We Must Protect the Franchise

Drafting protection for Jordan Love will be a priority in 2024

What usually comes next after a team realizes they have their franchise quarterback? Well, if you're a smart owner or general manager, it's protection. I think the Indianapolis Colts found out the hard way with Andrew Luck that it doesn't matter how good your quarterback is if they can't stay upright, let alone stay on the field. When Aaron Rodgers took over as the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, he had the benefit of a good offensive line with future Packers Hall of Famers, Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher book-ending at each tackle position. However, when Rodgers took over, both Clifton and Tauscher were entering their 9th season. 8 years of starting nearly every game since their rookie year had taken its toll and both tackles were beginning to battle injuries keeping them from playing every game. The Packers had to think about replacing them soon. 

General Manager Ted Thompson wasted no time ensuring his new franchise quarterback stayed protected as he drafted an offensive tackle in the first round of back-to-back drafts with Bryan Bulaga and Derek Sherrod.  Bulaga immediately took over for Mark Tauscher in his rookie season in 2010 helping the Packers win a Super Bowl. He never turned back likely earning his spot in the Packers' Hall of Fame himself eventually. Sherrod on the other hand unfortunately had an injury-marred career and was never quite the big left tackle the Packers hoped he would be. But that was fine because as if sent by the long-haired beer-chugging Gods themselves, the Packers drafted David Bakhtiari in the fourth round of the 2013 draft. When healthy, Bakhtiari would be the protector of Aaron Rodgers' blindside for the next 9 years. But with Bakhtiari now a free agent and Bryan Bulaga retired, who are the long-time protectors of Jordan Love going to be?

The Packers already have Zach Tom and Rasheed Walker at the Tackle positions. At 24 and 25 years old, they could be Love's protectors for several years to come, but talks have started to drift in other directions. Recently it's been said that the Packers believe Zach Tom could be a Hall of Fame caliber Center. That's some interesting talk for a team that has Tom lining up at the Tackle position. Could it be a smokescreen to make other teams believe the Packers are kicking Tom to the inside and drafting a Tackle early? Sure. But Brian Gutekunst has been talking about Center being Zach Tom's best position since the day he was drafted. Yes, yes, this could still be an elaborate smokescreen, I wouldn't put that passed Gute, tis the season, but I think it could also hold some true merit. Walker showed promise this season at left tackle but he also had some struggles. So, it begs the question, if you have the chance do you take a true bona fide blue-chip prospect at the position? Or keep rolling with the project? I'd go with the blue-chip prospect in hopes of solidifying my QB's protection. So, in that case, I could truly see the Packers drafting a Tackle in the first three rounds. 

Drafting the next protector

I started this draft looking at mainly defensive backs and linebackers as the most likely fit in the first round for the Packers. But the more I think about it, an offensive lineman would make a lot of sense. This draft boasts one of the best crops of offensive linemen in a while. From my perspective, we could see 8-10 offensive linemen taken in the first round of the draft. That's 30% of the first round going to the big fellas up front that are never labeled the "sexy" pick. But the class is so deep and talented, that it will be hard for many teams to pass it up. Of course, overall talent can be argued between the other positions, but when you have such a deep class, it could mean that 4th or 5th best player at the position this year, could've been number 1 last year, or next year. That 4th best Tackle dropping to the late 20s could've been a top-15 pick in another year's class. With that in mind, it could be hard for the Packers to pass up an offensive lineman at #25. But even if they do, they could still have some great options in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Let's take a look.

Amarius Mims: Mims has gained a lot of traction lately amongst Packers fans. The Packers had him in for a visit and most recently, Peter Schrager of the NFL network mocked Mims to the Packers at 25. Now I know what many are going to say, I've read it before. "But Greg, he's only started 8 games!" Well, by God, this beast is 6'8 340 pounds and many scouts say he has tremendous upside. You don't draft from college tape, you draft for the future, and if you want an offensive lineman who's going to enforce his will at the left tackle position, this is the guy you want. I'm not going to say Mims is going to be a bully and just manhandle all opposition, but, he does have that capability, and the Packers may be able to bring it out of him. The Packers brought him in for a pre-draft visit as well, so there's a chance the feeling is mutual and we could see Mims at 25.

Tyler Guyton: Guyton could be a guy we have to move up a little to get. Some are showing him going 5-6 picks above the Packers at 25 but if they like him enough, they could use some of that extra draft capital to go get him. The Packers did have Guyton in for an interview so perhaps there's some interest, or maybe a smokescreen as said before but, if the Packers choose to go up and get him it could only cost a late 3rd or 4th round pick to swap up to 20. Guyton fits the athletic profile and is also a big behemoth at 6'8 322 lbs. Not quite as big as Mims, but Guyton may have that extra experience worth trading up for. He has good footwork in the running and the passing game but he will need to work on his skills in open space a bit as when out on an island he can miss targets.

Blake Fisher: Fisher could be an interesting day 2 pick. At 6'6 310 lbs, Fisher is a good lead blocker in the run game and also has great footwork to combat quick edge rushers. He also shows great balance in recovery if caught out of position a bit keeping himself in front of defenders and away from the QB. The only problem with Fisher though, is that he can be late out of stance. While he is great at recovering, he will need to work on his reaction time to ensure that doesn't become a liability in the NFL. I see Blake Fisher being a late-2nd-round prospect who may have a shot at starting early in the right situation. 

Kiran Amegadjie: Another possible late-2nd early 3rd-round pick, Kiran Amegadjie could be a project tackle with only a year turn-around. A little shorter at 6'5 323 than the previously mentioned prospects, Amegadjie is a very athletic lineman with a lot of power in the running game but also is very nimble on his feet to challenge in pass-pro. His arms are some of the longest in the draft which will help when he develops his hand and punch timing in the NFL. If the Packers are to draft Amegadjie on day 2, I could see them holding him as a swing tackle giving him the time to develop into a true starter, which honestly, with the right tutelage, could only take a year. Which I believe the Packers staff can bring out quickly.

Other honorable mentions include Graham Barton, who is a versatile lineman who could line up anywhere, and also Cooper Beebe who is a late-day 2 prospect whose power could help shore up the interior line maybe solidifying the Packers sticking with Tom and Walker around the edge if that's the route they go.

This draft is packed with offensive-line talent. I'd like to see the Packers take someone on the edge to hang at left tackle for the next 10 years, but any position at this point could be promising to keep that offensive line strong and protect the Packers' franchise quarterback for years to come 

 

 

 

 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.

__________________________

Greg Meinholz is a lifelong devoted Packer fan. A contributor to CheeseheadTV as well as PackersTalk. Follow him on Twitter @gmeinholz for Packers commentary, random humor, beer endorsements, and occasional Star Wars and Marvel ramblings.

__________________________

5 points
 

Comments (59)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Cheezehead72's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:13 pm

The offense starts up front with the big men. I am starting to like Guyton more. We need a good LT and the other pieces will fall into place.

+ REPLY
1 points
4
3
jannes bjornson's picture

April 17, 2024 at 01:04 pm

He was primarily a RT for TCU/Oklahoma. At least the conversation is focusing on the #one area of concern, protecting Love.

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
Cheezehead72's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:15 pm

I know but if the coaches can teach him LT we have a swing tackle

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
TKWorldWide's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:13 pm

These “not sexy” picks make it possible for all of the other guys on offense to be at their best.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
GregC's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:31 pm

After the first four or five O-linemen are taken, it appears that there are a whole bunch of them who are similar in quality--or at least the drop-off is gradual. Safety looks kind of similar, although the quality is not as good as OL. Once you get past Cooper DeJean (assuming he will be a safety in the NFL) there are about six or eight of them who appear to be pretty similar in quality.

Then there is LB, where the drop-off is steep after the first three or four, and the top LBs are all pretty different from each other. In fact, the dropoff may be steep after #1, regardless of who you think #1 is. So I'm thinking the Packers may need to be aggressive in drafting the LB of their choice, even if it means trading up and/or overdrafting somewhat, while they can let the O-linemen and safeties fall to them.

But you never know, of course. They could be zeroing in on certain O-linemen and safeties who they believe are standouts. If that's the case, they may trade up to get those players.

+ REPLY
0 points
2
2
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:36 pm

I think it's helpful to think about these things within the context of the Love Window of about 4 years.

In two seasons, Tom, Walker, Rhyan will all be FAs (along with Watson and Doubs). Jenkins will be 30 and scheduled to make $25M. So we're looking potentially at a wholesale change of our offensive line right smack dab in the middle of that window.. Right now, we do not have any decent backups or people who are being developed.

That doesn't mean draft some 6th round guys and develop them. It means getting some really solid guys to protect Love for the next four years, and who could start this year if we really needed them.

We could pick up three really good OL in this draft. Maybe something like Morgan-Sua-Van Pran, or Barton-Guyton-Zintner, or Mims, Beebe, Fisher. Many other permutations, almost all of them which would improve our immediate depth AND get some guys in place for when the current starters start leaving.

Today at Consensus

A small trade down, then another small trade down, has us picking at 32 but getting several other Day 2 picks. At 32, I got JPJ. Then at 41, Edgerrin Cooper, at 53 it's Sua.

Then, the extra picks from the trades start kicking in, and I got Bullard at 64 and Colson at 71, and our pick at 88 is Amegadjie. followed by Jaylen Wright at 91. One last pick in the trade downs gives us 95, which I use on Cole Bishop. And since he was still around at 126, I took Rosengarten.

That gives us four pretty good additions to the offensive line, two new LBs, and two Safeties.

+ REPLY
-1 points
5
6
Starrbrite's picture

April 17, 2024 at 01:38 pm

I like it LH—good analysis.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
splitpea1's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:53 pm

I'm hoping Mims is will be snatched up before the Packers can get to him, which is certainly a possibility. Three reasons: 1) I'm kind of tired of us drafting projects in the first round, 2) if we do select an OL with the first pick, I'd rather it be someone who can provide versatility and help on the IOL, which would be advantageous with our current RBs, and 3) safety and CB are our biggest needs (LB too, but not in the first round),and if the right guy and the right value is there in the first round, that's what we should be doing.

+ REPLY
4 points
6
2
jannes bjornson's picture

April 17, 2024 at 01:22 pm

He is way over-rated. On and off the Injury report the past two years. A big guy who fits the Mekhi Becton profile.

+ REPLY
4 points
4
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:40 pm

I have seen 6'8" OTs, but I haven't seen many top OTs that height. Usually, they're big guys without much quickness.. And the Packers prize versatility and agility in their offensive linemen. I'd be surprised if we took Mims at #25.

I agree, too, that we won't get an LB in the first round, although we are short there. I don't see a Safety worth #25 in this draft, but it's a 75% probability that we're going to get a shot at either McKinstry or DeJean at #25.

Corners we dress: 5 Alexander, Stokes, Nixon, Valentine, Ballentine.
Inactive, on 53: 1 more, TBD

On the face of it, that's not too bad. But Alexander and Stokes have just missed so many games that they really only count as one guy combined. IMO, that makes it critical to get another CB who can help us.

I would have a hard time passing up a top corner in the first, and I think we can get some really good offensive linemen later.

+ REPLY
3 points
5
2
Tundraboy's picture

April 17, 2024 at 10:11 pm

So so agree. Just seems this year we don't need to settle for a project. Wouldn't mind any of the other Tackles suggested here, but I hope they use one of the premium picks for a road grading.IOL. That woukd have the most bang for the buck.

But if I had to guess, CB is so thin that I fear they will have to burn yet another 1st rounder again this year.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
T7Steve's picture

April 17, 2024 at 12:54 pm

It looks like it's not too soon to start my O-line rants. Just unnecessary at this time, due to the comments and article above.

Would love it if we could go all in on making this o-line the best in the NFL. Not to ignore the D-line, however.

If you want a championship caliber team, what do you have to have?

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 01:50 pm

A good QB with time to do his job and good players to help move the ball downfield.

I, too, would like us to aspire to best Oline in the league.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 07:12 pm

Yet you continually defend any existing players. To get better involved being willing to upgrade at every reasonable opportunity. This draft is one that is loaded with plausible candidates to improve our OL and particularly RG and C either through replacement or forcing improvement, yet you continually defend with dubious stats and statements. Cant have it both ways. I agree with your comment about trading down, but that too implies the need to improve quality.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
SicSemperTyrannis's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:24 pm

An upright QB. A franchise QB who is not injured for the season, or has his career ended.

O linemen are the only players who do that every down. Every other aspect of the offense depends on them, too. I'm not saying that necessitates all first 3 picks going to the O line, but Gutey has got to get 3 good ones.

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:05 pm

History has shown that if a team wants a good OT - he normally must be taken in the 1st and 2nd rounds. This year I believe that the Packers are prioritizing a pure OT - who's floor is not as a Guard. Such a player could initially begin their career as a swing Tackle - while attempting to develop as a starting Right or Left Tackle. Thus giving the O-line much needed depth and flexibility. If so, the list of potential pure tackles from 25 - 58 would include (for me) - in order of ranking:

1. Tyler Guyton
2. Amarius Mims
3. Kingsley Suamataia
4. Jordan Morgan
5. Kiran Amegadjie
6. Blake Fisher

Now initial analysis might have Guyton and Mims outside of GBs norms relative to height, weight and/college production. However both have elite RAS scores - with Guyton at 9.74 and Mims at 9.64. Plus Guyton was one of the few Tackles who fully tested at the Combine.

+ REPLY
1 points
3
2
MooPack's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:44 pm

Same order I have. Not completely sold on Mims, but talent is there. I'd also add Rosengarten as 7.

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 03:12 pm

Mims is more of an adventure pick for me. I thought that K.S. might be a safer pick at 2. due to his college production. However I opted for Mims as I think he has a higher ceiling. Also he revealed that he's played plenty of LT in practice - which makes him a prime swing Tackle candidate. Also saw an interview with Mims. Seems like a great kid with good character.

No problem with Rosengarten at 7. He checks off most of the boxes for a good OT. However I cannot overlook that his worst game of the season was against Michigan in the National Championship. Was this just an one-off or a foreshadowing to the professional game?

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
golfpacker1's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:57 pm

Guyton has played in 26 games getting 1000 snaps, most of which came last year. #25 or a tradeup is really sketchy for this guy. Not a strong run blocker either. He couldn't beat out Walter Rouse for LT.

Mims has even less PT. He has boom or bust written all over him. He looks better than Guyton but sample size is so small.

I would be happy if the first OT we took was one of Sua, Amagadgie, Morgan or Fisher, in that order, but late 2nd or early 3rd. Maybe Fantanu will fall and solve this dilemma. Or we just move back for more draft picks.

+ REPLY
1 points
4
3
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 03:55 pm

Last year the Packers selected Lukas Van Ness @ 13 - having only played 27 games and approximately 1000 snaps. Which is very similar to Guyton's college record. Plus Guyton showed well at the Senior Bowl - which seems to be one of the Packers favorite scouting events. Also when David Bakhtiari was drafted - it was primarily because of his agility and footwork. Not because he was a strong run blocker. So I don't agree that Guyton would be a sketchy pick at 25.

However I do agree that Mims would be a riskier pick. Conversely, one with the potential of a greater reward. I'm not as concerned with Mims injury history - after taking a longer look at it. Nor with his college production at just 803 snaps. While not a great sample size - it was good enough to see that he was a dominant OT who was outstanding in both pass pro and run blocking - while often against stiff competition. Still only 21 - I see his upside as much greater than his downside.

+ REPLY
1 points
2
1
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 06:36 pm

Tackle is a bit different to edge in terms of learning curve and Van Ness is still a work in progress. He gained snaps and momentum later in the year, but that’s not really a solution this year for a tackle.

Mims doesn’t look ready, nor does Guyton. Both look to have technical issues they have to iron out first. Both have great upside but floors at a non preferred starter level.

What do we want? A T for the future and emergency depth now or a potential starter in September? Is the future the best use of our first pick? Is the upside really that good?

Maybe, but I am not sure another pick in the second or early third won’t help more now. However, this conversation seems to be running for most on the idea that Mims and Guyton are plug and play. I don’t know how widespread that view is among scouts, but it seems to be in the minority of non fan views I’ve read.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 08:35 pm

I don't expect any player drafted in the late first round on to be a plug and play T - whether Guyton, Mims, Suamataia, Morgan etc. For any of them selected by the Packers - I envision their rookie year to be mainly a training and developmental one. With their immediate level of competition to be Jones and Tenuta - rather than Tom and Wallace. Hopefully the rookie will supersede either or both Tenuta and Wallace during training camp - thus starting the regular season as O-line depth. After which they can continue their training as a potential swing tackle - while striving to become a starter during the remainder of the season.

Now should Gutekunst defer his tackle enhancement plan until the 3rd round - some good prospects may still be available i.e., Rosengarten, Fisher, Paul, Puni, Coleman, Foster - to name a few. There is a belief that OTs tend be over drafted in the first round. However the Packers are drafting more from the second round on - which can produce a wider variety of opinions and choices.

Final thought. The Draft is an inexact science and Gutekunst can be unpredictable.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
golfpacker1's picture

April 17, 2024 at 07:10 pm

Kirk Ferentz might be the most stubborn college coach in America. It does not matter to him if the younger players are better than the older players, he will start and play the older guys first. He did that with Van Ness just like he did it with A J Epenesa when he was at Iowa. Both of those guys could have started as freshmen. Guyton couldn't crack TCUs starting lineup his first 2 years there.

I hope whoever we choose turns out to be a stud, whether @ #25 or after a trade back. There are so many top OL who we can take in the 2nd round.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 10:01 pm

The developmental path for Guyton was very different from LVN's. He came to TCU primarily as a D-lineman and basketball player. Then began his transition to an OT - which included playing H-back in 2021. Then LT and RT in 2022 - culminating in 2023 - as Honorable Mention All Big 12 @ RT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 11:41 pm

It is certainly easy to understand why Guyton is still a work in progress. There is no “where was he” question with him, just an unusual transition.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Packman60's picture

April 17, 2024 at 07:47 pm

Oklahoma's QB was a left, so Guyton was in fact protecting his blind side, albeit as the Right Tackle

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Turophile's picture

April 17, 2024 at 02:58 pm

In short, Mims, Latham, Guyton, Alt, Patrick Paul - All too big (in height, in weight or both). Go elsewhere. Same with DT Sweat.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
SicSemperTyrannis's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:29 pm

I'm watching this closely, too. On the bench we have OTs at 6'9", 6'8" and 6'7". I'm not sure why, but it does make me wonder ...

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:11 pm

Yes, but those are late round "take a shot and maybe" guys. That's a lot different from a first round pick.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 06:51 pm

I don’t get the height issue. The advantage of height is wingspan. The issues are whether the player can bend effectively to maintain balance and leverage. If they can, no issue and a potential advantage.

The difference between a 6’5” 315 player and a 6’9” 330 one in terms of foot speed is minimal. The builds are the same. The issue is weight. Weight, bulk is a much bigger limiter of flexibility, mobility and foot speed than height.

There’s no accident in the fact that they want the 6’9 Jones around 330. There’s no doubt Mims, for example, will be losing weight if he’s a Packer, but the idea that a taller T can’t play is not valid. They can, there aren’t many of them about and they need to be flexible and bend well, that’s all.

The same thing was being said when Ts were 6’0 about 6’3” tackles and again later about 6’5” ones. There’s reasons why Ts got taller but not proportionately heavier.

+ REPLY
2 points
3
1
LLCHESTY's picture

April 17, 2024 at 09:05 pm

Wahle has repeatedly talked about how 6'-1" 268 lb Dwight Freeney gave 6'-9" 345 lb Jonathan Ogden fits. Ogden was a pretty good technician but it was probably difficult for him to get that low without bending at the waist and then he was in trouble. Of course they're both in the HOF so 🤷

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Coldworld's picture

April 18, 2024 at 08:04 am

Freeney gave a lot of Ts fits, not just Ogden but he was a good match up against a big T without doubt. However, Freeney was a similar outlier himself. Ogden played in the 340s mostly too. About 10-20 pounds over where the packers want Jones, for example, who is the same height. Ogden still had good feet admittedly.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Turophile's picture

April 19, 2024 at 05:53 am

The longer the player the tougher it is for them to have the speed and agility at the top level.

Equally, extra height gives little advantage once you are 6'4 or 6'5". I'd rather get a guy at 6'4", 320 with 35" arms than someone at 6'8" or even 6'9" with the same or less arm length. The smaller guy has a much easier time getting low in his stance, as well.

Finally, the really tall guys are often (relatively) thin in build. Ogden is something of a unicorn, not many that big play that well.

I'd much rather have a guy like Amegadjie (6'5", 323), with 36+" arms and fast. Bakhtiari was 6'4", 310, 34" arms and fast - and he worked out pretty well.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
Bitternotsour's picture

April 18, 2024 at 09:17 am

Wasn't Breno Giacomini taller than the normal GB profile at tackle. He went on to have a pretty fair career in Seattle (thanks John Schneider!) and if memory serves he was Brazilian (speaking of playing in Brazil).

If they can play the position, they can play.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Coldworld's picture

April 18, 2024 at 09:56 am

He was 6’7” 320 on entering the league. Managed about 9 years and a Super Bowl win as a starter before a recurring back injury effectively ended his career. Seattle poached him from our PS in 2010. One that got away.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
stockholder's picture

April 17, 2024 at 03:47 pm

Jordan Love isn't the franchise.
They would have extended him by now.

+ REPLY
-9 points
1
10
Bitternotsour's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:20 pm

That's just trolling Stock - try harder

+ REPLY
1 points
4
3
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:41 pm

The Packers cannot extend until May 3rd.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:54 pm

You know they can’t till May you mischievous fellow.

+ REPLY
3 points
4
1
Packman60's picture

April 17, 2024 at 08:07 pm

The Packers can't sign him to a new contract until a full calendar year from his signing a previous contract. If you remember they offered him a sweetener that gave him more money if he reached certain thresholds, which achieved a large number of, but offered a lower base to protect them if he didn't pan out instead of just picking up his 5th year option. They will sign the FRANCHISE to a new deal as soon as they are able,likely mid-May.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
LLCHESTY's picture

April 17, 2024 at 11:59 pm

Somebody's a 🤡

+ REPLY
3 points
3
0
Guam's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:15 pm

"We Must Protect The Franchise"

Yes, but I did find it odd that the article only focused on offensive tackle. The shortest route to the QB is straight up the middle as many teams found out against the Packers over the last couple of years. I've watched way too many defensive tackle stunts create a clear shot at the QB over the last two years whether it was a sack or just a pressure.

I certainly wouldn't mind the Packers picking an OT in round one, but I also would like to see some serious competition drafted for center and RG. The Packers need to get better on their IOL.

+ REPLY
7 points
7
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 04:57 pm

Nailed it. Our biggest issue last year was not at T. Indeed our two tackles had the 2nd and 15th highest pass protection win rated in the league. We need depth perhaps, but our major issues are inside on Route One to the QB and between the tackles run, right and center.

+ REPLY
3 points
4
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:12 pm

Jordan Love was the least hurried QB in the NFL last year.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bitternotsour's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:14 pm

Yes but don't you understand that there needs to be an all pro at every position across the front 5. It's our birthright.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:44 pm

Yup. We do have a chance to draft a couple of guys who have Pro Bowl potential, to add to Jenkins and Tom.

In an offensive line these days, the RG position is the least important position on the offense and will virtually always be a weak link. You pick your poison. Where would YOU put your weakest lineman? LT? C? Most teams go with RG.

We could conceivably get Barton, Sua, and Amegadjie to add to our current line. We could conceivably get a guy like Rosengarten on Day 3. The key is getting these talented, versatile guys on the squad now so they can develop before we have to make some decisions about our 2026 FAs. So that we're ensuring that Love is going to have really good protection throughout his prime years.

This is it. We have the extra picks, we can trade down a little and take advantage of a pretty good bunch of Oline prospects while still addressing other areas of the team.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Alberta_Packer's picture

April 17, 2024 at 06:09 pm

An all pro at every position across the front 5 would be great. Their collective salaries would not.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Guam's picture

April 17, 2024 at 06:19 pm

Correct LH, but Runyon was lost to free agency, Rhyan is a possible replacement at RG but is unproven and the backup for Jenkins, Myers and Rhyan is Newman. You can't be okay with that position group. I'm not suggesting the Packers use their first three draft choices on IOL, but reinforcements and competition are necessary.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 17, 2024 at 07:02 pm

I just checked that. That is not true as far as I can see. Nor was he bottom in sacks. While he wasn’t the worst harried by far, those who were played on teams that weren’t contenders. In fact, what Love’s ratio of hurries to sacks show is he’s a fairly elusive QB, which I think he was in a short area. The proportion of hurries and sacks obtained away from the tackles was disproportionately high.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
LLCHESTY's picture

April 18, 2024 at 12:12 am

Yes but do you trust Jones or Tenuta to be the 3rd T? At the least they need a starting level LG so they can moved Jenkins if there's an injury.

+ REPLY
2 points
2
0
Coldworld's picture

April 18, 2024 at 08:22 am

We don’t know what either Jones or Tenuta are, or what the Packers think they are, either way. It’s what the Packers believe that will drive what they do.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
LambeauPlain's picture

April 18, 2024 at 08:53 am

Agree! If Gutey goes OL at #25, select a versatile, likely starter or someone who will challenge immediately in camp to start...and upgrade the starting 5 group. A guy like Barton fits that. He made the lineup as a freshman and never looked back.

Hard pass on Mims at 25. Only cracked the lineup and started one year, as a Jr., then declared for the draft. Even during his one starting season, he was hurt...a lot. And no versatility...only played RT. If he has upside, it has been a slow crawl up that scale. And his floor looks low to me at this point. I don't think another mountain man with "potential" to compete with Caleb the Giant and Tenuta would even pass them on the depth chart. He'd be a project in GB and total boom/bust...and more bust to me.

Size in the OL, as Mike Wahl aptly discussed recently, is on a bell curve too. And he claims once you get 6'7" / 350 lbs+, you start sliding down the down size of the curve.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
stockholder's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:26 pm

So you want a starter to protect the franchise=
1989 #1. Tony Mandrich.
1993. #3 Earl Dotson
1994 #1 Aaron Taylor. G
1996 #1 John Micheals
1997 #1 Ross Verba. OL
2000 #2 Chad Clifton
2000. #7 Mark Tausher.
2004 #7 Scott Wells C
2006 #2. Daryn Colledge OL
2006. #3 Jason Spitz. G
2008 #4 Josh Sitton. OL
2009. #4. TJ Lang. OL
2010. #1 Bryan Bulaga
2011 #1. Derek Sherod.
2013. #4. David Bahkhtiari
2013. #4. JC Tretter. OL
2014 #5. Corey Linsley. C
2016 #2 Jason Spriggs
2019 #2. Elgton Jenkins. C
2020. #6 Jon Runyan jr. OL
2021. #2. Josh Myers. C
2022 #3. Sean Rhyan. OL
2022. #7. Rasheed walker OL

As you can see- The packers have done better
if they didn't take a OL with the first pick.
Also keep in mind only Bulaga worked out at RT.
And I remember the drop all too well in Rd 1.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
Leatherhead's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:52 pm

I would add to this by saying the practice of drafting Olinemen stopped after 1997 because free agency meant they might leave after 4 years, whereas the logic for taking Olinemen was that they'd be around a decade. And in 2007, Justin Harrell was a DL.

Starting with Clifton, a high 2nd round choice in 2000, virtually every one of those players taken was 4th round orearlier, with a couple of notable exceptions. We haven't taken an OL in the first round since Sherrod in 2011.

Point is, there are many, many good OL in rounds 2-3-4.

+ REPLY
2 points
4
2
Coldworld's picture

April 18, 2024 at 10:13 am

Again, not accurate “facts” to support a contention.

Free Agency was introduced for the 1993 season as a result of an antitrust court case settlement in White v. NFL. The consequences were incorporated into the 1993 CBA and triggering the salary cap too. Some fellow named Reggie White was lead plaintiff.

Any veteran with at least 4 years of experience (in practice, originally 5 was cited) would automatically become an unrestricted free agent absent a new or extended contract being agreed by both team and player.

+ REPLY
0 points
1
1
stockholder's picture

April 18, 2024 at 10:50 am

Nobody is talking Free Agency.
It was about drafting.
These guys "started" at some point !
HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CAREERS.

+ REPLY
-1 points
1
2
Coldworld's picture

April 18, 2024 at 01:16 pm

Reading comprehension is not your thing, evidently.

When he wrote “the practice of drafting Olinemen stopped after 1997 because free agency meant they might leave after 4 years” that was a specific statement that a change in free agency was the causal factor.

+ REPLY
-1 points
0
1
jannes bjornson's picture

April 18, 2024 at 01:20 pm

Plug and Play guys that helped get them over the top in '96 and 2010 from the One pick were Aaron Taylor and Bulaga. Great luck with Bhak, declaring for the draft early. Had he stayed his senior year, he goes round one. You can hit on your guys in rd four, but you have to wait a year, or three to have them playing the position at a high level. Will Rhyan show up in Year Three? Myers has plateaued. Newman ?? I prefer blue chips holding down the LT for a couple of Contracts.

+ REPLY
1 points
1
0
HarryHodag's picture

April 17, 2024 at 05:51 pm

I'm a bit surprised by all the emphasis on the Packers drafting tackles early on. Tom and Walker were good enough to propel the team to the second round of the playoffs yet the draftniks all want the Packers to use one or more of five early round picks on a tackle. There are so many good tackles that if you wanted one you could still get a good one in round three. They already have Caleb Jones who has apprenticed in the system.

The real need is inside. Runyan is gone, Myers is on the last year of his contract. Jenkins has had some injury issues recently. Rhyan has been inconsistent. Newman? Another website had the Packers taking Jackson Powers-Johnson then moving Myers to guard. That would make more sense than drafting a tackle in round one or two.
Priorities:
Linebacker
Safety
Center/Guard
Defensive tackle
Offensive tackle
Corner

+ REPLY
6 points
7
1

Log in to comment 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.