Vote for who TT should draft. (2009)

[Waldo]

I dunno, going into Jennings first season Turd was the #2 WR, I'd say there was a need for a WR.

Morency was our #1 RB and Herron our #2 when Jackson was taken. Again, a need pick.

On draft day last year we had 1 QB on the roster. Pretty safe to say that Brohm was a need pick.

[Lurker64]

I'm also somewhat bemused by the fact that people who say both

1) Harrell wasn't a need pick since we were stacked at DT in 2007.
2) The defense was so horrible in 2008 because of all of the holes in the middle of the DL.

It seems like that's trying to have it both ways. There are precious few defensive tackles who come in and produce as rookies. It takes all of them a couple years, but that doesn't mean you don't draft them. You draft a DT because you need one the year after next, not next year since just by the nature of the transition from the college game to the pro game, he's not going to do much for you next year.

You can certainly argue that Harrell was a bad pick, but it's hard to say it's not a need pick, particularly due to how badly the defensive line could use a guy like him to come in and be productive.

[hoosier]

I dunno, going into Jennings first season Turd was the #2 WR, I'd say there was a need for a WR.

Morency was our #1 RB and Herron our #2 when Jackson was taken. Again, a need pick.

On draft day last year we had 1 QB on the roster. Pretty safe to say that Brohm was a need pick.

Yeah, I agree, but I was trying to give our resident skeptic the benefit of the doubt by only counting projected starters and immediate major contributors. If a guy is expected to sit on the bench for a couple of years (which is arguably the case for Lee and Brohm) then it's definitely not a need pick. It's true that Jennings started from the get go, and based on the other options I agree he and Jackson count as need picks, even if Jackson didn't exactly fill the need.

EDIT: Maybe I'm looking at Brohm too much through what we now know about Rodgers. In April 2008 he was an injury waiting to happen and nobody really knew if he would perform over an entire season. In that context, maybe picking Brohm, who was supposed to be the most NFL-ready of college QBs, really was a need pick. Granted, it turned out the Packers didn't need him, and also that he wouldn't have been ready even if they had needed him, but it was still a need pick.

[RashanGary]

Impressive, Waldo. Very impressive.

[Waldo]

Maybin's pro day was today. That whole 4.8 thing from the combine is a thing of the past.

He's gained a little weight, up to 252.

His first run was a 4.59, his second was a 4.63
He jumped 40.5" and 10'10"

[Bossman641]

I'm also somewhat bemused by the fact that people who say both

1) Harrell wasn't a need pick since we were stacked at DT in 2007.
2) The defense was so horrible in 2008 because of all of the holes in the middle of the DL.

It seems like that's trying to have it both ways. There are precious few defensive tackles who come in and produce as rookies. It takes all of them a couple years, but that doesn't mean you don't draft them. You draft a DT because you need one the year after next, not next year since just by the nature of the transition from the college game to the pro game, he's not going to do much for you next year.

You can certainly argue that Harrell was a bad pick, but it's hard to say it's not a need pick, particularly due to how badly the defensive line could use a guy like him to come in and be productive.

This always cracks me up as well. The same people who argue that Harrell was a horrible pick pick because we didn't need a DT at all are the same ones who say TT ignored the DL in FA last offseason.

[RashanGary]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiWgAZf0v4

Evander Hood highlights. He closes fast for a big guy. He looks very interesting. Like Waldo said, sometimes if you get a great player on an otherwise average unit, the numbers may not be there because of the extra attention.

It's tough to tell. He looks good, but I'd have to see how his film compares to other college DT's over the years and because I don't have a good feel for that, I don't have a good feel for him.

[Waldo]

If there is one solo storyline coming out if it it’s improvement. Both Aaron Maybin and Derrick Williams feel they did just that today with strong showings in front of NFL reps from teams such as the Eagles, Jags, Patriots, Giants, Jets, Chiefs, Saints, Dolphins and Packers.

http://ericthomas.wordpress.com/

[Waldo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fiWgAZf0v4


Evander Hood highlights. He closes fast for a big guy. He looks very interesting. Like Waldo said, sometimes if you get a great player on an otherwise average unit, the numbers may not be there because of the extra attention.

It's tough to tell. He looks good, but I'd have to see how his film compares to other college DT's over the years and because I don't have a good feel for that, I don't have a good feel for him.

I dunno, he definitely isn't "value" at #9, but if TT has a crazy Harrell/Collins/Jones-like "reach", I'd wager this is the guy.

[red]

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.

peria jerry is not even close to being big enough to be a NT/ only a handfull of guys in the whole draft are.

and raji is by far the best one out there

jerry would be a de for us, as would hood, and gilbert. and any other dt thats's around 300 or less

the guys that are in the draft that have to size, or are close to the size are

raji
ron brace, from what i read he plays very soft. he'll go late first or early second
terrance taylor- he's a little small at 315. and he doesn't like to work too hard
sammie lee hill, i've seen some really bad stuff on him that he doesn't take well to hard coaching, and has been a classic underachiever

khalif mitchell, east carolina about 320

thats about it for the guys that even come close to having the size to play DT

[Joemailman]

Maybin's pro day was today. That whole 4.8 thing from the combine is a thing of the past.

He's gained a little weight, up to 252.

His first run was a 4.59, his second was a 4.63
He jumped 40.5" and 10'10"

The question with Maybin is whether he can keep the weight on as the season progresses. I've read reports that his weight was down to 225 when Penn State played their bowl game.

[Waldo]

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.

peria jerry is not even close to being big enough to be a NT/ only a handfull of guys in the whole draft are.

and raji is by far the best one out there

jerry would be a de for us, as would hood, and gilbert. and any other dt thats's around 300 or less

the guys that are in the draft that have to size, or are close to the size are

raji
ron brace, from what i read he plays very soft. he'll go late first or early second
terrance taylor- he's a little small at 315. and he doesn't like to work too hard
sammie lee hill, i've seen some really bad stuff on him that he doesn't take well to hard coaching, and has been a classic underachiever

khalif mitchell, east carolina about 320

thats about it for the guys that even come close to having the size to play DT

You are missing a few

Myron Pryor - 6'0, 319
Roy Miller - 6'1, 310
Dorell Scott - 6'3, 312 (more of a swing guy like Hill, but experienced playing in the A gap in college)
Terrence Knighton - 6'3, 321

You also have to consider guys like Pickett, Hampton, J. Williams, Ratliff, none of them were even close to their current weight on draft day (300-310). It is fairly unnatural to weigh 330+ at 21-22 yrs old being an athlete, those big guys typically have pretty severe weight struggles, which is definitely a huge concern for Raji and Brace, it isn't necessarily the bigger the better, most NT's play best in the 330-340 range, anything more and they lose too much quickness. For backup guys, they often don't have to be a giant, and eat their way into that role over time, what they lose in raw weight to anchor with, they gain in quickness and agility, which can be quite beneficial as they learn the position.

Personally I think that Myron Pryor is the 2nd best NT in the draft, by a pretty good margin. Brace is way too slow to be effective at the NFL level, even at NT. Pryor dominated Eric Wood of Louisville when they clashed; Wood is the #2 C in the draft (he'd be a great pick for us in the 2nd, if he is there), and quite close to Mack in ability, Mack was able to handle Raji 1 on 1.

[Waldo]

Maybin's pro day was today. That whole 4.8 thing from the combine is a thing of the past.

He's gained a little weight, up to 252.

His first run was a 4.59, his second was a 4.63
He jumped 40.5" and 10'10"

The question with Maybin is whether he can keep the weight on as the season progresses. I've read reports that his weight was down to 225 when Penn State played their bowl game.

Always a problem with the younger, skinnier guys, but he went into that season at 240 and lost a bunch of weight early on from sickness that he couldn't gain back over the season. As he gets older though he should be able to handle weight better, he's only 20 I believe.

[KYPack]

Think Pryor will last 'til 41, Waldo?

I've been trying to figure out who the #2 NT is for a month.

[wist43]

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.

So you're saying that TT does, in fact, always address need - his own protestations not withwithstanding - and that he sucks as a talent evaluator???

He either doesn't care about needs, and that is why our defense sucks, and OL for that matter; or, he always addresses need, but just plain and simply sucks as a talent evaluator... somehow or another 6-10 has to be accounted for... a bump in the road on the way to winning the next 4 superbowls???

To date, he's a sub .500 GM.