2010 Mock Draft Poll: Vote for who the Packers should draft!

[pbmax]

Do we really need to yell in red? Will you be more right if you scream louder?

There is a disagreement about depth in the D backfield. Will either Gun or Brandon convince the other (or anyone else) on the twelfth post?

How about like adding something that hasn't been discussed. For instance, I do not think the the D backfield was to blame for the worst of the D performance in Arizona. The first would be pass rush. The second would be scheme as Capers choose to leave the safeties deep to help the young CBs on the outside. The third would be the linebacker performance. Fourth, would the performance of the DBs themselves.

No one covered themselves with glory in that game or against Pittsburgh. But they were not alone in deserving blame.

[Gunakor]

Even if Pat Lee isn't ready at the start of the season, Brandon Underwood is still higher than Bush on the depth chart. In order for Bush to be our nickel back going into the season, neither Harris, Lee, OR Underwood can be ready. Otherwise Bush is buried on the depth chart, exactly how it was last season. He is NOT our nickel back.

Pat Lee has had just one season - his rookie season- to prove anything. Last year he spent on IR. You know that means he can't take the field to prove anything, right? My point isn't that he has proven he belongs in the NFL, it's that he hasn't proven he DOESN'T belong in the NFL. More to the point, is that Kyle Wilson hasn't proven he belongs here either.

I watched the Cardinals game. That wasn't our starting defensive backfield. Unless you figure that we are going to have 3 DB's on injured reserve every single season then at least admit they were scraping from the bottom of their roster to finish the season. Josh Bell should not be in the game, nor should Jarrett Bush. If we didn't have 3 DB's on IR for that Cardinals game then we wouldn't be seeing Jarrett Bush on the field. Get it? Don't use that game as your example, because it simply proves mine.

The draft is loaded at the top with OL talent. At the TOP is where we should snag one. I have no doubt a 2nd round OL will be fine, but a 1st round OL will likely be better wouldn't you say? That being our #1 need AND the #1 talented position at the TOP of the draft, wouldn't you agree that our #1 pick would be best spent there?

Lastly, what do we need our backup RB to do? We aren't asking him to pick up large chunks of yards. We aren't asking him to split time with Grant. We're asking him to come in on third down and pick up a blitz to give Rodgers time to throw. We're asking him to sneak out into the flat to catch a dumpoff pass and make a play in the open field. Are you really suggesting we need to spend a first or second round pick on a guy who may only see the field 10 times a game? Grant is a workhorse - I want him to get 25 or more carries in every single game he plays. Check the stats, when Grant gets that many carries the Packers win. When the Packers win everybody is happy, right? Why do you want to reduce the number of carries he gets?

[Brandon494]

Do we really need to yell in red? Will you be more right if you scream louder?

haha yea Im yelling at my computer max

[Joemailman]

Damn, Bran you and Gun are going at it in more then one thread......LOL I LOVE PACKERRATS.COM

More like he was going at me, I'm just putting him in his place.

You are expressing needs that don't exist, like a new RB to split time with Grant. And confusing everybody when you keep implying that Jarrett Bush is our nickel back.

Pat Lee has proven nothing because he has had about as much chance to prove anything as Kyle Wilson. Same goes for Brandon Underwood. Consider that when stating with confidence that he's less talented than the rookie you've fallen in love with.

In the meantime, consider other more pressing needs than CB or RB. A RB to split time with Jackson in mop up duty could be found in the middle rounds. I'm fine with a CB in the second or third round. But as deep as the TOP of this draft is stocked with offensive linemen I think it would be a disservice to the team not to take the best one left available there. The needs on the offensive line are greater than the needs in the defensive backfield IMO. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure the immediate need in the defensive backfield is that great at all.

To be fair, I thought Pat Lee was pretty bad year one; if I remember right he was inactive most of that year even when healthy. I feel way more comfortable with Blackmond as being the better player when he's in.

If the OL is there I'm all for it but I don't want TT to take a OL for need if there is a higher rated player there. I think we can use help at a lot of possitions and could pick up a OL in round two as well. The Indiana OT in round two would be nice

i'm not 100% possitive on this, but i think i remember that pat lee was a zone CB that was trying to make that transition to a man corner that first year.

and now we've gone to what he was suppose to be best at

a still think theres a good chance both he and blackmon could step up and surprise us this year.

and TT and MM might think that way too. they might think we have no need at all for a CB or RB or OLB or OT

who knows whats going through their heads right now

When Lee was drafted, he was seen as a physical CB who could play the Packers style of press coverage. TT alluded to that when he was drafted. Last year he never moved past Will Blackmon on the depth chart before he was hurt. Playing off more is probably the adjustment he has to make. Too early to give up on him, but he has a lot to prove.

[get louder at lambeau]

Will you be more right if you scream louder?

That depends. If you're at Lambeau, and the visiting team has the ball, then HELL YES you'll be more right if you scream louder.

[Bretsky]

Damn, Bran you and Gun are going at it in more then one thread......LOL I LOVE PACKERRATS.COM

More like he was going at me, I'm just putting him in his place.

You are expressing needs that don't exist, like a new RB to split time with Grant. And confusing everybody when you keep implying that Jarrett Bush is our nickel back.

Pat Lee has proven nothing because he has had about as much chance to prove anything as Kyle Wilson. Same goes for Brandon Underwood. Consider that when stating with confidence that he's less talented than the rookie you've fallen in love with.

In the meantime, consider other more pressing needs than CB or RB. A RB to split time with Jackson in mop up duty could be found in the middle rounds. I'm fine with a CB in the second or third round. But as deep as the TOP of this draft is stocked with offensive linemen I think it would be a disservice to the team not to take the best one left available there. The needs on the offensive line are greater than the needs in the defensive backfield IMO. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure the immediate need in the defensive backfield is that great at all.

To be fair, I thought Pat Lee was pretty bad year one; if I remember right he was inactive most of that year even when healthy. I feel way more comfortable with Blackmond as being the better player when he's in.

If the OL is there I'm all for it but I don't want TT to take a OL for need if there is a higher rated player there. I think we can use help at a lot of possitions and could pick up a OL in round two as well. The Indiana OT in round two would be nice

Aaron Rodgers was pretty bad in year one also. He didn't start to get it until year 3. Nick Collins was AWFUL his first 2 seasons, but I'm pretty sure looking at things today that having patience with him and giving him an opportunity to develop was a pretty smart move. Take that into consideration.

If no first round talent on the OL is left when Thompson is on the clock - which I almost can't see as a possibility in this years draft - then trade down in the first and pick up an extra 3rd or 4th instead. Get your new OL in round 2 and your new CB with return ability with one of your extra 3's. Like I said, I think we're fine in the defensive backfield in 2010. Using a 1st rounder there would be a luxury pick as he wouldn't be on the field as much as a 1st rounder at another position would be. He wouldn't have the same positive impact as an OL would. A first round CB would have about the same impact on the 2010 season as a 4th round CB would.

Honestly I'm fine with this logic; I'd add one more thing to it. If the top four OT's are off the board, I'd rather trade down then pick the next best one. Whether we take the OT with a high 2nd or a low 2nd I don't think will matter much. I agree with PB in that OL, and a stellar pass rusher (I don't care if it's a DE or OLB) are the two things I hope to get most.

But with that being said, I'd still put trust in TT if he picked up a RB or Mays early on as well.

[Bretsky]

The draft is loaded at the top with OL talent. At the TOP is where we should snag one. I have no doubt a 2nd round OL will be fine, but a 1st round OL will likely be better wouldn't you say? That being our #1 need AND the #1 talented position at the TOP of the draft, wouldn't you agree that our #1 pick would be best spent there?
?

THIS is where I can't agree with you; although I may be misrepresenting your message.

If say, a top tier pass rusher falls to our pick and the top tier of OT are gone, I say grab the pass rusher and see who falls in round two to us. Or even if a guy who we have as a top 15 grade....you probably take that player and go OL with the second round.

A guy like the Indiana OT may be just as good as the 5th and 6th that we might be choosing from. I'd rather end up with whatever combo gives us the two best players.

[Lurker64]

This poll has now been open 25 hours and some change. Right now it's looking like the top four are:

Kyle Wilson (8)
Anthony Davis (6)
Maurkice Pouncey (4)
Taylor Mays (4)

With other players getting a total of four votes, an additional four being enough for any of the above to take the top spot.

Should we do a runoff with just these four players in a new thread?

[Brandon494]

I say we just keep it how it is so we can continue on with the rest of the draft.

[swede]

I guess I'd suggest getting your 3rd poll with the four players you mentioned ready now. Keep it open 24 hours and we can then proceed with the draft in the old thread on Tuesday am.

[red]

i agree

kyle wilson is in the lead

kyle wilson is the pick

next

no need for a runoff votes were only cast for 7 players to begin with. you're only asking for 4 people to revote. why waste time

[Gunakor]

The draft is loaded at the top with OL talent. At the TOP is where we should snag one. I have no doubt a 2nd round OL will be fine, but a 1st round OL will likely be better wouldn't you say? That being our #1 need AND the #1 talented position at the TOP of the draft, wouldn't you agree that our #1 pick would be best spent there?
?

THIS is where I can't agree with you; although I may be misrepresenting your message.

If say, a top tier pass rusher falls to our pick and the top tier of OT are gone, I say grab the pass rusher and see who falls in round two to us. Or even if a guy who we have as a top 15 grade....you probably take that player and go OL with the second round.

A guy like the Indiana OT may be just as good as the 5th and 6th that we might be choosing from. I'd rather end up with whatever combo gives us the two best players.

Well the first misunderstanding here is that the OL we draft automatically has to be a tackle. If we could get a stud guard it works as both a guard and tackle, since a stud guard means TJ Lang isn't practicing at guard anymore. A stud guard in the draft equals both a stud guard and a promising RT for the Packers going forward. On top of that, a stud guard means Daryn Colledge is riding pine, either this year or next.

The top tier of OL is deep enough IMO that it should last into the early second round. Pro bowl OL will be had in round 2. But I don't think they last until the last third of the round for us to pick one up. We'll be getting a second tier OL if we wait till the second round. We have plenty of those on our roster already, I want better out of this years draft class. If we were picking top 10 like last year I would feel more comfortable waiting until our second pick. But we're not.

[Lurker64]

The problem with polls like these, is that it punishes people who vote early on since the results are not hidden. I was the first person to vote, and I voted for Jerry Hughes. If I had voted, say, 18 hours later there was no way I would vote for Mr. Hughes since there was no possibility that he would win. I would instead switch my vote to the my #2 choice, which is "the best offensive tackle available".

If you count that vote and the assumed that the lone person who voted for Charles Brown would vote for another left tackle, then suddenly Wilson and Davis are tied.

How about we just do a runoff between Davis and Wilson, so 12 people can revote, while 14 other people can stay with their current vote, if they want?

It would be nice if we could work out out so the winner of the Packer Pick Poll in this mock at least received a majority of all votes, rather than a simple plurality.

[red]

The draft is loaded at the top with OL talent. At the TOP is where we should snag one. I have no doubt a 2nd round OL will be fine, but a 1st round OL will likely be better wouldn't you say? That being our #1 need AND the #1 talented position at the TOP of the draft, wouldn't you agree that our #1 pick would be best spent there?
?

THIS is where I can't agree with you; although I may be misrepresenting your message.

If say, a top tier pass rusher falls to our pick and the top tier of OT are gone, I say grab the pass rusher and see who falls in round two to us. Or even if a guy who we have as a top 15 grade....you probably take that player and go OL with the second round.

A guy like the Indiana OT may be just as good as the 5th and 6th that we might be choosing from. I'd rather end up with whatever combo gives us the two best players.

Well the first misunderstanding here is that the OL we draft automatically has to be a tackle. If we could get a stud guard it works as both a guard and tackle, since a stud guard means TJ Lang isn't practicing at guard anymore. A stud guard in the draft equals both a stud guard and a promising RT for the Packers going forward. On top of that, a stud guard means Daryn Colledge is riding pine, either this year or next.

The top tier of OL is deep enough IMO that it should last into the early second round. Pro bowl OL will be had in round 2. But I don't think they last until the last third of the round for us to pick one up. We'll be getting a second tier OL if we wait till the second round. We have plenty of those on our roster already, I want better out of this years draft class. If we were picking top 10 like last year I would feel more comfortable waiting until our second pick. But we're not.

the way it looks right now theres only two guys in the top tier for tackles (okung, baluga), then there's a bit of a drop to guys with a few question marks. that's your second tier, with like 3 or 4 guys

i see one guy all alone in the top tier for guards, and he might go top 20

the one top tier o-lineman that has a good chance of being the is pouncey the center

so the way i look at it, the draft is deep in second tier guys, and no so much the big ones

[Joemailman]

It's funny how some people think the Packers have to draft an OT on the 1st round to replace Chad Clifton who was a mid 2nd round pick. Clifton was the 5th OT taken in 2000, and that was a bad year for OT's. There will be players available in the 2nd and 3rd rounds with the potential to be as good as Clifton. And let's be clear here: Potential is all we're talking about. This is not an exact science, to say the least.