BrewerFan

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.

Yup...don't care where he plays, that's going to be one helluva OF. And if he hits ~.240, he's going to be a 5 WAR player with his power and speed.

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. 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...

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).

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. 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. 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 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.

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!

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.

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.

Damn...REALLY good stock to hold!

Adames is a year away and we've got multiple options to replace him. I see the rationale in extending Adames. He's SUCH a huge part of the personality of this team, keeping them loose, etc...but I don't think it's worth the upside to extend him now. I think you're looking at 6/150 to keep this version of Adames. I come out on the "extend them now," side up until arbitration, then see where you're at and once a high-level player has just a year or even two left, my own opinion moves towards trade and getting assets for him(as they did with Burnes). There's certainly not the risk with a SS vs a Pitcher, but I still don't see the upside there. If we really cared about a power-hitting SS...we signed Chourio as a SS. I'm just sayin'....

Seems like everything related to chips, AI, cloud security, it's all booming right now. PANW is another one a friend of mine at MS put me on to a couple weeks ago(should have acted quicker as it was still just at ~280. Gonna see how much more NVIDIA has left and then gonna put a good chunk into TSLA for the next 2-3 years. Some analysts are incredibly bullish on their long-term outlook even without the autonomous car service(though if they get that going without too many hiccups, it's going to be huge(not that TESLA is some secret).

Interesting. I'd imagine they think more highly of him than the industry does or else...it seems like a fairly easy starting point. I'd love to see a teams rankings from...say 10 years ago. Just for my own curiosity. Or when Trout, Harper, and Moore were 1-2-3 in varying orders. Just see how differently teams view their players. I'm sure at most we'll get some anecdotes, but little more.

Anyone in on NVIDIA early? Looking at these stocks makes me feel like I'm thinking about the lottery. My cousin...a financial advisor, he got me in on it last...fall(he told me last spring, but...I didn't listen). Nothing crazy, a few hundred shares. I have this irrational idea that when a stock is at 400-500 a share, it's almost not worth getting in as you've already missed the boat(I know how stupid that is). Just curious if we have any future Bucks owners on here from NVIDIA? Or anyone else with individual stocks they're particularly high on?

Sure...but now you're Milwaukee(and I love the city, but it's Milwaukee) and you're offering the SAME as teams like the Dodgers or Yankees or whomever it may be...you're gonna have to outbid teams(most likely). I love the area because I grew up here. I'm SURE people love Cincy or the Twins Cities(they are beautiful). But...if someone offered you money to the point where the cost of living wasn't really a huge factor, where are you picking? Sometimes players surprise, but it's often players who've spent a couple years in Milwaukee or Green Bay and come to love it.

It's gonna be a little tough to get much on the buyout. Anyone who signed for more than the MLE is not eligible to sign with teams above the 2nd apron. The only trade that really sounded good to me, was Portis, Connaughton+ whatever for Wiggins. But I also think we'd be missing Portis' energy and Connaughton, he is quickly disregarded and he's played poorly, but he is an underrated facilitator in my opinion. He can get guys good looks. You're not in a good spot if you're relying on him for that, but in a pinch(like Dame being out, Payne being traded).

I don't think you're being any guy...you're just kinda stating a fact. Others WILL offer him more.

I don't think this will happen. I don't see a reigning Cy Young with Snell's stuff taking a 1 year 35M deal. I would guess he remains unsigned because he was looking for that and then some over 6-7 years and he'll settle in on a deal with a little less guaranteed money and some incentives. So maybe 6 years for 210 with a 7th year vesting option. WAY beyond what we can or would offer. BUT, if it happened, I don't think it'd just negate itself by trading Williams and Adames. I think that may have been the case with Burnes, but if taken together, the Williams loss becomes far less consequential as you have a deep pen full of power arms...led of course by Uribe, a future closer. And Adames, he's still obviously the best SS, but you've got two guys in-house who can play exceptional defense. You have no idea what you're getting back for Williams and Adames(and I agree, I do not like the Yankees trade). But I also expect Turang to be a better hitter this year. He was so defensive at the end of last year. As if his only goal was to put the ball into play. I love the idea, I just don't see it being realistic. If you're going to offer a 1-year deal for Snell, I think in this pitching market, you're starting at 40M. So that could be a 2-year deal with a 35 paid in the first year and a 5M buyout for the 2nd.

I thought it was kinda a given the Bucks were gonna sign Shake Milton. Having played with Doc, a position of need...the limitations in the buyout market. I'd just prefer we see Beauchamp get playing time, but something is up there. I see all the people giving up on the Bucks, but, this may just be a team built for the post-season. I remember how bad Boston was the first half two years ago, Miami wasn't lighting the world on fire last year. This particular team has been working Middleton back in and the ability to have PatBev and Milton defend for stretches, if I squint, I can see it.

Yeah, he's been hurt, but...it's still hard for me to justify long-term playing Green over Beauchamp and Jackson Jr. You think the extra shooter is more likely to make the difference or the 3 and D guys? And Beauchamp has been EXACTLY what you want him to be with the potential for more. He's hit 42% from 3 in the corner, he can play on the ball. I think Jackson has shot really well from the corner. That's where that player is going to camp out. I agree it'd be silly to write this team off...but I'm not encouraged right now. Conversely, I was impressed many times during the regular season only to lose to Miami(or Toronto, Boston)...so we'll see.

That could be interesting...as long as he's not too rigid about it. A good DC should play multiple fronts. A 5-2, 4-3, 3-4. A 4-3 will certainly help guys like Wyatt, Brooks, Wooden. It plays to their strengths. They don't have to play two gaps and can get into the backfield. As for concerns about Slaton not being a fit...Vita Vea plays in a 4-3. Big, physical run stuffers are required to play a 3-4. They're more of a bonus in a 43. The main difference will be the DL and then I guess we need another MLBer if we move on from Campbell. Quay's role will probably not change too much. I'd guess he plays MLBer, maybe WLB. Gives him a little more freedom. McDuffie the SLB More likely they'll take a big safety or sign a guy like Jeremy Chinn, he could fill in at WLBer while helping cover the middle of the field.

I mean...if you read back here, I think I've been with you, but...it is amazing how bad such a talented team can look. And since we have so royally screwed our future(which I do not blame them for at ALL)...it's now or never. You either win another title or you don't. We'll see though.

Ok, if Jackson is hurt or can't play, why put him in for garbage time? Green is shooting the ball well. I'm not worried about our scoring. I think having either player on the floor over Green is going to be more important. -I don't like the back-to-back cop-out. These aren't guys in an over-40 league, they're athletes in their 20s and 30s. But my issue also isn't with ONE loss.

You see what he looks like and maybe they're more open to an extension early. But as of now, he'd be on pace to be a Super 2...I think, but you get 6 years. I don't know if you're spending 3 seasons before you can pencil him in as a full-time starter. If he's 130 next year, the following year you should be expecting ~160-170 and...that's a good year. How many guys give you 200 innings a year? I'm more worried about him being able to throw 120 innings given his history than I am about the time it'll take him to build up to that point.

And they follow it up with another flop. I don't get why Jackson Jr and Beauchamp aren't playing. They need to give these young guys some run. ESPECIALLY on the 2nd night of a back-to-back in which Middleton isn't playing? It's just ridiculous to see both not on the floor at all. If you say Jackson isn't playing due to the wrist...fine. He came in the final ~40 seconds, but that'd make sense. And Marjon? You're ruining his confidence. I get it, no Brook, no Middleton and Utah got hot. But unless you've actually got this miracle trade for Smart lined up...which I won't buy, no matter how many reports there are the Bucks have "called about him," then you need to get the most out of the guys you have.