NFC North 2009 draft revisited.

[Fritz]

There's hope. It's possible that the Schvantz could self-destruct in Detroit if he can't keep a rein on the renegades there.

I do think Stafford alone makes that a more valuable draft for the Lions, but not by much. At all.

I also disagree with the article's assertion that TJ Lang is a valuable what, "swing" guy? I think that's what they called him. I think he's developing into a very solid starting guard.

[BobDobbs]

That was quite a year for the NFC North. Rodgers begins winning, Farve signs with the vikes, Cutler comes via trade, and Stafford shows up as the #1 pick. Good bye black and blue, hello air delivery.

It's three starters is a successful draft right, by that measure we were successful. Didn't get much out of the bottom of the draft, but no one really flamed out a la Brian Brohm.

[smuggler]

In no way was I suggesting our draft wasn't good. We had a nice draft, but they got more solid guys.

Matt Fratford
Raji > Pettigrew
Claymaker > Louis Delmas
Lang > DeAndre Levy
Wynn/Jones < Sammie Hill

If it weren't for FrattyBo, I'd say we came out ahead.

[sharpe1027]

I guess it depends on whether your are grading based purely on end results, or if you can take into consideration what draft picks they each had going into the draft. If you look at the relative draft positions and number of picks you can make a good argument that the Pack did more with less. If you just look at the end product, the Lions probably came out ahead.

[Fritz]

By contrast, no one is arguing that the Bears or the Vikes drafted very well that year.

One bit I found interesting a few weeks ago was MM's comment that the OTA's were a chance for the third and fourth year guys to really make big strides. Most of us, myself included, think it's the second year guys. So if MM is correct, that means there's still big improvements to be made for the 09 and 10 draft classes. Wow.

[woodbuck27]

By contrast, no one is arguing that the Bears or the Vikes drafted very well that year.

One bit I found interesting a few weeks ago was MM's comment that the OTA's were a chance for the third and fourth year guys to really make big strides. Most of us, myself included, think it's the second year guys. So if MM is correct, that means there's still big improvements to be made for the 09 and 10 draft classes. Wow.

Yup. This is going to be the best TC we have witnessed in a long time. So much to positively look for. We have talent available to us now moreso that I can recall certainly in the TT era.

[pbmax]

By contrast, no one is arguing that the Bears or the Vikes drafted very well that year.

One bit I found interesting a few weeks ago was MM's comment that the OTA's were a chance for the third and fourth year guys to really make big strides. Most of us, myself included, think it's the second year guys. So if MM is correct, that means there's still big improvements to be made for the 09 and 10 draft classes. Wow.

That is an odd one and seems like a good time not to take McCarthy's every pronouncement seriously.

By year 3 or 4, players should need an OTA to improve or impress. The exception here might be last year's rookies and single year vets who were set back a year of off season.

[Upnorth]

That is an odd one and seems like a good time not to take McCarthy's every pronouncement seriously.

By year 3 or 4, players should need an OTA to improve or impress. The exception here might be last year's rookies and single year vets who were set back a year of off season.

1st year rookie learning the ropes.
2nd year sophmore becoming assignment sure.
3rf year, show us what ya got.
Maybe this is what he means. No more excuses, just execute!

[RashanGary]

Each player is a little different. Some guys come in underdeveloped physically (maybe they went to a small school that didn't have a good weight program or a lot of the good performance enhancers circulating.) Maybe they came from a school that did not teach similar style techniques to what they're being asked to do on this level. Maybe both.

I've heard Ted Thompson say there are guys who can do it right away, and sometimes there are guys who take 3 years, then they're great players for the next 10.

By and large, year 2 is that magic number to expect a guy to take off. Year 4 seems like the last straw.


Clay Matthews came in a beast. Capers said he could play anywhere because he just knows how to play football. He was a guy who was ready from day one with his head and his body.

Greg Jennings was a natural from day one. He was athletic from day one, and picked it up quickly.

Bryan Bulaga was a guy who came out after his JR year, and after losing some weight due to his thyroid condition. Physically, he probably wasn't ready. Mentally although he came from a great school teaching OL, there's no doubt he could become a lot better. He gave up a lot of sacks (12) in his rookie year. He took off in year 2 and MM seems to think he's going to be dominant in year 3.

Marshall Newhouse came from a small school. He had room to grow physically, but his fundamentals were so far behind the curve he was strictly a developmental guy. It takes time to build that muscle memory and just play. Last year, year 2, was similar to Bulaga's rookie year. He got bounced around like Bulaga did, managed to find a spot on the starting line and gave up 12 sacks. Considering how much further along Bulaga was with technique, I would think Newhouse qualifies as that type of player who could take off as a heck of a player in year 3.


There are a lot of different paths to becoming great. From Matthews to Jennings, Rodgers, Nelson, Finley, Tramon, Collins, Sitton, Bulaga and others. . . . Each of our good/great players took a little different path.


I'd say anywhere from 2nd year through 4th year players, there is no telling just how much better a player can be. The ones who took longer all showed signs along the way.

TJ Lang could be a fuckin rock star this year and he was just good last year. He's in his 4th year.

Bulaga, Neal, Burnett, Newhouse and Starks could all take big jumps in their 3rd years.

Sherrod, Cobb, Green, House, DJ Williams, DJ Smith, even Lawrence Guy. . . . .

With the way last years offseason went, there is no telling how good any one of these players is/could be.


Just for the fun of it, I'll drop my money on. . . . . Lang, Newhouse, Bulaga, Starks, Cobb, House, DJ Williams and DJ Smith taking big jumps this year. For shits and giggles, throw Shields and MD Jennings in there too.



And my ready from day one rookie bet goes on Casey Hayward with Perry being a pass rush specialist who struggles like hell in other areas.

[pbmax]

Brian Williams was a guy who did not shine until Year 3. But everyone knew he could do more and he had an injury slowing him down along the way.

So I don't think its unheard of for guys to blossom in Year 3 or 4, but it seems to be oversold in this quote about OTAs. There are just as many who shine in the first two years, including low picks and UDFAs. Marshall Newhouse was being cited for his left tackle quality footwork in his rookie camp.

Maybe the argument is simply over the level achieved. Players usually at least flash something about their talent earlier than this, but M3 is talking about it happening every down, consistently, without mental errors in OTA Y3 or 4.

[Fritz]

Tauscher was a guy who just stepped in and seemed to "get it" right away. By contrast, Jordy Nelson took a couple years to become the receiver he is today.

[hoosier]

If memory serves, Cletidus Hunt didn't really blossom until his fourth year either.

[pbmax]

If memory serves, Cletidus Hunt didn't really blossom until his fourth year either.

And he is the cautionary tale GMs tell when you get excited about a contract year performance.

[Fritz]

If memory serves, Cletidus Hunt didn't really blossom until his fourth year either.

Then he wilted right after that.

[smuggler]

Clitoris Cunt