The top 10 Green Bay Packers 1st round Draft selections

[woodbuck27]

Comment woodbuck27:

I'll challenge you. Try to pick just one of this authors top three 1st round picks before you read his choices. I'll bet your surprized.

http://lombardiave.com/2013/03/23/the-top-10-green-bay-packers-1st-round-draft-selections/

The top 10 Green Bay Packers 1st round Draft selections

by Raymond Rivard ... SI.Com ... Lombardi Ave.

Mar 23rd, 2013 at 8:04 pm

[hoosier]

#s 1 and 3 are pretty uncontroversial as top 5 first-round picks in Packer history. The author ranks Rodgers relatively low because "his career is still young and he has much yet to do." Well, yeah, but he has already accomplished more than some of the guys ranked ahead of him. So he is basically penalizing ARod for not having retired yet. Got it.

Can somebody please explain to me on what grounds Paul Hornung qualifies an all time great? He was a jack of all trades who, at least stastically, didn't do anything exceptionally well (except maybe score TDs in the goal line offense). Is his HOFness the product of having played on great teams?

[King Friday]

Can somebody please explain to me on what grounds Paul Hornung qualifies an all time great? He was a jack of all trades who, at least stastically, didn't do anything exceptionally well (except maybe score TDs in the goal line offense). Is his HOFness the product of having played on great teams?

62 TDs in 104 career games. It is difficult to claim he didn't do anything statistically...when the reason his stats weren't astronomic was due to the fact he shared carries with another HOF caliber RB. You know...the exact opposite of the RB situation we have today.

[Joemailman]

Fred Carr should be in there over Ezra Johnson.

[red]

that list seems about right to me

but i would have to recommend that the guys drafted during the 70's and early 80's should be disqualified because one could argue that the packers weren't a pro caliber team during those years

[hoosier]

62 TDs in 104 career games. It is difficult to claim he didn't do anything statistically...when the reason his stats weren't astronomic was due to the fact he shared carries with another HOF caliber RB. You know...the exact opposite of the RB situation we have today.

I understand that he split the carries with Taylor, but if you compare the two Taylor's numbers across the board are just so much better. In general the criteria for HOF consideration is that a players was consistently the best or among the very top at his position during his playing years. Judging from stats alone Taylor was clearly that, but Hornung? His TD totals were good but he only once finished in the top ten in total rushing yardage (and that was 8th), and his per carry averages were not especially impressive. Marcus Allen is the one RB I can think of who was a consensus HOF player but didn't put up astronomical numbers (except, again, TDs), and whose greatness was based on longevity and less tangible stuff, John Madden stuff like "when you need a yard Marcus Allen will always find a way to get it for you". But Hornung played before the days when TV was producing stars. Where does his greatness lie?

[BZnDallas]

after living in Dallas for the last 20+ years and having to hear the arrogance of cowboy fans and players (current and former), it brings me much joy and warmth, kinda like that first shot of whiskey after a long day, to read this ”I’m the only man with a Dallas Cowboys Super Bowl ring who doesn’t wear it. I’m a Green Bay Packer.” from ole Herb

[Patler]

Once again, an author casts suspicion on the quality of his article by an early, and rather obvious factual error:

You might notice that players such as Brett Favre and Reggie White are not on this list … yes, they were first round selections, but not by the Packers.

Favre was not a first round pick. He was drafted in the second round. He cost the Packers a first round pick in the trade, but was not a first round pick himself.

Willie Buchanon, Fred Carr & John Anderson deserve consideration over some on the list.

[Smeefers]

I understand that he split the carries with Taylor, but if you compare the two Taylor's numbers across the board are just so much better. In general the criteria for HOF consideration is that a players was consistently the best or among the very top at his position during his playing years. Judging from stats alone Taylor was clearly that, but Hornung? His TD totals were good but he only once finished in the top ten in total rushing yardage (and that was 8th), and his per carry averages were not especially impressive. Marcus Allen is the one RB I can think of who was a consensus HOF player but didn't put up astronomical numbers (except, again, TDs), and whose greatness was based on longevity and less tangible stuff, John Madden stuff like "when you need a yard Marcus Allen will always find a way to get it for you". But Hornung played before the days when TV was producing stars. Where does his greatness lie?

It's a shame the golden boy's highlights aren't readily available online. You can see a lot though if you go the Lambeau Field. I don't know if that's an easy task for you or not, but I would spend hours just looking at the highlights they have playing all around.

I can tell you why him being a Jack of all trades is so impressive. Name another one. Tell me a guy who could be a running back, blocker, quarter back and wide receiver. Not only be one, but be exceptionally good at all 4 aspects. Oh, and he kicked field goals too. I never watched him play, so when you initially asked I wasn't sure, but then I got thinking. When My dad talks about the packers of yor, he always brings up Hornung first. My mom giggles like a school girl when she tells the story of talking to him on the telephone. Back then, making it to the hall wasn't all about numbers. Case in point, Gale Sayers. Ehh, maybe that's not a good answer, but it's the only one I got.

[Patler]

I can tell you why him being a Jack of all trades is so impressive. Name another one. Tell me a guy who could be a running back, blocker, quarter back and wide receiver. Not only be one, but be exceptionally good at all 4 aspects. Oh, and he kicked field goals too.

I can think of only one - Frank Gifford. Didn't kick as much as Hornung did, but was able to. It was said that Gifford was the blueprint for Lombardi's use of Hornung.

[Smeefers]

I can think of only one - Frank Gifford. Didn't kick as much as Hornung did, but was able to. It was said that Gifford was the blueprint for Lombardi's use of Hornung.

See! PATLER can only think of ONE. And he was a hall of famer too.

Me, I had no idea that Frank Gifford played football before he was a broadcaster.

[woodbuck27]

Once again, an author casts suspicion on the quality of his article by an early, and rather obvious factual error:

Favre was not a first round pick. He was drafted in the second round. He cost the Packers a first round pick in the trade, but was not a first round pick himself.

Willie Buchanon, Fred Carr & John Anderson deserve consideration over some on the list.

"Once again, an author casts suspicion on the quality of his article by an early, and rather obvious factual error." Patler

Is a BRAVO in order Patler? Why did you feel the need to discredit the author and article? You jump on the the credibility of author/effort. I cannot help but wonder how you view the efforts of posters here?

In your swipe at the author and the credibility of the article. You took exception with 'the facts' in his sentence as to why Brett Favre and Reggie White were omitted from consideration. That error simply couldn't dangle in front of you?

Yes it was "an early, and rather obvious factual error", and so what in terms of another top ten list.

A majority of Packer fans know that Brett Favre was a second round selection by the Atlanta Falcons. Favre was selected 33rd overall in the 1991 draft.

You neglected to inform the forum that Reggie White was drafted by the Philadelphia Eagles in 1984. That he was the 4th pick out of the USFL in 'the Supplemental', not regular NFL draft.

We're entering another slow time of the 'off season'; almost two weeks into free agency. I placed that article on the forum as a discussion point for some of us that arn't 'all knowing'. To merely try to stimulate a conversation.

Because the article has an error or two doesn't mean it isn't worthy in terms of it's intent or content.

GO PACKERS !

[pbmax]

Wasn't Hornung used as a single-wing whatever the QB is in that offense before Lombardi told him he would be the halfback?

[Zool]

"Once again, an author casts suspicion on the quality of his article by an early, and rather obvious factual error." Patler

Is a BRAVO in order Patler? Why did you feel the need to discredit the author and article? You jump on the the credibility of author/effort. I cannot help but wonder how you view the efforts of posters here?

In your swipe at the author and the credibility of the article. You took exception with 'the facts' in his sentence as to why Brett Favre and Reggie White were omitted from consideration. That error simply couldn't dangle in front of you?

Yes it was "an early, and rather obvious factual error", and so what in terms of another top ten list.

A majority of Packer fans know that Brett Favre was a second round selection by the Atlanta Falcons. Favre was selected 33rd overall in the 1991 draft.

You neglected to inform the forum that Reggie White was drafted by the Philadelphia Eagles in 1984. That he was the 4th pick out of the USFL in 'the Supplemental', not regular NFL draft.

We're entering another slow time of the 'off season'; almost two weeks into free agency. I placed that article on the forum as a discussion point for some of us that arn't 'all knowing'. To merely try to stimulate a conversation.

Because the article has an error or two doesn't mean it isn't worthy in terms of it's intent or content.

GO PACKERS !

Because there used to be such a thing as journalistic integrity and fact checking. Even a slightly above casual fan of the Packers knows Favre wasn't drafted by GB. The so-called reporting in sports of late are awful at best.

[woodbuck27]

Because there used to be such a thing as journalistic integrity and fact checking. Even a slightly above casual fan of the Packers knows Favre wasn't drafted by GB. The so-called reporting in sports of late are awful at best.

I won't argue that. Of course that error was easy to spot (maybe?) for most Packer fans. See my post.

My point is that because of that error. Which by the way is moot in terms of the authors list. The article in terms of the authors overall effort shouldn't be poo-poo'd.

It's another 'top ten list' merely open for improvement via discussion.

Noone here at Packerrats has to agree with it after some study. Without it or other articles what do we have to discuss or form consensus on?