Trade Down Scenarios

[Fritz]

Okay, I'm procrastinating...so since it's rainy and quiet and I'm avoiding work, how about some first-round trade down scenarios? Please no "let's trade our #9 plus Charlie Peprah to San Francisco for their #10 and their second and third round picks" stuff.

Here's a link to a draft value chart: http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

So...what if the Lions draft an offensive lineman #1 overall, then see that Stafford is still there at #9...so they trade their #20 and #33 for the Pack's #9 plus like Green Bay's fourth round choice?

That'd be about equivalent on the chart...and the Packers get two good picks, the Lions get Stafford - their franchise QB supposedly - and a fourth but still have their own two thirds (one of theirs plus Dallas's in the Roy Williams heist), so they'd still have quantity....

What other plausible scenarios are out there?

[sheepshead]

Get out of the first round. Take anything reasonable.

[Fritz]

I don't know, dude. It seems to my amateur eye that there are a lot of good plyers like Darren Gilbert (that San Diego State defensive end guy) and Clay Mthews who might be around in that mid-to-end first round. I'm liking the whole mid-first to mid-second area.

[Deputy Nutz]

What the league needs to do now that they have to get a new CBA is reduce the crazy money that these top pick rookies are getting, It only serves the player and it is a slap in the face to a lot of veterans, good pro bowl type veterans that won't ever see that kind of loot.

[Patler]

What the league needs to do now that they have to get a new CBA is reduce the crazy money that these top pick rookies are getting, It only serves the player and it is a slap in the face to a lot of veterans, good pro bowl type veterans that won't ever see that kind of loot.

Are you suggesting that Alex Smith didn't earn the $26M more or less that the 49ers paid him?? :o :o :lol:

[bobblehead]

This is the one rare case I want to trade up. I've said all along that quality LT's are pretty hard to find and if we can get one of the top prospects this might be our best chance.

Clifton is on his last legs and we have no idea if the successor is on the roster. For the first time in YEARS we have a young talented roster that doesn't require a lot of added picks. I would trade away some picks and try and move up 3/4 spots.

As far as moving down...yea, if you do it you have to move out of the big money range.

[Fritz]

...And now the $64,000 question: which left tackle?

[bobblehead]

...And now the $64,000 question: which left tackle?

I'll let the experts determine that one as I dont' have game film or really follow college that closely.

[Patler]

...And now the $64,000 question: which left tackle?

That's the question. Are any of the tackles this year of Joe Thomas or Jake Long quality/ability? Guys you can almost expect to start and play well from the day you draft them?

[KYPack]

It seems there are 3 or 4 LT's that are considered special guys, like Joe Thomas was a few years back. St lou & Cincy will probably grab one of 'em. I think we will take the other guy, maybe Smith from Alabama, who did a lot of stupid stuff prior to the draft. Most rookies are dumb 22 year olds, he's just another one. Draft him and grow him up.

We don't get a lot of top 10's, let's cash this one in.

[Patler]

It seems there are 3 or 4 LT's that are considered special guys, like Joe Thomas was a few years back. St lou & Cincy will probably grab one of 'em. I think we will take the other guy, maybe Smith from Alabama, who did a lot of stupid stuff prior to the draft. Most rookies are dumb 22 year olds, he's just another one. Draft him and grow him up.

We don't get a lot of top 10's, let's cash this one in.

Didn't most people consider Smith to be the best of the bunch, until he "lost focus"?

[packers11]

MY BREAKDOWN :::

I doubt Detroit would trade with the Packers and or vise versa...

The thing is... Stafford could fall very fast...

#1 Detroit - Could go here
#2 Rams - Could take stafford but will role with a OT since Pace left.
#3 Chiefs - Just got Cassel No way...
#4 Seahawks - Hasselback ... No way...
#5 Browns - Quinn and Anderson ... No way...
#6 Bengals - To much money in Palmer ... No way
#7 Oakland - J Russell ... No way
#8 Jaguars - Just gave David Garrad a big deal... No way...

Now... #9... Where were stand...

at #10 SF could take Stafford and probably would if he did fall, but maybe someone would want to jump in front of them?

Count the Lions,Vikings,Bears out of trade partners....

You have left...

#13 - Skins (Cambell hasn't shown enough)
#15 - Texans (unlikely, Schaubb bought himself another year)
#17 - Jets (VERY POSSIBLE)
#19 - Tampa (Also need a young QB, VERY POSSIBLE)

Now the best scenario that could happen would be...

GB sends #9 pick to Tampa Bay...
Tampa sends #19 pick and #50 to GB, but since they don't have a 2nd round pick I don't see anything happening with them...

The second best thing would be...

GB sends #9 to Jets
Jets send #17 and #53 to GB...


This would favor GB a little, but it would assure the Jets a chance at a franchise QB since Joe Namath...

[Fritz]

Who doesn't have a second rounder? Tampa?

Imagine your Jets scenario - the Packers would have all of the Jet's first three picks.

I could live with that. A first, two seconds, two thirds.

[packers11]

Who doesn't have a second rounder? Tampa?



Correct... I believe they gave it to Cleveland (part of the Winslow trade)

[Harlan Huckleby]

you're dreaming, Thompson would never trade down.

[Deputy Nutz]

I think when you think how Thompson thinks, you make me dumber.

[Zool]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

[Lurker64]

I think, actually, the best possible scenario is that Stafford is sitting there at #9, and San Francisco gives up a 2nd or a 3rd to move up one single spot so somebody doesn't grab Stafford (or Sanchez, if Stafford is gone) before they can.

I can't see any Packer fan complaining about moving down one spot, netting extra picks, when the player who is traded up for is a QB.

[Partial]

Would like trade with Jets.

[bobblehead]

It seems there are 3 or 4 LT's that are considered special guys, like Joe Thomas was a few years back. St lou & Cincy will probably grab one of 'em. I think we will take the other guy, maybe Smith from Alabama, who did a lot of stupid stuff prior to the draft. Most rookies are dumb 22 year olds, he's just another one. Draft him and grow him up.

We don't get a lot of top 10's, let's cash this one in.

From what I've read...and its only 2nd/3rd hand....smith is the most talented, of the thomas/long mold. He acted the fool and blew his top 2 picks position. The other 3 were a bit less...of the D'Brickshaw Furgeson mold. No one will call them hall of famers yet, but a solid long productive career seems likely.

[Guiness]

I think, actually, the best possible scenario is that Stafford is sitting there at #9, and San Francisco gives up a 2nd or a 3rd to move up one single spot so somebody doesn't grab Stafford (or Sanchez, if Stafford is gone) before they can.

I can't see any Packer fan complaining about moving down one spot, netting extra picks, when the player who is traded up for is a QB.

Wrong. We swap #8 for #9 for their seventh rounder this year and the next 5 years :shock:

[Mazzin]

The worst thing that could happen is if for whatever reason TT has Stafford ranked high, and took him as BPA. =(.

Very doubtful to happen, BUT tt does love BPA and based on HIS boards not scouts.

[Lurker64]

Very doubtful to happen, BUT tt does love BPA and based on HIS boards not scouts.

Well, it's frequently BPA based on his scouts's board. But team scouts frequently disagree with NFL draftniks and other "experts".

[Mazzin]

True but you see what i was gettin at....in the second he will prolly take some kid from a small school, little exposure and GREAT numbers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

True but you see what i was gettin at....in the second he will prolly take some kid from a small school, little exposure and GREAT numbers.

Good. It got us Nick Collins, Greg Jennings, Daryn Colledge, Jordy Nelson. I like all of those guys now. Terrence Murphy would have been a good one also. Brandon Jackson looks like he'll turn out also. Too early to judge Brohm and Pat Lee. Thompson has done wonderful work in the second round.

[Mazzin]

Agreed, thats what i was gettin at...im SO excited for the second and third rounds....third even more cuz it will go at a DECENT speed.

[Deputy Nutz]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

see now it is happening to you.

[Guiness]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

see now it is happening to you.

That word that you say. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[sheepshead]

MY BREAKDOWN :::

I doubt Detroit would trade with the Packers and or vise versa...

The thing is... Stafford could fall very fast...

#1 Detroit - Could go here
#2 Rams - Could take stafford but will role with a OT since Pace left.
#3 Chiefs - Just got Cassel No way...
#4 Seahawks - Hasselback ... No way...
#5 Browns - Quinn and Anderson ... No way...
#6 Bengals - To much money in Palmer ... No way
#7 Oakland - J Russell ... No way
#8 Jaguars - Just gave David Garrad a big deal... No way...

Now... #9... Where were stand...

at #10 SF could take Stafford and probably would if he did fall, but maybe someone would want to jump in front of them?

Count the Lions,Vikings,Bears out of trade partners....

You have left...

#13 - Skins (Cambell hasn't shown enough)
#15 - Texans (unlikely, Schaubb bought himself another year)
#17 - Jets (VERY POSSIBLE)
#19 - Tampa (Also need a young QB, VERY POSSIBLE)

Now the best scenario that could happen would be...

GB sends #9 pick to Tampa Bay...
Tampa sends #19 pick and #50 to GB, but since they don't have a 2nd round pick I don't see anything happening with them...

The second best thing would be...

GB sends #9 to Jets
Jets send #17 and #53 to GB...


This would favor GB a little, but it would assure the Jets a chance at a franchise QB since Joe Namath...

Good post-will be interesting to see how this plays out (roll not role :? )

[Deputy Nutz]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

see now it is happening to you.

That word that you say. I do not think it means what you think it means.

don't be dense

[Lurker64]

Would like trade with Jets.

I would too. If we can get the Jets 1, 2, and 4 for #9 overall that would be pretty funny.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Would like trade with Jets.

I would too. If we can get the Jets 1, 2, and 4 for #9 overall that would be pretty funny.

:D

[Zool]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

see now it is happening to you.

That word that you say. I do not think it means what you think it means.

don't be dense

Inconceivable!

[Fritz]

Well, a trade with teh Jets would likely be just #9 overall for their first and second. I think that works out fairly equally, though I didn't look it up.

I don't see San Fran going down one spot for a second or even a third. Maybe a fourth if they really like Stafford/Sanchez.

[Guiness]

you make me dumber.

Unpossible

see now it is happening to you.

That word that you say. I do not think it means what you think it means.

don't be dense

Inconceivable!

Anybody want a peanut?

[packers11]

I think T.T. will stay at #9...



But there is a 95% chance he'll trade our early second into a late second and a couple later round picks...

[Merlin]

I think, actually, the best possible scenario is that Stafford is sitting there at #9, and San Francisco gives up a 2nd or a 3rd to move up one single spot so somebody doesn't grab Stafford (or Sanchez, if Stafford is gone) before they can.

I can't see any Packer fan complaining about moving down one spot, netting extra picks, when the player who is traded up for is a QB.

I don't see us trading just because Stafford is there. Quinn was there when we selected Harrell and Thompson didn't make a trade with the Browns for that spot. Either there was no offer to trade because the Browns knew Thompson wasn't taking Quinn or they offered and Thompson refused. So unless Thompson learned from that mistake, I don't see it happening. Not many first round players turn out to be much and if you are taking an OT or DT at #9, you better make damn sure the guy can start day 1, otherwise you are better off trading the pick. Whatever Thompson does do, you can bet will go against the grain.

[Lurker64]

I think, actually, the best possible scenario is that Stafford is sitting there at #9, and San Francisco gives up a 2nd or a 3rd to move up one single spot so somebody doesn't grab Stafford (or Sanchez, if Stafford is gone) before they can.

I can't see any Packer fan complaining about moving down one spot, netting extra picks, when the player who is traded up for is a QB.

I don't see us trading just because Stafford is there. Quinn was there when we selected Harrell and Thompson didn't make a trade with the Browns for that spot. Either there was no offer to trade because the Browns knew Thompson wasn't taking Quinn or they offered and Thompson refused. So unless Thompson learned from that mistake, I don't see it happening. Not many first round players turn out to be much and if you are taking an OT or DT at #9, you better make damn sure the guy can start day 1, otherwise you are better off trading the pick. Whatever Thompson does do, you can bet will go against the grain.

I'm just saying that the best case scenario would be to talk a team into giving up a pick or two anywhere to trade up one spot to take a QB who we weren't going to take anyway, just so nobody else trades up into that position. Picking at #10 isn't any worse than picking at #9 if they guy who goes #9 isn't a guy you want, particularly if you get picks out of the deal and you get to pay the #10 guy less.

[Merlin]

I agree with that, but I don't make the decisions. Given a similar scenario when we picked Harrell, we didn't cash in on the Quinn deal and it was an obvious situation, probably more-so then this potentially is.

[Lurker64]

The thing about the Quinn deal is that Cleveland needed to trade up above 23 in order to get Quinn, since Kansas City was on record that they would take Quinn if he was there. Green Bay was picking at 16, so if Cleveland offered less for the pick than Green Bay wanted, they had teams 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 to negotiate with. The word from the draft was that Cleveland was lowballing everybody, until they got desperate at around teams 21 and 22 which was the point of no return for them. They eventually ended up giving up a lot to the last possible team they could trade up for in order to get Quinn.

As I understand it, Cleveland offered next year's first (turned out to be #22), and a swap of 2nd and 3rd round picks to Green Bay, Jacksonville, Tennessee, and New York all of which turned down the offer since it was a bad deal (no additional picks this year). Dallas was sitting in the "last chance" seat ,so they named their price (which was Cleveland's second and next year's first).

This year, Green Bay is likely to be sitting in the "last chance" seat, since San Francisco will probably take a QB if one is available. So the odds of us getting a favorable deal are better. After all, if you're in a position where a team might want to trade up to take a QB, it's best to be picking one spot before another team that needs a QB, since other needy teams will want to jump that team.

[Fritz]

One would think San Fran would be looking for a QB - but any reports on whether there's a leak to suggest they really, really like Stafford or Sanchez?

[Bretsky]

NFL Network today did it's top 10; they had Detroit picking a QB and Jack Del Rio taking Sanchez right before us.

They also had Crabtree there for us at #9, but predicted TT would take Maybin instead

[Joemailman]

One would think San Fran would be looking for a QB - but any reports on whether there's a leak to suggest they really, really like Stafford or Sanchez?

Hard to tell if they're looking for a QB or not. They may not be ready to give up on Alex Smith. http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/NFL/NFC/NFC+West/San+Francisco/WWHI/2009/wwhi031309.htm

[Merlin]

I can't wait to see who Thompson thinks is worthy of the 9th pick. I know that the majority of us will be oh so wrong with who we think he is going to take.

[Fritz]

He does surprise, doesn't he? The only time his first pick didn't surprise me was the Hawk pick. I was even a little surprised and disappointed in the Rodgers pick. Shows you how much I know.

[wist43]

Josh Freeman...

He fills all of TT's requirements... nobody is expecting it, it's not a need pick, and he won't help at all this year. :D

[Fritz]

Not unless he traded Brohm or Flynn first. He's not going to draft a guy like that early on unless there's a roster spot, and TT is not going to let a QB like even Flynn get away for nothing. Last year, Jordy Nelson did not take the roster place of a receiver who was young and up-and-coming.

So I don't think so.

Maybe that Maybin guy? Or Tyson Jackson? Or Moreno, the running back?

[DonHutson]

The thing about the Quinn deal is that Cleveland needed to trade up above 23 in order to get Quinn, since Kansas City was on record that they would take Quinn if he was there. Green Bay was picking at 16, so if Cleveland offered less for the pick than Green Bay wanted, they had teams 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 to negotiate with. The word from the draft was that Cleveland was lowballing everybody, until they got desperate at around teams 21 and 22 which was the point of no return for them. They eventually ended up giving up a lot to the last possible team they could trade up for in order to get Quinn.

As I understand it, Cleveland offered next year's first (turned out to be #22), and a swap of 2nd and 3rd round picks to Green Bay, Jacksonville, Tennessee, and New York all of which turned down the offer since it was a bad deal (no additional picks this year). Dallas was sitting in the "last chance" seat ,so they named their price (which was Cleveland's second and next year's first).

This year, Green Bay is likely to be sitting in the "last chance" seat, since San Francisco will probably take a QB if one is available. So the odds of us getting a favorable deal are better. After all, if you're in a position where a team might want to trade up to take a QB, it's best to be picking one spot before another team that needs a QB, since other needy teams will want to jump that team.

Excellent explanation of that scenario. Remember where you posted it so we can find it again the next time somebody bitches about Ted not making that trade.

Lots of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that we took Harrell instead of trading for an extra first rounder. As you say, all we really would've done is postponed our #1 for a year while losing 6 spots in the process.

[cpk1994]

He does surprise, doesn't he? The only time his first pick didn't surprise me was the Hawk pick. I was even a little surprised and disappointed in the Rodgers pick. Shows you how much I know.I wasn't suprised or disappointd. Once Rodgers fell that far it was a slam dunk to me. It was also the first time I was excited about a first round pick in a long long time. I also remember Cliff Christl subtly ripping on that pick(what else was new, just more evidence that ol Cliffy has a personal problem of some kind with TT).

[DonHutson]

Maybe that Maybin guy? Or Tyson Jackson? Or Moreno, the running back?

Assuming Raji, Curry, J. Smith, Orakpo, and Monroe are gone (and at this point it looks likely that will be the case, but there's lots of time yet) I think you nailed the two most likely candidates in Maybin or Jackson.

Jackson might qualify as a Ted sleeper pick. He didn't get a lot of attention early because he was thought of as more of a 2nd round guy. Now you see his name moving higher, but not so quickly that he's generating a lot of attention now.

Both seem fairly safe character-wise, and are mentioned as having good leadership skills - which seems to have been Ted's M.O. for most of his top picks.

I'd prefer Maybin, mostly because he plays more of an impact position and he probably has more upside (but also more risk) due to his relative inexperience.

[Bretsky]

will be interesting if Crabtree is there and TT decides to go BPA or for need

[Joemailman]

You seem to be assuming that Crabtree would be BPA. I would argue that every team drafting in front of the Packers needs a WR worse than the Packers do. Therefore, if he's there at #9, it might mean the league's GM's don't regard him as high as most of the mock drafts do.

[Rastak]

You seem to be assuming that Crabtree would be BPA. I would argue that every team drafting in front of the Packers needs a WR worse than the Packers do. Therefore, if he's there at #9, it might mean the league's GM's don't regard him as high as most of the mock drafts do.


I have to admit, NFL radio on XM is pretty cool. They talk technical football all the time and he's considered a special player by most of the people on there. He's for sure a top flight prospect.

[Partial]

One thing that is intriguing to me is that he makes all these spectacular plays without great speed or insane size. Will that translate to the pros? I think it will.

[The Shadow]

Can't at all see us going for yet another receiver when we are already stocked.
Defense must be addressed.

[wist43]

Can't at all see us going for yet another receiver when we are already stocked.
Defense must be addressed.

Hasn't stopped TT before... team building be damned.

How many times has he said he will take the player he feels will have the best career... he won't even consider the short term, or needs.

That said, from what little I've seen of Crabtree... he looks like a hell of a player, and if TT took him, I probably wouldn't squawk a whole hell of a lot... Driver is on the down side, Nelson and Jones have ceilings.

Jennings, Crabtree, and Nelson as your 1,2, 3 would be a decent WR corp... we're not SB contenders anyway, so Crabtree wouldn't bother me.

[wist43]

One thing that is intriguing to me is that he makes all these spectacular plays without great speed or insane size. Will that translate to the pros? I think it will.

Jennings didn't have eye popping measurables either... but it took all of 5 minutes of watching him at the post draft mini-camp for me to conclude that the guy was a player.

Very good short area burst... and deceptive long speed. Crabtree looks similar.

[TigerFang]

One thing that is intriguing to me is that he makes all these spectacular plays without great speed or insane size. Will that translate to the pros? I think it will.

Jennings didn't have eye popping measurables either... but it took all of 5 minutes of watching him at the post draft mini-camp for me to conclude that the guy was a player.

Very good short area burst... and deceptive long speed. Crabtree looks similar.

Lots of guys have looked similar to sucessful NFL players and it never translated. I hope Ted has enough sense to stay away from a WR that high. I think he does.

[KYPack]

That's quite true, Fang.

Welcome aboard and all that.

[bbbffl66]

I would LOVE Crabby at #9. With Rodgers throwing to that receiving core, we would have an offense that might set records. The problem is the defense might set records in a bad way!

[DonHutson]

Nobody thought we needed Nelson either, but I was happy to have him when Jones couldn't stay on the field.

You never know what you're going to need next, but I don't think there's a chance in hell he falls to #9.

The more interesting question is what would Detroit do if Crabtree was far and away the top player on their board? If the new GM has balls, they'd take him, but can you imagine another WR...

[red]

i would be surprised if the lions drafted a wr

they just traded roy williams because they didn't want to very high priced wr's, right?

if they draft crabtree, then once again they would have two very young and very expensive wr's. and crab might even cost more then williams did

[packers11]

www.rotoworld.com

There is reportedly a rumor "making the rounds in league circles" that the

Lions are focusing on Mark Sanchez rather than Matthew Stafford.
Sanchez's 2008 numbers were a whole lot better than Stafford's and USC arguably played a tougher schedule than Georgia. Sanchez is also a more consistently accurate passer. His only above average arm strength would be less of a problem in Detroit's dome. It sure looks like the Lions are prepping to draft a QB, and it shouldn't come as a surprise if it's Sanchez.

Source: Profootballtalk.com



This would shake up whole 'mock draft' people had out...

[wist43]

Nobody thought we needed Nelson either, but I was happy to have him when Jones couldn't stay on the field.

You never know what you're going to need next, but I don't think there's a chance in hell he falls to #9.

The more interesting question is what would Detroit do if Crabtree was far and away the top player on their board? If the new GM has balls, they'd take him, but can you imagine another WR...

Then doesn't that mean that the 3rd used to take Jones was wasted??? Harrell's a bust, Nelson was redundant... at some point you've got to hit on positions of need at the top of the draft.

[Fritz]

There was this one dude, Aaron Rodgers, that Thompson took in the first round. He kind of fit a need in 2008. An important need.

[DonHutson]

Nobody thought we needed Nelson either, but I was happy to have him when Jones couldn't stay on the field.

You never know what you're going to need next, but I don't think there's a chance in hell he falls to #9.


Then doesn't that mean that the 3rd used to take Jones was wasted??? Harrell's a bust, Nelson was redundant... at some point you've got to hit on positions of need at the top of the draft.

I wouldn't consider Jones a waste. Driver won't play forever. Jones could be in the mix with Jennings and Nelson for a long time yet.

As for your other points, whether by coincidence or design, Thompson has spread his top picks around pretty well. In the first two rounds, in his four drafts he has taken:

2 QB
1 RB
2 WR (lost 1 due to injury)
1 OL
1 DL
1 LB
2 DB

Whether some position is 'need' or not in any given year, he hasn't really stockpiled any one position at the top of the draft.

[Gunakor]

Nobody thought we needed Nelson either, but I was happy to have him when Jones couldn't stay on the field.

You never know what you're going to need next, but I don't think there's a chance in hell he falls to #9.

The more interesting question is what would Detroit do if Crabtree was far and away the top player on their board? If the new GM has balls, they'd take him, but can you imagine another WR...

Then doesn't that mean that the 3rd used to take Jones was wasted??? Harrell's a bust, Nelson was redundant... at some point you've got to hit on positions of need at the top of the draft.

Isn't it possible that players drafted in the early rounds ARE players drafted at positions of FUTURE need? You know, like Aaron Rodgers being drafted in the first round in 2005 because QB was going to be a position of need in 2008. That meant we didn't have to declare a state of emergency in Green Bay when Favre retired/unretired/was traded. Aaron Rodgers WAS a need pick. Given Driver's age, you could make the same argument for Nelson and Jones. Sooner rather than later, those guys are going to be needs on this offense. I'm glad we took care of those needs before the shit hit the fan. Harrell? While that pick hasn't panned out like Thompson thought it would, DT was absolutely a position of need last season. We might need to look at someone else to fill that need, but it's not because TT didn't do anything at all to address that need. Hawk was the only first round pick TT selected that filled an immediate need, but to say that the other guys TT selected at the top of his drafts weren't selected to fill needs at all is ludicrous. Colledge and Jennings both filled immediate needs being drafted in the second round too, don't forget. TT has made many more need picks at the top of his drafts than you give him credit for.

[wist43]

I'm not arguing to draft for need all the time... If Crabtree fell, I wouldn't bitch - assuming he checks out medically.

That said, you can make the arguement that every player is a need pick if you look 3 years out... it's a 4 year cycle league - rookies can walk after 4 years.

So you finally get production out of Rodgers in 2008... that's 3 years of nothing from a 1st round pick; you let Williams walk with the idea that Harrell will finally offer something in 3 years??? He created a hole on the DL, AND drafted a bust to boot.

Yes, the Colledge pick was at a position of need, but would the team have been better served by having a solid vet in that position???

I have no problem looking to the future... but as I, and many others have been saying, if you are going to contend, eventually you have to fill "that hole" this year; or you have to take a chance and take a bigger swing at a guy who has more upside... TT will likely never do either.

The way TT has things working, he will always be looking to the future... but the future will never be now. You can cite the 13-3 season, but 1) I consider that a fluke, and 2) it was accomplished primarly with Sherman's guys.

As should be pointed out... and it would seem everyone on this board conveniently forgets - to date, TT is a sub .500 GM; and, has certainly drafted his fair share of busts and JAGs. Tough to defend that.

[RashanGary]

As should be pointed out... and it would seem everyone on this board conveniently forgets - to date, TT is a sub .500 GM; and, has certainly drafted his fair share of busts and JAGs. Tough to defend that.

And so has every other GM in the league so it's tough to find merit in this entire paragraph.

As far as his sub .500 record; I love how you use Sherman's guys as a means of minimizing 13-3, but fail to recognize "Sherman's guys" in your main criticism of Thompson (the sub .500 record)

Could it be that you don't like the way Thompson works, don't understand how it is all going to come together and rather than observing, you set out to prove your view, disregarding all contrary evidence and propping up all supporting evidence?

[packers11]

I don't think Crabtree falls past #8 (Jacksonville)

The Jags' current starters are Dennis Northcutt and Mike Walker. :shock:

[Fritz]

Okay, Wist. Let me take your challenge.

Here are draft lists for Wolf's first four drafts and Thompson's first four:

Green Bay Packers Draft Choices
2008
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
2 5 36 Jordy Nelson WR Kansas State
2 25 56 Brian Brohm QB Louisville
2 29 60 Patrick Lee CB Auburn
3 28 91 Jermichael Finley TE Texas
4 3 102 Jeremy Thompson DE Wake Forest
4 36 135 Josh Sitton OT Auburn
5 15 150 Breno Giacomini OT Louisville
7 2 209 Matt Flynn QB Louisiana State
7 10 217 Brett Swain WR San Diego State

2007
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 16 16 Justin Harrell DT Tennessee
2 31 63 Brandon Jackson RB Nebraska
3 14 78 James Jones WR San Jose State
3 26 89 Aaron Rouse S Virginia Tech
5 20 157 David Clowney WR Virginia Tech
6 17 191 Korey Hall LB Boise State
6 18 192 Desmond Bishop LB California
6 19 193 Mason Crosby K Colorado
7 18 228 Deshawn Wynn RB Florida
7 33 243 Clark Harris TE Rutgers

2006
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 5 5 A.J. Hawk LB Ohio State
2 15 47 Daryn Colledge OLB Boise State
2 20 52 Greg Jennings WR Western Michigan
3 3 67 Adul Hodge LB Iowa
3 11 75 Jason Spitz C Louisville
4 7 104 Cory Rodgers WR Texas Christian
4 18 115 Will Blackmon WR Boston College
5 15 148 Ingle Martin QB Furman
5 33 165 Tony Moll OT Nevada
6 14 183 Johnny Jolley DT Texas A&M
6 16 185 Tyrone Culver DB Fresno State
7 45 253 Dave Tollefson DE Northwestern State

2005
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 24 24 Aaron Rodgers QB California
2 19 51 Nick Collins S Bethune-Coookman
2 26 58 Terrence Murphy WR Texas A&M
4 14 115 Marviel Underwood S San Diego State
4 24 125 Brady Poppinga LB Brigham Young
5 7 143 Junius Coston C North Carolina A&T
5 31 167 Michael Hawkins CB Oklahoma
6 6 180 Mike Montgomery DT Texas A&M
6 21 195 Craig Bragg WR UCLA
7 31 245 Kurt Campbell CB Albany (N.Y.)
7 32 246 William Whitticker OG Michigan State


1995
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 32 32 Craig Newsome DB Arizona State
3 1 65 Darius Holland DT Colorado
3 2 66 William Henderson RB North Carolina
3 9 73 Brian Williams LB USC
3 26 90 Antonio Freeman WR Virginia Tech
4 19 117 Jeff Miller OT Mississippi
5 26 160 Jay Barker QB Alabama
5 36 170 Travis Jervey RB Citadel
6 2 173 Charlie Simmons WR Georgia Tech
7 22 230 Adam Timmerman OG South Dakota State

1994
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 16 16 Aaron Taylor OT Notre Dame
3 19 84 LeShon Johnson RB Northern Illinois
4 23 126 Gabe Wilkins DE Gardner-Webb
5 15 146 Terry Mickens WR Florida A&M
5 18 149 Dorsey Levens RB Georgia Tech
6 8 169 Jay Kearney WR West Virginia
6 14 175 Ruffin Hamilton LB Tulane
6 20 181 Bill Schroeder WR Wisconsin-LaCrosse
6 29 190 Paul Duckworth LB Connecticut

1993
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 15 15 Wayne Simmons LB Clemson
1 29 29 George Teague DB Alabama
3 25 81 Earl Dotson OT Texas A&I
5 6 118 Mark Brunell QB Washington
5 7 119 James Willis LB Auburn
6 1 141 Doug Evans DB Louisiana Tech
6 12 152 Paul Hutchins OT Western Michigan
6 16 156 Tim Watson DB Howard
7 15 183 Robert Kuberski DE Navy

1992
Round Pick Overall Name Position School
1 5 5 Terrell Buckley DB Florida State
2 6 34 Mark D'Onofrio LB Penn State
3 6 62 Robert Brooks WR South Carolina State
4 19 103 Edgar Bennett RB Florida State
5 7 119 Dexter McNabb RB Florida
5 18 130 Orlando McKay WR Washington
6 17 157 Mark Chmura TE Boston College
7 22 190 Chris Holder WR Tuskegee
9 6 230 Ty Detmer QB Brigham Young
9 16 240 Shazzon Bradley DT Tennessee
10 5 257 Andrew Oberg OT North Carolina
11 7 287 Gabe Mokwuah LB American
12 6 314 Brett Collins LB Washington

Okay. Looks like Wolf drafted some JAGS, too. It also seems to me he did well pretty often - better than he did later in his tenure.

Wolf's record was 38-26, with a playoff record of 4-3 with no Super Bowl appearances. Thompson's is 31-33, with a 1-1 playoff record and no Super Bowl appearances.

[sharpe1027]

As should be pointed out... and it would seem everyone on this board conveniently forgets - to date, TT is a sub .500 GM; and, has certainly drafted his fair share of busts and JAGs. Tough to defend that.

And so has every other GM in the league so it's tough to find merit in this entire paragraph.

As far as his sub .500 record; I love how you use Sherman's guys as a means of minimizing 13-3, but fail to recognize "Sherman's guys" in your main criticism of Thompson (the sub .500 record)

Could it be that you don't like the way Thompson works, don't understand how it is all going to come together and rather than observing, you set out to prove your view, disregarding all contrary evidence and propping up all supporting evidence?

Wist, we've been through this before and yet you still don't get it. When you are proven wrong on one point, you just switch gears and come at it from another angle. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but all signs point to after-the-fact reasoning to support your conclusion. You won't change your conclusion, instead you'll adjust your reasoning, so it is not really worth discussing any further. Just my opinion. :(

[Gunakor]

I'm not arguing to draft for need all the time... If Crabtree fell, I wouldn't bitch - assuming he checks out medically.

That said, you can make the arguement that every player is a need pick if you look 3 years out... it's a 4 year cycle league - rookies can walk after 4 years.

So you finally get production out of Rodgers in 2008... that's 3 years of nothing from a 1st round pick; you let Williams walk with the idea that Harrell will finally offer something in 3 years??? He created a hole on the DL, AND drafted a bust to boot.

Yes, the Colledge pick was at a position of need, but would the team have been better served by having a solid vet in that position???

I have no problem looking to the future... but as I, and many others have been saying, if you are going to contend, eventually you have to fill "that hole" this year; or you have to take a chance and take a bigger swing at a guy who has more upside... TT will likely never do either.

The way TT has things working, he will always be looking to the future... but the future will never be now. You can cite the 13-3 season, but 1) I consider that a fluke, and 2) it was accomplished primarly with Sherman's guys.

As should be pointed out... and it would seem everyone on this board conveniently forgets - to date, TT is a sub .500 GM; and, has certainly drafted his fair share of busts and JAGs. Tough to defend that.

Again though, if we had waited until Favre retired to find his replacement, we likely would have ended up with an Alex Smith type QB in the draft or a Trent Dilfer type journeyman FA. The way we did it, drafting a QB well in advance of when we'd actually need him, grants us valuable time to groom him to be a successful football player. It meant that we didn't have scramble for a QB when the need actually arose, because we already had the next guy on our roster and already had time to groom him properly. That's the old school way of doing things, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Harrell and Williams: What did Williams do in 2008 that would convince anyone he'd be any better on our team than Jolly or Cole were? Williams sucks when asked to be a starter. He sucked for Green Bay when he became a starter too. His value was as a backup, and when Cleveland offered him starters money, it's time to cut the cord. Or would you actually have payed that lazy ass the salary he was tagged at, or the money Cleveland ended up paying him? That has to be considered too when evaluating Williams - it wasn't just Harrell being on the roster that influenced that trade.

It was also a 2nd round pick we got in return, which by itself has more value than Williams would have given us.

Colledge: Yes, perhaps in the very short term the team would have been better served by a vet FA rather than a rookie. But, looking twoard the future, Colledge has had time to develop as a starter and has the potential to be a very good lineman for us for a much longer time than any vet FA would have. Your vet FA would be nearing the end of his contract at this time, if not already off the roster. Right now Colledge isn't a whole lot worse than any vet FA would have been at the time he was drafted, but he's yet to hit his prime and he'll be a long time Packer during it. If we'd have just signed a vet FA back when Colledge was drafted, we'd be needing to sign another vet FA soon to replace the old one, and then another in a few years to replace that one. With that kind of inconsistency on the line, how much better do you think our chances at winning a SB would have been?

Keep in mind too that TT did sign a vet FA to play that very position the year before, and look how that turned out.

Give me a name of one GM who hasn't drafted his share of busts. There was a post on here about all of the first round busts from the 2005 draft - that's quite a few GM's that gaffed on that one. Oddly enough, TT isn't one of them on that list. You have to look at this one realistically, and you'll find that nobody's perfect (or even close to perfect) in the draft. You grade it on an average, and compared to the average TT is well above par. If you grade it on perfection, there isn't one quality GM in the leage. Nobody's going to hit on all of their picks, even and especially in the first round.

As far as him being a sub .500 GM, remember that his first season as GM was an injury riddled team that finished 4-12 with guys like Taco Wallace and Carlyle Holiday catching Favre's passes. Guys like Noah Herron lining up in the backfield. Again I ask, who was TT supposed to sign to be our #5 HB that would have made us better than .500 that season? That season was not TT's fault. If Ahman Green and Javon Walker are healthy that whole season (meaning their backups likely would be as well), we are probably 10-6 and in the playoffs. But, gosh, TT has done a remarkable job restocking the depth at those skill positions, hasn't he? Rest assured that what we saw in 2005 will never happen again under TT's watch.

[cheesner]

I'm not arguing to draft for need all the time... If Crabtree fell, I wouldn't bitch - assuming he checks out medically.

That said, you can make the arguement that every player is a need pick if you look 3 years out... it's a 4 year cycle league - rookies can walk after 4 years.

So you finally get production out of Rodgers in 2008... that's 3 years of nothing from a 1st round pick; you let Williams walk with the idea that Harrell will finally offer something in 3 years??? He created a hole on the DL, AND drafted a bust to boot.

Yes, the Colledge pick was at a position of need, but would the team have been better served by having a solid vet in that position???

I have no problem looking to the future... but as I, and many others have been saying, if you are going to contend, eventually you have to fill "that hole" this year; or you have to take a chance and take a bigger swing at a guy who has more upside... TT will likely never do either.

The way TT has things working, he will always be looking to the future... but the future will never be now. You can cite the 13-3 season, but 1) I consider that a fluke, and 2) it was accomplished primarly with Sherman's guys.

As should be pointed out... and it would seem everyone on this board conveniently forgets - to date, TT is a sub .500 GM; and, has certainly drafted his fair share of busts and JAGs. Tough to defend that.
You won't bitch about something TT does? I will believe it when I see it.

How can you possibly pan the Rodgers pick at this point? At the time it was a need because BF did not say if he was coming back until after the draft. That he ended up staying on was not something TT knew for sure. Also, waiting on the bench for 3 years could be the reason (I think it is) that AR has succeeded when 75% of QBs drafted in the first fail.

TT seems to draft the guys with more potential than the player who is more NFL ready. He drafts guys like jennings who have lots of upside, but are a bit raw and will need some time to develop. Using this strategy, you will generally get better players, but you won't see their impact for a few years, but it should be more significant when it comes.

[Lurker64]

Personally I think that the idea that there are two schools of draft philosophy "Best Player Available" and "Draft for need" is really sort of specious. Everybody pretty much agrees on everything but minor details.

The BPA guys will tell you that the reason you don't just draft a QB every pick is that you don't measure "best" so much by the guy's tape or his upside, you measure "best" in terms of "the guy who will help your team the most." But the guy who will help your team the most probably fills a need, doesn't he?

The "Draft for need" guys will tell you that the way you identify "needs" on a team is really by looking at which positions are most upgradeable. As in "what position could you replace a guy with another guy in such a way that it improves the team the most." If you upgrade a position and it doesn't really help the team, you're not really fulfilling any sort of "need". In other words, you're drafting the best player available.

Since every team needs "the best players they can get" and the players that help you the most are generally the best available (by the only useful standards for best), there really isn't a huge difference between the two "camps."

Really, we just like to argue about whether you should "reach" for guy x at position A because we need better players at position A, defined as a "reach" because we don't think that teams drafting after us will take guy x for many picks; or whether we should take "value" in a guy that, though not a position we think is lacking, would be a guy who teams after us would jump for joy if he "slipped" to them.

The fact of the matter though, is that as NFL fans who are varying degrees of casual about it, we don't know our own rosters or the players in the draft well enough to really know what our "needs" are or who the "best players available" are. We guess, and sometimes we're right, but sometimes we're very much not right. Remember, the year we took Harrell, many people were claiming that our biggest need was a WR to be "A weapon for Favre" and we argued about whether we should take Bowe or Meachem." Well, turns out we got no weapon for Favre with that pick (and really no value from our #1 at all), but we still had one of the best offenses in the NFL. Most everybody who argues about football on the internet doesn't know half as much as they think they do. The guys who know really, really know personnel tend to be employed by teams, and the guys who are a couple steps below those guys tend to be employed by the media. The rest of us just have to argue football on the internet for something to do.

All picks are need picks. All picks are BPA picks.

[wist43]

How is that my view is much more mainstream on Milwaukee sports talk radio... but a voice in the wilderness in here??? Silverstein, McGinn, Ellerson... not just me fella's.

That said... you guys seem to forget that I regard TT as a decent talent evaluator. Just don't see how his approach lands us SB's.

In another thread, don't remember who said it, or the exact quote, but I agree in general with the statement that TT simply doesn't use all of the tools available to him.

1250 has been playing a clip where TT says, "we don't draft for need"... he says it and you guys say, "nah, he really doesn't mean it", when 4 years of evidence suggests that he is shooting straight with that statement.

When you're draft 647 guys every year, you're bound to draft guys at positions of need... but drafting a DE in the 4th round is a far cry from dealing multiple draft choices to move up and draft a guy like Mario Williams (and good gravy, don't take that example literally and start going off about how Williams was unattainable - just throwing a name out there as an example of a difference maker, as opposed to a Jeremy Thompson.

[sharpe1027]

How is that my view is much more mainstream on Milwaukee sports talk radio... but a voice in the wilderness in here??? Silverstein, McGinn, Ellerson... not just me fella's.

That said... you guys seem to forget that I regard TT as a decent talent evaluator. Just don't see how his approach lands us SB's.

In another thread, don't remember who said it, or the exact quote, but I agree in general with the statement that TT simply doesn't use all of the tools available to him.

1250 has been playing a clip where TT says, "we don't draft for need"... he says it and you guys say, "nah, he really doesn't mean it", when 4 years of evidence suggests that he is shooting straight with that statement.

When you're draft 647 guys every year, you're bound to draft guys at positions of need... but drafting a DE in the 4th round is a far cry from dealing multiple draft choices to move up and draft a guy like Mario Williams (and good gravy, don't take that example literally and start going off about how Williams was unattainable - just throwing a name out there as an example of a difference maker, as opposed to a Jeremy Thompson.

How is it no matter what evidence is shown against your rationale, you hold fast to your position?

Look, you and all those others might be right that TT is not the answer. Most everyone acknowledges that. However, your arguments consistently rely upon vague generalizations and when confronted with the facts you shift your argument. You are the one trying to prove something, most of the rest of us are pointing out that it is not so cut-and-dried.

Your current position is that unless the Packers trade multiple draft picks to move up for one player the team will never win a SB? I think history says exactly the opposite. :roll:

[wist43]

My position is pretty consistent... I have no problem with TT building primarily thru the draft; in fact, I'm an advocate of building thru the draft.

However, at some point you have to take your shots at difference makers... TT has fleshed out the middle of the roster pretty well, but where are the difference makers???

As I said, Jeremy Thompson and AJ Hawk, or Mario Williams??? Certainly, it would take more than a 4th rounder to move up to get a guy like that, but Williams has proven that he would have been worth giving up some choices... of course, TT would never have done that, and he never will do it. So we're stuck with guys like Thompson and Hawk...

So, AJ Hawk, Mike Montegomery, Johnny Jolly (who I like, if he can stay out of jail), Jeremy Thompson, etc... those are the guys we're going to win a championship with??? TT's philosophy says that if he has enough darts, he's bound to hit on some guys... where are those guys??? Just Jennings.

Does it say that TT lacks confidence to stick his neck out and go after a guy, and that he finds safety in numbers??? I don't know, but in the end, after 4 years, we're 6-10, the defense has been scrapped, the OL is still a mess, we need OT's, CB's, LB's, DL etc... tons of young guys on the roster, and tons of holes too.

As I've said, I'm the minority voice in the Green and Gold lovefest you guys have going on in here, but in the rest of Packer nation, TT is a pariah. Hell, 1250 even did a segment a few weeks ago talking about how TT has divided the Packer fan base... I find it somewhat interesting that there aren't more dissenting voices on here, but I suspect the homers on here drove most of those guys away during the 13-3 season - during which time I was predisposed with a messy divorce... In fact, I didn't even watch a single game that year... only snippets here and there.

Really can't explain why the views on this board are so one sided though... TT is a sub .500 GM, that's a fact; he drove off some good players and mishandled Favre, that's a fact; he missed on Harrell, and Hawk is what I feared, i.e. JAG, those are facts... not sure why there's so much love for TT in here.

[Bretsky]

Wist,

I'm with you more than you will think; I just don't have the energy to fight.
I agree that TT doesn't seem to be willing to take the risk to use all avenues
I'd also agree that his draft strategy of quantity will often recycle the bottom third of our roster
TT has a nice strategy to keep us decent for a long time; but is it really one to win a Super Bowl with ?

[sharpe1027]

My position is pretty consistent... I have no problem with TT building primarily thru the draft; in fact, I'm an advocate of building thru the draft.


Your position is consistent, the specific details of your reasoning shift as people poke holes in it. And yes, every GM builds through the draft.



However, at some point you have to take your shots at difference makers... TT has fleshed out the middle of the roster pretty well, but where are the difference makers???


Maybe. I think the Packers have players that are good enough to win, we'll see soon enough.



As I said, Jeremy Thompson and AJ Hawk, or Mario Williams??? Certainly, it would take more than a 4th rounder to move up to get a guy like that, but Williams has proven that he would have been worth giving up some choices... of course, TT would never have done that, and he never will do it. So we're stuck with guys like Thompson and Hawk...


Hindsight is 20/20. The facts remain that you can always find what-ifs looking back. You conveniently ignore all the other picks that fail and then try to compare two picks that do not have the benefit of hindsight and compare them to your ideal pick. You can do the same thing with any GM and make them look just as bad.



So, AJ Hawk, Mike Montegomery, Johnny Jolly (who I like, if he can stay out of jail), Jeremy Thompson, etc... those are the guys we're going to win a championship with??? TT's philosophy says that if he has enough darts, he's bound to hit on some guys... where are those guys??? Just Jennings.


How about Woodson? How about Pickett? How about Kampman? How about Rodgers? How about Collins? How about Jenkins? How about Driver? How about Grant?



Does it say that TT lacks confidence to stick his neck out and go after a guy, and that he finds safety in numbers???


No. It says the guys he liked were likely to be available at a lower position.



I don't know, but in the end, after 4 years, we're 6-10, the defense has been scrapped, the OL is still a mess, we need OT's, CB's, LB's, DL etc... tons of young guys on the roster, and tons of holes too.


You are a huge pessimist.



As I've said, I'm the minority voice in the Green and Gold lovefest you guys have going on in here, but in the rest of Packer nation, TT is a pariah.

:cry:



Hell, 1250 even did a segment a few weeks ago talking about how TT has divided the Packer fan base...


He divided them how? Because of Favre? What specifically has he done that is so bad that Packer fans are divided and the sky is falling? Christ wist, what GM, player or coach hasn't had the Packer fan base divided at one point or another?



I find it somewhat interesting that there aren't more dissenting voices on here, but I suspect the homers on here drove most of those guys away during the 13-3 season - during which time I was predisposed with a messy divorce... In fact, I didn't even watch a single game that year... only snippets here and there.


Look, you are trying to prove the Packer organization will fail. When are you going to realize that you can't prove it. It is just your opinion, based upon a vague notion of 'difference makers' that sounds awful familiar...



Really can't explain why the views on this board are so one sided though...


You don't get it. You are trying to prove something that is unknowable. Maybe the Packers organization as it currently stands will not win a SB. Of course, maybe they will. You continue to preach and act as if what you say is irrefutable. Frankly, it is not much more than a generalized opinion based upon some rather loose ideas.



TT is a sub .500 GM, that's a fact; he drove off some good players and mishandled Favre, that's a fact; he missed on Harrell, and Hawk is what I feared, i.e. JAG, those are facts... not sure why there's so much love for TT in here.

Yep, sub .500 GM so far. But he is still only a year removed from going to the NFC championship game and there are plenty of reasons for last years performance, not the least of which is the loss of ah HoF QB.

Every GM drafts JAGs.

[wist43]

Wist,

I'm with you more than you will think; I just don't have the energy to fight.
I agree that TT doesn't seem to be willing to take the risk to use all avenues
I'd also agree that his draft strategy of quantity will often recycle the bottom third of our roster
TT has a nice strategy to keep us decent for a long time; but is it really one to win a Super Bowl with ?

You said it in brief better than I've been saying it at length... lol :)

[Rastak]

So, AJ Hawk, Mike Montegomery, Johnny Jolly (who I like, if he can stay out of jail), Jeremy Thompson, etc... those are the guys we're going to win a championship with??? TT's philosophy says that if he has enough darts, he's bound to hit on some guys... where are those guys??? Just Jennings.




How about Woodson? How about Pickett? How about Kampman? How about Rodgers? How about Collins? How about Jenkins? How about Driver? How about Grant?

Well, talking about TT here:

Woodson worked out great. Very good pickup.

Pickett was a good signing too, although didn't have a great year last year from what I read.

Kampman? TT had nothing to do with him.

Rodgers? Good pick, although considering where he got him compared with where he was projected not a completely unexpected move. It was against the grain though and looks to be a great pick.

Collins? One good year and a new defense coming up.

Jenkins? Looks good, but hurt alot.

Driver? TT has nothing to do with him.

Grant? Great year with Favre, OK year with Rodgers. I think most Packer fans want to see what year 3 shows. Jackson seemed to outplay him from what I read.





I don't know, but in the end, after 4 years, we're 6-10, the defense has been scrapped, the OL is still a mess, we need OT's, CB's, LB's, DL etc... tons of young guys on the roster, and tons of holes too.



You are a huge pessimist.

The fact remains, although you choose to ignore it.







I find it somewhat interesting that there aren't more dissenting voices on here, but I suspect the homers on here drove most of those guys away during the 13-3 season - during which time I was predisposed with a messy divorce... In fact, I didn't even watch a single game that year... only snippets here and there.



Look, you are trying to prove the Packer organization will fail. When are you going to realize that you can't prove it. It is just your opinion, based upon a vague notion of 'difference makers' that sounds awful familiar...

Completely agree, although you do seem to gloss over the overall record.



Really can't explain why the views on this board are so one sided though...



You don't get it. You are trying to prove something that is unknowable. Maybe the Packers organization as it currently stands will not win a SB. Of course, maybe they will. You continue to preach and act as if what you say is irrefutable. Frankly, it is not much more than a generalized opinion based upon some rather loose ideas.

In wists's defense, you claim the unknowable, that things are on the right track. 6-10? How can you know more than he does?

By the way, I am almost always optimistic with my team so I don't think your position is bad. Just realize your side isn;t for sure right either.



TT is a sub .500 GM, that's a fact; he drove off some good players and mishandled Favre, that's a fact; he missed on Harrell, and Hawk is what I feared, i.e. JAG, those are facts... not sure why there's so much love for TT in here.


Yep, sub .500 GM so far. But he is still only a year removed from going to the NFC championship game and there are plenty of reasons for last years performance, not the least of which is the loss of ah HoF QB.

A guy he friggen traded! The loss of a HF QB? You make it sound like he quit. (LOL, I mean later in the year.....) :wink:

[run pMc]

Other than the oddball picks I don't have too much trouble with TT's strategy. Most of the FA's are retreads or overpriced.
Canty is a decent player, but is he better than everyone on the defense such that he would be the highest player? 3-4 DE's are needed for the roster, but they aren't the playmakers...overpaying for a JAG-type of spot would make waves in the locker room and wreck the salary cap. You think Tramon and Collins wouldn't be paying attention?

I'd rather TT save the cap money to resign or extend GB's players -- Jennings, etc.

I agree with the post that all picks are both BPA and need picks.
I'd expect that TT drafts this way, but when looking at BPA/need he's looking at getting the best value. The guy's got an MBA for pete's sake, I'm sure he looks at the opportunity cost involved with picking a DT vs. a safety in R1 (or going the FA route). Some spots are harder to fill than others as you get later in the draft. If he can get a comparable quality of player at the same position with a lower pick (later round or via trade down), why wouldn't he?

The cost to sign a top-10 pick who might not pan out can be crippling. Too many people expect those picks to start on Day 1 and play like All-Pros. I wouldn't be surprised if TT traded down a few spots (DEN? PHI's R1 picks?).

Meh, whatever TT does will probably work out fine. I agree there are many positions that need upgrading or where the youngsters need to step up. GB lost a lot of close games last year (including 2 in OT), so maybe they aren't that far off. Time will tell.

[sharpe1027]

Pickett was a good signing too, although didn't have a great year last year from what I read.


He was still pretty good last year and was the best DT by far.



Kampman? TT had nothing to do with him.


Sorry, not true. The Packers choose to resign him and made sure there was the cap to do it.



Rodgers? Good pick, although considering where he got him compared with where he was projected not a completely unexpected move. It was against the grain though and looks to be a great pick.


So, if it is expected that effects the value of it somehow? Why bring that up at all? Doesn't seem relevant in the least...



Collins? One good year and a new defense coming up.


Yep, but he was a difference maker last year. Besides according to Wist it is a win now league, why should we care about the next year?



Jenkins? Looks good, but hurt alot.


Yep, but he was a difference maker when he played.



Driver? TT has nothing to do with him.


Same as Kampman



Grant? Great year with Favre, OK year with Rodgers. I think most Packer fans want to see what year 3 shows. Jackson seemed to outplay him from what I read.


Sure, I want to see what year 3 shows. No way Jackson outplayed him. Not even close. Jackson came in for spot duty at very favorable run downs, not first and ten when the line was stacked against him.




The fact remains, although you choose to ignore it.


Sorry, to spell it out more clearly, IMO, wist is overstating the condition of the roster. I won't quibble about whether an upgrade would be helpful, but saying almost ever position is a huge need is pessimistic.



Completely agree, although you do seem to gloss over the overall record.

In wists's defense, you claim the unknowable, that things are on the right track. 6-10? How can you know more than he does?

By the way, I am almost always optimistic with my team so I don't think your position is bad. Just realize your side isn;t for sure right either.

With all due respect, I never said they were on the right track. It seems you have the same proble as wist. You assume that you either have to hate TT or love the guy. Either he is ruining the team or he is a savior.

No.



A guy he friggen traded! The loss of a HF QB? You make it sound like he quit. (LOL, I mean later in the year.....) :wink:


A guy who did plenty to warrant the trade including demanding an outright release and doing everything he could to force a trade when he wasn't given special treatment. Please, there is no need to kick that decomposed horse.

[Guiness]

Rodgers? Good pick, although considering where he got him compared with where he was projected not a completely unexpected move. It was against the grain though and looks to be a great pick.


So, if it is expected that effects the value of it somehow? Why bring that up at all? Doesn't seem relevant in the least...


Rodgers certainly appears to be a great pick to me, and was a good move by TT. Sure, he was projected higher (whatever projected means) but plenty of other teams, many who had more QB needs than GB, passed on him. No one would've blinked if GB had passed and allowed him to continue to drop.

[packers11]

BUMP... A lot of teams interested in Sanchez... Could the #9 slot be the lucky spot were teams want to jump in front of SF?

pft.com


Will The Jets Trade Up To Land Sanchez?
Posted by Aaron Wilson on April 16, 2009, 11:05 a.m.

USC quarterback Mark Sanchez is rapidly becoming the wild card of the NFL Draft with projected destinations ranging throughout the top 15 picks.

Could the New York Jets be tempted to trade up for Sanchez to address their quarterback issue?

According to Rich Cimini of the New York Daily News, Sanchez is likely to be picked between the eighth and the 13th overall selections. With the Jets holding the 17th overall selection, they would likely need to move up to land him.

“If the Jets are convinced he’s the real deal, they could trade up for him,” Cimini writes.

Sanchez met with Jets team owner Woody Johnson and other team officials during the NFL owners meetings, and Sanchez was encouraged about a private workout he conducted with the AFC East franchise at his high school.

Besides Johnson, Sanchez has met with coach Rex Ryan, General Manager Mike Tannenbaum, offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer and quarterbacks coach Matt Cavanaugh.

“I think they were really impressed with everything that went on,” Sanchez said during a promotional tour for Sprint phones in New York earlier this week. “I think they got a great feel for me out of the helmet finally, to see what this kid is all about.

“It was great. I was very comfortable with them. I threw it really well I was spinning it all day … I knocked down all the throws. It was great.”

According to Sanchez, his agent has been talking with the Jets quite regularly since that workout



Mike Mayock of the NFL Network believes the Broncos are “crazy” if they don’t do what it takes to draft USC QB Mark Sanchez.



Sanchez Redskins’ Radar
Posted by Aaron Wilson on April 15, 2009, 4:26 p.m.

It’s no secret that Washington Redskins team owner Daniel Snyder has grown enamored of USC quarterback Mark Sanchez, according to Jason La Canfora of the Washington Post.

[chain_gang]

I still feel that the Broncos will be our trading partner if we trade down.
With the most likely scenario being Denver giving us their #12 pick and 3rd round they received from the Bears #84(pending Sanchez is on the board). I really like that idea trading down only 3 spots and picking up an extra 3rd rounder. We may have to swap picks with them in a late round, but I'd still do it. As is the TVC favors Green Bay a bit. We're giving up 1350 and receiving 1370 according to the chart, but like I said if Sanchez is there I don't think Denver would hesitate.

Another one with Denver could be their #18 and #48 pick in the 2nd for GB's #9, this one favors Denver a little. 1350 to 1320, but I think this is highly unlikely due to the fact that the Broncos wouldn't have a 2nd round pick then.


The first scenario I'm all in favor of. We'd only drop 3 spots, and the odds are greater that we could snag someone that fell out of the top 10.

[digitaldean]

Was reading on PFT earlier today that ALL of the top 10 teams reportedly were looking to trade down at one time or another.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/16/mayock-nfl-draft-is-lopsided/

This has got to be the final straw for the NFLPA. They need to get their heads out of the behinds and state they'll trade a rookie salary cap for some other owner concession. In no other profession, does a snot-nosed newbie first round pick make multiple times more than a proven veteran.

This situation will only get worse if nothing gets done.

As for the Packers trading down, I wouldn't be shocked to see the Packers trade down if Sanchez is still available for someone to trade up with us. If Thompson has Smith (Alabama) or Oher available if they still trade down a few slots, Ted would be all over that. If he does that and a BPA like Crabtree is there, I'd seriously cringe at that.

Since they are not real players in FA, TT has to get his first round pick to make absolute contributions NOW. Otherwise, another Justin Harrell debacle will help grease the skids out of town if the Packers don't make the playoffs.

[Guiness]

Didn't most people consider Smith to be the best of the bunch, until he "lost focus"?

Yes, I think he was widely considered the top OT prospect, so was expected to go #2 at the lowest.

I commented in another thread how much money he 'gave' to the other Smith.