Vote for who TT should draft. (2009)

[mission]

Great post Waldo.

I've been saying that quite a bit, lately.

Good stuff, all of it.

You really need to put this shit in order and make an article out of it. I'd read it, for one. These are concepts I've been trying to get my brain around for a few years now. Why does TT draft who he drafts?

These posts are part of the answer, anyway.

Freaks me out when you start reading my mind like that...

Is this like eHarmony PR edition? I think we've made a luuuuuuu-uuuuhve connection.

(sorry)

:P

[MJZiggy]

Dude, he's been doing that for years.

[Bossman641]

Great post Waldo

The draft can't come soon enough

[Stevogbfan]

Great post Waldo

The draft can't come soon enough

i agree

[CaliforniaCheez]

THE PACKERS HAVE TO FIND THE NEXT GILBERT BROWN TYPE NOSE TACKLE OR THE 3-4 WILL FAIL.

Maybe not round one but they have to find a Nose Tackle.

[Lurker64]

Why is Nose Tackle such a glaring need, considering that Ryan Pickett will be playing the exact position he did last year, only he'll be on the field for fewer snaps?

It's an important position, but I think we're a little quick to give up on Pickett, who has long been an anchor on the DL.

[packrulz]

Why is Nose Tackle such a glaring need, considering that Ryan Pickett will be playing the exact position he did last year, only he'll be on the field for fewer snaps?

It's an important position, but I think we're a little quick to give up on Pickett, who has long been an anchor on the DL.

I don't think it's a glaring need, and I'm not convinced that Raji is that much better than Jerry or the other NT's in the draft. I think there's a 50-50 chance that TT will trade down because I feel some team desperate for a QB will want to move ahead of San Fran to take Freeman or Sanchez. I voted for Andre Smith because of his potential, long arms, and what he has done on the field. Put him on freeweights with proper training he could be a stud tackle for years to come.

[hoosier]

NT isn't a glaring need for this year but I would certainly hope TT finds someone who can reliably spell Pickett and take over for him in a year or two if Pickett breaks down or starts to decline. Good NTs tend to come from the first round and not so much from developing later round picks.

[KYPack]

You don't see many NT's that productive in their first few years.

We need some back-up at this spot.

[wist43]

I think we desperately need a NT... but need doesn't enter into it for TT. He's said over and over again - and I actually, believe him - that he will take his BPA regardless of position.

[sharpe1027]

I think we desperately need a NT... but need doesn't enter into it for TT. He's said over and over again - and I actually, believe him - that he will take his BPA regardless of position.

Then you are too gullible.

I've said it before, I don't think anyone can sit there with a straight face and tell me that the Packers Organization does not consider what the team needs. IMHO, the BPA line is a standard company line to derail reporters questions about their personal backseat GMing. Looks like you bought it hook line and sinker.

That is not to say that they never draft players where they already have good players. Drafting a few players at an already strong position is far from taking players without any regard for position. Perhaps if you look past the glitz and glam of the first round picks, you might see that.

[hoosier]

You don't see many NT's that productive in their first few years.

I think this is true of later round draft picks. Jay Ratliff is a good example. But if you look at the AFC, the teams that run effective 3-4 defenses in recent years (take NE, Pitt, Balt and SD) have all devoted high draft picks at that spot, and they've all panned out almost from the first day. Vince Wilfork, Casey Hampton and Haloti Ngata were all first round picks and they were significant contributors from day one. Jamal Williams was a second round pick, and SD used a 4-3 base defense for his first five years as a pro, so his case is unique. When they transitioned to 3-4 in 2004 he was already in his fifth year and was an immediate star.

[wist43]

I think we desperately need a NT... but need doesn't enter into it for TT. He's said over and over again - and I actually, believe him - that he will take his BPA regardless of position.

Then you are too gullible.

I've said it before, I don't think anyone can sit there with a straight face and tell me that the Packers Organization does not consider what the team needs. IMHO, the BPA line is a standard company line to derail reporters questions about their personal backseat GMing. Looks like you bought it hook line and sinker.

That is not to say that they never draft players where they already have good players. Drafting a few players at an already strong position is far from taking players without any regard for position. Perhaps if you look past the glitz and glam of the first round picks, you might see that.

The top of the draft is what I'm referring to... I think he addresses "need" further down in the draft, and hopes some of those guys work out; but at the top of the draft, where you're more likely to find difference makers, no, TT has proven he doesn't look at position; I couldn't, and you couldn't, give an example of a 1st round pick that addressed need, unless you count Hawk; but since Hawk is so pedestrian, who cares about him.

That said, Harrell and Nelson alone are enough to make the case that TT doesn't give a tinkers damn about what positions are stocked, and what positions have need... the fact that Harrell is a bust and letting Williams walk notwithstanding.

In the end... unless those lower round guys pan out, he'll always have significant holes on the roster, enough to keep us from taking the next step.

I give TT shit about his annual April shopfest, but I'll admit that he has upgraded the roster from top to bottom from what he inherited; however, without making more of an effort to fill specific holes with top end talent at critical positions, and unless he gets lucky multiple times further down in the draft... we're just keep spinning our wheels.

[sharpe1027]

The top of the draft is what I'm referring to... I think he addresses "need" further down in the draft, and hopes some of those guys work out; but at the top of the draft, where you're more likely to find difference makers, no, TT has proven he doesn't look at position; I couldn't, and you couldn't, give an example of a 1st round pick that addressed need, unless you count Hawk; but since Hawk is so pedestrian, who cares about him.

That said, Harrell and Nelson alone are enough to make the case that TT doesn't give a tinkers damn about what positions are stocked, and what positions have need... the fact that Harrell is a bust and letting Williams walk notwithstanding.

In the end... unless those lower round guys pan out, he'll always have significant holes on the roster, enough to keep us from taking the next step.

I give TT shit about his annual April shopfest, but I'll admit that he has upgraded the roster from top to bottom from what he inherited; however, without making more of an effort to fill specific holes with top end talent at critical positions, and unless he gets lucky multiple times further down in the draft... we're just keep spinning our wheels.

You are mixing your arguments with Hawk. It is one thing to say the Packers don't address needs and entirely another to say that the Packers were unsuccessful eventhough they did try to address a need. Two completely unrelated concepts. Actually, you are arguing against yourself. You claim that the only need pick turned out to be pedestrian, suggesting that it was not a good selection.

Regarding your belief that the Packer's Organization doesn't address needs in the first round. Need 1st round picks include: Rodgers, Hawk, Harrell. How can you argue that these guys were not needs?

Last year our DL really needed Harrell = clear need (I realize that many outside of the Packer's Organization did not understand the need on draft day. That doesn't mean it didn't exist, and the facts show just how much of a need it was).

Hawk, starter from day 1, and nobody behind him seems capable = clear need.

Rodgers, current starter and could have been a year before pending the annual Favre wait = clear need. You have repeatedly stated that QB needs to be at a hall-of-fame level of for the Packer's offense. Yet, somehow, Rodgers isn't a need pick?

Seems pretty clear to me that looking back every single 1st round pick was an area of high need. Perhaps you believe that a need pick has to align with what you personally, or the media generally, perceive to be the greatest need? Personally, I think the record has shown the Packers select players that they need at the top of the draft, although often fans and media have no idea what is really needed.

[hoosier]

I think we desperately need a NT... but need doesn't enter into it for TT. He's said over and over again - and I actually, believe him - that he will take his BPA regardless of position.

Then you are too gullible.

I've said it before, I don't think anyone can sit there with a straight face and tell me that the Packers Organization does not consider what the team needs. IMHO, the BPA line is a standard company line to derail reporters questions about their personal backseat GMing. Looks like you bought it hook line and sinker.

That is not to say that they never draft players where they already have good players. Drafting a few players at an already strong position is far from taking players without any regard for position. Perhaps if you look past the glitz and glam of the first round picks, you might see that.

The top of the draft is what I'm referring to... I think he addresses "need" further down in the draft, and hopes some of those guys work out; but at the top of the draft, where you're more likely to find difference makers, no, TT has proven he doesn't look at position; I couldn't, and you couldn't, give an example of a 1st round pick that addressed need, unless you count Hawk; but since Hawk is so pedestrian, who cares about him.

That said, Harrell and Nelson alone are enough to make the case that TT doesn't give a tinkers damn about what positions are stocked, and what positions have need... the fact that Harrell is a bust and letting Williams walk notwithstanding.

In the end... unless those lower round guys pan out, he'll always have significant holes on the roster, enough to keep us from taking the next step.

I give TT shit about his annual April shopfest, but I'll admit that he has upgraded the roster from top to bottom from what he inherited; however, without making more of an effort to fill specific holes with top end talent at critical positions, and unless he gets lucky multiple times further down in the draft... we're just keep spinning our wheels.

Let's see, who are the "top of the draft" picks you're referring to? I'll assume for sake of argument we're talking about first and second round picks.
2005: Rodgers, Collins, Murphy.
2006: Hawk, Colledge, Jennings.
2007: Harrell, Jackson.
2008: Nelson, Brohm, Lee.

The ones in bold would definitely qualify as "need" picks by any reasonable standard since they started in their first year. Murphy, Jennings, Jackson and Harrell were also expected to be major contributors in their first or second year, so I don't think you can say those picks didn't fill a need. The only cases that stand out to me as times when TT was definitely thinking of the future and not the present were Rodgers, Lee and Brohm. It's too early to make any intelligent judgment about Brohm and Lee. But in Rodgers's case I can definitely say I'm glad TT wasn't just thinking about 2005 when it came time to make his first pick.

Instead of arguing about draft philosophies, let's try a more concrete exercise: Which of these picks do you think were mistakes and why? Who would you have picked instead of the guys TT picked?