Understanding the Neal Pick

[Lurker64]

Initially, I was thinking "huh" and "this is a reach" and "this isn't a position of need" in response to the pick. But I try not to be particularly emotional about these things (at least half of all picks won't work out, no matter where they're drafted or at what position, and after thinking about it I think I understand it better and better. I'm not saying I love the pick, I'm just saying I understand it and I'm convinced it's not a terrible pick.

First of all, let's look at some of Ted's tendencies. Ted tends to value the following things a lot in draft prospects (in no particular order):
1) Size
2) Functional athleticism (relative to position).
3) Leadership
4) Work Ethic.
5) Stepped up performance against elite competition (inc. performing well in college all-star games).

When evaluated from this perspective, the Neal pick is perfectly predictable. I didn't have him on my radar before the draft (I honestly didn't pay that much attention to Purdue), but in retrospect it seems like a slam dunk for Ted's tendencies. First of all, he's 6-4 295 with 33" arms, which is both large and somewhat ideal size for playing his position in the defense (5-technique). He's also immensely strong with great burst, putting up 31 reps at the combine, and having a 1.60 second 10-yard split, better than some of the pure pass rushers; strength and burst are probably the most important measurables for the trenches. He was a team captain at Purdue. He was a weight room junkie, having bench pressed 500+ several times in his career. He also performed very well in both the East-West Shrine Game and the Senior Bowl practices. So you can really tick the box next to almost all of Ted's favorite things.

If you go around and read a lot of the draft analysts who aren't professional scouts you will get things like: "Motor runs hot and cold", "Stamina is an issue", "There are questions about his consistency, that he takes plays off. Conditioning has been poor.", "stands around too much when the play gets away from him". However, to me, this smacks of guys who watch tape, but don't really watch whole games. Certainly, he's guilty of some of these things, but the mitigating factor is that in the Purdue defense, they never rotated him out. Which lead to him playing 70-80 snaps a game. There's not a defensive tackle in the NFL who could play 70-80 snaps without "taking plays off" or "having an inconsistent motor." 300 pound bodies just can't go at 100% for an entire game, which is why teams rotate their defensive linemen. This is something that you would notice if you watched an entire game, but not something you'll see from just watching tape on a prospect. So don't trust any accounts of "laziness" or "inconsistent motor". The knocks on him about "doesn't have a counter" are accurate, but this is something that can be corrected by coaching. No college player is perfect after all.

Also, looking at positional value, mid second round is a reasonable place to get 5-technique defensive linemen. It's about where Igor Olshansky was drafted, and Neal compares positively to Olshansky coming out of college.

So not a perfect pick, but not necessarily a bad one. It's a pick that's worthy of giving the benefit of the doubt because there's not an NFL front office that doesn't do a more in-depth job scouting college prospects than whoever your favorite draft analyst is. Even the very good ones (Mike Mayock, Wes Bunting, etc.) don't have nearly the knowledge base that teams do. When teams scout, they have regional scouts that live in the area, attend as many games and practices as they can, and speak to coaches when convenient. Any scout who is simply assigned to the players in a relatively small region, is going to do a better job with the prospects of that region than any national analyst. There's simply too much football for any one man to watch all of it.

[Lurker64]

Oh, and I almost forgot to address the "isn't a position of need" angle. While I'll admit that the defensive line is not a critical need, this pick addresses the following concerns:

-Justin Harrell is unable to get in the field
-Cullen Jenkins and Johnny Jolly are in contract years.
-Johnny Jolly's availability may be compromised by his legal woes.
-There are concerns about Jenkins' age (29) and durability.
-There are concerns about Jolly's maturity; will he still play hard after making millions?
-Raji is slightly out of position in the 5-tech.
-Other than the guys mentioned, the defensive line rotation isn't very impressive.
--Montgomery is gone, and wasn't very good to begin with.
--Jarius Wynn and Ronald Talley both lack the functional strength to be effective members of a rotation at DE; despite potential both will get pushed around by NFL blockers.

We'll keep five DL active on game days, expect Jolly, Jenkins, Pickett, Raji, and Neal (barring a miracle from Harrell).

[mmmdk]

Thanx a zillion; I was pondering this pick quite a bit.

[packrulz]

I understand the pick, the guy can lift 500lbs and is a good 5 technique player, but I still wonder if TT still could've drafted him 30 picks later. Even if he had been taken, guys like Al Woods, LSU, Cam Thomas, NC, and Corey Wooton, Northwestern are still on the board. I guess they figured Neal was no longer a secret after the senior bowl and felt he was perfect for Capers D.

[twoseven]

I understand the pick, the guy can lift 500lbs and is a good 5 technique player, but I still wonder if TT still could've drafted him 30 picks later. Even if he had been taken, guys like Al Woods, LSU, Cam Thomas, NC, and Corey Wooton, Northwestern are still on the board. I guess they figured Neal was no longer a secret after the senior bowl and felt he was perfect for Capers D.adding on to these posts and just wondering, where else could we have gone with the pick? was there a 3-4 OLB to play opposite Matthews sitting there with #65 overall or greater value? i am assuming we got our man at safety in the third, so how else could things have been crafted with that second pick, other than a trade down which is never as easy as we make it seem here?

[Joemailman]

I actually had him on my radar a bit. I was just thinking 3-4 round, not 2nd. I think the Jolly situation probably caused Ted to take him rather than wait a round and risk losing him.

[twoseven]

I actually had him on my radar a bit. I was just thinking 3-4 round, not 2nd. I think the Jolly situation probably caused Ted to take him rather than wait a round and risk losing him.that's the one that too many people never bring up, where a player is on your board versus how likely they are to still be around when your pick is actually up. to me it is as simple as if we could have known that we would have acquired the three players we got and would not be picking again until the fifth round, did we actually spend our picks wisely? i think bulaga and burnett are arguably of greater value or even steals based upon where we picked them, so if Neal is a bit overvalued, we're still in the black.

[ND72]

You never know what Ted's board looks like either. For all we know, Neal was the top player on his board when they picked him. Since they don't know what others people boards are, knowing that guy might be there 10 picks later isn't functional.

Personally, I guessed we would take a 3-4 DE, and I even had Neal on the list of possible guys. I did think he would be a 3rd round guy, so end of the 2nd round I don't really see as a reach, but obviously all of the "experts" have their opinion.

[RashanGary]

You're making a lot of sense, Lurker.


If you read McGinn's, "what they were saying" article, scouts had him anywhere from 2nd to 4th rounds, mostly 2nd.

The area scout for our team that talked about him sounded really excited. Ted said he didn't scout him as much as the area scout and Dorsey did but was impressed with his shrine and senior bowl tape.

[Scott Campbell]

You never know what Ted's board looks like either. For all we know, Neal was the top player on his board when they picked him. Since they don't know what others people boards are, knowing that guy might be there 10 picks later isn't functional.

Personally, I guessed we would take a 3-4 DE, and I even had Neal on the list of possible guys. I did think he would be a 3rd round guy, so end of the 2nd round I don't really see as a reach, but obviously all of the "experts" have their opinion.


As you get late into the 2nd round, there is more and more disparity among draft boards. It only takes one team to take the guy you targeted. I think it's nonsense to say with any kind of certainty that this or that guy would still be available once you get out of the first round.

[Fritz]

Excellent posts, everyone. Good point about not "knowing" if someone will be available a round later, and Lurk, fine analysis of TT's preferences and how Neal fits that. I feel a little better now about this pick, and also have to remind myself that the game is about the trenches, and who knows how Jenkins/Jolly/Harrell will work out?

[RashanGary]

I made some guarantees at FF in the guarantee thread. One came true, one is well on it's way and one I missed on, but drafting a DL didn't shock me.


1. The Packers will not trade back more than one pick. Thompson has hinted the last couple years that he doesn't need to accumulate as many picks. In the past, he'd trade down, being perfectly happy getting any of several players with an equal grade. Now, his roster is rounding into better shape and he can sit tight and let the need tiebreaker dictate the pick.

2. We will draft a corner in the first 3 rounds. There are quite a few good ones and we really need them.

3. This is a particularly deep DL draft. At some point, Ted's a BPA guy, I think we'll end up with one even though it's one of our deepest positions.

[vince]

http://web.gbiprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/defense1.jpg

[vince]

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/00dG2aY4wt6nL/610x.jpg

[Gunakor]

I'm not sure we "need" a corner as badly as you think Justin. Lee and Underwood could turn out to be as good as many of the really good corners you see in this CB deep draft. We just don't know until we see them play. And Lee, in particular, was pretty good in college - good enough to garner a second round selection that nobody complained about.

We only really NEED a corner if we assume that Jarrett Bush is going to be our nickel back to finish the season again. That was a fluke. Terrible luck. We won't be finishing every single season with 3 of our top 5 corners on IR.

[wist43]

I don't mind the pick per se... but everyone has to admit, it does nothing for us this year, and should we lose Jolly and/or Jenkins, then we simply remain static at that position - and static for a team that was ousted in the first round of the playoffs in humiliating fashion, isn't going to win you any championships.

As I've said, I haven't studied this years draft, don't know anything about the guy... but that doesn't really matter at least in terms of team building. If your BPA every pick is a TE... you can't win with 53 TE's.

The best that can be said, is we stay the same up front; which, as noted, wasn't good enough to begin with.

[RashanGary]

Wist, how many DL do you think we have?

Because by my count, we have 3 proven good ones and 2 quality young prospects. Raji has done very little since coming here, although there is a lot of reason for hope.


Weren't you the guy talking about needed 3 good corners and 2 good prospects?

Why can't we have 3 good DL and 2 good prospects? Is DL not more important than CB? What am I missing. And none of our DL are stars. Jolly is the most complete of the bunch and he's not a star. He's just really good. They're all good. It's not like we have 4 stars. Oh, and Raji really didn't do much last year. If anything, he's still a prospect too. So we have 3 good ones, two coming up to UFA, one of those two with a drug/court issue and two good young prospects. I know you're the guy who always complained about the trenches. How is this overboard. How does this pick not help.

[RashanGary]

Even if everyone is healthy all year, we start 3 DL. We'll play 5 deep with the rotation. If someone goes down, we would have suffered pretty bad without a good backup. You seem to get that with the CB's, but on DL, you think 1 backup is fine? I don't get your logic.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I never complain about a defensive lineman being drafted. So many of them don't pan out, and it's a rotation position, so you have to play the numbers game.

[Lurker64]

I don't mind the pick per se... but everyone has to admit, it does nothing for us this year

I'm not sure I agree. Right now the rotation at NT is Pickett and Raji and the rotation at DE is Jenkins, Jolly, Neal, and Raji. You need to rotate the big guys to keep them fresh.

I think both Wynn and Talley are at least a year out.

[Gunakor]

I don't mind the pick per se... but everyone has to admit, it does nothing for us this year, and should we lose Jolly and/or Jenkins, then we simply remain static at that position - and static for a team that was ousted in the first round of the playoffs in humiliating fashion, isn't going to win you any championships.

As I've said, I haven't studied this years draft, don't know anything about the guy... but that doesn't really matter at least in terms of team building. If your BPA every pick is a TE... you can't win with 53 TE's.

The best that can be said, is we stay the same up front; which, as noted, wasn't good enough to begin with.

This pick does a lot for us if Jolly or Jenkins go down and we don't lose production from that position. Had we not made this pick and Jolly or Jenkins go down we'd be in trouble. Jolly has his legal issues that may keep him out of a few games, and Jenkins has an injury history that suggests he'll miss a game or two this year as well. I don't love the pick for this year, but I don't think it's going to be a complete waste.

Looking forward to future seasons this pick makes more sense to me. Jenkins isn't going to be around forever, and Raji is going to be moving inside to play the nose sooner or later. Neal is probably going to get his shot as a starter for us. So it's hard to be too horribly disappointed with the pick.

[Fritz]

You know, we don't study these guys the way the pros do. A lot of it depends on whether you trust the Packer organization - the scouts, the Ted, et al.

Did anyone get a big boner when Shermy took Aaron Kampman in the fifth round?

Anybody remember the "WTF" after Nick Collins was drafted?

The "why did we waste a first round pick on Rodgers?"

Did anyone in New Orleans P.O.T.W.H. when Marques Colston was drafted?

We just don't know. TT's not doing what we'd like - the needs we see as obvious are not being filled. So we don't like it.

It is some weird stuff, but I have faith in TT. I hope it's a good draft and not the 07 Justin Harrell James Jones Brandon Jackson draft. Which was not horrible but did not produce playmakers or ten year starters on the o-line.

[wist43]

Wist, how many DL do you think we have?

Because by my count, we have 3 proven good ones and 2 quality young prospects. Raji has done very little since coming here.


Weren't you the guy talking about needed 3 good corners and 2 good prospects?

Why can't we have 3 good DL and 2 good prospects? Is DL not more important than CB? What am I missing. And none of our DL are stars. Jolly is the most complete of the bunch and he's not a star. He's just really good. They're all good. It's not like we have 4 stars. Oh, and Raji really didn't do much last year. If anything, he's still a prospect too. So we have 3 good ones, two coming up to UFA, one of those two with a drug/court issue and two good young prospects. I know you're the guy who always complained about the trenches. How is this overboard. How does this pick not help.

Raji had the high ankle sprain... that alone gives him a pass; however, Raji will be a good player.

Raji, Jenkings, Jolly, and Pickett are a decent core... your guy from a few drafts ago is a complete bust, Wynn is just a roster guy... I don't mind drafting front seven people at all... but, as I said, this doesn't do anything to improve the team, it just keeps us at the level we're at now.

While other holes go unaddressed... that's the point.

Is Brad Jones the answer??? Personally, I like the guy... but whether or not he's got red/blue chip potential, I don't know... CB??? You want to talk about need now, and need for developing guys for the future... look no further.

You're playing a 3-4... and you have one good LB (Matthews), 2 average LB's (Barnett and Hawk), and then a bunch of junk... maybe Jones can be a player; Chillar is a JAG.

TT plods along... we're in year 6 of the TT regime with no titles. BPA is his #1 priority, team building is secondary. My point would be that surely there had to be a LB or CB with an equal grade, or close to the same grade, as Neal???

As I said, I don't mind front seven picks in general, but of all the positions in the front seven, DE in a 3-4 is the least impactful. Picking Neal does not make the Packers better, even if he is a good player.

[Fritz]

Wist, I just can't call last year "plodding along."

[RashanGary]

I still disagree. If you want 5 good CB's and only 4 good lineman, you're not a treches guy. 5 is not too many, not even if they're healthy. It's just not.

[RashanGary]

I never thought I'd see the day where we drafted a guy that appears to be our 5th quality D lineman and Wist wanted to trade him back for a cornerback :)

[wist43]

Wist, I just can't call last year "plodding along."

Well, no and yes :D

TT isn't doing anything to build on it... he's drafting for 2013. I've always had serious doubts about TT's committment to winning championships... I said a few years ago, I see TT as a perpetual 10-6 GM.

Last year I became more optimistic b/c of the switch to the 3-4, and then actually drafting players that fit the scheme - but TT has reverted back to BPA regardless of position, and regardless of where the team is in relation to taking the next step.

We'll be here in 2013 having this same conversation... guys drafted this year will be replacing guys TT drafted a few years ago; TT will continue with his BPA regardless of position; and the beat will go on.

Detroit will win a SB before we do, lol...

[wist43]

I never thought I'd see the day where we drafted a guy that appears to be our 5th quality D lineman and Wist wanted to trade him back for a cornerback :)

I actually don't think we're that far away... but being close necessitates taking your shot, and that requires filling holes.

Could we win a SB in the next couple of years if TT filled a few holes??? I think we might could have a shot... but if TT isn't going to fill the holes with front line talent that can get on the field now and make a difference... that window of opportunity will close.

TT is drafting for down the line... that's how he always drafts. We'll be a couple of games either way of 9-7 for the next decade.

It's almost as if TT sees the roster as something akin to a AA minor league baseball roster... it's all about potential and development - winning championships isn't the focus.

[swede]

You know, we don't study these guys the way the pros do. A lot of it depends on whether you trust the Packer organization - the scouts, the Ted, et al.

Did anyone get a big boner when Shermy took Aaron Kampman in the fifth round?

Anybody remember the "WTF" after Nick Collins was drafted?

The "why did we waste a first round pick on Rodgers?"

Did anyone in New Orleans P.O.T.W.H. when Marques Colston was drafted?

We just don't know. TT's not doing what we'd like - the needs we see as obvious are not being filled. So we don't like it.

It is some weird stuff, but I have faith in TT. I hope it's a good draft and not the 07 Justin Harrell James Jones Brandon Jackson draft. Which was not horrible but did not produce playmakers or ten year starters on the o-line.

I know.

It's like a primitive native American ritual where the men dress up like evil spirits and the women chase them out with sticks and blunt spears and then everyone eats pickled buffalo tongue and shags in the tipis after.

TT picks players we couldn't possibly know anything about. We post "WTF!" and "TT thinks he so smart that he won't listen to Mike Mayock and swede, the egomaniac!" And then, after the evil spirits are purged, we go back to calling TT really smart.

He can stay out of my tipi, tho.

[pbmax]

You know, we don't study these guys the way the pros do. A lot of it depends on whether you trust the Packer organization - the scouts, the Ted, et al.

Did anyone get a big boner when Shermy took Aaron Kampman in the fifth round?

Anybody remember the "WTF" after Nick Collins was drafted?

The "why did we waste a first round pick on Rodgers?"

Did anyone in New Orleans P.O.T.W.H. when Marques Colston was drafted?

We just don't know. TT's not doing what we'd like - the needs we see as obvious are not being filled. So we don't like it.

It is some weird stuff, but I have faith in TT. I hope it's a good draft and not the 07 Justin Harrell James Jones Brandon Jackson draft. Which was not horrible but did not produce playmakers or ten year starters on the o-line.

I know.

It's like a primitive native American ritual where the men dress up like evil spirits and the women chase them out with sticks and blunt spears and then everyone eats pickled buffalo tongue and shags in the tipis after.

TT picks players we couldn't possibly know anything about. We post "WTF!" and "TT thinks he so smart that he won't listen to Mike Mayock and swede, the egomaniac!" And then, after the evil spirits are purged, we go back to calling TT really smart.

He can stay out of my tipi, tho.
But you have yet to make clear when the women will appear to accompany us to the tepees?

[twoseven]

I never complain about a defensive lineman being drafted. So many of them don't pan out, and it's a rotation position, so you have to play the numbers game.+1

[twoseven]

I still disagree. If you want 5 good CB's and only 4 good lineman, you're not a treches guy. 5 is not too many, not even if they're healthy. It's just not...and you also find yourself in a position to trade one down the line should you be so lucky as to have too many quality DL. corey williams went for a 2nd or 3rd, didn't he?

[Guiness]

Just one thing that occured to me - is Cody not a fit for out D at all? Not that it matters, but a much higher rated prospect was left on the board. I wonder why TT ignored him and too Neal?

[Pugger]

I thought I read somewhere online that our D linemen got gassed late in games in the second half of the season so maybe addressing the line was a need. And I'm sure Capers was consulted on these moves.

[Tony Oday]

I have to say all successful GMs draft for 3 years from now because what rookie contributes a ton to a super bowl run? Really I would like to know. They are not the ones that put you over the top of a 10-6 season, its the guys that were drafted two years ago that step in and step up.

[Lurker64]

Just one thing that occured to me - is Cody not a fit for out D at all? Not that it matters, but a much higher rated prospect was left on the board. I wonder why TT ignored him and too Neal?

Cody's a fat slug (slowest player to ever be drafted in the modern draft era) who can really only play the nose in this defense, a position already manned by two highly paid guys in Raji and Pickett. Neal is a 295 pound man with 6 pack abs who ran a better 10-yard split than Sergio Kindle. Cody played maybe 20 plays a game for Alabama, while Neal played nearly 80 plays a game for Purdue.

Only one of these guys is going to address concerns about your DEs getting gassed in games.

An ideal defensive line rotation for a 3-4 team consists of:

2-Starting DEs (Jenkins and Jolly), one starting NT (Pickett), one backup DE (Neal), and one swing player who can play DE and NT (Raji).

Last year we had, as our backup DE, Michael Montgomery who was spectacularly useless in this defense (even moreso than any other defense).

[The Leaper]

Neal DOES provide something for us this year if he works out.

Depth on the DL is always a priority IMO. LBs are far more easy to acquire than a capable player on the defensive front.

Jenkins, when healthy, is a true every-down 3-4 DE. He plays both the run and pass pretty well. That is not true of Jolly...at best Jolly is an average pass rusher as a 3-4 DE, and probably is a little below average. His best play against the pass is batting down passes, not collapsing the pocket.

Neal will be more of a pass rushing 3-4 DE. You bring him in on passing downs with Jenkins and Raji. Neal also may be athletic enough to occasionally drop into coverage if we want to blitz 3 LBs to confuse the QB...Jolly sure isn't that kind of athlete.

Jolly is also on the NFL's "personal conduct policy" radar. Ben's ass smacking down in Georgia put any player with some minor run-ins on notice. Jolly is probably one small incident away from suspension. I'm sure we are all hoping Jolly stays out of trouble...but TT certainly can't just expect that will happen and must have a plan B.

[mission]

Nice posts Lurk, Leap... pretty sound reasoning.

[vince]

Nice posts Lurk, Leap... pretty sound reasoning.
I agree.

I can see both sides of this argument. If Neal can add to the pass rush, then this is a great pick. If he doesn't, then we need to get a lot of improvement from Jones in that area this year. It'll be interesting to see what strides he and Obiozor, who appears to be more or less a lock to make the squad, will make this year.

If they can't beat one-on-ones on the left side, Matthews will appear to decline because he'll be double-teamed, chipped, and otherwise schemed against all year. Somebody is going to have to make teams pay for that.

[packrulz]

08/13/2009 - Sometimes you hear the stories of strong men such as Paul Bunyan, John Henry and Pecos Bill, guys so big and powerful you have to see it to believe it. Except, of course, these guys are myths, so you see nothing but the legend. Here on the Bermuda grass of Ross-Ade Stadium, you see senior defensive tackle Mike Neal in all his 6-4, 302-pound reality. He laughs off the legendary strength reference as if it is a tailback trying to stop him from crushing a quarterback. "There are no legends," he says. "I'm pretty strong. That's it." Coach Danny Hope calls Neal Purdue's strongest player and the numbers back him up - a 510-pound bench press, a 615-pound squat, a 385-pound clean. "This is the best I've ever felt," Neal says. "Injuries mean nothing to me. I've never had a major injury. I played a lot. I'm not worried about getting hurt and not being able to play." "Michael Neal can be a great player, not only at his position, but in this league," Hope says. "I think he'll be a premier defensive tackle, maybe the best defensive tackle that's played at Purdue since Jeff Zgonina (the Big Ten defensive player of the year in 1992 and a 15-year NFL veteran). He's got a good motor and he's usually in a bad mood, and that's a good sign for a defensive tackle. He was dominant in the spring and he has a chance to be dominant this season." - Pete DiPrimio, Fort Wayne News Sentinel

Neal just might be the strongest man on the team. Wow!

[falco]

In 2007, we were able to do a lot of rotating on the DL thanks to our depth, and it had a very positive effect on our D that year.

[twoseven]

08/13/2009 - Sometimes you hear the stories of strong men such as Paul Bunyan, John Henry and Pecos Bill, guys so big and powerful you have to see it to believe it. Except, of course, these guys are myths, so you see nothing but the legend. Here on the Bermuda grass of Ross-Ade Stadium, you see senior defensive tackle Mike Neal in all his 6-4, 302-pound reality. He laughs off the legendary strength reference as if it is a tailback trying to stop him from crushing a quarterback. "There are no legends," he says. "I'm pretty strong. That's it." Coach Danny Hope calls Neal Purdue's strongest player and the numbers back him up - a 510-pound bench press, a 615-pound squat, a 385-pound clean. "This is the best I've ever felt," Neal says. "Injuries mean nothing to me. I've never had a major injury. I played a lot. I'm not worried about getting hurt and not being able to play." "Michael Neal can be a great player, not only at his position, but in this league," Hope says. "I think he'll be a premier defensive tackle, maybe the best defensive tackle that's played at Purdue since Jeff Zgonina (the Big Ten defensive player of the year in 1992 and a 15-year NFL veteran). He's got a good motor and he's usually in a bad mood, and that's a good sign for a defensive tackle. He was dominant in the spring and he has a chance to be dominant this season." - Pete DiPrimio, Fort Wayne News Sentinel

Neal just might be the strongest man on the team. Wow!at least now AJ has a lifting partner. :)

[twoseven]

if Dom Capers, who has really turned our defense around in a short time, is the guy who thinks Neal was a good pick, i am not going to spend too much time banging my head against it.

[rbaloha1]

Neal, Raji and Harrell (assuming recovered from injury) is a young, strong and athletic front.

The secondary is blessed with young and talented players. Its the lb that are a concern. Sure would be nice if we could draft Rolando McClain types.

[Gunakor]

I can't wait for Brad Jones to break out this year and shut all of you up that say we absolutely needed a new OLB. Can't fucking wait for that to happen.

You bitch about Thompson not being able to find that 7th round gem, and when he finally does you bitch about how he wouldn't find an upgrade. Talk about a no-win situation.

We're fine at LB.

Neal addresses little this year other than another warm athletic body to add to the DL rotation. He fills a big need going forward, a much bigger need than we had at OLB to begin with. The more I think on this pick the more I like it. I don't know if I like where and how he was taken - I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway. But I like the player. He's going to be a quality addition to our roster.

[mission]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB ....... :duel:

[Lurker64]

We're fine at LB.

Starters are fine (Jones and Matthews presumably), but I worry a little bit about the backups. Generally these guys get rotated and "the next guy in" makes me wonder. Is Cyril Obiozor going to be a player? Is Poppinga going to be adequate in this defense after another year learning it? Are they going to line up Chillar on the outside for passing situations? Is Jeremy Thompson a lost cause? Will Thompson land a veteran (like Bryan Thomas from the Jets?)

There's some cause for consternation, but who knows.

[Gunakor]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB ....... :duel:

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

[Gunakor]

We're fine at LB.

Starters are fine (Jones and Matthews presumably), but I worry a little bit about the backups. Generally these guys get rotated and "the next guy in" makes me wonder. Is Cyril Obiozor going to be a player? Is Poppinga going to be adequate in this defense after another year learning it? Are they going to line up Chillar on the outside for passing situations? Is Jeremy Thompson a lost cause? Will Thompson land a veteran (like Bryan Thomas from the Jets?)

There's some cause for consternation, but who knows.

JT probably is a lost cause at this point. But I like Chillar. He's going to be a high quality backup and could seemingly play inside or outside depending on where they needed him at the time. Keep in mind that Desmond Bishop should be progressing and might just surprise some people as a backup ILB this year, which would free up Chillar to move outside more if need be.

I think I like our LB's this year. I really do. I'm not convinced we needed to add anybody in the first place.

[mission]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB ....... :duel:

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

i think we're good from a depth standpoint but i dont think either hawk or barnett are a true ILB from a pressure standpoint. they do a lot of things well but it'd be nice to have a guy who could run over a RB picking up a blitz. I know I'm describing a young Ray Lewis but you follow...

[Gunakor]

I actually think we need an upgrade at ILB more than OLB ....... :duel:

I think with Barnett, Hawk, Chillar and Bishop we're fine at ILB.

OLB might need depth behind Pop. I'll concede that. But certainly if we'd have drafted, say, Moats in the 5th, Wist would just be complaining that we didn't find anybody better than Brad Jones.

My point is that we don't need anybody better than Brad Jones to start at OLB. Brad Jones is a good football player.

i think we're good from a depth standpoint but i dont think either hawk or barnett are a true ILB from a pressure standpoint. they do a lot of things well but it'd be nice to have a guy who could run over a RB picking up a blitz. I know I'm describing a young Ray Lewis but you follow...

I do. I just don't think of ILB's as high quality pass rushers. They'll be sent from time to time, of course, but it's Jones and Matthews I'm trusting to get after the quarterback.

Green Bay had one of the top rated rush defenses in teh NFL last year. That's where the value of ILB's comes into play IMO. If you are leading the league in rush defense then your ILB's are doing their jobs.

[rbaloha1]

Forgot about Bishop who imo is better suited for ilb than the current starters.

Barnett and Hawk are more sideline to sideline guys. It would be nice to see thumpers. Nonetheless Dom does a good job of tweaking the scheme to account for the ilb weaknesses.

[Lurker64]

Forgot about Bishop who imo is better suited for ilb than the current starters.

Barnett and Hawk are more sideline to sideline guys. It would be nice to see thumpers. Nonetheless Dom does a good job of tweaking the scheme to account for the ilb weaknesses.

Bishop's a harder hitter than Hawk, but I much prefer Hawk in coverage and his reading of run/pass cues and play diagnosis. Bishop historically has alternated between "guessing" and indecision.

Don't get me wrong, Bishop is a guy you definitely want on special teams and in goal-line, but Hawk is absolutely a better fit at the Buck backer on 1st and 10 at the 20 yardline at 15:00 in the first quarter. Situationally though, there's room for Bishop.

If we want a dedicated thumper though, Bishop is probably upgradeable.

[twoseven]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

[falco]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

takes two to tango

[Brohm]

Neal was a good football player on a bad Purdue team. He was the guy that was game-planned for and usually double-teamed. Given his stellar measurables, injury history (lack of) and the fact he never came off the field (~80% of the snaps), I think this is a great pick-up.

As good as Jenkins and Jolly are, they have missed a number of games due to injury in the past and when they are nicked up, their effectiveness, especially Jenkins, drops significantly. Neal will fit into the regular rotation (ultimately starting down the road) and take off some of the pressure/load/snap count and offer more of a pass rush from the position.

This doesn't even take into account the legal/FA/Harrell issues, where it offers coverage.

[Gunakor]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.

[twoseven]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.dude, relax, nobody is calling you out. every year people get on here and make trading back in the draft sound too easy. i just put my two cents in and am not trying to put words in peoples mouths or start some stupid back and forth banter, arguing for days. that being said, you are saying you don't think TT tried hard when you have absolutely no idea what he did or did not do, based solely on the fact that we took neal when we took him, and that is not puting words in your mouth. not sure how you expect people to respond to that kind of statement. and if there was a lot of talent on the board at the time, that alone makes the need to trade up less likely. i do not remember, but did anyone trade up around when we picked neal and within the 10-15-20 picks after us? if no, this would be just one more indicator that no one was willing to move up.

[Lurker64]

There was an AFC scout quoted in the JSO insider of saying " "He looks pretty and he's athletic. He could go late second round"

He did go late second. If there were any other teams with similar opinions, there was no guarantee that he'd be available later.

[packers11]

There was an AFC scout quoted in the JSO insider of saying " "He looks pretty and he's athletic. He could go late second round"

He did go late second. If there were any other teams with similar opinions, there was no guarantee that he'd be available later.

exactly, just like last year when Oakland took that safety that wasn't even supposed to be drafted. It was reported the Bears were going to pick him in the 2nd round as well...

[Gunakor]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.dude, you like to get fired up when you read these posts. relax, nobody is calling you out. every year people get on here and make trading back in the draft sound too easy. i just put my two cents in and am not trying to put words in peoples mouths. finally, you are actually saying you don't think TT tried hard when you have absolutely no idea what he did or did not do. and that is not puting words in your mouth.

I'm getting sick of the whole "You weren't there, you don't know what happened, blah, blah, blah." Use logic. Apply it. You don't think another team with a high 3 would have jumped at the chance to move up 15-20 spots if all it cost them was a 6th or 7th round pick? I don't have to be in a war room to know what the answer to that question is. Ted doesn't have to tell me, it can simply be assumed.

I don't know if such a trade was offered to Thompson, but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down. So no, logically, I don't think he tried very hard, considering he was going to draft Neal that far out of position anyway.

Tell me, what about this screams to you that Ted actually did try to trade down? Or are you just giving him the benefit of the doubt?

[twoseven]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Never said it would be easy, at least not to get fair value in return. Don't put words in my mouth. Just that I thought he could do it. There was much higher rated players available at that pick. Any team that coveted any of those much higher rated players that didn't think that player would remain on the board all the way to their 3rd round pick would have at least been interested. Green Bay might have come up short on the value chart, but we'd have likely wound up with Neal anyway plus another pick. So value charts be damned, if we were gonna draft Neal by staying pat anyway we'd have still come away as winners.

No, I don't think Ted tried very hard. I think he probably took and made a few calls, but wasn't willing to trade for less than (x) amount of value. And when he found no takers he just went and took the guy he'd have had taken anyway, with no added value at all. Take a high 3 and a 7, even though you get fleeced on the value chart big time you still come away with Neal plus another pick. I find it hard to believe that no team in the league would have offered a high 3 and a 7 for that pick, given the talent left on the board at the time. If you were gonna draft Neal anyway, may has well have made the trade.dude, you like to get fired up when you read these posts. relax, nobody is calling you out. every year people get on here and make trading back in the draft sound too easy. i just put my two cents in and am not trying to put words in peoples mouths. finally, you are actually saying you don't think TT tried hard when you have absolutely no idea what he did or did not do. and that is not puting words in your mouth.

I'm getting sick of the whole "You weren't there, you don't know what happened, blah, blah, blah." Use logic. Apply it. You don't think another team with a high 3 would have jumped at the chance to move up 15-20 spots if all it cost them was a 6th or 7th round pick? I don't have to be in a war room to know what the answer to that question is. Ted doesn't have to tell me, it can simply be assumed.

I don't know if such a trade was offered to Thompson, but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down. So no, logically, I don't think he tried very hard, considering he was going to draft Neal that far out of position anyway.

Tell me, what about this screams to you that Ted actually did try to trade down? Or are you just giving him the benefit of the doubt?to tell you the truth, i don't give a flying fuck. at least not enough to keep this conversation going past this post. find someone else to argue with.

[Guiness]

Just one thing that occured to me - is Cody not a fit for out D at all? Not that it matters, but a much higher rated prospect was left on the board. I wonder why TT ignored him and too Neal?

Cody's a fat slug (slowest player to ever be drafted in the modern draft era) who can really only play the nose in this defense, a position already manned by two highly paid guys in Raji and Pickett. Neal is a 295 pound man with 6 pack abs who ran a better 10-yard split than Sergio Kindle. Cody played maybe 20 plays a game for Alabama, while Neal played nearly 80 plays a game for Purdue.

Only one of these guys is going to address concerns about your DEs getting gassed in games.

An ideal defensive line rotation for a 3-4 team consists of:

2-Starting DEs (Jenkins and Jolly), one starting NT (Pickett), one backup DE (Neal), and one swing player who can play DE and NT (Raji).

Last year we had, as our backup DE, Michael Montgomery who was spectacularly useless in this defense (even moreso than any other defense).

Thanks Lurk - well explained, and you're right.

You mention above the # of plays, as did someone else. A DT who plays 75% of the plays? That's something else, didn't think it was possible.

[rbaloha1]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

Why gamble? If this is the highest rated player on your board at this slot take him.

I also like Cody -- another Gilbert Brown. Could have rotated with Pickett.

Neal appears to be a good pick -- ideally suited for Capers 3-4.

[SkinBasket]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

[digitaldean]

I understand the pick, the guy can lift 500lbs and is a good 5 technique player, but I still wonder if TT still could've drafted him 30 picks later. Even if he had been taken, guys like Al Woods, LSU, Cam Thomas, NC, and Corey Wooton, Northwestern are still on the board. I guess they figured Neal was no longer a secret after the senior bowl and felt he was perfect for Capers D.

The Wooten pick may come back to haunt them. The Bears ended up getting him. Wooten would've made a great addition. I thought Neal was a head scratcher. Could have gotten him in the 3rd or 4th instead.

[The Leaper]

Use logic. Apply it. You don't think another team with a high 3 would have jumped at the chance to move up 15-20 spots if all it cost them was a 6th or 7th round pick? I don't have to be in a war room to know what the answer to that question is. Ted doesn't have to tell me, it can simply be assumed.

And your logic is dumb IMO.

You can not have any certainty where Neal would've been taken. Sure, you can base an opinion on a bunch of draft guides put together by people who aren't even affiliated with the NFL...but the bottom line is that it would be MORONIC to trade down 15-20 spots (which is an eternity in the NFL draft) for a measley 6th or 7th round pick.

Then Neal gets taken by someone else, and you are screwed.

Sorry Gunakor...your logic is extremely faulty in my book. In reality, TT probably would've been fine moving back a few picks...but no one immediately behind Green Bay was probably willing to make a move. TT has traded back more than enough to justify the notion that he likes to do it if the situation warrants. Claiming you know more than Thompson about where Neal will or won't go in the draft is a little over the top.

[The Leaper]

I thought Neal was a head scratcher. Could have gotten him in the 3rd or 4th instead.

Did you say that about Greg Jennings too?

[HarveyWallbangers]

I thought Neal was a head scratcher. Could have gotten him in the 3rd or 4th instead.

Did you say that about Greg Jennings too?

And Nick Collins.

[packers11]

I thought Neal was a head scratcher. Could have gotten him in the 3rd or 4th instead.

Did you say that about Greg Jennings too?

And Nick Collins.

yes and yes...

I was on the Chad Jackson bandwagon :oops:

[Gunakor]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

[Gunakor]

Use logic. Apply it. You don't think another team with a high 3 would have jumped at the chance to move up 15-20 spots if all it cost them was a 6th or 7th round pick? I don't have to be in a war room to know what the answer to that question is. Ted doesn't have to tell me, it can simply be assumed.

And your logic is dumb IMO.

You can not have any certainty where Neal would've been taken. Sure, you can base an opinion on a bunch of draft guides put together by people who aren't even affiliated with the NFL...but the bottom line is that it would be MORONIC to trade down 15-20 spots (which is an eternity in the NFL draft) for a measley 6th or 7th round pick.

Then Neal gets taken by someone else, and you are screwed.

Sorry Gunakor...your logic is extremely faulty in my book. In reality, TT probably would've been fine moving back a few picks...but no one immediately behind Green Bay was probably willing to make a move. TT has traded back more than enough to justify the notion that he likes to do it if the situation warrants. Claiming you know more than Thompson about where Neal will or won't go in the draft is a little over the top.

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.

I agree with you, we'd have lost out big time on the value chart in these trades. I already acknowledged that on more than one occasion. The point I was making is that, if you're coveting a specific player that could be had further down the line, who cares what sort of added compensation you get. A pile of dogshit is more compensation than you'd get by staying put and drafting your guy 20 spots too high. An extra 7th round pick would have been more compensation than what we wound up with, would it not? So why would the value chart come into play at all?

You say TT probably would have been fine moving down just a few picks. So I'll go with that, since it's something you can agree to. Suppose TT moves down from #54 to #60 asking only a 7th round pick in return. Other GM bites, he'd be a damn fool not to. We still get taken big time according to a value chart which means nothing whatsoever in this particular instance. But we end up with an extra 7th round pick AND Neal. Then we can look at the board at #60 and see if the team picking #64 would also be willing to part with a 7th rounder to move up 4 slots if we felt Neal would be there at #64 - now we have TWO extra 7th rounders and Neal. The other team gets greater value, we still get the player we want and extra picks. Then maybe we can use those 2 extra 7's and our 5 to move up to get that punter from Michigan (taken 4 spots ahead of us). Or maybe a corner or an OLB that everyone's whining about us not getting. It gives us more ammo, which is what it's about IMO.

Am I crazy to think that scenario could have happened? I mean, on paper, it appears we lose big time in any of those trades, so I'd have to assume that the other teams in those trades would do it and not think twice. But each of those trades nets us more than what we wound up with in reality, having just taken Neal 20 spots too high. So they make sense to me.

[Gunakor]

I thought Neal was a head scratcher. Could have gotten him in the 3rd or 4th instead.

Did you say that about Greg Jennings too?

And Nick Collins.

And we may well have had them in the 3rd round.

This isn't about how good Neal is going to be. Neal may be a first round talent for all I know. But he had a low 3rd/high 4th round projection, and there were still higher rated DE's on the board when Neal was picked. That's precisely what I base my argument on. Neal wasn't going anytime soon.

[SkinBasket]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

Perhaps the teams in the trade window were fine where they were and didn't want to pay the guys they were set to pick 2nd round money instead of 3rd?

I just think it's kind of rigidly naive to simply assume that because logic dictates that something should happen, that it did happen. Unless of course you're just looking for something to bash Ted over the head about, but I never paid attention to who was pro and anti Ted, so I don't know if that's the case.

[sharpe1027]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

If what you say is true about all GMs automatically taking that offer, then it is logical to conclude that the trade is really bad for one team and it stands to reason that no GM worth the ink of their signed contract would/should ever offer that trade.

[pbmax]

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.
There is no way we, as fans, can know this. Its a flat guess. And teams, even after the fact, aren't going to fess up.

[Gunakor]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

If what you say is true about all GMs automatically taking that offer, then it is logical to conclude that the trade is really bad for one team and it stands to reason that no GM worth the ink of their signed contract would/should ever offer that trade.

Indeed it is, if you're judging the trade by that Jimmy Johnson point value chart. You're missing the point though, as are most people here. The fact that it seems so idiotic to make that trade is the reason why I'm suggesting it be made in the first place. I'm using the point value chart to add value to the Packers, not points. The value to the Packers isn't determined by some point value chart that the team the Packers would be trading with would be using. The value to the Packers is quite simply in the extra picks in whatever round we'd have had on top of drafting Neal.

What is better for Green Bay, Having Neal and an extra 7th round pick or having Neal and no extra 7th round pick? That's really the argument I'm making, in a nutshell. We wound up with absolutely nothing on top of the Neal pick, and my argument is simply that we could have had Neal and SOMETHING else.

I'm just setting up a scenario where the Packers would have netted more out of the draft as a whole than they did in reality. I firmly believe, as many do including both fans and media draft gurus, that Neal was a 3rd round prospect at best. That there's no way in hell he'd have gone by the end of the second round, especially with higher rated DT/DE's still on the board. So if we were going to draft him at #54 anyway, may as well move down to the bottom of the second round where he'd still be available and take whatever you can get from anybody you can get it from. Even if the Packers lose out according to the point value of the picks, it wins because it gets the player it wants and more.

[Gunakor]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

Perhaps the teams in the trade window were fine where they were and didn't want to pay the guys they were set to pick 2nd round money instead of 3rd?

I just think it's kind of rigidly naive to simply assume that because logic dictates that something should happen, that it did happen. Unless of course you're just looking for something to bash Ted over the head about, but I never paid attention to who was pro and anti Ted, so I don't know if that's the case.

I have actually been one of Ted's strongest and most vocal supporters ever since he stepped in. But he fucked up on this one. I'm not above harsh criticism of someone I support.

[sharpe1027]

That there's no way in hell he'd have gone by the end of the second round, especially with higher rated DT/DE's still on the board.

And yet he did just that.

Your entire argument rests upon your personal ability to read media reports and evaluate players. If I say you are wrong, you can't prove otherwise. The beautiful thing about this situation is that I don't need to prove that he would have gone in the second round, I just need to be able to say that maybe he could have. That's the point, nobody knew at the time or even now, including the Packers and, yes, even you.

Could the Packers have gotten Neal and something else? I'll go as far as to say that the probably could have. That doesn't mean it was guaranteed and if they couldn't get enough value in trade to offset the risk, then they should just pick the guy.

[Gunakor]

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.
There is no way we, as fans, can know this. Its a flat guess. And teams, even after the fact, aren't going to fess up.

You're right, I can't know this entirely for certain. But it's not exactly throwing darts blind. There's some factual evidence to support my claim that he was taken out of position. It's a guess, but it's an educated guess.

For shits and giggles, who drafting immediately behind us do you think would have snagged him? I mean, was there any cause for concern that he might be gone in a very short while?

The only other DL taken in round 2 after us was Terrance Cody, taken immediately after us. Cody was by far the more highly rated prospect, odds are Baltimore was going to take him anyway. No DL was taken after that until 3rd round #72, the pick after we selected Morgan Burnett, when Buffalo took Alex Carrington, another more highly rated DL. Odds are Buffalo takes him over Neal also, though I'm not so sure. However, I am 99% certain that Neal would have fallen at least this far.

But there were a whole helluva lot of OT's and LB's taken inbetween. So, say we made a proposal to Al Davis (of all people) where he'd offer the 5th pick in the 3rd round (#69 overall) and a 6 or a 7 to move up 13 spots and get our 2nd round pick. Davis gets OT Charles Brown out of USC instead of OT Jared Veldheer out of Hillsdale. We still get Neal, plus one of the Raiders' late round picks. I honestly believe that everybody wins here.

Granted this is only one scenario, but it seems more than plausible that it would have happened should this trade have been proposed.

[sharpe1027]

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.
There is no way we, as fans, can know this. Its a flat guess. And teams, even after the fact, aren't going to fess up.

You're right, I can't know this entirely for certain. But it's not exactly throwing darts blind. There's some factual evidence to support my claim that he was taken out of position. It's a guess, but it's an educated guess.

For shits and giggles, who drafting immediately behind us do you think would have snagged him? I mean, was there any cause for concern that he might be gone in a very short while?

The only other DL taken in round 2 after us was Terrance Cody, taken immediately after us. Cody was by far the more highly rated prospect, odds are Baltimore was going to take him anyway. No DL was taken after that until 3rd round #72, the pick after we selected Morgan Burnett, when Buffalo took Alex Carrington, another more highly rated DL. Odds are Buffalo takes him over Neal also, though I'm not so sure. However, I am 99% certain that Neal would have fallen at least this far.

But there were a whole helluva lot of OT's and LB's taken inbetween. So, say we made a proposal to Al Davis (of all people) where he'd offer the 5th pick in the 3rd round (#69 overall) and a 6 or a 7 to move up 13 spots and get our 2nd round pick. Davis gets OT Charles Brown out of USC instead of OT Jared Veldheer out of Hillsdale. We still get Neal, plus one of the Raiders' late round picks. I honestly believe that everybody wins here.

Granted this is only one scenario, but it seems more than plausible that it would have happened should this trade have been proposed.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody knew, at the time the Packer's were picking, whether or not there was a team that had him on their board. Nobody. So, trading down carried some risk (however small). I can only assume that the Packers felt that the risk was not worth what they would be rewarded with by trading down. Were they right? IDK. But it's not quite as simple as you were trying to make it in your earlier arguments.

[Gunakor]

Yes there was risk, I'm not denying that, but it was marginal at best - especially considering the other talent on the board at DL even if Neal was taken. Why did it have to be Neal, specifically? Why did we have to reach an entire round to grab him? When you consider the reward, it could have been an extra pick that we could have packaged to move up to get a quality punter (Zoltan Mesko). Or quality OLB depth (Arthur Moats). Or a quality cornerback (Dominique Franks). Things we could have really used, and according to many, things we really need. Or we could use it on a luxury like Carlton Mitchell, WR from South Florida. The point is we'd have something else to show for that 2nd round pick other than a 3rd round talent.

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.

Like I said, I've been one of Ted's biggest supporters ever since he took the job. But he fucked up here. I don't know if he just got scared of losing the guy or too excited about having him, but I think he pissed away an opportunity to get more out of this draft than he did. Hopefully I'm wrong and everything works out just the way he planned it in his head, but I remain skeptical.

[sharpe1027]

Gun, I can understand your position; however, it still relies entirely upon the conclusion that Neal is a 3rd round talent that nobody else had high on their board. The fact that the Packer's rated him as high as they did suggests that other teams may have done the same. I find it difficult to rely upon media draft boards as a basis to say otherwise.

In the end, is it really worth the risk of losing a guy you have rated highly, when all you would gain is a draft pick in the late 7th? The odds are that any guy you select that late could be signed as an undrafted FA anyway.

[Scott Campbell]

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.


Neal is a 2nd round talent.

[Lurker64]

There seems to be an underlying assumption that Neal was a player who was a 3rd or 4th round pick in terms of where he "should" go. Why are people so sure about this?

I'm sure most people here (or elsewhere) didn't spend a lot of time paying close attention to how the Purdue defensive line played over the last few years. They were a bad team in a conference with more interesting storylines, and they weren't even on TV much. Don't you think there's potentially a systematic bias for people who aren't professional talent evaluators, to overlook players off of bad teams from mid-level programs? Sure, they know all about whoever won the SEC, and everybody wants to discover the next first round pick from Div II or I-AA, but I'm pretty sure that your Purdues of the world get the short end of the stick.

When people are saying that "he was rated so and so", and quoting an opinion of a scout or a website, were they evaluating him as a 3-tech or as a 5-tech? That matters quite a bit actually. A guy could be a mediocre 3-tech or base DE, but could be born to play 5-tech. Teams that don't run a 3-4, and "draftniks" in general have no reason to evaluate a player at 5-tech (generally a position these guys didn't play in college), and so a lot of these guys get much lower grades than they're given by actual 3-4 teams who actually scout these guys to play that position. I mean, Tyson Jackson did go at #3 overall. It was considered a "reach" by a lot of "experts" but the guy did play more, and better than any other defensive player taken in the top 12. We may also be in the middle of a shift in teams draft philosophy. Much like how you used to be able to pluck quality OLB prospects late in the draft when there were only a handful of 3-4 teams while they now command much more premium picks, something similar may well be happening with 5-technique ends.

Plus, I mean, Thompson's guys had a 2nd round grade on Neal. Who's to say anybody here, or anybody else, knows better?

[Gunakor]

Gun, I can understand your position; however, it still relies entirely upon the conclusion that Neal is a 3rd round talent that nobody else had high on their board. The fact that the Packer's rated him as high as they did suggests that other teams may have done the same. I find it difficult to rely upon media draft boards as a basis to say otherwise.

In the end, is it really worth the risk of losing a guy you have rated highly, when all you would gain is a draft pick in the late 7th? The odds are that any guy you select that late could be signed as an undrafted FA anyway.

Not by itself, no. But there were at least 2 and perhaps 3 other DL prospects who graded out as high or higher than Neal that were still on the board, and I'd have been happy with any of them should Neal have been taken early.

We wouldn't have to use that 7th round pick to draft in the 7th round, we could have repackaged it with say our 5th and, if needs be, our own 7th to move up 4 spots in the 5th round and grab that Zoltan Mesko punter extraordinaire from Michigan. He'd most certainly make the team - he would fill perhaps the most glaring hole on our roster - and he undoubtedly wasn't going to make it into UDFA.

In that scenario, is it worth losing Neal and having to "settle" on an equally talented prospect to move down 10 spots or so? Yes, IMO it most certainly is. I don't think you really appreciate what the reward would be. You're still thinking of a 7th round pick. I'm still thinking about the 5th round, and what better things we could have done with that 5th round pick rather than spend it on a luxury item with a troublesome history. Move down in the second, move UP in the 5th, both times giving way more value than we get in return, and wind up with TWO players you want instead of one.

Before I get a ton of crap about Quarless, let me say up front that this kid has all the tools to be great and I'm not complaining about the pick, given the way Ted handled the draft. But the fact remains that Zoltan was taken just 4 picks ahead of him, and whatever added compensation we got for moving down in the 2nd would almost certainly have been enough to move up 4 spots in the 5th and get our punter for the next decade. That's really where I'm at right now. By screwing ourselves on the trade value chart we could have drafted both a solid DE and a stellar punter with what we could have turned #56 into.

[Gunakor]

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.


Neal is a 2nd round talent.

Why, because he was drafted in the second round?

I hope I'm wrong. I don't see it. I live in Big Ten country, I've seen him play (albeit not a whole lot, but some). Others that have seen him far more than I have don't paint a much rosier picture than I have. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm not the only person who feels that Neal was drafted a full round to high.

Maybe I'm right.

[Pugger]

Neal was a good football player on a bad Purdue team. He was the guy that was game-planned for and usually double-teamed. Given his stellar measurables, injury history (lack of) and the fact he never came off the field (~80% of the snaps), I think this is a great pick-up.

As good as Jenkins and Jolly are, they have missed a number of games due to injury in the past and when they are nicked up, their effectiveness, especially Jenkins, drops significantly. Neal will fit into the regular rotation (ultimately starting down the road) and take off some of the pressure/load/snap count and offer more of a pass rush from the position.

This doesn't even take into account the legal/FA/Harrell issues, where it offers coverage.

+1

[Gunakor]

Plus, I mean, Thompson's guys had a 2nd round grade on Neal. Who's to say anybody here, or anybody else, knows better?

Thompson had a second round grade on Daryn Colledge too. Thompson ain't perfect. He's very good, but he makes his fair share of mistakes, same as anyone else.

This was one of them.

[Lurker64]

Plus, when people say things like "Terrence Cody was a much more highly rated prospect" it does sort of betray a certain ignorance about the evaluation of prospects. Cody is a guy who is an interesting story, and he's blocked a few really low kicks. But everything else should scare the living daylights out of NFL talent evaluators. He's the slowest kid ever drafted, he's got no lateral agility, he has to be kept to a very low snap count, and he could easily eat himself out of the league.

A guy with a lot of buzz, but a really, really risky pick.

[packers11]

Plus, I mean, Thompson's guys had a 2nd round grade on Neal. Who's to say anybody here, or anybody else, knows better?

Thompson had a second round grade on Daryn Colledge too. Thompson ain't perfect. He's very good, but he makes his fair share of mistakes, same as anyone else.

This was one of them.

haha yes, hes already wrong before the guy even steps on the field... in 3-4 years you can grade this 2nd round pick... but for now there is no way you can say he already "screwed it up" ...

[Gunakor]

Plus, when people say things like "Terrence Cody was a much more highly rated prospect" it does sort of betray a certain ignorance about the evaluation of prospects. Cody is a guy who is an interesting story, and he's blocked a few really low kicks. But everything else should scare the living daylights out of NFL talent evaluators. He's the slowest kid ever drafted, he's got no lateral agility, he has to be kept to a very low snap count, and he could easily eat himself out of the league.

A guy with a lot of buzz, but a really, really risky pick.

Alex Carrington, drafted #72 by the Buffalo Bills, would have been IMO the best bet out of that group of DL. Probably better than Neal actually. He's certainly the guy I'd have taken if Neal had dropped off, but to be honest, I think he's much more worth a #56 pick than Neal to begin with. Time will tell on that one.

Cody was probably the last guy I was thinking of for the Packers, especially having both Pickett and Raji to play the nose already. No way I can see Cody out on the end, because as you say, he's slow and not very agile.

[Pugger]

but I know Thompson didn't offer that trade or anything similar to anybody else to move down.

Source?

Seriously though, you know this?

Put yourself in the shoes of an NFL GM.

Someone calls you and makes you an offer where you move up 15-20 slots from a high 3rd to a low 2nd, and all it costs you is a 7th round pick. Are you going to say no?

Nobody else would either.

I wasn't there. Like I said, I used logic and applied it. No GM worth the ink he signed his contract with would turn down an offer like that.

If what you say is true about all GMs automatically taking that offer, then it is logical to conclude that the trade is really bad for one team and it stands to reason that no GM worth the ink of their signed contract would/should ever offer that trade.

Indeed it is, if you're judging the trade by that Jimmy Johnson point value chart. You're missing the point though, as are most people here. The fact that it seems so idiotic to make that trade is the reason why I'm suggesting it be made in the first place. I'm using the point value chart to add value to the Packers, not points. The value to the Packers isn't determined by some point value chart that the team the Packers would be trading with would be using. The value to the Packers is quite simply in the extra picks in whatever round we'd have had on top of drafting Neal.

What is better for Green Bay, Having Neal and an extra 7th round pick or having Neal and no extra 7th round pick? That's really the argument I'm making, in a nutshell. We wound up with absolutely nothing on top of the Neal pick, and my argument is simply that we could have had Neal and SOMETHING else.

I'm just setting up a scenario where the Packers would have netted more out of the draft as a whole than they did in reality. I firmly believe, as many do including both fans and media draft gurus, that Neal was a 3rd round prospect at best. That there's no way in hell he'd have gone by the end of the second round, especially with higher rated DT/DE's still on the board. So if we were going to draft him at #54 anyway, may as well move down to the bottom of the second round where he'd still be available and take whatever you can get from anybody you can get it from. Even if the Packers lose out according to the point value of the picks, it wins because it gets the player it wants and more.

You may be correct IF Neal would have still been around later than he was taken. We have no clue if Neal was or wasn't on anyone else's board no matter what the media draft gurus say. TT and most likely Capers wanted Neal and took him when they did just in case. I have no problem with that. If Neal helps with our pass rush and keeps Jenkins, Jolly and Pickett fresher in games then I like this pick.

[pbmax]

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.
There is no way we, as fans, can know this. Its a flat guess. And teams, even after the fact, aren't going to fess up.

You're right, I can't know this entirely for certain. But it's not exactly throwing darts blind. There's some factual evidence to support my claim that he was taken out of position. It's a guess, but it's an educated guess.

For shits and giggles, who drafting immediately behind us do you think would have snagged him? I mean, was there any cause for concern that he might be gone in a very short while?

The only other DL taken in round 2 after us was Terrance Cody, taken immediately after us. Cody was by far the more highly rated prospect, odds are Baltimore was going to take him anyway. No DL was taken after that until 3rd round #72, the pick after we selected Morgan Burnett, when Buffalo took Alex Carrington, another more highly rated DL. Odds are Buffalo takes him over Neal also, though I'm not so sure. However, I am 99% certain that Neal would have fallen at least this far.
You are guessing at a moving target. Between the Packers selection of Neal and Cody, were there any other D lineman with a second round grade (or higher) that teams avoided to take other positions?

Once you remove Neal and Cody, the absence of a D line selection into the third could be evidence of the position's weakness at that point, the same as it could be evidence that there were no teams with a need. If a player drops further than expected it can change plans. Not every team is picking need.

[packers11]

I have faith in Teddy... My main problem wasn't the player but the position...
Most of the fans don't have the film tape of the individual player, the best case I can show is what the media pumps out to the fans so they can root for a player to get drafted...

Exhibit a:

Draft Countdown 2006 : Best WR Prospect (top 10)
1.Santonio Holmes, Ohio St.
2.Chad Jackson, Florida
3. Sinorice Moss, Miami (FL)
4. Derek Hagan, Arizona St.
5. Demetrius Williams, Oregon
6. Martin Nance, Miami (OH)
7. Maurice Stovall, Notre Dame
8. Jason Avant, Michigan
9. Greg Jennings, Western Michigan
10. Greg Lee, Pittsburgh

Exhibit b:

Draft Countdown 2005:

Nick Collins was ranked #14th best CB... CB!!!

...

It was reported in the 2006 draft that Denver was going to take Greg Jennings but the packers scooped him up... At the time I was pissed Denver didn't get the chance to do that....

Now I know as fans we want certain players, but I do trust T.T. a lot more than myself... This Neal pick could turn out to be one of the better picks in T.T's tenure, or another "Brohm" pick... Lets atleast wait 2-3 years before we can judge...

[Gunakor]

Fair enough. I'd just have liked it more if it had netted us another pick. Because even if we did trade down and Neal was taken, Carrington was still there too and he's probably going to be just as good.

Time will tell. I think Neal will be a good player. I just can't shake the feeling that we could have gotten more with that pick.

[packers11]

Time will tell. I think Neal will be a good player. I just can't shake the feeling that we could have gotten more with that pick.

I agree in that aspect... You never know... Just like with the Jennings/Collins pick, why the fk not trade down? Looking back at it, I would of traded up for them :lol:

But then you can play devils advocate...

You defiantly could have traded down on the Brohm / Colledge / Nelson picks...

[sharpe1027]

Not by itself, no. But there were at least 2 and perhaps 3 other DL prospects who graded out as high or higher than Neal that were still on the board, and I'd have been happy with any of them should Neal have been taken early.

I doubt the Packers agreed with you. If they did, you have a point. If not, they did the right thing.



We wouldn't have to use that 7th round pick to draft in the 7th round, we could have repackaged it with say our 5th and, if needs be, our own 7th to move up 4 spots in the 5th round and grab that Zoltan Mesko punter extraordinaire from Michigan. He'd most certainly make the team - he would fill perhaps the most glaring hole on our roster - and he undoubtedly wasn't going to make it into UDFA.

That's complete hindsight. The experts so-called experts you use for your grading of Neal can't even pick who will be in the first round with consistency (Claussen is a prime example), yet you claim to have been able to be able to say with certainty that this particular 7th rounder pick for sure? I'm not buying it.



In that scenario, is it worth losing Neal and having to "settle" on an equally talented prospect to move down 10 spots or so? Yes, IMO it most certainly is. I don't think you really appreciate what the reward would be. You're still thinking of a 7th round pick. I'm still thinking about the 5th round, and what better things we could have done with that 5th round pick rather than spend it on a luxury item with a troublesome history. Move down in the second, move UP in the 5th, both times giving way more value than we get in return, and wind up with TWO players you want instead of one.


If everything works out, it is better. It's still a risk vs. reward determination. Maybe they should have taken more risk, but it is not as open and shut as you have been arguing. That's all I'm saying.

[Cleft Crusty]

After pulling in all my extensive NFL contacts, I have determined that Neal was the highest player remaining on the draft boards of at least 8 teams when the Packers selected. He was second on at least 6 others. It was almost certain that 1) he would have been picked within at least 1-5 positions of where he was selected had the Packers not selected him and 2) the Packers would have had a limited group of teams with which to trade down, with very little guarantee of having Neal available after such a trade. All my sources are anonymous, but highly reliable, just like the scouts used by my old friend at the UrinalScented, Bob McGinn.

[Gunakor]

Between the Packers selection of Neal and Cody, were there any other D lineman with a second round grade (or higher) that teams avoided to take other positions?

Haha, well, no... because there weren't any players at all selected between Neal and Cody. They went in succession. #'s 56 and 57.

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.

Suppose we don't take Neal at 56, instead moving down 10 spots or so. Odds are if some other team were to snag a DL it would have been Carrington, meaning Neal falls to us anyway. If they take Neal instead, Carrington is still there for us. Yes this is guesswork - the entire draft is pretty much an educated guess. But with 2 similar talents at the same position you'd like to draft both being on the board when the clock starts ticking, there isn't a horrible amount of risk in trading down a bit.

[Lurker64]

Suppose we don't take Neal at 56, instead moving down 10 spots or so. Odds are if some other team were to snag a DL it would have been Carrington, meaning Neal falls to us anyway. If they take Neal instead, Carrington is still there for us.

How are you sure that other teams didn't prefer Neal to Carrington and/or Thompson really didn't like Carrington that much?

Suppose for a minute that Thompson had a 2nd round grade on Neal and a fourth round grade on Carrington...

[rbaloha1]

Plus, I mean, Thompson's guys had a 2nd round grade on Neal. Who's to say anybody here, or anybody else, knows better?

Thompson had a second round grade on Daryn Colledge too. Thompson ain't perfect. He's very good, but he makes his fair share of mistakes, same as anyone else.

This was one of them.

Good point -- clear mistake. TT gets the benefit of the doubt for Neal.

Lets wait for the pre season to gauge Neal. IMO Neal is not the same level as Anthony Spencer.

[Scott Campbell]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.


This is a great example of people trusting Mel (and his media ilk) more than Ted.

[Cleft Crusty]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.

Clefty read this and wonders: Has the medication started working yet or did I take too much?

[Gunakor]

Suppose we don't take Neal at 56, instead moving down 10 spots or so. Odds are if some other team were to snag a DL it would have been Carrington, meaning Neal falls to us anyway. If they take Neal instead, Carrington is still there for us.

How are you sure that other teams didn't prefer Neal to Carrington and/or Thompson really didn't like Carrington that much?

Suppose for a minute that Thompson had a 2nd round grade on Neal and a fourth round grade on Carrington...

That wouldn't make any sense to me. They look like the same player. 5 tech players, great athletes, stout against the run, can collapse the pocket, perfect body builds for playing the ends in a 3-4...

Am I missing anything here?

If Thompson really had them graded like that and followed his board I can't be too upset with him. But I'd be furiously disappointed in his scouts.

[rbaloha1]

Sorry -- I trust TT's board more than Kiper's.

[Gunakor]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.

Clefty read this and wonders: Has the medication started working yet or did I take too much?

Carrington graded out at 7.3. Neal graded in the low 6's. That's from NFL.com, and that's the one I remember.

I wondered if maybe those grades are a bit different than the norm. So I browsed the interwebs to find other evaluations.

CBSSports.com has Carrington ranked as the 6th best DE, while Neal ranks as the 16th best DT.

WalterFootball.com has similar rankings, Carrington 6th at DE and Neal 15th at DT.

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

[Lurker64]

Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

Media types had Jimmy Clausen and Taylor Mays in the first round. Media types had Tyson Alualu in the second or third. Media types all thought the Chiefs were going to take Bulaga. These guys are wrong all the time.

[Gunakor]

Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

Media types had Jimmy Clausen and Taylor Mays in the first round. Media types had Tyson Alualu in the second or third. Media types all thought the Chiefs were going to take Bulaga. These guys are wrong all the time.

Hey now, that doesn't mean they were wrong. You think Tebow is going to be a better player than Claussen? You think Alualu was worth the 10th overall pick? I don't think the media got these wrong, I think the Jags and Broncos did.

[Patler]

Carrington graded out at 7.3. Neal graded in the low 6's. That's from NFL.com, and that's the one I remember.

I wondered if maybe those grades are a bit different than the norm. So I browsed the interwebs to find other evaluations.

CBSSports.com has Carrington ranked as the 6th best DE, while Neal ranks as the 16th best DT.

WalterFootball.com has similar rankings, Carrington 6th at DE and Neal 15th at DT.

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

Haven't looked at the ones you mentioned specifically before writing this, so I could be all wrong; but, normally the ratings are based on performance in and suitability for the "standard" 4-3 defenses.

Maybe Carrington was the 6th ranked DE in a 4-3; but does he have the power and strength needed for DE in a 3-4? If you intend to play him at linebacker, is he too big; maybe another Aaron Kampman type? Perhaps Neal is the 15th or 16th DT, but more highly thought of by TT for playing end in a 3-4? I don't know, but those are the questions TT has to answer when making his selections.

If TT really liked Neal for a 3-4, the other thing he needs to consider is that several more teams are switching this year. Perhaps they too saw Neal as TT did, and would have jumped ahead of TT's trade down position.

[Gunakor]

Carrington graded out at 7.3. Neal graded in the low 6's. That's from NFL.com, and that's the one I remember.

I wondered if maybe those grades are a bit different than the norm. So I browsed the interwebs to find other evaluations.

CBSSports.com has Carrington ranked as the 6th best DE, while Neal ranks as the 16th best DT.

WalterFootball.com has similar rankings, Carrington 6th at DE and Neal 15th at DT.

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

Haven't looked at the ones you mentioned specifically before writing this, so I could be all wrong; but, normally the ratings are based on performance in and suitability for the "standard" 4-3 defenses.

Maybe Carrington was the 6th ranked DE in a 4-3; but does he have the power and strength needed for DE in a 3-4? If you intend to play him at linebacker, is he too big; maybe another Aaron Kampman type? Perhaps Neal is the 15th or 16th DT, but more highly thought of by TT for playing end in a 3-4? I don't know, but those are the questions TT has to answer when making his selections.

If TT really liked Neal for a 3-4, the other thing he needs to consider is that several more teams are switching this year. Perhaps they too saw Neal as TT did, and would have jumped ahead of TT's trade down position.

From NFL.com:


A fifth-year senior, Carrington put two excellent seasons together to cap his career with the Arkansas State defense. He has a good combination of size, strength and speed for an interior defensive lineman. He doesn't have great lateral quickness or agility to come off the edge as a 4-3 end but is well suited for a five-technique in 3-4 scheme. He is best at the point of attack, anchoring versus the run, and is effective pushing the pocket as a bull rusher. He has a decent feel for blocking schemes and restricting running lanes when using proper pad level and hand use. Carrington is inconsistent to shed blockers and get to the pile but has the natural arm strength and power to improve in this area. He is a good tackler in a restricted area but lacks great burst and range out of the tackle box. Carrington has the measurables and raw talent to vie for a starting position after his second or third season in the league.

[Lurker64]

Lets look at why Green Bay scouts may have preferred Neal over Carrington.

Neal is stronger (31 reps vs. 26).

Neal has more initial quickness (1.60 10-yard split vs. 1.65)

Neal has better change of direction (4.53 short shuttle vs. 4.81; 7.53 3-cone vs. 7.64)

Neal has experience with zone drops, something I believe Arkansas State does not do (though I'm not sure about this, I've watched more Purdue than Ark st.)

Neal was a team captain as a senior, Carrington was not.

Neal played a ridiculous number of snaps in the more physically demanding DT position, but occasionally played end. Carrington was pretty much exclusively a DE in college. Trgovac says that their DEs play 3-technique roughly half of the time, so Neal's extensive experience at 3-tech gives him an edge over Carrington. Plus, Neal had 12 sacks playing inside while Carrington only had 9 more while playing outside.

Mike Neal played against a significantly higher level of talent in the Big Ten vs. the Sun Belt)

Neal could have quite possibly interviewed better. Being a guy who was a fan of two players currently on the Packers could have convinced scouts that Neal was a better fit.

They also could have thought that Neal could improve considerably once they teach him a counter or two for his bull rush. Carrington was only moderately more productive with a better set of moves.

So don't be disappointed in our scouts if they liked Neal better (they did).

[Gunakor]

So don't be disappointed in our scouts if they liked Neal better (they did).

LOL, no, you misunderstood. I'd be disappointed in our scouts if they gave Carrington a 4th round grade. Like I said, they are about equal IMO. If they preferred Neal, I have no problem with that. But there isn't a 2 round difference between the two. They're the same player. Which is why if Neal fell off the board I'd be perfectly content with Carrington. That's what I meant.

[Cleft Crusty]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.

Clefty read this and wonders: Has the medication started working yet or did I take too much?

Carrington graded out at 7.3. Neal graded in the low 6's. That's from NFL.com, and that's the one I remember.

I wondered if maybe those grades are a bit different than the norm. So I browsed the interwebs to find other evaluations.

CBSSports.com has Carrington ranked as the 6th best DE, while Neal ranks as the 16th best DT.

WalterFootball.com has similar rankings, Carrington 6th at DE and Neal 15th at DT.

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

That's a nice post, and the drugs may be clouding my perception, but what does any of it have to do with your seemingly illogical argument that Carrington (a projected second rounder) slipped to 72 because the Packers selected Neal (a projected third rounder) at 56?

[swede]

Lets look at why Green Bay scouts may have preferred Neal over Carrington.

Neal is stronger (31 reps vs. 26).

Neal has more initial quickness (1.60 10-yard split vs. 1.65)

Neal has better change of direction (4.53 short shuttle vs. 4.81; 7.53 3-cone vs. 7.64)

Neal has experience with zone drops, something I believe Arkansas State does not do (though I'm not sure about this, I've watched more Purdue than Ark st.)

Neal was a team captain as a senior, Carrington was not.

Neal played a ridiculous number of snaps in the more physically demanding DT position, but occasionally played end. Carrington was pretty much exclusively a DE in college. Trgovac says that their DEs play 3-technique roughly half of the time, so Neal's extensive experience at 3-tech gives him an edge over Carrington. Plus, Neal had 12 sacks playing inside while Carrington only had 9 more while playing outside.

Mike Neal played against a significantly higher level of talent in the Big Ten vs. the Sun Belt)

Neal could have quite possibly interviewed better. Being a guy who was a fan of two players currently on the Packers could have convinced scouts that Neal was a better fit.

They also could have thought that Neal could improve considerably once they teach him a counter or two for his bull rush. Carrington was only moderately more productive with a better set of moves.

So don't be disappointed in our scouts if they liked Neal better (they did).

Lurk, that was downright Patler-esque.

Thanks for the good post.

I might add that identifying a 4th round sleeper in the draft does you no good if someone else drafts him in the middle of the third round.

[Gunakor]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.

Clefty read this and wonders: Has the medication started working yet or did I take too much?

Carrington graded out at 7.3. Neal graded in the low 6's. That's from NFL.com, and that's the one I remember.

I wondered if maybe those grades are a bit different than the norm. So I browsed the interwebs to find other evaluations.

CBSSports.com has Carrington ranked as the 6th best DE, while Neal ranks as the 16th best DT.

WalterFootball.com has similar rankings, Carrington 6th at DE and Neal 15th at DT.

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

That's a nice post, and the drugs may be clouding my perception, but what does any of it have to do with your seemingly illogical argument that Carrington (a projected second rounder) slipped to 73 because the Packers selected Neal (a projected third rounder) at 56?

I just swapped where the two were picked, assuming that everyone in between would have been content to draft their OT's and LB's that they drafted anyway. It's just an assumption, but if we take Carrington at #56 I don't know if any other team in the 2nd would have touched Neal.

[Guiness]

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

If all your friends were jumping off a bridge... :lol:

[Gunakor]

This is what I keep finding. Carrington had the consensus better grade entering the draft. Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

If all your friends were jumping off a bridge... :lol:

Well, they must have a reason!

[Guiness]

I find the high number of snaps Neale played very intriguing. The number of sacks he got inside makes me fondly remember what a game changer Corey Williams was when he sliced through to get the QB from the DT position. Of course, that rarely if ever happens from the NT position in the 3-4.

Is he projected at DE or DT?

[Lurker64]

I find the high number of snaps Neale played very intriguing. The number of sacks he got inside makes me fondly remember what a game changer Corey Williams was when he sliced through to get the QB from the DT position. Of course, that rarely if ever happens from the NT position in the 3-4.

Is he projected at DE or DT?

Neal? He'll play the 5-technique (outside shoulder of OT) in the base defense, and 3-technique (outside shoulder of the OG) in the nickel. If a freak injury sidelines both Pickett and Raji, I imagine he could manage the nose for a few snaps, as he has both burst and power in spades, but he would wear down quickly there. He gives up quite a bit of girth and natural leverage compared to what you look for in a dedicated NT. Wouldn't want to give him more than one series at NT, that's a tough position.

Wouldn't be surprised at all if, this year, the base DL were: Jenkins, Pickett, Jolly and the nickel DL were Neal and Raji (with Jenkins probably returning as the sole DL in the psycho package, though depending on how many snaps we go in base vs. nickel, Neal could do that too).

[mission]

First of all, Mel Kiper is a cokehead. That's pretty obvious.

Second, it's clear that TT used combine numbers as a tiebreaker if there ever was some indecision on his part. The guy cleaned up and TT more and more has been trusting some key performance numbers .. we've had guys like Waldo provide statistical support for this thought.

Plus he's a Big Ten, midwest, Packer kind of guy. I don't know much about the character of the other guys but TT selecting Neal isn't much of a surprise in retrospect.

I understand wondering if he got the value right but that's just something we won't know for some time now.

[pbmax]

First of all, Mel Kiper is a cokehead. That's pretty obvious.
Take one dollar from petty cash. That was BOMNF! Also, POTWH when I read it.

[falco]

Great thread.

[Bretsky]

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.


Neal is a 2nd round talent.

Why, because he was drafted in the second round?

I hope I'm wrong. I don't see it. I live in Big Ten country, I've seen him play (albeit not a whole lot, but some). Others that have seen him far more than I have don't paint a much rosier picture than I have. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm not the only person who feels that Neal was drafted a full round to high.

Maybe I'm right.

GUN

gotta say

I completely agree with you. I watched a lof of Big Ten Ball. The guy was decent. Firmly believe we couldn't nabbed him 15+ picks later....with some solid effort probably netted a 4th or 5th at worse back. Throughout this draft teams were looking to trade up. If they lose Neal there were others very similar.

[Bretsky]

If you're asking if there were any other DL with a second round grade or higher between the Neal pick and where I'd have hoped TT could trade down to, yes there was. Alex Carrington. He had a 2nd round grade while Neal had a 3rd round grade. Neal went #56, Carrington went #72. I haven't heard any knocks against Carrington that would cause him to slip into the third round, so I have to assume that the reason he slipped so far is because we took Neal at #56 rather than Carrington.


This is a great example of people trusting Mel (and his media ilk) more than Ted.


I'm sure several are reading at least ten sources of draft projections. I hardly watch Mel anymore; the NFL Network is far better. Regardless as all these guys do is interview mulitple GM's for the most part and repeat their projections IMO

[Bretsky]

Granted these are just media types, not scouts. But they couldn't have all just been dead wrong while half the teams in the NFL think Neal is the better prospect, can they?

Media types had Jimmy Clausen and Taylor Mays in the first round. Media types had Tyson Alualu in the second or third. Media types all thought the Chiefs were going to take Bulaga. These guys are wrong all the time.


I hope you are not trying to discredit the debate; all entitle to views and we should never assume because TT did it then it was the right call. It'd be fairly easy to find some second rounders he overvalued in the past as evidence that this is fair to argue about.

[Gunakor]

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.


Neal is a 2nd round talent.

Why, because he was drafted in the second round?

I hope I'm wrong. I don't see it. I live in Big Ten country, I've seen him play (albeit not a whole lot, but some). Others that have seen him far more than I have don't paint a much rosier picture than I have. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm not the only person who feels that Neal was drafted a full round to high.

Maybe I'm right.

GUN

gotta say

I completely agree with you. I watched a lof of Big Ten Ball. The guy was decent. Firmly believe we couldn't nabbed him 15+ picks later....with some solid effort probably netted a 4th or 5th at worse back. Throughout this draft teams were looking to trade up. If they lose Neal there were others very similar.

Like I have been saying, I'd have been happy with a 6 or a 7 that we could have packaged with our 5 and moved up in the 5th round. I like Quarless, I think he has the tools to be great, but for the Packers I thought we could have done better. If only we had the ammo to move up just 5 spots in that 5th round...

Zoltan Mesko would be a Packer.

[Bretsky]

I'd like to apologize to GUN for not coming to the debate sooner !!!!!!!!!!

I've put my pads on so now.....let's rock........

[Gunakor]

I'd like to apologize to GUN for not coming to the debate sooner !!!!!!!!!!

I've put my pads on so now.....let's rock........


It's okay B, I held my own pretty well. The fort is still standing.


:lol:

[Bretsky]

I think TT might have been able to find a trading partner to move down 10-15 spots and have gotten Neal anyway.Everyone seems to think this is such an easy thing to pull off. Us trading back means one of those teams needed to move up to get their man AND also give up picks to us to do so. If it didn't happen it was for a reason, and the most likely one was nobody wanted to trade up. also, assuming that because it didn't happen means TT didn't try to trade back is also a reach, isn't it? (unless TT has already been quoted as saying he didn't try)

takes two to tango


Actually this year was the year trades were much easier than the past and there must have been a record number of trades for a 7 round draft.Go look at round two and see how many of those picks were original around us

We picked 56

55 58 59 60 62 all acquired via trade

There seemed to be lots of partners out there to tango if you were willing to make the calls and find one

Dallas traded up to the spot before us to draft a ILB we most likely had no interest in

[Bretsky]

Instead we have nothing. That nothingness doesn't justify Ted's reluctance to take a gamble, especially over a 3rd round talent like Michael Neal.


Neal is a 2nd round talent.

Why, because he was drafted in the second round?

I hope I'm wrong. I don't see it. I live in Big Ten country, I've seen him play (albeit not a whole lot, but some). Others that have seen him far more than I have don't paint a much rosier picture than I have. Maybe I'm wrong, hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm not the only person who feels that Neal was drafted a full round to high.

Maybe I'm right.

GUN

gotta say

I completely agree with you. I watched a lof of Big Ten Ball. The guy was decent. Firmly believe we couldn't nabbed him 15+ picks later....with some solid effort probably netted a 4th or 5th at worse back. Throughout this draft teams were looking to trade up. If they lose Neal there were others very similar.

Like I have been saying, I'd have been happy with a 6 or a 7 that we could have packaged with our 5 and moved up in the 5th round. I like Quarless, I think he has the tools to be great, but for the Packers I thought we could have done better. If only we had the ammo to move up just 5 spots in that 5th round...

Zoltan Mesko would be a Packer.


That DAM BELLICHEK; he tapped into my phones and heard about all the pimping I did to TT about

The Zoltan

[Gunakor]

That DAM BELLICHEK; he tapped into my phones and heard about all the pimping I did to TT about

The Zoltan

So it's YOUR fault?

:x :cry:

[Guiness]

Actually this year was the year trades were much easier than the past and there must have been a record number of trades for a 7 round draft.Go look at round two and see how many of those picks were original around us

We picked 56

55 58 59 60 62 all acquired via trade

There seemed to be lots of partners out there to tango if you were willing to make the calls and find one

you could take an alternate view - a lot of teams willing to trade out of those spots, so there was effectively a fire sale on the picks, and TT didn't feel he was getting value.

If you want a 5th rounder to drop back 8 spots in the 2nd, and someone else will do it for a 7th...might as well keep your pick, right?

[Guiness]

[quote="Scott Campbell"][quote=Gunakor]
I'm sure several are reading at least ten sources of draft projections. I hardly watch Mel anymore; the NFL Network is far better. Regardless as all these guys do is interview mulitple GM's for the most part and repeat their projections IMO

Not that GMs blow smoke or anything.

Holmgren's little 'I don't like Clausen, I never said I don't like Clausen', then passing on him three times was nothing if it wasn't double secret squirrel behavior!

[Gunakor]

If you want a 5th rounder to drop back 8 spots in the 2nd, and someone else will do it for a 7th...might as well keep your pick, right?

Not necessarily, at least if I'm understanding your question correctly. Not if you think you can find equal value 8 spots down the line. Take whatever is offered, which is more than you'd get by just keeping your pick. The gamble is that all equal value will be taken off the board in those 8 spots you move back, but if you're fairly certain that your guy or someone similar is going to be there you may as well take the 7th and get your guy anyway.

[Bretsky]

Actually this year was the year trades were much easier than the past and there must have been a record number of trades for a 7 round draft.Go look at round two and see how many of those picks were original around us

We picked 56

55 58 59 60 62 all acquired via trade

There seemed to be lots of partners out there to tango if you were willing to make the calls and find one

you could take an alternate view - a lot of teams willing to trade out of those spots, so there was effectively a fire sale on the picks, and TT didn't feel he was getting value.

If you want a 5th rounder to drop back 8 spots in the 2nd, and someone else will do it for a 7th...might as well keep your pick, right?


I think I missed the fire sale trades; did somebody drop down in round two for a 7th ?

I'm saying TT could have received near value, like the other trades, if he did this. Tons were looking to trade up and giving value to do so

[Guiness]

I think I missed the fire sale trades; did somebody drop down in round two for a 7th ?

I'm saying TT could have received near value, like the other trades, if he did this. Tons were looking to trade up and giving value to do so

Jason Campbell for a 4th? :lol:
I still don't know who got the best of that one.

The Saints paid a 6th to move up 7 picks in the 4th. Phins also moved up 7 spots in the 4th for a 6th - I thought both of those were 7ths.

You're right, seems most teams received value for trade downs, such as the Cards paying a 3rd to move up 11 spots in the second.

I don't know then. TT has shown he likes to trade down, so why didn't he this year?

[falco]

I don't know then. TT has shown he likes to trade down, so why didn't he this year?

+1

I think given his history, we either have to assume that TT either couldn't find a partner at the slot, or felt that Neal was not the worth the risk.

Remember, it only takes 1 person to pick that player ahead of you. If TT had him that high, its possible someone else did too.

[Bretsky]

I think I missed the fire sale trades; did somebody drop down in round two for a 7th ?

I'm saying TT could have received near value, like the other trades, if he did this. Tons were looking to trade up and giving value to do so

Jason Campbell for a 4th? :lol:
I still don't know who got the best of that one.

The Saints paid a 6th to move up 7 picks in the 4th. Phins also moved up 7 spots in the 4th for a 6th - I thought both of those were 7ths.

You're right, seems most teams received value for trade downs, such as the Cards paying a 3rd to move up 11 spots in the second.

I don't know then. TT has shown he likes to trade down, so why didn't he this year?


Honestly overall TT did a pretty stellar job getting value with his picks. Had Bulaga not fallen I think we might have seen a tradedown and possibly a Hughes or CB pick but he was just too good to pass up.

Burnett...stellar value there. I think on paper we can say that for all the picks but Neal.

I just thought, right from the pick, that is the pick that had some real value ...aka...possible 4th... and I thought we could have grabbed Neal later

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Hopefully he's a perennial all pro and I'm wrong. That one there was the head scratcher for me

[falco]

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Just like Greg Jennings ... and Nick Collins ...

and Justin Harrell ... :oops:

[mission]

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Just like Greg Jennings ... and Nick Collins ...

and Justin Harrell ... :oops:

So you're saying there's a chance?? :lol:

[Guiness]

Honestly overall TT did a pretty stellar job getting value with his picks. Had Bulaga not fallen I think we might have seen a tradedown and possibly a Hughes or CB pick but he was just too good to pass up.

Burnett...stellar value there. I think on paper we can say that for all the picks but Neal.

I just thought, right from the pick, that is the pick that had some real value ...aka...possible 4th... and I thought we could have grabbed Neal later

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Hopefully he's a perennial all pro and I'm wrong. That one there was the head scratcher for me

All I can figure about the Neale is that he picked him in the tier he had him ranked in. Maybe we'll find out later that other GM's had him rated there? Remember the Collins pick, everyone said he could've gotten him 2 rounds later. Then reports came rolling in that he was on the radar of a couple of others as well.

Who knows?

[Lurker64]

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Just like Greg Jennings ... and Nick Collins ...

and Justin Harrell ... :oops:

A good percentage of draft picks, from every position no matter when in the draft they were taken, just aren't going to work out for whatever reason. It's nearly impossible to predict, it just happens.

The real mark of a good GM is that they get guys who actually work out to be better than average, not that they always avoid picking bad ones. Everybody is going to miss on some picks. The great Ozzie Newsome has spent premium picks on Mark Clayton, Dwan Edwards, Kyle Boller, Travis Taylor, Duane Starks, etc. What makes Ozzie good at his job is not that he never drafted those guys, he did and he'll own up to it if you ask him to, he's a good GM because he took Ed Reed, Terrell Suggs, Haloti Ngata, Joe Flacco, Jonathan Ogden, Ray Lewis, etc.

[Lurker64]

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/4/25/1443041/cowboys-draft-board-leaked

Interestingly enough, Cowboys had a 2nd round grade on Burnett and a 3rd round grade on Neal.

Would it make everybody else feel better if we took them in that order?

[pbmax]

Partial justification for the Jags. The 'Boys had their DE pick ranked with a first round grade. Tyson Alualu is at the near bottom of their first round grade column.

[Gunakor]

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2010/4/25/1443041/cowboys-draft-board-leaked

Interestingly enough, Cowboys had a 2nd round grade on Burnett and a 3rd round grade on Neal.

Would it make everybody else feel better if we took them in that order?

I'd imagine Neal had a 3rd round grade from most clubs.

I wouldn't feel better just because we swapped the order in which those two players were selected. I wanted an extra pick. That was the value IMO with pick #56.

[pbmax]

2nd Round In Order (I believe):

see below

[pbmax]

1st Round In Order:

see below

[pbmax]

Their work, not mine:

Round 1
1. Sam Bradford
2. Gerald McCoy
3. Ndamakong Suh
4. Russell Okung
5. Trent Williams
6. Eric Berry
7. Rolando McClain
8. Joe Haden
9. CJ Spiller
10. Mike Iupati
11. Dez Bryant (GUESS)
12. Earl Thomas (GUESS)
13. Bryan Bulaga
14. Sean Lee
15. Jared Odrick
16. Jason Pierre-Paul
17. Derrick Morgan
18. Kyle Wilson
19. MaurkicePouncey
20. Navorro Bowman
21. Jahvid Best
22. Tyson Alualu
23. Jermaine Gresham
________________________

Round 2
1. Devin McCourty
2. Demaryius Thomas
3. Koa Misi
4. Jerry Hughes
5. Brandon Graham
6. Nate Allen
7. Morgan Burnett
8. Taylor Mays
9. Dan Williams
10. (covered name) Weatherspoon?
11. Kareem Jackson
12. Ryan Matthews
13. Brian Price
14. Rob Gronkowski
15. Brandon Ghee
16. Jimmy Clausen
________________________

Round 3
1. Sergio Kindle
2. Anthony Davis
3. Corey Wooton
4. Patrick Robinson
5. Dexter McCluster
6. Joe McKnight
7. (covered name)
8. -
9. -
10. Colt McCoy
11. Taylor Price
12. Lamarr Houston
13. D’Anthony Smith
14. Damian Williams
15. Eric Decker
16. Thaddeus Gibson
17. Corey Peters
18. Rodger Saffold
19. Toby Gerhardt
20. Golden Tate
21. Brandon LeFell
22. Amari Spievey
23. Mike Neal
________________________

Round 4
1. Akwasi Owusu-Ansah
2. Javier Arenas
3. Vladimir Ducasse
4. Ed Dickson
5.
6. Clay Harbor
7. Perry Riley
8. (plate removed)
9. Torell Troup
10. Carlton Mitchell
11. Mike Johnson
12. John Jerry
13. Linval Joseph
14. Major Wright
15. Dominique Franks
16. Larry Asante
17. Tony Moeaki
18.
19. Ben Tate
20. Kam Chancellor
21. Andre Roberts
22. Myron Lewis
23.
________________________

Round 5
1. Shawn Lauvao
2. Jacoby Ford
3. Danny Batten
4.
5. Daniel Teo-Nesheim
6. Kevin Thomas
7. Clifton Geathers
8. Dennis Pitta
9. Darrell Stucky
10. Alterraun Verner
11. Alric Arnett?
12. Eugene Simms
13. Garrett Graham
14.
15. Jamar Wall?
16.
17.
18.
________________________

Round 6
1. Jared Veldheer
2.
3. M. Hoomanawanui
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
_____________________

Round 7
1. Walter Thurmond (GUESS)
2. Marcus Easley
3. Mike Kafka
4. (blurred)
5. Adrian Tracy
6.
7.

[Sparkey]

This isn't about the value chart Leap. It's about having Neal vs. having Neal AND another pick. That was an Al Davis-esque reach to grab him there. He wasn't going any time soon.
There is no way we, as fans, can know this. Its a flat guess. And teams, even after the fact, aren't going to fess up.

You're right, I can't know this entirely for certain. But it's not exactly throwing darts blind. There's some factual evidence to support my claim that he was taken out of position. It's a guess, but it's an educated guess.

For shits and giggles, who drafting immediately behind us do you think would have snagged him? I mean, was there any cause for concern that he might be gone in a very short while?

The only other DL taken in round 2 after us was Terrance Cody, taken immediately after us. Cody was by far the more highly rated prospect, odds are Baltimore was going to take him anyway. No DL was taken after that until 3rd round #72, the pick after we selected Morgan Burnett, when Buffalo took Alex Carrington, another more highly rated DL. Odds are Buffalo takes him over Neal also, though I'm not so sure. However, I am 99% certain that Neal would have fallen at least this far.

But there were a whole helluva lot of OT's and LB's taken inbetween. So, say we made a proposal to Al Davis (of all people) where he'd offer the 5th pick in the 3rd round (#69 overall) and a 6 or a 7 to move up 13 spots and get our 2nd round pick. Davis gets OT Charles Brown out of USC instead of OT Jared Veldheer out of Hillsdale. We still get Neal, plus one of the Raiders' late round picks. I honestly believe that everybody wins here.

Granted this is only one scenario, but it seems more than plausible that it would have happened should this trade have been proposed.

You could project Buffalo to take him as they are in the first year switch to a 3-4 and were trying to add players capable of playing that spot.

Who else is switching to a 3-4 ? Any of those teams is more likely than not to grab a former DT in college who projects as a solid 3-4 DE in the pros. They might even reach for him to make sure that have a scheme specific guy.

[Gunakor]

You could project Buffalo to take him as they are in the first year switch to a 3-4 and were trying to add players capable of playing that spot.

Who else is switching to a 3-4 ? Any of those teams is more likely than not to grab a former DT in college who projects as a solid 3-4 DE in the pros. They might even reach for him to make sure that have a scheme specific guy.

I knew Buffalo was going to be picking a 5 tech. They did just that, with #72 they drafted Alex Carrington. At #72. 16 spots after we drafted Neal. If we'd have traded with Oakland for their #69 pick, we'd still have first dibs over Buffalo. Buffalo was not a threat. If they were content to wait until #72 for Carrington, there's nothing to suggest they'd have traded ahead of Oakland for Neal. They're the same player.

But we didn't have to move even that far down to net an extra pick, which was IMO the greatest value to Green Bay with that #56 pick.

[Guiness]

Their work, not mine:

They were able to divinate all that from that single cell phone picture??? Wow.

[packers11]

Their work, not mine:

They were able to divinate all that from that single cell phone picture??? Wow.

I was thinking the same thing... Impressive ... Very Impressive

[swede]

Their work, not mine:

They were able to divinate all that from that single cell phone picture??? Wow.

I was thinking the same thing... Impressive ... Very Impressive

a) Jerry will have a big laugh with Wade about his board getting leaked to the internet.

or

b) Someone's ass is grass and JJ is the lawnmower.

[The Leaper]

When you are drafting, you DO NOT attempt to project where 15 other teams are going to take people.

I can guarantee that very few could even select close to 50% correctly on the POSITION a team will take in the latter stages of the 2nd round...and that most certainly excludes everyone on this board.

You strictly go by YOUR OWN DRAFT BOARD. To start getting into guessing games is crazy. The Packers clearly really liked Neal...so they took him. It wasn't about trying to get absolute maximum value by trying to trade down to where they thought he might go.

Teams that move back typically do so because they have MULTIPLE players they grade out rather equally...and they have no real preference for one of them. If you have one guy you really like, you don't trade back a bunch of picks and just hope he's still there. You may trade a couple spots back...because you are highly confident that player will still be there. But 15-20 spots? Nope.

[BZnDallas]

When you are drafting, you DO NOT attempt to project where 15 other teams are going to take people.

I can guarantee that very few could even select close to 50% correctly on the POSITION a team will take in the latter stages of the 2nd round...and that most certainly excludes everyone on this board.

You strictly go by YOUR OWN DRAFT BOARD. To start getting into guessing games is crazy. The Packers clearly really liked Neal...so they took him. It wasn't about trying to get absolute maximum value by trying to trade down to where they thought he might go.

Teams that move back typically do so because they have MULTIPLE players they grade out rather equally...and they have no real preference for one of them. If you have one guy you really like, you don't trade back a bunch of picks and just hope he's still there. You may trade a couple spots back...because you are highly confident that player will still be there. But 15-20 spots? Nope.


Great post!! i agree 100%

so if we look at the Cowbitches board and number them 1-32 (rd1) and 33-64 (rd2), Bulaga at 13, Burnett at 30, and Neal at 62... by my calculations that is 2 first rounders and a late 2nd with the Packers first 3 selections... again if we are looking at the cowbitches board that doesn't seem too unreasonable to me... i'll trust in TT on the Neal pick.....

[Bretsky]

Odds are TT just liked him much much more than anybody out there.

Just like Greg Jennings ... and Nick Collins ...

and Justin Harrell ... :oops:

So you're saying there's a chance?? :lol:


Absolutely....of course don't forget about our list of eggs TT has laid in round two either :lol:

Hopefully he turns out to be more like Greg Jennings than Brian Brohm

[Gunakor]

When you are drafting, you DO NOT attempt to project where 15 other teams are going to take people.

I can guarantee that very few could even select close to 50% correctly on the POSITION a team will take in the latter stages of the 2nd round...and that most certainly excludes everyone on this board.

You strictly go by YOUR OWN DRAFT BOARD. To start getting into guessing games is crazy. The Packers clearly really liked Neal...so they took him. It wasn't about trying to get absolute maximum value by trying to trade down to where they thought he might go.

Teams that move back typically do so because they have MULTIPLE players they grade out rather equally...and they have no real preference for one of them. If you have one guy you really like, you don't trade back a bunch of picks and just hope he's still there. You may trade a couple spots back...because you are highly confident that player will still be there. But 15-20 spots? Nope.

Thanks for echoing TT in the matter.

I don't trust Thompson's decisions just because Thompson made them. I don't care what his draft board said, I'm absolutely positive he could have gotten more with that pick than just a 3rd round talent like Neal. Look at all the other picks right around #56 that were traded for and try to convince me that Thompson couldn't have dealt his pick.

Watch Neal play, then watch Carrington play, then read the scouting reports on both players. Do so with your own eyes, not Ted Thompsons. Then tell me whether or not there were multiple equally talented and equally productive players on the board when Thompson selected Neal. Not according to TT's draft board, but according to your own eyes.

TT is not perfect. He is not infallible. He makes mistakes. Even if Neal turns out to be a really good player, this is still one of his mistakes IMO. That's what MY eyes tell me.

[Lurker64]

When Neal turns out to be better than Carrington will you admit you're wrong?

[Gunakor]

When Neal turns out to be better than Carrington will you admit you're wrong?

Sure. When they turn out to be equally productive in this league will you admit I'm right?

[Fritz]

When you are drafting, you DO NOT attempt to project where 15 other teams are going to take people.

I can guarantee that very few could even select close to 50% correctly on the POSITION a team will take in the latter stages of the 2nd round...and that most certainly excludes everyone on this board.

You strictly go by YOUR OWN DRAFT BOARD. To start getting into guessing games is crazy. The Packers clearly really liked Neal...so they took him. It wasn't about trying to get absolute maximum value by trying to trade down to where they thought he might go.

Teams that move back typically do so because they have MULTIPLE players they grade out rather equally...and they have no real preference for one of them. If you have one guy you really like, you don't trade back a bunch of picks and just hope he's still there. You may trade a couple spots back...because you are highly confident that player will still be there. But 15-20 spots? Nope.

Thanks for echoing TT in the matter.

I don't trust Thompson's decisions just because Thompson made them. I don't care what his draft board said, I'm absolutely positive he could have gotten more with that pick than just a 3rd round talent like Neal. Look at all the other picks right around #56 that were traded for and try to convince me that Thompson couldn't have dealt his pick.

Watch Neal play, then watch Carrington play, then read the scouting reports on both players. Do so with your own eyes, not Ted Thompsons. Then tell me whether or not there were multiple equally talented and equally productive players on the board when Thompson selected Neal. Not according to TT's draft board, but according to your own eyes.

TT is not perfect. He is not infallible. He makes mistakes. Even if Neal turns out to be a really good player, this is still one of his mistakes IMO. That's what MY eyes tell me.

No, Thompson's not perfect. But he has a good track record, and he's watched more film of Neal and Carrington than the rest of us put together.

I'll trust TT on this one and we'll see how it all works out. Could he be wrong? Of course.

[Pugger]

When Neal turns out to be better than Carrington will you admit you're wrong?

Sure. When they turn out to be equally productive in this league will you admit I'm right?

I'm confused here. If they are equally productive no one is right or wrong, right? Or am I wrong? :?:

[Cleft Crusty]

The reason rational GMs trade down is that they are certain they can get one of several players of pretty much equal value at their new lower position in the draft. They don't trade down hoping their one most highly rated remaining guy doesn't get picked. Specifically in the case of Neal, they would have traded down if several players, in addition to Neal had been available at the position (whatever 8-15 picks) later in the draft they ended up holding. The fact that Thompson did not trade down suggests he didn't have other options that he was comfortable with had Neal been selected. I've already pointed out that Neal was at the top of most other teams' boards (not the Cowboys), and would have been gone well before position #72. The reason other teams didn't pick a D lineman before Carrington at #72 was that Neal was gone and they didn't like Carrington as much as the guys they picked. Clefty's vision may be failing, but he can't see Carrington on the Cowboys depth chart, though he may be one of those covered picks. The proof will be in the pudding of course as others have mentioned. However, If Carrington and Neal have similar careers as someone suggested above, that will only prove that (at least some) graded Carrington to highly.

[Gunakor]

The reason rational GMs trade down is that they are certain they can get one of several players of pretty much equal value at their new lower position in the draft. They don't trade down hoping their one most highly rated remaining guy doesn't get picked. Specifically in the case of Neal, they would have traded down if several players, in addition to Neal had been available at the position (whatever 8-15 picks) later in the draft they ended up holding. The fact that Thompson did not trade down suggests he didn't have other options that he was comfortable with had Neal been selected. I've already pointed out that Neal was at the top of most other teams' boards (not the Cowboys), and would have been gone well before position #72. The reason other teams didn't pick a D lineman before Carrington at #72 was that Neal was gone and they didn't like Carrington as much as the guys they picked. Clefty's vision may be failing, but he can't see Carrington on the Cowboys depth chart, though he may be one of those covered picks. The proof will be in the pudding of course as others have mentioned. However, If Carrington and Neal have similar careers as someone suggested above, that will only prove that (at least some) graded Carrington to highly.

I agree, but by the time you find out the original grade doesn't matter anymore. If they're equal players, would it have mattered which one we would have had by trading down a few spots?

I know the argument is that TT was just doing what he felt was right according to his own draft board. I know that the front office trusts him and the decisions he makes, and I'm not surprised others do as well. He's track record suggests it was likely the right move. I get that. What I'm doing is evaluating for myself, forming my own draft board, looking at IMO two equal players sitting there when the clock starts ticking and figuring an extra pick in a later round is the best value for #56 in particular. Even if Neal would have been gone as you suggest he would have, IMO we lose nothing by selecting Carrington instead. That's what my eyes tell me.

I understand Thompson has seen much, much more film on both of these guys than I have and having watched all that film he would disagree with me. I hope he's right and I'm wrong. I hope Neal is an outstanding football player for us. I hope for the Packers sake that he can help this team win a title. But, as I said, I just can't shake the feeling that Thompson pissed away an opportunity at even greater value with that #56 pick, even if that greater value came in the form of Carrington rather than Neal, plus another player.

[Cleft Crusty]

Clefty feels as though he is trapped in a nightmare - or a diabetic coma. The Packers and many other teams rated Neal higher. Had the Packers traded down, Neal would have been gone. They wanted him more, others wanted him more, regardless of whether they end up being right or wrong.

[pbmax]

Just one small thing. Carrington was noted for his run stopping, holding the point of attack and for the potential to bull rush and collapse the pocket. Its my experience that the last point is scout speak for "cannot rush the passer in the NFL, but we don't have definitive proof of his lack of ability".

It has been noted in several profiles that there is an expectation that Neal can rush the passer with more moves than simply collapsing the pocket. That fact alone, with two otherwise close players, is going to elevate Neal and make him more attractive to the Packers, who needed to increase their pass rush ability. If Neal was the last well regarded interior pass rusher (other than later round potentials) that would explain the 2nd round draft and the reluctance to trade down. As someone pointed out, you don't trade down if there is only one guy left with the qualities and measurables you seek.

It would also explain jumping up in the 3rd for the last Day 2 (formerly Day 1) quality safety. With the early Round 2 run on OLB, the pass rushers were in short supply at OLB. That meant to get NFL ready pass rushing in this draft, there could not have been consideration of safeties or CBs in the 2nd. The Packers then watch as DB help leaves the board too quickly for their liking.

This does not mean T2 jumped completely off the best player bandwagon. But if Neal was the only choice left from the board (grades) and position/skill (D line pass rush) then the draft played out poorly for the Packers in Round 2 and 3.

[rbaloha1]

Why all the second guessing? Lets wait until the pre season.

[swede]

Why all the second guessing? Lets wait until the pre season.
What second guessing?

On this board second guessing is the immediate "He picked WHO? WTF?"

By now we've moved on to suppositions, hypotheticals, comparatives, data analysis and name-calling. I'd say we are easily into fifth and sixth guessing.

[swede]

Just one small thing. Carrington was noted for his run stopping, holding the point of attack and for the potential to bull rush and collapse the pocket. Its my experience that the last point is scout speak for "cannot rush the passer in the NFL, but we don't have definitive proof of his lack of ability".

It has been noted in several profiles that there is an expectation that Neal can rush the passer with more moves than simply collapsing the pocket. That fact alone, with two otherwise close players, is going to elevate Neal and make him more attractive to the Packers, who needed to increase their pass rush ability. If Neal was the last well regarded interior pass rusher (other than later round potentials) that would explain the 2nd round draft and the reluctance to trade down. As someone pointed out, you don't trade down if there is only one guy left with the qualities and measurables you seek.

It would also explain jumping up in the 3rd for the last Day 2 (formerly Day 1) quality safety. With the early Round 2 run on OLB, the pass rushers were in short supply at OLB. That meant to get NFL ready pass rushing in this draft, there could not have been consideration of safeties or CBs in the 2nd. The Packers then watch as DB help leaves the board too quickly for their liking.

This does not mean T2 jumped completely off the best player bandwagon. But if Neal was the only choice left from the board (grades) and position/skill (D line pass rush) then the draft played out poorly for the Packers in Round 2 and 3.

Good post. I think that you are absolutely right about rounds 2-3. If the draft is falling to you badly then you gotta shake things up with a trade or two.

And, if Burnett turns out to be a really good pick then trading up was a great way to trade a couple of Zeppos for a Harpo.

The bolded part reminded me of McCarthy's smoke-blowing during a couple of post-draft interviews. He wanted to assure the fans that every player picked was the highest rated player on the Packers' draft board at the time of selection.

Gosh, Mike...really?

[Gunakor]

Sorry, I guess I really can't argue this one with anybody that can't get past TT's draft board and Mike Neal. I'm not Thompson, and I don't agree with him. I'm not speaking from his perspective. I think he fucked this one up.

Maybe Neal will end up being the better player, but even if he does, that doesn't change my opinion that a serviceable defensive lineman not named Mike Neal plus an additional later round draft pick would have been more valuable than Neal by himself. It's really that extra draft pick that I've been arguing for, not Carrington. I'd have been perfectly okay with Carrington should Neal have been taken as long as I got that extra pick. Beyond that I could care less between the two. They're the same player IMO.

[th87]

TT clearly thinks Neal is better than Carrington + 7th.

By equating Carrington to Neal, you are asserting that you know more than TT about these particular players.

[Gunakor]

TT clearly thinks Neal is better than Carrington + 7th.

By equating Carrington to Neal, you are asserting that you know more than TT about these particular players.

I know what I see. I'm not asserting I know more than Thompson, I'm stating that I disagree with him on what the real value of that pick was.

Thompson obviously knows more than I. That doesn't mean I am just going to put my blind faith in him. It doesn't mean he still isn't capable of making a mistake. It doesn't make me wrong or him right, it's doesn't make me an idiot or him a genious. It simply means his board said one thing and mine said another. From my perspective, he could have gotten more with that pick.

But thanks for acknowledging my point at least, one that everybody else can't understand. You are the first one to add the extra pick I've been stressing as the real value into your argument. Everybody else is simply stuck on Neal vs. Carrington with no thought whatsoever given to the extra pick we'd get. At least you get where I'm coming from.

[Bretsky]

I'm not sure why a 7th got thrown into this equation. Look at the trades around round two; in all probability we'd have been picking up a 4th for a trade down. There were no fire sale on draft picks. A 4th allows us to get a nice OLB with pass rush skills or a decent QB....Several went top of round five.

I also don't buy the you know more than TT mojo; if we don't question moves around here the analysis part goes out the window.

We just have to agree with everything TT does because he's the GM. TT makes plenty of wrong calls and plenty of right calls. Just because we don't agree doesn't makes us smarter than TT.........although.........deep down.........

I know I might be :lol:

[Tarlam!]

But thanks for acknowledging my point at least, one that everybody else can't understand. You are the first one to add the extra pick I've been stressing as the real value into your argument. Everybody else is simply stuck on Neal vs. Carrington with no thought whatsoever given to the extra pick we'd get. At least you get where I'm coming from.

Poor, misunderstood, Gunny. :D

Of course we got your message, including your trade and differing board etc. But what is being argued is that Neal probably wouldn't have been there had TT traded down and the extra pick plus Carrington is probably not going to be better than Neal.

At the end of it all, we'll just have to wait and see, won't we?

[pbmax]

Why all the second guessing? Lets wait until the pre season.
How much playoff hockey or basketball do you think I can watch? I have time to kill. :shock:

[Joemailman]

Sorry, I guess I really can't argue this one with anybody that can't get past TT's draft board and Mike Neal. I'm not Thompson, and I don't agree with him. I'm not speaking from his perspective. I think he fucked this one up.

Maybe Neal will end up being the better player, but even if he does, that doesn't change my opinion that a serviceable defensive lineman not named Mike Neal plus an additional later round draft pick would have been more valuable than Neal by himself. It's really that extra draft pick that I've been arguing for, not Carrington. I'd have been perfectly okay with Carrington should Neal have been taken as long as I got that extra pick. Beyond that I could care less between the two. They're the same player IMO.

Carrington is seen by many as a boom or bust pick. A better athlete than football player. Your argument that Carrington + 4th round pick is better than Neal makes sense if you feel that Neal and Carrington are comparable players. However, I suspect that TT had Carrington downgraded because of his lack of production at times, and may not have had much interest in him at all.
http://warroom.sportingnews.com/nfl/draft/2010/players/9646.html

[rbaloha1]

Why all the second guessing? Lets wait until the pre season.
How much playoff hockey or basketball do you think I can watch? I have time to kill. :shock:

Makes sense.

[CaptainKickass]

I had a vision the other day while taking peyote and meditating in the forest while wearing my trusty Packer T-shirt.

In this vision I saw TT & Dom in the draft war room. TT turns around to pass a rolled and lit "cigarette" to Dom and looks him in the eye.

He said "Ok, Dom - I lost that bet with you last year, so as promised I told you I'd let you tell me what to do here. It's time to go defense, how should I handle this?"

"kneel" said Dom.

....and the rest is history!

[swede]

I had a vision the other day while taking peyote and meditating in the forest while wearing my trusty Packer T-shirt.

In this vision I saw TT & Dom in the draft war room. TT turns around to pass a rolled and lit "cigarette" to Dom and looks him in the eye.

He said "Ok, Dom - I lost that bet with you last year, so as promised I told you I'd let you tell me what to do here. It's time to go defense, how should I handle this?"

"kneel" said Dom.

....and the rest is history!

Shaman you!

[Lurker64]

Bob McGinn weighed in on the JSO


• It's nonsense to think the Packers could have gotten end Mike Neal later than the second round. How can you know what 31 other teams think about a guy?

If you have a guy rated at that spot, the odds are at least one other team does as well. That's why you just go with your board. You can't be concerned about what other teams do. That's why the Packers are good at what they do.

[falco]

It's nonsense to think the Packers could have gotten end Mike Neal later than the second round. How can you know what 31 other teams think about a guy?

+1

[Bretsky]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

[Cleft Crusty]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

Of course, that proves he's wrong - despite the fact that he ranks amongst the highest of all beat writers in predicting the draft. But don't let facts kick you in your ass. We've come full circle...


After pulling in all my extensive NFL contacts, I have determined that Neal was the highest player remaining on the draft boards of at least 8 teams when the Packers selected. He was second on at least 6 others. It was almost certain that 1) he would have been picked within at least 1-5 positions of where he was selected had the Packers not selected him and 2) the Packers would have had a limited group of teams with which to trade down, with very little guarantee of having Neal available after such a trade. All my sources are anonymous, but highly reliable, just like the scouts used by my old friend at the UrinalScented, Bob McGinn.

[Bretsky]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

Of course, that proves he's wrong - despite the fact that he ranks amongst the highest of all beat writers in predicting the draft. But don't let facts kick you in your ass. We've come full circle...


After pulling in all my extensive NFL contacts, I have determined that Neal was the highest player remaining on the draft boards of at least 8 teams when the Packers selected. He was second on at least 6 others. It was almost certain that 1) he would have been picked within at least 1-5 positions of where he was selected had the Packers not selected him and 2) the Packers would have had a limited group of teams with which to trade down, with very little guarantee of having Neal available after such a trade. All my sources are anonymous, but highly reliable, just like the scouts used by my old friend at the UrinalScented, Bob McGinn.


oh great; so I guess we can use him for supporting our views during the draft and then bash on him the rest of the year when he nitpicks TT and we don't like his content. Selective suppot

[Lurker64]

Well, if somebody displays a consistent bias against X, but then says something that is in support of X, instead of undermining the statement doesn't the bias seem to lend support to it?

It's along the same lines as "Even people who hate [politician or ideology] agree that this program is a good idea." Or it's like that one movie critic who hates nearly everything, when he tells you that a movie is really good, it probably is well above average.

If someone who consistently rails against TT argues that the people are nuts for railing against TT for a specific thing, isn't that automatically more convincing than if somebody who consistently defends TT argues that the people are nuts railing against TT for that same thing?

I mean, think of it in the context of this board. Which is more indicative of a good move by Ted Thompson: JustinHarrell telling you it was a smart for Thompson to sit out free agency or Wist telling you it was smart for Thompson to sit out free agency?

[Bretsky]

good pts

[Lurker64]

Alternatively, we can just ignore who it is that utters a given point, and just deal with the arguments on their own merits.

I thought McGinn made a good argument (that keeping track of what 31 other teams think, at least outside of the first round is a far more difficult task than any front office in the league can manage, particularly when they have to figure out what they think about all these guys anyway), so I posted it here.

[retailguy]

We just have to agree with everything TT does because he's the GM. TT makes plenty of wrong calls and plenty of right calls. Just because we don't agree doesn't makes us smarter than TT

Yup. That's the way it works around here. You nailed it.

Just bow to the master. :worship:

sickening.

[falco]

Yup. That's the way it works around here. You nailed it.

Just bow to the master. :worship:

sickening.

Funny. I don't think anyone here is making that argument. The question isn't whether Neal was a good or bad pick. The point Gunny is making is that he is 100% sure that TT could have traded down and still got Neal or an equally as good player. The argument against that is that TT, rightly or wrongly, believed that Neal or a similar level of player would not have been available

[retailguy]

Funny. I don't think anyone here is making that argument.

I disagree.

[falco]

Fair enough. I'm sure there is something in these 10 pages that supports your point.

[Patler]

For the first three drafts, many complained that all TT ever did was trade down, he didn't take chances with players his gut told him were better, he acted as if players were fungible and at any point in the draft he could pick between several of equal value. Instead of bringing in more players, he should "go for it" more often to try and hit a homerun.

Now, for three drafts, TT has traded up in each, his trade-downs are less frequent, and he shows preferences for specific players at specific draft positions. So, of course, we hear complaints that he could have taken any of several players of equal value and potential, and he should have traded down to bring in more players, its foolish to focus on a player when any of several will do and he can get more of them in the process.


In my opinion, those two positions are exactly opposite of what needed to be done with respect to the roster situation in GB. When the roster was old and of questionable depth, it needed to be turned over quickly. It was better to bring in more players of closer potential than to look for the diamond in the rough. TT needed to hit a lot of singles in the draft, a one-run homer would be of questionable value.

Now, with a young fairly talented roster, it makes more sense to go for the guy who you feel is better than his draft grade, the guy who might become one of your better players. Having more 5th, 6th or 7th round picks to compete for roster spots 40-53 is not necessary. While I might trade down in the first or even second to get more 2nd and 3rds, getting more 4ths thru 7ths doesn't interest me as much. I would only do it when I truly have no preference for any player at my existing spot.

TT has hit a lot of singles, and it's time to swing for some homeruns on the Packer roster. Mathews looks like he can be one. There are lots of things I like about Neal. I can understand a preference for him over similarly graded DEs. I can understand the feeling that more lower draft picks really won't help you all that much right now.

The factor people ignore is the limit on roster sizes now and going into TC. You may not want to lock yourself into 5 or 6 players from the bottom three rounds of the draft. You might prefer to hold an extra spot or two open to be filed from one of the 10-20 nonroster players you bring in for tryouts this week. Take one that you get to spend three days with over a guy you saw mostly on tape.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I know I'm going WAY out on a limb here, but I totally agree with Patler. :wink:

After Sherman decimated the roster by continuing to trade up for reaches it was time for a complete rebuild. Therefore it was time to get as many picks as possible and hope you hit on some young gems. After a few seasons of sifting through players and keeping the talent, it's now time to fill specific holes and make a run for it. (are you listening Lions, Rams, 'Skins, etc....?) I've been really pleased by the progress of the team during TT's tenure, but it's time to compete for a championship now.

[Fritz]

One effect of TT's change in tactics as the roster gets better should be to quiet those who said Thompson was married to only one way of doing things. I think I said that a few times, myself.

He seems able to change tactics as necessity dictates. This is the sign of someone who is successful - he adapts.

[run pMc]

Maybe Neal will end up being the better player, but even if he does, that doesn't change my opinion that a serviceable defensive lineman not named Mike Neal plus an additional later round draft pick would have been more valuable than Neal by himself. It's really that extra draft pick that I've been arguing for, not Carrington. I'd have been perfectly okay with Carrington should Neal have been taken as long as I got that extra pick. Beyond that I could care less between the two. They're the same player IMO

If they both turn out to be equally productive, then you are correct. That remains to be seen. Personally, I think Neal's chances are better.

I agree it would be nice to trade a few spots down & get an extra pick, but it's hard to see where (for example) a rookie R7 pick is going to fit on the 53 man roster. (FWIW, I agree with Patler's re: changing tactics.) Prior to this pick, I'd never heard of Neal before, so I was admittedly underwhelmed. Then again, I don't follow college football.

Ultimately, the draft is such a crapshoot that it doesn't matter where he was picked, what matters is if the man can play.

I have no problems with TT shoring up the DL depth. This pick makes sense considering Jenkins' age, injury history and future contract status. Having a strong run D (like GB did last season) is important...someone's gotta tackle AD.

[vince]

An early update to this good thread from the spring... An honest question... How's Carrington doing so far?

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/includes/news_items/40/news_items_more.php?id=4246&section_id=40&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Early riser Neal on the rise
By JASON WILDE
jwilde@espnwisconsin.com

GREEN BAY – At first, C.J. Wilson thought there might be something wrong with his roommate. Or maybe it was his fault.

Every night at their dorm on the St. Norbert College campus during the first half of Green Bay Packers training camp, Wilson would find his fellow rookie defensive end, Mike Neal, wide awake. And every morning, Wilson would find Neal ready to head over to Lambeau Field at the crack of dawn, hours before the players had to be there.

“He doesn’t sleep at all. At first, I thought it was my snoring that kept him up,” Wilson said with a laugh after practice Monday. “But he said he wasn’t my snoring. Every time I wake up in the morning, he might be looking at his playbook. Or over there doing some curls.

“He doesn’t sleep. He just waits.”

And he’s not very good at waiting, either.

“I’m always striving to take another step. Whatever I can do to help gain an extra step, I’m doing,” said Neal, a second-round pick from Purdue who attributes his fanatical work ethic to his parents, who raised him in the tough Gary, Ind., area.

“My parents just never quit. They were absolutely always finding (ways) to make our family better. I didn’t come from much. I didn’t grow up with much. But they always provided. They just taught me a lot. I’m never satisfied with where I’m at. Even if I watch film and coach was like, ‘That’s a good job’ – well, to me, it ain’t good enough. So it makes me come here on days when I don’t have to. And people are like, ‘Why are you here? Go home.’ I’m like, ‘Why go home? There ain’t nothing to do at home, so I might as well come do something.’ And if it’s going to be something to help me get better, I’m going to do that.”

That formula is working. With starting defensive end Cullen Jenkins out with a calf injury last week against Indianapolis, Neal started and played well. He figures to start again on Thursday night at Kansas City in the team’s exhibition finale.

Even when Jenkins returns for the Sept. 12 regular-season opener at Philadelphia, Neal will still have a vital role on defense. As the fourth lineman, he figures to rotate in extensively during games, in an effort to keep Jenkins, Ryan Pickett and B.J. Raji fresh. He’ll play both in the base defense (three linemen) and in the nickel package (two linemen, usually paired with Raji or Jenkins).

Asked if he is pleased with how Neal has played so far in preseason, coach Mike McCarthy couldn’t answer quickly enough Monday.

“I sure am. We are very pleased with Mike Neal,” McCarthy said. “I thought right away in the first preseason game, we were very happy with what he showed in base and I think he is getting even better in the sub packages. I think his inside pass rush has really picked up, and I really like the way Mike goes about his business.

“You are in there early in the morning and he is one of the first guys in there, eating breakfast. He brings a real blue-collar approach to work every day and you love to see that in our rookies.”

None takes it to the level of Neal, though.

“I just don’t sleep. I’m up all the time,” Neal said. “(Wilson) always goes, ‘We don’t have to be there until 10.’ Well, at 6:45, he’s like, ‘You leaving already?’ I’m like, ‘I might as well.’ I might as well be here trying to get my body ready for every practice, every game.”

In addition to his odd schedule, Neal is also known for his freakish strength, something he also inherited from his dad. Neal bench-pressed 510 pounds as a senior at Purdue, but he still isn’t as strong as his dad, Michael, a 45-year-old fire fighter in Gary who once benched 525 pounds during the World Police and Fire Games. Like father, like son.

“We call him Bam-Bam. That little strong baby on the Flintstones? Yeah, that’s him,” Jenkins said. “He’s a good kid. He’s strong as heck, real explosive. He’s one of the best D-linemen that I’ve seen come in as a rookie, ready to contribute right away. It’s pretty impressive some of the things he can do and he’s still raw and he’s still getting used to this stuff, so he’s only going to get better.”

For Neal, the challenge is to harness that strength and couple it with sound technique. That’s one way he spends those early mornings and late nights, making sure he’s using more than just his brute strength.

“He’s probably used to using his strength, but he has a lot of other tools, too,” Jenkins said. “I don’t know if he understands it yet, but he’s only going to get better. As time goes on, he’s going to start to understand the game and how to play. He’s fast, he’s explosive off the ball. Once he really understands how to tie everything together, with his quickness and his strength, he’s going to be unbelievable.”

[RashanGary]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.

[cheesner]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.? I hope you meant exciting.


Vince, great read. Lets hope that work ethic/dedication rubs off on the entire team. After reading that I am thinking a late 2nd was a steal - I expect big things from this kid.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.

+1

This could be a huge pick, and likely will help us immensely this year.

[Brandon494]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.

+1

This could be a huge pick, and likely will help us immensely this year.
TT hit on his top three picks IMO

[MichiganPackerFan]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.

+1

This could be a huge pick, and likely will help us immensely this year.
TT hit on his top three picks IMO

We'll know a whole lot better in three years! I am as guilty as anyone about getting excited about a prospect right away, but only time will how good the picks were. This is especially striking after looking back on the Aaron Rodgers thread.

[Tarlam!]

We'll know a whole lot better in three years! I am as guilty as anyone about getting excited about a prospect right away, but only time will how good the picks were.

Guilty as well. I get an erection over every pick TT makes and when I look back at the list of failures I fear impotence.

[Freak Out]

We'll know a whole lot better in three years! I am as guilty as anyone about getting excited about a prospect right away, but only time will how good the picks were.

Guilty as well. I get an erection over every pick TT makes and when I look back at the list of failures I fear impotence.

:lol:

[Scott Campbell]

He's looked really good. Him and Bulaga are exiting rookies.

+1

This could be a huge pick, and likely will help us immensely this year.


With the loss of Jolly, this could solve a MAJOR roster problem.

Go Bam Bam!

http://pattisoriginals.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/bambam.gif

[Lurker64]

I really doubt the anecdote about not sleeping, on his twitter (@mneal96) he mentions sleeping or naps semi-frequently. From what I can glean though, he sleeps in a hyperbaric chamber and doesn't necessarily keep an ordinary schedule.

Also, yay, an old thread I made where I don't end up looking like an idiot when it was bumped.

[Brandon494]

We'll know a whole lot better in three years! I am as guilty as anyone about getting excited about a prospect right away, but only time will how good the picks were.

Guilty as well. I get an erection over every pick TT makes and when I look back at the list of failures I fear impotence.

I don't get too excited about many draft picks. The only two that come to mind are Quinn Johnson and Brandon Jackson. I thought those two guys were going to be studs but so far not even close. I believe Bugula, Neal, and Burnett are going to be starters for this team for along time.