I agree with Harvey's take... he has good hands, and can be a reliable short target. The threat of other receivers will give Rodgers opportunities - but Rodgers isn't capable of returning the favor.
Should never have been a 3rd round draft pick IMO, but will probably stick with the team for quite a while as he probably won't generate much interest once his rookie contract is up. As such, all you homers will slap Ted on the back for making such a great pick
wist
I agree. I'm still Homerhopeful that RR can approach Chmura level competency, but it's not likely.Originally Posted by wist43
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I agree with Harvey's take... he has good hands, and can be a reliable short target. The threat of other receivers will give Rodgers opportunities - but Rodgers isn't capable of returning the favor.
Should never have been a 3rd round draft pick IMO, but will probably stick with the team for quite a while as he probably won't generate much interest once his rookie contract is up. As such, all you homers will slap Ted on the back for making such a great pick
This
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
You yourself admitted that you would do no better than any NFL GM at making picks, yet you continue to rail on the people who are actually paid to do the work. Amazing. Year after year people complain that a pick isn't a future all-pro/hall of fame candidate. Fucking stupid. Calling fans homers doesn't make you sound smart, it makes you sound like an asshole.I agree with Harvey's take... he has good hands, and can be a reliable short target. The threat of other receivers will give Rodgers opportunities - but Rodgers isn't capable of returning the favor.
Should never have been a 3rd round draft pick IMO, but will probably stick with the team for quite a while as he probably won't generate much interest once his rookie contract is up. As such, all you homers will slap Ted on the back for making such a great pick
Who put starch in your shorts this a.m.??
A guy like Rodgers, who is a plodder, can be had lower in the draft - or FA. On the other hand, a guy like Findley, who can run and had special physical qualities probably should have been drafted higher than the 4th round we got him in. Rodgers was a 3rd round pick, and Findley was a 4th round pick... what sense does that make??
Plodders at the TE position can be found tending bar just about any night of the week; hence, I wouldn't have drafted him in the 3rd round.
3rd round and higher - you should be looking for quality starters, or guys with upside - Rodgers doesn't fit either catagory. He might end up being a servicable player over time, but don't see him as a good 3rd round value - just MO.
Some have mentioned Mark Chmura - if Rodgers can get to that level, I would be happy with that; but then again Chmura was a 6th round draft pick.
wist
Who the hell is Findley? The Packers drafted Finley in the third round (91)http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/43604092.html
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
This makes the Rodgers pick even more puzzling. The Rat Draft group was all over touting Finley as well as Martellus Bennett going into that draft as two receiving TE's with stellar talent
Nobody was talking about Rodgers upside....he can be an ok guy....maybe...but nothing about him has changed my first WTH reaction I had when they used a 3rd on him up to this point
LIFE IS ABOUT CHAMPIONSHIPS; I JUST REALIZED THIS. The MILWAUKEE BUCKS have won the same number of championships over the past 50 years as the Green Bay Packers. Ten years from now, who will have more championships, and who will be the fart in the wind ?
Yeah, but Finley came out early and had some red flags. There was a risk there. He gave the Packers both - the explosiveness and game changing attributes and the frustrating inconsistencies and idiocies. Keith Jackson was a better tight end, but he was at GB at the end of his career. No other GB TE that I watched (since the 70s) had the wow factor of Finley*.
*No center had the wow factor of Scott Wells either
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
There's been quite a bit of doubt for two of my favorite draft picks; Randall and rr from last year. I have a feeling rr is going to blow finleys production out of the water because ar will trust him to be where he's supposed to be AND he'll catch it. In an Aaron Rodgers lead offense, those two things are worth more than speed ever will be. Rr is a good player who's a great fit for our team!!
Formerly known as JustinHarrell.
I remember quite a few. After watching a play, I would grab the sides of my head, shake it a bit and mutter "wow!" This usually happened as the punt team was coming on to the field.*
* Finley often caused the same reaction from me, following yet another drop. Scott Wells never did, that I can recall.
Last edited by Patler; 08-06-2015 at 10:01 AM.
What's worse, reaching for a guy who starts for 8-10 years and is good, or selecting a guy who could be great but ends up sucking?
Would A.J Hawk and Tony Mandarich (or Brent Fullwood) be examples you're thinking of?
FWIW, I agree that Finley was more talented than RRodgers is, but RRodgers has shown more consistency. Rodgers doesn't need to be an elite athlete; but if he catches what's thrown to him and helps keep the chains moving (and serve as the QB's safety valve) that's ok with me. With the WR corps GB has they don't need him to be elite.
He was drafted using their compensatory pick, so it was basically a 4th rounder. I think you'll find that his first year production is probably above average for where they drafted him. Wist has his crystal ball out about future production, so I will defer to the crystal ball.
Just to belabor the point, he was 91st (32x3=96 normal picks through three rounds). The only reason he wasn't the 92nd pick was that NE lost a pick due to 'spygate.' The first compensatory pick in 2008 was the Redskins at #96 (again, one pick early due to NE).
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
(Never mind!)
Last edited by Patler; 08-06-2015 at 10:11 AM.
As someone else mentioned, Finley was a 3rd round pick. Finley might have been higher than that but he had maturity issues that were known. After watching Finley tantalize but not quite match his potential, I think TT went for the guy with great hands who runs his routes right every time. And unlike Finley, Rodgers has the size to possibly become an all-around Tight End (blocking) rather than a guy who would rather be a wide receiver. Rodgers is off to a good start in my opinion. He certainly was more effective as a rookie than Finley. Plus, he seems to have the confidence of that other guy named Rodgers. If he can solidify the TE position, he's well worth a 3rd round pick.
HOFer
Why not see who winds up with more receptions and TDs as a Packer...then figure out if it makes sense.
It's such a GOOD feeling...13 TIME WORLD CHAMPIONS!!
Finley had huge upside, that's why he makes sense as a 3rd rounder - apologies for misremembering what round he was drafted in; I know you guys love to hold me to the strictest of accuracy
Rodgers does not have huge upside - at best, he will be a servicable player. Personally, I'd like to see our team draft players with legit talent and upside, and hopefully fill a hole, in the first few rounds, and go after good value in the later rounds at positions that aren't as highly valued, i.e. such as Center, when we grabbed Linsley in the 5th round.
Rodgers will likely produce some decent TD numbers, and a middling number of receptions overall b/c of all the other weapons that defenses have to deal with. Those weapons will give Rodgers opportunities he isn't capable of generating on his own; and as I said, he can't return that favor, i.e. defenses are not going to make a point of accounting for Rodgers.
wist
Let's make sure we are speaking the same language. What do you mean by a serviceable player? Anything less than a probowler? Multi-year starter? Perpetual backup?Finley had huge upside, that's why he makes sense as a 3rd rounder - apologies for misremembering what round he was drafted in; I know you guys love to hold me to the strictest of accuracy
Rodgers does not have huge upside - at best, he will be a servicable player. Personally, I'd like to see our team draft players with legit talent and upside, and hopefully fill a hole, in the first few rounds, and go after good value in the later rounds at positions that aren't as highly valued, i.e. such as Center, when we grabbed Linsley in the 5th round.
Rodgers will likely produce some decent TD numbers, and a middling number of receptions overall b/c of all the other weapons that defenses have to deal with. Those weapons will give Rodgers opportunities he isn't capable of generating on his own; and as I said, he can't return that favor, i.e. defenses are not going to make a point of accounting for Rodgers.
What do you expect to get out of a pick around 90?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote