- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,130,698
- Reaction score
- 59
The Green Bay Packers had a productive weekend at the 2026 NFL Draft, adding talent to their roster at various positions of need.
But did they make the right choices?
There has been plenty of debate about the value of the consensus board in the wake of the draft, which is compiled by media analysts. While it is used as a data point by some teams, and is ignored by others, history suggests that regularly veering from it with significant "reaches" is not a wise approach.
So if the Packers simply followed the consensus board each time they were on the clock, how would their draft have looked?
Some rules: Only positions the Packers actually drafted at some point will be considered. The player selected at each Green Bay pick in this exercise must have been drafted by another team before the Packers picked next. Players who fell due to injury or off-field concerns are not included.
Here is Green Bay’s "parallel universe" draft, based on the best player available according to the consensus big board:
Just like a year ago, the Packers made the clearly correct choice with their first pick. Cisse was ranked 45th on the consensus board and was sitting there for them to take at 52. Brian Gutekunst did not pass that opportunity up.
The only cornerback ranked higher than Cisse was Jermod McCoy, who fell to Round 4 due to concerns over a degenerative knee.
Toledo safety Emmanuel McNeil-Warren was expected by many to go in Round 1 but ended up going at pick 58. Green Bay did not take a safety in this draft, and they do not really need one.
C.J. Allen, the linebacker from Georgia, was ranked 38th and was picked one spot after the Packers took Cisse. While an argument could be made for a long-term need at linebacker, it did not compare to the need at corner, and Gutekunst did not end up taking one at all. In addition, Allen opted not to do any pre-draft testing, which is usually an issue for Green Bay.
Cisse was realistically the best pick Gutekunst could have made at 52.
The consensus board agreed with taking a defensive tackle after trading up to 77, but it would have had the Packers taking "Big Citrus" who was ranked 68th on the consensus board, over their actual pick of Chris McClellan from Missouri, who sat at 124.
This is a good example of the nuance that needs to be added to the argument around following the consensus board.
Gutekunst said after selecting McClellan that he was under consideration as early as pick 52. NFL teams have wildly different evaluations of players, which leads to some of the surprising picks we saw around the league on Day 2 of the draft especially.
That is not a strong argument for veering from consensus in itself if we are talking about overall prospect quality, but the more important reason for variance in evaluations, is scheme and team fit.
When asked why Gutekunst favored McClellan over someone like Orange, he said: “the combination of being able to play the nose, the three (technique) and then actually rush the passer, there’s a lot of these guys that don’t do that, he can, and that was I think what set him apart."
Green Bay’s love for players who have versatility and are not boxed into one role makes it harder to argue with their own evaluation of McClellan being higher than the consensus, which is not trying to assess players for a specific team.
As for the decision to trade up, it looked like a smart move in hindsight, as two defensive tackles went after they picked McClellan at 77 and their original slot at 84, with Albert Regis going to the Jaguars and Orange to the Vikings.
If the Packers had stayed at 84, McClellan and Orange may both have been gone, and they would have missed out on the defensive tackle run in terms of prospects who are big enough to play nose tackle, which was their need more so than an undersized pass rush type.
Another "correct" pick according to the consensus board, the Packers found great value in Dennis-Sutton, who was ranked 72nd, at pick 120. Gutekunst claimed he even tried to trade back into the 3rd round to get DDS, so having him fall to them in the 4th round looks like a steal.
The Packers could use more pass rush help with Micah Parsons expected to miss some time at the start of the season, and Rashan Gary and Kingsley Enagbare no longer on the team. Dennis-Sutton bolsters their stable of rushers nicely.
Only Mike Washington Jr., the running back from Arkansas who came to Green Bay on a "30" visit, was ranked higher (63), and he went two picks later. The Packers did not draft a running back at any point this weekend.
Like with their third-round pick, the consensus board would have recommended a different center prospect than Green Bay’s actual pick, Jager Burton. Parker was ranked 110th, with Burton down at 177.
However, if the Packers wanted a center/guard swing, Burton was less of a projection having played all three interior spots at Kentucky. Parker was a tackle at Duke but is expected to move to center at the next level. That is a key piece of context as to why Green Bay valued Burton more.
Alternatively, the consensus board suggested defensive tackle Zane Durant (135), who would have brought more juice as a smaller, pass rushing interior player, or corner Charles Demmings (153), who took a "30" visit with Green Bay. They of course took a corner with their next pick.
Green Bay’s third and final "correct" pick was Jackson, who should add more long-term depth to a cornerback room that needed it.
The board thinned out for the Packers late, evidenced by them trading up for a kicker later on. The consensus board suggestion would have been LSU linebacker Harold Perkins, who is an intriguing hybrid player ranked 144th, but they did not take any players at that position.
Green Bay traded up to take kicker Trey Smack, who was not projected to be drafted at 323 on the consensus board, and was the only kicker to be selected.
The consensus pick would have been either Llewellyn (158) or Toledo corner Andre Fuller (239), but realistically the Packers would not probably have taken a second edge rusher in this draft or a third corner, given the complexion of those groups after the picks they already made.
If they opted for a different position, they could have added depth at defensive tackle with Georgia Tech’s Jordan Van Den Berg (221), interior O-line with Texas A&M’s Ar’maj Reed-Adams (184), tight end with Utah’s Dallen Bentley (187), or safety with Texas Tech’s Cole Wisniewski (224).
Overall, even if the consensus board would have suggested other players at certain picks, it is hard to argue with Green Bay’s approach to the 2026 draft.
This article originally appeared on Packers Wire: Packers alternative draft 2026: 'Best player available' at each pick
Continue reading...
But did they make the right choices?
There has been plenty of debate about the value of the consensus board in the wake of the draft, which is compiled by media analysts. While it is used as a data point by some teams, and is ignored by others, history suggests that regularly veering from it with significant "reaches" is not a wise approach.
So if the Packers simply followed the consensus board each time they were on the clock, how would their draft have looked?
Some rules: Only positions the Packers actually drafted at some point will be considered. The player selected at each Green Bay pick in this exercise must have been drafted by another team before the Packers picked next. Players who fell due to injury or off-field concerns are not included.
Here is Green Bay’s "parallel universe" draft, based on the best player available according to the consensus big board:
Pick No. 52: CB Brandon Cisse, South Carolina
Just like a year ago, the Packers made the clearly correct choice with their first pick. Cisse was ranked 45th on the consensus board and was sitting there for them to take at 52. Brian Gutekunst did not pass that opportunity up.
The only cornerback ranked higher than Cisse was Jermod McCoy, who fell to Round 4 due to concerns over a degenerative knee.
Toledo safety Emmanuel McNeil-Warren was expected by many to go in Round 1 but ended up going at pick 58. Green Bay did not take a safety in this draft, and they do not really need one.
C.J. Allen, the linebacker from Georgia, was ranked 38th and was picked one spot after the Packers took Cisse. While an argument could be made for a long-term need at linebacker, it did not compare to the need at corner, and Gutekunst did not end up taking one at all. In addition, Allen opted not to do any pre-draft testing, which is usually an issue for Green Bay.
Cisse was realistically the best pick Gutekunst could have made at 52.
Pick No. 77: DT Domonique Orange, Iowa State
The consensus board agreed with taking a defensive tackle after trading up to 77, but it would have had the Packers taking "Big Citrus" who was ranked 68th on the consensus board, over their actual pick of Chris McClellan from Missouri, who sat at 124.
This is a good example of the nuance that needs to be added to the argument around following the consensus board.
Gutekunst said after selecting McClellan that he was under consideration as early as pick 52. NFL teams have wildly different evaluations of players, which leads to some of the surprising picks we saw around the league on Day 2 of the draft especially.
That is not a strong argument for veering from consensus in itself if we are talking about overall prospect quality, but the more important reason for variance in evaluations, is scheme and team fit.
When asked why Gutekunst favored McClellan over someone like Orange, he said: “the combination of being able to play the nose, the three (technique) and then actually rush the passer, there’s a lot of these guys that don’t do that, he can, and that was I think what set him apart."
Green Bay’s love for players who have versatility and are not boxed into one role makes it harder to argue with their own evaluation of McClellan being higher than the consensus, which is not trying to assess players for a specific team.
As for the decision to trade up, it looked like a smart move in hindsight, as two defensive tackles went after they picked McClellan at 77 and their original slot at 84, with Albert Regis going to the Jaguars and Orange to the Vikings.
If the Packers had stayed at 84, McClellan and Orange may both have been gone, and they would have missed out on the defensive tackle run in terms of prospects who are big enough to play nose tackle, which was their need more so than an undersized pass rush type.
Pick No. 120: EDGE Dani Dennis-Sutton, Penn State
Another "correct" pick according to the consensus board, the Packers found great value in Dennis-Sutton, who was ranked 72nd, at pick 120. Gutekunst claimed he even tried to trade back into the 3rd round to get DDS, so having him fall to them in the 4th round looks like a steal.
The Packers could use more pass rush help with Micah Parsons expected to miss some time at the start of the season, and Rashan Gary and Kingsley Enagbare no longer on the team. Dennis-Sutton bolsters their stable of rushers nicely.
Only Mike Washington Jr., the running back from Arkansas who came to Green Bay on a "30" visit, was ranked higher (63), and he went two picks later. The Packers did not draft a running back at any point this weekend.
Pick No. 153: OL Brian Parker II, Duke
Like with their third-round pick, the consensus board would have recommended a different center prospect than Green Bay’s actual pick, Jager Burton. Parker was ranked 110th, with Burton down at 177.
However, if the Packers wanted a center/guard swing, Burton was less of a projection having played all three interior spots at Kentucky. Parker was a tackle at Duke but is expected to move to center at the next level. That is a key piece of context as to why Green Bay valued Burton more.
Alternatively, the consensus board suggested defensive tackle Zane Durant (135), who would have brought more juice as a smaller, pass rushing interior player, or corner Charles Demmings (153), who took a "30" visit with Green Bay. They of course took a corner with their next pick.
Pick No. 201: CB Domani Jackson, Alabama
Green Bay’s third and final "correct" pick was Jackson, who should add more long-term depth to a cornerback room that needed it.
The board thinned out for the Packers late, evidenced by them trading up for a kicker later on. The consensus board suggestion would have been LSU linebacker Harold Perkins, who is an intriguing hybrid player ranked 144th, but they did not take any players at that position.
Pick No. 216: EDGE Max Llewellyn, Iowa
Green Bay traded up to take kicker Trey Smack, who was not projected to be drafted at 323 on the consensus board, and was the only kicker to be selected.
The consensus pick would have been either Llewellyn (158) or Toledo corner Andre Fuller (239), but realistically the Packers would not probably have taken a second edge rusher in this draft or a third corner, given the complexion of those groups after the picks they already made.
If they opted for a different position, they could have added depth at defensive tackle with Georgia Tech’s Jordan Van Den Berg (221), interior O-line with Texas A&M’s Ar’maj Reed-Adams (184), tight end with Utah’s Dallen Bentley (187), or safety with Texas Tech’s Cole Wisniewski (224).
Overall, even if the consensus board would have suggested other players at certain picks, it is hard to argue with Green Bay’s approach to the 2026 draft.
This article originally appeared on Packers Wire: Packers alternative draft 2026: 'Best player available' at each pick
Continue reading...
