Rate the 2008 draft

[bobblehead]

They had no 1st because TT decided to trade it. His choice to increase quantity while lowering position. He doesn't get lower expectations because of that.

It doesn't matter where they are picked, the draft should be evaluated based on the performance of the players. After three years, that should be actual performance, not some potential they have, or what they might do if they stay healthy. If they aren't starters by now, most won't ever be anything more than an average starter at best, unless they are at a position of unusual depth, or someone like Rodgers behind a HOFer.

As for Sitton, I meant "reliable" as dependable to be there week in and week out. Didn't mean it as quality of play. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I readily admit he is one of the better guards in the league.

Freak injury for Finley? I don't know, that's how many major injuries occur, you get hit while in a compromised position. The big question now is, will there be any lasting effects from it, and from the second surgery that was needed to clean out the infection? Might it alter his career? It wouldn't be the first time. Two years as a starter, injuries each year to take games away. Missing three games in 2009 is not a minor thing either. It could be the start of a pattern, or maybe not.

Until Finley plays more than just a handful of games as one of the best in the league, he is really just potential. His 13 games in 2009 don't make a career. Until someone else besides Sitton becomes an actual starter performing with consistency week after week, Sitton is the only illuminated bright light from the draft. The rest are flickering.

Also you are holding an injury against the guy who drafted him.....how do you draft guys that never get injured??

[mraynrand]

All good points Patler, but the Packers aren't the only team that does this. Teams with poorer drafting have to bring in more guys. I've done this analysis before, that is, directly comparing two or three teams over a stretch of several years. Here's my basic point: no team builds exclusively through the draft, so that I simply dispute the exact number you use for how many draft picks have to pan out. If you reduce the starters required from 2-3 number to 1-2 or 1.5 to 2.5, the 2008 draft might all the sudden look a lot better - especially after 10-15 years, after which you can look at things like productivity, pro bowls, trades, etc.

The other thing you can't ignore is draft position. For example, 2006 was an especially rich year due to the poor 2005 showing, being at the top of the draft order each round - and of course an extra #2 from Walker. Things like that complicate the whole thing to the point of Baseball proportions.

But two each year only gives you 20 in a 10 year period. Plenty of space for the FA signings.

Indeed. I didn't do any comprehensive search through the rosters of NFL teams, but I would bet that a significant percentage of those rosters are comprised of FAs compared to internal draft picks. Maybe even the best internally drafting teams like Pittsburgh and GB get by on no more than 2 starters/draft. If I have nothing to do this weekend, I'll investigate - unless you beat me to it.

[sharpe1027]

Until Finley plays more than just a handful of games as one of the best in the league, he is really just potential. His 13 games in 2009 don't make a career. Until someone else besides Sitton becomes an actual starter performing with consistency week after week, Sitton is the only illuminated bright light from the draft. The rest are flickering.

I disagree that Finley is "just potential." I think I understand your point about injuries, but I look at it this way: if Rodgers were to have a career ending injury next week, I would not say that he was "just potential" because two years "don't make a career." Sure, Rodgers has played more games, but IMO the standard should not be whether or not a player has proved to have made a career. In my mind, Finley has shown by objective and reasonable measures that he is an outstanding TE.

[3irty1]

Well the best draft class in history is probably the 1974 draft by the Steelers:
21) Lynn Swan, WR, USC - Hall of Famer
46) Jack Lambert, LB, Kent State - Hall of Famer
82) John Stallworth, WR, Alabama A&M - Hall of Famer
125) Mike Webster, C, Wisconsin - Hall of Famer

So if that is 100% then I'd give the Packers 2008 draft maybe a 60% which is a D-.

[Iron Mike]

Are you guys stoned?

Totally. Are you ready to whale down some carne asada with 10-12 Negra Modelos???

[bobblehead]

We are not that far apart. I look at Sitton as the only proven commodity. Nelson has shown flashes. I truly do worry about Finley staying healthy. He tends to run relatively tall, and constantly takes shoulders into his lower legs. As I recall, that is how he got hurt in 2009. Now that he has a repaired knee..... I also wonder if he will be 100% in 2011.

One last point I'll make on this thread Patler. You are downgrading the draft because of injury, or TT's performance in the draft because of injury. This is a huge difference as TT identified the talent and got it, but there would have been no way to identify Finley as an injury risk. One could argue that Harrell could have been pegged, even Jeremy Thompson I guess (though no one see's that disease until it hits), but finley? Nothing suggested injury, but we all agree that when healthy he is a game changer.

So, that being said, I give TT an A for landing two STUDS at their position with other contributors, but the draft itself will get downgraded due to Finley's health thus far.

[bobblehead]

I disagree that Finley is "just potential." I think I understand your point about injuries, but I look at it this way: if Rodgers were to have a career ending injury next week, I would not say that he was "just potential" because two years "don't make a career." Sure, Rodgers has played more games, but IMO the standard should not be whether or not a player has proved to have made a career. In my mind, Finley has shown by objective and reasonable measures that he is an outstanding TE.

This is also a good point and brings up another. Is the draft determined by "starters" drafted? If so, TT has a tough job since he has fielded a great team. A GM who has drafted miserably has an easier time drafting starters to replace his past bad drafts where as TT can't draft a starter in Jordy because he did too fucking good of a job nabbing Greg Jennings years earlier.

I will grade this draft based on talent aquired. He fucked up the Lee and Brohm picks, but he did draft at least 4 guys that will start in the NFL eventually and likely could start on several teams....5 if you count Jones which I won't at this point even though he started for us. I love Lang, Sitton, Finley, and Jordy. I also think Flynn will be a 10 year NFL player. Jones the jury is out on, but he flashed some talent. This is 5-6 NFL quality players from one draft and that might not be an A, but its not a C either when you add in the game changing ability of Sitton and Finley.

[get louder at lambeau]

Totally. Are you ready to whale down some carne asada with 10-12 Negra Modelos???

I grew up in Fonja Lac. There ain't no goddamn carne asada in Fonja Lac. Besides that, I'm in.

[Packman_26]

I'm not a big fan of rating a draft based on the number of starters you get. Its not like if a team has a really bad GM they are only going to start 21 guys. Every team starts the same amount of players. Getting a starter on the Packers or Steelers is much harder than the Panthers or Bills. Also having other good draft classes will hurt you by this standard.
Plus, some draft classes are more talented than others. I don't think we should punish Thompson for not drafting a Clay Matthews in 2008. There wasn't a Matthews-type player there. It could be argued that TT should have taken DeSean Jackson instead of Nelson, but that type of thinking would lead you to believe there aren't any good GMs.
I think the best way to judge a draft class is to consider how the draft would look if you could do the whole thing over again. What round would guys like Finley, Sitton, and Flynn go if that draft were held today?
I say its an A.

[Packman_26]

This is also a good point and brings up another. Is the draft determined by "starters" drafted? If so, TT has a tough job since he has fielded a great team. A GM who has drafted miserably has an easier time drafting starters to replace his past bad drafts where as TT can't draft a starter in Jordy because he did too fucking good of a job nabbing Greg Jennings years earlier.

I will grade this draft based on talent aquired. He fucked up the Lee and Brohm picks, but he did draft at least 4 guys that will start in the NFL eventually and likely could start on several teams....5 if you count Jones which I won't at this point even though he started for us. I love Lang, Sitton, Finley, and Jordy. I also think Flynn will be a 10 year NFL player. Jones the jury is out on, but he flashed some talent. This is 5-6 NFL quality players from one draft and that might not be an A, but its not a C either when you add in the game changing ability of Sitton and Finley.

Damn, you scooped me. Good job.

[Fritz]

Patler, I think you're being a little tough here. I just looked over some of Ron Wolf's drafts, and he had what looked like a number of duds - though every draft seemed to produce at least one or two reasonable players. But it's not like every draft was stellar - most of them don't look that great. But he got a SB out of it.

And check out this stellar 1986 draft. Who was in charge back then, anyway? Pee Wee Herman? I recall Tim Harris as being good, but the rest? How'd Robbie Bosco work out? How's this draft get graded?

1986 1 2 14 41 Kenneth Davis RB Texas Christian
2 3 17 72 Robbie Bosco QB Brigham Young
3 4 2 84 Tim Harris DE Memphis State
4 4 16 98 Dan Knight T San Diego State
5 5 15 125 Matt Koart DT USC
6 6 5 143 Burnell Dent LB Tulane
7 7 17 183 Ed Berry DB Utah State
8 8 16 210 Michael Cline DT Arkansas State
9 9 15 236 Brent Moore

[Iron Mike]

I grew up in Fonja Lac. There ain't no goddamn carne asada in Fonja Lac. Besides that, I'm in.

Oh, I beg to differ. There's Mazatlan on 6th and Main, Casa Mexico on 45 and Scott St., Sombreros on Pioneer Road and La Tapatia on Johnson Street. I think you can even get tortas at the former Taco John's.

[Patler]

One last point I'll make on this thread Patler. You are downgrading the draft because of injury, or TT's performance in the draft because of injury. This is a huge difference as TT identified the talent and got it, but there would have been no way to identify Finley as an injury risk. One could argue that Harrell could have been pegged, even Jeremy Thompson I guess (though no one see's that disease until it hits), but finley? Nothing suggested injury, but we all agree that when healthy he is a game changer.

So, that being said, I give TT an A for landing two STUDS at their position with other contributors, but the draft itself will get downgraded due to Finley's health thus far.

I have never downgraded a GM because of a player's injury. No way of predicting those. But we aren't rating TT here, we are rating the effect of the 2008 draft, no? The impact of that draft on the team. The question was:

Three years later, how do you think this draft has panned out for us?

For example, I think Murphy was a good pick in 2005, but his impact on the team was 0. If I were evaluating TT's performance, I would not downgrade him for picking Murphy, but Murphy didn't "pan out" at all.

I for one do not think Harrell was a bad pick, he just hasn't panned out at all. I do not criticize TT for picking him, but he has meant nothing to the Packers so far. The impact of that draft may be low, but not because TT did a poor job necessarily.

That's why I'm lukewarm on Finley as he relates to this thread. I think he was a great pick for where he was taken, but so far he has had only a moderate impact on the team. I think it can be argued that Nelson has had as much or even more impact than Finley has had. As for their potential? Finley by a landslide, but we aren't rating potential, are we? If he doesn't have a good year in 2011 and leaves in the off season, he won't have "panned out" all that well for the Packers.

Maybe that's why so many disagree so strongly with me. I am looking at actual impact and others are looking more to the future. As I have said over and over, I would give that draft a "C" for now, but have acknowledged it could move much higher depending on where the future takes Finley and Nelson, and if they get something from the pick of Flynn.

I think a GM can have a great draft that just doesn't pan out due to injury.

[get louder at lambeau]

Oh, I beg to differ. There's Mazatlan on 6th and Main, Casa Mexico on 45 and Scott St., Sombreros on Pioneer Road and La Tapatia on Johnson Street. I think you can even get tortas at the former Taco John's.

Well, I guess I haven't lived there for over 10 years. I think the only one of those that existed back when I lived there was the one on W. Scott, but it was probably a different owner and different name back then. Taco John's is closed? Is the Mad Hatter closed too?

[Guiness]

Also you are holding an injury against the guy who drafted him.....how do you draft guys that never get injured??

I have never downgraded a GM because of a player's injury. No way of predicting those. But we aren't rating TT here, we are rating the effect of the 2008 draft, no? The impact of that draft on the team. The question was:

Three years later, how do you think this draft has panned out for us?

I agree with Patler on this. We're talking about the effect of a pick on the team. I don't hold a player's injury against the person who drafted him, but if didn't contribute, he didn't contribute.

Coulda woulda shoulda doesn't win games. That's Rex Ryan territory, the Jets coulda beat us in the SB, right?

A team made up of good (or potentially good) players doesn't get us anywhere. Murphy, Thompson, Ki-Jana Carter and, I don't know, Ponder or Pennington. Let's throw in Kellen Winslow, who has started 16 games once in a seven year career...