you'll likely end up disappointed. Which is what happened. We speculated and of course we had the guys we wanted falling and when they didn't and we took the most talented player available, people were upset because he wasn't the guy we wanted. But we seldom end up with the guy we predict. Sometimes it comes from a group like with Clark, Jones, King, but more often than not, it's not someone we would have guessed at all.

You can't be serious? He went from future ace in your opinion to afterthought because they sent him back down after a handful of starts? I think if he was an "afterthought," which of course it's just totally ridiculous to definitively state this early into his first full professional season and this soon after he was sent down, then they'd have probably sent him to the pen. And if you're questioning if the pitchers are ever going to be good enough to get through 5 innings on a regular basis, then it's MUCH-MUCH more than "just a question" of the Brewers re-signing them. Can you signal the bandwagon to start and stop? Just curious if you have to jump off and then run back on depending on what happens on a day to day basis. Peralta should probably be working on a 3rd pitch, Burnes is still a guy I believe in a great deal, Woodruff is certainly still young enough to win 100 games for the Brewers(though frankly, I don't even really care if he does or doesn't, if he wins 10 games, but helps the team win 95, I'm fine with that). But it seems some people were way too confident that the trio of youngsters were going to pitch 7 innings every 5th day like they did in the 2-3 inning stints last year in the post-season all year long in their first year starting at the major league level and now that-that has not happened, we're calling the most talented of them an afterthought? I mean...he's not my first thought in the morning or anything, but when it comes to future Brewers pitchers, he's atop that list.

Clemson played four teams that finished in the top 20 in the polls - Alabama, Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Texas A&M. In the national championship game, Ferrell and Wilkins had more TFL (2.5) and sacks (0.5) than Quinnen Williams and Raekwon Davis (1.5, 0). I don't watch 'Bama during the regular season, but out of those 4 players, in the games I've watched the past couple years, Davis has been the most impressive player to me. That's on a TV at home, not coaches film obviously, but just guys who jump off the screen and absolutely dominate and get in the backfield. I guess I'm wrong because if he was as good as those guys, he'd likely have entered this year, but he has looked like a man among boys in the CFB playoffs.

It's funny what you find when you're looking. Like you I hadn't heard anything about Gary to the Packers at 12. I actually saw a discussion about how someone would be "livid" if they drafted pass-rushing linemen like Oliver, Gary or even Wilkins(who I'd have prefered over Gary)..and actually said they weren't a fan of the real Aaron Donald the night before. BUT, in any event, in going back and looking, I found quite a few sites that had Gary as a possibility to the Packers, on the NFL Network they mentioned Gary as being a good fit there. And the more you read about him, the most I personally like. An edge rusher who Michigan moved inside to DT in their base because of his size, 6'4, 280, but who has the athletic ability, long arms, bend, and most importantly in my mind, the motor to play on the outside. I've said this several times, but when a guy comes in THAT highly regarded and he tests THAT well, you tend to think his problem is he plays with a lack of effort. To me, it's just a case of not using him in the best situations. He probably needs some work on his technique, but you can't teach that type of size and athletic ability. That's Clowney territory there, Clowney, Mack, Miller type talent, and I'm sure all would have struggled if they were asked to play DT. So while I wasn't real high on the pick, perhaps even if we wanted to trade back, he'd have been taken on talent alone. I think 12 is low enough to get this type of potential game-changing pass rusher. What the selection of Savage shows and the rumors that both Baltimore and the Raiders were looking at him immediately following the Packers is that we don't really know what the hell is going on in these war rooms, we don't see what these scouts see and perceived "value" is created by guys who don't work for NFL teams. Also, keep in mind, while the Packers lost a lot of front office talent the last couple years, there seems to be a belief around the league that they've restocked, picking off some of the top talent evaluators from teams like the Ravens like Nate Hendrickson, who hate to wait a full year to come to Green Bay as the Ravens blocked the Packers from talking to him as well as other highly respected scouts and front office personnel. I've followed enough drafts and loved enough busts and hated enough studs(like when they traded out of the first round for a white WR'er from Ka St who had trouble catching the ball early in his career or when they passed up on an elite WR'er from Florida in Chad Jackson who went to the Pats while we got "stuck" with Greg Jennings) that I choose to take an optimistic view. I honestly don't see the point in doing anything BUT that. We're all ignorant, none of us ACTUALLY know how good these guys are or will be, so rather than doing the hand wringing over what one site that is CONSISTENTLY waaaay off grades the picks, I tend to be an optimist. If they don't pan out, there will be plenty of time to crush my dreams!

And just for the record, I do believe the Bucks will win this series and I think the "Celts in 5" is nonsense, I respect what the Bucks have done this year. They've played hard all year long and they've been as good of a regular season team as anyone in the NBA. But this is kinda like the Giannis for MVP discussion. If you grant Harden credit, you look to dismiss it even MORE than you look to Giannis. You're doing the same thing here. The Bucks were the better regular season team. Those young "overrated player," already showed what they could do when they carried a team without two max players to the conf finals before losing to LeBron(Moreso Tatum and Rozier last year than Brown, but Brown showed up big at times last year as well). But if you're not worried about a team that can shoot the 3 ball, can neutralize one of our most important players in Lopez and has a #1 who's been there before and showed up HUGE in the NBA finals, it feels like you're trying to convince yourself as much as everyone else. Hope I'm wrong. Hope the Bucks can beat the Celts with the ease you seem to think they'll be able to. I think it's going to be a long, physically series that SHOULD go the Bucks way, but could easily go either way.

Who exactly has been making excuses for them? Also, it seems like you think pretty much every young talented player is overrated. Tatum's was a monster last year in the post-season and Brown was pretty damn good as well. Rozier outplayed Bled but has gone back to the bench as one of the best PG's in the game came back from injury. They don't fit well, they have redundancies...which may be beneficial when those redundancies come with multiple guys who can match up against Giannis and eat up some fouls. But they were +4.5 over the course of the year, the same they were last year when they trailed only Hou, GSW and Toronto. That's elite and not something that people need to make "excuses for." They're top 10 in both offensive and defensive rating. And this is while they've "struggled" for part of the season to incorporate their young stars with their older stars. Oh, and they also have one of the better coaches in the NBA. You're presenting them as though they're some afterthought whom we should blow off the court. That'd be nice, but it's probably fantasy. There are some bad matchup's here, none worse than Horford and Lopez. The Bucks are going to have to figure out how to handle Horford as the Celtics dominated the Bucks when the two were on the floor together this year(-44 points in 3 games). You can't leave Horford open as he's become a good 3 point shooter in his own right, and the biggest concession the Bucks have made in their defensive scheme is allowing 3's. They're among the league leaders in 3 given up. The Celtics are 7th in the league in 3's shot per game and 3 point pct. That gets worse with Lopez on the floor. So yeah, they're a tough matchup. Giannis can play Horford and take away his shot, but then you're losing a key piece to your team in Lopez and a big rim protector. They can go with Lopez and just hope the Celts don't hit their 3's. And if they take Lopez out, then Kyrie becomes that much more dangerous as he's one of the best in the NBA at getting to the rim. Giannis can't play everywhere. Plus there's just the fact that Kyrie is capable of taking over games like few other players in the NBA. Either way, it's foolish to look at the Celts regular record alone and paint them as this overrated team and paint Tatum and Brown as overrated players(though I guess it depends on what you're "rating them" in the first place). The Celts are a dangerous team and very capable of not only giving the Bucks a good series but ending their playoff run.

Brogdon I assume you mean to say? Not sure who gets hit worse, the Bucks without Brogdon or the Celts without Smart. Brogdon is much more likely to be back this series than Smart however.

When your 4th best pass rusher had 10.5 sacks last year, you've got a pretty darned good pass rush. You really see Fackrell as the type of guy who's ever going to duplicate that type of production again? It seemed like he had a lot of hustle sacks and or sacks where the QB was flushed out and they came in bunches vs poor QB's. I think he had 6.5 of those in two games. I know they'll stick with him, but I like Reggie Gilbert more than I do him right now. Gary on the other hand, I think you said he was played out of position or the reason his production lagged was scheme. I think you nailed it there. If he was put on the outside and just allowed to rush the passer, I think he'd have put up much better numbers. Instead they used him in the trenches and he still played well. Not as well as you'd like, but it shows how versatile he is.

Yes, and because he happened to be a supremely talented 6'4 280 pounder they moved him inside to DT. I said this in another thread, but I assumed since the knock on him was a lack of production that it was an effort thing, but everything you read about him is that his effort is off the charts, he has a big-time motor and doesn't quit on a play. Well...if you take a edge rusher and move them to tackle in a 4-3 scheme, they're not going to put up huge numbers. This guy has all the talent in the world, in GB he can play a 5 technique or stand up and rush from outside. He's basically a Clowney type athlete who fell to us at 12 because of how he was used at Michigan. His wonderlic score would bother me if he was a QB, OL, but as an edge guy, it's probably as simple as you can get when it comes to learning how to play the game. I didn't love this pick when I first heard it, but just doing a little reading and then when you look at his vertical, his 40, his 3 cone, he's a freak athletically. He COULD be that superstar we've been looking for. He's also raw when it comes to his technique apparnenly, but if he loves football as much as it's reported, he can learn and develop those moves.

Again, just reiterating. I thought the problem with Gary was effort. I hadn't watched him. But just in watching a few highlights, and then especially reading scouting reports, it seems like the issues are not at all effort, it was that Michigan had other good outside pass rushers and they wanted to move him inside in a 4-3. Put him on the edge in passing situations and that can be a big-time impact player, even if not technically a "starter." I really hope they don't draft a guard at 44 unless it's a guy who can easily and definitively move outside to tackle also. We just spent a lot of money on a backup swing tackle/starting guard, we've got Lane Taylor and then good depth for that position. I'd like to see a TE and a WR'er as the next two picks....unless somehow Taylor falls or Ford falls and they view Ford as a future tackle. But that both are still available tells me neither is likely as good as we believe.

They had extra picks. They used them on a guy who was played out of position last year as a 4-3 Tackle when he should have been an edge rusher. The one thing just about every scouting report I've seen has said about him, the guy loves to play football and he has a non-stop motor. 6-4, 280 4.58 40, he's explosive, quick first step....what is there to not love about that? And he's good enough to get consistent pressure up the middle when moved to DT in the Big 10!!! AS for Savage, I don't know how good he is. If he's a All Pro and a Bob Sanders(I've seen the comp, don't know how valid it is other than he looks like the heat-seeking missile Sanders was) what looks bad? We have some depth. What we really need is impact players. That's what makes or breaks a defense. A guy who can come up and get pressure, guys who can play the ball. We added...maybe THEE most talented player in the draft at any position and a safety that a couple of teams were reportedly going to draft ahead of us. Go back and look at past drafts. The two picks we gave up could just as easily be Vince Beagal and Dave Tollefson or whoever. Or Moore, the kid we drafted in the 4th round last year who I don't believe will ever be good being a body catcher. Gute had a solid first draft. I have a hard time judging this draft based on how long between the 3rd and 5th rounds we'll have to wait. Especially when we can trade up if we feel the need.

It's also what makes the draft fun. When Montez Sweat is taken with the 44th pick in the 2nd round or Burns is sitting there at 44 when we were talking about him at 12(just picking two names, though I can't fathom how anyone can say Sweat's enlarged heart isn't really a problem and Burns blew his interview with the Packers as badly as anyone I've heard in recent years).

I don't know how you could know this. There are so many mock drafts, he has been all over the place, like just about every player besides the top 10(ish). Besides it only takes one team to say yes and it doesn't matter what his draft "stock" is. Also no team is saying anything, so we don't know anybody's draft stock. I've seen mocks with Bush to the packers at 12 and at 30. That shows just one example of the variety of opinion. [sarcasm]I can not reveal my sources.[/sarcasm] The simple answer is that I don't know this. Welcome to an online forum where we share opinions. I'm paying more attention to the trends than the actual picks themselves. Initially Hock and Fant rocketed up the mocks (Hock in top 10 and Fant at #5???). More recently, they seem to be cooling again (e.g. I'm seeing Hock in the teens and Fant at #30 more often recently). Same with Bush. Early on he was around #30 (or even second round). I've not seen a recent one with him under #20. Not claiming any accuracy in that, but its what I watch. Also, traditionally TEs don't go top 15 unless they are really special. Hock is described as "complete" but might be maxed out (i.e. high floor/low ceiling). If he had Fant's speed, he'd probably be top 10. So I'm thinking Hock in the #15-20 range and Fant in the #20-30 range. I've seen people say that Hockenson could be a first round pick based on his inline blocking alone(likely hyperbole meant to illustrate how complete of a TE he is, but nonetheless), but that he's also the best route runner and has the best hands of any TE. That was yesterday. And the comp on him is a better blocking Kelce. I don't think that's a low ceiling type player. That's a low floor, very high cieling player.

I do believe playoff experience matters. But how much more experience does Boston really have? Or their individual players? Not much, so I don't see any advantage in this series. Now Golden State on the other hand, yea, that's a ton of experience and that is worth something. Their best player at the most important position has hit huge shots to upset the Warriors in the finals. They have a decided advantage over a team that just won its first playoff series vs a terrible team. I don't think that'll be the factor that determines the series or not, but it's definitely A factor.

Yeah, that's just a really obnoxious comment in my opinion. As though we're all neophytes who can't possibly look at the Celtics and see their talent, but instead just look at the latest series they played vs a team without it's best player. If we're going by how well a team looked in the 1st round, why wouldn't we be overly confident the Bucks would win? So...yeah, don't tell me why I think this is a tough matchup. Especially after I already said why. They're a team led by a guy who's been there before and hit big shots, they've got 2 young, long and extremely athletic defenders to throw at Giannis as well as a couple older and bigger ones. Horford gave us a ton of trouble last year and...and I really didn't think it needed to be explained that the Celts were a talented team. I think the Bucks are better, don't think they'll lose in 5, but just dismissing our opinions because it just has to be because of their first-round series is a bit annoying.

Yes, please. We'd probably have to throw a 3rd back their way, but holy crap that'd be an exciting first day. EDIT: Actually, 12 and 75 is almost perfect for 24 and 27- 1415 vs. 1420. Again, throw the scoring out when you're talking about a team desperate to move up for a QB in the first place, then set it on fire in the garbage when you're talking about John Gruden doing so. I'd make them overpay and if they didn't, I'd just take the QB Lock or Jones or whoever it is that they're obviously trying to move up to get. But that would be a nice get. BUT...for arguments sake, Ed Oliver has dropped to 12 along with...Lock from Missou and the Raiders are offering you that pick? Do you then make that trade? I'm guessing you're operating under the assumption that some of the elite talents will be gone, but what do we need more, a bunch of late 1st and 2nd round picks, or an elite difference maker who has drawn comps to John Randle and Aaron Donald and for good reason?

I'm not sure I agree with the first part. As for the actual picks, I guess we see how the board plays out, but Simmons shouldn't be a top 12 pick. I mean, if there are zero QB's taken and only the top DL and Edge rushers plus Hockenson and, then fine, but it's a near certainly that an elite talent will fall to us at 12. I'm still hoping it's Oliver, but whoever it is, I hope they can get pressure on the QB. That's not to say I don't love Simmons. I think taking him in the end of the 1st would be great. Lowered guaranteed money, but you get that 5th year that makes up for the fact he'll miss most of his rookie year with that ACL. He's a stud. I'd even be happy with Oliver at 12 and then coming back and doubling up with Simmons at 30. Oliver is so athletic, that while he can't be expected to play OLB'er, the Packers could use versatile fronts and if you have...for argument's sake, Clark, Simmons, Za'Darius Smith and Oliver rushing the passer, that could be a really formidable front. Shut down the run, collapse the pocket and force the QB to our OLB'ers. As for McGinn, I love reading his stuff where he takes experts and then creates rankings based on their comments. It's clear he's got good connections. But his own opinions have been laughable for a while now...going back even past the whole, "The Packer are a 10 win team without Aaron Rodgers," and then after they weren't that, after the article he wrote talking about all the talent that TT had surrounded Arod with looked foolish, he then pretty much ignored it and went back and listed all the bad moves that got them to this point without ever really acknowledging that he was the one who said the exact opposite. None of that is the point. The point is that I really hope we don't take an injured player at 12. Even though it's about a 95 pct chance that he'll come back, you never know how one injury will impact another and at 12, you can't be taking a Justin Harrell like risk. Simmons is more proven than Harrell, but in both cases, you're taking an extremely talented DL with a great first step, but who is injured early in the draft.

A little write up on a couple Michigan guys-Two top tier picks and then a sleeper I think would be a great fit in round 4 . HUGE upside, big bust potential. AJ Hawk like in that he's got a REALLY high floor. Of course people believed Hawk had a huge ceiling at the time as he ran an elite 40 himself and had better size. Still, he's a great fit in today's NFL. I just don't like off ball LB'ers, especially undersized ones this early in the draft. If he was 6'3 and had Kuechly's play rec, sure, but he doesn't. Chase Winovich, LB/DE (6-3, 256) I've seen him as a 3rd/4th round pick. High effort guy with good measureables who produced playing Michigan's schedule. Doesn't offer the upside of others, but might be a good low risk guy who out performs his draft stock.

This is ALMOST like saying you wouldn't mind having an an INF of Yuni Betencourt's because...hey, we had one before and the team overall was good and despite the fact that he was a bad player most of his career, he made that good play in the SB!!!! NO! You cannot just pass on the foundation of your defense. And I might be selling Yuni B short in this comp. I mean...at least Yuni had a couple of good years early in his career. That's more than we can say for Green. Glad he hit got his hand in the air when Big Ben was backed up to force that Collins pick,but that's about all he did of substance. But...I guess you've said you know you're in the minority, so....I'd just suggest you look at the best defenses in the NFL. They almost ALWAYS had a deep front. in fact, we've seen teams win SB's BECAUSE of their deep DL. WE'd just be passing on the position group as a whole here. The Pats dynasty was built on a defensive mind set that centered around Vince Wolfork and guys like Richard Seymour(they still like those types of bodies, the long limbed, athletic DL). The Giants beat that historic Pats team with a dominant pass rush with,Osi, Tuck, Strahan. The Bears last year had Mack and Akeem Hicks as their DE's when they made a big jump. The Seahawks were able to rotate defensive linemen to just keep pressuring the passer. The Texans defense that is year in and year out elite has JJ Watt at defensive END in their scheme(along with DJ Reader playing the other DE spot). I could go on, but...man, you just don't see many teams throw out 3 guys who are on the street half way through the season and be successful with them. The Rams were in the Super Bowl this year because they had Donald playing DE...and they probably should have had Such playing DE as well, but he sacrificed a little in the way of stats to play the nose and eat some blocks for the other guys. By the way, just one more thing to point out...and I just totally missed it because of your "3 Howard Green" statements. But you realize that almost all the players we're talking about here are Defensive ENDS, right? Oliver is a DE in the NFL, Gary is a OLB'er/DE hybrid? Very possible that given how talented they are, both Williams AND Wilkens end up playing at DE for the Packers as well(if there was a shot that Williams fell to us). I think you're confusing defensive ends with NT's. And there I disagree with you. The Packers defense was extremely reliane on Ryan Pickett for years at the nose....but I would understand more your opinion to just throw out a big body who can eat up blocks there....though I'd still disagree as I think having a guy like Clark who can collapse the pocket is an extrodinarly luxury and makes life easier for everyone else. But...what you're basically saying is that if the Packers took Nick Bosa, because he's a DE(and one that's not as athletic as Oliver or Gary) you'd be livid? You have NT and then 2 ENDS. A guy who lines up on the guards outside shoulder and one who lines up on the tackles. Those are your defensive ends and the exact guys we're talking about. Kenny Clark is well established as our NT and he's probably 1st up when they start dolling out extensions and he's likely to get a big one. Just gonna guess, but I'd say 4 years 55 million with 30+ guaranteed. And he's worth every penny. He's the player you build your 3-4 around(which is why we drafted Raji desite the fact that TT had Crabtree rated as the best player in that particular draft, you NEED that 0 technique to clog things up. Although Pettine is a bit different. He likes his linemen to get penetration more...and that's nobody in his draft better at that as a 5 than Ed Oliver IMO. So long story short, you say DE is a position of need and that's what you want drafted, but then say you'd be livid if we drafted some freakishly talented ones. I don't really understand that.