2023 NFL Draft Thread - Round 1 Thursday 7:00 PM

Profound23 · Post #321 » by **Profound23** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 9:43 pm

Won't lie...I'm glad Branch had a bad 40 because I don't want him or any safety in this draft @15.

Ron Swanson · Post #322 » by **Ron Swanson** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 9:46 pm

Ooof. I still don't think a slow 40-time is a big deal, but yeah, unless he just kills it in the other drills, that overall athletic score is pretty brutal.

Profound23 · Post #323 » by **Profound23** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 9:51 pm

Wtf is cbssports talking about in their winners/losers of the combine?

They said Van Ness never started for Iowa? Am I missing something?

Matches Malone · Post #324 » by **Matches Malone** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 10:10 pm

Profound23 wrote:Wtf is cbssports talking about in their winners/losers of the combine?

They said Van Ness never started for Iowa? Am I missing something?

It's accurate. He's never started a game for Iowa.

PintSizedBox10 · Post #325 » by **PintSizedBox10** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 10:19 pm

2023 NFL Scouting Combine: The Packers and Relative Athletic Score

"Since 2018 when Gutekunst took over as GM, he has made 48 draft picks, and 42 of them have registered a RAS score. Of the 42, 30 have scored 8.0 or higher, with 18 in the 9-plus range and 12 scoring between 8.0 and 8.99. Only eight players, however, have scored below 7.0, and six of them have been Day 3 picks. Only Amari Rodgers was a top-100 selection."

We're taking a guy with 9+ RAS in R1.

Profound23 · Post #326 » by **Profound23** » Fri Mar 3, 2023 11:45 pm

Matches Malone wrote:
Profound23 wrote:Wtf is cbssports talking about in their winners/losers of the combine?

They said Van Ness never started for Iowa? Am I missing something?

It's accurate. He's never started a game for Iowa.

Then it's his Wikipedia that is wrong because it says he became a starter for Iowa this year.

sdn40 · Post #327 » by **sdn40** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 3:14 am

I never thought Safety was ever in play at #15 and the testing makes that a moot opinion. Bad Safety class.
TE at #15 has a terrible ROI.
ER still makes the most sense to me if you factor in need. A very deep class so Gute could even trade down 5 spots or so if a team was desperate to move up.

crkone · Post #328 » by **crkone** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 3:21 am

Yeah woof...

Read on Twitter

RiotPunch · Post #329 » by **RiotPunch** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 7:46 am

Thought this was satire.

Definitely not a Wisconsin guy, I guess. :lol:

Read on Twitter

midranger · Post #330 » by **midranger** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 9:43 am

Is milk a huge part of NFL culture?

TroyD92 · Post #331 » by **TroyD92** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 9:55 am

PintSizedBox10 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Not a Gute guy.

Indeed gute is not a fan of good football players

TroyD92 · Post #332 » by **TroyD92** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 9:55 am

midranger wrote:Is milk a huge part of NFL culture?

Milk and steroids are the staple of the NFL

Post #333 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 3:18 pm

Young measured the same height as Kyler and 3 pounds lighter.

Finn · Post #334 » by **Finn** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 4:13 pm

Matches Malone wrote:Christian Gonzalez looks smooth as hell in these drills

Anyone able to watch more than 10 consecutive minutes of the Combine has my admiration. :lol:

Just can't do it.

Matches Malone · Post #335 » by **Matches Malone** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 4:29 pm

Packers meetings so far today...

Peter Skoronski
Paris Johnson Jr.
Cody Mauch
Evan Hull (intriguing late round RB)

jakecronus8 · Post #336 » by **jakecronus8** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 6:25 pm

Van Ness giving me TJ Watt vibes

Matches Malone · Post #337 » by **Matches Malone** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 6:30 pm

Some of these receivers are moving a lot slower than I anticipated.

PintSizedBox10 · Post #338 » by **PintSizedBox10** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 6:54 pm

Read on Twitter

Future Packer

Treebeard · Post #339 » by **Treebeard** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 7:49 pm

Matches Malone wrote:Some of these receivers are moving a lot slower than I anticipated.

Taken as a whole group, isn't the consensus that this group of WR's is weaker than the last couple of years crops?

Post #340 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Mar 4, 2023 7:53 pm

Treebeard wrote:
Matches Malone wrote:Some of these receivers are moving a lot slower than I anticipated.

Taken as a whole group, isn't the consensus that this group of WR's is weaker than the last couple of years crops?

It's not a good group if you're looking for a #1.