One Exec "Packers Have Much Work To Do"

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-have-much-work-to-do-personnel-executive-says-9i5379u-148401995.html

[Scott Campbell]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/packers-have-much-work-to-do-personnel-executive-says-9i5379u-148401995.html


"Wide receiver: "They drafted a receiver (Randall Cobb) high last year to replace the old man (Donald Driver). Driver is just hanging on but they already have that guy in the pipeline. Now they have two guys they like off the practice squad. So they are locked and loaded."


Makes me wonder how Driver can make the team.

I disagree with the DJ Smith comment. He was effective when he played last year.

[Joemailman]

The exec talks about Hawk's play being adversely affected by the poor DL play in front of him. I think that's spot on. If TT can draft a DL who can create some havoc up front, I think people will be surprised how quickly this defense can improve. I am now on the Jerel Worthy bandwagon.

[Scott Campbell]

The exec talks about Hawk's play being adversely affected by the poor DL play in front of him. I think that's spot on. If TT can draft a DL who can create some havoc up front, I think people will be surprised how quickly this defense can improve. I am now on the Jerel Worthy bandwagon.


Think we can get by with just one? I think we might be down 2 guys now. Or at least a DL and an OLB.

[Joemailman]

He'll likely draft at least 2 DL. I think he'll take one early, and he usually takes one late. (Lawrence Guy, C.J. Wilson, Jarius Wynn, Johnny Jolly, Mike Montgomery). The Packers may need to keep an extra one this year due to Mike Neal's suspension.

[Brandon494]

The exec talks about Hawk's play being adversely affected by the poor DL play in front of him. I think that's spot on. If TT can draft a DL who can create some havoc up front, I think people will be surprised how quickly this defense can improve. I am now on the Jerel Worthy bandwagon.

I don't buy that, Hawk just plain sucked last season. DL play had nothing to do with him missing tackles and why were the other LBs not that effect by the DL play?

[Brandon494]

"Wide receiver: "They drafted a receiver (Randall Cobb) high last year to replace the old man (Donald Driver). Driver is just hanging on but they already have that guy in the pipeline. Now they have two guys they like off the practice squad. So they are locked and loaded."


Makes me wonder how Driver can make the team.

I disagree with the DJ Smith comment. He was effective when he played last year.

I still wonder how you guys think some guy off the PS is going to beat out Donald Driver.

[denverYooper]

At least he thinks special teams is solid.

[wist43]

I like the assessment by the "personnel man", but he really doesn't understand TT or the Packer philosophy. The Packers only care about offense... and the Packers never have "levels of urgency".

"'They pick the best player available,' the personnel man said. '"But let's face it. It's about levels of urgency.'"

Other teams may have "levels of urgency", but not the Packers. TT's philosophy says that Lattimore will step in at ROLB, and Hargrove and Muir are all that is needed on the DL. To TT, there are no problems on the roster, there is no "urgency", and there is no need to move up or down in the draft to "fill holes". By TT's reckoning, there are no holes.

This is TT's 8th draft as Packer GM. His philosophy says that all of his developmental guys that he brought in in the past 2-3 years are ready to step into the starting lineup in 2012. It doesn't matter if they can't play, or they simply don't have the talent - TT brought them in and spent the last 2-3 years developing them. Lattimore is your starting ROLB; and Muir/Hargrove is all that is needed on the DL - from TT's POV, that is the end of the discussion.

I fully expect TT to focus on offense again in this draft... which as I've been saying is just as well. The Packers are good at evaluating offensive players - they suck at evaluating defensive players; so we might as well go with our strength, and avoid making mistakes in an attempt to field a defense.

At this point?? Screw it... we might as well just admit what we are, and quit trying to pretend defense is actually a part of the game. Winning games 50-48 is the same as winning 13-10. Of course good defensive teams will kick the fuck out of us in the playoffs, ala the Giants, but winning championships isn't the goal. Developing players is the goal.

[Scott Campbell]

I still wonder how you guys think some guy off the PS is going to beat out Donald Driver.


Wasn't Donald Driver some guy off the PS at one point?

To answer your question - age. It catches up to everyone at some point. Personally I think they should cut Driver. But I'm not sure they will.

[Scott Campbell]

The Packers are good at evaluating offensive players - they suck at evaluating defensive players............


http://trojanempire.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/clay_matthews092610.jpg

[mraynrand]

The Packers only care about offense... and the Packers never have "levels of urgency"

I stopped reading after this. When they switched to the 3-4 (out of a sense of urgency, no less), they drafted Raji and moved up to draft Matthews. When you make blanket, categorical statements that can be rapidly, easily, and unquestionably debunked, it kills your credibility. That's the main reason I never read that Cleft Crusty guy anymore either.

[Brandon494]

Wasn't Donald Driver some guy off the PS at one point?

To answer your question - age. It catches up to everyone at some point. Personally I think they should cut Driver. But I'm not sure they will.

Yea he was and now hes arguably the best WR in Packers history. I highly doubt Gurley will mirror his career or come close to it. Is Driver the same player he once was? Of course not but dude still had 7 TDs last season being the 4th option.

[wist43]

From the OP article, with comment:

Defensive end: "They're just kind of piecing it together right now. They've not replaced Cullen Jenkins. That guy was a pretty good player. It wouldn't surprise me if they went high on a D-lineman."

Comment: This scout acknowledges that this position is in poor shape, but doesn't spell out the doom of it all. The Packers have 2 NFL calibur DL, and that includes all positions (DE,DT,NT). The Packers have the worst defensive line in the NFL - no "urgency" though.

Would not be surprised in the least if TT ignores this position til the middle/end rounds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nose tackle: "They've got a Pro Bowl player so I don't think it's a need. This is where you get in the middle rounds and get depth."

Comment: The Packers are burning Raji out fast. What a disheartening situation it has to be for him... continually lined up in that gimmicky 2-5 base, 2-4 nickel; it's Raji against the other teams OL - it wouldn't surprise me if his attitude sours, and he sets his eye on the exit sign at the end of his contract.

The Packers are wasting Raji; and couldn't seem to care less about it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Outside linebacker: "It's a (major) need because in that defense those guys play outside linebacker on first and second downs but on third down they become your edge rushers. That position, to them, is probably more valuable than the 5-technique (end). That position is as needy as the 5-technique. Last year they could have gone with an outside pass rusher. It still needs to be addressed. And without Cullen Jenkins it became more of a need."

Comment: TT simply dismisses this position as being unnecessary to the game of football. As an afterthought, he threw Frank Zombo, Brad Jones, and Erik Walden up against the wall - none stuck. Now they're singing the praises of Jamari Lattimore.

Matthews is the only pass rusher offenses have to account for. 6 sacks in the last 7 games, we might as well drop 10 into coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inside linebacker: "D.J. Smith is too small. In that defense, they need big guys that can play. I can see why A.J. Hawk didn't have that great of a year. When your front five is not playing well that affects your inside guys. The reason why the Packers are sticking with A.J. Hawk is they feel they had such a drop-off up front that it affected his play."

Comment: Impossible to evaluate b/c of the horrible DL play, and the front seven's overall weakness forcing Capers into crazy fronts. AJ Hawk was more worthy of a 5th round pick, than #5 overall, but at least he is an NFL calibur player. Bishop is an NFL calibur player as well, but when woven in amongst a patch quilt of bartenders and toll booth workers, their weaknesses are more glaring.

ILB would probably be our least weak front seven position; but that's not saying much. By NFL standards they are below average; by Packer defensive standards, they're the strongest front seven group.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cornerback: "Yes, they need to get another (top) corner. No question about it. They'll be looking. Corner is always a position of need in the NFL. If there's one there they will take him, but it's not the top priority. It's not like in the first round they've got to have a corner."

Comment: This unit pretty much gets a pass on the entire 2011 season. With Collins injury, and the rest of the mess in front of them... just forget 2011 ever happened, and move on.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safety: "Without (Nick) Collins, I see a void. Not just need. Void. They don't have a starter. They'd be losing a Pro Bowl, impact player and you got a bunch of journeymen. They're looking hard for safeties. No doubt about it. I keep hearing about (Charles) Woodson going there. I could see that. It may be that he doesn't want to go there. It's a nice thing to say but a hard thing to do. The talk makes sense to me, but how much does it weaken them at corner? That's why you don't do it. If (Collins) comes back, then it's not a void. "

Comment: Would be surprised if Collins comes back; assuming he retires, this group is now very suspect. Assuming the pass rush doesn't improve, Packerland will be howling for a S in the early rounds of next years draft.

[wist43]

http://trojanempire.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/clay_matthews092610.jpg

Blind squirrel, Scott ;)

I was very happy about the Raji pick... but my fear was that once they had Raji and Matthews, they would pretty much quit on the front seven again - which is what has happened.

I had high hopes for Neal too, but he's obviously a bust... by my reckoning, their best front seven drafted player in the last 10 years was Johnny Jolly, but he's wasting his life away in prison.

No SC, TT hit on Raji and Matthews, but I think it's pretty obvious that the Packers always have a glint in their eye for offensive players, and investing high draft picks on defensive front seven players is done begrudgingly and poorly.

TT has been GM for over 7 years now, and has assembled the worst front seven in the NFL. Whether you want to argue that this is b/c the Packers are an offensively minded organization, or that they've missed on a lot of defensive draft picks - or whether you want to argue a combination of the two - you're still left with trying to explain why the Packers have the worst front seven in the NFL.

It's comforting to focus on 2 gems; but when they're presented to you in a basket with 9 turds they kinda lose their luster.

[Scott Campbell]

Yea he was and now hes arguably the best WR in Packers history. I highly doubt Gurley will mirror his career or come close to it. Is Driver the same player he once was? Of course not but dude still had 7 TDs last season being the 4th option.


The 4th option roster spot belongs to young up and comers that play on special teams. I highly doubt there will be much if any dropoff from Driver to either of those guys. They're cheaper, have upside, and a decade of their prime years remaining. It's nothing against Driver personally. It's a cold business decision.


And he's arguably the best WR in Packers history only if you're not counting Hutson, Sharpe and Lofton.

[Scott Campbell]

Blind squirrel, Scott ;)



I don't see too many blind squirrels packaging 3 picks to trade back into the first round for a player they coveted.

[Brandon494]

The 4th option roster spot belongs to young up and comers that play on special teams. I highly doubt there will be much if any dropoff from Driver to either of those guys. They're cheaper, have upside, and a decade of their prime years remaining. It's nothing against Driver personally. It's a cold business decision.


And he's arguably the best WR in Packers history only if you're not counting Hutson, Sharpe and Lofton.

James Jones can't play special teams? Cobb? We can't keep 6 WRs instead of 5? Who the all-time reception leader in GB history? Who was the only WR who showed up against the Giants? I'm done but I'm willing to bet any amount of money that Driver will be playing for the Packers next season.

[wist43]

I don't see too many blind squirrels packaging 3 picks to trade back into the first round for a player they coveted.

How do you explain the worst front seven in the NFL??

I like Matthews and Raji, and applaud the picks. Still, how are we the worst front seven in the NFL??

[Scott Campbell]

Still, how are we the worst front seven in the NFL??


By using yardage as the metric for worst.

[Brandon494]

Worst front seven in the NFL? I'm guessing you mainly follow the Packers and not much else of the NFL.

[RashanGary]

The Packers love DJ Smith.

[sharpe1027]

How do you explain the worst front seven in the NFL??


Credibility killer.

[Deputy Nutz]

The Packers weren't good against the run, and absolutely horrible against the pass, failing to apply pressure on the QB in the second half of the season. They need improvement, I expect they will get it in this draft with the way TT and MM are downplaying their need for defensive personnel.

The Packers have drafted heavy on offense since Thompson has taken over, especially since Rodgers took over at QB. The Packers have refused to fail on offense and are ego driven on the offensive side of the ball proving they made the right decision going with Rodgers. I will believe this until the day I die. Rodgers has been given every chance, piece, and opportunity in the Packer organization, and the Packers have won a Super Bowl in 2010 and won 15 games in 2011 but to win championship you need all 3 phases of football and the Packer didn't have that in 2011.

[mraynrand]

The Packers have drafted heavy on offense since Thompson has taken over, especially since Rodgers took over at QB. The Packers have refused to fail on offense and are ego driven on the offensive side of the ball proving they made the right decision going with Rodgers.

probably has something to do with the hiring of a QB and offensive-minded coach. I guess that's where TT's ego was in 2005. Firing virtually the entire defensive coaching staff following 2008 and hiring Capers was probably another burst of ego, designed only to prevent failure by the offense.

[Brandon494]

probably has something to do with the hiring of a QB and offensive-minded coach. I guess that's where TT's ego was in 2005. Firing virtually the entire defensive coaching staff following 2008 and hiring Capers was probably another burst of ego, designed only to prevent failure by the offense.

Couldn't have said it any better myself :)

[King Friday]

I still wonder how you guys think some guy off the PS is going to beat out Donald Driver.

It's not that anyone thinks the PS guys are truly better than Driver right now. They aren't...they have no experience and need some seasoning. It's the fact that the #5 WR is never all that productive (can Driver stand being on the bench more than the field?), usually is counted on to help in special teams (which you really wouldn't expect Driver to do), and at some point you have to give the kids a chance to get them that valuable experience needed to take the next step in their development. Part of the reason Driver became the player he is was that he got the OPPORTUNITY to play. You have to give the kids (if they show promise and look capable) a chance.

Cobb IS better than Driver going into 2012 IMO, which means Driver is at best your #5 WR. At that spot, the PS guys offer help on special teams and are considerably cheaper. The only way to develop young kids is to bring them along in a progression...and the logical next step for a kid on the PS is the #5 WR slot. If a kid shows reasonable progress and a capacity to bring value to the 53 man roster (meaning he probably has additional value in future years) it makes more sense to plug him in now and let him earn the experience so he CAN contribute in future years. They won't be ready (or will leave for another team) if you leave them on the PS. So, in 2013, you won't have either Driver OR the promising youngster if you stupidly cling to Driver...who is well past his prime and won't be all that productive in the #5 slot anyway.

I love Driver...he will go down as one of the greatest Packer WRs in history. However, it's time to move on (just as Thompson did with Bert and gave Rodgers a chance) and take the training wheels off the bike for the kids. You rarely get better as a team by holding onto aging players past their prime if you have capable kids to replace them.

[Deputy Nutz]

probably has something to do with the hiring of a QB and offensive-minded coach. I guess that's where TT's ego was in 2005. Firing virtually the entire defensive coaching staff following 2008 and hiring Capers was probably another burst of ego, designed only to prevent failure by the offense.

I see that you are also part of the"Protect the Prince" plan.

So then you are saying that TT is just terrible at generating a consistent defense?

[Brandon494]

I see that you are also part of the"Protect the Prince" plan.

So then you are saying that TT is just terrible at generating a consistent defense?

I guess your forgetting that the defense was top 5 the past two seasons before last, no one could predict such a huge drop off.

[Brandon494]

It's not that anyone thinks the PS guys are truly better than Driver right now. They aren't...they have no experience and need some seasoning. It's the fact that the #5 WR is never all that productive (can Driver stand being on the bench more than the field?), usually is counted on to help in special teams (which you really wouldn't expect Driver to do), and at some point you have to give the kids a chance to get them that valuable experience needed to take the next step in their development. Part of the reason Driver became the player he is was that he got the OPPORTUNITY to play. You have to give the kids (if they show promise and look capable) a chance.

Cobb IS better than Driver going into 2012 IMO, which means Driver is at best your #5 WR. At that spot, the PS guys offer help on special teams and are considerably cheaper. The only way to develop young kids is to bring them along in a progression...and the logical next step for a kid on the PS is the #5 WR slot. If a kid shows reasonable progress and a capacity to bring value to the 53 man roster (meaning he probably has additional value in future years) it makes more sense to plug him in now and let him earn the experience so he CAN contribute in future years. They won't be ready (or will leave for another team) if you leave them on the PS. So, in 2013, you won't have either Driver OR the promising youngster if you stupidly cling to Driver...who is well past his prime and won't be all that productive in the #5 slot anyway.

I love Driver...he will go down as one of the greatest Packer WRs in history. However, it's time to move on (just as Thompson did with Bert and gave Rodgers a chance) and take the training wheels off the bike for the kids. You rarely get better as a team by holding onto aging players past their prime if you have capable kids to replace them.

Thats your option but I disagree, I'm sure that TT and everyone on the team would disagree with you as well.

[Fritz]

"It doesn't matter if they can't play, or they simply don't have the talent - TT brought them in and spent the last 2-3 years developing them. Lattimore is your starting ROLB; and Muir/Hargrove is all that is needed on the DL - from TT's POV, that is the end of the discussion."

I like you and all, Wist, but this is a ridiculous statement. It hearkens back to the old "TT cuts guys he didn't draft or sign and keeps loser players just because he drafted them."

You keep acting like Thompson acts out of spite - screw defense, who needs that? We're going to show Brent Favre he wasn't that great by developing an elite super-offense, which means paying attention to offense and ignoring defense!"

ANY GM who operated with that kind of mindset that you describe would not win a Super Bowl, nor would he be able to win 15 games the following season. It's just ridiculous reasoning, Wist. Seriously.

You could argue that Thompson has flubbed some picks, or that his emphasis on BPA might've cost the defense, or that re-signing Cullen Jenkins, even if it meant not being able to afford Finley (or maybe you could sign Finley but not Jennings) would've been worth the cost....but you can't argue that Thompson's massive ego and his simple lack of care about the defense is driving his decision making. Well, you can try, but your credibility will be in the toilet.

[pittstang5]

"It doesn't matter if they can't play, or they simply don't have the talent - TT brought them in and spent the last 2-3 years developing them. Lattimore is your starting ROLB; and Muir/Hargrove is all that is needed on the DL - from TT's POV, that is the end of the discussion."

I like you and all, Wist, but this is a ridiculous statement. It hearkens back to the old "TT cuts guys he didn't draft or sign and keeps loser players just because he drafted them."

You keep acting like Thompson acts out of spite - screw defense, who needs that? We're going to show Brent Favre he wasn't that great by developing an elite super-offense, which means paying attention to offense and ignoring defense!"

ANY GM who operated with that kind of mindset that you describe would not win a Super Bowl, nor would he be able to win 15 games the following season. It's just ridiculous reasoning, Wist. Seriously.

You could argue that Thompson has flubbed some picks, or that his emphasis on BPA might've cost the defense, or that re-signing Cullen Jenkins, even if it meant not being able to afford Finley (or maybe you could sign Finley but not Jennings) would've been worth the cost....but you can't argue that Thompson's massive ego and his simple lack of care about the defense is driving his decision making. Well, you can try, but your credibility will be in the toilet.

Well said....

[Bretsky]

I love having Wist back; I can call myself the optimist agani :)

Wist, you do realize TT got us a SB and we went 15-2 last year, right ?


With that being said, if TT drafts offense in even two of the first three rounds Wist walks on water in terms of his predictions !!!

[mraynrand]

I see that you are also part of the"Protect the Prince" plan.
nice try, strawman


So then you are saying that TT is just terrible at generating a consistent defense?

he is so-so with regards to consistency on defense. Some of that may be McCarthy's fault as well. When you hire an offensive-minded coach, that can lead to some struggles on defense. Given the direction of rule changes and the overall arc of the league over the past decade or two, it seems madness to go with a defense-first approach.

[mraynrand]

Thats your option but I disagree, I'm sure that TT and everyone on the team would disagree with you as well.

Jordy Nelson showed how critical the 4/5 receiver can be. helped win the Superbowl. If you go solid 5 deep, you create mismatches other teams just can't handle. The Driver sit will be hashed out in camp. I suspect there will be a WR from the draft that will push Driver as well. I expect Driver to come into camp in top physical shape to dance his way onto the roster. If they think he has slipped a notch, he will get released very early and sign with Cleveland.

[pbmax]

I think Patler had a post last year, following his post of the year prior to that that Thompson has ignored neither the defense nor the O line, both charges he has been hit with.

His "hit rate" in both positions is about the same as others as well. But injuries have left him with the depth you see elsewhere.

I agree with the assessment of the run defense failures. However, they had as much to do with Raji at nose versus Pickett as they did with the RDE and Walden. And Raji's talent/measurables are pretty undeniable. That was on the player and his coaches. He did not put it together until the Giants game. Its possible he was affected by the poor play of the RDE, leaving him with more ground to cover. But the Giant game proved him capable of it. He was moved and turned too easily too often during the season.

wist has a point about the low ebb of talent in the front seven, but it isn't all from a lack of attention in the draft or FA.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I hate a draft where you got to sit around and wait for the 28th pick. HArd to get excited about the 5th best DE or OT in the draft. Hopefully TT will fix this.

[Bretsky]

At Pick #28 TT might just surprise us and pick the top C in draft or the 2nd best RB in the draft. .........hmm.....

[Bretsky]

I think Patler had a post last year, following his post of the year prior to that that Thompson has ignored neither the defense nor the O line, both charges he has been hit with.

His "hit rate" in both positions is about the same as others as well. But injuries have left him with the depth you see elsewhere.

I agree with the assessment of the run defense failures. However, they had as much to do with Raji at nose versus Pickett as they did with the RDE and Walden. And Raji's talent/measurables are pretty undeniable. That was on the player and his coaches. He did not put it together until the Giants game. Its possible he was affected by the poor play of the RDE, leaving him with more ground to cover. But the Giant game proved him capable of it. He was moved and turned too easily too often during the season.

wist has a point about the low ebb of talent in the front seven, but it isn't all from a lack of attention in the draft or FA.


Everything went to helll once Jenkins left.... :)

His failure ratio on the DL would appear to be higher than on the offensive side

He got Raji

Other than that right now we've got between JAG and JUNK for the rest of the DL. Maybe they will all develop......and ftr, I did like Neal and still have some blind faith in him

[Brandon494]

At Pick #28 TT might just surprise us and pick the top C in draft or the 2nd best RB in the draft. .........hmm.....

If there is no a defensive player he likes when its our turn to pick I will guarantee he'll trade down before he selects an offensive player.

[mraynrand]

wist has a point about the low ebb of talent in the front seven, but it isn't all from a lack of attention in the draft or FA.

4/6 first round picks, and those picks at #5, #9, #16 and #26 overall - all blown on just the front seven - hell even Mike Neal was #56. That's a highly disproportionate emphasis on the front seven. If TT really eschewed defense in favor offense he would have picked Vernon Davis over Hawk, for example. TT may suck and/or be unlucky picking front seven guys, but there's a huge emphasis there, not a lack thereof.

[Upnorth]

I like the assessment by the "personnel man", but he really doesn't understand TT or the Packer philosophy. The Packers only care about offense... and the Packers never have "levels of urgency".

"'They pick the best player available,' the personnel man said. '"But let's face it. It's about levels of urgency.'"

Other teams may have "levels of urgency", but not the Packers. TT's philosophy says that Lattimore will step in at ROLB, and Hargrove and Muir are all that is needed on the DL. To TT, there are no problems on the roster, there is no "urgency", and there is no need to move up or down in the draft to "fill holes". By TT's reckoning, there are no holes.

This is TT's 8th draft as Packer GM. His philosophy says that all of his developmental guys that he brought in in the past 2-3 years are ready to step into the starting lineup in 2012. It doesn't matter if they can't play, or they simply don't have the talent - TT brought them in and spent the last 2-3 years developing them. Lattimore is your starting ROLB; and Muir/Hargrove is all that is needed on the DL - from TT's POV, that is the end of the discussion.

I fully expect TT to focus on offense again in this draft... which as I've been saying is just as well. The Packers are good at evaluating offensive players - they suck at evaluating defensive players; so we might as well go with our strength, and avoid making mistakes in an attempt to field a defense.

At this point?? Screw it... we might as well just admit what we are, and quit trying to pretend defense is actually a part of the game. Winning games 50-48 is the same as winning 13-10. Of course good defensive teams will kick the fuck out of us in the playoffs, ala the Giants, but winning championships isn't the goal. Developing players is the goal.

So our defence in 2009 and 2010 was poor in your opinion? I though they were at least decent and arguably elite, as did many others. I guess 2011 eliminates the previous couple of years.
Did we have one of the worst pass rushes ever last year? Yes.
Was the defence a complete joke? Hell no.

If we can get another Jolly or Jenkins I think we would quickly step up to elite again, especially if Collins comes back.

[wist43]

I love having Wist back; I can call myself the optimist agani :)

Wist, you do realize TT got us a SB and we went 15-2 last year, right ?


With that being said, if TT drafts offense in even two of the first three rounds Wist walks on water in terms of his predictions !!!

lol...

I don't take away from the success; and of course I agree with TT's approach of building thru the draft... but I don't have blinders on. It's not my fault the Packers front seven is putrid ;)

[Lurker64]

I still wonder how you guys think some guy off the PS is going to beat out Donald Driver.

Most probably Driver is cut before camp and we draft a replacement and the PS guys don't even enter into it. Even at the vet minimum, Driver would make more than a 3rd round pick rookie WR.

[wist43]

So our defence in 2009 and 2010 was poor in your opinion? I though they were at least decent and arguably elite, as did many others. I guess 2011 eliminates the previous couple of years.
Did we have one of the worst pass rushes ever last year? Yes.
Was the defence a complete joke? Hell no.

If we can get another Jolly or Jenkins I think we would quickly step up to elite again, especially if Collins comes back.

We caught lightning in a bottle in our run to the SB. Jenkins was still here and playing at a high level, and everyone else played over their heads. It all came together in perfect timing. That moment in history is just that, history.

Now, Jenkins is gone, Collins is gone, teams have caught up to Capers 2 man front shenanigans, some guys in the secondary seemed to regress, etc... add it all up, and the Packers were a regular season paper tiger, and were predictably stomped by a more physically dominant team.

I agree with the scout when he says the Packers have a lot of work to do... but I'm not sure TT sees it that way. He certainly didn't see any urgency in upgrading the front seven last offseason - whereas I thought it was a glaring weakness. I still see it as a glaring weakness - the question is, can TT read the writing on the wall, or is he still stuck on his obviously flawed evaluations??

Most of you guys on PR think the Packers front seven is fine... TT seems to agree - hence, I figure he won't be motivated by "urgency" or need; hence, he will stick to his BPA, and that is usually weighted to offensive players.

P.S. 6 sacks in 7 games is a joke.

[pbmax]

4/6 first round picks, and those picks at #5, #9, #16 and #26 overall - all blown on just the front seven - hell even Mike Neal was #56. That's a highly disproportionate emphasis on the front seven. If TT really eschewed defense in favor offense he would have picked Vernon Davis over Hawk, for example. TT may suck and/or be unlucky picking front seven guys, but there's a huge emphasis there, not a lack thereof.

Thank God you did that. I was not looking forward to the research project or finding Patler's posts. If I recall, Thompson at one point, was 27 D picks and 26 for O. With the first round tilted to D.

[Joemailman]

Rounds 1-3 is 14 offense and 10 defense. It was almost even until last year when TT went offense on 1-3.

[wist43]

Thank God you did that. I was not looking forward to the research project or finding Patler's posts. If I recall, Thompson at one point, was 27 D picks and 26 for O. With the first round tilted to D.

So then you guys are making the argument that TT sucks at drafting defense then?? ;)

I certainly make that argument. I guess I sometimes forget any effort that goes into fielding a defense b/c those efforts are so often fruitless.

McGinn, makes a reasonable argument here...

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/defensive-needs-may-rule-packers-draft-day-9i5379s-148404625.html

"Fortunately for Green Bay, the pool of players that appears suitable to play outside in its scheme runs about 10 deep. In no particular order, the group includes Boise State's Shea McClellin, USC's Nick Perry, South Carolina's Melvin Ingram, Alabama's Courtney Upshaw and Dont'a Hightower, Illinois' Whitney Mercilus, Clemson's Andre Branch, Oklahoma's Ronnell Lewis, West Virginia's Bruce Irvin and Miami's Olivier Vernon...

"... With picks 28, 59 and 90 in the first three rounds, the Packers can be expected to draft at least one of those players. Then again, pass-rushing outside linebackers appeared to be a significant need for the Packers before the 2010 and '11 drafts and Thompson's only move was to take Ricky Elmore in the sixth round last year.

"... Last year, Thompson didn't draft a defensive end until the seventh round, relying on Mike Neal and others to replace the soon-to-depart Jenkins. He also passed at outside linebacker.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Call me crazy, but I thought we absolutely stunk in the front seven prior to last years draft; and that was before Neal was exposed as a bust (and I liked Neal); TT, and you guys, obviously think we're just fine in the front seven... TT did nothing to upgrade the pass rush, and now here we are a year later with the same players.

I have to assume that if TT, and most of you guys thought we were fine in the front seven last year - we're still fine there this year; hence, it is entirely plausible, if not predictable, that TT will take just about any position ahead of DE/DT/OLB.

As this NFL exec says, "I know this guy," a longtime National Football League personnel director said. "You never have to do anything in Ted's world."

That's our Ted... our entire defense could go down in a plane crash, and Ted would still draft only 4 defenders if the BPA at his other 23 picks were offense. That's Ted.

[MJZiggy]

Wist, I think you're misinterpreting what others are saying. They aren't saying that the front seven is fine. They're responding to your assertion that TT pays it no attention. Even you have to be willing to admit that there have been a few events in the last couple of years that have changed the defense dramatically, namely, things like injuries, Jenkins leaving and Jolly having his head up his codeine laden ass.

[wist43]

Wist, I think you're misinterpreting what others are saying. They aren't saying that the front seven is fine. They're responding to your assertion that TT pays it no attention. Even you have to be willing to admit that there have been a few events in the last couple of years that have changed the defense dramatically, namely, things like injuries, Jenkins leaving and Jolly having his head up his codeine laden ass.

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek... I know TT drafts front seven players, but the results are dismal.

The Packers seem to have better luck evaluating DB's, but even there our starters were two FA's (Shields and Williams), and an UFA in Woodson (who has been all-world). TT hit on Collins after a rocky first few years; the jury is still out on Burnett. So Collins is about all we have to show for 7 years of drafting DB's, and his career is now likely over.

As for the front seven, which is my bone of contention - here is where we stand, and how we got there:

Defensive Line
BJ Raji (1st round)
Ryan Pickett (1st round/FA)
Jarius Wynn (6th round)
CJ Wilson (7th round)
Lawrence Guy (7th round)
Daniel Muir (Street FA)
Anthony Hargrove (orig. 3rd round, street FA)
Mike Neal (2nd round - probable bust)

Linebackers
Clay Matthews (1st round)
A.J. Hawk (1st round)
Desmond Bishop (6th round)
Brad Jones (7th round)
D.J. Smith (6th round)
Erik Walden (6th round – is a free agent)
Robert Francois (undrafted)
Frank Zombo (undrafted)
Vic So ‘oto (undrafted)
Jamari Lattimore (undrafted)

That's a pile of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's. That's putting a lot of faith your coaching staff's ability to "coach 'em up"... at some point, talent matters; and talent tends to get snapped up at the top of the draft.

[Scott Campbell]

We caught lightning in a bottle in our run to the SB.


Yeah, and then they won 13 more in a row after that fluke run to the SB.

[Lurker64]

So your complaint is that TT doesn't draft enough front 7 players in the the fourth round?

[Pugger]

nice try, strawman



he is so-so with regards to consistency on defense. Some of that may be McCarthy's fault as well. When you hire an offensive-minded coach, that can lead to some struggles on defense. Given the direction of rule changes and the overall arc of the league over the past decade or two, it seems madness to go with a defense-first approach.

TT's had crappy luck drafting D linemen. They either get hurt, flame out or they get addicted to cough syrup. When you only have 2 decent D linemen like we did last season it is no wonder our defense sucked if they couldn't get a turnover.

[Lurker64]

Ted Thompson draft picks in Green Bay by round and position group:

1st
OL (2) Bulaga, Sherrod
DL (2) Harrell, Raji
LB (2) Matthews, Hawk
QB (1) Rodgers

2nd
DB (2) Collins, Lee
WR (4) Murphy, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb
OL (1) Colledge
RB (1) Jackson
QB (1) Brohm
DL (1) Neal

3rd
RB (1) Green
DB (2) Rouse, Burnett
TE (1) Finley
WR (1) J. Jones
LB (1) Hodge
OL (1) Spitz

4th
DB (3) M. Underwood, Blackmon, House
LB (1) Poppinga
WR (1) Rodgers
OL (3) Lang, Barbre, Sitton
DL (1) Thompson

5th
TE (2) Quarless, Williams
OL (5) Newhouse, Meredith, Giacomini, Moll, Coston
RB (1) Johnson
WR (1) Clowney
QB (1) Martin
DB (1) Hawkins

6th
DL (3) Montgomery, Jolly, J. Wynn
WR (1) Bragg
DB (2) Culver, B. Underwood
RB (2) Hall, Starks
LB (3) Bishop, Elmore, Smith
K (1) Crosby
OL (1) Schlauderaff

7th
DB (1) Campbell
OL (1) Whitticker
DL (3) Tollefson, Wilson, Guy
RB (1) D. Wynn
TE (2) Harris, Taylor
QB (1) Flynn
WR (1) Swain
LB (1) B. Jones

Really, the only oddities I've spotted is 7 first round picks went to 4 positions, 4/10 2nd round picks are WRs (glad we have Jennings, Nelson, Cobb), and TT has drafted a whopping 9 OL in the fourth and fifth round (though Lang and Sitton are big time hits, and Newhouse is definitely worth the roster spot.)

Probably the most unusual thing about Ted's drafting is that he seems to value RBs much less than the rest of the NFL.

[ND72]

Thinking back to last years draft, I really think Thompaon and McCarthy saw our defense as a success and growing. They thought Neal would step in...hell, I did too. And I'm sure he thought one of tose other guys would make a step up at ROLB, but they didn't. Last year he couldn't think what will happen when thy fail, he had to go on what they were seeing, and that was of young guys making progress, but they didnt. Can you really fault taking Sherrod, Cobb, or Green? I think all 3 could be significant parts of our future. On the flip side I pull see him having a ver heavy defensive year, but won't be surprised. Could he take a RB or a Konz round 1? Sure....I just don't know what their values are, and only God knows what Thompsons board looks like. Many people are reporting heavy Internet in McClellin, but NE people are saying they have interest also. It's all tongue & cheek right now, but my gut says if teddy likes Shae, he might have to move up. I hate this "packers have a lot of work to do", what team doesn't? NYG are the champs, and if ask me they have some serious issues also. Love draft week! Get ready for BS to fly!

[woodbuck27]

I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek... I know TT drafts front seven players, but the results are dismal.

The Packers seem to have better luck evaluating DB's, but even there our starters were two FA's (Shields and Williams), and an UFA in Woodson (who has been all-world). TT hit on Collins after a rocky first few years; the jury is still out on Burnett. So Collins is about all we have to show for 7 years of drafting DB's, and his career is now likely over.

As for the front seven, which is my bone of contention - here is where we stand, and how we got there:

Defensive Line
BJ Raji (1st round)
Ryan Pickett (1st round/FA)
Jarius Wynn (6th round)
CJ Wilson (7th round)
Lawrence Guy (7th round)
Daniel Muir (Street FA)
Anthony Hargrove (orig. 3rd round, street FA)
Mike Neal (2nd round - probable bust)

Linebackers
Clay Matthews (1st round)
A.J. Hawk (1st round)
Desmond Bishop (6th round)
Brad Jones (7th round)
D.J. Smith (6th round)
Erik Walden (6th round – is a free agent)
Robert Francois (undrafted)
Frank Zombo (undrafted)
Vic So ‘oto (undrafted)
Jamari Lattimore (undrafted)

That's a pile of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's. That's putting a lot of faith your coaching staff's ability to "coach 'em up"... at some point, talent matters; and talent tends to get snapped up at the top of the draft.

All Hail Wist43 !

Enough said. If Ted Thompson ignores our defense in this draft. Any hope of the Packers and a Super Bowl within the next three (3) seasons is merely 'a pipe dream'. Any of you that might point to what the bookies are saying today RE: The Green Bay Packers and 'odds on whatever', to win next years Super Bowl; does not realize how important it is for Ted Thompson to make a considerable effort to contribute real talent to our 'D'.

You have to quit on the Ohh Gee we won a Super Bowl in 2010 and we were 15-1 in last years regular season. Don't forget that last loss and we just didn't lose a close one.The New York Giants 'handled our team'. They came to Lambeau Field and knew they would not be denied.

Teams with the worst 'D' in the NFL cannot be expected to go deep in the playoffs and ..... win 'the SUPER BOWL' !! Are you kidding me.

We have to hope to blazes that Ted Thompson has it screwd on right in this draft. That he knows our defensive situation is a major concern. TT must get started or demonstrate a focus on just that April 26-28,2012 or our team slips further away from that Super Bowl 'dream of some here' this season.

In my view. Ted Thompson has to have a realistic plan to get our team back to the BIG GAME in about three seasons.

Wist43 is a poster that calls it hard. He calls it 'bang on'. We are a long ways from any SUPER BOWL. I 'only' hope that Ted Thompson makes the first primary moves required to correct our path this week. He needs talent on 'D' and to get our team a pass rush. He needs talented prospects on 'D' at the front of this draft.

Drafting a DE or OLB in rounds 5-7 is just not cutting it. We are OK at WR and since Ahman Green our running game has been poor. We need backs that can block. We need Aaron Rodgers protected as a criticle focus. I'm feeling a tad shaky about our position at LT.

On Donald Driver. Easily my favourite Green Bay Packer:

As members here we deal with harsh realities in terms of things GREEN BAY PACKER. It stings to read members opinions of the fate of Donald Driver.The TRUTH is DD's value as a Green Bay Packer GREAT and his leadership is about to be shoved away members.

Think Brett Favre >>>Donald Driver.

I trust TT and MM learned something from how they mishandled the whole Brett Favre dismissal. I just hope that this time TT and MM deal with DD honestly. That he's not set up to look 'the fool'.

Donald Driver is a fine man.

[packrulz]

Thank God you did that. I was not looking forward to the research project or finding Patler's posts. If I recall, Thompson at one point, was 27 D picks and 26 for O. With the first round tilted to D.
http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/corp/page/04%2F22%2F12_DL%3A_Deep_in_the_middle/601?feed=2

[Brandon494]

Most probably Driver is cut before camp and we draft a replacement and the PS guys don't even enter into it. Even at the vet minimum, Driver would make more than a 3rd round pick rookie WR.

First all we aren't going to even draft a WR and 2nd IF Driver was going to be cut TT would
have done so by now. WR and TE are the two positions you will not see us drafting this weekend IMO.

[Smeefers]

You know, Brandon is slowly bringing me over to his side about driver. Before it was "my heart says stay, but my head says leave." The closer we get to the season, the more it looks like he's going to be on our team. That would be nice I think. I don't want to loose him, he's one of my favorite guys and before I was certain we'd loose him. Not so much any more.

As for the DL being the worst in the league, that's garbage. I don't know when packer fans are going to realize this, but we play a 3-4 defense now. The front 3 are not intended to regularly get a pass rush. They're there to stop the run and take up blockers and last year the packers were in the middle of the league for stopping the run. They do have serious holes on the right side of the defense though that need to get filled, but I don't think they were the worst defense in the league. That title goes to the Bucs who gave up 30+ points a game. The packers weren't that much better at 23 points a game, but they were by no means the worst.

The sky is not falling.

[wist43]

Ted Thompson draft picks in Green Bay by round and position group:

1st
OL (2) Bulaga, Sherrod
DL (2) Harrell, Raji
LB (2) Matthews, Hawk
QB (1) Rodgers

2nd
DB (2) Collins, Lee
WR (4) Murphy, Jennings, Nelson, Cobb
OL (1) Colledge
RB (1) Jackson
QB (1) Brohm
DL (1) Neal

3rd
RB (1) Green
DB (2) Rouse, Burnett
TE (1) Finley
WR (1) J. Jones
LB (1) Hodge
OL (1) Spitz

4th
DB (3) M. Underwood, Blackmon, House
LB (1) Poppinga
WR (1) Rodgers
OL (3) Lang, Barbre, Sitton
DL (1) Thompson

5th
TE (2) Quarless, Williams
OL (5) Newhouse, Meredith, Giacomini, Moll, Coston
RB (1) Johnson
WR (1) Clowney
QB (1) Martin
DB (1) Hawkins

6th
DL (3) Montgomery, Jolly, J. Wynn
WR (1) Bragg
DB (2) Culver, B. Underwood
RB (2) Hall, Starks
LB (3) Bishop, Elmore, Smith
K (1) Crosby
OL (1) Schlauderaff

7th
DB (1) Campbell
OL (1) Whitticker
DL (3) Tollefson, Wilson, Guy
RB (1) D. Wynn
TE (2) Harris, Taylor
QB (1) Flynn
WR (1) Swain
LB (1) B. Jones

Really, the only oddities I've spotted is 7 first round picks went to 4 positions, 4/10 2nd round picks are WRs (glad we have Jennings, Nelson, Cobb), and TT has drafted a whopping 9 OL in the fourth and fifth round (though Lang and Sitton are big time hits, and Newhouse is definitely worth the roster spot.)

Probably the most unusual thing about Ted's drafting is that he seems to value RBs much less than the rest of the NFL.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at those first 4 rounds - 7 years of drafting and all we have to show for it in our front seven is Raji and Matthews.

Harrell and Neal are busts; Hawk is underwhelming; the rest are flipping burgers.

Conversely, on offense... that's quite a pool of talent.

Seems to me, my argument is perfectly supported by that evidence. The Packers are light years better at evaluating and drafting offensive players (especially WR's) than they are defensive players. Based on the evidence, we may in fact be better off strictly focusing on offense in the 1st and 2nd rounds, and then take more flyers on 3rd and 4th round front seven players - players that may be raw and have some holes in their game, but have talent and have upside.

That's my point - and, as I said, I think the evidence backs me up.

[woodbuck27]

TT's had crappy luck drafting D linemen. They either get hurt, flame out or they get addicted to cough syrup. When you only have 2 decent D linemen like we did last season it is no wonder our defense sucked if they couldn't get a turnover.

That defensive front also gets mashed by the opponents OL and allows the opponents free'd up OLman to block and set up lanes fpr the opponent to run in and allows the QB al the time it needs to pick apart a frozen linbackers core and a scrambling defensive backfield.

Do the Math.

5 OLman + a TE (not considering RB's and WR's to assist blocking assignments) Vs 'only' 3 DLman on our 3-4 defensive scheme. If our front three cannot occupy 4-5 opponents our entire defensive scheme gets beat. Last season we were without a Cullen Jenkins repalcement.

Maybe Ted Thompson was trying to prove to himself that Cullen Jenkins was expendable. What he should have seen is what many of us saw. That our NT got snuffed out like last months stale cigar. BJ Raji got wasted....worn out. Really pressure'd.

BJ Raji....he's the head of the 3-4 defensive scheme pyramid. He must stand up and occupy two OLman. A difficult task unless you have a 'special NT' and at least a NT that is 'allowed a much needed rest' in games or you'll see again this year what you saw last. So far Ted Thompson has ignored that need going with the status qup and adding some help at DE. That won't be enough. We need to see more.

Ted Thompson will look after that....starting this Thursday April 26.

In Ted Thompson I have faith.

[woodbuck27]

First all we aren't going to even draft a WR and 2nd IF Driver was going to be cut TT would
have done so by now. WR and TE are the two positions you will not see us drafting this weekend IMO.


TT will IMO and analysis draft a WR April 27 or 28.

Do you imagine he'll certainly feel a loyalty to Greg Jennings? Is that Ted Thompson?

[Brandon494]

Wist what are you talking about? TT has drafted just as many pro bowl defensive players as he has offensive players. Your trying to act like just because he drafted Rodgers, Jennings, and Finley on offense he not won't be able to draft guys like Clay, Collins, and Raji? Your making no sense in your argument.

[pbmax]

Enough said. If Ted Thompson ignores our defense in this draft. Any hope of the Packers and a Super Bowl within the next three (3) seasons is merely 'a pipe dream'. Any of you that might point to what the bookies are saying today RE: The Green Bay Packers and 'odds on whatever', to win next years Super Bowl; does not realize how important it is for Ted Thompson to make a considerable effort to contribute real talent to our 'D'.

Woody, the front seven is composed of seven players. Both wist and Lurker make clear that with Thompson in charge, there are 4 former first round picks in those seven players. How many should there be? What pick distribution would cause you to conclude he had addressed the positions?

And the last time you predicted the Packers would never make the Super Bowl with Thompson in charge, that prediction ended up as someone's signature after the 2010 Super Bowl.

[woodbuck27]

You know, Brandon is slowly bringing me over to his side about driver. Before it was "my heart says stay, but my head says leave." The closer we get to the season, the more it looks like he's going to be on our team. That would be nice I think. I don't want to loose him, he's one of my favorite guys and before I was certain we'd loose him. Not so much any more.

As for the DL being the worst in the league, that's garbage. I don't know when packer fans are going to realize this, but we play a 3-4 defense now. The front 3 are not intended to regularly get a pass rush. They're there to stop the run and take up blockers and last year the packers were in the middle of the league for stopping the run. They do have serious holes on the right side of the defense though that need to get filled, but I don't think they were the worst defense in the league. That title goes to the Bucs who gave up 30+ points a game. The packers weren't that much better at 23 points a game, but they were by no means the worst.

The sky is not falling.


I believe you know that it's just this. We all certainly realize that you don't include the words 'loyalty' and 'any Pro team ... choose one' in the same sentence.

I can post a link to a writer in Wisconsin who flat out informs Packer fans that there is definite evidence using common sence that infers that Ted Thompson is a sly fox. That it might even be fair to say he's a lier. For various reasons I don't go there. I maintain that information in my personal archives.

I choose to hope for more from Ted Thompson. I elect that position as I want something real for my favourite Pro team...the Green Bay Packers.

Ted Thompson is the GM of the Green Bay PACKERS. I need him to act responsibly and demonstrate intelligence.

Intelligence has little to do with ego or stubborness. woodbuck27

[woodbuck27]

Wist what are you talking about? TT has drafted just as many pro bowl defensive players as he has offensive players. Your trying to act like just because he drafted Rodgers, Jennings, and Finley on offense he not won't be able to draft guys like Clay, Collins, and Raji? Your making no sense in your argument.

Try to analyze this before you assess that one of the smartest posters here at Packerrats is making 'no sense'. If Wist43 is making 'no sense'. It's then my honest opinion that:

The collective mentality of our Packer home is pretty shabby. IMO that:

Is NOT the case.

Read wist43's efforts ** to help you see **. PLEASE. Thanks... (-:

** Six posts before this one wist43 breaks down Ted Thompson's drafting results. Analyze that please. I'm confident you'll then come around to what wist43 clearly stands by in terms of his frustration and 'a reality check' for all Packer fans to be aware of Sir.

Good Luck with that.

[Patler]

TT's highest pick for the Packers? #5 - a linebacker
His second highest pick? #9 - a D-lineman
His third highest pick? #16 - a D-lineman

Yup, it is pretty obvious that he puts no emphasis or importance on drafting defensive players generally and front seven in particular. All he does is stack up that offense, and when given an opportunity he passes on defensive players.

Had his planning worked and players remained healthy and law-abiding, the D-line should have included:

Pickett - Raji - Harrell (all first round picks, one brought in by FA)
Neal - (a second round pick)
Jolly - (a sixth round pick who had ability much higher than that)

Unfortunately, 60% of his plan did not materialize for whatever reasons.

Had those 5 played up to their capabilities, would we have cared if the sixth guy was Wynn, Wilson, Green or anyone else? Heck, maybe the sixth guy should have been Tollefson in 2011.

Failure of the D-line in 2011 had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of emphasis or commitment by TT. We can argue if it was poor evaluating and/or poor decision making versus bad luck, but an argument that TT ignores the position group is unsupportable.

[pbmax]

Do the Math.

5 OLman + a TE (not considering RB's and WR's to assist blocking assignments) Vs 'only' 3 DLman on our 3-4 defensive scheme. If our front three cannot occupy 4-5 opponents our entire defensive scheme gets beat. Last season we were without a Cullen Jenkins repalcement.

OK, let's do the math. The front seven on D, 3 DL and 4 LBs versus the RB, TE and 5 OL (virtually no one plays a FB, but if they have both FB and TE, then I have a safety, 8 on 8). That's seven on seven. Same as every other team in the NFL on base downs. Its been the math since the single-wing went the way of the dodo bird. The only thing that changes this today is the zone read where the QB might actually run.

In some 3-4 schemes, the DE are asked to 2 gap. Only the nose is asked to control a double team regularly. In other 3-4 schemes (like the Packers) the lineman are not two gapping and one ILB will regularly need to take on a Guard or Center. Same 7 on 7. In the Packer 3-4, the likeliest player to be free for a tackle are the Jack ILB and weakside OLB.

Nutz made a good point late in the season that the RDE was simply not holding up their end of the bargain. Add this to the complete tailspin Walden went into, and the Packers started getting gashed on the right side. Raji also did not have as good a season at Nose as Pickett did the year before. That is the run defense problem. If any single OLB regains their 2010 form, you just need one DL to be adequate.

The pass rush is worse, but there are more possible fixes. An OLB who can rush and cover could play nickel and dime like Chillar's former role. Any OLB who can hold the point and not get sucked in will help repair the run D (and that guy is probably on the roster) and led to better third down outcomes. A DL who can rush ala Jenkins or Raji would help in nickel and dime. Or an ILB who can blitz would also help solve the problem.

Thompson does not need two perennial All-Pros at OLB and DL this draft to fix this D. He needs competent play. That plus some DB depth and we will be celebrating woodbuck's reverse Super Bowl jinx.

[wist43]

You know, Brandon is slowly bringing me over to his side about driver. Before it was "my heart says stay, but my head says leave." The closer we get to the season, the more it looks like he's going to be on our team. That would be nice I think. I don't want to loose him, he's one of my favorite guys and before I was certain we'd loose him. Not so much any more.

As for the DL being the worst in the league, that's garbage. I don't know when packer fans are going to realize this, but we play a 3-4 defense now. The front 3 are not intended to regularly get a pass rush. They're there to stop the run and take up blockers and last year the packers were in the middle of the league for stopping the run. They do have serious holes on the right side of the defense though that need to get filled, but I don't think they were the worst defense in the league. That title goes to the Bucs who gave up 30+ points a game. The packers weren't that much better at 23 points a game, but they were by no means the worst.

The sky is not falling.

Don't know what team you were watching last year, but it must not have been the Packers. The Packers were so pathetically woeful on the DL, and in the front seven overall, that Capers fielded only 2 DL most of the time - out of necessity. We have 2 NFL calibur DL, Raji and Pickett, the rest are just bodies; bodies that spent most of their time on the sideline. They spent that time on the sideline b/c they sucked so bad they simply couldn't be justified on the field.

I've read more than one evaluation of our ILB play that concluded exactly what I concluded - you simply can't evaluate Hawk and Bishop b/c of the mess that was in front of them. I'm sure Capers was, and is, beside himself trying to find ways to make mud out of gelatinous goo... he has to be terribly frustrated as TT simply hasn't provided him with any talent.

What are the odds that TT actually provides him with some talent out of this draft?? Based on history, I'd say those odds are long. The Packers are an offensive team, and a finesse team. QB and WR play are much more important to the Packers than defense; and pass defense in the back end is much more important to the Packers than pass rush.

This will be a very interesting draft for TT... a few years ago he shocked everyone by taking Raji and Matthews - he needs to hit a couple more home runs in this draft to at least give Capers something to work with.

[pbmax]

He fielded two DL more in 2010 when he had Jenkins on the team.

[Gunakor]

That's a pile of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's. That's putting a lot of faith your coaching staff's ability to "coach 'em up"... at some point, talent matters; and talent tends to get snapped up at the top of the draft.

There's usually only a couple selections to make on the first day of the draft. There's 22 starters on a football team. Do the math.

Not everybody can be a superstar. If you're competing for championships, you need your mid to late rounders to step up. That's the deal. No team in the NFL has 22 starters that were all drafted in the first round. At some point you need your coaching staff to coach up the rookies. You need your street FA's to produce when their number is called.

[Brandon494]

Try to analyze this before you assess that one of the smartest posters here at Packerrats is making 'no sense'. If Wist43 is making 'no sense'. It's then my honest opinion that:

The collective mentality of our Packer home is pretty shabby. IMO that:

Is NOT the case.

Read wist43's efforts ** to help you see **. PLEASE. Thanks... (-:

** Six posts before this one wist43 breaks down Ted Thompson's drafting results. Analyze that please. I'm confident you'll then come around to what wist43 clearly stands by in terms of his frustration and 'a reality check' for all Packer fans to be aware of Sir.

Good Luck with that.

I wouldn't expect you to understand since you might be the most clueless poster on this board. Your a nice guy and all but I'm pretty sure when it comes to the NFL and the Packers I know what I'm talking about.

[Brandon494]

TT's highest pick for the Packers? #5 - a linebacker
His second highest pick? #9 - a D-lineman
His third highest pick? #16 - a D-lineman

Yup, it is pretty obvious that he puts no emphasis or importance on drafting defensive players generally and front seven in particular. All he does is stack up that offense, and when given an opportunity he passes on defensive players.

Had his planning worked and players remained healthy and law-abiding, the D-line should have included:

Pickett - Raji - Harrell (all first round picks, one brought in by FA)
Neal - (a second round pick)
Jolly - (a sixth round pick who had ability much higher than that)

Unfortunately, 60% of his plan did not materialize for whatever reasons.

Had those 5 played up to their capabilities, would we have cared if the sixth guy was Wynn, Wilson, Green or anyone else? Heck, maybe the sixth guy should have been Tollefson in 2011.

Failure of the D-line in 2011 had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of emphasis or commitment by TT. We can argue if it was poor evaluating and/or poor decision making versus bad luck, but an argument that TT ignores the position group is unsupportable.

THIS!

[Patler]

There's usually only a couple selections to make on the first day of the draft. There's 22 starters on a football team. Do the math.

Does work out quite well, doesn't it?

7 drafts, 7 firsts, 7 seconds and the pick for Favre gave him 15 in the first two rounds, before trades.
He picked Hawk, Raji, Harrell, Matthews and Neal for the front 7 in the first two rounds.
5/15 = 33%
front 7/22 starters = 32%

[Joemailman]

Gil Brandt has 12 DT/DE's listed in his Top 100. I'll be surprised if TT doesn't take at least one of them. Jerel Worthy or Kendall Reyes would be instant upgrades over Wynn/Wilson. I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of Neal contributing after he serves his suspension. It wouldn't take that much to produce considerably better results than last year. A group of Raji, Pickett, Worthy/Reyes, Hargrove, Neal, Guy and perhaps Wilson could be markedly better than what they had last year. Green is gone and Wynn needs to be gone. If Wynn makes the team, that would call into question whether they've made much progress.

[wist43]

There's usually only a couple selections to make on the first day of the draft. There's 22 starters on a football team. Do the math.

Not everybody can be a superstar. If you're competing for championships, you need your mid to late rounders to step up. That's the deal. No team in the NFL has 22 starters that were all drafted in the first round. At some point you need your coaching staff to coach up the rookies. You need your street FA's to produce when their number is called.

Well, that hasn't happened has it?? The Packers are very strong at evaluating WR's; they're much better at evaluating DB's than they are front seven players...

Wilson sucks; Wynn sucks; Green sucks; Zombo sucks; Walden sucks; Neal sucks; Jones sucks; Francois sucks; Muir sucks; and Hargrove sucks... then behind them you have Lattimore, DJ Smith (who I have some hope for), Vic So'Oto (who I also have some hope for).

So you have 2 decent players that you drafted; 2 FA's that are good (Woodson and Pickett); and 2 street FA's that are good. That's 6 NFL calibur players out of a needed pool of what?? 17-18 players?? By that math, TT has a minimum of 11-12 roster positions to fill... he could just as easily cut all the riff-raff and start from scratch.

6 sacks in the last 7 games - that's an accurate measure of the Packers lack of front seven talent.

You guys may get out of bed wearing rose colored glasses - but there's no escaping the facts... the Packers front seven is a mess.

[wist43]

TT's highest pick for the Packers? #5 - a linebacker
His second highest pick? #9 - a D-lineman
His third highest pick? #16 - a D-lineman

Yup, it is pretty obvious that he puts no emphasis or importance on drafting defensive players generally and front seven in particular. All he does is stack up that offense, and when given an opportunity he passes on defensive players.

Had his planning worked and players remained healthy and law-abiding, the D-line should have included:

Pickett - Raji - Harrell (all first round picks, one brought in by FA)
Neal - (a second round pick)
Jolly - (a sixth round pick who had ability much higher than that)

Unfortunately, 60% of his plan did not materialize for whatever reasons.

Had those 5 played up to their capabilities, would we have cared if the sixth guy was Wynn, Wilson, Green or anyone else? Heck, maybe the sixth guy should have been Tollefson in 2011.

Failure of the D-line in 2011 had absolutely nothing to do with a lack of emphasis or commitment by TT. We can argue if it was poor evaluating and/or poor decision making versus bad luck, but an argument that TT ignores the position group is unsupportable.

So you're going with option #2 then?? The Packers absolutely suck at evaluating front seven players??

Damn that "bad luck" ;)

[woodbuck27]

Woody, the front seven is composed of seven players. Both wist and Lurker make clear that with Thompson in charge, there are 4 former first round picks in those seven players. How many should there be? What pick distribution would cause you to conclude he had addressed the positions?

And the last time you predicted the Packers would never make the Super Bowl with Thompson in charge, that prediction ended up as someone's signature after the 2010 Super Bowl.

We've got four talented/quality starters 'circa 2011 Packers' in our front seven. News to me !

a) Enlighten me pbmax. Name them please. Thanks. (-:

Your 'point would be? ' RE: the Green Bay Packers becoming Super Bowl Champs in the 2010 season.

Why 'that fact' correlates with some clown carrying the fact I predicted that Ted Thompson wouldn't bring us a Super Bowl?

b) What's all that got to do with today? Does that change the water on the beans?

The Green Bay Packers have *'the worst ranked defense' in the NFL. What's the evidence of that fact...the TRUTH? That fact is published constantly. **Don't you believe it pbmax? **

The New York GIANTS certainly took advantage of *that fact* in a lopsided loss as we went one and out last season in the playoff's. The New York GIANTS IMO took advantage of certain Packer arrogance or over confidence in the face of having a defense that distinctly sucks.

** Here's the crux of my position, pbmax.

Going back to the Detroit Lions regular season game in the latter portion of the 2010 season. Do you recall how you felt after that game? Do you recall the condition of our team in regards to the condition of adversity it was in? We're you totally confident that we were then playoff bound? Moreso bound to do as well as we did in the playoffs?

After that Detroit lions game were you sure that theb Green Bay Packers were going to that Super Bowl and actually become Super bowl Champs?

If you were confident after that Detroit Lions game? Please publish something for all of us to learn from.

Maybe if that was the case or your certain confidence? You might consider opening an NFL Psychic Hotline. I would certainly recommend you.

I won't compare that Packer playoff run and eventual Super Bowl Victory to 'the Miracle On Ice'. In many ways it's just too bizarre how we were able to accomplish all we did in 2010, given the circumstances. It had alot to do with a solid offense coming to full maturity and a locker room full of Packers that somehow played out of their minds - over their heads.

There's an outstanding positive here for all of our futures.

We saw come to fruition what is possible given insurmountable odds against such a positive result. It should 'only' impress upon us 'one fact'. That all things are possible.

Even 'the unlikely' to 'the perceived' impossible.

GO TED THOMPSON ! GO PACKERS !!

[Patler]

Sure the front seven was a mess in 2011. Who has argued that it wasn't? I have raised the question for several years, and have specifically asked, are the Packers extremely poor at evaluating DL talent, ot just unlucky?

Front seven guys TT's "plan" would have had in 2011 - Harrell, Jolly, a healthy Neal, Thompson, a healthy Zombo.
Instead, he had Greene. Wynn, a useless Neal, Walden and a part-time Zombo.

Personally, I think if just one of Harrell, Jolly and a healthy Neal would have been playing as expected in 2011, the overall performance of the defense would have been much different, and if two had.......

[woodbuck27]

Sure the front seven was a mess in 2011. Who has argued that it wasn't? I have raised the question for several years, and have specifically asked, are the Packers extremely poor at evaluating DL talent, ot just unlucky?

Front seven guys TT's "plan" would have had in 2011 - Harrell, Jolly, a healthy Neal, Thompson, a healthy Zombo.
Instead, he had Greene. Wynn, a useless Neal, Walden and a part-time Zombo.

Personally, I think if just one of Harrell, Jolly and a healthy Neal would have been playing as expected in 2011, the overall performance of the defense would have been much different, and if two had.......

Yes! Why are so many here blind to this obvious fact? That amazes me.

That aside I just want TT to starat to 'really' fix it. To add some nicer cookies to our box.

[ND72]

Sure the front seven was a mess in 2011. Who has argued that it wasn't? I have raised the question for several years, and have specifically asked, are the Packers extremely poor at evaluating DL talent, ot just unlucky?

Front seven guys TT's "plan" would have had in 2011 - Harrell, Jolly, a healthy Neal, Thompson, a healthy Zombo.
Instead, he had Greene. Wynn, a useless Neal, Walden and a part-time Zombo.

Personally, I think if just one of Harrell, Jolly and a healthy Neal would have been playing as expected in 2011, the overall performance of the defense would have been much different, and if two had.......

Can I say both? Harrell was just a foolish pick. Neal showed a ton of potential...but then couldn't get off the IR list. If Jolly wasn't an idiot, we wouldn't likely be having this convernsation.

[Patler]

So you're going with option #2 then?? The Packers absolutely suck at evaluating front seven players??

Damn that "bad luck" ;)

I don't think it is cut and dried either way, but I tend to think they are not as good at evaluating in that area as they are in others. Not only have many players they kept not worked out as hoped, but some that they released look like they might have been better than players they kept.

Bad luck had nothing to do with Jolly, nor was it poor evaluation. They knew the risks with him. I still think he was worth the risk in the sixth round. Not many sixth rounders give you as much solid play as Jolly did in the short time he was there, and if he had toed the line, he might have been a real steal.

Harrell and Neal? - Injuries always have an element of bad luck to them, but as high as each was taken there may have been a stronger element of poor evaluation/decision-making. Of course, Neal is not yet a lost cause, but getting close.

The one that hurts the most, I think, is Hawk. Why wasn't there an obvious defensive stud available that year? Maybe it was a year TT should have broken pattern and gone with an offensive guy as a high first round pick, instead of following his tendency to go defensive in the top of the 1st round. :wink:

Jeremy Thompson's career may have ended due to the injury, but he sure had not shown much to justify TT having traded up to get him. TT has brought in a slew of low round, URFA and street FA linemen and LBs, but no one who shows the potential of a Flynn, Starks, Newhouse, Shields or Williams. So far, not a rough cut gem in the bunch, although there is still hope for a couple of them.

[woodbuck27]

I wouldn't expect you to understand since you might be the most clueless poster on this board. Your a nice guy and all but I'm pretty sure when it comes to the NFL and the Packers I know what I'm talking about.

"you might be the most clueless poster on this board" Brandon494

OK sonny back yourself up. You and I. One on One...

I'm calling you out here. You prove that I'm clueless and good luck with that BS.

Feelin' a need to be macho today? Your Packer and football knowledge Vs mine.

Bring it on sonny 'in the Meadow'.

I'm NOT going to allow someone like you derail this thread to suit your position based 'in inaginative' thinking.
now in 'the Meadow'. i won't be 'the moose'.

I'll be 'the tiger'. When you enter my cage. You'll look like lunch.

You bring the salt and pepper please.

That will be a revealing exchange. You'll soon relaize how clueless I am.

Your like alot of posters here. You resort to baseless insulting and arrogant CRAP just as soon as your ego driven needs are in the least .....challenged. you need to resort to baseless and pointless insults that 'only' get your ass kicked when you run into a better man. I'm a better man then you sonny.

Bring it on when 'the Meadow' is created Genious. I welcome demonstrating to you just how clueles I am.

[Scott Campbell]

"you might be the most clueless poster on this board" Brandon494

OK sonny back yourself up. You and I. One on One...

I'm calling you out here. You prove that I'm clueless and good luck with that BS.

Feelin' a need to be macho today? Your Packer and football knowledge Vs mine.

Bring it on sonny.

That will be a revealing exchange. You'll soon relaize how clueless I am.

Your like alot of posters here. You resort to baseless insulting and arrogant CRAP just as soon as your ego driven needs are in the least .....challenged. you need to resort to baseless and pointless insults that 'only' get your ass kicked when you run into a better man. I'm a better man then you sonny.

Bring it on when 'the Meadow' is created Genious. I welcome demonstrating to you just how clueles I am.


http://www.profimedia.com/photo/angry-grumpy-old-man-shaking-his-fist/profimedia-0008766377.jpg

[Brandon494]

^ HAHAHA I was thinking the samething.

[mraynrand]

I welcome demonstrating to you just how clueles I am.

I think we've had enough demonstrations already

[woodbuck27]

^ HAHAHA I was thinking the samething.

I have the middle fingers in the air and pointed south Brandon494 'just slightly short of 5'. I look forward to screwing one of them up your nose and waving the other one in your face.

The Meadow...lobby for it sonny. We'll have a little TANGO.

Till then PEACE be with you as you ponder reality.

[woodbuck27]

I think we've had enough demonstrations already


The MEADOW. Where all men prove that's a fact. Virtual reality meets Cinemascope. Where insults are held 'to task'.

[Scott Campbell]

At least he proved he's not a crazy old man.

[wist43]

As for the front seven, which is my bone of contention - here is where we stand, and how we got there:

Defensive Line
BJ Raji (1st round)
Ryan Pickett (1st round/FA)
Jarius Wynn (6th round)
CJ Wilson (7th round)
Lawrence Guy (7th round)
Daniel Muir (Street FA)
Anthony Hargrove (orig. 3rd round, street FA)
Mike Neal (2nd round - probable bust)

Linebackers
Clay Matthews (1st round)
A.J. Hawk (1st round)
Desmond Bishop (6th round)
Brad Jones (7th round)
D.J. Smith (6th round)
Erik Walden (6th round – is a free agent)
Robert Francois (undrafted)
Frank Zombo (undrafted)
Vic So ‘oto (undrafted)
Jamari Lattimore (undrafted)

That's a pile of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's. That's putting a lot of faith your coaching staff's ability to "coach 'em up"... at some point, talent matters; and talent tends to get snapped up at the top of the draft.


I don't think it is cut and dried either way, but I tend to think they are not as good at evaluating in that area as they are in others. Not only have many players they kept not worked out as hoped, but some that they released look like they might have been better than players they kept.

Bad luck had nothing to do with Jolly, nor was it poor evaluation. They knew the risks with him. I still think he was worth the risk in the sixth round. Not many sixth rounders give you as much solid play as Jolly did in the short time he was there, and if he had toed the line, he might have been a real steal.

Harrell and Neal? - Injuries always have an element of bad luck to them, but as high as each was taken there may have been a stronger element of poor evaluation/decision-making. Of course, Neal is not yet a lost cause, but getting close.

The one that hurts the most, I think, is Hawk. Why wasn't there an obvious defensive stud available that year? Maybe it was a year TT should have broken pattern and gone with an offensive guy as a high first round pick, instead of following his tendency to go defensive in the top of the 1st round. :wink:

Jeremy Thompson's career may have ended due to the injury, but he sure had not shown much to justify TT having traded up to get him. TT has brought in a slew of low round, URFA and street FA linemen and LBs, but no one who shows the potential of a Flynn, Starks, Newhouse, Shields or Williams. So far, not a rough cut gem in the bunch, although there is still hope for a couple of them.

Everyone on here wants to "accentuate the positive", and cite Raji and Matthews, but I recall my earlier post here and point to the makeup of the front seven as it is. That's 18 players of which only 5 belong on an NFL roster.

Yes, TT invested 1st round picks in the front seven (2 worked out, 2 were busts) - then nothing until the 6th/7th round.

Some of us saw all of this last year, but were of course shouted down... afterall, we had just won the SB, how could we possibly have any deficiencies?? What did TT do to address the glaring needs, at positions absolutely ciritical to playing good defensive football?? He drafted 3 offensive players in the 1st 3 rounds, and only with his last pick in the 7th round did he throw in Lawrence Guy.

WTF??

TT obviously overvalued the players he had... I assume he will do the same thing this year with those same players. TT doesn't see 6 sacks in 7 games and a blowout loss in the playoffs; he sees development program, and players that need nothing more than offseason development and to be coached up.

We're goiing to have to average 45 pts a game to get to 10 wins... which given our high flying offense, is doable; but giving up 40 pts/game on defense is not fun to watch.

[woodbuck27]

Ohh lord isn't it really something.The peanut gallery is in the house.

Good morning Scott. Have a super day.

Scott don't slime up this thread.

I can deal with Brandon494. Easily !

Bob and 'bob' lean on one another.

It's the American Way in a repulsive RedNeck,Faschist driven Nazi bootcamp attitudinal way of daily 'trying to live' !

So so pathetic.

Yup ! Called out by one Dennis Leary. An honest American....among a majority of honest Americans.

Where and when and why....did the likes of you two ( a new tag team effort ....Scott Campbell and Brandon494 ) ... 'so scary' .... fall off the rails?

SO PATHETIC. Scott don't slime up this thread. I can deal with Brandon494 while I'm cleaning my nails.

There ... it's taken care of. So easy.

The indignities one must suffer all for the LOVE of the better good. Packerrats.

Ohh Brandon464. I want to forget being a gentleman and spinning you just a wee bit would be 'just wrong'. Your hardly a challenge....NOT at all capable.

The REAL POINT.... That's NOT why I'm here.

If you want to dance...insist on 'hard debate'; please simply lobby for 'the Meadow'.

AGAIN !! Scott don't slime up this thread. I can deal with Brandon494. Easily !

[Scott Campbell]

The MEADOW. Where all men prove that's a fact. Virtual reality meets Cinemascope. Where insults are held 'to task'.


Where Woody gets his Dixie cup full of little pills.

[Joemailman]

Comment: The Packers are burning Raji out fast. What a disheartening situation it has to be for him... continually lined up in that gimmicky 2-5 base, 2-4 nickel; it's Raji against the other teams OL - it wouldn't surprise me if his attitude sours, and he sets his eye on the exit sign at the end of his contract.

The Packers are wasting Raji; and couldn't seem to care less about it.

MM has talked about wanting to get back to playing more of a base 3-4. Obviously he can't do it with current group. That's why I think he's going with Jerel Worthy or Kendall Reyes in 1st round.

[Scott Campbell]

I'll be 'the tiger'. When you enter my cage. You'll look like lunch.



C'mon - Brandon looks a lot more like Tiger than you do.

[woodbuck27]

MM has talked about wanting to get back to playing more of a base 3-4. Obviously he can't do it with current group. That's why I think he's going with Jerel Worthy or Kendall Reyes in 1st round.


I'm just interested in how your analysis see's it as being either DT Jerel Worthy or DT Kendall Reyes? These picks by you are certainly ballpark close to reality in terms of a BPA 'defense' probabable availability.

Specifically why? one of those two?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Defensive Line
BJ Raji (1st round)
Ryan Pickett (1st round/FA)
Jarius Wynn (6th round)
CJ Wilson (7th round)
Lawrence Guy (7th round)
Daniel Muir (Street FA)
Anthony Hargrove (orig. 3rd round, street FA)
Mike Neal (2nd round - probable bust)

Linebackers
Clay Matthews (1st round)
A.J. Hawk (1st round)
Desmond Bishop (6th round)
Brad Jones (7th round)
D.J. Smith (6th round)
Erik Walden (6th round – is a free agent)
Robert Francois (undrafted)
Frank Zombo (undrafted)
Vic So ‘oto (undrafted)
Jamari Lattimore (undrafted)

That's a pile of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's. That's putting a lot of faith your coaching staff's ability to "coach 'em up"... at some point, talent matters; and talent tends to get snapped up at the top of the draft.

I won't argue to your point that the Packers are poor at evaluating or developing front seven players, but this is kind of disingenuous to me. You're trying to make it seem like Thompson has ignored the position and that the coaches have had to try to coach up a bunch of 6th and 7th round draft picks, but you fail to mention the rest of the draft picks used at the position.

Front Seven (DL/LB):

2005 4th round - LB Brady Poppinga
2005 6th round - DL Mike Montgomery
2006 1st round - LB A.J. Hawk
2006 3rd round - LB Abdul Hodge
2006 6th round - DL Johnny Jolly
2006 7th round - DL Dave Tollefson
2007 1st round - DL Justin Harrell
2007 6th round - LB Desmond Bishop
2008 4th round - DL Jeremy Thompson
2009 1st round - DL B.J. Raji
2009 1st round - LB Clay Matthews
2009 6th round - DL Jarius Wynn
2009 7th round - LB Brad Jones
2010 2nd round - DL Mike Neal
2010 7th round - DL C.J. Wilson
2011 6th round - LB D.J. Smith
2011 6th round - LB Ricky Elmore
2011 7th round - DL Lawrence Guy

Skill Positions (WR/RB/FB/TE):

2005 2nd round - WR Terrence Murphy
2005 6th round - WR Craig Bragg
2006 2nd round - WR Greg Jennings
2006 4th round - WR Cory Rodgers
2007 3rd round - WR James Jones
2007 5th round - WR David Clowney
2007 6th round - FB Korey Hall
2007 7th round - RB DeShawn Wynn
2008 2nd round - WR Jordy Nelson
2008 3rd round - TE Jermichael Finley
2008 7th round - WR Brett Swain
2009 5th round - FB Quinn Johnson
2010 5th round - TE Andrew Quarless
2010 6th round - RB James Starks
2011 2nd round - WR Randall Cobb
2011 3rd round - RB Alex Green
2011 5th round - TE D.J. Williams
2011 7th round - TE Ryan Taylor

18 draft picks on the front seven. Four 1st round picks, one 2nd round pick, three 3rd and 4th round picks, 10 late round picks.

18 draft picks on the front seven. No 1st round picks, four 2nd round picks, four 3rd and 4th round picks, 10 late round picks.

Thompson has spent almost the exact same "draft capital" on the front seven that he has on the skill positions. In fact, he's spent more--when you consider he's used four 1st round picks and one 2nd round pick on the front seven compared to no 1st round picks and four 2nd round picks at the skill positions.

The problem hasn't been that Thompson has ignored the front seven and left his coaches to "coach them up." The problem has been that they haven't been evaluated properly or haven't been coached up to the same degree as the skill positions. Some of it also has to do with some bad luck along the front seven. Hodge, Harrell, Thompson, and Neal have all gotten injured (with Jolly being suspended) in the front seven--while just Murphy has gone down at the skill positions. IMHO, if Harrell and Neal had stayed healthy and Jolly had avoided suspension, the front seven would look like a strength and not a weakness.

[woodbuck27]

I won't argue to your point that the Packers are poor at evaluating or developing front seven players, but this is kind of disingenuous to me. You're trying to make it seem like Thompson has ignored the position and that the coaches have had to try to coach up a bunch of 6th and 7th round draft picks, but you fail to mention the rest of the draft picks used at the position.

Front Seven (DL/LB):

2005 4th round - LB Brady Poppinga
2005 6th round - DL Mike Montgomery
2006 1st round - LB A.J. Hawk
2006 3rd round - LB Abdul Hodge
2006 6th round - DL Johnny Jolly
2006 7th round - DL Dave Tollefson
2007 1st round - DL Justin Harrell
2007 6th round - LB Desmond Bishop
2008 4th round - DL Jeremy Thompson
2009 1st round - DL B.J. Raji
2009 1st round - LB Clay Matthews
2009 6th round - DL Jarius Wynn
2009 7th round - LB Brad Jones
2010 2nd round - DL Mike Neal
2010 7th round - DL C.J. Wilson
2011 6th round - LB D.J. Smith
2011 6th round - LB Ricky Elmore
2011 7th round - DL Lawrence Guy

Skill Positions (WR/RB/FB/TE):

2005 2nd round - WR Terrence Murphy
2005 6th round - WR Craig Bragg
2006 2nd round - WR Greg Jennings
2006 4th round - WR Cory Rodgers
2007 3rd round - WR James Jones
2007 5th round - WR David Clowney
2007 6th round - FB Korey Hall
2007 7th round - RB DeShawn Wynn
2008 2nd round - WR Jordy Nelson
2008 3rd round - TE Jermichael Finley
2008 7th round - WR Brett Swain
2009 5th round - FB Quinn Johnson
2010 5th round - TE Andrew Quarless
2010 6th round - RB James Starks
2011 2nd round - WR Randall Cobb
2011 3rd round - RB Alex Green
2011 5th round - TE D.J. Williams
2011 7th round - TE Ryan Taylor

18 draft picks on the front seven. Four 1st round picks, one 2nd round pick, three 3rd and 4th round picks, 10 late round picks.

18 draft picks on the front seven. No 1st round picks, four 2nd round picks, four 3rd and 4th round picks, 10 late round picks.

Thompson has spent almost the exact same "draft capital" on the front seven that he has on the skill positions. In fact, he's spent more--when you consider he's used four 1st round picks and one 2nd round pick on the front seven compared to no 1st round picks and four 2nd round picks at the skill positions.

The problem hasn't been that Thompson has ignored the front seven and left his coaches to "coach them up." The problem has been that they haven't been evaluated properly or haven't been coached up to the same degree as the skill positions. Some of it also has to do with some bad luck along the front seven. Hodge, Harrell, Thompson, and Neal have all gotten injured (with Jolly being suspended) in the front seven--while just Murphy has gone down at the skill positions. IMHO, if Harrell and Neal had stayed healthy and Jolly had avoided suspension, the front seven would look like a strength and not a weakness.

OK now we are where this needs to get to. Ted Thompson's status as acknowledged **DRAFT GENUIOUS. Yes he's arguably that in terms of his assements and ability to pick on offense but fails miserably on 'D'.

What supports ** that ** in your post Harvey as 'a fact' and You asset in your post that TT has more or less balance his number of picks on 'D' and 'O'?

Front Seven (DL/LB):

2005 4th round - LB Brady Poppinga
2005 6th round - DL Mike Montgomery
2006 1st round - LB A.J. Hawk
2006 3rd round - LB Abdul Hodge
2006 6th round - DL Johnny Jolly
2006 7th round - DL Dave Tollefson
2007 1st round - DL Justin Harrell
2007 6th round - LB Desmond Bishop
2008 4th round - DL Jeremy Thompson
2009 1st round - DL B.J. Raji
2009 1st round - LB Clay Matthews
2009 6th round - DL Jarius Wynn
2009 7th round - LB Brad Jones
2010 2nd round - DL Mike Neal
2010 7th round - DL C.J. Wilson
2011 6th round - LB D.J. Smith
2011 6th round - LB Ricky Elmore
2011 7th round - DL Lawrence Guy

Becomes just one very good year '2009':

2009 1st round - DL B.J. Raji
2009 1st round - LB Clay Matthews

Now in this draft TT need to be clicking on all cylinders and focusing on 'D'. He must NOT get distracted.

It all has nothing to do with yesterday and all with this day and week and the Packer future. it's very obvious that Ted Thompson couldn't focus on it all and to his credit we did enjoy a Super Bowl championship and that was awesome given the extreme liklihood that would come to fruition when it did.

It's all here. The Green Bay Packers are the worst 'team Vs the pass in the entire NFL; ina Conference where certainly teams that dominate have a superior passing offense.

GO Ted Thompson! >>> GO PACKERS !!

[Brandon494]

Clueless

[woodbuck27]

Ohh Scott why are you bringing skin color into another of your 'much to do about nothing good'... post wars?

Please take 'your ignorant Redneck manners and ways' and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine. That place is close to your brain.

Take a hike and mind your own silly business.

PLEASE and Thanks. (-:

Don't you get it yet:

Play somewhere else as we're discussing football on this thread... trying to FOCUS on 'just that'.

[sharpe1027]

TT obviously overvalued the players he had... I assume he will do the same thing this year with those same players.

That is a pretty uneducated assumption IMHO. Coming into last year, the defense was coming off a relatively good performance. By your own admission, there was a serious drop off in their performance. Do you simply you assume that you are the only person that could see that?

[Scott Campbell]

Play somewhere else as we're discussing football on this thread... trying to FOCUS on 'just that'.


Maybe you should try harder.

[Guiness]

First all we aren't going to even draft a WR and 2nd IF Driver was going to be cut TT would
have done so by now. WR and TE are the two positions you will not see us drafting this weekend IMO.

lol, those are bold words!

Popular thinking would certainly point that way...but popular thinking also would've prevented him from taking two TEs in last year's draft and both making the team! I don't think I would ever try to predict something TT would not do because it didn't seem to make sense :)

[Smeefers]

I don't think Mike Neal is a bust yet. I always try to give a guy 3 years to prove himself. 2 years of injuries don't give me much hope, but I think it is possible for him to turn it around. If he's going to do it, it has to be this year though.

I don't think anyone here will be found saying that the packers front 7 was breath takingly good last year. I just believe that there were more factors than "they suck." I think DC should have a load of the blame heaped on his lap for failing to adapt to the defense that he had on the field. I think that a lot of our front 7 should be rotational players, not starters and that we are missing starting NFL talent on the right side. I think Peprah needs to hold some of the blame, but I also think he did well considering the situation he was put in and the talent he has. No one ever thought he was a starter, just a decent back up. I think Trammon Williams took a step back with his injury and I don't think Shields made any improvements last year. I think Morgan Burnett is still young and learning but will improve with time.

As for TT's drafting ability, I think he's above average when compared to the rest of the league. In the past 5 years, his only real bust was Brian Brohm as shown in the link below. Besides that, it's Justin Harrell. I do believe you are correct about the glaring deficiencies that were not addressed though Wist. The only reason I think he did not address our defensive problems with the draft is because he planned on guys being healthy and contributing. I think he planned on Neal being able to play, I think he planned on Jolly coming off suspension and providing support. I think he planned on either walden or zombo at least keeping up the level they were at before instead of everyone regressing. I don't think he planned on Wynn or Wilson getting any real playing time. They were late round developmental players. So instead of shoring up those two positions (which he thought he had covered), he decided to address losing Grant this year by picking up Green. He decided to address losing Driver by picking up Cobb. He decided to address losing Clifton by picking up Sherod. Giving all these rookies time to grow into starting talent before they had to take over. Things don't always work out as you plan, but I don't think the plan is majorly flawed.

http://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2012/04/21/draft-grader-green-bay-packers/

[pbmax]

So then you guys are making the argument that TT sucks at drafting defense then?? ;)

I certainly make that argument. I guess I sometimes forget any effort that goes into fielding a defense b/c those efforts are so often fruitless.

Or, two injuries and one addiction can completely change the nature of a roster position when they occur within 3 years of each other. If Jennings, Driver and Nelson were wiped off the map by injury and addiction, would we be screaming that Thompson can't draft WR?

[woodbuck27]

That is a pretty uneducated assumption IMHO. Coming into last year, the defense was coming off a relatively good performance. By your own admission, there was a serious drop off in their performance. Do you simply you assume that you are the only person that could see that?

"Do you simply you assume that you are the only person that could see that?" sharpe1027

Are we posting today just to pick shit out of the air?

Where are you going with that post. Dear Lord.

Are you posting or picking?? Do you know who your taking difference with? Maybe try to take a higher road.

maybe....offer up some decency in terms of respect.

Are you implying that the member wist43 'in offering us concrete analysis and facts'.

Is being arrogant or all puffed up in offering to Packerrats such accurate information? That isn't the case.

wist43 'over the top' backs himself up.

What does the member need to do to satisfy your standards of regarding respect?

[woodbuck27]

Or, two injuries and one addiction can completely change the nature of a roster position when they occur within 3 years of each other. If Jennings, Driver and Nelson were wiped off the map by injury and addiction, would we be screaming that Thompson can't draft WR?


Solid point. Good post.

[pbmax]

We've got four talented/quality starters 'circa 2011 Packers' in our front seven. News to me !

a) Enlighten me pbmax. Name them please. Thanks. (-:

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.


b) What's all that got to do with today? Does that change the water on the beans?

The Green Bay Packers have *'the worst ranked defense' in the NFL. What's the evidence of that fact...the TRUTH? That fact is published constantly. **Don't you believe it pbmax? **

The New York GIANTS certainly took advantage of *that fact* in a lopsided loss as we went one and out last season in the playoff's. The New York GIANTS IMO took advantage of certain Packer arrogance or over confidence in the face of having a defense that distinctly sucks.

If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.


** Here's the crux of my position, pbmax.

Going back to the Detroit Lions regular season game in the latter portion of the 2010 season. Do you recall how you felt after that game? Do you recall the condition of our team in regards to the condition of adversity it was in? We're you totally confident that we were then playoff bound? Moreso bound to do as well as we did in the playoffs?

After that Detroit lions game were you sure that theb Green Bay Packers were going to that Super Bowl and actually become Super bowl Champs?

Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

[Smidgeon]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.



If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.



Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

Repped.

[Deputy Nutz]

Or, two injuries and one addiction can completely change the nature of a roster position when they occur within 3 years of each other. If Jennings, Driver and Nelson were wiped off the map by injury and addiction, would we be screaming that Thompson can't draft WR?

Jolly had character issues going into the draft, and Harrell had injury history coming out as well. The flags were up TT took the gamble.

[woodbuck27]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.



If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.



Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense. Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke, as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team.

wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

WOW!

Did you attend the same writing school as me?

That is a long post. It's reminds me of member...woodbuck27.

Please 'be patient'. I need nourishment...ENERGY... to just read that.... moreso respond.

I'll be back. Trust that, pbmax.

Blessings.

[3irty1]

Luckily for us all we really need is a front 6. The Packers most used and most needed defense is the 2-4, not the 3-4 and we have the tough spots filled but need a few role players to round-out our sub-packages and characters who can rotate in once in a while.

By my count we have a few different versions of the 2-4, a run-stopping version that we use often on first down with Pickett and Raji as our down lineman. In this formation McCarthy hinted that we'll also start seeing Jarrett Bush replacing Sam Shields because he is the superior run defender. The point of a formation like this basically to dare the offense to run as we'll line up in the 2-4 even against offensive formations with 2 TE's or a TE and a FB. Currently this formation puts our best 11 guys on the field because it puts Ryan Pickett, master of stuffing the run, on the field. The weak link of this formation was Walden last year who would most commonly line up across from the opposing team's LT (generally their best pass-blocker) who Walden could rarely challenge on passing plays and wasn't really useful going against lineman on running plays either.

Our passing version of the 2-4, arguably the most important 11 players on our defense was much weaker in 2011 than 2010 due mainly to the loss of Jenkins who along with Raji would account for our down linemen. Jarius Wynn was a pleasant surprise last year and if he takes another step forward or if Mike Neal can play healthy, we'll look better here but what is really needed is a guy to spell Raji. It's not normal for a NT to stay in on 3rd down. Raji is a fine pass rusher for his size but he plays the most physically exhausting position in football and IMO we ask too much of him. Basically we need a player here that is worth double teaming like Jenkins was. If lineman draw double teams the offense is forced to keep more guys in to block, making coverage easier and providing more time for players to win their one-on-ones up front. I'll still argue here that our biggest need again though is OLB. Dom likes Clay on the left vs the right tackle because although Clay is a great player he's not such a great pass rusher that you wouldn't trust your LT to handle him on their own. Clay will win that battle sometimes, but on the other side you pretty much have to leave a TE or RB there to help block. We put Walden vs their LT to force the offense to "waste" their best pass-blocker to be used on our worst pass-rusher. If we had someone in there who could actually win that battle occasionally, things start looking exponentially better for us.

The 3-4 we are actually pretty set at with the addition of Muir. The 3-4 is a run stopping formation. In 2010 it was incredibly effective with Pickett, Raji, and Green with Wilson as a rotational player. Wilson and Green both had big drop-offs in play last year to the point where Wynn was our best option and played well. Muir is the high motor run defender that will solidify this formation for us. Walden and IMO Hawk were the weak links of our 3-4 last season and the fact that they usually played next to each other made things even uglier. Muir will help, but replacing Walden will improve this formation quite a bit when this defense is passed on as it opens up zone-blitzes. Walden isn't a threat to rush, and Clay is the only threat to rush so its not hard to guess which 4 are coming. Putting a solid pass rusher opposite Matthews lets us use drop Matthews or even a lineman into coverage for some pretty fancy shit.

In conclusion I rank our defensive position needs from most to least important like so: OLB, S, DE

[woodbuck27]

Is Repped...a generation 'X' term ? Does it mean the same as 'Bump'?

Is the term 'Bump' no longer politically correct?

I'm genuinely and obviously in the celler on that one. (-:

[wist43]

That is a pretty uneducated assumption IMHO. Coming into last year, the defense was coming off a relatively good performance. By your own admission, there was a serious drop off in their performance. Do you simply you assume that you are the only person that could see that?

The players are exactly the same this year as last; sans Jenkins, whom TT didn't value enough to bid for; and, Hargrove and Muir who signed minimum wage contracts.

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.

As I said, nothing has changed for the Packers front seven since last offseason - an offseason in which TT did absolutely nothing to build, rebuild, or augment the defensive front. Last year, if TT evaluated his front seven as being so solid that he need not even address the position at all last year - what makes any of you think he's changed his views??

I saw the deficiency last year from my couch; TT either didn't see it and erred in his evaluations; or he did see, but didn't think it a big enough problem to address.

Which brings us to this draft - if TT erred in his evaluations, will he man up; admit it; and make the moves necessary to rebuild a completely dead segment of the roster??

- or -

Will TT stick to his guns; stick to his evaluations, and the first front seven guy we see get drafted is in the 6th round??

[Smidgeon]

Is Repped...a generation 'X' term ? Does it mean the same as 'Bump'?

Is the term 'Bump' no longer politically correct?

I'm genuinely and obviously in the celler on that one. (-:

"Repped" means that I valued the insight in his post and therefore added "Reputation Points" to his account.

[Scott Campbell]

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads.


Yeah, a 19 game fluke winning streak.




That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.


That's what you see every year - utter despair mixed with a healthy dose of doom and gloom. At least 7 years in a row of it.

Ted screwed up your annual hari kari ceremony with that stupid Superbowl win.



But I still think you're a good poster, and read all your stuff.

[sharpe1027]

Wist, are you basing your entire analysis of TT's supposed ego/refusal to admit mistakes upon last year's draft? TT has drafted equal numbers of defense and offense and he has used his higher picks more often for defensive players. The argument used to be that he would never trade up, of course, he did exactly that to get Matthews. This new argument about not valuing defense is all smoke and mirrors. If he drafted defensive players last draft, there would probably be other holes in the roster that you would be complaining about.

You can fault him for drafting defensive players that didn't pan out, but I don't buy an argument that he ignores the defense because he thinks it is fine.

IMO, if you draft for your defensive front because you need it, rather than because there are good players available, you lose out in the long run.

[wist43]

Yeah, a 19 game fluke winning streak.





That's what you see every year - utter despair mixed with a healthy dose of doom and gloom. At least 7 years in a row of it.

Ted screwed up your annual hari kari ceremony with that stupid Superbowl win.



But I still think you're a good poster, and read all your stuff.

lol... got a chuckle out of that; havin' surgery tomorrow, so laughing is good ;)

[pbmax]

Jolly had character issues going into the draft, and Harrell had injury history coming out as well. The flags were up TT took the gamble.

Driver had a few marks against him, did he not? Though I am not sure if any GM asked him if his mother was a hooker.

I'll give you Jolly, but Jolly was never considered the prime answer to the question except the year Corey Williams was traded to Cleveland.

Harrell was undone by a back injury, that on the surface, doesn't seem related to a bicep or shoulder injury.

[pbmax]

Luckily for us all we really need is a front 6. The Packers most used and most needed defense is the 2-4, not the 3-4 and we have the tough spots filled but need a few role players to round-out our sub-packages and characters who can rotate in once in a while.

snip

In conclusion I rank our defensive position needs from most to least important like so: OLB, S, DE

I am with you, though Collins could change this. Even if he does, though, I think they need a CB as well.

[pbmax]

The players are exactly the same this year as last; sans Jenkins, whom TT didn't value enough to bid for; and, Hargrove and Muir who signed minimum wage contracts.

We may have won the SB, and the defense may have gotten away with gimmickry for a time, but I could certainly tell it was all smoke, mirrors, and guys playing way over their heads. I could clearly see the Packers had serious deficiencies in their front seven. Capers gimmicks could hold down the fort for only so long b/4 offenses caught up to it, and exposed our lack of talent.

That's what I clearly saw last offseason - winning the SB notwithstanding.


Well, maybe you and woodbuck are not having a parting of the way on this topic after all.

[Scott Campbell]

lol... got a chuckle out of that; havin' surgery tomorrow, so laughing is good ;)


Good luck tomorrow.

[wist43]

Wist, are you basing your entire analysis of TT's supposed ego/refusal to admit mistakes upon last year's draft? TT has drafted equal numbers of defense and offense and he has used his higher picks more often for defensive players. The argument used to be that he would never trade up, of course, he did exactly that to get Matthews. This new argument about not valuing defense is all smoke and mirrors. If he drafted defensive players last draft, there would probably be other holes in the roster that you would be complaining about.

You can fault him for drafting defensive players that didn't pan out, but I don't buy an argument that he ignores the defense because he thinks it is fine.

IMO, if you draft for your defensive front because you need it, rather than because there are good players available, you lose out in the long run.

I'm not saying reach for players based on need - I'm willing to go along with TT's board; where need is addressed is in how you move up or down to get the appropriate value for what you're giving up.

To that end, since we are an offensive juggernaut, fix the defense and let's get on with it. Trying to justify an entire draft of BPA that completely ignores need is borderline obtuse.

As for valuing offense and defense equally in the draft... that doesn't add up. The Packers clearly target offensive players over defensive players early in the draft, i.e. rounds 1-4. Yes TT has taken 4 defensive players in the 1st round (Harrell, Hawk, Raji, and Matthews) in his seven drafts; after that, the Packers go back to what they do best - offense.

The count in rds 1-4 are 18 offense - 15 defense (with 8 of those going to the front 7). Of those 8, 2.5 can play (Raji, Matthews, Hawk), the rest are gone.

On the flip side of that here is what the 6th and 7th rounds look like.

10 offense - 13 defense (with fully 10 front 7 players in these last 2 rounds).

Now one might say "so what"?? Throwing spitballs against the wall in the 6th/7th rounds is a numbers game - I agree. The problem however is when you look at our roster - as I pointed out before, way too many spitballs.

Defensive Line
BJ Raji (1st round)
Ryan Pickett (1st round/FA)
Jarius Wynn (6th round)
CJ Wilson (7th round)
Lawrence Guy (7th round)
Daniel Muir (Street FA)
Anthony Hargrove (orig. 3rd round, street FA)
Mike Neal (2nd round - probable bust)

Linebackers
Clay Matthews (1st round)
A.J. Hawk (1st round)
Desmond Bishop (6th round)
Brad Jones (7th round)
D.J. Smith (6th round)
Erik Walden (6th round – is a free agent)
Robert Francois (undrafted)
Frank Zombo (undrafted)
Vic So ‘oto (undrafted)
Jamari Lattimore (undrafted)

Raji and Matthews are hits on investment; Hawk is average-to-below average and wasn't worth his draft status; and the rest are 6th/7th round spitballs. Pickett is good, Bishop is average... the rest need to be replaced.

Everyone of them was a 6th round spitball, or a 7th round spitball, or a street FA spitball... I want fewer spitballs, and more quality.

[Zool]

I'd like to see a team by team analysis for the last 5 years on defensive drafting before I'll worry about anything here.

[wist43]

Well, maybe you and woodbuck are not having a parting of the way on this topic after all.

Winning the '10 SB was nothing short of stars aligning. ARod went into "beast mode"; the secondary played lights out; and teams hadn't caught up to Capers' 'Raji-10' defense yet... plus of course we still had Jenkins. His value, now that he's gone, should be obvious to everyone.

It's true I'm a front seven guy every draft, but that's b/c rushing the passer and stopping the run are how you play defense. If you discount your front seven, or play spitball cute with it the way Ted does, your defense will surely suffer, and will definitely cost you championships - assuming your offense is championship calibur; which, of course, GB's is.

We do have history to draw upon... Ted's early front seven picks are 2.5 for 8 (really 2 for 8, b/c even though Hawk is an NFL calibur player, he certainly wasn't worth the 5th pick - or a 1st round pick at all for that matter)... after that?? we have a burlap sack full of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's.

We'll have a chance just about every year with Rodgers at QB. If Ted can get the defense up to average we can contend for a championship. If not?? we'll get stomped in the playoffs by the likes of a more complete, more physically dominant team like the Giants.

6 sacks in the last 7 games?? That one sentence alone should be enough to rest the prosecutions case.

[mraynrand]

If you discount your front seven, or play spitball cute with it the way Ted does, your defense will surely suffer, and will definitely cost you championships

WTF? Did you not read what has been written above? Anyway, good luck with the surgery. Just don't share your front seven theory with your doc - If you do, I'm betting s/he will give you a nasty scar.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So I decided to check on how another 3-4 team built their defense, one that was pretty good and where those guys were drafted: The Baltimore Ravens.

So of their current DL, they have a 1st (Ngata), a 2nd (Cody), 2 5th round picks and an UFA.

Their LB corps is 2 1sts, 2 2nds (Kindle-rookie didn't play, and Kruger who is a part time player), a 5th and 7 UDFAs.

On the Steelers, 2 of their better players weren't highly taken - James Harrison (UFA) and Brett Kiesel (7th round)

I guess my point is that even the great defenses aren't built completely on high draft picks and that GMs have to take gambles on players as UDFA or late round picks and hope they pan out. One can't simply go off of when they were selected as the sole means of evaluating the GM at how he's building the position.

Oh and Mraynrad, is that Gary Spivey as your avatar?

[wist43]

WTF? Did you not read what has been written above? Anyway, good luck with the surgery. Just don't share your front seven theory with your doc - If you do, I'm betting s/he will give you a nasty scar.

Not a "theory" - our front seven is what it is - crap.

As I said, "6 sacks in the last 7 games?? That one sentence alone should be enough to rest the prosecutions case".

I win :)

P.S. What is the world record for number of pre-op calls from doctors, clinics, nurses, and insurance nazi's?? 2 more hours b/4 close of business - I've got to be closing in on the record, lol...

[Scott Campbell]

Oh and Mraynrad, is that Gary Spivey as your avatar?


Good eye.

That is indeed his Psychotic Advisor, Gary Spivey.

[mraynrand]

Not a "theory" - our front seven is what it is - crap.

As I said, "6 sacks in the last 7 games?? That one sentence alone should be enough to rest the prosecutions case".

I win :)

I guess you win - but i have no idea who you beat, because NO ONE was arguing that the front seven was good last season, were they? And that wasn't your original argument. Holy crap.

[George Cumby]

Winning the '10 SB was nothing short of stars aligning. ARod went into "beast mode"; the secondary played lights out; and teams hadn't caught up to Capers' 'Raji-10' defense yet... plus of course we still had Jenkins. His value, now that he's gone, should be obvious to everyone.

It's true I'm a front seven guy every draft, but that's b/c rushing the passer and stopping the run are how you play defense. If you discount your front seven, or play spitball cute with it the way Ted does, your defense will surely suffer, and will definitely cost you championships - assuming your offense is championship calibur; which, of course, GB's is.

We do have history to draw upon... Ted's early front seven picks are 2.5 for 8 (really 2 for 8, b/c even though Hawk is an NFL calibur player, he certainly wasn't worth the 5th pick - or a 1st round pick at all for that matter)... after that?? we have a burlap sack full of 6th/7th rounders and street FA's.

We'll have a chance just about every year with Rodgers at QB. If Ted can get the defense up to average we can contend for a championship. If not?? we'll get stomped in the playoffs by the likes of a more complete, more physically dominant team like the Giants.

6 sacks in the last 7 games?? That one sentence alone should be enough to rest the prosecutions case.


This, I have to say, is bullshit. The Packers had to win out the last two games, went on the road through the playoffs and then beat a physical Pittsburgh team. You could say the same thing about the G-men their last two SB wins and I would say the same thing. Bullshit. The Giants fucking earned their rings.

[wist43]

So I decided to check on how another 3-4 team built their defense, one that was pretty good and where those guys were drafted: The Baltimore Ravens.

So of their current DL, they have a 1st (Ngata), a 2nd (Cody), 2 5th round picks and an UFA.

Their LB corps is 2 1sts, 2 2nds (Kindle-rookie didn't play, and Kruger who is a part time player), a 5th and 7 UDFAs.

On the Steelers, 2 of their better players weren't highly taken - James Harrison (UFA) and Brett Kiesel (7th round)

I guess my point is that even the great defenses aren't built completely on high draft picks and that GMs have to take gambles on players as UDFA or late round picks and hope they pan out. One can't simply go off of when they were selected as the sole means of evaluating the GM at how he's building the position.

Oh and Mraynrad, is that Gary Spivey as your avatar?

Of course every position group is built in several ways... spitball picks, developmental mid-round picks, high picks, UFA's, street FA's, and trades.

TT has signed 1 UFA (Pickett - I don't count Hargrove and Muir b/c they are just more junk); he has invested 5 high picks (3 were/are busts); and the rest are all spitball picks. That's it. That's TT's 7 year defensive front seven roll call.

Given 7 years of evidence, I am completely ready to throw in the towel for hoping that TT and Packers will suddenly figure out how to evaluate and draft front seven players.

We're much better off drafting Jordy Nelson or Greg Jennings in the 2nd round than Mike Neal. If TT is going to miss far more often by attempting to do something the organization is obviously deficient at, i.e. drafting defense early, then I'd much rather overload at WR or somewhere else on offense with good players, than to flail around drafting busts on defense with early picks.

Given how bad the Packers are at evaluating front seven players... maybe the spitball approach is the way to go - minimize the damage of missing on higher picks.

I guess that means I'm coming around to your guys way of thinking - "we don't need no stinking front seven players!!!" As long as our K attempts 78 XP's, we're fine.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I guess that means I'm coming around to your guys way of thinking - "we don't need no stinking front seven players!!!" As long as our K attempts 78 XP's, we're fine.

Now was that so hard? Hope all goes well on the surgery.

[wist43]

This, I have to say, is bullshit. The Packers had to win out the last two games, went on the road through the playoffs and then beat a physical Pittsburgh team. You could say the same thing about the G-men their last two SB wins and I would say the same thing. Bullshit. The Giants fucking earned their rings.

No idea what you're talking about... I don't care that we overachieved to get a ring. I'll take it... we earned the ring, same as the Giants. We lost 1 player from the front seven, and everyone else returned back to earth... hence, an embarrassing 37-20 asskicking by the Giants.

I think the team that lost 37-20 to the Giants is a more accurate measure of what the Packers are as opposed to a dominant, championship calibur team. We got lucky in '10.

To be sure we have a championship calibur offense, but our defense is just pathetic. I don't know how anyone can conclude anything else... did you watch the games last year?? Good grief, I'm sorry, but the Packers 2011 defense was nothing short of laughable.

[wist43]

Now was that so hard? Hope all goes well on the surgery.

lol, thanks...

[pbmax]

Good luck wist on the surgery. Make sure you read this link before any anesthetic. Because it will make you nauseous, esp. the last paragraph.

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/corp/page/04%2F22%2F12_DL:_Deep_in_the_middle/601?feed=2

[woodbuck27]

"Repped" means that I valued the insight in his post and therefore added "Reputation Points" to his account.

OK Thanks.

[George Cumby]

No idea what you're talking about... I don't care that we overachieved to get a ring. I'll take it... we earned the ring, same as the Giants. We lost 1 player from the front seven, and everyone else returned back to earth... hence, an embarrassing 37-20 asskicking by the Giants.

I think the team that lost 37-20 to the Giants is a more accurate measure of what the Packers are as opposed to a dominant, championship calibur team. We got lucky in '10.

To be sure we have a championship calibur offense, but our defense is just pathetic. I don't know how anyone can conclude anything else... did you watch the games last year?? Good grief, I'm sorry, but the Packers 2011 defense was nothing short of laughable.

Yes, I caught some of the games, and like everyone else, I was dismayed by the D's performance.

However, 15-1 is a pretty dominant TEAM performance.

I disagree that '10 was lucky.

I agree that the D needs work.

I disagree that the sky is falling.

Best wishes for tomorrow.

[smuggler]

Can't be the worst, because Matthews, Bishop, Raji, and Pickett are too good. Those other spots are pretty scary, though, perhaps outside of Hawk.

[wist43]

Can't be the worst, because Matthews, Bishop, Raji, and Pickett are too good. Those other spots are pretty scary, though, perhaps outside of Hawk.

The problem with having so few quality players, so few roster worthy players, is that the front seven isn't made up of 7 players - the front seven is more like 10-12 players deep rotationally... that has to be especially true for an effective 3-4 scheme.

You don't need your base defensive linemen to be pass rushers, but you certainly need your ends to be able to slide inside and take on the role of 3T in a four man line sub package. Also carve out a couple of roster spots for some flexible DL that can contribute to the pass rush (5 TE's?? really??). In our case, we need a competent NT to spell Raji enough to keep him fresh - a fresher Raji instantly improves our interior pressure.

With Raji and Matthews drawing double teams, chips, and whatever manner of extra attention, everybody else is singled up; problem is, none of them can defeat the blocker in front of them. The lack of threat from anyone other than Matthews or Raji negates Matthews and Raji.

And that's before you ever get to a very pedestrian group of Linebackers.

Add it all up, and you have a defense that finished with 29 sacks and next to last in sack percentage. I like Raji and Matthews; and Bishop and Pickett are both NFL calibur players... but that's 4 guys out of a needed 10-12 - and the remainder?? the other 6-8 guys?? They might as well not even be on the roster, that's how bad they are.

It is our woeful lack of players capable of filling rolls in both the base defense and sub packages that has compromised the entire defense. Nevermind that the Packers gave up 63 million yards - for me?? defense always starts with pressure, and the Packers can't generate pressure; they can't rush the passer... no need to even bother trying the evaluate the secondary - no secondary can hold up when under seige like that.

[Lurker64]

First all we aren't going to even draft a WR and 2nd IF Driver was going to be cut TT would
have done so by now. WR and TE are the two positions you will not see us drafting this weekend IMO.

Why wouldn't we draft a WR if he's good value when we pick him? I fully expect at least 2 of the first six picks (1,2,3, and 3 4ths) to be spent on offensive players (notably RBs, WRs, and OL).

And why would Thompson cut Driver during a period in which Driver has no money due? What benefit is there to be had for cutting Driver while he's Dancing with the Stars?

[Brandon494]

Why wouldn't we draft a WR if he's good value when we pick him? I fully expect at least 2 of the first six picks (1,2,3, and 3 4ths) to be spent on offensive players (notably RBs, WRs, and OL).

And why would Thompson cut Driver during a period in which Driver has no money due? What benefit is there to be had for cutting Driver while he's Dancing with the Stars?

Why will we not draft a WR? Maybe because we have the deepest WR core in the league with a talented guy like Gurley on the practice squad. If we do draft a WR it wouldnt be until the 6th or 7th round. As far as cutting Driver TT is not an asshole and would have let Driver go by now to catch on with another team if Driver was not in his plans for next season. This isn't like Clifton where we don't know if he'll be healthy enough to play. We all know Driver still has game even if he has taken a few steps back. I do expect Driver to take a pay cut though which I don't think he'll have a problem doing.

[wist43]

TT will take a WR early in the draft if that's what his board says.

I would actually like to invest in a WR early and let Jennings walk next year. I love Jennings, he's our best WR; but we just threw a big contract at Finley; Rodgers eats up a ton of cap space; we're stacked at the position to begin with; and we have no defense.

Add all that up, and what you get is TT resigning Jennings, drafting a WR at the top of the draft anyway, and letting Raji and/or Matthews walk when their contracts up.

Don't see TT investing any cap space in the front seven... it's all about offense in GB.

[Brandon494]

^ This guy

[pbmax]

wist, hope the surgery is going well. But your numbers earlier point to how evenly Thompson has paid attention to both sides of the ball. 18-15 in favor of O is a deadlock when last year the first three picks were on Offense. If you are within one tilted draft of even, that argues for similar treatment, not favoritism for the offense.

Same with the 6th and 7th round numbers. 13-10 defense is evidence of similar treatment, not favoritism.

There is precious little evidence that Thompson doesn't draft early for defense. There is much more evidence that he doesn't draft well for DL.

[swede]

The food here is bad. And the servings are too small.

[George Cumby]

wist, hope the surgery is going well. But your numbers earlier point to how evenly Thompson has paid attention to both sides of the ball. 18-15 in favor of O is a deadlock when last year the first three picks were on Offense. If you are within one tilted draft of even, that argues for similar treatment, not favoritism for the offense.

Same with the 6th and 7th round numbers. 13-10 defense is evidence of similar treatment, not favoritism.

There is precious little evidence that Thompson doesn't draft early for defense. There is much more evidence that he doesn't draft well for DL.

If I read Wist's argument correctly this is his salient point, no?

In which case, yes, the body of evidence increasingly suggests this.

[George Cumby]

Swede,

What's in your nun's thought balloon?

[George Cumby]

TT will take a WR early in the draft if that's what his board says.

I would actually like to invest in a WR early and let Jennings walk next year. I love Jennings, he's our best WR; but we just threw a big contract at Finley; Rodgers eats up a ton of cap space; we're stacked at the position to begin with; and we have no defense.

Add all that up, and what you get is TT resigning Jennings, drafting a WR at the top of the draft anyway, and letting Raji and/or Matthews walk when their contracts up.

Don't see TT investing any cap space in the front seven... it's all about offense in GB.

Wist posted this whilst under the influence of anesthetia..... anastestia.......anaesthetia..... fuck it, drugs.

[Scott Campbell]

Wist posted this whilst under the influence of anesthetia..... anastestia.......anaesthetia..... fuck it, drugs.



I don't know that I agree with him, but there was solid logic behind his reasons for letting Jennings walk. Once Rodgers gets paid, there will be some tough choices to be made.

[Patler]

I have been arguing the same thing for several years. The Packers will have some very tough decisions to make in the 2 to 4 years ahead. Rodgers will get paid. Matthews almost certainly will get paid. But then you look at Jennings, Finley again, Bulaga, Raji, all will expect top level type contracts for their positions. Lang, maybe Newhouse, Shields, Nelson again perhaps sooner than later will all expect very good contracts, Nelson perhaps moving into the upper group if he performs again as he did last year.

All good teams lose players they would really like to keep. That is what the salary cap is intended to cause.

If you were to pick one to let get away over the next two seasons, Jennings might not be the worst choice if the younger guys show something this year.

[Brandon494]

Buluga is not going to earn top dollar. If Colts can hang onto for Peyton, Harrison, Wayne, and Freeney I see no reason why we will not be able to hang onto our guys. You guys keep acting that contacts like Woodson, Pickett, Driver, and maybe Collins aren't going to be off the books by the time we resign those guys. TT knows what he is doing and there is zero chance Jennings will leave, he's not that type of diva reciever who would leave to get mega dollars else where.

[Cleft Crusty]

You fellas may be right about the number crunching, and the inability to keep all the players you want, but you may be wrong about Jennings. No way Jennings has the value to another team he has in Green Bay. The timing between Rodgers to Jennings won this team a Superbowl and then lost them the Divisional playoff game against the Giants. That connection, Rodgers-Jennings may be every bit as valuable to Green Bay as Peyton to Harrison. So the question is whether the Packers have their version of Reggie Wayne ready to go when Jennings contract is up. Nelson is decent, but he's not that guy. Perhaps Cobb or a player yet to be drafted. That's why it shouldn't surprise anyone - not just Wist - if the Packers select a WR in the first few rounds.

[Scott Campbell]

I have been arguing the same thing for several years. The Packers will have some very tough decisions to make in the 2 to 4 years ahead. Rodgers will get paid. Matthews almost certainly will get paid. But then you look at Jennings, Finley again, Bulaga, Raji, all will expect top level type contracts for their positions. Lang, maybe Newhouse, Shields, Nelson again perhaps sooner than later will all expect very good contracts, Nelson perhaps moving into the upper group if he performs again as he did last year.

All good teams lose players they would really like to keep. That is what the salary cap is intended to cause.

If you were to pick one to let get away over the next two seasons, Jennings might not be the worst choice if the younger guys show something this year.


And that's one more issue I have with keeping Driver. His salary could be used to help front load one of the young guys if Ted re upped somebody early.

[Brandon494]

And that's one more issue I have with keeping Driver. His salary could be used to help front load one of the young guys if Ted re upped somebody early.

It's pretty obvious Driver is going to have to restructure his contract which I don't see him having any problem doing so. Guess that issue is solved!

[Scott Campbell]

Buluga is not going to earn top dollar. If Colts can hang onto for Peyton, Harrison, Wayne, and Freeney I see no reason why we will not be able to hang onto our guys.


The Colts didn't hang on to Marshal Faulk.


I haven't crunched the numbers, but it seems like the value of franchise QB contracts as a percentage of the cap are rising over the last few years - leaving less money for the rest of the roster.

[Brandon494]

You fellas may be right about the number crunching, and the inability to keep all the players you want, but you may be wrong about Jennings. No way Jennings has the value to another team he has in Green Bay. The timing between Rodgers to Jennings won this team a Superbowl and then lost them the Divisional playoff game against the Giants. That connection, Rodgers-Jennings may be every bit as valuable to Green Bay as Peyton to Harrison. So the question is whether the Packers have their version of Reggie Wayne ready to go when Jennings contract is up. Nelson is decent, but he's not that guy. Perhaps Cobb or a player yet to be drafted. That's why it shouldn't surprise anyone - not just Wist - if the Packers select a WR in the first few rounds.

If for some crazy reason we were to let Jennings walk TT still would not take a WR early in this class. He would wait until next years draft to find a replacement for him but you guys need to put down the bong because Jennings is not going anywhere.

[Scott Campbell]

Buluga is not going to earn top dollar.


A couple years ago nobody would have predicted that Wells would get the deal he just got. I wouldn't be so quick to speak in absolutes.

[Brandon494]

The Colts didn't hang on to Marshal Faulk.


I haven't crunched the numbers, but it seems like the value of franchise QB contracts as a percentage of the cap are rising over the last few years - leaving less money for the rest of the roster.

1) Faulk is a RB which is a lot easier to replace

2) Wayne and Freeney was not yet on the team

3) Peyton was still in his rookie contract

So Faulk really had nothing to do with them still being able to keep all their guys and you know why? Because they build their team thru the draft and didn't sign big name free agents... ummm that sounds familiar doesn't it? :)

[Scott Campbell]

It's pretty obvious Driver is going to have to restructure his contract which I don't see him having any problem doing so. Guess that issue is solved!


Partially solved. I think there will still be a pretty significant gap between Driver's salary and his replacement - even after he restructures.

[Brandon494]

A couple years ago nobody would have predicted that Wells would get the deal he just got. I wouldn't be so quick to speak in absolutes.

Just like you guys thought Sitton would make top dollar? Buluga is nice and all but he's no Joe Thomas.

[Scott Campbell]

1) Faulk is a RB which is a lot easier to replace.


I think that's the crux of the argument. It will come down to how easy Jennings is to replace, and how much of a drop off there is between him and the rest of the WR's on the roster. If there's a big dropoff, I think he stays. But if were loaded at WR, all bets are off. IMO.

[Scott Campbell]

Just like you guys thought Sitton would make top dollar?



He's not exactly playing for chump change. 9th in the NFL.

http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nfl/average/guard/

[Brandon494]

I didn't say it was chump change but look for buluga to get a simliar deal which will not break the bank.

[Patler]

Buluga is not going to earn top dollar. If Colts can hang onto for Peyton, Harrison, Wayne, and Freeney I see no reason why we will not be able to hang onto our guys. You guys keep acting that contacts like Woodson, Pickett, Driver, and maybe Collins aren't going to be off the books by the time we resign those guys. TT knows what he is doing and there is zero chance Jennings will leave, he's not that type of diva reciever who would leave to get mega dollars else where.

Sure, those you mentioned will come off the books, but they will need about three of those expiring contracts just for Rodgers alone. :-)

No one is suggesting letting Jennings go and shorting the WR position, and personally I don't think it is likely that he will leave, because I don't expect they will have a new player (rookie or PS guy) capable of being a credible third receiver by 2013. But, at some point soon there will be players leaving that have a lot of useful years left. It happened this year with Wells. It will happen again.

Some insisted there was going to be plenty enough cap room to sign both Wells and Finley. In essence, they did neither. Wells is gone and Finley is in a holding pattern for a huge deal. Yet, without Clifton's release the Packers would not have had enough cap space for the rookie allotment they will be assigned.

[Zool]

I didn't say it was chump change but look for buluga to get a simliar deal which will not break the bank.

I don't think anyone is saying Bulaga will break the bank, but there are many players coming up soon for deals. It's not realistic to think that all of them will be retained.

[Brandon494]

I think that's the crux of the argument. It will come down to how easy Jennings is to replace, and how much of a drop off there is between him and the rest of the WR's on the roster. If there's a big dropoff, I think he stays. But if were loaded at WR, all bets are off. IMO.

Where have you been the past few seasons? Jennings is a top 5 talent. Nelson had a breakout year and all but it's not even close.

[Brandon494]

I don't think anyone is saying Bulaga will break the bank, but there are many players coming up soon for deals. It's not realistic to think that all of them will be retained.

I guarntee they will, only guy I could see leaving is Finley and we would trade him before we let him walk.

[ThunderDan]

Just like you guys thought Sitton would make top dollar? Buluga is nice and all but he's no Joe Thomas.

Bulaga also doesn't play LT so you don't have to worry about Joe Thomas money.

The reality is you have to turnover your roster in the NFL or be left in the dust. Sherman proved that by resigning veterans over and over and restructuring until there was no more room to sign Wahle and Marco. With the salary cap there are only so many superstars your team can afford. If you keep too many you have to have players making close to the league minimum or 5th round rookies to start. In today's NFL you have to decide who you are going to pay the big bucks to and then figure out who to resign early for less money and who you are going to draft to replace the Jenkins and Colledge's of the world.

[Zool]

I guarntee they will, only guy I could see leaving is Finley and we would trade him before we let him walk.

What do I get if your guarantee fails?

[Scott Campbell]

Buluga is nice and all but he's no Joe Thomas.


There are 21 NFL tackles that have deals averaging $5M/year or more. So even halfway decent players at that position are tying up a lot of cap space.

[Scott Campbell]

Where have you been the past few seasons? Jennings is a top 5 talent.


I disagree.

[Brandon494]

Bulaga also doesn't play LT so you don't have to worry about Joe Thomas money.

The reality is you have to turnover your roster in the NFL or be left in the dust. Sherman proved that by resigning veterans over and over and restructuring until there was no more room to sign Wahle and Marco. With the salary cap there are only so many superstars your team can afford. If you keep too many you have to have players making close to the league minimum or 5th round rookies to start. In today's NFL you have to decide who you are going to pay the big bucks to and then figure out who to resign early for less money and who you are going to draft to replace the Jenkins and Colledge's of the world.

Resigning veterans? More like signing a big FA bust like Joe Johnson. Exactly the Jenkins and Colledges of the world. You let those guys go, you dont let Jennings, Clay, or Raji walk. Jenkins was an older and often injuries player and Colledge was overrated. You can't say that about those guys. Also Raji was a top 10 pick so he's new deal will be simliar to what he has now.

[Brandon494]

I disagree.

Name your top ten WRs in the league and if you disagree then why do you think he'll be hard to resign.

[Brandon494]

What do I get if your guarantee fails?

You can bump this thread and give me a "I told ya so".

[Brandon494]

Partially solved. I think there will still be a pretty significant gap between Driver's salary and his replacement - even after he restructures.

Maybe one million and exactly whats that going to add to the team?

[Zool]

You can bump this thread and give me a "I told ya so".

I'm not really an I told you so kind of guy. I'd rather you be right in this case.

Or I'd rather this draft yield 5 starters who are equal to or better than the vets coming up for renewal.

[Brandon494]

There are 21 NFL tackles that have deals averaging $5M/year or more. So even halfway decent players at that position are tying up a lot of cap space.

5M sounds about right and by that time Saturday will be off the roster and we'll have someone with a rookie salary starting at center. See how it works now? :)

[Pugger]

I disagree.

Over at footballsfuture.com you'll find guys posting there who are fans of other teams who seem to think Jennings a top 5 WR.

[Scott Campbell]

Name your top ten WRs in the league and if you disagree then why do you think he'll be hard to resign.



Calvin
Fitz
Welker
R. White

Then there's about 10 or 15 guys that seem pretty interchangeable to me.

[ThunderDan]

5M sounds about right and by that time Saturday will be off the roster and we'll have someone with a rookie salary starting at center. See how it works now? :)

Isn't that what I just said that you disagreed with? A veteran leaving and a rookie or first contract guy taking his place. Locking up your superstars. Hmmmm.... maybe you should actually read what people are posting.

[Scott Campbell]

Over at footballsfuture.com you'll find guys posting there who are fans of other teams who seem to think Jennings a top 5 WR.



And I think you'll also find a lot of people that don't think he's a top 5 WR. If he were a consensus top 5 WR, he'd be much easier to pay.

[Scott Campbell]

Maybe one million and exactly whats that going to add to the team?


Roughly $1M.

I suspect cap people aren't flippant with any 7 figure salaries.

[Pugger]

And I think you'll also find a lot of people that don't think he's a top 5 WR. If he were a consensus top 5 WR, he'd be much easier to pay.

I don't understand this sentence at all. :?:

[Patler]

Just like you guys thought Sitton would make top dollar? Buluga is nice and all but he's no Joe Thomas.


I didn't say it was chump change but look for buluga to get a simliar deal which will not break the bank.

I don't expect any Packer except Rodgers to get a "top dollar" contract if by that you mean in the top 5 contracts around the league. The Packers have always been comfortable paying their best players somewhere near the #10 level. Even so, those are expensive contracts that you can't just throw at everybody. Anyone who demands to be in the top 5 will not likely remain a Packer, unless he is a truly special player.

[Scott Campbell]

I don't understand this sentence at all. :?:


It he were a clear cut top 5 WR with significant drop off to the next tier of receivers, then it would be easier to justify a blockbuster contract. But as it stands there a bunch of top 20 WR's that when compared with Jennings, you could flip a coin.


Is he better than Hakeem Nicks? Maybe.
Is he better than DeSean Jackson? Maybe.
Is he better than Steve Smith? Maybe.
Is he better than AJ Green? Maybe.

Etc., etc., etc..........



Though I suspect the more important question will be - how big of a drop off is there between Jennings and the rest of our WR's? If it's really significant, then I expect it will be easier to justify the money Jennings will likely command in FA.

[Brandon494]

Isn't that what I just said that you disagreed with? A veteran leaving and a rookie or first contract guy taking his place. Locking up your superstars. Hmmmm.... maybe you should actually read what people are posting.

I didn't even quote you so hmm maybe someone else should read what people are posting :)

Actually I take that back I did quote you but I was disagree with you think I we resign those guys the rest of our starters will be 5th round draft picks and then with the way TT drafts maybe some will.

[pbmax]

If I read Wist's argument correctly this is his salient point, no?

In which case, yes, the body of evidence increasingly suggests this.

This has been wist's point for a while. In fact, prior to this thread, wist felt the entire Packer org going back to Wolf has not drafted well for defense. He seems to have exempted the DBs in this thread.

But there is another contention in this thread, that Thompson actively ignores defense with his top picks and only seeks top talent on offense. Its demonstrably false, but that hasn't stopped the claim from being made.

There is an issue with Thompson and any one specific area of need. With his philosophy, an under performing unit will take time to remake since he tends not to draft for need. Something like this happened on the O line, which solved with time and a number of picks over 4 years (Sitton, Lang, Bulaga). Filling holes on the DL might take time, though unlike the O line, a single position, RDE, would do wonders for the unit.

[Brandon494]

Calvin
Fitz
Welker
R. White

Then there's about 10 or 15 guys that seem pretty interchangeable to me.

Welker? OK I'm done

[Scott Campbell]

Welker? OK I'm done


Yeah, he's a slot guy. But after a certain number of years we can no longer avoid acknowledging his production.

[ND72]

well this thread has gotten contentious.

[Scott Campbell]

well this thread has gotten contentious.



As it always has, and will, when faced with tough decisions.

[Brandon494]

Your seriously think Welker is on Jennings level?

Can Jennings play Welker's role? Of course

Can Welker play Jennings' role? Nope

Welker is a product of system he plays in which is why NE will never pay him the type of money Jennings will get.

[Patler]

Brandon Marshall MUST be better than Jennings. He has single-handedly converted the Bears into Super Bowl favorites! :-)

[Scott Campbell]

Your seriously think Welker is on Jennings level?

Can Jennings play Welker's role? Of course

Can Welker play Jennings' role? Nope

Welker is a product of system he plays in which is why NE will never pay him the type of money Jennings will get.



Fine. You don't like Welker. There's still 10 guys you can pretty much sub with Jennings. And that's why he's not a consensus top 5 WR.

[Scott Campbell]

Brandon Marshall MUST be better than Jennings. He has single-handedly converted the Bears into Super Bowl favorites! :-)


There's no disputing the guys talent. And part of his value in Chicago is that there is such a significant drop off to the next best WR on that roster.

[Brandon494]

Fine. You don't like Welker. There's still 10 guys you can pretty much sub with Jennings. And that's why he's not a consensus top 5 WR.

I said he had top 5 talent which he does, doesn't mean he's going to get top 5 money which is why we will end up resigning him.

[Patler]

There's no disputing the guys talent. And part of his value in Chicago is that there is such a significant drop off to the next best WR on that roster.

Ultimately, that factors highly into whether or not a guy is retained; how much is the drop-off if he is not on the field?

[Scott Campbell]

Ultimately, that factors highly into whether or not a guy is retained; how much is the drop-off if he is not on the field?



Exactly.

On our roster it potentially becomes a legit question. Which will you miss more - Jennings, or ~$10M of cap space?

[Patler]

I guarntee they will, only guy I could see leaving is Finley and we would trade him before we let him walk.

Finley? Didn't you previously guarantee that he would be a Packer, long term?
Has something changed your opinion?

[Patler]

The big factor in all of these will be Rodgers. If he expects to be the highest paid QB (as Favre was for a short time) the impact of his contract could affect who might not be re-signed.

[Smeefers]

Wow, this thread has gotten pretty good.

I don't know if I could call Jennings a top 5 wide receiver, but I have a hard time arguing that he isn't. The only two dominant WR's in the league are Calvin Johnson and Fitzgerald. There are a lot of people after them that could vie for the #3 spot and I think there's a reasonable argument to be made for Jennings being up there. So, I think Jennings is argueably a top 5 reciever. Wes Welker? No, just.. no.

Is he better than Hakeem Nicks? Slightly Yes.
Is he better than DeSean Jackson? Hell Yes.
Is he better than Steve Smith? - This is actually who I compare Jennings to in their style of play. Smith was better from 2005 - 2008 and had a resurgent year last year. I think GJ was turning on when SS started to slump. If Smith keeps up the pace with cam newton throwing to him, then I could see him being better. If he goes back to how he played the last couple years (500 yard seasons) then no.
Is he better than AJ Green? Hell Yes.

Anyway, there's no way that Jennings is going to get top dollar (120 mil? Are you crazy?). He might get good money and if we have it, we'll pay him. I could see us letting him test the market and letting him go if he wants to though. I wouldn't like it, but I can see it happening. I think it's way more likely that TT will lock him up in the middle of this season, or right before free agency. I'd go around a 75% chance that we keep him.

[Guiness]

Nice trolling with the mention of Brandon Marshall, Patler!

Not feeling the love for Cambell's list. Andre Johnson missing? No way he isn't top 3, no reason to believe he won't come back from his injury.

I think the top 5 is too hard to put together at that position. I think Jennings is there, but any other than the top are hard to rank. I'd say there are a couple of guys he's on a level with, but not 10-15.

As a side note, if I was going to put a guy of Welker's stature in there, it would be Steve Smith, not Welker.

[Scott Campbell]

Finley? Didn't you previously guarantee that he would be a Packer, long term? Has something changed your opinion?



The wind, perhaps. :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

Andre Johnson missing? No way he isn't top 3, no reason to believe he won't come back from his injury.


Good pick.

[Guiness]

I don't expect any Packer except Rodgers to get a "top dollar" contract if by that you mean in the top 5 contracts around the league. The Packers have always been comfortable paying their best players somewhere near the #10 level. Even so, those are expensive contracts that you can't just throw at everybody. Anyone who demands to be in the top 5 will not likely remain a Packer, unless he is a truly special player.

Mathews will if he stays healthy. The amount of practice he's missed because of his hamstring(s?) worries me *fingers crossed*

[Scott Campbell]

Mathews will if he stays healthy. The amount of practice he's missed because of his hamstring(s?) worries me *fingers crossed*


What if Raji plays like he did 2 years ago? Things could get a little spendy there - hopefully.

[denverYooper]

The big factor in all of these will be Rodgers. If he expects to be the highest paid QB (as Favre was for a short time) the impact of his contract could affect who might not be re-signed.

The Saints are facing this problem right now. They've had to let some pretty good players go -- Carl Nicks, Robert Meachem, Tracy Porter (Nicks, an All-Pro) because they, like every other team, can't keep everyone.

[pbmax]

Welker is an interesting case, similar to Marshall in some respects. I don't think he would be the fifth WR taken if you redrafted the entire NFL this year. But he was given the franchise tender. So to the Patriots, and similar offensive systems, he is not too far out of the top 5.

[Upnorth]

I don't expect any Packer except Rodgers to get a "top dollar" contract if by that you mean in the top 5 contracts around the league. The Packers have always been comfortable paying their best players somewhere near the #10 level. Even so, those are expensive contracts that you can't just throw at everybody. Anyone who demands to be in the top 5 will not likely remain a Packer, unless he is a truly special player.

If Clay becomes dominant again he will be top 5.

And now that I have read to the end I see that others have said this and I was redundant. Crap.

[Brandon494]

Finley? Didn't you previously guarantee that he would be a Packer, long term?
Has something changed your opinion?

Haha this guy!

I never said anything about long term I just said I guarntee we would not let him walk and would resign him over Wells.

[Brandon494]

The Saints are facing this problem right now. They've had to let some pretty good players go -- Carl Nicks, Robert Meachem, Tracy Porter (Nicks, an All-Pro) because they, like every other team, can't keep everyone.

Saints also sign big time FAs like MLB Lofton this year that we don't do. I have more faith in TT then I do the Saints GM who is on his way out of the NFL soon for the Saints latest incident.

[Upnorth]

So regarding Jennings, my question is how much better does his QB and other receivers make him? He has had two great qb's throwing to him and always had Driver opposite him. That helps him out a lot. Some are clearly the best at their position, such as Fitz Johnson and Welker. Then their are a lot of great players lumped toghether. Making a clear cut statement that Jennings is top five is hard, I would say top 15 for sure.
Players at that level in my opinion are White, Cruz, Colston, Harvin, Marshall, Smith (carolina), HOU Johnson (I think that is his name I can't remember) and that is of the top of my head. Add in some of the emerging new guys like Nelson, Wallace and others and their is an arguement that Jennings is not even top 10. I think he is top 10, but his talent level is not head and shoulders above say the 12th best player.

[Brandon494]

Exactly.

On our roster it potentially becomes a legit question. Which will you miss more - Jennings, or ~$10M of cap space?

Where are you getting these numbers from? Jenning right now is making around 4-5M I believe. If we resign him that number will most likely go up to around 8M a season. 3M raise is hardly 10M in cap space.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think they need to keep Jennings. Of all of the guys on the roster, I think the most important ones for long-term success are Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings, and Raji.

[Brandon494]

So regarding Jennings, my question is how much better does his QB and other receivers make him? He has had two great qb's throwing to him and always had Driver opposite him. That helps him out a lot. Some are clearly the best at their position, such as Fitz Johnson and Welker. Then their are a lot of great players lumped toghether. Making a clear cut statement that Jennings is top five is hard, I would say top 15 for sure.
Players at that level in my opinion are White, Cruz, Colston, Harvin, Marshall, Smith (carolina), HOU Johnson (I think that is his name I can't remember) and that is of the top of my head. Add in some of the emerging new guys like Nelson, Wallace and others and their is an arguement that Jennings is not even top 10. I think he is top 10, but his talent level is not head and shoulders above say the 12th best player.

He's no doubt a top ten reciever and there is the argument about that. Also you really going to bring Nelson into this conversation?

In no order these are the top WRs in the league...

CJ
Andre Johnson
Roddy White
Brandon Marshall
Steve Smith
Greg Jennings
Fitzgerald

After this you have guys like

Britt
Bowe
Colston
Vicent Jackson
Nicks
Wayne

[Brandon494]

I think they need to keep Jennings. Of all of the guys on the roster, I think the most important ones for long-term success are Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings, and Raji.

Yup

[Scott Campbell]

If we resign him that number will most likely go up to around 8M a season.


$8M falls below the current top 10 average salary per year. Santonio Holmes got $9M. Pierre Garcon got $8.5M. Sidney Rice got $8.2M. Devin Hester got $10M. Vincent Jackson got $11M. Even Wes Welker got over $9M, and you scoffed at him being better than Jennings. And the averages are expected to creep up every year. And you think Jennings is a top 5 talent, but will sign for less than all these guys?

http://www.spotrac.com/top-salaries/nfl/average/wide-receiver/




Jenning right now is making around 4-5M I believe..................3 M raise is hardly 10M in cap space.


Except Ted won't be choosing between Jennings with his new salary, vs Jennings with his old salary. Jenning's old salary will not be valid choice.

The choice will be between keeping him, and letting him go. And $10M is not out of line given the current salary structure of NFL WR's.

[Cleft Crusty]

I don't know if I could call Jennings a top 5 wide receiver, but I have a hard time arguing that he isn't.

Yeah, your inclination based on measurables would be to rank him lower than the bigger and faster 'elite' guys. But he's top 5 because of the chemistry between he and Rodgers. That's why it would be a disaster to let him walk unless you guaranteed, no-question had another like him on the roster. And that's very hard to guarantee. Clefty will say it again - the precision between Rodgers and Jennings was a critical factor in winning the Superbowl in 2010, and just that little fraction off lost them the Giants game. Who knows - but I suspect had that same precision been there in the 2011 playoffs, they very likely would have repeated. You are taking a huge chance letting Jennings walk. And, to be honest, he assuredly wouldn't have the same success apart from Rodgers either. But he might make more coin.

[Scott Campbell]

Clefty will say it again - the precision between Rodgers and Jennings was a critical factor in winning the Superbowl in 2010, and just that little fraction off lost them the Giants game.


I disagree completely. There was a far greater gap between Jordy's drop off from the Superbowl win to the Giants loss than in the case of Jennings drop off. From a chemistry standpoint, Jennings had the same number of targets and receptions in both games.

[Fritz]

I'm not really an I told you so kind of guy. I'd rather you be right in this case.

Or I'd rather this draft yield 5 starters who are equal to or better than the vets coming up for renewal.

This is why the NFL is so tough on GM's. Thompson has done a helluva job drafting - I disagree that he picks offensive talent better than defensive talent. Had Harrell not hurt his back, had Neal not gotten hurt, had Jolly not gone purple, the defensive line would be stocked. Conversely, had Bulaga gotten hurt, and had Josh Sitton gotten busted for something, someone might be arguing that Thompson doesn't know how to draft offensive linemen. Hell, we're already getting that with Sherrod - and I think it's often based on the fact he got hurt, not on his play prior to that. I thought he was progressing at tackle after being shuffled every which way - and after coming out of college with the proviso that he needed work to be developed.

Back to the original point - no matter how good a GM does, with the salary cap he's always, always got to come up with more and more superior drafts in order to keep up with his own success. Thompson -- no GM -- can rest. It's a tough gig. There's a lot riding on getting the evaluations right.

[Lurker64]

I honestly think that Jennings won't be as tough to resign as people are thinking. The reason? Jennings already makes a lot of money. It's not like we'd be moving his cap number from $1m to $11m, we'd be moving his cap from $8m to $11m, and those sorts of deals are a lot easier to make.

The tough one for TT will be Lang, but with any luck he can get the Jordy discount.

[Scott Campbell]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Jenning right now is making around 4-5M I believe. If we resign him that number will most likely go up to around 8M a season.


"The Packers handed over $26.35 million in new money to the fourth-year receiver, an average of almost $9 million per year, according to an NFL source with knowledge of the contract numbers. The deal makes Jennings one of the highest-paid receivers in the league."

Though SportTrac shows it at $6.7M. I don't know what accounts for the discrepancy.

[Smidgeon]

I think they need to keep Jennings. Of all of the guys on the roster, I think the most important ones for long-term success are Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings, and Raji.

I would have added Collins to that list before his injury. :\

P.S. Repped!

[3irty1]

I honestly think that Jennings won't be as tough to resign as people are thinking. The reason? Jennings already makes a lot of money. It's not like we'd be moving his cap number from $1m to $11m, we'd be moving his cap from $8m to $11m, and those sorts of deals are a lot easier to make.

The tough one for TT will be Lang, but with any luck he can get the Jordy discount.

Ding, Ding, Ding!

[woodbuck27]

Good luck wist on the surgery. Make sure you read this link before any anesthetic. Because it will make you nauseous, esp. the last paragraph.

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/corp/page/04%2F22%2F12_DL:_Deep_in_the_middle/601?feed=2

OK pbmax I'm back. We suffered some on and off power failures where I'm at and those lasted up to 5-6 hours. I have other things to do in terms of analysis and matters here but I'll re-enter the discussion.

Have I entered the Packerrats 'twilight zone'?

I read the **last two parts of Jason Wilde's article and it does little NOT to support wist43.

** PACKERS PERSPECTIVE... Position analysis and Draft strategy:

Are there actually any Packerrats that don't agree with wist43? I mean get REAL please. wist43's position has been over the top substantiated...proven valid. Anybody here that has taken a stance Vs his is frankly deluded and that cannot be the case. Last or worst in the NFL is clearly not good.

Our defense certainly is coyote UGLY. Really really bad ! wist43 certainly informs us why that is 'a fact'.

wist43 doesn't attack the distinguished Ted Thompson in his analysis. So y'all can relax on that front. Maybe realize that Ted Thompson is like us all. He sinks when trying to walk on water.

Any analysis of TT's performance RE: drafting on 'D' has to unfortunately give TT a failing grade as an evaluator and selector of defensive prospects in the draft. Can anyone not see that's the case? If you don't just a suggestion.

Take a deep breath and with an open mind take the time necessary to get there. It's painless.

IMO TT has drafted two soild defensive players in safety Nick Collins who took time to develop and for all intents and purposes he's not going to be a Packer we can count on. Ted Thompson must replace Nick Collins ...now. TT will be drafting a Safety. He will draft a pass rushing DE/OLB.He will draft a DT and two of three of these picks need to be in the creme category.

Ted knows that talent is like cream it rises to the top. In this case we're simply referring to the top of the draft class and that talent will be located in rounds one and two in terms of our defensive needs. He might get lucky with a round three pick. We need DE/ROLB 'pass rush' as our TOP priority and TT cannot get that if he ignores what every Packer fan see's as that need.

TT has to secure talent at DT to take the heat off DT BJ Raji and be prepared to replace DT Ryan Pickett.

Shouldn't Justin Harrell have been spotted as an injury risk? Is that unfair? He suffered a torn biceps tendon while playing college ball for Tennessee. NO! He certainly needed to be checked out for his attitude as he drew criticism for showing up to OTA and Training Camp his rookie season out of shape and slightly overweight.

That's moot as again no one is attacking Ted Thompson in any posts I see on this thread. Those that sit on the thread imagining such are better challenged elsewhere.

What sense is that anyway given we need so much from Ted Thompson. He'll sometimes fail or let some of us down. He does the best with what he has. He's had poor luck drafting for our 'D'. We must hope that luck changes.

TT got an instant impact for our 3-4 defensive scheme when he moved up in round one to secure LB Clay Matthews.

DT BJ Raji? The jury has to be out on this draft pick as he wasn't spectacilar in his rookie DT campaign,2009. He played as TT expected in 2010. Last year BJ Raji was at best inconsistent and more accurately run over...worn out. BJ Raji need to be rested.

Guys named DE Anthony Hargrove and DT Daniel Muir cannot be expected to make a huge impact except to be included as situational / rotational players. They afterall carry the dreaded FA tag. They are in Green Bay for a short time.

DE Mike Neal has got himself against the wall. He has to deliver at least some promise this season and that gets off to an unfortunate 'no start'.

What's left on the Roster:

DL Johnny Jones; DE's X 3 Guy Lawrence; C J Wilson and Jarius Wynn. Excited !?

Sorry all AJ Hawk fans.

AJ Hawk is a one dimensional 'stop the run' LBer and is there any doubt of his pass defense instincts? He fails in that regard. IMO he's made loads of tackles but is he what we hoped he's be as a College player?Wasn't it last year that we went through all that AJ Hawk to Buffalo Bills talk and the Bills didn't beat down TT's door to grab Hawk. Arn't we simply stuck with Hawk and his CAP space?

What do we have to support Clay Matthews on the right side at LB?

Choose one: Desmond Bishop: Robert Francois; Brad Jones; Jamari Lattimore; DJ Smith or Erik Walden.

Did I miss anyone?

Is anyone there getting it done? Will anyone there get it done? It seems to me the correct response is : NO.


What's Eric Walden doing back on that list? I'm guessing he didn't have alot of offers as a FA. TT brings him back and lets a Pro Bowler go? That's some strange behaviour but I mustn't question TT as he knows.

"outside linebackers coach Kevin Greene made it clear that he was disappointed that none of those players seized the opportunity to be the unquestioned starter at the position. He also suggested that the team will have to find its starter at right outside linebacker somewhere other than the current roster. “We gave a number of guys the opportunities to step up and show that he was going to be that guy, and they came up short. It didn’t happen." Jason Wilde

We need to hope for Ted Thompson to draft right and have some LUCK as alot of it lies right there.

Now please.... don't respond to this post without reading Jason Wilde's article see pbmax's LINK above.

By the way all you who took on wist43...you lost. All the same nice try. ** Healthy debate without attacks is what we need here at Packerrats.

** That FREE of 'name calling' and 'flaming disrespect'. That FREE of ridiculous character assasinations.

You may have almost worn him out but he knows.

[Cleft Crusty]

I disagree completely. There was a far greater gap between Jordy's drop off from the Superbowl win to the Giants loss than in the case of Jennings drop off. From a chemistry standpoint, Jennings had the same number of targets and receptions in both games.

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.

[woodbuck27]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.


That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

[Cleft Crusty]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

I say this with all due respect possible: I can recognize prescription drug overdose from a mile away. Call the poison hotline immediately.

[swede]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?



I'll take Good, Bad, or Indifferent for $50, Alex.

[Brandon494]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.

Yup

[Scott Campbell]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD




.......unless you're trying to rank our 15 win defense last in the league. Than your precious stats are indisputable.

[RashanGary]

I agree Jennings is our most important passing weapon for the reason sited above. Let Driver and Jones go. Extend Jennings. Bring in some cheap, young help.

Lang shouldn't be hard to resign at all. Sitton is far better and got a very doable deal. Lang should get half that.


The Raji/Matthew/Rodgers sweepstakes are going to be the interesting ones to follow.

[Scott Campbell]

Ask Scott if he watched that game?


Quit being such a sniveling coward and ask yourself.

[sharpe1027]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

I'm sure it made sense at the time, but wow.

[woodbuck27]

I say this with all due respect possible: I can recognize prescription drug overdose from a mile away. Call the poison hotline immediately.

Is your contribution football related? Do you imagine your post even resembles whit or anything even marginally close to being classified as humour?

Your acting poorly. Do you enjoy that?

[woodbuck27]

I'm sure it made sense at the time, but wow.


Originally Posted by woodbuck27 http://packerrats.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?p=663942#post663942)

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

OK if I make a very slight REVISION is my post clear or acceptable to you? That revision*


Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that * ie 'C' was bad?

I hope this * makes my question clear..

[Patler]

I think they need to keep Jennings. Of all of the guys on the roster, I think the most important ones for long-term success are Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings, and Raji.

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.

[sharpe1027]

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that * ie 'C' was bad?

I hope this * makes my question clear..

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?

[Scott Campbell]

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.


I wouldn't argue with it either. But it's fluid, and Tramon might have even showed up on it last year.

How much do you think the Rodgers deal will average?

[Scott Campbell]

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?



The under/over line on his response length is 12 paragraphs. And I'm betting the over.

[Patler]

I wouldn't argue with it either. But it's fluid, and Tramon might have even showed up on it last year.



Yup, and by next year, Williams might be back on it if he has a rebound year, and Raji could drop off it if 2010 starts looking like the odd year, because his play in 2012 has looked more like 2011 (or 2009, for that matter).

[pbmax]

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.

Oh, come on, sure you can! Its just a list! Attack the order its in :lol:

[swede]

I like that Raji and Matthews arrived in the same draft. Championship teams need a little draft day magic.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yup, and by next year, Williams might be back on it if he has a rebound year, and Raji could drop off it if 2010 starts looking like the odd year, because his play in 2012 has looked more like 2011 (or 2009, for that matter).

I actually hesitated to include Raji, but guys like him are hard to find. When he plays well, it makes a huge difference for our defense. Really, I think Rodgers, Matthews, and Jennings are the top three--with the list being fluid for other guys (including Tramon, Sitton, Bulaga, Finley, etc.). I think Jennings importance is a bit underrated because people just expect Rodgers would overcome the loss of Jennings, but I don't think it would be that easy.

[woodbuck27]

Of course it is news to you, you have decided to have an argument based on a single statistic (last year's Pass D) and one cause (front seven QB pressure) of that stat. By that measure, the Packers have the worst Defense of all time (I think by one yard over the Patriots of '11). So to you, it is some kind of magic or statistical fluke that the Defense actually conceded the 19th most points in the League.

comment woodbuck27:

We were not last on 'D' in terms of the number of points allowed. The concern I have is in terms of our performance RE: 'pass rush' and how that has caused our 'D' to fall out of the upper echelon of NFL defenses in the 2009-10 seasons to where we found it last season.

Rank it in your own terms and was that decent? The obvious response is ...NO!

By your own statistic (points allowed) our 'D' ranked in the lower part of the second tier of NFL teams. @ 19th. Not good !
************************************************** ************************************************** *******

The obvious answer to your question is Raji, Pickett, Hawk and Matthews. And that, as was the point of the prior posts, is just the first rounders. Bishop can clearly play as well.

comment woodbuck27: I'm one of the Packer fans that isn't 'on' with AJ Hawk's play. He's not effective in pass coverage and that takes away from the fact he is one of the most consistent tacklers on our 'D'. Last seasonn one of the BIG concerns was that TT was on the hook for his CAP space and that wasn't considered a valued return for his play.

************************************************** ************************************************** ***

If you think the Giants game turned on the performance of the defense, then you have not absorbed the actual evidence of that game.

Comment woodbuck27:

We lost that game to the GIANTS because our offense sputtered BIG TIME. Where have ypu read a post from me that blames that loss tothe New York GIANTS on our 'D". Look and you'll look a long time as I recall my position on that.

************************************************** ************************************************** **

And, no, as has been discussed quite at length in dozens of posts, the worst defense moniker, when measured by total yards, is a horrible way to measure defensive success. So I do not think the Packers had the worst defense in the league. As for changing the water on the beans, see the next answer.


comment woodbuck27: Have your own way in regards to the debate pbmax. I'm not in any way even arguing the issue here in terms of Ted Thompson and his drafting skills in terms of our defenses performance.Ted Thompson cannot have any control over player injuries or character or NFL penalty issues. Has he drafted decently on the defensive side of the ball. He clearly has had far more success on the offensive side of the ball.

He didn't draft Ryan Pickett. He came to us as a FA. Even if I give you AJ Hawk and BJ Raji. Questionable at best as our roster now stands. He has contributed three quality defensive players to our starting 'D's' front seven.

************************************************** ************************************************** *******

Of course not. But that is the way the playoffs go these days. The best regular season team is not winning as often as 6th seeds. The Giants have done it twice, the Packers once plus the Steelers. That's four times in a decade. Twice in the last two years. You cannot credit the Giants success without acknowledging the similarities between the two teams.

And by the way, the problem the Packer had in the Lion game was not the defense.

comment woodbuck27: If you say so I would agree. I never ever said that we lost that regular season game in our Super Bowl championship Season because of a bad or worse 'D'. Did I!?

************************************************** **********************************************

Meaning that the entire point of this wist inspired tangent, that somehow Thompson has twice put together the talent for a top ten defense for Capers, yet does not know what he is doing, is limited in its scope to one year and a handful of games. And it is also where you and wist part ways. You think Thompson and the team's success was an anomaly in 2010 despite the Super Bowl, and that 2011 is the better measure.

Your differing standards of evidence depending on which side of the argument you occupy is interesting. Apparently, the Favre drama, the 2011 Giants playoff game and the Lions game of 2010 offer compelling evidence of Thompson's flaws.


Comment woodbuck: Be fair man. I do not in anyway refer to such in terms of any Ted Thompson flaws. See below a) to d).

a) I DO NOT bring anything Favre into it. Absoluteluy NOT !! What's with that accusatory stance pbmax?

b) I do not bring the NY GIANTS game into it. I really felt our team would lose to the GIANTS. Would you have bet your life on the Packers to defeat the GIANTS in that playoff game? Do so given the state of our 'D' in terms of a pass defense? I think not pbmax. Your way too smart.

In any case. I certainly wouldn't have.

But the Super Bowl win was a fluke ....pbmax

c) Find the post where I write that our Super Bowl win was ' fluke'. Good luck with that pbmax. I do not consider that Championship..'a FLUKE". Come on !! Where is all this coming from?

as are the most regular season victories and Rodgers presence on the team. . . . . pbmax

WOW ! 'D' man. . . . . . . Recall our 'D' pbmax?? It was lousy !! It sucked !!

Without the exceedingly awesome talent of Aaron Rodgers and our total offense we wouldn't have enjoyed a 15 win regular season


d) wist has a tenable position in the lack of D line roster success. Your position that Thompson is failing is not serious.

My position is certianly just this:

I agree with wist43.

Where do I post that Ted Thompson is failing? In this past season find the post pbmax. Fill your boots.

I'm full on with Ted Thompson. My position on Ted Thompson is clearly one of sincere support. Your possibly?... giving over the top too much acknowledgement to member Scott Campbell.

If so that should seriously concern you as a respected member here.

I'm disappointed at the tone of your post to me.

I've defended my position on all accounts.

Are you like member Scott Campbell and next going to try to make a claim that I hate Ted Thompson?

If you go there your mistaken. If you go there your seriously wasting your time....... like the man that comes into a conversation 'about another man' that ***you do not know and as they go out to lynch that man ... without consideration for your ignorance ...YOU troop right along with them.

** pbmax...You should certainly know that:

I'm over any bad feeling RE: Ted Thompson. I never hated Ted Thompson.

The person that claims that I do is simply put... 'out to lunch'. That's the person you are warned to most suspect is 'all about hatred'. That person if I'm correct is a certain hate mongerer. Is that person dangerous?

My feeling is NO! That person is 'just' simple. That person 'just' is so much 'in need of attention'. That person 'suffers greatly' for that need.

I do not post hatred. I fight those that do. I DO NOT HATE !

Have a lovely evening pbmax.

ohh ever see this before from me? Look innmediately below. If I didn't support our teams GM I wouldn't write it. I'm as straight up as it gets.

GO Ted Thompson! >>> GO PACK GO !

[pbmax]

OK pbmax I'm back. We suffered some on and off power failures where I'm at and those lasted up to 5-6 hours. I have other things to do in terms of analysis and matters here but I'll re-enter the discussion.

Have I entered the Packerrats 'twilight zone'?

I read the **last two parts of Jason Wilde's article and it does little NOT to support wist43.

** PACKERS PERSPECTIVE... Position analysis and Draft strategy:

Are there actually any Packerrats that don't agree with wist43? I mean get REAL please. wist43's position has been over the top substantiated...proven valid. Anybody here that has taken a stance Vs his is frankly deluded and that cannot be the case. Last or worst in the NFL is clearly not good.

Our defense certainly is coyote UGLY. Really really bad ! wist43 certainly informs us why that is 'a fact'.

wist43 doesn't attack the distinguished Ted Thompson in his analysis. So y'all can relax on that front. Maybe realize that Ted Thompson is like us all. He sinks when trying to walk on water.

Any analysis of TT's performance RE: drafting on 'D' has to unfortunately give TT a failing grade as an evaluator and selector of defensive prospects in the draft. Can anyone not see that's the case? If you don't just a suggestion.

Wood, I have to get a little pedantic here and I apologize. But we have strayed far afield and I need to give you the context of my critique of wist's critique of both the defense and of Thompson. Otherwise, we will be arguing about things we actually agree on.

Over time, wist has maintained a severe displeasure with the Packers defense. From coordinator to style, static to multiple, aggressive to passive, from drafting to coaching, wist has had an issue with the Packers Defense that is as deep as it is wide. That is not to say he has disliked everyone or everything, but if wist was a Securities Rating Agency like Standard and Poor, he would rate the Packers Defense of the last 20 years a CCC [Currently vulnerable and dependent on favorable business, financial and economic conditions to meet financial commitments.] wist should of course be the final arbiter of his own opinions, so he may disagree with my summation.

1. wist has maintained that Dom Capers, despite his resume, is too cautious and not aggressive enough when terms of the battle are against him.
2. wist has maintained that the Packers have an inability to draft for defense. That inability predates Ron Wolf's ascendency to the position of GM. If I recall correctly, he was concerned about Packer drafts for D during the Tom Braatz administration, if not earlier.
3. wist maintains that Packer scouts, in addition to front office types, have repeated demonstrated the inability to correctly evaluate and select effective defenders in the line, linebackers and secondary positions.
4. wist maintains that Thompson is too favorably disposed to drafting offensive talent over defensive talent. That he relies on a slew of 7th round picks to pretend he has addressed Defensive needs.
5. wist maintains that Thompson's philosophy of drafting the "BPA" means that defensive needs will go unmet since Thompson's preference for offensive performers will often leave him with a player on Offense rated higher than a player on Defense
6. wist has maintained that the Packers Super Bowl win was largely a happy coincidence
7. wist has maintained that the Packers performance last year on defense was terrible
8. wist has maintained that in the Packers front 7, only 2 front line starters are available

In this thread, wist has mentioned numbers 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. And there was an oblique reference to number 3.

I think that it is self evident that in maintaining contentions 4, 5 and 6, wist is indeed denigrating Thompson. You may not consider this an attack. But as this thread is about the job the Packers personnel department has in front of it, I don't see how one can maintain Thompson is incapable of fixing his teams deficiencies and not construe the sum of the posts as less than an attack on the GMs ability to do his job. Hoping that the GM will suddenly see the error of his ways and heed the advice of message board posters is, if you think about it, a pretty damning conclusion.

If one were to focus solely on items 4 and 5, one could see that past evidence suggests that any differentiation in selecting O talent versus D talent is minimal at its worst.

If one were to focus solely on item 6, then one would be whistling past the graveyard about Packer defensive performance and talent.

But perhaps most importantly for the conversation that you and I are having woodbuck, if one were to focus solely on item 7 then one would see that the entire PackerRats community is in agreement.

[George Cumby]

This has been wist's point for a while. In fact, prior to this thread, wist felt the entire Packer org going back to Wolf has not drafted well for defense. He seems to have exempted the DBs in this thread.

But there is another contention in this thread, that Thompson actively ignores defense with his top picks and only seeks top talent on offense. Its demonstrably false, but that hasn't stopped the claim from being made.

There is an issue with Thompson and any one specific area of need. With his philosophy, an under performing unit will take time to remake since he tends not to draft for need. Something like this happened on the O line, which solved with time and a number of picks over 4 years (Sitton, Lang, Bulaga). Filling holes on the DL might take time, though unlike the O line, a single position, RDE, would do wonders for the unit.

Gotcha'. Thanks.

But again, had one fo the three horsemen of DL-Dysfunction panned out, Harrell, Jolly or Neal, we probably aren't talking about the front 7 being so dismal....

[Guiness]

There were some earlier mentions of Brandon Marshall as a top receiver...

Can I assume that was tongue in cheek? A top 5, or a top 10 receiver with 2 years left on his contract, does not get traded for a pair of 3rd round picks.

[Scott Campbell]

There were some earlier mentions of Brandon Marshall as a top receiver...

Can I assume that was tongue in cheek? A top 5, or a top 10 receiver with 2 years left on his contract, does not get traded for a pair of 3rd round picks.


Unless he has a lot of baggage.

He was 10th in the NFL - with Chad Henne and Matt Moore throwing to him.

[Guiness]

Unless he has a lot of baggage.

He was 10th in the NFL - with Chad Henne and Matt Moore throwing to him.

These are certainly exhibit 1a and 1b for him. Which carries more weight? I guess we know which does in Miami's eyes, but that franchise hasn't been a shinning example of good management, so *shrug*