PETER KING FROM SI-"THE FIRST ROUNDS GOOD,BAD, AND UGLY

[Bretsky]

The first round's good, bad and ugly

Dolphins mystify, while Bengals, Browns do very well
Posted: Saturday April 28, 2007 6:49PM; Updated: Saturday April 28, 2007 7:53PM


DETROIT -- Quickie review of the first round:

WEIRDEST PICK: Wideout/return man Ted Ginn Jr., No. 9 by Miami. I don't understand how the Dolphins try to upgrade on Wes Welker when there's a strong quarterback prospect, Brady Quinn, sitting there.

BEST VALUE PICK: Cornerback Leon Hall, No. 18 by Cincinnati. He's not the best cornerback anyone's ever seen, but he's the Eagle Scout type the Bengals had to have and he was the best corner on many teams' boards.

BEST EXAMPLE OF AN OWNER LEARNING HOW TO OWN: Washington's Dan Snyder refusing to mortgage the future and trade every pick of value in 2008, which is what he'd have had to do to get Calvin Johnson from the Lions. Smart. And LaRon Landry was the top defensive player on Washington's draft board.

THE "THEY'D BETTER KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING" PICK: The Patriots usually do, so you've got to look at the selection of the most troubled player in the first round, Miami safety Brandon Meriweather, and think they can keep him on the right path. "I'm not a thug,'' Meriweather said last week. "I'm not a bad guy.'' He fired three shots at an assailant last summer, then was a key stomper in that brutal Miami-Florida International brawl last fall.

PICK I LIKED THE MOST: Brady Quinn, No. 22 by the Browns, who had the guts to go get a guy they thought was the fourth or fifth player on their board -- trading their first-rounder in 2008 in the process. Risky, yes. But if you truly think you've got a quarterback of the future, and can get him for a relative song, you do it.

PICK I LIKED THE LEAST: Justin Harrell, No. 16, by Green Bay. Receiver, Green Bay. You need a receiver. Or two. Hope there's one you like left in round two. Or Randy Moss.

Five Things I Think I Think After Round One
1. I think I love the Cleveland-Dallas trade for the Cowboys too. As you'll learn in the next Monday Morning Quarterback, Dallas had a big victory here.

2. I think I spoke too soon this afternoon about the quickness of the first round. Six hours, eight minutes. Ugggggh. The longest in draft history.

3. I think Mike Martz is still doing backflips over getting Calvin Johnson on his team, right here in Detroit, just upstairs from where I'm watching the draft.

4. I think the Patriots did well getting a first-rounder from San Francisco in 2008 for the 28th overall pick this year. Really well. This was a first-round-poor draft. And next year, the Pats will have a higher pick, most likely.

5. I think I'd like to know what in the world happened to Alan Branch ... 33rd overall. Sheesh. While the world was focused on Quinn, Branch sank like a stone.

[Bretsky]

On a sidenote, the one thing writers assume, as King did, is teams should find a way to fill their deepest needs. They ignore the BPA belief when writing these articles.

Some of us are on one extreme or the other on this belief; I lie somewhere in the middle.

[BooHoo]

It is interesting to hear both announcers and team officials talk about "team needs" and "best player available" all in the same breathe. What gives? Is this all just double talk or what??????

[retailguy]

It is interesting to hear both announcers and team officials talk about "team needs" and "best player available" all in the same breathe. What gives? Is this all just double talk or what??????

It's all double talk. ALL OF IT. No one knows....except those who think they know. and even they don't know, what they don't know.

[falco]

It is interesting to hear both announcers and team officials talk about "team needs" and "best player available" all in the same breathe. What gives? Is this all just double talk or what??????

It's all double talk. ALL OF IT. No one knows....except those who think they know. and even they don't know, what they don't know.

unless you are a giant glass of kool aide. then you know everything. :?

[red]

well, to me this pick didn't even come close to filling a big need

and i don't see how the hell he was the BPA

[retailguy]

well, to me this pick didn't even come close to filling a big need

and i don't see how the hell he was the BPA


BPA is kind of subjective when you think about it.... Welcome back Red. We've missed you...

Justin Harrell is clearly a better player on paper than, um, say Brady Quinn. But he did fill a bigger need than Brady Quinn, for this year anyhow.

[BooHoo]

I get confused when listening to other teams when talking about their picks. This guy filled this need, this other guy filled that need. etc. So most teams don't select by BPA but by need?????

[Bretsky]

well, to me this pick didn't even come close to filling a big need

and i don't see how the hell he was the BPA


Brady Quinn was probably the BPA on most draft boards at 16 if you throw need out the window

[Bretsky]

well, to me this pick didn't even come close to filling a big need

and i don't see how the hell he was the BPA

Welcome back Red

As you recall I was in love with Meachem, but regardless I felt TT should trade down and pick up a 2nd and draft Bowe or Meacham.

As it turned out Denver wanted to move up and they did right behind us; we could have had Meachem with their pick along with an extra high pick....which was my vision if it worked.

I just hope he's a pro bowler because at that pick we really don't need another guy equivalent to what we have in Corey Williams.

[oregonpackfan]

This quote of "PICK I LIKED THE LEAST: Justin Harrell, No. 16, by Green Bay. Receiver, Green Bay. You need a receiver. Or two. Hope there's one you like left in round two. Or Randy Moss." is most interesting.

He is right that the Packers need a receiver(you know how I feel about Randy Moss) but does not given an opinion of what he things about Harrell.

It seems King is of the "Draft according to needs" kind of guy.

[Bretsky]

This quote of "PICK I LIKED THE LEAST: Justin Harrell, No. 16, by Green Bay. Receiver, Green Bay. You need a receiver. Or two. Hope there's one you like left in round two. Or Randy Moss." is most interesting.

He is right that the Packers need a receiver(you know how I feel about Randy Moss) but does not given an opinion of what he things about Harrell.

It seems King is of the "Draft according to needs" kind of guy.

Had TT traded up to get a top tier receiver such as Jarrett or Sydney Rice in round two I think a lot of us would feel much much much better about taking a player at a positive on strength in round one.

[retailguy]

Had TT traded up to get a top tier receiver such as Jarrett or Sydney Rice in round two I think a lot of us would feel much much much better about taking a player at a positive on strength in round one.

Bretsky,

This is the problem with the draft. You get 7 choices, unless you trade down 40 times, then you get a bit more. But not enough to fill every hole, and not enough to draft all needs you have.

Kind of like buying a car on the internet... You get what you get. Then you need to fill in the gaps, and until this year, I didn't know you do that through summer cuts... Learn something new every day!

[wist43]

Again, you have to build a team, and I firmly believe that there were potential pro bowl calibur players at positions of need still on the board at 16.

TT seems to think that BPA will build him a team... it's much more likely to get him a collection of good players, constant turnover, and no cohesive plan for actually getting to the point where the roster is flush, or at least flush enough, across the board to win a championship.

How can he "plan" to build, if his plan is predicated upon luck of the draw??? Do any of you really doubt that TT would, in a blink, draft another DT in the 1st round next year if a DT is his BPA???

I can see a future under TT where we draft good players, but the roster always has holes b/c TT won't work the system to ensure that he is getting good players to fill needs.

[Bretsky]

Again, you have to build a team, and I firmly believe that there were potential pro bowl calibur players at positions of need still on the board at 16.

TT seems to think that BPA will build him a team... it's much more likely to get him a collection of good players, constant turnover, and no cohesive plan for actually getting to the point where the roster is flush, or at least flush enough, across the board to win a championship.

How can he "plan" to build, if his plan is predicated upon luck of the draw??? Do any of you really doubt that TT would, in a blink, draft another DT in the 1st round next year if a DT is his BPA???

I can see a future under TT where we draft good players, but the roster always has holes b/c TT won't work the system to ensure that he is getting good players to fill needs.


Yup

[RashanGary]

If there was a true stud DT next year I'd have no problem with it. After that though, 4 really good ones is enough and I would stop.

[retailguy]

If there was a true stud DT next year I'd have no problem with it. After that though, 4 really good ones is enough and I would stop.

But, if Thompson is truly following BPA, he wouldn't/shouldn't.... Wait, A FLAW, in the theory!

Course we proved that with Brady Quinn, didn't we?

[BallHawk]

If there was a true stud DT next year I'd have no problem with it. After that though, 4 really good ones is enough and I would stop.

But, if Thompson is truly following BPA, he wouldn't/shouldn't.... Wait, A FLAW, in the theory!

Course we proved that with Brady Quinn, didn't we?

Quinn was probably the BPA on TT's board, but need played into it at that spot. If there was somebody that was the equivalent of Quinn, but played any other position, besides QB, that player would of been the pick.

[wist43]

If there was a true stud DT next year I'd have no problem with it. After that though, 4 really good ones is enough and I would stop.

But, if Thompson is truly following BPA, he wouldn't/shouldn't.... Wait, A FLAW, in the theory!

Course we proved that with Brady Quinn, didn't we?

DT was arguably their strongest and deepest position... and TT ignores the numerous holes everywhere else on the roster and bolsters the already strongest position on the team.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link... the Packers have a lot of weak links, and TT did next to nothing to strengthen them.

[retailguy]

DT was arguably their strongest and deepest position... and TT ignores the numerous holes everywhere else on the roster and bolsters the already strongest position on the team.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link... the Packers have a lot of weak links, and TT did next to nothing to strengthen them.

Our run defense doesn't support this theory, however, it was CLEARLY less of a need than several other positions, on that, I agree with you.

[RashanGary]

I'm curious Wist, do you expect the Packers to make a run at the SB?

If so then I can understand your angst. If not then I don't know what you're all bent out of shape about. You said last season that this team was 3 years away. Who really cares about a temporary hole right now.

Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will a SB team be constructed in GB from 4-12 in two off seasons.

We'll take some knocks because of some of our holes but eventually the draft will bring us an answer. If not, there are other avenues that can be used when the time is right.

[HarveyWallbangers]

As it turned out Denver wanted to move up and they did right behind us; we could have had Meachem with their pick along with an extra high pick....which was my vision if it worked.

Denver wanted to move up to draft the guy we took. Kind of ruins any theory that we could have traded down and still got our guy--not that you are making that theory. What if Meachem was #30 on the Packers board and Harrell was #15? Are you saying you think your board is more accurate than their board?

[b bulldog]

Denver moved up because of our pick and they were than afraid they woul;dn't be able to get Moss.

[b bulldog]

I forgot to mention thaT as Harv said, Shanny really liked Harrell.

[Charles Woodson]

I'm curious Wist, do you expect the Packers to make a run at the SB?

If so then I can understand your angst. If not then I don't know what you're all bent out of shape about. You said last season that this team was 3 years away. Who really cares about a temporary hole right now.

Rome wasn't built in a day and neither will a SB team be constructed in GB from 4-12 in two off seasons.

We'll take some knocks because of some of our holes but eventually the draft will bring us an answer. If not, there are other avenues that can be used when the time is right.


yes but hes saying that TT drafted somebody that we didnt persay need, when we could have drafted someone else that we did need. I go back and forth about this because like i said before, greg, it will be fun watching the LBing core but i really wish that TT hadnt traded back so effing far in the 2nd. i would have rather traded back a lil or stayed there and takin ethier Smith, rice, or jarrett. And then takin ethier jackson or pittman with our 3rd, all though idk how we would get rouse then

[Charles Woodson]

I forgot to mention thaT as Harv said, Shanny really liked Harrell.

great thats an almost sure bust

[b bulldog]

My only point was that TT wasn't alone in his thinking

[Charles Woodson]

My only point was that TT wasn't alone in his thinking

i agree with you on that one, there were about 5 teams that i had heard liked him

texans
Broncos
Chiefs
Colts
and there was a few more

[Bretsky]

As it turned out Denver wanted to move up and they did right behind us; we could have had Meachem with their pick along with an extra high pick....which was my vision if it worked.

Denver wanted to move up to draft the guy we took. Kind of ruins any theory that we could have traded down and still got our guy--not that you are making that theory. What if Meachem was #30 on the Packers board and Harrell was #15? Are you saying you think your board is more accurate than their board?


Unless I misheard Shannahan I do not think that is completely accurate.

Shannahan stated he wanted one of three DL. When the second one came off the board he knew he had to go up after Green Bay picked. So our guy was one of three he wanted. The other must have went a bit before. I don't think he stated that he liked either one better.

But you are right; I still feel we'd have been much better off with Meachem and a 2nd than the guy we have.

[RashanGary]

I just can't wait to see the defense. I'm a defense guy. As I've watched football over the years I've slowly moved toward defense as the #1 priority.

I know you guys wanted a WR but I think Driver and Jennings can do a good job and the #3, 4 and 5 of Krob, Jones and Hollidy/Martin don't bother me at all. Nobody has 5 starters. We have 2 starters and some guys who can play behind them. If a top notch player was there I would have been extatic but as it stands Thompson felt the DT was the most impactfull football player on the board.

DT's can be difference makers. Saving 7 points is just as good as scoring 7.

I think RG has the best arguement against the Packers right now. He believes it's the Oline and I completely agree. That is the unit taht will make or break the offense right now.

[retailguy]

Unless I misheard Shannahan I do not think that is completely accurate.

Shannahan stated he wanted one of three DL. When the second one came off the board he knew he had to go up after Green Bay picked. So our guy was one of three he wanted. The other must have went a bit before. I don't think he stated that he liked either one better.

But you are right; I still feel we'd have been much better off with Meachem and a 2nd than the guy we have.

Anyone ever tell you that you are stubborn? How dare you question then King. He knows best, just ask him.

Hell, those kids who booed him have already been stripped of their positions in the kingdom and put on the "blacklist" for tickets...

You have a special fate awaiting you, that signature will be burned into your ass....

[Bretsky]

I just can't wait to see the defense. I'm a defense guy. As I've watched football over the years I've slowly moved toward defense as the #1 priority.

I know you guys wanted a WR but I think Driver and Jennings can do a good job and the #3, 4 and 5 of Krob, Jones and Hollidy/Martin don't bother me at all. Nobody has 5 starters. We have 2 starters and some guys who can play behind them. If a top notch player was there I would have been extatic but as it stands Thompson felt the DT was the most impactfull football player on the board.

DT's can be difference makers. Saving 7 points is just as good as scoring 7.

I think RG has the best arguement against the Packers right now. He believes it's the Oline and I completely agree. That is the unit taht will make or break the offense right now.


The inconsistency of the OL does really hurt. But I have always and still think we need three starting calibur WR's. I don't think they are on the roster.

[run pMc]

Generally, I like Peter King's stuff, but from what I've read his personnel evaluations aren't any better than mine. Plus, he's going purely on drafting for need, which I think will get a team in trouble. Yes, I'm a BPA proponent, but I also think the team needs will shape who you take when the BPA comparisons between 2 or 5 players are essentially even. There were WR's in round 2 available, and no RB's left that were worthy of a 1st round pick, so I'm not too upset about going with D. And if Greg Olson can't block, he would have never seen the field for GB. A TE who can't block at the college level is going to struggle big-time to learn how at the pro level. I do wish that GB would have traded down a few spots to pick up another Day 1 pick...although it sure sounds like DEN would've taken this guy if he was there when they were on the clock.

The only 1st round DL pick on the GB roster is Pickett -- and STL drafted him, so that tells you something about the athleticism on the DL. I don't think DL was a strength, but it wasn't a glaring weakness either. It needed to get stronger. I wanted to see more DB help in the draft -- I'm really disappointed about that -- but if GB can generate a better pass rush with a better DL, then maybe that's not a big deal. The age of our CB's and the depth behind them scares me.

I say give the Harrell kid a chance. He's certainly kept his nose cleaner than Lynch or Meriweather, for example. He's had injuries -- which scares me like hell -- but played thru the torn biceps for the FLA game...I can't imagine how that must've felt. I think the kid will get hurt, but he'll play thru pain and he'll be OK as a sub DL. It's possible he wasn't getting good advice on how to take care of his body, or his injuries were genuinely freak injuries. It's also possible he'll be Joe Johnson post-triceps tear.

Mosst of the sportswriters go on highlights and team needs. Yes, they cover the sport for a living and see and know a lot, but they aren't personnel guys. So I guess I'm not surprised King is puzzled by the pick.

[RashanGary]

We differ a lot but I respect everyones opinoins here.

You two could very well be right. This team could be in trouble. I've had fun stressing my opinion but I'm realizing that nobody knows right now. I could be just as wrong *although I don't see it :)* as you and you could be just as wrong as me. We could all be wrong and we probably will :)

It will be a fun early part to the season. I expect some youth struggles but I also expect a competitive team that shows signs of a young SB competitor. I want a team similar to the Bengals of a couple years ago. A team similar to the Chargers of 2 years ago. A team that makes too many mistakes but where you say "If they could only get it together"

I think teams like that are the teams taht stand the best chance. It's a young mans game. At some point a good promising team rises. I want signs that we're on that path.

[RashanGary]

Nice post run pMc..

I agree with everything from the draft strategy to the CB need.

Also, I'm a BPA guy *obviously* but I think at some point you draw the line. If you have a damn good punter you don't take one even if he's the BPA. If you have a HOF QB and a 1st round guy behind him that you drafted you don't take a QB with a high pick. If you have 4 stud DT's you don't take another. Other than those type of situations I really believe in BPA.

I think later in the draft there are usually a couple guys and you can get away with taking a the BPA that fits yoru need but early in the draft and at some points there is one player better than all the rest. Unless it is an unusual circumstance like Punter or QB or the other examples above, I think you ahve to take that guy you think is going to be the biggest difference maker. YOu can't take a guy that you think is a lesser talent. I just think playmakers are so important that if you think you have one and you don't really believe in the others that you have to take him. One playmaker can be the differecne in a SB or not.

[Sparkey]

I think the BPA and NEED stuff are not being looked at as a joint evaluation.

TT looks at the BPA player available, however we do not know how they grad their draft board. So, we do not know if their BPA is leveraged towards the difference maker or steady productivity guy.

Regardless of how they rank and weight the players, I do believe that if you have, lets say, three players that grade out to the same number, then you take look at which player would best fill a need versus which player would have the biggest impact during a game.

Assuming Harrel is as good as some scouts rave, that means Pickett and Harrel are the starters, with Williams and Cole as subs. At the ends Kampmann and Jenkins with KGB the main pass rush guy.

Too me, that sounds like a great set of DLinemen, that is solid against the run and Harrel and Pickett in the middle means it will damn damned difficult to single out any one play too double team.

[Bretsky]

We differ a lot but I respect everyones opinoins here.

You two could very well be right. This team could be in trouble. I've had fun stressing my opinion but I'm realizing that nobody knows right now. I could be just as wrong *although I don't see it :)* as you and you could be just as wrong as me. We could all be wrong and we probably will :)

It will be a fun early part to the season. I expect some youth struggles but I also expect a competitive team that shows signs of a young SB competitor. I want a team similar to the Bengals of a couple years ago. A team similar to the Chargers of 2 years ago. A team that makes too many mistakes but where you say "If they could only get it together"

I think teams like that are the teams taht stand the best chance. It's a young mans game. At some point a good promising team rises. I want signs that we're on that path.

The whole ride will be interesting; overall our views are not as far away as you might think.

We just have two major differnces

I want to win a lot sooner and am not nearly as patient

You subscribe to the BPA belief; I do not.

I think there are a lot of teams that don't as well.

You can go BPA, or you can go BPA at an area of general need. In that case, if there is nobody of value at a position of general need, you trade down and gather up more picks.

That's what I'd have hoped for GB this past weekend. Trade down, pick up a second, and take the WR about six to eight picks back.

It'll be a fun ride.

B

[b bulldog]

I love defense and all the hard hitting that goes with it. One thing to remember, Williams and Cole are only signed for the 07 seaon, than we will only have Jolley and Pickett under contract at the DT position.

[Partial]

We differ a lot but I respect everyones opinoins here.

You two could very well be right. This team could be in trouble. I've had fun stressing my opinion but I'm realizing that nobody knows right now. I could be just as wrong *although I don't see it :)* as you and you could be just as wrong as me. We could all be wrong and we probably will :)

It will be a fun early part to the season. I expect some youth struggles but I also expect a competitive team that shows signs of a young SB competitor. I want a team similar to the Bengals of a couple years ago. A team similar to the Chargers of 2 years ago. A team that makes too many mistakes but where you say "If they could only get it together"

I think teams like that are the teams taht stand the best chance. It's a young mans game. At some point a good promising team rises. I want signs that we're on that path.

That team was very good with LT. Then they landed a premiere player out of nowhere. Sometimes, you just get lucky. Hopefully we get a little luck as well.

[RashanGary]

I'm not strict BPA either Bretsky. I would have been extremely disappointed in Quinn if we would have picked him. That is one position with a HOFer now and Rodgers behind him taht I wouldn't want to take the risk.

There are other situations where I woudn't want BPA either but I am certainly more on teh BPA side than you. Just not all the way like it might seem.

[Partial]

I love defense and all the hard hitting that goes with it. One thing to remember, Williams and Cole are only signed for the 07 seaon, than we will only have Jolley and Pickett under contract at the DT position.

But do you pay Williams for a three-man rotation? Normally in those situations, you hope to have your third rotation guy on 2nd day rookie contract. Otherwise, it gets to become a costly position to maintain.

Likewise, I think Williams will be gone because he'll have the opportunity to start somewhere. If Harrell turns out to be great, this is a fine move. If he is no better or heaven forbid worse than Corey Williams, than that will seal TT's fate.

[RashanGary]

I'd keep Williams. 3 DT's will all get startes minutes. I think you pay based on impact and if you have 3 guys that are high impact players then you pay them all. We have the money thanks to good decision making. There is no need ot be stingey when you do things the right way. I have no problem with paying for impact like Williams 7 sacks. I have problems paying for below average players or for average plaeyrs that make a shit ton of money.

If you're doing things the right way and you're pressed against the cap, that means you are in the SB or damn near it because you have a shit ton of talent. If that day comes we'll have some tough decisions. As for now, we have to keep all of our impact guys in hopes of some day getting to that problem.

[Scott Campbell]

What ever happened to that old saying - you can never have enough good defensive linemen.

I happen to think we did draft for an area of need.

[RashanGary]

What ever happened to that old saying - you can never have enough good defensive linemen.

I happen to think we did draft for an area of need.

I do too actually. I thought a stud DE or a stud DT would have been the most impactfull player we could have gotten outside of a stud RB or S just because of the holes.

[RashanGary]

RB, S, DE, DT, CB, WR

I would have wanted a S or RB first but any of the other 4 positions would have tied for priority #2.

I think QB was the one position I would not have taken early not matter what pretty much.

LB would have been tough but a special one like Willis; I still would have taken over a guy like Meachem.

[Lurker64]

What ever happened to that old saying - you can never have enough good defensive linemen.

I happen to think we did draft for an area of need.

I agree. I was very uncomfortable with the prospect of going into the season with the guys we have now, minus Allen. I wanted them to pick up somebody for the rotation, they just happened to pick up somebody who has the potential to be very good almost immediately.

DT wasn't a huge, pressing, glaring, gaudy need. But when we moved Jenkins outside, we created a need there. I mean, yes we had some DTs on the roster, but we had a bunch of WRs, a bunch of RBs, and a bunch of Safeties too. Having some guys doesn't mean a position isn't a need.

[Bretsky]

What ever happened to that old saying - you can never have enough good defensive linemen.

I happen to think we did draft for an area of need.

I agree. I was very uncomfortable with the prospect of going into the season with the guys we have now, minus Allen. I wanted them to pick up somebody for the rotation, they just happened to pick up somebody who has the potential to be very good almost immediately.

DT wasn't a huge, pressing, glaring, gaudy need. But when we moved Jenkins outside, we created a need there. I mean, yes we had some DTs on the roster, but we had a bunch of WRs, a bunch of RBs, and a bunch of Safeties too. Having some guys doesn't mean a position isn't a need.

We're doing a wonderful job rationalizing something none of us would have stated a few days ago. That's what we do; we're fans. By the beginning of the season the kool aide will be out and many will be predicting playoffs.

DL a need ? Compared to what ? It was robably the deepest position on the Green Bay Packers going into the draft. No we're not great there..but what other position are we deeper at with talent ?

Can never have too much talent at any position. So I guess that justifies needs at every position.

If you argue DL was a need then we clearly have need upgrades at every position on our team.

Listen, I'll wait and see on the pick.

But DL a need :roll: :roll: :roll:

[Bretsky]

RB, S, DE, DT, CB, WR

I would have wanted a S or RB first but any of the other 4 positions would have tied for priority #2.

I think QB was the one position I would not have taken early not matter what pretty much.

LB would have been tough but a special one like Willis; I still would have taken over a guy like Meachem.


Agree about Willis over Meachem; but part of that is because I'm not fond of Poppinga as a starter and consider Willis to be a better quality player than Meacham or the DL we drafted.

[HarveyWallbangers]

We're doing a wonderful job rationalizing something none of us would have stated a few days ago. That's what we do; we're fans. By the beginning of the season the kool aide will be out and many will be predicting playoffs.

DL a need ? Compared to what ? It was robably the deepest position on the Green Bay Packers going into the draft. No we're not great there..but what other position are we deeper at with talent ?

Actually, don't count me in on this because I've often said we have a solid DL, but could use another stud to turn this into a legit, good defense.

[Bretsky]

We're doing a wonderful job rationalizing something none of us would have stated a few days ago. That's what we do; we're fans. By the beginning of the season the kool aide will be out and many will be predicting playoffs.

DL a need ? Compared to what ? It was robably the deepest position on the Green Bay Packers going into the draft. No we're not great there..but what other position are we deeper at with talent ?

Actually, don't count me in on this because I've often said we have a solid DL, but could use another stud to turn this into a legit, good defense.


I'd completely agree that a stud DL can put this unit over the top, and I'm willing to take a wait and see approach with this pick.

But I'm at a loss for those who try to justify this pick by saying DL was a need; our DL was fine.

Hopefully this guy turns out to be a perrennial all pro and helps improve several players on the line as well

[RashanGary]

I just watched the Okoye vid vs the Harrell vid at yahoo and I'm trying to not be partial here but the Harrell looked much more powerfull and dominate.

Harrell was a giant amongst men and Okoye was just a man amongst men. Also, at 1:15 Harrell was tied up by a lineman and he shed the block perfectly. He just made the OL his bitch. Okoye didn't make any plays that impressed me as much as that.

Also, Harrell has a good instinct for the ball. He acctually gets picks at the line regularly. IF he can do that twice per year in the NFL that in itself could be the difference in those 2 games.

[RashanGary]

I was at JS for a while and I said many tiems that a stud DL would be perfect. I acctually preferred a stud DE but I was almost as warm with DT. I consider it *DL* the rarest and most important cog to a stud defense.

[Partial]

I just watched the Okoye vid vs the Harrell vid at yahoo and I'm trying to not be partial here but the Harrell looked much more powerfull and dominate.

Harrell was a giant amongst men and Okoye was just a man amongst men. Also, at 1:15 Harrell was tied up by a lineman and he shed the block perfectly. He just made the OL his bitch. Okoye didn't make any plays that impressed me as much as that.

Also, Harrell has a good instinct for the ball. He acctually gets picks at the line regularly. IF he can do that twice per year in the NFL that in itself could be the difference in those 2 games.

Okoye is gonna be a DE eventually and will become a very good one. If he was a little taller he'd be a prototype DE.

[Bretsky]

I just watched the Okoye vid vs the Harrell vid at yahoo and I'm trying to not be partial here but the Harrell looked much more powerfull and dominate.

Harrell was a giant amongst men and Okoye was just a man amongst men. Also, at 1:15 Harrell was tied up by a lineman and he shed the block perfectly. He just made the OL his bitch. Okoye didn't make any plays that impressed me as much as that.

Also, Harrell has a good instinct for the ball. He acctually gets picks at the line regularly. IF he can do that twice per year in the NFL that in itself could be the difference in those 2 games.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I read in JS chat that TT had Harrell rated as the top DT. My guess is the Packer beat guy had interviewed TT and/or GB scouts. He also noted TT had very high grades on the two WR's who slipped to round two (Rice/Jarrett)

[Partial]

I just watched the Okoye vid vs the Harrell vid at yahoo and I'm trying to not be partial here but the Harrell looked much more powerfull and dominate.

Harrell was a giant amongst men and Okoye was just a man amongst men. Also, at 1:15 Harrell was tied up by a lineman and he shed the block perfectly. He just made the OL his bitch. Okoye didn't make any plays that impressed me as much as that.

Also, Harrell has a good instinct for the ball. He acctually gets picks at the line regularly. IF he can do that twice per year in the NFL that in itself could be the difference in those 2 games.


Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I read in JS chat that TT had Harrell rated as the top DT. My guess is the Packer beat guy had interviewed TT and/or GB scouts. He also noted TT had very high grades on the two WR's who slipped to round two (Rice/Jarrett)

We're both bitter about that. What I like about this guy is that he is very good at getting off Blocks, where is Pickett is quite good at anchoring and taking on two guys. Hopefully, This guy lies somewhere in between the ultimate Tenn. Linemen known and John Henderson, one of the more recent, great linemen from Tenn.

[RashanGary]

Thanks for the info on Hall. I respect your opinion alot on Mich guys. I don't know though bull. Harris is slower than Hall and he's had a nice career. I think that speed thing can sometimes be overrated itself.

Lynch has size, speed, quickness, power...I like him alot. He reminds me a little of Ahman Green.

Glenn Dorsey is my first pick though. I like Dorsey more than any of them. I like Dorsey more than Branch but I havn't seen enough of either to be considered an expert.

I said this on the 31st of DEC. This was when I thought Dorsey was in the draft fold. He's a DT by the way. I was phyched about the oppertunity to add a stud DT. I don't expect anyone to waste their time checking up but if you do, here is the link :)


http://www2.jsonline.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=41523&num=20&CatID=7&sessionID={DA890442-5E6D-4466-BA94-852774B9BDCF}&pageNo=1

[Partial]

Dorsey is gonna be a stud. Woulda been top 5.

[RashanGary]

Last man to wear No. 92, Reggie White's jersey. "That was for a reason," Angelo said. "Very talented guy. In the end, he could be the best DT."

Bears GM Angelo said that.

Because of the injury, he was off of my radar but I was always in favor of adding a stud to the DL. I wanted Glenn Dorsey but after seeing this guy, I'm kind of excited about him.

[NewsBruin]

Harrell looked much more powerfull and dominate.

It's a silly thing, but he looked more "dominant.' I've only seen that typo here on this board.

Also, Okoye is only 19, and may have to be "redshirted" to prep for the NFL. All that said, I like our new DT just fine.

[the_idle_threat]

I agree with Scott, Lurker, etc. that there was a need at Defensive Tackle. I would add that the need was at least as much as the need at Wide Receiver. Yes, I know ... but hear me out.

We have Pickett---who is solid but not a star---and then a bunch of former late round picks/undrafted free agents who put in great effort but leave us vulnerable against the run. The position is deep but not very talented.

Compare that to Wide Receiver, where we have a Pro Bowl veteran in Driver, one of the top receivers from last year's draft in Jennings, and a bunch of former late round picks/ undrafted free agents who put in great effort but don't get it done in the red zone. (I don't count Fergie or KoRo, because I don't think either will contribute much, if anything, in 2007.)

I agree that there is a need at receiver, because you really need 3 or even 4 who can contribute. But #1 and #2 are set with Driver and Jennings. Perhaps Jennings is no sure thing yet, but then do you honestly think any rookie receiver outside of CJ was going to come in and give us more right away in 2007? More than Jennings, who has a year of experience under his belt? Very doubtful. So we need a draft pick---or more likely one of those young guys already on the roster---to develop enough to contribute as a #3 receiver. I don't see that as a tall order at all.

At Defensive Tackle, you need 3 or 4 who can contribute in the rotation. Pickett is a good starter, but not a star. Williams contributes pash rush on third down, but he can't stop the run. Everyone else is just a guy. (I don't count Cullen Jenkins, because he will play Defensive End.) There was huge hole there. If Harrell is indeed a "top ten talent," he could fill that hole, and as a Defensive Tackle he shouldn't need a year or two of seasoning to be ready to contribute to the rotation.

Filling the talent hole in the middle of the defensive line could go a long way towards keeping blockers off of Hawk and Barnett, allowing them to flourish. If that happens, we could be looking at a dominant defense. How does a dominant defense NOT help Favre right away---far more than a rookie receiver who will probably not contribute much until 2008 or 2009?

[Bretsky]

I agree with Scott, Lurker, etc. that there was a need at Defensive Tackle. I would add that the need was at least as much as the need at Wide Receiver. Yes, I know ... but hear me out.

We have Pickett---who is solid but not a star---and then a bunch of former late round picks/undrafted free agents who put in great effort but leave us vulnerable against the run. The position is deep but not very talented.

Compare that to Wide Receiver, where we have a Pro Bowl veteran in Driver, one of the top receivers from last year's draft in Jennings, and a bunch of former late round picks/ undrafted free agents who put in great effort but don't get it done in the red zone. (I don't count Fergie or KoRo, because I don't think either will contribute much, if anything, in 2007.)

I agree that there is a need at receiver, because you really need 3 or even 4 who can contribute. But #1 and #2 are set with Driver and Jennings. Perhaps Jennings is no sure thing yet, but then do you honestly think any rookie receiver outside of CJ was going to come in and give us more right away in 2007? More than Jennings, who has a year of experience under his belt? Very doubtful. So we need a draft pick---or more likely one of those young guys already on the roster---to develop enough to contribute as a #3 receiver. I don't see that as a tall order at all.

At Defensive Tackle, you need 3 or 4 who can contribute in the rotation. Pickett is a good starter, but not a star. Williams contributes pash rush on third down, but he can't stop the run. Everyone else is just a guy. (I don't count Cullen Jenkins, because he will play Defensive End.) There was huge hole there. If Harrell is indeed a "top ten talent," he could fill that hole, and as a Defensive Tackle he shouldn't need a year or two of seasoning to be ready to contribute to the rotation.

Filling the talent hole in the middle of the defensive line could go a long way towards keeping blockers off of Hawk and Barnett, allowing them to flourish. If that happens, we could be looking at a dominant defense. How does a dominant defense NOT help Favre right away---far more than a rookie receiver who will probably not contribute much until 2008 or 2009?

Jenkins moves in to DT on some pass downs; Pickett and Williams are solid. Allen, when healthy, is not bad at all and wanted to come back. The other tackles in the DL rotation show just as much promise as the rest of the WR's on our roster. Many in here were high on Jolly, who was hurt much of last year. Montgomery and Cole are probably bodies, but just as good as our WR leftovers in comparison after our top two.

Argue need or no need, but DL was the deepest position on this team. That IMO is tough to argue.

[the_idle_threat]

It may be tough, but I'm arguing ... because all that depth we're so enamored with at DT is---after Pickett---a bunch of one-dimensional guys who were drafted low and don't have good talent.

I don't agree that Williams is solid ... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. He's a good pass rusher but is marginal at best against the run. Same can be said of Jenkins when he plays as at tackle. Allen is not even under contract, and when he was, he showed nothing except that he knows where the training room is.

My point is that if we're gonna call a position "deep" with this low level of talent, then why don't we consider the WR position "deep"? There are tons of guys on the roster who were drafted late or not at all, but have promise.

WR is every bit as deep as DT, if not more so because KoRo is a wildcard.

The idea that DT is the deepest position on the team is simply ludicrous: what about quarterback, or linebacker or offensive line?

[BooHoo]

It could be argued that we do not have any "deep" positions on the team. That is why our record is as it is over the past two years.

Another arguement could be made that very few teams have multiple "deep" positions (FA/salary cap issues, etc.).

[the_idle_threat]

Bretsky, I have taken a step back, and I realize I have assumed "the tone" that indicates I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. That's not cool on my part. Sorry about that. :huh:

All I'm really saying is that either the defensive tackles on the roster seem to be overrated by many on this board or the wide receivers are underrated. We have a lot of bodies at both positions, but bodies don't equal good depth if the quality drops off after the first or second guy.

IMO. :wink:

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree with that assessment, idle.

I think your point is valid. Bottom line: if Harrell is a stud, it will help the team as much as if Meachem would have helped the team if he turned out to be a stud.

[swede]

I agreed with Idle also.

Should Harrell prove to be a disruptive DL the impact will be quite positive on the defense. D backs need to do their jobs for 4 seconds instead of six. Linebackers can play a little more aggressively. Defensive ends can sack QBs trying to escape from interior pressure of a collapsing pocket.

[4and12to12and4]

I just can't wait to see the defense. I'm a defense guy. As I've watched football over the years I've slowly moved toward defense as the #1 priority.

I know you guys wanted a WR but I think Driver and Jennings can do a good job and the #3, 4 and 5 of Krob, Jones and Hollidy/Martin don't bother me at all. Nobody has 5 starters. We have 2 starters and some guys who can play behind them. If a top notch player was there I would have been extatic but as it stands Thompson felt the DT was the most impactfull football player on the board.

DT's can be difference makers. Saving 7 points is just as good as scoring 7.

I think RG has the best arguement against the Packers right now. He believes it's the Oline and I completely agree. That is the unit taht will make or break the offense right now.

Other than the word "impactfull" :?: I agree completely. I still have the final game of the season TVO'd and have watched it at least ten times, and cannot get away from realizing that we DO have good talent at wide receiver, AS LONG AS BRETT HAS TIME TO THROW TO THEM. Holiday looked like a probowl receiver in that game and ended up with over 100 yards gained. By the way, for those who haven't rewatched the game and have short memorys, he made a Javon Walker-like catch coming back for a ball thrown five yards too short and caught it over the top of great coverage. Yes, it was one game, but the young guys didn't have a consistant chance to prove themselves last year. How many balls went their way that they simply dropped last year? I would wager that Jennings had more drops than anyone. He isn't considered a bust. The receiver lsft on the board at 16 WERE NO BETTER than these young guys that we don't have to pay millions of dollars a year to at this point.

My point is that GJ is right. We need a TO or Moss less than most here think. A probowl receiver isn't the last piece of the puzzle for us. When the Cowboys were great, yes, they had Irvin, but the biggest reason they won was that Aikman had all f'n day to throw the ball, and Emmitt had meteoric-sized holes to run through. Yes, they had playmakers, but playmakers don't do shit without o-lines and d-lines making them look good.
Our playmakers on defense in that final game got five interceptions, most if not all of them were because of d-line pressuring Grossman and Griese into bad throws.
Look at Edgerrin James. He was NOBODY last year, because of the line he had to work with, whether or not he has to learn their tendencies, or they simply suck, or a little of both. Yet, both Rhodes and the rookie for Indy stepped in and were successful. Why? Are the colts just lucky or good at drafting backs? No. The line is good and of course having payton back there will always make it easier on the running attack in Indy.

This is now an official rant, but I hold to the belief that you can't have enough good lineman on both sides of the ball. To be honest, I'm suprised we didn't pick up two o-lineman in the draft, we still desperately need DEPTH there, even if EVERY pick that played last year pans out and continues improvement. Give Brett time to throw and the backs holes to run through and we will have stars on our offense this year. Just like when our defense changed when we sat KGB on 1st and 2nd down near the end of the season and it completely changed our defense, allowing our playmakers on D to make plays.

I have no problem (yet) with the Harrell pick, if he ends up being even as good as Corey and co.. These big guys need breathers throughout the game and real good defenses have GOOD backups to rotate in and out so that there are fresh legs out there in the fourth quarter, when most games are decided.

Our offense will be above average if Brett plays as well as last year, and the o-line continues improvement. The more defensive studs you have the better.

If the Bears would've had Brett last year, they would have won the SB because of their defense, and Brett would've taken the opportunities the DEFENSE gave him and scored. That's how you win in this league.

[3irty1]

If we were going to draft a receiver in the first round it would have been Lynch. But da Bills crapped in our coffee so I'm happy with our pick. We don't need WR's that bad. They are a nice luxury but I'm not entirely ready to give up on good ol Bubba or even Ferggy. I think this year is a good opportunity for our guys to step up and show off a little or at least earn Brett's trust again. It doesn't bother me that pretty much the same guys from last year dropped the most passes in the league. We threw a TON of balls.

I think we'll have a better running game this year but not because of our new RB's. Let's not kid ourselves that our pile of RB's can be as good as Ahman Green. He might be old and full of asthma but he still could pinch off some huge runs and fall forward through traffic for 1st downs. He was the man. Our running game this year will have to come from our zone blocking OL who have one more year under their belt. Remember that we were the youngest team in the NFL last year. They're better and will continue to get better this season.

[MJZiggy]

Nice first post 3irty1. Welcome to the forum. I agree with you that it's not a WR crisis at this point. Some of these guys have barely had a shot at showing what they can do.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Welcome! I think some say/think/feel we have shitty receivers to explain why Favre isn't an MVP anymore. Sure, our TEs sucked, but our WRs weren't horrible and our RBs weren't horrible catching either. Some of Favre's struggles are just from the fact he has gotten older and just isn't as good as he used to be. I do think the fact we had to max protect hurt his stats, certainly the TEs after Martin was injured didn't help, and even the WR depth hurt after Jennings got hurt. However, there's some talent there. It would be nice to have a field stretching WR (maybe that is Clowner), but it's far from the worst group in the league. I think they will surprise. I think the RBs can catch the ball good enough. I think it will help that the OL should be better. If Jones and Clowney are good enough to make the team, they should have more depth than last year. If Jennings stays healthy and one of the backups really emerges, then we have the chance to have a good WR corps.

[Bretsky]

Bretsky, I have taken a step back, and I realize I have assumed "the tone" that indicates I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. That's not cool on my part. Sorry about that. :huh:

All I'm really saying is that either the defensive tackles on the roster seem to be overrated by many on this board or the wide receivers are underrated. We have a lot of bodies at both positions, but bodies don't equal good depth if the quality drops off after the first or second guy.

IMO. :wink:

Don't worry about it; people often argue for the sake of arguing :lol:

We do agree to disagree on Corey Williams; I see him as a average starting DT, and one who could develop to be better than that. I think he'll get a solid deal from somebody when he becomes unrestricted.

Cheers,
B