It will be a Left Tackle

[bobblehead]

I have given a lot of thought to this draft and read everyones insights and I realize our D sucked it up and is transforming this year, but I am concluding we will take a LT for our first pick. We may trade up or down slightly but I am convinced of this.

In the NFL the most important position...the position historically manned by the most top 5 draft picks is QB. Next in line I'm pretty sure is LT. Complete DE's are probably pretty close, but the list of good LT's coming in round 3 or later is probably smaller than most positions. Regardless, it is probably the most important single position on the field next to QB.

Clifton is getting old and as much as I liked College at LT, its not a position to gamble with. This draft is probably deeper at LT than any I remember recently. My guess is that at #9 there will be a LT available that would have been a top 5 pick in other drafts. (comparable to D'Brickshaw Ferguson)

I remember Ron Wolf struggling to get us a LT for the first few years of his regime (Michels, Verba). I just don't see TT passing up the chance to get the heir to Clifton when he is available.

[KYPack]

I have given a lot of thought to this draft and read everyones insights and I realize our D sucked it up and is transforming this year, but I am concluding we will take a LT for our first pick. We may trade up or down slightly but I am convinced of this.

In the NFL the most important position...the position historically manned by the most top 5 draft picks is QB. Next in line I'm pretty sure is LT. Complete DE's are probably pretty close, but the list of good LT's coming in round 3 or later is probably smaller than most positions. Regardless, it is probably the most important single position on the field next to QB.

Clifton is getting old and as much as I liked College at LT, its not a position to gamble with. This draft is probably deeper at LT than any I remember recently. My guess is that at #9 there will be a LT available that would have been a top 5 pick in other drafts. (comparable to D'Brickshaw Ferguson)

I remember Ron Wolf struggling to get us a LT for the first few years of his regime (Michels, Verba). I just don't see TT passing up the chance to get the heir to Clifton when he is available.

There is another factor in this. Both St Louis and Cincy could well take a LT. The top 3 tackles are projected to be locks in the pro's. If two are gone there always the tendency to grab one in a run of left tackles.

TT always surprises you, so it will probably be a WR.

[Joemailman]

I tend to agree that if one of the top 3 are there, TT will grab him. If not, he will take Raji if available. If Raji and the 3 OT's are gone, I think he will try to trade down. The more I think about it, I don't see TT taking a pass rush specialist with the #9 pick.

[rbaloha1]

I tend to agree that if one of the top 3 are there, TT will grab him. If not, he will take Raji if available. If Raji and the 3 OT's are gone, I think he will try to trade down. The more I think about it, I don't see TT taking a pass rush specialist with the #9 pick.

Outside of Andre Smith, unsure if the other prospects merit a #9 pick.

Round 2 could present good value. Recall Clifton was drafted in round 2.

Colledge imo is a left tackle -- the position played at Boise State. Appears more natural as a lt. Barbre could also be ready to start at guard. Very impressive athleticism with a nasty finishing attitude.

[Joemailman]

Not sure what to make of Barbre. He seemed to fall out of favor with the coaching staff last year. He might have a chance to start if Spitz replaces Wells at Center. If TT feels on OT is the best player on the board at #9, he'll take him.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'll give this idea a definite maybe.

I've said many times, you can get very decent ZBS OTs farther down in the draft. However, if you can get some big mauler who is also mobile enough for the ZBS, you are certainly ahead in the game. Combine that with the fact that, IMO, we are set on D right now a lot better than many people think, and it just might be an OT.

If those top three are gone, though, I really can't see Thompson trading up, and I doubt he would force a pick of some lesser OT.

Top three OT, Crabtree if he falls to us, or the top cover corner in that order is what it will be. If all those are gone by #9, I don't know. Maybe trade down.

[Joemailman]

The LT isn't zone blocking on passing plays. He's usually one-on-one with the other team's best pass rusher. If TT thinks one of those guys can be an outstanding LT, he'd be wise to take him.

[Fritz]

I'll give this idea a definite maybe.

I've said many times, you can get very decent ZBS OTs farther down in the draft. However, if you can get some big mauler who is also mobile enough for the ZBS, you are certainly ahead in the game. Combine that with the fact that, IMO, we are set on D right now a lot better than many people think, and it just might be an OT.

If those top three are gone, though, I really can't see Thompson trading up, and I doubt he would force a pick of some lesser OT.

Top three OT, Crabtree if he falls to us, or the top cover corner in that order is what it will be. If all those are gone by #9, I don't know. Maybe trade down.

I don't necessarily agree we are set on D, Tex, but I would go so far as to say that I think this team might be set at linebacker, which few posters believe. We just added three new ones this past week - Hunter, Thompson, and Kampman - while adding only one new starting linebacker position.

I'm good with an offensive tackle. Or a defensive nose tackle. Or a defensive end who can hold the fort. Or that OSU corner. Or a trade down.

[The Shadow]

It really all comes down to the player TT believes is the best value at #9 - with the exception of a QB and perhaps receiver.
If it's a tossup betweeen a great O tackle, stud nose, deluxe pass rusher, or beast linebacker - then it gets really interesting.

[Guiness]

I can't see the top 3 OT's all being gone by #9!

Let's see, Stafford, Raji, Curri, Crabtree, Jenkins should all take up slots. Maybe Brown.

Which leaves me with a scary thought. Do we end up looking at a board that has Sanchez and Maclin? Ouch. If that happens, I guess I hope for Orakpo.

edit: which brings up something interesting - who's the top rated RB this year? Seems like there's none that will even go before around #20?

[KYPack]

I can't see the top 3 OT's all being gone by #9!

Let's see, Stafford, Raji, Curri, Crabtree, Jenkins should all take up slots. Maybe Brown.

Which leaves me with a scary thought. Do we end up looking at a board that has Sanchez and Maclin? Ouch. If that happens, I guess I hope for Orakpo.

edit: which brings up something interesting - who's the top rated RB this year? Seems like there's none that will even go before around #20?

Beanie Wells out of THE Ohio State University
OR
Knowshon Moreno from UGA.

I wouldn't burn a #1 on Wells. I've seen Moreno do a lot of great stuff, but is he an NFL RB?
I really couldn't say.

There will be some stud rookie RB in the league next season, but good luck picking him in this draft.

This is a thin year at RB.

[Lurker64]

I think the worst case scenario for us is if in the first eight picks Smith, Smith, Monroe, Jenkins, Curry, Raji, Crabtree, and Brown are all gone. I think if that happens, we have to desperately hope that somebody wants to trade up to get a quarterback.

[Pacopete4]

thing this is, is there a LT worth it at #9? Thats the main thing.. if there is, hell ya grab em. But if there is someone you can see us getting in the 2nd, 3rd and so on... wait and get a position we need now (DL)

[Guiness]

A lot of talk about LT, but Clifton sure didn't look that bad this year!!! He still played at a high level for a lot of the season, and even if he isn't a great run blocker (never has been) he's still pretty darn good at keeping his DE off the QB's back.

I'd be interested to see the answer to BH's original questions - what is the average draft position of starting LT's in the league? Is College the answer? He's been playing out of position, but I think the coaching staff should have a pretty good idea of whether or not he can man that position in the future.

edit: found a questionable source (a Lion's fan rag!) that said average draft position for an LT is 50.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who said anything about a RB at #9? That's pretty close to the last thing we need.

[Pacopete4]

A lot of talk about LT, but Clifton sure didn't look that bad this year!!! He still played at a high level for a lot of the season, and even if he isn't a great run blocker (never has been) he's still pretty darn good at keeping his DE off the QB's back.


I'm not sure a lot of people would disagree with you there but at some point you need a backup plan. If there is a stud that can be that guy for the next 10+ years at #9 I think you have to take em. Whether its next year or the year after, Clifton is going to fall apart completely at some point

[Joemailman]

If Tauscher doesn't return, a rookie OT might have a chance to start at RT this year. Besides, 2009 is the last year on Clifton's contract.

[Pacopete4]

If Tauscher doesn't return, a rookie OT might have a chance to start at RT this year. Besides, 2009 is the last year on Clifton's contract.

very good point, totally forgot about that.


Anyone know what tausch is looking at trying to get this season?

[bobblehead]

If Tauscher doesn't return, a rookie OT might have a chance to start at RT this year. Besides, 2009 is the last year on Clifton's contract.

very good point, totally forgot about that.


Anyone know what tausch is looking at trying to get this season?

College had a really good game at RT in the last game of the season and they seem to be searching for a spot for him. He has the talent to play tackle instead of guard which is what got me on this line of thought.

A quick google search has led me to this article from 2002.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1208/is_10_226/ai_83794037



All anyone in need of a left tackle has to do is select one in the first round of the draft. As cows come from farms, left tackles come from first rounds. Last season, 20 of the league's 31 starting left tackles--64.5 percent--were first-round picks.



Its a very good article....hell, when a friend and myself did a betting website I could have written something similar.

[LL2]

I have given a lot of thought to this draft and read everyones insights and I realize our D sucked it up and is transforming this year, but I am concluding we will take a LT for our first pick. We may trade up or down slightly but I am convinced of this.

In the NFL the most important position...the position historically manned by the most top 5 draft picks is QB. Next in line I'm pretty sure is LT. Complete DE's are probably pretty close, but the list of good LT's coming in round 3 or later is probably smaller than most positions. Regardless, it is probably the most important single position on the field next to QB.

Clifton is getting old and as much as I liked College at LT, its not a position to gamble with. This draft is probably deeper at LT than any I remember recently. My guess is that at #9 there will be a LT available that would have been a top 5 pick in other drafts. (comparable to D'Brickshaw Ferguson)

I remember Ron Wolf struggling to get us a LT for the first few years of his regime (Michels, Verba). I just don't see TT passing up the chance to get the heir to Clifton when he is available.

I certainly think you make a good point. Some may argue that the next most important position, regardless of the side of the ball, is cornerback. No matter what I'd be more than happy if TT took care of a position on either the DL or OL.

[wist43]

They need help everywhere... cept maybe WR.

TT will pick his BPA without regard to position, and without regard to whether the player can help the team now or not.

For those of you expecting an impact player that will come in and contribute right away... you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

[texaspackerbacker]

They need help everywhere... cept maybe WR.

TT will pick his BPA without regard to position, and without regard to whether the player can help the team now or not.

For those of you expecting an impact player that will come in and contribute right away... you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

Doom and Gloom! A big No Way to that!

The Packers are at very least, adequate everywhere and will be cutting quality players at several positions.

[Pacopete4]

They need help everywhere... cept maybe WR.

TT will pick his BPA without regard to position, and without regard to whether the player can help the team now or not.

For those of you expecting an impact player that will come in and contribute right away... you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

Doom and Gloom! A big No Way to that!

The Packers are at very least, adequate everywhere and will be cutting quality players at several positions.

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

[Partial]

I really don't think its going to be a left tackle. I suspect they take a good hard look at Jenkins or Raji, preferably Jenkins or Maualuga.

Jenkins would be a really nice, safe pick. He's going to be a good player in the NFL no doubt.

[Waldo]

With Colledge, Sitton, Spitz, and Barbre, they are pretty solid at OG. If they move guys elsewhere (Colledge to LT/RT, Spitz to C, Sitton/Barbre to RT) they could use some more, but if they are adding exterior T's to address the T needs, they are set at G.

[Waldo]

I really don't think its going to be a left tackle. I suspect they take a good hard look at Jenkins or Raji, preferably Jenkins or Maualuga.

Jenkins would be a really nice, safe pick. He's going to be a good player in the NFL no doubt.

With Jenkins the fact that we will have a $25M+ secondary cannot be ignored. That would make it the most expensive position group by a long shot, it already is an expensive position group. If we are going to allocate megabucks to a position group, IMO the lines are the place to do it. Last time we had one of the most expensive DL's in the NFL, we won the Super Bowl, last time we had one of the most expensive OL's in the NFL, Green was a monster and Favre was rarely touched.

When we (and many other) teams won the superbowl, our corners were all cheapies on rookie contracts, and none ever went to a pro bowl. Every penny spent on a CB is a penny not spent on lineman (3-4 OLB's are essentially lineman).

[Lurker64]

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

ILB (Hawk and Barnett), FB (Hall and Kuhn), QB (Rodgers, Flynn, Brohm), RB(Grant, Jackson, Wynn, and Lumpkin). Plus it's arguable to say about the OL. Colledge played well enough at RT last year that if Tauscher leaves, we can install him at RT and not worry much. Spitz and Sitton inside are fine, though Spitz may not shine until he replaces Wells inside. Definitely the safety spot manned by Nick Collins doesn't need to be improved, as he's one of the better safeties in the league.

I really wouldn't say that most positions are as significant of needs as: LT (Clifton doesn't have much left, looks like, and Giacomini is a question mark), NT (Nothing behind Pickett), DE (Harrell's a walking tease, and Jenkins is frequently injured, Jolly has legal trouble), and CB (Our guys, as the common knowledge goes, are good but old). The OLB slots may or may not be a need, the brilliant defensive coaches we have will know that better than you or I do.

Keep in mind, before you argue that RB really is a need, "We can upgrade at this position" is different than "we have a need at this position." You can (unless you have the best guy in the league) upgrade at pretty much every position. Pretty much every team in the league except the Colts would upgrade at QB if they replaced the guy they have with Manning. Pretty much every team in the league except the Vikings would upgrade at RB if they had Peterson at RB. That doesn't, however, mean that 31 teams have a need at QB and RB.

[Partial]

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

ILB (Hawk and Barnett), FB (Hall and Kuhn), QB (Rodgers, Flynn, Brohm), RB(Grant, Jackson, Wynn, and Lumpkin). Plus it's arguable to say about the OL. Colledge played well enough at RT last year that if Tauscher leaves, we can install him at RT and not worry much. Spitz and Sitton inside are fine, though Spitz may not shine until he replaces Wells inside. Definitely the safety spot manned by Nick Collins doesn't need to be improved, as he's one of the better safeties in the league.

I really wouldn't say that most positions are as significant of needs as: LT (Clifton doesn't have much left, looks like, and Giacomini is a question mark), NT (Nothing behind Pickett), DE (Harrell's a walking tease, and Jenkins is frequently injured, Jolly has legal trouble), and CB (Our guys, as the common knowledge goes, are good but old). The OLB slots may or may not be a need, the brilliant defensive coaches we have will know that better than you or I do.

Keep in mind, before you argue that RB really is a need, "We can upgrade at this position" is different than "we have a need at this position." You can (unless you have the best guy in the league) upgrade at pretty much every position. Pretty much every team in the league except the Colts would upgrade at QB if they replaced the guy they have with Manning. Pretty much every team in the league except the Vikings would upgrade at RB if they had Peterson at RB. That doesn't, however, mean that 31 teams have a need at QB and RB.

ILB? Hawk last year played below average imo. Is it safe to count on him? Is it safe to count on an undersized Barnett coming off an ACL tear to play and be successful inside? Jonathan Vilma, a very similiar player imo, struggled big time inside in the 3-4.

QB could use an upgrade but because of the youth of the position won't receive one.

If they move Colledge to RT, who plays guard? The offensive line has a lot of potential and not as much production as we'd like. Hopefully someone can step up from that group big time.

There are holes at every position but WR imo. The DL is going to need a lot of new personnel for the scheme change. Possibly time to try and trade Barnett for a 2nd or 3rd.

[3irty1]

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

ILB (Hawk and Barnett), FB (Hall and Kuhn), QB (Rodgers, Flynn, Brohm), RB(Grant, Jackson, Wynn, and Lumpkin). Plus it's arguable to say about the OL. Colledge played well enough at RT last year that if Tauscher leaves, we can install him at RT and not worry much. Spitz and Sitton inside are fine, though Spitz may not shine until he replaces Wells inside. Definitely the safety spot manned by Nick Collins doesn't need to be improved, as he's one of the better safeties in the league.

I really wouldn't say that most positions are as significant of needs as: LT (Clifton doesn't have much left, looks like, and Giacomini is a question mark), NT (Nothing behind Pickett), DE (Harrell's a walking tease, and Jenkins is frequently injured, Jolly has legal trouble), and CB (Our guys, as the common knowledge goes, are good but old). The OLB slots may or may not be a need, the brilliant defensive coaches we have will know that better than you or I do.

Keep in mind, before you argue that RB really is a need, "We can upgrade at this position" is different than "we have a need at this position." You can (unless you have the best guy in the league) upgrade at pretty much every position. Pretty much every team in the league except the Colts would upgrade at QB if they replaced the guy they have with Manning. Pretty much every team in the league except the Vikings would upgrade at RB if they had Peterson at RB. That doesn't, however, mean that 31 teams have a need at QB and RB.

ILB? Hawk last year played below average imo. Is it safe to count on him? Is it safe to count on an undersized Barnett coming off an ACL tear to play and be successful inside? Jonathan Vilma, a very similiar player imo, struggled big time inside in the 3-4.

QB could use an upgrade but because of the youth of the position won't receive one.

If they move Colledge to RT, who plays guard? The offensive line has a lot of potential and not as much production as we'd like. Hopefully someone can step up from that group big time.

There are holes at every position but WR imo. The DL is going to need a lot of new personnel for the scheme change. Possibly time to try and trade Barnett for a 2nd or 3rd.

I have a hard time seeing the Packers not starting Barnett and Hawk in the middle. Hawk and really all the linebackers had a disappointing season last year but I'm not sure he was any worse in the middle than he was earlier in the season outside.

Also I'm not sure I would say that Vilma struggled "Big Time" by the switch to a 3-4. He simply follow up his insane year in 2005 with merely a good year after the switch in 2006. Barnett needs to be given a chance to recover and play for us.

[bobblehead]

I have given a lot of thought to this draft and read everyones insights and I realize our D sucked it up and is transforming this year, but I am concluding we will take a LT for our first pick. We may trade up or down slightly but I am convinced of this.

In the NFL the most important position...the position historically manned by the most top 5 draft picks is QB. Next in line I'm pretty sure is LT. Complete DE's are probably pretty close, but the list of good LT's coming in round 3 or later is probably smaller than most positions. Regardless, it is probably the most important single position on the field next to QB.

Clifton is getting old and as much as I liked College at LT, its not a position to gamble with. This draft is probably deeper at LT than any I remember recently. My guess is that at #9 there will be a LT available that would have been a top 5 pick in other drafts. (comparable to D'Brickshaw Ferguson)

I remember Ron Wolf struggling to get us a LT for the first few years of his regime (Michels, Verba). I just don't see TT passing up the chance to get the heir to Clifton when he is available.

I certainly think you make a good point. Some may argue that the next most important position, regardless of the side of the ball, is cornerback. No matter what I'd be more than happy if TT took care of a position on either the DL or OL.

I think LT is the second most important for several reasons, but I guess a better point would be that quality LT's are VERY hard to come by. The skill set is very unique as it needs such a combination of size, strenght, athletisism, ect. I once saw Jonathon Ogden standing next to Mike Flannigan...talk about an eye opener, Flanny looked like a kid. A team without a quality LT has very little chance to cover the hole as well, most other positions can be somewhat worked around, but if you are weak on the QB's blind side.....look out.

[wist43]

I'd be okay with Jenkins too... they may have a lot of $$$ tied up in the secondary right now, but Woodson and Harris are declining players, the Packers aren't contenders and likely won't be for a while... so Jenkins is a definite possibility.

[wist43]

With Colledge, Sitton, Spitz, and Barbre, they are pretty solid at OG. If they move guys elsewhere (Colledge to LT/RT, Spitz to C, Sitton/Barbre to RT) they could use some more, but if they are adding exterior T's to address the T needs, they are set at G.

All of those guys are wildly inconsistent... you can argue that they are set OG b/c of their youth and potential... but to date, I don't think you can hang you hat on any of those guys.

Colledge has showed flashes of being a decent player, but then goes thru stretches where he is just awful... Of all those guys, I think Sitton might have the best chance.

[Fritz]

Who said anything about a RB at #9? That's pretty close to the last thing we need.

What if you had a guy that you felt very strongly about sitting there - a running back.

Would you pass if you had the next Adrian Peterson?

I wouldn't.

[bobblehead]

They need help everywhere... cept maybe WR.

TT will pick his BPA without regard to position, and without regard to whether the player can help the team now or not.

For those of you expecting an impact player that will come in and contribute right away... you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

Doom and Gloom! A big No Way to that!

The Packers are at very least, adequate everywhere and will be cutting quality players at several positions.

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

I would say a new kicker isn't a bad idea....missing 2 game winners bothers me. I wouldn't mind a young talented CB as well, but a great pass rush makes bad corners look decent, and no pass rush makes Charles woodson look like he can't stop Steve Smith from getting 50 yards deep (not a coverage issue, but pressure would have forced an earlier throw.

With the #9 pick you should be able to upgrade 20 of 22 starters so yes, we could go any direction, but at #9 you have to consider other factors. The difficulty of finding good LT's, Clifton dropping off, and the 3 quality LT's available in this draft lead me to my conclusion

[Lurker64]

ILB? Hawk last year played below average imo. Is it safe to count on him? Is it safe to count on an undersized Barnett coming off an ACL tear to play and be successful inside? Jonathan Vilma, a very similiar player imo, struggled big time inside in the 3-4.

The entire LB corps played disappointingly last year too, but it was also a position wracked with injury and guys playing new positions. The responsibilities of Hawk's position in the Capers 3-4 is a lot like his responsibilities as Will LB in the 4-3, he'll be fine. Barnett isn't actually undersized in this version of the 3-4 defense. Vilma was undersized in the Belichick version of the Fairbanks-Bullough version of the 3-4 defense, which Mangini brought from New England, as that 3-4 defense requires physicality and discipline from their ILBs. The Capers/Phillips/LeBeau version of the 3-4 defense requires much more in the way of athleticism, quickness, range, and aggression. If Barnett can recover from his injury, he'll be fine. I mean, compare the listed size of Barnett to the listed size of Pittsburgh's ILBs. Larry Foote is 6'1" 239 while Barnett is 6'2" 236. Barnett isn't undersized in this scheme.


QB could use an upgrade but because of the youth of the position won't receive one.

Nothing this year in the draft of FA is better than what we have at QB already. The position gets an upgrade by "young players getting better"


If they move Colledge to RT, who plays guard? The offensive line has a lot of potential and not as much production as we'd like. Hopefully someone can step up from that group big time.

Colledge was such an inconsistent player at Guard, we've benched him in the past and gotten better guard play. He was really playing out of position at G, which was really highlighted by how much better he played at RT. Moving him away from G isn't a loss, a line of Clifton/Spitz/Wells/Sitton/Colledge doesn't worry me much, plus we may well draft a new guy.


There are holes at every position but WR imo. The DL is going to need a lot of new personnel for the scheme change. Possibly time to try and trade Barnett for a 2nd or 3rd.

The DL is going to need some new personnel, but in terms of starters? We're not in dire need of anybody. Pickett can play NT since his responisibilites as Capers NT are essentially the same as they were at Bates NT, but he needs a backup. We have question marks at DE, like I pointed out, but in the off chance that Harrell is ever healthy he could be great at it. No 3-4 DE is worth a top 10 pick this year. And trading Barnett now is a very, very bad idea. For one, his value is low since he's coming off an injury and he had a bad year, and for second he (if healthy) is perfectly suited to play ILB in this scheme. Really, the last thing we need to do is to spend another first round pick on a LB (unless, by some miracle, Curry is available).

We have holes, but they're not big holes (except along the DL). Holes aren't the same as "needs". Every team has holes, that's why you design schemes to minimize those weaknesses. Pittsburgh (who just won the superbowl) has a lot of holes on the OL, I think they did fine. The team they beat, has a number of holes on defense and in the running game, they did okay too. You're never going to fill all of your holes.

[bobblehead]

If all 3 OT go, I would be happy with Jenkins or a DL that looks good. Harris is still my guy, but he is 35 and his contract is near up. TWill probably is the future at one spot, but we always need 3 guys, and eventually Wood is gonna slip as well too, he is on the wrong side of 30.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who said anything about a RB at #9? That's pretty close to the last thing we need.

What if you had a guy that you felt very strongly about sitting there - a running back.

Would you pass if you had the next Adrian Peterson?

I wouldn't.

I would have passed on the last Adrian Peterson. I would have been wrong, but percentage-wise, with his history of injuries and the fact that he had so much talent around him in college and the relative unlikelihood of any given RB being a superstar, the right move would have been to not take him too high. Besides, this ain't a good year for RBs.

Somebody a few posts back said I should name a position other than QB or WR where the Packers are solid and not in need of help. Of course, it kinda depends on how you define "need". I said the Packers are NFL-adequate pretty much everywhere. Examples?

RB--Grant, Jackson, Wynn, Lumpkin, all good players, but barring IR, one must go.

TE--draft one, and somebody we have who's decent has to go.

NT--Pickett, Cole, and maybe Harrell--sure, you can draft Raji and be an improvement, but you're getting rid of somebody good to do so. I don't think a 3/4 NT makes that much difference to go that high.

DE--Jenkins, Jolly, Harrell, Montgomery--sure, we could use one more in case Jolly is locked up or Harrell is injured again. I have a higher opinion of Montgomery than a lot of people do. Draft somebody in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th round.

Corner--This--or OT--would be my first choice to take, but Need? I don't think so. We have probably the best starting pair or near it in the NFL; We have a more than decent backup/future starter in Williams; We have a good kick returner who still has potential to become a quality starter; We have a high draft pick from last year who really hasn't done anything to diminish his chance to be good; And we have Jarret Bush who, what can I say ....... is better than most teams 6th best corner.

Safety--three starter quality players and a journeyman or two.

LB, O Line, those are solid enough also. Possible to improve, yeah, I suppose, but "Need"? I don't think so.

We could use a good punter, but I don't think #9 in the first round is quite right for that.

[Packnut]

I'll give this idea a definite maybe.

I've said many times, you can get very decent ZBS OTs farther down in the draft. However, if you can get some big mauler who is also mobile enough for the ZBS, you are certainly ahead in the game. Combine that with the fact that, IMO, we are set on D right now a lot better than many people think, and it just might be an OT.

If those top three are gone, though, I really can't see Thompson trading up, and I doubt he would force a pick of some lesser OT.

Top three OT, Crabtree if he falls to us, or the top cover corner in that order is what it will be. If all those are gone by #9, I don't know. Maybe trade down.

Yeah, our D was set real well in all those games they lost in the 4th quarter. Also, ANY D that can't stop the run is not "set". I would suggest you look at our run D stats, then look at all the 4th quarter collapses. Just may-be that might be enough to bring you back to the REAL WORLD with the rest of us........... :roll:

[DonHutson]

I would be very happy with a LT, but I don't think you can say it's going to be any one position with any certainty. One, we have needs at several positions, and two, Ted will take a player at a position of lesser need if that player is better than anyone at a need position.

To me, the idea that we must have a LT, come hell or high water, trade up if need be, isn't realistic. You can say the same for NT, or anything else.

We have primary needs at: LT, NT, OLB opposite Kampman, DE opposite Jenkins, and RT.

We have secondary needs at: CB, TE, and I'd like to see a more complete RB to take Grant's job, maybe S if they're worried about Bigby.

I would guess the top of the draft board has J. Smith, Monroe, and Raji in some order. I'd love to get one of them, but I wouldn't trade up for any of them.

Even if all three are gone, you still have Oher, Orakpo, Brown, or Maybin at primary need positions. They could also take Jenkins or Moreno if they like one of them a lot more than the others. All would fill a need to some degree. I don't see any indisputably great players in this draft, but I see a lot of very good prospects. Let them come to you, take the best one, then do it again in the 2nd, and twice more in the 3rd.

[Pacopete4]

this is one of those years where a trade down if fine with me... we arent going to get anyone worth a damn this season anyways and thats what this team needs... free agency may be the key to this seasons winning whether TT likes it or not

[bobblehead]

I'm not saying we have to have one hell or high water, I'm saying they are very hard to come by, we have a near term need, and there are 3 good ones in the top of this draft. I happen to think it WILL be a LT, not that we MUST take one.

Several factors combine to make me think we draft a LT, and the fact that you only get a few opportunities to get the studs makes me think TT might even trade up a few slots if the opportunity is there.

[DonHutson]

I happen to think it WILL be a LT, not that we MUST take one.

Fair enough. It's always hard to differentiate somebody's preferences from predictions this time of year.