Time for TT to hit a blue chipper

[RashanGary]

Partial, we had the #5 pick in what TT has called a very good draft (talent wise).

We didn't end up with a playmaker with that pick and all LB's coming out are still measured against Hawk and none have been considered as high of a prospect as he was 3 years ago. As high as he was thought of, he still is not a stud.


I do think Mendenhall is a stud but I'm not going to go off of my hunch. If TT traded up for Mendenhall (NOT STUART), I'd be excited as hell because I believe he's a stud, maybe the best player in this draft. It's hard to move up like that though. I think he's going to go top 7 or 8. The guy is faster than a speeding bullet and more powerfull than a locomotive. On top of that, he has an extra shake and abilty to make guys miss that Stuart doesn't have. I love him. I'd love to have him on the team but I don't think I know enough to say "this should happen or that should happen". NFL GM's are wrong all of the time on top picks. I'd be a real idiot if I thought I was right with any level of certainty.

We'll see how it goes. I do know that moving up doesn't guarantee anything. It works out sometimes. More often than not, it seems like the team trading back wins.

[Lurker64]

There is not a single doubt in my head that if we had done what I wanted and traded up for Peterson instead of having Harrell and Jackson on the bench, that we would have won the super bowl.

We wouldn't have been able to get Peterson by trading our 1st and 2nd round picks last year. To get Peterson we would have had to trade up to 5 or 6 (5 is more likely, as Levi Brown was a need pick and likely could have been had later.) The #5 pick is worth 1700 points, the #16 pick is worth 1000 points, our original second rounder (we traded down later) was worth 420 points. Thus what you're offering is 280 points under what it would have took, and no team is EVER going to accept a trade out of the top 10 that where they're giving up value approximately equal to a late second early third round pick. That would be sheer stupidity.

To get Peterson, just going by the value chart, we would have needed to trade our first (Harrell), our original second (which was traded to the Jets for picks that became Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Korey Hall), our our original third (James Jones), and our original fourth (traded to Pittsburgh for picks that became Allen Barbre and Desmond Bishop.)

In retrospect, maybe you consider trading Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, James Jones, Korey Hall, and Desmond Bishop for Peterson. But on draft day when we're looking at a Packers squad with a (at the time) questionable offense and numerous needs on both sides of the ball, particularly given AP's injury history? Morever, considering that Green Bay was still considering trading one of those picks for Moss at the time, is it worth it when you think you might be losing Moss to get Peterson? Also consider that all of those players have only played one year and the book on their careers is not yet written. Peterson could have a career ending injury next year, while Harrell, Jones, Rouse, and Barbre could become all pros and play for this team for a decade. Neither you nor I know the future. NFL executives know that they don't know the future, and don't do things like their first four draft picks for a player because they know that everybody you draft is just as easily a bust as a hall of famer. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't play well in his first year, you lose your job. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't ever light the league on fire, you never get hired by an NFL team again.

But yes, if you're allowed to make unrealistic trades, we could have done things that would have all but guaranteed us winning the superbowl.

[twoseven]

I agree with Partial in the sense that we don't have a long list of chumps that we can cut if we find 8 players in this year's draft that stick. Just like a busy nightclub, one in-one out. Accumulating or hording as many picks as possible does little good when you are cutting a bunch of guys in August that were those picks, or those picks a year earlier. In this instance it does make sense to focus on quality. The last two years when we had several holes to fill the quantity idea worked well. We no longer have several holes to fill. If someone can list 8-10 completely worthless players from our current roster I'll buy into the mass accumulation of draftees again this year. But if those 8-10 are 2nd-3rd year guys that are just waiting to blossom (like Harrel or Bjack are still developing, right?), it seems foolish to cut them so early just to replace them with younger versions of themselves.

However, I also agree with others regarding the risk you take when you package 3 or more good picks to take a chance on one player. Unfortuantely we are sitting so low in the rounds we have to surrender a lot to move up. Ideally a guy like Stewart slides to 20 and we can trade our 30 and ONE of our seconds to move high enough. That probably won't happen, I cannot see trading both seconds with the first to get even higher, too risky. But to move up and get Stewart and still have our original second round pick would seem brilliant to me.

[Partial]

I see your point, Partial. It's one of the easiest things to do is go down each playoff team and say "hey, they're close. If they just do this they're over the top".


There is more to finding great players than just willing it to happen. If teams could just will great players onto their roster, every team would be doing it. It's tough work. You have to do your work, make good picks and if you're good enough you're going to get some playmakers like Osi and Tuck. There are other ways to do it as well. The Grant trade was fantastic. I just think you're assuming it's just a matter of going out and doing it when it's not that easy. Mike Reinfeldt had a comment recently saying you can't just go out and get better quickly any more. You have to do your homework, hit on yoru picks and keep your own. He said the beginning of UFA was different. I think that's why McGinn, Cristl and many here have a hard time seeing the change. It's not just going to happen in a big furry of moves anymore. It's going to happen over time if a GM makes enough good decisions in a row. That's a reoccuring theme around the NFL now if you listen. Cristl and McGinn saw the biggest UFA signing ever and they think that's how it's done. They talk to Wolf (a guy who's out of the circle) and he still thinks that's how it's done. If you look around, that's the exception now. In fact, a move like that was one of a kind. It's never happened before and never happened since.

No, I think you're not understanding what I want to do.

I want to trade up and get a premiere prospect. If they do a good job of scouting like they have done thus far, they could end up with a truly great player to put us over the top.

Were Osi and Tuck great players right away? No.

No one is suggesting signing a bunch of overpriced free agents. Or even selling the farm. It's saying their would be a benefit of picking a premiere player instead of 3 developmental players who in all likelyhood won't put us over the top this year.

The Grant trade was good but going into a season assuming you can win in the playoffs with Grant again is a mistake. They need to either improve the line or improve the back. History has shown its much harder to draft a stud linemen to step in and be a difference maker right away (Wahle, Rivera, Colledge, Spitz, etc). I am not interested in getting close and failing every year. Philadelphia did it annually it seemed but atleast they got TO and took a shot at it.

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

[RashanGary]

Right, this is just getting ridiculous. Sitting here in hindsight, we can all say we have the answers. There is some law of evidence in the court of common sense that says you can't use hindsight or unproven forsight as the basis of your arguement.


Here's what we do.

Glenn Dorsey is going somewhere in the top 5. We will have to give up two firsts, our two seconds, and probably a third to move up. We'll compare in 3 or 4 years how Dorsey did to these guys. We'll all be browsing around here for eternity so we'll have a chance to settle this.


Then Stuart is probably going top 15. We'll have to give up our first, one second and a third to move into that area. We can compare our first, the first 2nd and our third (whatever we get) to stuart. I'll bet Partial is wrong in both cases.


I've seen both of these guys play. They're both good. They're worthy of high picks but bluechippers are very rare. One or two come out of every draft. This thing won't be settled right now, but I will book mark this and I will bring it up when there is enough evidence to decide one way or the other. Problem is, people will whine and complain that we're fisting Partial in an unfair manner, but listen to Partial toss insults and claim he has answers with no evidence. The only way to solve it is when the evidence is in.

[Partial]

There is not a single doubt in my head that if we had done what I wanted and traded up for Peterson instead of having Harrell and Jackson on the bench, that we would have won the super bowl.

We wouldn't have been able to get Peterson by trading our 1st and 2nd round picks last year. To get Peterson we would have had to trade up to 5 or 6 (5 is more likely, as Levi Brown was a need pick and likely could have been had later.) The #5 pick is worth 1700 points, the #16 pick is worth 1000 points, our original second rounder (we traded down later) was worth 420 points. Thus what you're offering is 280 points under what it would have took, and no team is EVER going to accept a trade out of the top 10 that where they're giving up value approximately equal to a late second early third round pick. That would be sheer stupidity.

To get Peterson, just going by the value chart, we would have needed to trade our first (Harrell), our original second (which was traded to the Jets for picks that became Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, and Korey Hall), our our original third (James Jones), and our original fourth (traded to Pittsburgh for picks that became Allen Barbre and Desmond Bishop.)

In retrospect, maybe you consider trading Justin Harrell, Brandon Jackson, Aaron Rouse, James Jones, Korey Hall, and Desmond Bishop for Peterson. But on draft day when we're looking at a Packers squad with a (at the time) questionable offense and numerous needs on both sides of the ball, particularly given AP's injury history? Morever, considering that Green Bay was still considering trading one of those picks for Moss at the time, is it worth it when you think you might be losing Moss to get Peterson? Also consider that all of those players have only played one year and the book on their careers is not yet written. Peterson could have a career ending injury next year, while Harrell, Jones, Rouse, and Barbre could become all pros and play for this team for a decade. Neither you nor I know the future. NFL executives know that they don't know the future, and don't do things like their first four draft picks for a player because they know that everybody you draft is just as easily a bust as a hall of famer. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't play well in his first year, you lose your job. If you trade your first four draft picks for a guy and he doesn't ever light the league on fire, you never get hired by an NFL team again.

But yes, if you're allowed to make unrealistic trades, we could have done things that would have all but guaranteed us winning the superbowl.

And thats all good and nice, but now we have a very good foundation in place, and by adding another solid player to the mix isn't going to put us over the top. We need a STUD.

[Partial]

Right, this is just getting ridiculous. Sitting here in hindsight, we can all say we have the answers. There is some law of evidence in the court of common sense that says you can't use hindsight as the basis of your arguement.


Here's what we do.

Glenn Dorsey is going somewhere in the top 5. We will have to give up two firsts, our two seconds, and probably a third to move up. We'll compare in 3 or 4 years how Dorsey did to these guys. We'll all be browsing around here for eternity so we'll have a chance to settle this.


Then Stuart is probably going top 15. We'll have to give up our first, one second and a third to move into that area. We can compare our first, the first 2nd and our third (whatever we get) to stuart. I'll bet Partial is wrong in both cases.


I've seen both of these guys play. They're both good. They're worthy of high picks but bluechippers are very rare. One or two come out of every draft. This thing won't be settled right now, but I will book mark this and I will bring it up when there is enough evidence to decide one way or the other. Problem is, people will whine and complain that we're fisting Partial in an unfair manner, but listen to Partial toss insults and claim he has answers with no evidence. The only way to solve it is when the evidence is in.

If we win a super bowl this year, than none of this matters. That is the point. Do you want to sit at the top and never win one as long as Favre is there, than drop back down to 9-7 or 10-6 annually? I sure don't. We're close, so why not take a risk and move up and get there.

People criticize Jerry Jones for wanting McFadden but if he sells the farm for a super bowl or two, I don't think anyone will mind. That team is ready to win the big one, and their management has the stones to go out and get better at any price despite already nearly being the best.

This off-season is different than last off-season as no one thought we'd be that close. Now that we know we are, we need to keep adding pieces agressively to get over the hump before the window closes.

[RashanGary]

Parial, It's not a matter of sitting around doing nothing or making it happen like your moronically seem to think.

You gave a couple players that were studs. You claim TT should go up and get them. We have them in writing and in a couple years we'll find out if you were right.

As for now, you're claiming you have answers and solutions before the results are in.

We could sit back, review each draft and crucify 31 teams for not taking the three or four bluechippers in that draft. Of course it's complete hindsight and impossible to predict with any level of certainty when in a position of only having forsight. But that's what you're doing and it's a big empty arguement that reads more like a fairytale than reasonable discussion.

I'm done iwth this for now. When the evidence is in, we'll talk.

[Partial]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

[KYPack]

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

That's what the losers do, Partial. Trade a first day pick for a guy on his last legs?

Lombardi used to do shit like that to teams like the Steelers (when they sucked.)

Taylor is not worth a 2. If you piss second round picks away for old guys, you won't improve your team in the long run.

[RashanGary]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

Yeah, what you want to do is wait two years, name the top picks that did turn out to be studs and then claim TT didn't have the balls to go up and get them. You don't want to deal in the reality that finding them is very hard and moving up requires an incredible amount of risk and that it will probably fail. You've given your two examples that aren't using hindsight. AFter the results are in maybe this will be a lesson to you that it's not as easy as you think. You're a young kid. I was a dumb ass one day thinking neon Hawkins was a stud because he could run faster and explode harder than the other guys. I lived and learned. Hopefully you'll do the same.

[Lurker64]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

The only players worth selling the farm to get are the players who professional NFL scouts and talent evaluators consider to be excellent values and excellent players at the cost it takes to get them.

Since nobody here is a scout, this is all completely irrelevant. None of us get paid to evaluate talent, and none of us watch all that much tape on 99% of all of the college players out there.

[Partial]

If we had a chance at Jason Taylor for a 2nd, I would do that in an instant. Even if it is only for two years. He could bring us a super bowl.

That's what the losers do, Partial. Trade a first day pick for a guy on his last legs?

Lombardi used to do shit like that to teams like the Steelers (when they sucked.)

Taylor is not worth a 2. If you piss second round picks away for old guys, you won't improve your team in the long run.

I'm thinking short term. Super bowl or bust this year. When Favre is gone this team is not going to be in super bowl contention imo.

[Partial]

Well no shit. I am merely giving an example of two players that we should sell the farm to get that I am convinced will be excellent values and excellent players even at the cost we give up to get them. Use that melon for a change.

The only players worth selling the farm to get are the players who professional NFL scouts and talent evaluators consider to be excellent values and excellent players at the cost it takes to get them.

Since nobody here is a scout, this is all completely irrelevant. None of us get paid to evaluate talent, and none of us watch all that much tape on 99% of all of the college players out there.

I don't care who he goes up and gets, I gave two examples of guys I think are great. If there is a guy that can get a super bowl, I say trade up and get him at any cost.

[Bretsky]

Ignore the fact that we have holes at other posititions, that we have a 1,000 yard back and we spent a 2nd on a RB last year.

Screw that. I want to go after whoever the hell Mel Kiper thinks is going to be a great player.

We don't have a thousand yard back. Playoffs don't count. Grant is solid but he is not a stud. Stewart is Ahman Green version 2. We would have won the super bowl with him!! Dorsey is a stud. Could be a Tommy Harris from inside or a Reggie White off of the edge. He's that good.

Hey, Partial, was Brandon Jacobs a stud? Was Eli a stud? Was Derrick Ward a stud? Was David Tyree a stud?

You don't need studs to win a SB, just ask the Cowboys. We would of win the SB with Stewart? Please, P, don't kid yourself. We could of had Walter Payton in our backfield against the Giants and it wouldn't of mattered. The coaches weren't giving Grant the ball, that's not his fault. If you want to call a guy that basically racked up 1,000 yards in half a season and then went on to rush for 200 yards and 3 TDs in a freakin' blizzard "solid" then you must have pretty high standards. Grant is not a stud, but he's a goddamn good back and he deserves something a bit higher than "solid."

And, Partial, drafting DL in the top 10 is idiotic. There is nothing more deceptive than a college DL playing in the right system when he's in college. There are a lot more Jamaal Reynolds than there are Julius Peppers.

Gosh right when I was getting bored I missed some actual football talk

Brandon Jacobs is a stud when he was healthy; take Jacobs numbers and use Ward's when he missed games and the Giants had a RB stud
So it Michael Strahan and the other DE.
The Giants had at least three playmakers last year