He could probably compete with the guys we currently have.

Now THAT is FUNNY!!!🤣

---

With 11 other teams drafting ahead of the Packers, much will depend on who they pick. What are those 11 teams needs/wants and just how will that affect GB's picks.

1) Arizona Cardinals ----need/DE
2) San Francisco 49ers ----need/DT
3) New York Jets ----need/DE/LB
4) Oakland Raiders ----need/DE/DT
5) Tampa Bay Buccaneers ----need/OT
6) New York Giants ----need/QB
7) Jacksonville Jaguars ----need/DT
8) Detroit Lions ----need/LB
9) Buffalo Bills ----need/DT
10) Denver Broncos ----need/QB
11) Cincinnati Bengals ----need/OT/G
12) Green Bay Packers ----need/ ? (DE/OLB, Safety, OT, ? )

I drew this info from WalterFootball, I like their site and trust their information.

---

I am certainly on board with bringing in a proven vet at safety for multiple reasons. In pursuit of getting better there are some names out there better than Williams and he's only got a year left in him if that and he's not Woodson back there. I have no other name on the roster I could be confident in saying they would help build a better line up. A couple potential serviceable backups at best.
The other thing is they are also very young at CB and although talented I don't see that leader that anchors the back end.

As far as the draft goes I'm all about BPA. Just look at all the position needs provided in this thread and tell me they shouldn't just bring the best player sitting there on board. Unless they are splitting hairs on two players, one at a position of need, one not so much, why in the world would you not take the player clearly better? To me that's like chasing your tail. You want the team to get better but you don't take the better player. What?

Fill as many needs as possible in FA and select the best players available in the draft. It's hard enough to predict the future of a draft pick. Passing on a player that grades out better for one at a position of need is a good way to get the results we saw in 2015. Ted Thompson & Co. might as well have saved the cost of airfare and hotels and just stayed home.

And that's a good example by the way about what I'm talking about. Ted Thompson picks Randall over a Landon Collins because after all we needed CB's and not Safeties....but wait we do need Safeties. That's why I say get the best player. They will find the field and in the long run they will make your team better.

---

Beast (Brilliant Erudite Analytical Staffing Tactician) Said: I literally laughed out loud when I read this!!! Too funny. Especially as I was just over in London visit my son, daughter and new granddaughter. So your title reminded me of when my daughter-in-law came into the family. She asked, "what should I call you?"

I replied with the nickname which all my friends call me. She said that that wouldn't work. So I though about it and said, " I would like you to call me something that would reflect what your attitude should be about me...so, why don't you call me 'Your Lordship'"

She laughed, but too quickly repliedy, "OK, but only if you call me Lady Katherine."

I said, "DEAL"...I have been calling her that ever since.

To the Thread...Warhawk opined: IMO, bring in a reliable but relatively economical FA and work from there.

---

In the 90's we picked up Eugene Robinson. I thought that was a huge pickup because I thought he was still a good player, and was like a coach on the field

---

So the Consensus of postitional needs seems to be:
[list]

Rush OLB[/list][list]

OL/OG[/list][list]

Safety[/list][list][*]TE[/list][list][*]ILB[/list][list][*]RB[/list]

I would like to ask people HOW you prefer to meet each need....my opinion below:[list][*]Rush OLB - Draft[/list][list][*]OL/OG - FA Free Agency[/list][list][*]Safety - FA[/list][list][*]TE - Draft[/list][list][*]ILB - Draft[/list][list][*]RB - Draft[/list]

---

I agree with yours. Though I think since we need two safeties we will get one from each

It would be cool to have Adderley's nephew, esp. if he was anywhere near as good as Herb. He was probably one of the first "shut down" corners.

---

He has been creeping up in the mocks I've seen recently. Some (or at least one I recall) had him going in the 20s) Its a need and if he passes the tests I wouldn't mind seeing him at #30. certainly at #44. I have also seen a few with him going in the late 40's and 50's but those were earlier ones. Like I said he has been creeping up. Interestingly Hockenson has been dropping. Saw one that had him at 106 overall