It will be a Left Tackle

[wist43]

I'd be okay with Jenkins too... they may have a lot of $$$ tied up in the secondary right now, but Woodson and Harris are declining players, the Packers aren't contenders and likely won't be for a while... so Jenkins is a definite possibility.

[wist43]

With Colledge, Sitton, Spitz, and Barbre, they are pretty solid at OG. If they move guys elsewhere (Colledge to LT/RT, Spitz to C, Sitton/Barbre to RT) they could use some more, but if they are adding exterior T's to address the T needs, they are set at G.

All of those guys are wildly inconsistent... you can argue that they are set OG b/c of their youth and potential... but to date, I don't think you can hang you hat on any of those guys.

Colledge has showed flashes of being a decent player, but then goes thru stretches where he is just awful... Of all those guys, I think Sitton might have the best chance.

[Fritz]

Who said anything about a RB at #9? That's pretty close to the last thing we need.

What if you had a guy that you felt very strongly about sitting there - a running back.

Would you pass if you had the next Adrian Peterson?

I wouldn't.

[bobblehead]

They need help everywhere... cept maybe WR.

TT will pick his BPA without regard to position, and without regard to whether the player can help the team now or not.

For those of you expecting an impact player that will come in and contribute right away... you're probably setting yourself up for disappointment.

Doom and Gloom! A big No Way to that!

The Packers are at very least, adequate everywhere and will be cutting quality players at several positions.

Name a position outside QB and WR and CB that we don't need an upgrade oh and K I guess too

I would say a new kicker isn't a bad idea....missing 2 game winners bothers me. I wouldn't mind a young talented CB as well, but a great pass rush makes bad corners look decent, and no pass rush makes Charles woodson look like he can't stop Steve Smith from getting 50 yards deep (not a coverage issue, but pressure would have forced an earlier throw.

With the #9 pick you should be able to upgrade 20 of 22 starters so yes, we could go any direction, but at #9 you have to consider other factors. The difficulty of finding good LT's, Clifton dropping off, and the 3 quality LT's available in this draft lead me to my conclusion

[Lurker64]

ILB? Hawk last year played below average imo. Is it safe to count on him? Is it safe to count on an undersized Barnett coming off an ACL tear to play and be successful inside? Jonathan Vilma, a very similiar player imo, struggled big time inside in the 3-4.

The entire LB corps played disappointingly last year too, but it was also a position wracked with injury and guys playing new positions. The responsibilities of Hawk's position in the Capers 3-4 is a lot like his responsibilities as Will LB in the 4-3, he'll be fine. Barnett isn't actually undersized in this version of the 3-4 defense. Vilma was undersized in the Belichick version of the Fairbanks-Bullough version of the 3-4 defense, which Mangini brought from New England, as that 3-4 defense requires physicality and discipline from their ILBs. The Capers/Phillips/LeBeau version of the 3-4 defense requires much more in the way of athleticism, quickness, range, and aggression. If Barnett can recover from his injury, he'll be fine. I mean, compare the listed size of Barnett to the listed size of Pittsburgh's ILBs. Larry Foote is 6'1" 239 while Barnett is 6'2" 236. Barnett isn't undersized in this scheme.

QB could use an upgrade but because of the youth of the position won't receive one.

Nothing this year in the draft of FA is better than what we have at QB already. The position gets an upgrade by "young players getting better"

If they move Colledge to RT, who plays guard? The offensive line has a lot of potential and not as much production as we'd like. Hopefully someone can step up from that group big time.

Colledge was such an inconsistent player at Guard, we've benched him in the past and gotten better guard play. He was really playing out of position at G, which was really highlighted by how much better he played at RT. Moving him away from G isn't a loss, a line of Clifton/Spitz/Wells/Sitton/Colledge doesn't worry me much, plus we may well draft a new guy.

There are holes at every position but WR imo. The DL is going to need a lot of new personnel for the scheme change. Possibly time to try and trade Barnett for a 2nd or 3rd.

The DL is going to need some new personnel, but in terms of starters? We're not in dire need of anybody. Pickett can play NT since his responisibilites as Capers NT are essentially the same as they were at Bates NT, but he needs a backup. We have question marks at DE, like I pointed out, but in the off chance that Harrell is ever healthy he could be great at it. No 3-4 DE is worth a top 10 pick this year. And trading Barnett now is a very, very bad idea. For one, his value is low since he's coming off an injury and he had a bad year, and for second he (if healthy) is perfectly suited to play ILB in this scheme. Really, the last thing we need to do is to spend another first round pick on a LB (unless, by some miracle, Curry is available).

We have holes, but they're not big holes (except along the DL). Holes aren't the same as "needs". Every team has holes, that's why you design schemes to minimize those weaknesses. Pittsburgh (who just won the superbowl) has a lot of holes on the OL, I think they did fine. The team they beat, has a number of holes on defense and in the running game, they did okay too. You're never going to fill all of your holes.

[bobblehead]

If all 3 OT go, I would be happy with Jenkins or a DL that looks good. Harris is still my guy, but he is 35 and his contract is near up. TWill probably is the future at one spot, but we always need 3 guys, and eventually Wood is gonna slip as well too, he is on the wrong side of 30.

[texaspackerbacker]

Who said anything about a RB at #9? That's pretty close to the last thing we need.

What if you had a guy that you felt very strongly about sitting there - a running back.

Would you pass if you had the next Adrian Peterson?

I wouldn't.

I would have passed on the last Adrian Peterson. I would have been wrong, but percentage-wise, with his history of injuries and the fact that he had so much talent around him in college and the relative unlikelihood of any given RB being a superstar, the right move would have been to not take him too high. Besides, this ain't a good year for RBs.

Somebody a few posts back said I should name a position other than QB or WR where the Packers are solid and not in need of help. Of course, it kinda depends on how you define "need". I said the Packers are NFL-adequate pretty much everywhere. Examples?

RB--Grant, Jackson, Wynn, Lumpkin, all good players, but barring IR, one must go.

TE--draft one, and somebody we have who's decent has to go.

NT--Pickett, Cole, and maybe Harrell--sure, you can draft Raji and be an improvement, but you're getting rid of somebody good to do so. I don't think a 3/4 NT makes that much difference to go that high.

DE--Jenkins, Jolly, Harrell, Montgomery--sure, we could use one more in case Jolly is locked up or Harrell is injured again. I have a higher opinion of Montgomery than a lot of people do. Draft somebody in the 3rd, 4th, or 5th round.

Corner--This--or OT--would be my first choice to take, but Need? I don't think so. We have probably the best starting pair or near it in the NFL; We have a more than decent backup/future starter in Williams; We have a good kick returner who still has potential to become a quality starter; We have a high draft pick from last year who really hasn't done anything to diminish his chance to be good; And we have Jarret Bush who, what can I say ....... is better than most teams 6th best corner.

Safety--three starter quality players and a journeyman or two.

LB, O Line, those are solid enough also. Possible to improve, yeah, I suppose, but "Need"? I don't think so.

We could use a good punter, but I don't think #9 in the first round is quite right for that.

[Packnut]

D

I'll give this idea a definite maybe.

I've said many times, you can get very decent ZBS OTs farther down in the draft. However, if you can get some big mauler who is also mobile enough for the ZBS, you are certainly ahead in the game. Combine that with the fact that, IMO, we are set on D right now a lot better than many people think, and it just might be an OT.

If those top three are gone, though, I really can't see Thompson trading up, and I doubt he would force a pick of some lesser OT.

Top three OT, Crabtree if he falls to us, or the top cover corner in that order is what it will be. If all those are gone by #9, I don't know. Maybe trade down.

Yeah, our D was set real well in all those games they lost in the 4th quarter. Also, ANY D that can't stop the run is not "set". I would suggest you look at our run D stats, then look at all the 4th quarter collapses. Just may-be that might be enough to bring you back to the REAL WORLD with the rest of us...........

[DonHutson]

I would be very happy with a LT, but I don't think you can say it's going to be any one position with any certainty. One, we have needs at several positions, and two, Ted will take a player at a position of lesser need if that player is better than anyone at a need position.

To me, the idea that we must have a LT, come hell or high water, trade up if need be, isn't realistic. You can say the same for NT, or anything else.

We have primary needs at: LT, NT, OLB opposite Kampman, DE opposite Jenkins, and RT.

We have secondary needs at: CB, TE, and I'd like to see a more complete RB to take Grant's job, maybe S if they're worried about Bigby.

I would guess the top of the draft board has J. Smith, Monroe, and Raji in some order. I'd love to get one of them, but I wouldn't trade up for any of them.

Even if all three are gone, you still have Oher, Orakpo, Brown, or Maybin at primary need positions. They could also take Jenkins or Moreno if they like one of them a lot more than the others. All would fill a need to some degree. I don't see any indisputably great players in this draft, but I see a lot of very good prospects. Let them come to you, take the best one, then do it again in the 2nd, and twice more in the 3rd.

[Pacopete4]

this is one of those years where a trade down if fine with me... we arent going to get anyone worth a damn this season anyways and thats what this team needs... free agency may be the key to this seasons winning whether TT likes it or not

[bobblehead]

I'm not saying we have to have one hell or high water, I'm saying they are very hard to come by, we have a near term need, and there are 3 good ones in the top of this draft. I happen to think it WILL be a LT, not that we MUST take one.

Several factors combine to make me think we draft a LT, and the fact that you only get a few opportunities to get the studs makes me think TT might even trade up a few slots if the opportunity is there.

[DonHutson]

I happen to think it WILL be a LT, not that we MUST take one.

Fair enough. It's always hard to differentiate somebody's preferences from predictions this time of year.