Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Cory's Corner: Don't Worry About Drew Lock

By Category

Cory's Corner: Don't Worry About Drew Lock

Don’t fret, because the sky isn’t falling.

The Packers are bringing in a quarterback today. Yes, it’s happening. Does it really matter? Probably not. 

Green Bay is likely just getting every piece of information they can possibly get on everyone — and that includes Missouri quarterback Drew Lock. 

Now, I’m not a fan of Lock. He’s got a big-time arm but his accuracy needs serious work. What recent draft pick has that unfortunate attribute? That would be Josh Allen.

The same University of Wyoming quarterback that had a howitzer for an arm but his accuracy was very unsteady at the Senior Bowl and raised plenty of eyebrows. Allen completed just 52 percent of his passes in his rookie season for the Bills. He might able to throw a ball through a barn door, but what good does it do if he can’t complete it?

The NFL has turned into a league that has feasted on the middle to short pass. Tom Brady has made the bubble screen popular, which means that accuracy is very important nowadays. 

So stop worrying. Aaron Rodgers is still the Packers’ quarterback for the foreseeable future. In case you forgot, he signed a $134 million extension last summer that keeps Rodgers in Green Bay until 2023. 

I really like what general manager Brian Gutekunst is doing. There is nothing wrong with getting as much information as possible. Besides, of the 18 predraft visits the Packers have had, Lock will be the only quarterback. 

Green Bay has had two wide receivers (Jeff Smith and DeAndre Tompkins), two defensive linemen (Jeffery Simmons and Trysten Hill), two linebackers (Kaden Eliss and Jesse Aniebonam) and two offensive linemen (Andre Dillard and Jonah Williams). From that list, the two guys that really stand out to me are Dillard and Williams because both are first round guys. If Williams is available at 12, the Packers should take him to insure the long-term health of Rodgers. 

This is a great spot for Gutekunst to be in. Just don’t get overly excited about innocuous visits, because remember Jaire Alexander only spent a few minutes with the Packers at the Combine before getting drafted No. 18 last year. And now Alexander is arguably the best defensive back on the team. 

So when you see Lock plastered all over TV and radio, just take it with a grain of salt because Gutekunst and Co. are still studying for the final exam. 

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 1 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (132) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Nick Perry's picture

I like it... Gute is doing exactly what the G.M. of the Green Bay Packers SHOULD do. He's doing his due diligence, doing homework and preparing for ANY possibly that could/might come up.

Nothing wrong with that folks. Matter of fact if Ted would have used his visits on more of the 1st and 2nd round prospects perhaps he wouldn't have had such horrible drafts his last several seasons in GB.

Ted used most of his on those 7th round and UDFA prospects IIRC.

PeteK's picture

Thats right , then he wouldn't have drafted you.

Old School's picture

Well, if the Packers hadn't taken Nick Perry there would have been people complaining. After all, it was an Article of Faith that the Packers #1 NEED in the draft was an edge rusher, and Perry was the best edge rusher on the board when the Packers got to pick. So if Thompson had just passed over the Consensus #1 NEED and taken some DB like Harrison Smith, or some OL like well, that would have been offered as proof that he was senile or worse.

But most of the guys that were on the board when we picked at #26 never had better careers than Nick Perry. Yes, I stipulate to Smith and Wolfe, but most of the next round of guys weren't any better than Perry, or played positions where we had a good starter. If we'd have taken an OT like Mitchell Schwartz instead of an edge rusher like Perry? Seriously?

And it's not like Perry was any kind of a reach. He was kind of a consensus late first/early second pick and if the Packers hadn't taken him he'd have been gone before long.

We also got Casey Hayward in that draft. Of course, if we hadn't taken Hayward we could have wasted that pick on Russell Wilson. The Perpetually Injured Jerel Worthy rounds out the first two days. AND Mike Daniels in the 4th. That's not a bad haul for the first 132 picks.

If this is a horrible draft, what GM did better in 2012? I mean, yeah, it's not perfect in 20/20 hindsight but that's still a pretty good year for the team. Just because Worthy was always hurt and ineffective doesn't make this a horrible draft. Personally, I'd have wasted a pick on a guy like Wilson or Foles but I'm stubborn t hat way.

Old School's picture

delete

TheVOR's picture

Hey, if Lock dropped in the draft into the 2nd round? There are projections all over the universe on this guy, from #4 overall to falling deep into the 2nd round.

If the guy falls, and he could sit behind Rodgers for 2-3 years? This is exactly what GB should be doing, or at least a scenario they should be playing.

Also, they need to be showing a willingness to draft one of these QB prospects at 12. What if someone remotely believes GB could in fact take Lock at 12 or 30, and they loved the guy? Might stimulate a trade offer, allow us to drop a few slots and pick up more draft picks.

I'm all for them doing their due diligence.

carlos's picture

Wolf drafted QB’s and later traded them. Smart.

Old School's picture

If/When Aaron Rodgers gets hurt, the backup QB will become the most important position on the team. Currently, we don't have a backup capable of winning a game in the NFL.

Ross Uglem has stated categorically that Lock is no good, but he declined to explain what that was based on. I think Lock has a lot of what you'd be looking for in a QB but he's going to need a pocket he trusts. Really good arm....better than Rodgers when he came out of college.

I've seen Lock, in the mock drafts, going from #10 to the middle of the second round.

Since '61's picture

Deleted

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

Gave you a thumbs up OS!

While there are certain players I'd like on either side of the ball over a QB at 12 or 30 if there is a QB the Pack has highly rated with big upside I would not be upset should they draft him. Having a young talented QB is hard to obtain and when you need them you need them right now.

The problem I have if they do draft a QB at 12 or 30 is they played Rodgers those last 3 games last year when they should have been playing Kiser and Boyle to better see what they have in them.

Hawg Hanner's picture

I'd love to get that tackle Williams at 12. If Lock was available at 12 they should trade out of the pick and get some more value. It is unwise to believe that Bulaga will start 16 games. The kid could work in spelling Bulaga or working at guard with Preston. Rogers can't take any more beatings.

dobber's picture

I think that if they take a first-round OT, it's entirely possible Bulaga doesn't make the 53...or they put that kid inside, push Taylor out, and the draft pick bides his time to take over at RT until either Bulaga gets hurt or his contract runs out--whichever comes first.

Christian Roussel's picture

Bulaga's issue is health. He's still one of the very good RT in the league. No rookie is going to have him out of the 53 this year if he's healthy. That said, it's important to prepare for life after Bulaga since Spriggs did not achieve what was expected of him.

carlos's picture

Won’t happen in the first or first second rd pick I don’t think.

McFly's picture

Actually Old School, he did say why he thought Lock was "no good" in the write-up.... Like, literally the entire first half of the article is dedicated to this.

Oh and by the way... I just got back from a little vacation with Doc (we went to mid-May, it was sunny and beautiful) and I can tell you that the Packers do NOT draft a QB in the early rounds of the draft this year, so you can stop asking for that in all of your posts now.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Learn to read McFly. OS said ROSS doesn't explain his dislike for Lock. This article is an opinion piece written by Cory. Who takes a paragraph to say Lock is inaccurate.

The big knock on Lock is his decision making skills. Trying to force the ball into places. He reminds me of Brett Farve for better or worse. A few years behind Rodgers in a QB room with Getsy & MLF could really help him. Instead Cory compares hin to Josh Allen who was thrown to the wolves right away.

As for when the Packers draft a QB none of us have any idea. OS can post whatever he wants. If Lock slipped into the 2nd round I'd be all for the Packers grabbing him. He's not worth the #12 pick.

McFly's picture

Oops. You’re right JS, guess I missed that. My mistake... Totally makes more sense to take shots at a contributor who has nothing to do with this piece. Hello?! McFly?!!

You on the other hand JS - you’re taking shots at all the right people. Very relevant, nice work!

Jonathan Spader's picture

I'm not taking shot McFly I'm trying to contribute to the conversation the same way OS was. You're the one who has been speaking to commentors rather than contributing something to think about. My point was Lock is worth a 2nd round pick to develop as a QB of the future. What was yours?

McFly's picture

I disagree JS. You took shots at Cory throughout your point, and you can't really argue that. I guess I just think it's pathetic to fixate on and trash the contributors on this site in order to make your own point.

My take on the Packers selecting a QB early is that it is a terrible idea. They are in a prime spot to significantly upgrade the roster with playmakers at all levels and re-stock to overall talent of the team for the stretch run of Rodgers' career. Let's face it, if he goes down they aren't winning a championship anyway, regardless of who their backup is. Go get impact players, not backups, period. That is my take.

PS: I went into the future and saw you use Nick Foles as your comeback to my take. Needless to say, the comeback bombed because Foles was an outlier... so just don't.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Nick Foles isn't going to win the Jaguars the SB. I'm not looking for Lock to be the SB winning backup although that would be amazing. Foles wasn't a rookie backup like Lock would be. I was saying Lock would be groomed for the future the way Rodgers was. As for "trashing" I disagreed with his opinions the same way I disagree with yours. My vision of the future is for the post Rodgers era.

McFly's picture

So you’re already thinking post-Rodgers? I’m all for grooming a QB, I’m just not for using a premium draft pick on one. Maybe in a couple years that would be a good idea, but certainly not this year. Picks #12, #30 & #44 could all conceivably be impact starters that transform this team (see 2017 NO draft and 2018 IND draft). I think it’s go-time right now, not time to lock in your plan for 6yrs from now.

Jonathan Spader's picture

Yes I'm thinking post a QB who is 36, has had 2 broken collarbones and a host of other injuries. It's tough for any team to have a draft as good as the Saints 2017 talk about an outlier. IND had a good draft but was revitalized by Luck's return and Ebron's signing.

If Lock falls to the Packers at #44 I'd be fine with signing him. That's why I mentioned in my 1st response to your post if he fell into the 2nd round. It all depends on how the board falls.

McFly's picture

Kamara was actually a high 3rd round pick #67 overall, which I would still consider a premium pick with some Top-50 guys still on a lot of boards... As for the heir apparent to Rodgers or for Rodgers insurance, #44 is too high a price to pay this year imo

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

McFly,
I would respectfully disagree at 44 if there was value with Luck or Jones.

Old School's picture

I didn’t think I was taking a shot. I was pointing out that Uglem is on record as saying Lock is no good. Why is pointing out what someone’s position is a shot?

There are different opinions on Lock. Some knowledgeable people think he has a lot to offer.

McFly's picture

Fair enough OS. Touché.

Old School's picture

I truly admire people who can see the future.

Jonathan Spader's picture

I take fortune tellers with a DASH of salt but I try not to RIPP on anyone guess we can just SKIP this commment.

BoCallahan's picture

JS, nice shot!

RCPackerFan's picture

I do wonder if they are considering taking Lock if he were to fall to 30 or 44. In other words doing their due diligence.

My other thought is they are bringing him in to make teams think they might go for him if he falls which will force other teams to jump ahead of them. Whether its at 12 or 30.

I do like how Gutekunst is using his predraft visits. He is using them on everyone. Not just late round guys like Thompson did. I believe they brought Sweat in. He is clearly a guy who could be their first pick.

We are a week and 2 days from the draft. This is one of my favorite times of the year.

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Lock would be a steal at 44 and I would support that pick for sure. Rodgers hasn't been the picture of health lately and I'm not a fan of Kizer.

sonomaca's picture

Not falling to #44. Not falling past #12, because the Pack will trade #12 to a team which wants him (or Jones).

Notice they didn’t have Haskins in for a Lambeau visit. No point, since he’s gone in top 6 or 7.

Don Guske's picture

Ted T was lousy more than the last couple of years. He had two good picks [Rogers and Matthews] the rest any body could have got by throwing darts against the board.

PeteK's picture

Hahahahaha, Wait I think your serious

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

Pete,
Why not...I agree with Don!

PeteK's picture

Bak-4th, Daniels-4th, Martinez-4th, Aaron Jones-5th, Nelson-2n, Adams-2nd, Jennings-2nd....on and on ... Here's a tissue and tell Guske to stop playing with sharp instruments.

NitschkeFan's picture

With regards to OT, you mention Dillard and Williams and there was a report on APC that

"The Packers have had several top options in for workouts in addition to Dillard, with Greg Little, Kaleb McGary, and Tytus Howard all visiting the team in recent weeks."

Sounds like a lot of due diligence on the OT position. That's a total of 5 different prospects that would all fall probably anywhere in the first 3-4 rounds.

stockholder's picture

The packers are being very smart with the Ots. If they take a TE early. The next best player @30 would be OT. Not Safety. They may want to trade up to get what fits Lefleurs new scheme.

CheesyTex's picture

Everyone seems to discount Billy Turner at RT.

IMO Gute views him as RT in zone blocking scheme -- he certainly paid him as a starter.

If indeed that is Gute's take, no need to take an OT on Day 1 or 2.

stockholder's picture

True ,But why bring in all the Ots. This is more then moving Turner to Rt. (The guys he's got coming in are late first early second.)

dobber's picture

Then they still need to cover the G spot(s).

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

Lol

blondy45's picture

Totally agree Tex. We need Stud Defensive & Safety help, not OL help with our premium picks! No premium QB this year either. Just think how Rodgers would shun a new "replacement " QB. We saw how he did not help his new WR's last year. In a year or two, yes we need to groom & invest in our QB to replace Rodgers. Just my opinion, but there is more to this Drew Lock thing than a smoke screen. There is now a fire under Rodger's behind. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Good Job Gute!

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Jonah Williams, Taylor, Ford, and Risner all would be the day one starter at RG. Dillard might only be able to play LT, and I am not sold on Risner or Linstrom as OT candidates. Nor do I think Turner is more than a serviceable RT, but maybe in a zone scheme - anyway, we might find out if we don't pick up an offensive lineman pretty high, at least by round three.

stockholder's picture

I believe they are looking at him @12. All the good defensive players could be off their board. Rodgers has had some major scares, and took an Ambulance to the hospital. Lock has the arm, but is immature. The past may not be the past. And you surly can't forget the past with major injuries. They paid Rodgers based on the best QB in the league. A-Rod was drafted to learn and take over. The packers would be smart to do the same if Lock can be the next in line.

dobber's picture

"And you surly can't forget the past with major injuries."

I'm calling this a clever play on words and not a typo... ;)

"The packers would be smart to do the same if Lock can be the next in line."

We talk about Rodgers' contract and the albatross that it could be for this team, and due to the cap implications a high-end rookie QB wouldn't see the field before his own contract ran out. 2022 is the magic year: that's when the cap hit to trade or release #12 becomes manageable. That would leave one contract year and a fifth-year option on a QB drafted this year. We also can't forget that there's "CBA-geddon" on the horizon and we have no idea how that will impact caps and contracts in the near future.

We forget that the Tedford-school product ARod came out of college with serious questions about his mechanics and that he might need to be re-made...which happened to some degree. Could be Lock's accuracy issues are correctable. A rookie like Lock would come in with three guys with QB coaching experience on the staff to help make him over. Am I advocating for a QB pick at #12? Hell no. I don't think this is the year: the top prospects are low-end compared to recent years, and the timing of the contracts isn't great. Who's to say that makeover thing can't be done to Kizer or <ulp> Boyle?

stockholder's picture

Kizer and Boyle are done. Especially Kizer. Trade Bait. Dorsey wouldn't have traded him. A-Rod is a China Doll. I'm sure the packers have protection language, in A-Rods contract. Lock would be a great move.

dobber's picture

I think people are too hard on ARod with regard to his durability. He's played through a lot of injuries that others would not play with, and been productive. I might argue that he's been a BETTER QB with his pulled calf and hammy injuries that forced him to play out of the pocket. When he's 'nicked up' he doesn't sit. His major injuries (collarbones and alleged broken leg) aren't chronic soft-tissue injuries...they're legit contact injuries which are utterly unpredictable. We're all china dolls when 300-pound DTs fall on our leg or when you get driven into the turf by 255-pound OLBs.

Old School's picture

Yeah, but there have been too many. 11 seasons as a starter, he’s missed big chunks of two of them AND has a concussion history.

Out of our next 48 regular season games, how many do you think he will finish? 48? 40? 35?

I just think it’s really shortsighted to assume we don’t need a #2 we can win with.

dobber's picture

"Out of our next 48 regular season games, how many do you think he will finish? 48? 40? 35?"

Depends. What does the new offensive scheme ultimately look like, and who is blocking for him?

Old School's picture

He’ll have many different blockers over the next 48 games. And whatever scheme we run will probably involve passing. He’s going to get hit, and he’s going to get sacked.

dobber's picture

We agree on that much! :)

jeremyjjbrown's picture

I'm an overall fan of BG but he got hosed on the Kizer deal.

jannes bjornson's picture

He did it for McCarthy. He knew DaMarious is basically a FS. Dix should have been moved instead.

jannes bjornson's picture

Lock is slotted to Denver @ #10. If Elway goes defense, then Lock's in play for Cincy. If he falls to #12 there could be trade talk. I went Miami moving ahead of Denver in the mock 1.0 trade for that reason.

jannes bjornson's picture

Your CBA thought makes sense for # two QB selection this year or next.
If Lock was there at #12 when Gutekunst holds the card it will be a tough call, but trade offers should develop for him? Second round grade on most boards.

RCPackerFan's picture

If they are looking at a QB at 12, why would they pay Rodgers the amount they paid him?
For a team that is trying to get to the Super Bowl, and you have the 12th pick you don't spend it on a QB.

30 or 44 seem more likely (I still give it about a 1% chance they do it).

My opinion is they are doing they due diligence incase he were to fall in the draft.

Old School's picture

Rams and Titans both moved to strengthen the position despite having established starters. It is the most important position.

Packers2019's picture

Stock,

I am not disagreeing but I think we can wait until next year for a first round QB. The talent in 2020 is much better at QB than this year.

JMO.

Bert's picture

True but the best QBs will be off the board by the time the Packers pick at #32.

dobber's picture

Cookie for Bert!

Packers2019's picture

But we can trade up.

albert999's picture

Jones is a more accurate QB

stockholder's picture

Jones is @30. Lock isn't. Lock does have a Live arm. (Smoke or not @12.) I'm not against A-rod. But that contract extension should not have been done. While you all have valid points. I remember Starr and his injuries. And what happened after the Starr years. We remember the issues with Favre's thumb, and retirement. Lock would free up Kiser. He may want out of GB. Kiser is tradable now that MM left. Timing is everything. We are in a Re-build. People want the OL rebuilt. The smart move is be prepared. The mistakes behind The Starr years are history. Picking a new replacement is not wasting A-rods years. It's being prepared for the unthinkable.

albert999's picture

I agree but we won’t get anything for Kizer

dobber's picture

I bet you thought they wouldn't get anything for Hundley, either?

Demon's picture

Count me as one who was shocked they got a pick for Hundley.

Old School's picture

Delete

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

GB can trade AR after the 2019 season. The cap savings would be a negative $1.9M. That could be absorbed. I don't see the point, mind, but it could be done.

dobber's picture

Possibly just smoke-screening to force other QB-needy teams to at least think about trading up if they want Lock. It likely won't work, but if it did would push more talent down the board to #12.

Lock's ceiling is Jay Cutler, but with a better 'tude. He's got a long way to go to get there.

Handsback's picture

Absolutely dobber! If Gutsy can get just one team to worry about Lock....he's done his job. They trade up to get him leaving another good player for the Packers.

dobber's picture

Well, that didn't take long...

espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/26535311/seahawks-make-wilson-top-paid-nfl

jeremyjjbrown's picture

Now they get to see the other side of the fence. Try to rebuild with a huge expense at QB.

Guam's picture

I believe this I a lot more about gamesmanship and baiting teams into a trade down situation for the Packers than it is serious interest in a QB at #12. As Dobber pointed out, AR's contract precludes a replacement anytime soon.

Not sure how serious the Packers are about trading down, but if all the guys they want at #12 are gone or someone makes a great offer for #12, it is good to understand what your plan B looks like.

4thand1's picture

Gute putting on his poker face. Some of you have touched on this too. When a QB is taken it'll start a run on them. Best result would be 3 QB's taken before the 12th pick.

dobber's picture

I do think someone will reach for Lock if only because the dropoff from him to Jones (who seems to be the presumptive 4th QB in this draft class) is pretty big.

RCPackerFan's picture

Packers reportedly also tried bringing in Jones, but schedule didn't work out for him.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

Seriously what the h.... does that mean?

I have heard that too and sounds like BS. There has been weeks and weeks to bring Jones in.

albert999's picture

Jones is more accurate

dobber's picture

Both are athletic and both need significant coaching (both seem to lack discipline and struggle feeling pressure at times), but Lock has the bigger arm. You can try to coach out mechanical flaws and settle down mental processes that lead to issues in accuracy/TOs, but arm talent seems to win in the draft process.

albert999's picture

much rather have accuracy then arm any day and Jones arm isn’t bad at all

Old School's picture

What makes you say Jones is more accurate than Lock?

albert999's picture

look at the tape

albert999's picture

enough said

Old School's picture

The tape says Lock completes a higher percentage of his passes in a much tougher conference.

albert999's picture

Jones has very good mechanics and accuracy and goes through all his reads faster than Lock goes through two.
MVP of senior bowl
I’d go with Jones but I’d also rather have lock than what we having backing up right now

Packers2019's picture

Who says anyone is worrying?

We have had crap back-up QB's for 6 or 7 years since Flynn. We should draft a QB every year to ensure we have a competent back up. That is what Ron Wolf did.

albert999's picture

Couldn’t agree more

zeroluv's picture

Plus they become good trade bait if you can find one in the 7th round like we did with Flynn.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Old school thinking. When Wolf was drafting a QB every year, the CBA allowed teams to have them go through a QB school. Not anymore.

Holecrap's picture

When I look at the schedule and team needs it solidifies my own appraisal, the pain won't be over yet and it will take another good draft to turn it around. If they went 5-11 This year I wouldn't be shocked.
Lb core is not world class and neither is receiving. Run game avg, nothing to wow anyone. Pass d and o line need playmakers not bodies. I don't see any easy games.
If I'm correct we can get that qb in the first round next year as we pick high.

zeroluv's picture

Rodgers had a few bad breaks but he has been reliable over his career. Lock won’t be drafted....I believe Gutey wants to trade back a few picks to get Devin Bush and collect a potential third rounder.

I could totally see the Skins trading with the Pack to move up to #12 and ahead of Miami to get their QB.

Packers trade first rounder #12 and fourth rounder #118 to the Skins for first rounder #15 and third rounder #76. Based on the scale that values picks that’s the even trade scenario. The Packers would have three 3rd rounders and get their player. Just a thought...

dobber's picture

I like this scenario if there's several players the Packers covet about the same at #12. If there's a clear-cut home-run on the Packers board at #12, then I think they need to either take that player or get a richer haul to move down.

Christian Roussel's picture

I think that if 2 QB's are taken before pick 12, there's gonna be a really good football player available for us.

albert999's picture

I like that
I’ll,take 15 76 all day

Samson's picture

Gute will surprise in this draft. Mainly (IMO) he'll be moving around (both up & down) but ........
He won't be drafting a QB until the 5th round or even later. ---- You heard it here ... 1st.
Thanks. ----- Since '60.

McFly's picture

I’m all for grooming a QB, I’m just not for using a premium draft pick on one... Maybe in a couple years that would be a good idea, but certainly not this year.

Picks #12, #30 & #44 could all conceivably be impact starters that transform this team (see 2017 NO draft and 2018 IND draft). I think it’s go-time right now, not time to lock in your plan for 6yrs from now.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

McFly,
Curious on your thoughts about Boyle? Is there potential or is he dog meat and wont make it till pre-season?

McFly's picture

I think there's actually a very real chance he could beat out Kizer for the backup job. Kizer didn't exactly blow the doors off when he had his chances last season.

That being said, it's a new system with a new coach, so past performance doesn't mean as much. I think it will largely depend on how they fit in the new system and how much work they each put in to learn it.

albert999's picture

and if rodgers gets hurt where’s your 6 yr plan?

albert999's picture

guess what boyzz
there going offense first pick
anyone like to bet?

Old School's picture

Or #12 could be Jamaal Reynolds, #30 could be Sherrod, and #44 could be Jerel Worthy.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

OS,
Seriously...I'm was trying to enjoy this upcoming draft now I'm going to have nightmares and it is all on you. LOL!

Just glad you didnt include John Michels at #75.

McFly's picture

Highly unlikely. Those players aren't in the draft this year, so they are not eligible to be selected with any pick.

Christian Roussel's picture

Totally agree with Cory. Anybody think that Lock would outplay AR for QB1 spot over the next 4 yrs? so what would be the best case scenario. You spend this year's pick 30 (while one of the best QB of all time is playing at age 35), have him stay on the sideline for the next 3 years then trade him for an extra pick...let's say #40 (Jimmy Garopollo) when your QB is playing at age 38? It's important to prepare for the future but why not using this #30 to get an excellent football player and make the best of Aaron Rodgers while he's still playing at a high level?

albert999's picture

offense #12 anyone like to bet?
i didn’t think so

ron7's picture

I would be ok with Jonah Williams. I think he is being undervalued. He is 6'4" with 33 5/8" arms. Yet Dillard is 6'5" with 33 1/2" arms and is considered the best pass blocking tackle in the draft.

But, this is such a strong defensive draft that you have to strongly consider taking defensive players because they will almost certainly present value. A great example is last year. Last year at outside rusher, you had Chubb and then way down was Davenport and then nobody else. Davenport was drafted at 14. In this draft, because of the depth at outside rusher, he might go at the end of the first or even into the second round. (BTW, that is why it was dumb on NO's part, no matter how good Davenport turns out. To give up a first the following year for a position that is weak when that following year it will be strong is just not smart)

So even though I like Williams a lot and I love Hockenson, the Packers should draft the best players available and those will probably be defensive players. There will almost certainly be a defensive player at 12 that we don't think will be there. The same goes for 30.

AgrippaLII's picture

I can't see the need to get a QB in this year's draft. I think LaFleur's offense will be more Quarterback friendly than the one MM tried to run...and with improvements to the offensive line the backups the Packers now have should be up to the task. So why waste a pick on a QB?

Old School's picture

If somebody who could see the future said “Arod gets a broken leg in the 11th week and we have a 7-3 record “.......would you wish we had a QB who could maybe win a few games?

Of course you would. You just don’t think Rodgers is going to get hurt.

McFly's picture

OS - It almost seems like you actually want Rodgers to get hurt... maybe you should just take your negativity and go be a Vikings fan. Or maybe you already are one?

Oh btw, I recently went into the future and checked in on the 2019 Packers’ season while I was there... spoiler alert!: Rodgers starts/plays all 19 games.

Old School's picture

That was stupid. No, I don't want Rodgers or anybody else to get hurt. And if it's negative to point out the obvious......that players can and do get hurt, then I think that's stupid too.

IceBowl's picture

Old School,

Economics sir. Unless ARod retires, he is our QB for at least 4-5 years, minimum 3 years (ugly $$ scenario here). So, a rookie QB,s contract expires at the same time as ARod's. (I know there could be an option year if the rook is drafted Rnd 1- unlikely in my opinion) Drafting a 1st rounder that doesn't play uses big money.

I don't know if there is any GM who drafts based on injury - how can they? But they certainly try for the deepest team they can get. And I agree, that includes finding the best back up QB available that, as you say, can win a few games. They invested in ARod, for better or worse, and he is our man. You can't afford him and Flacco or Fitzpatrick, for example.

There have been a dozen back-up QB 2's and 3's signed during free agency, but the Pack has not played. There must be a reason.

If they grab a QB in Rnd 1, I'll be eating crow. And you can remind me.

Old School's picture

I get the economics argument. I've considered it myself.

For 2019 and 2020, Aaron Rodgers is our guy. Almost certainly 2021 as well. So that's 48 regular season games. And although it's possible that Rodgers will play all 48, and play great, it's equally possible that he won't play all 48, or that at some point in the next three years we might see some diminishment of his skills. Neither of us can predict the future.

A rookie QB taken towards the end of the first round. Let's use Lamar Jackson as an example. He signed a standard rookie contract that pays him a little better than $2 million/year. Kizer, our current backup, earns about $1 million year.

So it would cost us about $1 million a year more to have a legitimate backup at QB who might actually develop into a player.

The Rams recently signed Bortles to backup Goff. The Titans signed Tannehill for about $2 million/year to backup Mariotta. The Patriots, despite paying Tom Brady $27 million this year, spend THREE MILLION$$$$$ on their backup.

So the "economics" argument doesn't really persuade me. We can clearly afford a better backup than Kizer. We can clearly afford a rookie QB in the first round.

McFly's picture

The Packers desperately need another starting caliber safety. Picks #30 and #44 are the range where the top safeties in this class grade out to be a good value. On top of safety, they need to raise the overall talent level of the team with more impact players that can tilt the game in their favor. The aforementioned picks are a prime spot to find a player of that caliber...

So OS, your take is: plan for the future and draft a QB that may not see the field for 3-5yrs, rather than fill needs and upgrade the roster to win now? If so, I think that take is extremely flawed. You are of course entitled to your opinion though, however flawed it may be.

Old School's picture

No, my plan for the future is to draft a QB that will almost certainly see the field over the next couple of seasons. If you think a backup OL is more important than a backup QB, we disagree.

McFly's picture

I hope they don’t take an OL with any of those picks either, I never said that... one of the two 4th-rd picks would be great for that.

You are just automatically assuming whatever QB they take will be a major upgrade to their backup situation... there’s actually a higher likelihood that the rookie QB couldn’t cut it in the NFL than there is Rodgers missing significant time next season. It’s the hardest position to draft, as evidenced by the fact that 1/3 of the league has a below replacement level QB starting games for them.

In 2-3 years I would probably agree with you. This year, not a chance.

McFly's picture

Not to mention, Rodgers wasn’t drafted to be the backup QB that season and he wasn’t the first two years, he was QB3... Teams don’t draft QBs high to be the backup, they draft them to be replacements.

Sounds like what you should be calling for is for them to sign a vet backup, not use a premium pick on a backup QB.

Old School's picture

And yet he threw more passes than anybody except Favre his rookie season. His second season, too.

I'm calling for getting his successor on the roster. That's not gonna be some Day 3 guy. And he can be the backup until then. Two birds, one stone.

IceBowl's picture

Old School,

Sorry, but I disagree. Our need for a starter on the OL is greater than a need for starter at QB.

We need a starter on the OL now, and a back-ups capable of stepping in at all OL positions ( multiple players).

No joke.

IceBowl's picture

Old School,

Your points are well taken, except you say "the "economics" argument doesn't really persuade me." I can't talk about the other teams salary cap and their flexibility, but ours is reported to be about 5 mil. I don't like it but it is the price of our new players. It is a very small margin to fortify the team as needs arise.

We have 2 back-ups now (why?). We may need 4 over the next 3-4 years. I don't know. I hope not too.

Yes, I think we can afford to pay a 1st Rnd QB's salary now, but it's the end of the contract that kills it. Who do you sign ARod or the rook? If not the rook, then it is just folly. If the rook hasn't played/showed enough, it is wasted time and money. (as our last back-up) Same situation (skills) we are in today. Have to know/develop your talent level.

But contractually, signing a 1st Rnd QB doesn't make sense with ARod's contract. Not smart.

Old School's picture

You seriously think the Packers would sign Rodgers to another contract at age 40?

Contractually, there is no reason at all not to draft a QB in the first round.

I don't see how having a competent backup QB is a waste of time or money.

stockholder's picture

Lock @12 is a back up plan. OT won't start. TE is smoke now. If Oliver or Wilkins are there, the pick goes in. @30 Trade coming? Risner or Thompson are still in play @44.

IceBowl's picture

Old School,

There have been many QB's that have played into their 40's with much less talent than ARod..

So, if he is willing I would say YES!

Yes we need a competent backup, at every position. (cap)

Old School's picture

Many? Other than Brady, have any of them won?

McFly's picture

Favre was 40 when he played in his last NFC Championship game.

Old School's picture

Yeah. I remember how he threw that game away at the end. And how was he after that?

McFly's picture

...and Manning won a SB at 39

Old School's picture

Manning played so poorly they played Osweiler and won on the strength of their defense. Then he retired.

McFly's picture

Brees is 40.

Old School's picture

Let's see how Brees does at 40 before we include him. Of course, he doesn't have ARod's injury history, and he stays in the pocket, so those are points in his favor.

sam1's picture

It all comes to simply draft BPA and for need when all said and done no matter who projects where!

Old School's picture

So....the only one you named who played at 40 was Favre. Not a very good example of "many".

McFly's picture

They’re great examples because Rodgers should have 4-5 yrs left... All of those QBs plus Brady are recent examples of a player playing to the age Rodgers will be in that amount of time from now. Yes Favre made a bad throw at the end of regulation in that game, but you asked if anyone at that age played well, and he was in the running for MVP that season.

Bottom line, Gute obviously has a 4yr plan - look at all the free agent contracts, they’re all for 4yrs... They will maximize this time by adding pieces around Rodgers, not drafting someone to replace him, specifically this draft.

Sorry, but there’s absolutely no chance they draft a QB with any of their first three picks.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook

 
 
 

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"The Bears still suck!"