Packers in good spot

[Lurker64]

I would personally be happy with the Packers trading down to 17, and picking up a 2nd round pick if they end up drafting a top DT (like Raji) at 17. As I see it, if Thompson decides he doesn't want a Tackle, Orakpo remains somewhat questionable, and Mays and Curry are both unavailable for whatever reason, trading down at #9 wouldn't really be a bad call.

But it's really, really early to start speculating on this. But considering the last twenty #9 picks were: Keith Rivers, Ted Ginn, Jr., Ernie Sims, Carlos Rogers, Reggie Williams, Kevin Williams, John Henderson, Koren Robinson, Brian Urlacher, Chris Claiborne, Fred Taylor, Tommy Knight, Rickey Dudley, Kyle Brady, Antonio Langham, Lincoln Kennedy, Tommy Vardell, Stanley Richard, Richmond Webb, Sammie Smith, and Terry McDaniel; we're not necessarily guaranteed with any high probability of landing an immediate contributor that will grow into a household name. The best names on that list are probably Kevin Williams, John Henderson, Urlacher, Fred Taylor, Lincoln Kennedy, and Richmond Webb and most of the rest are either forgettable or it's too early to tell.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

[chain_gang]

I'm not sure there are any impact DEs available at #9. They all look to be guys that need to grow into becoming good players. I want a stud at #9--whether that's at LB, S, or OT.

I don't see a true impact DE in a 4-3 scheme, but there are a few that could be monster pass rushes in the hybrid mold. That said DE seems to be a huge risk in the first round, a lot of them don't pan out, and the ones that do usually go in the top 3-4 picks. I think the best chance at an impact player are at the positions you listed, LB, S, OT.

As for trading down in the first round, I don't think this is the year to do it. We need an impact, and while your not guaranteed an impact player at the #9 spot, I like the odds a lot better than trading back into the mid 20s, even with 2 selections. Now if we were picking late in the first round I'd be all for trading back but that's a whole different scenario. This team needs to get a gamechanger or 2, not a bunch of depth, that's supposedly what Thompson already took care of, the depth on the Packers roster I mean.

[Partial]

That DE from Georgia sounds like your prototypical 3-4 PR.

[Bossman641]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

He could, but boy that seems like a ton of money tied up in LB's.

I don't know the specifics of their deals but between new(er) deals for Barnett-Poppinga-Chillar along with Hawk's rookie deal it seems like a lot. You throw a deal on there for Maluaga and that is a pretty good chunk of change in the LB's. I'd be fine with Rey only if we switch to the 3-4, otherwise I pass.

[Gunakor]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

[cheesner]

if Sanchez from USC comes out to the NFL draft the packers could be sitting nice at #9. SF is right behind them at #10 and there might be a couple teams (MN,CHI,MIA,NYJ) might be looking to trade in front of SF to snag Sanchez who would be projected #1 the following season.... Your thoughts?

For Sanchez? I am not sure he is going to garner any attention in the top 10. On GBN he is listed as #70 on the top 100 players.

Walter football has him ranked as 2-3 round material.

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2009QB.php

Is anyone ranking him as a top 10 pick?

[HarveyWallbangers]

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

What if the USC LB is another Ray Lewis and is considerably better than Chillar?

[Gunakor]

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

What if the USC LB is another Ray Lewis and is considerably better than Chillar?

Maybe, but he could be another whatshisname that Cincinatti drafted a while back (the one Bretsky was raving over). That's beside the point anyhow. It's another "don't fix what ain't broken" scenario. There's nothing wrong with our LB's. I like the guys we have.

Besides that, even if this kid is a Ray Lewis type, he won't be Ray Lewis experienced in his rookie year. He won't even be Nick Barnett experienced, which is the point I'm getting at. It's not what Barnett does personally from the MLB spot, it's what he does for the defense as a whole from the MLB spot. What I'm getting at isn't going to show up in a stat line, it's gonna show up in the W-L column. The points given up column. The # of 20+ yard plays given up column. There is no better example of what I'm talking about than the last 6 weeks of the 2008 season. I don't think a rookie would be able to fill that void better than Hawk did, and Hawk didn't do so hot himself. I want Barnett in the middle.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So, what you are basically saying is he wouldn't fill a need?

I don't believe you necessarily draft for need at the #9 pick. Sure, they probably won't take another QB or WR because they are set there, but I think all bets are off at any other position. I wouldn't say we are set at LB.

[Gunakor]

So, what you are basically saying is he wouldn't fill a need?

I don't believe you necessarily draft for need at the #9 pick. Sure, they probably won't take another QB or WR because they are set there, but I think all bets are off at any other position. I wouldn't say we are set at LB.

Yes and no. What I'm really saying is that I want Barnett to be our starting MLB next year. After that, yes, I am suggesting that we don't need another LB. But especially not one to replace Barnett at MLB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Barnett is versatile enough to play another LB spot. I'm not married to the idea of Barnett as the MLB. We also don't know how healthy he'll be next year. We also don't know what type of scheme we'll run. Barnett's size and speed matched up well with the Bates scheme for a MLB. Maybe not our new scheme.

[Lurker64]

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

The problem is not that Maualuga isn't a good player and Barnett can't play outside, like he played in college. The problem is that there are likely to be two linebackers in the draft who are both better than Maualuga (in the opinions of many people, including my own) and who fit the LB needs for the Packers more than Rey does. Aaron Curry is likely the best defensive player in the draft and is a natural Strong Side backer (but could play inside as well). Brandon Spikes is an absolute terror on the field, and can play both inside and out.

In my personal opinion, I'd rather take Curry and Spikes before Maualuga, and the prospect of taking the third LB on the board at #9 overall doesn't really appeal to me. Though, the new DC (whoever that is) will probably have a bit to say about which players best fit his planned scheme. Plus, LB isn't as much of a need for Green Bay as say four other positions on defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Curry will likely be gone. I know nothing about Spikes. Every time I see the USC LB, he looks like a beast.

[Lurker64]

Curry will likely be gone. I know nothing about Spikes. Every time I see the USC LB, he looks like a beast.

Hard to say at this point. He doesn't play a glamorous position, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Crabtree, Stafford, Jenkins, Smith, Bradford, Orakpo, and Oher go before Curry just because Sam backer isn't a particularly attractive posiiton. So Curry could easily be there at 8 and Jacksonville needs an OT much more than they need at linebackers.

But, it's January, and all of this is going to change. Invariably somebody who's currently viewed as a late teens early 20s pick is going to have a crazy combine and vault himself up to be drafted by the Raiders.

I suggest watching for Spikes during the BCS game on Thursday. IMO, he's more of a terror than Maualuga is.