Packer 2021 Draft Discussion- Eric Stokes, CB, Georgia; Round 2 Josh Myers, C, Ohio State; 3: Amari Rodgers, WR, Clemson

[homer]

is this good

[HiAndTight]

is this good

 

 

Pft...2nd. I'm only impressed with #1.

[HiAndTight]

Not to mention, of the few 'faults' I have with Gutey, they do not lie with his ability to evaluate talent. He's been pretty damn good thus far. He's made this team bigger, more athletic, faster.

 

Bingo...its the biggest differentiator in his drafts compared to TT's - athleticism, notably speed, seems to be a bigger priority across the board with picks away from the lines.

 

 

Particularly TT's later drafts.

 

I have wondered a bit if the Packers will end up missing out on a few guys they might otherwise overlook like Adams for instance or Jones...as neither scored very high on the RAS, but that's really nit-picking.

 

 

I really do love Gute as a GM when it comes to team building. I can't help but wonder what he'd have done with a young Rodgers. I guess we might find out if Love hits.

[MadThinker88]

For true disappointment, my guesses are Eichenberg or Dickerson.

 

Eichenberg screams Packer o-linemen that the fans hate on draft day that becomes an All-Pro. Fits the mold well as a player.

 

That is very possible. Just a couple of notes regarding Liam Eichenberg:

 

- Cleveland area product. I would not be surprised if he physically shows up at the draft site on Friday evening awaiting his selection.

- His younger brother is currently a LB at Ohio State

- Went to same local high school as former packer LB Jake Ryan. Other notable names from the program in the recent past: DT Chris Hovan, DE DreMont Jones, QB Brian Hoyer, recently hired coordinators Dave Ragone (OC for ATL) & Jon Gannon (DC for Philly).

- Was offered a scholarship by Urban Meyer/ Ohio State before entering his sophomore year of high school (Liam hadn't played varisty level ball yet)

- both CLE & Baltimore (among others) have O-line needs & picks ahead of packers in 2nd round; I wouldn't be surprised if Eichenberg is drafted before Packers pick again (if staying at #62)

[HiAndTight]

For true disappointment, my guesses are Eichenberg or Dickerson.

 

Eichenberg screams Packer o-linemen that the fans hate on draft day that becomes an All-Pro. Fits the mold well as a player.

 

That is very possible. Just a couple of notes regarding Liam Eichenberg:

 

- Cleveland area product. I would not be surprised if he physically shows up at the draft site on Friday evening awaiting his selection.

- His younger brother is currently a LB at Ohio State

- Went to same local high school as former packer LB Jake Ryan. Other notable names from the program in the recent past: DT Chris Hovan, DE DreMont Jones, QB Brian Hoyer, recently hired coordinators Dave Ragone (OC for ATL) & Jon Gannon (DC for Philly).

- Was offered a scholarship by Urban Meyer/ Ohio State before entering his sophomore year of high school (Liam hadn't played varisty level ball yet)

- both CLE & Baltimore (among others) have O-line needs & picks ahead of packers in 2nd round; I wouldn't be surprised if Eichenberg is drafted before Packers pick again (if staying at #62)

 

 

There is a lot of talent left at OT. Guys like Walter Little, Spencer Brown have a ton of upside, Mayfield and Jenkins are both pretty proven tackles(as well as Eichenberg obviously).

 

Just 3 of PFF top 10 OT's have been taken. And maybe the Packers think Nijman has developed. That's a guy they've been developing the last 3 years and is extremely athletic for a Tackle.

[RollieTime]

Stokes seems like a very solid pick. Pairing him with Alexander could make for an elite secondary if they remain healthy.

 

Get a LB and WR tomorrow and I’ll be pleased.

[brewcrewdue80]

I like the pick. Watched some film highlights, including a blurb from Bulldogs fan site that mentioned he was the lowest graded recruit (3Star) of Georgia's class and that he was a RB first 3years in HS. That gives me some hope with his speed that maybe he can field kicks. Essentially he's a little raw to the position and took a big enough step in 2020 to be a 1st rd GB selection. Keep maturing and improving, pairing up with Alexander and Savage theres a lot of Ints coming. Get a DE to rush the passer!

[nodakfan17]

I was getting sleepy once the draft got into the 20s, but here are my initial thoughts on the pick:

 

- CB obviously addresses a big need

- I read Stokes’ name in several mocks (not a huge reach)

- 2 years covering SEC WRs is a good sample

- Glad they didn’t trade up (still got a good player)

- Glad Rodgers is still a Packer (for now)

 

I’m usually the last person to advocate trading up, but I’d advocate trading a 4th if they can target a potential starting RT in Round 2. Apparently, it’s a good draft for tackles.

[patrickgpe]

there are some good OL on the board and if they can move up to the mid 2nd, the can get one. Get a WR in the 3rd and its a good 1st 2 days

[PeaveyFury]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

[bjkrautk]

Gradually warming to the pick. Most of the sites I looked at put a 2nd round grade on Stokes (CBS had him listed as their #63 prospect...behind the other CB from Georgia, Tyson Campbell), which left me with the instant impression they could have traded back and still got their guy. That said, I know the Packers put a premium on athleticism, Stokes ran well at his pro day, and I did see his name come up as a late first-rounder (probably because of the 40-time).

 

Boundary corner was a long-term need (you can never have too many good CBs), and he doesn't appear to have any significant injury history (Newsome worried me on that front the more I read about him).

 

I like the idea of moving up in the 2nd round...until I look at the value chart. Those extra 5th-7th rounders aren't that much ammunition; I'd rather make a pair of picks on Day 2 than just the one.

[patrickgpe]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I read on bleacher report that the Packers got an F for not drafting one of the 5 top WR's left on the board. Obviously the packers feel they can get one today, if thats the route the wanted to take. You are correct, that there are a decent amount of OL left too. Besides Samuel, I don't see that many top CB's left.

[Fear The Chorizo]

I keep seeing that they should have traded back and probably still got their guy...I can't recall who posted it yesterday but I think it really bears some consideration with the current CBA - if one of their guys with a late 1st/early 2nd round grade was Stokes and he fell to them at #29 at a pick that carries the ability for them to exercise a 5th year option at a position that typically requires a large salary for premium players, I think drafting the same CB in late round 1 carries much more value than picking him early in round 2 and having 1 fewer season on his rookie deal.

 

There was a run the second half of round 1 on CBs - that was a position of need and they obviously were high on Stokes as evidenced by it taking roughly 5 seconds for the Packers to turn in their pick. I'm good with drafting for both need and value in that spot!

[xisxisxis]

Gradually warming to the pick. Most of the sites I looked at put a 2nd round grade on Stokes (CBS had him listed as their #63 prospect...behind the other CB from Georgia, Tyson Campbell), which left me with the instant impression they could have traded back and still got their guy. That said, I know the Packers put a premium on athleticism, Stokes ran well at his pro day, and I did see his name come up as a late first-rounder (probably because of the 40-time).

 

Boundary corner was a long-term need (you can never have too many good CBs), and he doesn't appear to have any significant injury history (Newsome worried me on that front the more I read about him).

 

I like the idea of moving up in the 2nd round...until I look at the value chart. Those extra 5th-7th rounders aren't that much ammunition; I'd rather make a pair of picks on Day 2 than just the one.

Campbell was a 5-star coming out of HS and Stokes was a 3-star. Stokes proceeded to improve to the point he supplanted Campbell on the depth chart. Based on multiple reports from Bulldog fans/sites Stokes just keeps getting better while Campbell doesn't. I have to believe the only reason so many sites have Campbell listed above Stokes is they look at the 5-star pedigree and nothing farther which tells you EXACTLY how knowledgeable most of the "experts" are when evaluating/ranking the talent.

 

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I agree and was going to post a similar thought, but you beat me to it. See, we can agree on some things.

[HiAndTight]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I read on bleacher report that the Packers got an F for not drafting one of the 5 top WR's left on the board. Obviously the packers feel they can get one today, if thats the route the wanted to take. You are correct, that there are a decent amount of OL left too. Besides Samuel, I don't see that many top CB's left.

 

 

Also...Samuel is a nice player, but I think a lot of the buzz around him was from his Dad being a stud and him coming from FSU. I'm a FSU fan, so I watch their games when I can. He didn't stand out like guys in the past there did.

 

So I think it's probably accurate, the Packers thought there was a massive drop-off at CB. At OT, there are guys that will drop. I keep mentioning Walter Little and Spencer Brown. Two massive men who are just awesome athletes and should be available in the 2nd.

 

I'll be happy if they go OT and then DE today depending on what WR'ers are available.

[HiAndTight]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I read on bleacher report that the Packers got an F for not drafting one of the 5 top WR's left on the board. Obviously the packers feel they can get one today, if thats the route the wanted to take. You are correct, that there are a decent amount of OL left too. Besides Samuel, I don't see that many top CB's left.

 

 

It's just not even based on reality any longer. It's a talking point and that's it. There was just an article about whoever the Packers do end up picking at WR'er, the expectations for him will be huge, just because it's been SUCH an overblown issue now for the last several years.

 

Really it became one when Jordy had the ACL and that was when the group started to get a bit thin.

 

This is an offense that can do more with less at WR'er...and a defense that absolutely requires exceptional athletic ability at CB to be able to play as much man as they do. So it's just common sense to prioritize CB over WR'er even if there was a player there who they thought of as highly as they did Stokes. WR'er is at best the 4th biggest need coming into this draft.

[xisxisxis]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I read on bleacher report that the Packers got an F for not drafting one of the 5 top WR's left on the board. Obviously the packers feel they can get one today, if thats the route the wanted to take. You are correct, that there are a decent amount of OL left too. Besides Samuel, I don't see that many top CB's left.

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

[pacopete4]

Not going to pretend one way or another on this pick but he fits a need on the defensive side of the ball and was rated well on that RAS system that Gute seems to really buy into. Hope he can be a 1B type cover corner with Alexander. That would be a lot of fun.

[PeaveyFury]

With a night to reflect, I really think the Packers saw a huge potential drop off in talent level at CB between 29 and their 2nd rounder, and coupled with the significant amount of OL talent that will still be there in the 2nd, they went with Stokes to ensure they got a CB that was high on their list.

 

I do wonder if a guy like Newsome was still there along with Stokes, if they might have traded back into the early 2nd instead.

I agree and was going to post a similar thought, but you beat me to it. See, we can agree on some things.

 

 

I think many of us are in agreement on this today, especially with time to really look at what's left on the board. I think the Packers likely see what we see- that the drop off between a late 1st OT guy like Jenkins and a guy who plausibly will be there for them in the 2nd like Cosmi, Brown, or Eichenberg was far less than the drop off between Stokes and whoever was behind him on their CB board. We'll never know whether they had Stokes lumped in with Newsome and Farley in their 2nd tier of corners, or if he was the best of the rest, but I think they felt he had good value vs. what was left for them at a position of need.

 

Regarding trading back, in looking at info on Stokes last night I saw him linked to Buffalo in numerous places. Again, we'll never know for sure, but I'm fairly confident that the Packers felt that it was possible that Buffalo would have taken him at #30 if they hadn't taken him at #29.

[PeaveyFury]

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

 

His Packer draft grade of the pick this morning is absolutely hilarious, in so much as it's as convoluted as it can possibly get.

[xisxisxis]

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

 

His Packer draft grade of the pick this morning is absolutely hilarious, in so much as it's as convoluted as it can possibly get.

Well that was a good laugh. I won't repeat the whole thing, but the last part was classic:

 

Furthermore, if Rodgers is traded to the Broncos, as rumored, Patrick Surtain could've been included in the deal. That's obviously speculative, but it's still something that should be considered.

 

Yeah, the Packers should be drafting based on internet rumors... Feed the trolls and get an A grade, oh brother.

[PeaveyFury]

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

 

His Packer draft grade of the pick this morning is absolutely hilarious, in so much as it's as convoluted as it can possibly get.

Well that was a good laugh. I won't repeat the whole thing, but the last part was classic:

 

Furthermore, if Rodgers is traded to the Broncos, as rumored, Patrick Surtain could've been included in the deal. That's obviously speculative, but it's still something that should be considered.

 

Yeah, the Packers should be drafting based on internet rumors... Feed the trolls and get an A grade, oh brother.

 

Right? Applying a 'grade' based on what they COULD HAVE RECEIVED as part of a hypothetical/probably not based in reality trade to the Broncos is beyond absurd.

[PeaveyFury]

Here's my bold, almost-certain-to-be-wrong prediction of the evening: I've had an odd feeling this morning that Love gets traded for a 2nd.

 

Part of me thinks the Rodgers stuff is a massive smoke-screen, with basically both sides putting it out there yesterday to soften the blow of trading Love in the media's/fans' eyes. Hard for me to look at what Denver and Carolina did last night and not wonder if they're in the market for the QB that they didn't take yesterday. Denver especially... maybe the GB/Denver rumors have the wrong QB in mind.

 

There's a ton of talent there that fits Green Bay's needs, and zero QBs left with even a 2nd round grade, and I don't know if I even like Trask in the 3rd.

 

Anyway, just a thought for some fun. I'd be very interested in 39 or 40 if the call came.

[patrickgpe]

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

would it be nice to get another one, yes. Is it the most important need on the team, no by far. The have some good WR's that are developing and for the first time in a while a decent TE.

[HiAndTight]

I was hoping the Walter Football guy's head would blow up after the Packers picked Stokes. Guess not, but it would have been nice. The narrative about 1st round WR is really nothing more than click bait for the "media".

 

His Packer draft grade of the pick this morning is absolutely hilarious, in so much as it's as convoluted as it can possibly get.

Well that was a good laugh. I won't repeat the whole thing, but the last part was classic:

 

Furthermore, if Rodgers is traded to the Broncos, as rumored, Patrick Surtain could've been included in the deal. That's obviously speculative, but it's still something that should be considered.

 

Yeah, the Packers should be drafting based on internet rumors... Feed the trolls and get an A grade, oh brother.

 

 

That's just next-level stupid right there. I know enough to know that I have no idea how much work goes into developing a draft board like Gutey...someone who's been a very well respected College Scout since Ron Wolf was in Green Bay, but I'm positive that the Packers aren't making their selections based on who they MIGHT get back in a trade they've already said they wouldn't consider.

 

But other than that, it definitely makes sense to downgrade them for not entertaining the idea that they could acquire Surtain if they just gave up the reigning MVP.

 

Hey...if they were REALLY doing their jobs, they wouldn't have drafted Jordan Love last year because they could have considered that they'd get Drew Lock back THIS year in a trade with Denver...I mean, it's something that should have been considered...