This is why it chaps my a$$ with all of the Packer trade

[Zool]

Being a veteran team does not mean you're deep. This doesn't make any sense.

Er, what's a "veteran team" ?

A veteran team is a team that has had a lot of experience (particularly "playing together" and "in tight games").

A deep team is a team that has a lot of people with NFL caliber talent at most (if not every) position.

You can be a veteran team that's not deep, or a team that's not a veteran team but is deep. You can be a deep and veteran team, or you can be neither.

Doesnt even need to be a team that plays together. I guess i would call a vet a guy who's been in the league 5+ years. You dont have to be good to be a vet (see Bill Schroeder) just able to hang on.

[deake]

In evaluating the depth level of this team, you have to take into consideration the record of last year's team--13-3 for the regular season. Teams with poor depth rarely reach that level of achievement.

Last year's team was one of the youngest in the NFL. Another year's experience to the young veterans improves the quality of the players, thus increasing the depth level.

Wouldn't a better way to evaluate our depth would be to look at how well we did when someone was hurt. For example the Dallas game, we did okay at qb after an injury but not so good at cb.

[packinpatland]

deake! Is this really you??? How you been?

[Lurker64]

Doesnt even need to be a team that plays together. I guess i would call a vet a guy who's been in the league 5+ years. You dont have to be good to be a vet (see Bill Schroeder) just able to hang on.

Well, I'd say you can be a veteran player by being in the league a while, but you can be a veteran team by either having a lot of those guys, or by having guys who have a lot of experience playing together.

[The Leaper]

Veteran team can kind of mean two different things.

1. A group of very experienced players (5+ years NFL experience) who know and understand their role on the team.

2. A group of players who know and understand both the system and those around them within the system because they have played within it for 3+ years and developed a comfort level with the system, as well as the other players and the coaching staff.

So, you could have a team full of 30 year old FAs and be a veteran club...or you could have a bunch of home grown 26-28 year olds who have played together in the same system for 3+ years and also be a veteran club.

Most people assume option 1...although option 2 typically is one that finds the most success in the league. Clearly, Thompson's teams are rapidly heading toward being the veteran group in option 2. After this year, we will have a large number of players with 2-3 years of experience in our system under McCarthy.

We got to the NFCC game last year a year or two early IMO...mostly because of Brett Favre.

[Chester Marcol]

In evaluating the depth level of this team, you have to take into consideration the record of last year's team--13-3 for the regular season. Teams with poor depth rarely reach that level of achievement.

Last year's team was one of the youngest in the NFL. Another year's experience to the young veterans improves the quality of the players, thus increasing the depth level.

Wouldn't a better way to evaluate our depth would be to look at how well we did when someone was hurt. For example the Dallas game, we did okay at qb after an injury but not so good at cb.

Considering you can only evaluate how good a player is only when he gets on the field, that would seem like a perfect example. Just as important are the times when you can give the starters a rest and the drop off in level of play isn't noticable. The fresher our starters can be in the 4th quarter the better.

[deake]

So along this same line, wouldn't there be different positions and different players that are more crucial in there need for quality backups? With Bret playing qb a backup was't so important, but now with out new guy it would seem that it is. Are there stats that will tell us what the likelyhood of a te being injured versus a lb for example. It seems that tt is counting on a few dl getting injured each year and that seems to hold true. It also seems that since his first year when the whole receiving core went down he is also counting on some injuries there. Is this just a crap shoot or is there some logic here?

[cpk1994]

What Badgers got drafted beyond Hayden and Ikegwuonu? I didn't see much of the draft.

Mehlhaff and Hubbard were aslo drafted.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Every year, somewhere between May and August, great draft picks become dumb rookies.

Nelson will get into the mix, more likely as a returner. As good as he is, he has to learn the ropes.

Brohm has less pressure than if forced to start for a bad team like Atlanta.
He will be learning and improving without mean criticism.

The same with Lee, youngster Finley, and the rest of the draft picks.

The Packers have no need for rookie starters.
They shouldn't let team talent drop by not drafting any rookies until they do need them.

Call them green, raw, or newbies these rookies need time to get ready and at least one off season program in Green Bay. The Packers will find plays, situations, and formations that maximize their skills.

When the time comes they will more ready than rookies.

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

[Lurker64]

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

[sharpe1027]

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Which raises an interesting chicken or the egg dilemma. Do the bad teams pick that way because their team is bad, or are they consistently bad because they pick that way?

Probably a bit of both, but all things considered, you don't find many teams that win games by relying on rookie players to carry most of the load.

I think it is just as likely that a few of the young players/backups who struggled in the past (hopefully at DB and OG) will surprise us and hit their stride this year as it is likely that the rookies will knock our socks off.

[cheesner]

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Which raises an interesting chicken or the egg dilemma. Do the bad teams pick that way because their team is bad, or are they consistently bad because they pick that way?

Probably a bit of both, but all things considered, you don't find many teams that win games by relying on rookie players to carry most of the load.

I think it is just as likely that a few of the young players/backups who struggled in the past (hopefully at DB and OG) will surprise us and hit their stride this year as it is likely that the rookies will knock our socks off.

Personally, I have to believe it is the organization as a whole. Teams like Detroit and Minny can't possibly miss the mark on so many draft picks. It is the combo of getting the right type of player, having the right environment, and providing the right coaching. Any one of those three elements are missing, your team and organization is going to falter.

[Chester Marcol]

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Great post. Even the good players ready to play now can benefit from coming to a good team where they’re not expected start right away. How many decent players get drafted to a crappy team, get thrown into the fire, only to have their confidence shattered.

I would just add that the importance of constantly upgrading the lower half of our roster is often overlooked as a part of the team’s success. Not only the ability to have someone come into a game incase of injury or to give the starters rest without a big drop off in quality of play, but also quite a few special teams players come from the second and third strings. This should also help keep the team stocked with younger players. And what's the downside of having too many quality players at one position? We get more draft picks later to keep the process thriving with more opportunities to find these players.

I like TT’s formula and like I've said before, we will have to get use to some veterans being shown the door, especially if they fall into the Bubba category. We have someone else on roster as good and younger still with upside potential, the veteran becomes over priced for a backup role, and the veteran becomes expendable. The process starts all over again.

[woodbuck27]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Our depth to other teams shouldn't be the comparison The Leaper et all. What we need to see developed after the Pre-Season schedule and final roster cuts is positional depth where we are weaker.

I hope that we'll get just there. We need to see added real talent and depth at the following positions:

CB, RDE,TE,RB, Offensive Guard. FS and SS LBer. Did I miss any positions? I assesed more than a few here. We virtually are inexperience @ QB and all that leaves TT and MM and the Packers and the teams fans with a boatload of questions.

It's really not enough to be layed back and look at 2008 as primarily an assessment season. One to carefully appraise talent and cut the deadwood. We have to compete with pride and win or be in a lot of games.

I agreed with TT trading down fr. #30 in Round one. That move to #36 in the second and another 4th round pick made perfect sense and was forecastable. It fits TT's MO.

I cannot agree with TT taking a second WR and QB this past weekend, when we had so much need at other positions on OUR team. I haven't had time to see how his draft was graded by those in the know comparitively. That will mean little to many here. Those staunch and totally loyal TT supporters though I applaud you. I'm still not convinced.

I really wish to be.

I wanted TT to use this of season to take the heat off MM. To not make OUR season so reliant on MM and our teams coach's and drilling. I'm not seing that to this date. This will be a difficult season I expect and I sincerely hope I'm wrong. A lot of last season was on the capable shoulders of Favre and his Pre- Seaon preperation and workout regieme. His dedication and talent. That's history. The post Brett Favre era upon us.

We'll all feel that.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[Chester Marcol]

I wanted TT to use this of season to take the heat off MM. To not make OUR season so reliant on MM and our teams coach's and drilling. I'm not seing that to this date. This will be a difficult season I expect and I sincerely hope I'm wrong. A lot of last season was on the capable shoulders of Favre and his Pre- Seaon preperation and workout regieme. His dedication and talent. That's history. The post Brett Favre era upon us.

Say what? Makes zero sense. Favre during Sherman's era proves that even good players need coaching.

What are you going to piss and moan about and hang last seasons success on when TT proves that he put together a team that can win with someone other than Favre? To say that more than just a fair share of plays was on the shoulders of Favre is just plane ignorant. Unless I missed Favre playing defense.

It's time to take down your Superman poster and face the fact that Green Bay has a GM that knows how to build a team and not chase pots of gold at the end of rainbows.