Hmmmm, interesting question. I have to say no, because they already have a good LT in Bakhtiari, and signing Brown would take more than $10M, a year, so that's two guys on the OL you're paying in that range, and one of them has to move to RT. I don't see Thompson paying two tackles that kind of elilte money. And I doubt either Bakhtiari or Brown would be real keen on moving to RT. So, no, that's not going to happen. But it is thinking big. Now, if there were a pass rusher of that caliber available, different story.
I was thinking about that, and I'm almost positive I watched an NFL game in the last five years where a team finished a game with a TE at LT, but I don't ever remember that happening with the Packers in my 25 years covering the team. That's always a possibility though, because most teams suit up only seven O-linemen on game day, so all it would take is both starting tackles getting hurt and you could end up with a TE at tackle (or a DL at guard).
Definitely could be an issue, but what's the alternative? You have to play the defense that gives you the best chance to win, and that means having LBs who can match up with backs and TEs in the passing game. Maybe you can rotate Burnett out occasionally, but I don't know that they have the depth to do that, plus you have to dilute practice snaps to have everybody prepared. So yeah, it's tough on those guys playing up there, but that makes it incumbent on the Packers to have depth at the nitro LB.
There's no way they're playing Hundley, they need to win this game, and the best chance for that is playing Rodgers. The two tight end alignment could get more of a look, and keeping the RBs in as you suggest. Or maybe they instead use the RBs on short swing passes to get the ball out fast. Agree you have to make sure you don't get your quarterback killed while playing these deep backups at tackle, but Rodgers has to play.
I'd think defensive line and cornerback would be the easiest, maybe running back after that. OL would be difficult, so much nuance and teamwork at those positions. Receiver not the easiest either, you have to develop timing with the quarterback, that takes at least a little time.
Yeah, it's not going to happen until they get a top running back. And that might be never. This is a passing league, though you need to run it some for several reasons.
I'll say this: I don't have that big an argument with taking Randall as a CB or Goodson and Rollins as basketball players. In and of itself, nothing wrong with that. When teams do that and it works, they're praised for having great scouting eyes, or for being open minded. Think, for instance, of the basketball players who make it as TEs, or all the guys who played one position but were drafted at another. Now, those picks you mentioned might all end up being more miss than hit, or even flat-out busts, but GMs have to trust their scouting eye and ability to project. I'd just criticize them for missing on the picks. With Rollins, for instance, maybe his 4.57-second speed should have been taken more into account.
I've found that those combine speeds are pretty accurate, and a good way to compare the speed of players within the same draft and from different draft classes. They get a couple cracks at it, and if they're fast, they're going to run fast. You're right that 40 speed isn't everything -- play speed, instincts, all-around athletic ability, etc., all those things matter. So the 40 can tell you only so much. But for just a measure of pure speed, the combine 40 is pretty good, and for the most part if a guy runs well, he'll run a good 40 at the combine.
If I were the Packers and could get any player from another roster, I'd take Von Miller. He's the best pass rusher in the game. He'd improve their defense drastically.
He was kind OK, I guess. It's a struggle for him, noticed it more against Atlanta than last week. You wouldn't want him to be the swing tackle the rest of the season.
They probably will need a starting guard to replace Evans next year. They could do that with a relative bargain-type free agent signing like they did with Evans this year, or with a draft pick. Or do both and let the best man win. I don't see them spending big money there, though. Agreed also, they need depth. They need a lot of things, they do every year, so yeah, I could see signing a veteran OL in the $2 million range as a backup also.
I'll just tell you this. Last week I was talking with a scout from another team and said that while I understood why the Packers drafted defensive backs with their first two picks, I found it a little hard to believe there wasn't an OLB worth taking in round 3. The scout defended the Packers' decision, said he Adams is a good prospect as an inside rusher. I asked him if he was, say, Mike Daniels good, and he wasn't sure. But he liked Adams and thought he was good value at the end of the third round. So that was one expert's take.
OK, have to end it here, lots of other work to get to with the short week. I'm wondering the same thing also. There is a speed issue at WR, for sure. Davis and Janis are the fastest receivers and aren't playing. Davis has such a slight build and isn't a big target, but it seems like the QB trusts him more than Janis. I'm inclined to agree with you. Either that or go big, and play Allison a lot even when Cobb gets back, so you'd have Allison, Nelson and Bennett (and Kendricks too) playing together, at least provide some big targets over the middle. And that does it for today, thanks for all the great questions, my apologies for not getting to them all, way too many for that. But if you didn't get answered, try again next week, we'll be back on our normal day, Thursday. Take care everybody, we'll talk again soon.