Air Your Grievances: Bob's Scout on the Packer Draft Needs

[pbmax]

Here is an evaluation of the Packers roster from one of Bob's sources.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...301336091.html

I take exception to several of the position reviews, but especially this one:

Nose tackle: "They brought (B.J.) Raji back. They've got to upgrade. They're kind of so-so there. They got (Letroy) Guion but he got in trouble and has some issues. It's a glaring need."

For the purposes of this discussion I will stipulate to the fact that the position can definitely be upgraded. As red will be happy to tell us, Raji is 4 seasons from being close to dominant. Guion is high energy, but not quite as steadfast as you might like.

However, with Raji, Guion, Pennel and Boyd (who the Packers still talk about being able to be a nose) this position is ANYTHING but a glaring need. You would need a Rodgers quality drop of talent to take a NT early in this draft.

Anyone else?

[Patler]

I found it confusing, calling it "kind of so-so" and "a glaring need" at the same time. In my view, teams live with "so-so" all the time; but a "glaring need" must be addressed. So, is NT so-so or a glaring need? I think it is so-so.

[mraynrand]

they have a glaring need for something better than so-so. Seriously though, Guion and Raji could easily be total crap this year. NT is a weak position.

[red]

ABSO-FREAKING-LUTELY

[red]

they have a glaring need for something better than so-so. Seriously though, Guion and Raji could easily be total crap this year. NT is a weak position.

and it seems like there are quite a few legit big body options this year, not like in years past where there was just 1 or 2 NT's in the entire draft

[Patler]

I won't have a problem at all if they use a high pick for one; but, I think they an get by with what they have if a good one isn't available.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Not a glaring need. They could take one, but only as a value pick. Maybe a guy like Ellis McCarthy could be this year's Mike Penne type pickup (NT late or as a UDF).

[smuggler]

He's a big body, but he can't move his feet. Will never be an every down player. Might be okay against the run.

[pbmax]

Guion and Boyd were able to man the position effectively last year. Changing LBs had a much more salutary effect on run D than the D lineman shuffle.

Adding Raji and having Pennel around for an offseason is all the depth the position needs.

Its not a gaping hole in the roster. If a talent drops and gives them a huge talent/value add, I am sure they would take it. I could see them adding a young one mid to late to help insulate the possible loss of Raji or Guion next year. Something surprising would have to happen for this to be happen in the first two rounds.

[red]

Guion and Boyd were able to man the position effectively last year. Changing LBs had a much more salutary effect on run D than the D lineman shuffle.

Adding Raji and having Pennel around for an offseason is all the depth the position needs.

Its not a gaping hole in the roster. If a talent drops and gives them a huge talent/value add, I am sure they would take it. I could see them adding a young one mid to late to help insulate the possible loss of Raji or Guion next year. Something surprising would have to happen for this to be happen in the first two rounds.

theres the problem. a good NT will make the LB's job that much easier, in our case we had clay moving to the ILB position that made the line better

the one thing we have not had since we moved to a 3-4 has been a dominate NT, and IMO, in the 3-4 that is one of if not THE most important part

what we need is a gilbert brown clone, or just gilbert



THATS a fucking NT

[pbmax]

Ryan Pickett fronted a terrible defense. The nose doesn't do it alone.

Not having Gilbert or Pickett, the D was able to put together a much improved run D last year. So not having either can't be the only definition of glaring need.

[Carolina_Packer]

They can find another Mike Pennel...Terry Williams, ECU...Charles Tua'au, Texas A&M-Commerce...Marcus Cribbs, Ferris State Draft a later round guy, pick up a guy like this as a priority free agent, see if Raji or Giuon show anything this year, and go from there.

[3irty1]

A good NT won't reach their peak during their first contract no matter how long it is. Really the only way to get an elite NT is to pay them market value, even if you draft them. With how good the Packers are right now, I just don't see the value in drafting the rights to develop a high-end NT. With the pick it would take to match the performance of Raji, Guion, or even Pennel this season with the potential to become a pro-bowler in their second contract, you could draft an ILB or CB who'd give you some of the best years of their career for peanuts. Compounded by the fact that these positions are on the field much more than NTs, improving the team there is much lower hanging fruit IMO.

There's always the outside chance that Raji has a comeback year. Arguably nobody stands to benefit more from those 1-gapping hybrid looks we moved to last season.

[Bossman641]

NT could possibly be a "glaring" position next offseason so it wouldn't surprise me to see TT go that direction. I'm with 3irty1 though, you don't expect a NT to come in and make a big impact. I'd rather roll with Raji/Guion/Pennel and pick an immediate impact player.

[Fritz]

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

[pbmax]

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

Depends on what else is there. Getting a player a round late in the fifth isn't a huge distinction.

[mraynrand]

So is it good "value" to draft a nose tackle you have rated as a fourth round pick in the fifth round when you already have Raji, Guion, and young Pennel under contract?

If he can play and 2/3 of RGP crap out, yes, tremendous value!

[Fritz]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

[mraynrand]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

Generally, if the x round guy plays better than his draft round, yeah, it's good to great value (because you presumably got a better guy in the upper rounds). Look at the 2000 draft for example.

1 14 Bubba Franks TE Miami
2 44 Chad Clifton T Tennessee
3 74 Steve Warren NT Nebraska
4 98 Na'il Diggs OLB Ohio State
4 114 Anthony Lucas WR Arkansas
4 126 Gary Berry FS Ohio State
5 149 Kabeer Gbaja-Biamila DE San Diego State
5 151 Joey Jamison WR Texas Southern
7 224 Mark Tauscher T Wisconsin
7 229 Ron Moore DT N.W. Oklahoma
7 242 Charles Lee WR Central Florida
7 249 Eugene McCaslin LB Florida
7 252 Rondell Mealey RB Louisiana State

Diggs, KGB and Tauscher all played better than their draft round (expectation for 4th round is maybe place-holder or part time starter material, 5th and beyond - backup).

Perhaps we could have a thread that debates draft round and expectation. Everyone probably differs on that as well...

[pbmax]

So let me make sure I understand: If you have a guy rated as a fourth rounder and you get him in the fourth that's not a great "value" pick, but if you have a guy rated as a third rounder but you get him in the fourth that's a good pick?

And are guys who have great talent but off-field issues good "value" if you get, say, Becham, the receiver, at the top of the second?

First example, yes its not great value. But say for instance he is the last 4th round graded player left on your board and you get him, then that value might be "good enough". And its easy to take this too far. You could keep trading down and make value picks consecutively at the end of whatever round is loaded on your board, but you have reduced the chances of you getting a top tier talent in the early rounds.

Value in terms of just the draft (not the longer term payoff as Rand discusses in answer to you) is more about the pick and what it represents than the player itself. Did you use your 3rd round pick in a panic on the last safety and take a talent you rated for the fourth round? Do that a lot and you literally reduce the talent on your team over time. You could trade down and get a second fourth or fifth round talent.

Second example is good value but also collect additional risk.