Packers chat with Pete DoughertySkip to main content

Packers chat with Pete Dougherty

Thursday, April 12 transcript

    Yesterday's preseason schedule came out and our 3rd game is at Oakland. It's my understanding that the teams work out the preseason schedule, as opposed to the league setting everything up. That would suggest that there have been discussions. Oakland just happens to be picking 10th in the first round. Do you think it's feasible for the Packers to trade up to Oakland spot, by giving them our 14th position and Hundley? If there was any truth to Oakland being interested in trading for Hundley, then I'm wondering if this might be an option. Gruden runs a west coast offense similar to what Walsh used to run, with emphasis on the short passing game. Hundley's problems weren't necessarily with the short passes. He had difficulty looking deep down the field. Is Hundley enough to trade up 4 spots, from 14th to 10th?
    if we draft Derwin James what does that say about dix in free agency? Since gute was so high on jones
    .Depends in part where they'd play James. If he's primarily a slot guy, then it might not affect Clinton-Dix. But yeah, it also could mean that they'd have more flexibility in whether to re-sign Clinton-Dix after this season.
    mccarthy is famous for his soft practices, in fact noted that they hit less than any other teams and almost never practice at full speed. pettine comes from rex ryans school of you practice like you play. full speed at the end of every practice and if the pads are on you use them and hit. i always felt the packs d were the worst tacklers and completely non aggressive. how will the approaches find a common ground.
    First, I can't say I've seen anywhere that the Packers hit less than any other team out there. So I have no reason to think that's true. If you have a link to that information please email me, I'd love to see it. The CBA imposes limits to padded practices -- you can go with pads every day in camp if you want, though nobody does, and only 14 padded practices allowed in the regular season. That said, if there's a difference in philosophy, then Pettine will have to make his arguments and then live the decision. That's the head coach's call.
    What would I take to get from 14 to 5 for Chubb?
    I think I answered earlier but have seen this question a couple times so will hit it again. From the research I've done, the Packers can move from 14 to about six by trading their second rounder. Don't know if that would be enough to get them to No. 5. Might take next year's No. 1 instead to get to five. Have trouble seeing them do that unless they think the guy is really special.
    Pete, The Packers could've signed both Micah Hyde and Casey Hayward the last couple years but decided to let them go, and they both become all pro for other teams. Was Thompson thinking Randall was really a talent find or was it a salary cap issue? Should the Packers consider trading/releasing Matthews since he has definitely shown decline in the past few years to free up some cap space for someone else? Also, I think if Josh Jackson is on the board at 14 you take him in a heartbeat.
    Cap played a factor in Hyde and Hayward. Randall and Rollins also were factors, especially with Hayward, who walked after their rookie year. I wouldn't release Matthews even though his production doesn't match his salary. They don't have a lot talent on defense, and he's still one of their most talented guys even though he's in decline. So they're kind of stuck there.
    Is House out shopping for a new team? I'm a bit surprised we haven't re-signed him yet at a very favorable deal. He was not great last year, but I doubt he lost us any games.
    I just saw that someone is reporting House has agreed to a one-year deal with the Packers.
    I'm sure that all NFL reporters have a preferred time of the year, and other periods where it's a grind. How do you rank the draft season? Do you enjoy researching the prospects, telling unique stories, answering questions about trading up / down, etc. Or is it a necessary evil that you endure in order to get to training camp and the season? Another way of asking - As a Packers reporter, what time of year do you love, and what time of year do you loath?
    It's kind of like with the change of seasons, there's something good about the differences, the variety, keeps the job more interesting. The season is a long grind but it's also very interesting. I like it all. I do wish draft season were a little shorter, they could hold the draft earlier at no loss to anyone in the draft process. But that's never going to happen. The NFL wants draft season to last as long as it can because it draws fan interest and free publicity daily. I like it all. The changes from camp to the season to early offseason to free agency to the draft are all good. I guess the offseason practices -- three minicamp practices plus once a week access for three weeks of OTAs -- is the least interesting. You just can't tell all that much from those practices. Just when you think you've learned something, they put the pads on and play the games and it turns out what you thought was completely wrong.
    Quality Edge Rushers never reach the free agency market. I don't understand all these people wanting a corner when drafting where they are will net a decent pass rusher. Said differently, it would be dumb not drafting Landry or even Davenport first.
    I'd agree that pass rushers are harder to find and do more for cover guys than cover guys do for rushers. But great players win games, regardless of position, so if there's a CB they have with a noticeably better grade than the top rusher at 14, then they have to take the CB. Go back and look at, check out of the first rounds. Notice all the forgettable players, including pass rushers, in the first rounds. Doesn't do you any good to draft a rusher if he turns out to be an average player.
    Pete- Do you think if every teams to 30 player draft boards were known, they would all be pretty close to each other?
    I really don't. I remember when Jerry Jones had that photo take where the Cowboys' draft board was in the background, and someone went to the trouble of blowing up the photo and figuring out the board. Their ratings were a lot different than many of the scouts I talked to, and of course the scouts I'd talked to were all different (not that I had their draft boards, but just judging by how they ranked guys by position and what they said about them). From what I've been told, most teams have anywhere from 15 to 22 or so guys with first-round grades, but no team has the same guys. I can't remember who it was, but that Cowboys' board had a guy in the fourth round who some people thought was a late first-rounder. So there can be some big differences I'm sure with the top seven or 10 guys it's mostly the same, though the order almost surely is different. And I'm sure there are some guys that go in the top 10, especially QBs, that other teams have rated in the second round. Even with all the info available today, scouting is still very much an art as much as science. Nobody likes to admit it, but there's a big element of luck in drafting too. That's why late-round picks still occasionally become Hall of Famers, and a lot of first-rounders bust.
    Hi Pete -- thanks for the chat! Am I being too pessimistic? Graham for jordy looks like a wash to me. Wilkerson -- low risk / big upside but other than that we really have some holes to fill. Viqueens look to have improved QB / DL / WR and is in really good shape going into the draft -- and we seem to be falling behind. Has Gute done enough so far or is he relying too much on draft and develop?
    I wonder the same thing. Now, the big question is, just how much did the Vikings improve at QB? A little or a lot? I'm really not sure. The few scouts I talked to about Graham/Nelson think the Packers upgraded there, that Nelson likely is declining fast, and Graham has a good year or two left. These things will be proven on the field. I thought Gutekunst would have signed a CB early in free agency, and I really thought he might sign Watkins or Robinson, and probably cut Cobb to make it an easier cap fit. He didn't do either. So he needs to hit fairly big on a pick or two.
    Last year was a blessing in disguise in terms of finding a run game. I see a lot of mocks predicting a receiver at 14. I think that is crazy. They have enough pass catchers. More importantly do you see the offense striving for more balance as the running backs showed they deserve the ball? Also running the ball could reduce injuries to #12.
    I think receiver is a pretty significant need. As said earlier, Adams has a concussion history that has to be a concern, and Cobb is in the last year of his deal and his limitations that show up when the quality of receivers around him dips. I'd say OLB and CB are greater needs, but WR might be next, even knowing the questions on the right side of the offensive line.
    Is there a prospect in mind that you, realistically, could not resist trading up for if he fell a few spots below where he was graded to be taken? Gutey seems to be doing is homework on these first round players and maybe its a sign he'd be willing to be aggressive if the right player at the right price is still around.
    I don't have a guy I'd definitely say that about, though I do wonder if Chubb is that kind of player and worth trading a second-rounder for if he's still on the board at 6 or 7.
    Landry reminds me of Jamal Reynolds. Similar builds, similar production in college. Do you pick a situational player (pass rush) at 14?
    If he's the next Jamaal Reynolds, then of course not. Now, Reynolds didn't seem to like football, and he played at Fla. State, where the D-linemen at least at that time were taught to think pass rush first, play the run second. I'm assuming Chubbs is better than Reynolds, but as we now know, that's an incredibly low bar.
    What are the chances we sign Derek Newton? He was cut today by Houston
    Just from the story I read, he tore both patellar tendons in '16, didn't play last year and isn't expected to be ready for practice until close to training camp. So I'd think he won't be signing with anyone until later in the offseason.
    Ha Ha tweeted today, "I've got 4 hittas on the back end with me. #29 #25 #35 #27 so drafting a safety will not happen". Is he talking to the choir here? We need CB, not safeties!
    I'd think if they drafted James it would be primarily to play the slot, at least early in his career.
    Suppose the Packers wanted to trade back from their first-round pick. How far back would they have to trade to get a second-rounder? A third-rounder? Given how many first-rounders don't live up to their selection spot, that studies (including one conducted by Nobel laureate Richard Thaler) show that teams do better by trading back, and that the Packers have several big needs, wouldn't trading back make sense?
    Generally speaking, as a basic draft philosophy, the more picks the better. I know about Thaler's research, and in a big-picture sense I'd never disagree with that conclusion. But history also shows that the higher you pick in the first round, the better your chances of finding a great player, and great player's win games. The Packers don't pick as high as 14 very often, so if I'm then I'm picking at 14 or trading up.  I'd only trade down if there were a really, really good reason to.
    Pete - Even if you agree that the Nelson/Graham situation was essentially a wash (Graham replaces Nelson since he is like a WR) it still reduces the offense's productivity in my mind since it means playing Cobb as our #2. Would a draft pick, assuming we took one, really be able to play as a #2 WR sliding Cobb back to #3 where he probobly is more effective?
    If they picked Ridley, for instance, I'd think he'd have a pretty good shot at starting at WR. I don't know if he'd be the true No. 2 as a rookie, but I'd think he'd have a pretty decent shot at starting. That's a tough position for rookies to excel, history shows that. But in the last couple years rookie WRs have done a little better than in the past.
    Hi Pete-
    Why are so many of the fans "disappointed" that we didn't break the bank for some of the initial FA CB's? Why in the world would you pay $15 mil. per year for second-tier guys (Trumaine Johnson, etc.) JUST to say you signed someone? Sounds like that's what guys like Dorsey are doing with Landry ($15 mil./year), etc. Maybe that's why Gute is the GM and the rest of us are fans. Thanks Pete!
    They shouldn't do it just to say they signed someone. You do it to improve your team. In free agency you have to overpay some. GMs have to decide whether the overpayment is worth it. Gutekunst and Ball decided it wasn't. Doesn't make them right, but that was their call. We'll see how it works out when they play the games.
    I'm sorry, but I am trading back if Landry is the guy I want. He's not worth it at 14. Tell me I'm wrong
    The mock drafts I've seen have him going in the early 20s, but they're not always right. So it depends on how much Gutekunst values him, and what his intelligence operations tell him about where Landry is likely to get picks. Maybe they could move back a few spots and still get him. But if they really, really like him, they'd be taking a big chance.
    If our #1 pick is from the Pac 12 again, I will scream! I hope that train sailed with TT.
    Thompson really did for some reason like West Coast players, and Pac-12 especially. He sure drafted a lot of them. Not sure what that was about. But I will say, the Kenny Clark pick is looking like a really good one. Sorry but have to cut this off now, have several calls scheduled with scouts to talk draft today. Look forward to chatting again next week, we'll only be a week away from the draft at that point, lots more to discuss. Thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts and questions. Until next week, take care everybody.
Powered by Platform for Live Reporting, Events, and Social Engagement