Nice post, man. A lot of work went into that.
I like Metcalf as a prospect, although I'd be scared to pull the trigger at 12.
I really like the Daylon Mack pick, as well. Pretty much the same story, though. Ridiculously explosive at 6'1 and nearly 330, but I've read in every scouting report that his work ethic and conditioning is very poor. Don't mind it as much with him, though, as we won't need him in year 1 as anything but a rotational player, with Clark on the roster.
Yeah I've been thinking about that, and if we are indeed going to a 2 WR, 2 TE set (with 3 receivers and one blocker), it would make an interesting draft if we grabbed both Iowa TEs in the first round...
I honestly didn't know too much about Mack before had, but that explosiveness out of a wise 330 body is QUITE impressive, though nothing in terms for pass rush moves, so someone would have to scheme him open, but Pettine is good at scheming, so I thought between DT Adams, Mack and Lancaster, maybe they could replace Daniels (if Daniels gets a better offer as a FA else where).
But getting those two FS that late, which made me fall in love with that draft... of course that's because I think it's unrealistic.
OK, tell me:
- If Bulaga goes down, as he does most years, and will move the new guy to tackle, WHO PLAYS RG?
- If Bhaktiari goes down, WHO PLAYS LEFT TACKLE?
- Is Lane Taylor healthy? He was supposedly healthy the second half of the year and didn't play well. WHAT IS PLAN B AT LEFT GUARD?
- WHO IS OUR BACK-UP CENTER IF LINSLEY GOES DOWN?
We are one or two offensive line injuries away from 6-10.
Run the ball 45% of the time instead of 30% of the time, and the OGs will look a heck of a lot better.... and you can play this injury game at any position on the team and it's true, they lost two Safeties and then sucked, but you're ignoring that, they lost two WRs and they (other than Adams) sucked, they had two CBs (Alexander/King) get injured at different times, and the other CBs at times struggles and you're ignoring that...
This is an obsession of yours to blame everything that happened on the OL... when it's not the OL's fault that 70% of the play calls were passing, including a lot of long balls, which of course exposed the OGs... look at your winning teams that you keep hyping, a lot more running and a lot more short passes, their OLs aren't better in long developing pass plays which the Packers OL was asked to do too often.
And please, spare me the draft them in the fourth round and develop them argument. We don't have the time. IMO half of our top 6 picks should be on the offensive line.
I just hope the Lombardi avenue brain trust agrees.
Why should you be spared when you aren't sparing others from beating this dead horse? ...
The team would be stupid to ignore other positions just to focus in on only one, especially if the draft isn't heavy in that area... which this draft isn't that good in OTs. They should certainly grab one or two, but three in top 4 rounds is over kill and ignoring other positions.
Also if they're drafting half in the top 6 picks then two in the 4th round, which is exactly what you want to be spared from...