Understanding the Neal Pick

[falco]

It's nonsense to think the Packers could have gotten end Mike Neal later than the second round. How can you know what 31 other teams think about a guy?

+1

[Bretsky]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

[Cleft Crusty]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

Of course, that proves he's wrong - despite the fact that he ranks amongst the highest of all beat writers in predicting the draft. But don't let facts kick you in your ass. We've come full circle...

After pulling in all my extensive NFL contacts, I have determined that Neal was the highest player remaining on the draft boards of at least 8 teams when the Packers selected. He was second on at least 6 others. It was almost certain that 1) he would have been picked within at least 1-5 positions of where he was selected had the Packers not selected him and 2) the Packers would have had a limited group of teams with which to trade down, with very little guarantee of having Neal available after such a trade. All my sources are anonymous, but highly reliable, just like the scouts used by my old friend at the UrinalScented, Bob McGinn.

[Bretsky]

now we're using Bob McGinn as evidence for us ?

Normally most on this board tear him a new @ssole and rip him to shreds when he writes his anti TT rhetoric....as its perceived.

Of course, that proves he's wrong - despite the fact that he ranks amongst the highest of all beat writers in predicting the draft. But don't let facts kick you in your ass. We've come full circle...

After pulling in all my extensive NFL contacts, I have determined that Neal was the highest player remaining on the draft boards of at least 8 teams when the Packers selected. He was second on at least 6 others. It was almost certain that 1) he would have been picked within at least 1-5 positions of where he was selected had the Packers not selected him and 2) the Packers would have had a limited group of teams with which to trade down, with very little guarantee of having Neal available after such a trade. All my sources are anonymous, but highly reliable, just like the scouts used by my old friend at the UrinalScented, Bob McGinn.

oh great; so I guess we can use him for supporting our views during the draft and then bash on him the rest of the year when he nitpicks TT and we don't like his content. Selective suppot

[Lurker64]

Well, if somebody displays a consistent bias against X, but then says something that is in support of X, instead of undermining the statement doesn't the bias seem to lend support to it?

It's along the same lines as "Even people who hate [politician or ideology] agree that this program is a good idea." Or it's like that one movie critic who hates nearly everything, when he tells you that a movie is really good, it probably is well above average.

If someone who consistently rails against TT argues that the people are nuts for railing against TT for a specific thing, isn't that automatically more convincing than if somebody who consistently defends TT argues that the people are nuts railing against TT for that same thing?

I mean, think of it in the context of this board. Which is more indicative of a good move by Ted Thompson: JustinHarrell telling you it was a smart for Thompson to sit out free agency or Wist telling you it was smart for Thompson to sit out free agency?

[Bretsky]

good pts

[Lurker64]

Alternatively, we can just ignore who it is that utters a given point, and just deal with the arguments on their own merits.

I thought McGinn made a good argument (that keeping track of what 31 other teams think, at least outside of the first round is a far more difficult task than any front office in the league can manage, particularly when they have to figure out what they think about all these guys anyway), so I posted it here.

[retailguy]

We just have to agree with everything TT does because he's the GM. TT makes plenty of wrong calls and plenty of right calls. Just because we don't agree doesn't makes us smarter than TT

Yup. That's the way it works around here. You nailed it.

Just bow to the master.

sickening.

[falco]

Yup. That's the way it works around here. You nailed it.

Just bow to the master.

sickening.

Funny. I don't think anyone here is making that argument. The question isn't whether Neal was a good or bad pick. The point Gunny is making is that he is 100% sure that TT could have traded down and still got Neal or an equally as good player. The argument against that is that TT, rightly or wrongly, believed that Neal or a similar level of player would not have been available

[retailguy]

Funny. I don't think anyone here is making that argument.

I disagree.

[falco]

Fair enough. I'm sure there is something in these 10 pages that supports your point.

[Patler]

For the first three drafts, many complained that all TT ever did was trade down, he didn't take chances with players his gut told him were better, he acted as if players were fungible and at any point in the draft he could pick between several of equal value. Instead of bringing in more players, he should "go for it" more often to try and hit a homerun.

Now, for three drafts, TT has traded up in each, his trade-downs are less frequent, and he shows preferences for specific players at specific draft positions. So, of course, we hear complaints that he could have taken any of several players of equal value and potential, and he should have traded down to bring in more players, its foolish to focus on a player when any of several will do and he can get more of them in the process.


In my opinion, those two positions are exactly opposite of what needed to be done with respect to the roster situation in GB. When the roster was old and of questionable depth, it needed to be turned over quickly. It was better to bring in more players of closer potential than to look for the diamond in the rough. TT needed to hit a lot of singles in the draft, a one-run homer would be of questionable value.

Now, with a young fairly talented roster, it makes more sense to go for the guy who you feel is better than his draft grade, the guy who might become one of your better players. Having more 5th, 6th or 7th round picks to compete for roster spots 40-53 is not necessary. While I might trade down in the first or even second to get more 2nd and 3rds, getting more 4ths thru 7ths doesn't interest me as much. I would only do it when I truly have no preference for any player at my existing spot.

TT has hit a lot of singles, and it's time to swing for some homeruns on the Packer roster. Mathews looks like he can be one. There are lots of things I like about Neal. I can understand a preference for him over similarly graded DEs. I can understand the feeling that more lower draft picks really won't help you all that much right now.

The factor people ignore is the limit on roster sizes now and going into TC. You may not want to lock yourself into 5 or 6 players from the bottom three rounds of the draft. You might prefer to hold an extra spot or two open to be filed from one of the 10-20 nonroster players you bring in for tryouts this week. Take one that you get to spend three days with over a guy you saw mostly on tape.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I know I'm going WAY out on a limb here, but I totally agree with Patler.

After Sherman decimated the roster by continuing to trade up for reaches it was time for a complete rebuild. Therefore it was time to get as many picks as possible and hope you hit on some young gems. After a few seasons of sifting through players and keeping the talent, it's now time to fill specific holes and make a run for it. (are you listening Lions, Rams, 'Skins, etc....?) I've been really pleased by the progress of the team during TT's tenure, but it's time to compete for a championship now.

[Fritz]

One effect of TT's change in tactics as the roster gets better should be to quiet those who said Thompson was married to only one way of doing things. I think I said that a few times, myself.

He seems able to change tactics as necessity dictates. This is the sign of someone who is successful - he adapts.

[run pMc]

Maybe Neal will end up being the better player, but even if he does, that doesn't change my opinion that a serviceable defensive lineman not named Mike Neal plus an additional later round draft pick would have been more valuable than Neal by himself. It's really that extra draft pick that I've been arguing for, not Carrington. I'd have been perfectly okay with Carrington should Neal have been taken as long as I got that extra pick. Beyond that I could care less between the two. They're the same player IMO

If they both turn out to be equally productive, then you are correct. That remains to be seen. Personally, I think Neal's chances are better.

I agree it would be nice to trade a few spots down & get an extra pick, but it's hard to see where (for example) a rookie R7 pick is going to fit on the 53 man roster. (FWIW, I agree with Patler's re: changing tactics.) Prior to this pick, I'd never heard of Neal before, so I was admittedly underwhelmed. Then again, I don't follow college football.

Ultimately, the draft is such a crapshoot that it doesn't matter where he was picked, what matters is if the man can play.

I have no problems with TT shoring up the DL depth. This pick makes sense considering Jenkins' age, injury history and future contract status. Having a strong run D (like GB did last season) is important...someone's gotta tackle AD.