None of the handful of scouts I asked about him brought up either of those subjects.
The Packers paid him a $5M roster bonus in March, pretty tough to see them trading him and throwing that money out the window. That report about possibly trading him to NE was just a journalist writing about trades he thinks should happen, not trades that he's heard teams are talking about.
That's a tough one. He turns 29 in June, and CB is not exactly an old guy's position. He is a top CB. The money wouldn't be the concern, it would be the pick. I'm a little wary because of the age but he might be a special enough athlete that you could get three really good years out of him. I'd have to ask some scouts about that, it's an interesting question. Would Arizona give him up for pick No. 30? I don't know that.
Good to hear from Turkey, thanks for reading PackersNews.com. We're projecting they'll make their pick about 90 minutes after the draft starts.
Sounds like no chance Oliver or White is there, and I'm thinking at least one and maybe two of the OL will be gone. Bush is a close call.
Yeah, there's at least a chance that's the question (or at least two of three) if three or four QBs go in the top 11. With Sweat it just depends on his medical. If the Packers consider him a low risk, then my best guess is it would be Sweat, Bush, Hockenson in that order.
I don't know exactly what it means and would have to dive a lot deeper into it with people in the league. But I do know that there are footwork techniques that are tied into timing of the routes on any given play call in pretty much all NFL offenses. So while I'm sure there are some universals in QB footwork, some and maybe a lot of it is system specific also. They design the steps and movements purposely to time up with when the ball should come out. I'm sure it won't be easy for Rodgers to adjust to some of them, but if that's what the offense calls for, they'll have to adjust or find some cheats that work with what he knows. I'd guess it's more the former. If it's part of the system, it's part of the system. He is a great athlete. I don't know how difficult the changes will be for him. It's something to keep an eye on.
No, I heard nothing about it. From what I can tell, teams have numerous preliminary talks with many, many teams before the draft to get a feel for how open they are to trading, the cost, etc.
I'm very curious to see how Kyler Murray pans out.
That's the big question. I have no idea what the Packers' medical grade is on Sweat.
I could see it. I'm guessing somebody who doesn't land a QB in the draft will offer more than that for him, assuming Arizona drafts Murray.
Very much agreed. This is a huge draft for Gutekunst and the Packers because of the high picks each round and the extra No. 1.
I'm thinking Hockenson is the better prospect, a better athlete. I think Franks ran 4.85 at the combine, Hockenson ran 4.70 and had a 37 1/2 vertical (I couldn't find Franks' vertical). Franks was decent blocker and was big but had no quick twitch. Hockenson is a good blocker and better athlete.
I didn't see those reports, if you could send me a link that would be great. From what I understand he didn't go back to Indy for a medical retest (they have some prospect do that in April, but he wasn't on the list). It's a team-by-team thing, what each team's doctor thinks. Look, it's just tough to know what to believe in the lead-up to the draft. From almost two months after the combine there was nothing to suggest the heart was an issue, and all the mock drafts had Sweat in the top 10. Then this week all of a sudden some teams are taking him off their boards. Was this a plant by a team hoping for him to drop to them? Or was it accurate reporting? Is the report you're talking about (like I said, I haven't seen it) put out by Sweat's agents as damage control, or the product of a reporter talking to multiple teams and getting honest answers? You never know.
I misread the question at first and originally answered from the team's perspective, sorry about that Tom. Yes, for the player it's definitely better to be early R2. If you're a good player, getting to UFA a year earlier allows for more leverage in contract-extension negotiations. The signing bonus is a little bigger as a late R1, but if you end up being a good player you're better off going early R2.
OK, so it's Ian Rappaport, a credible reporter but what I said in the previous answer still stands. As I said earlier, all I can say is I talked to two teams yesterday about his medical grade, and both had him as a low risk. It didn't affect his draft grade. That led me to believe -- I could be very well be wrong -- that enough teams think similarly that he'll still be off the board before 12. We'll find out tonight.
That would be great, but I'm guessing the only people who know the time and resources to know that in the detail you're suggesting are with teams, who have all those area scouts. I think independent scouting services have their hands full being well informed about this year's draft. That's just my guess.
Can't disagree except that I'd still call it less of a need than a lot of other positions. They spent their first two picks on CBs last year. That's a lot of valuable resources. Now, If they used their second-rounder on one I wouldn't keel over in shock, though I would be surprised. Once you get to to third or fourth round, then I'd think CB would be just as much a possibility as anything else. That's my best guess.
Yeah, I have too, and really, ILB has been devalued for a reason, it's such a passing game now that the good QBs find a way to take advantage of the ILB matchup even if the guy is good. But it seems like guys such as White and Bush are rare. I mean, they're not cover safeties, but to run in the low 4.4s, they're actually faster than a lot of safeties and at least have a chance in coverage against backs and fast TEs. I saw a quote from a scout in Bob McGinn's draft series that I thought was really interesting. It basically was, "If you're slow at linebacker, you're slow on defense." The Packers have been slow at ILB for years, and they've been slow on defense for years.
The only reason I went with Savage was the 4.36 speed, it's always good to have a guy there who can outrun his mistakes (though it sounds like Savage has instincts and is a good cover guy). But it was kind of a snap decision, and I kind of regretted not picking Thornhill, who's a little bigger. Both are really viable guys. It's touch and go for either being available at 44, from what I can tell. Not out of the realm, but might not quite be 50-50. I saw Savage in the late first in a couple mock drafts this morning, the first I'd seen that all spring.
Probably, but I wouldn't doubt if there were a couple "subterfuge" visits in there, too, to feign interest in guys they have no interest in. I know teams around the league think Lock was a smokescreen visit.
I've heard they like him but -- and this is strictly a guess on my part -- I'd be pretty surprised if they went with a guy at No. 12 who will have to redshirt this year. Bob is as good as it gets when it comes to the draft, so maybe he's on to something, I don't know. I'd think Simmons would be very attractive at 30, but the people I talked to this week don't think he makes it out of the 20s.
It won't be Monday morning. They'll be saying that when they talk publicly about each pick. And of course it's BS.
I just don't see Fant making it to 30. A good safety prospect should be there.
Yes, Tom Silverstein will do a live blog, and it's well worth following. Just to let you know, I'll be doing another chat tomorrow, probably at 1 p.m. central time, for anyone interested.
There are some concerns with that, Sweat was booted off the team at Michigan State for marijuana use. But I think Gregory's issues were known to be a lot deeper. If I remember right, Randy Gregory failed a drug test at the combine, that's a huge red flag.
We'll let Hank weigh in with the last word. have to cut the chat off here but we covered a lot of ground, and many pointed questions that were exactly the types of questions I tried to get some answers to from a few scouts this week. So we'll call it a wrap and see where the chips fall tonight. Again, thanks for coming by, and as a reminder, I'll do another chat tomorrow to discuss tonight's picks and look ahead to rounds 2 and 3. Tentative start time for that is 1 p.m. central time, but check back to PackersNews.com to make sure. Also, as a heads up, Olivia Reiner will be conducting Facebook Live starting when probably the ninth pick is on the clock. Jim Owczarski, Ryan Wood and I will rotate in as Olivia's guest, and of course we'll all answer as many of your questions as we can. Also, you'll want to stay up with Tom Silverstein's live chat, he'll do that from the draft's start and provide a Packers-oriented perspective as the names start coming off the board. Thanks again everyone for joining in, great chatting with you as always. Enjoy tonight, and we'll talk again tomorrow.
Just saw this from Tom so wanted to get it in. My fault Tom, I didn't see that, I'll go back and change the answer. Yes, from a player's perspective it's better being a high No. 2, even though the signing bonus is a little lower than a late 1. That extra year with the fifth-year option is a big advantage for the team.