Packers Draft

[Patler]

I thought the general impression of EDS in his limited games at center was pretty positive, wasn't it?
Is it a forgone conclusion that he is NOT the long-term answer at center?

The Packers have implied that they are willing to open things up to improve the O-line. If EDS is not a long term answer, wouldn't we all be surprised if the starting lineup from left to right went something like this:

Datko/Sherrod - Bulaga - Lang - Sitton - Barclay.

Bulaga virtually had the LG spot snatched away from Colledge, but than got hurt at the end of TC and for the first week or two in his rookie year. Never had the chance to challenge Colledge again as he was needed instead at RT. Lang has worked a bit at center, and when he was drafted many said it might be his best position ultimately. Barclay is a scrapper who just might turn out to be a new vintage of Mark Tauscher.

However, I do think that a Bulaga/Barclay combination might be the best at tackle, rather than Bulaga at RT with any of Newhouse, Sherrod, Datko or Bakhtiari at LT.

[3irty1]

I thought the general impression of EDS in his limited games at center was pretty positive, wasn't it?
Is it a forgone conclusion that he is NOT the long-term answer at center?

The Packers have implied that they are willing to open things up to improve the O-line. If EDS is not a long term answer, wouldn't we all be surprised if the starting lineup from left to right went something like this:

Datko/Sherrod - Bulaga - Lang - Sitton - Barclay.

Bulaga virtually had the LG spot snatched away from Colledge, but than got hurt at the end of TC and for the first week or two in his rookie year. Never had the chance to challenge Colledge again as he was needed instead at RT. Lang has worked a bit at center, and when he was drafted many said it might be his best position ultimately. Barclay is a scrapper who just might turn out to be a new vintage of Mark Tauscher.

However, I do think that a Bulaga/Barclay combination might be the best at tackle, rather than Bulaga at RT with any of Newhouse, Sherrod, Datko or Bakhtiari at LT.

The most telling evidence in my mind that the Packers aren't that into EDS was his lowest qualifying RFA tender. I recall most fans expected his tender to be much higher than it was based on his play, so I think this is where the perception came from that EDS sucks. Seems like the market has been pretty terrible for all RFA's this year.

[pbmax]

The tender offer is also a bet to some degree, like baseball arbitration, about how low an offer can you get away with. And the Packers were clearly looking to save space.

But there is not much doubt that most of the League sees a limit on his ceiling.

He definitely played better than Saturday, but that wasn't saying a whole lot. I think his offer was also an indication about how the Packers view the position. That they could slide a variety of people there and get the job done.

If EDS signed elsewhere, would you have expected the Packers to take more O lineman? Or maybe Schwartzkopf, the center from Alabama? I am not sure he would have changed his draft, except perhaps at the end.

[Patler]

The most telling evidence in my mind that the Packers aren't that into EDS was his lowest qualifying RFA tender. I recall most fans expected his tender to be much higher than it was based on his play, so I think this is where the perception came from that EDS sucks. Seems like the market has been pretty terrible for all RFA's this year.

But then how do you justify that with the Packers doing nothing to replace him?

The low offer didn't lead me to any conclusion one way or another; except that the Packers were willing to let the market determine his value. Had he received an offer (which is getting to be less and less likely for RFA's) all the Packers had to do was match it. How much do teams really know about EDS? There is very limited game tape available on him, at either guard or center. The risk that someone would offer a significant contract that the Packers would have been unwilling to match was probably very small. The low tender was just a good business risk, I think, for a guy as little-known as EDS.

[3irty1]

But then how do you justify that with the Packers doing nothing to replace him?

The low offer didn't lead me to any conclusion one way or another; except that the Packers were willing to let the market determine his value. Had he received an offer (which is getting to be less and less likely for RFA's) all the Packers had to do was match it. How much do teams really know about EDS? There is very limited game tape available on him, at either guard or center. The risk that someone would offer a significant contract that the Packers would have been unwilling to match was probably very small. The low tender was just a good business risk, I think, for a guy as little-known as EDS.

I can't justify it but I've also been saying I don't think he's a liability and am happy with him at center and the position as a whole after the draft. I was just making the argument against him so we have something to talk about.

[wist43]

Drafting for need is a fools errand. Ask Mike Sherman.

If there are questions about Schwenke (and there would seem to be since he was a 3rd round prospect) and he can't play Guard, that adds to the risk. Wasn't he the one who played fast and quick but lacked power?

No one here is dealing with the full set of data. No one has interviewed any of the players. No one has access to a criminal background checks or drug tests. No one has talked privately to the kid's college coaches.

Remember the Jerry Jones photo with his draft board in the background? There were very few players with 3rd round grades or better compared to the list from draft sites. What if Schwenke graded out as a 5th round prospect to the Packers. To take him means leaving other, better players on the board?

Last word. Each poster will remember the one pick they called and wished the Packers selected. But will any of them remember the other five they were wrong about? No one forgets Ted's errors.

I agree max - I am not advocating picking a player who isn't worthy of being drafted at that spot. And I agree with you about the "we just don't know" aspect of armchair GM'ing.

We can't sit down and look these kids in the eye - suppose Schwenke sat down with Campen and MM in an interview room at the combine, and all Schwenke could talk about was partying with his posse. We would never hear about it, but TT would simply take him off his board - and we'd scream bloody murder b/c TT passed on a quality center.

That said, just about everybody had the guys we've been talking about rated in the range we could have grabbed them; and, as it turns out other teams plucked those players off the board while TT kept marching backward.

[Patler]

I was just making the argument against him so we have something to talk about.

I've been known to do that myself from time to time!!

[woodbuck27]

What happens if Tretter turns out to be better than Schwenke? What happens if Tretter turns out to be better than Schwenke, and Johnson is more than a camp body? Certainly not outside of the realm of possibility. Thompson has a way of surprising us. Jolly, Bishop, Sitton, Lang, Newhouse, etc. were all 4th round or later selections who turned out to be better than many players at their positions that went ahead of them and were projected to be better. I'd also add House. I think his future looks brighter than many of the corners drafted a round or two before him, provided he gets over his injury.

Yea >>> TT has a way of surprizing us 'too many times', in this last draft.

That's the focus and core of the issue of our debate.

Mere 'more bodies' in TC 'that met TT's standards' vs 'Overall quality expert judged talent' >>> in TC.

A better calculated >>> coulda ... woulda ... shoulda.

PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

This is the same argument I made in the other thread.

None of you homers could put a dent in the argument - all you could do was try to change the criteria and accuse me of having unreasonable expectations. I don't think the argument I have laid out above is unreasonable.

We have holes in our lineups on both sides of the ball, and we are lacking effective depth. Rodgers is covering for a lot of sins - including a dismal defense. TT addressed 2 holes (DE and RB), and ignored several others (LT, C, NT, ILB - we need help everywhere).

Bottom line, I don't think this draft improved us appreciably b/c TT refused to pull the trigger on guys like Schwenke, Williams, Patton, Lemonier, Winters, et al. Instead we got the lightest T in the draft, the circus freak from Colorado, and a LB'er that ran a blistering 4.91, 40.

We need quality, not quantity, out of the draft. Go out and round up your quantity from undrafted street FA's - guys like Tramon Williams and Will Shields were outstanding finds.

Are we possibly perceived as:



The Indians

OR



The Cowboys

I'm 'just' a plain Ole >>> Green Bay Packer fan.

[3irty1]

This is the same argument I made in the other thread.

None of you homers could put a dent in the argument - all you could do was try to change the criteria and accuse me of having unreasonable expectations. I don't think the argument I have laid out above is unreasonable.

We have holes in our lineups on both sides of the ball, and we are lacking effective depth. Rodgers is covering for a lot of sins - including a dismal defense. TT addressed 2 holes (DE and RB), and ignored several others (LT, C, NT, ILB - we need help everywhere).

Bottom line, I don't think this draft improved us appreciably b/c TT refused to pull the trigger on guys like Schwenke, Williams, Patton, Lemonier, Winters, et al. Instead we got the lightest T in the draft, the circus freak from Colorado, and a LB'er that ran a blistering 4.91, 40.

We need quality, not quantity, out of the draft. Go out and round up your quantity from undrafted street FA's - guys like Tramon Williams and Will Shields were outstanding finds.

Its hard to put dents in hot air wist. The argument that Ted passed on legit starters to draft a bunch of JAGs, spitballs, bums, camp fodder, and unrosterable players is based on the assumption that a guy sitting in a bomb shelter with a tin foil hat on can better evaluate players via youtube than a NFL GM with a team of NFL scouts can do full time. We know two things for sure. 1. Ted has a lot more information than us. 2. He disagrees with you unless you think he's deliberately drafting bartenders in which case that's an argument I'd like to hear. Saying most of them won't make the team and writing off the ones you don't like just because you don't like them is par for the course on an internet forum but its not rational and won't convince anyone.

[smuggler]

One thing with regard to centers - how many centers were taken in the draft? There were ~120 starting centers in college ball, just among division I clubs. How many were drafted? 6? 7?

Probably 20 tackles were drafted. You have a lot of experienced college centers to consider outside of the drat. It's not just Green Bay that doesn't value the center spot - it's the whole league (outside of Dallas - LOL)

That doesn't even take into account that there are a number of guards that are undersized at ~300# that went undrafted because of it, but could potentially make very effective centers if they're athletic enough.

Bigger pool of players + less players snagged = less premium on the position in the draft

Edit:

Total number of centers drafted: 6

Travis Frederick (reach/overdraft in round 1 by Cowpokes) - Nope
Khalid Holmes (reach/overdraft in round 4 by Colts) - Too soon for TT
Barrett Jones (drafted in projected round [4] but also came at less than full health after torn ACL) - Probably not on TT's board due to injuries to both knees.
TJ Johnson (drafted in projected round [7] but was taken 4th from last) - TT probably expected him to go undrafted, as most did.
Eric Kush (drafted in projected round [6] but suffered an ankle injury in the E/W Shrine game and looked bad after returning) - I would have been fine with this pick, but even still, it's a 6th round center.
Brian Schwenke (value pick by Titans in 4th) - I think we probably would have swung the bat there, but he went 2 picks before our 4th rounder. Them's the breaks. We got Bhaktiari. Hopefully, that's to our benefit.

[wist43]

Its hard to put dents in hot air wist. The argument that Ted passed on legit starters to draft a bunch of JAGs, spitballs, bums, camp fodder, and unrosterable players is based on the assumption that a guy sitting in a bomb shelter with a tin foil hat on can better evaluate players via youtube than a NFL GM with a team of NFL scouts can do full time. We know two things for sure. 1. Ted has a lot more information than us. 2. He disagrees with you unless you think he's deliberately drafting bartenders in which case that's an argument I'd like to hear. Saying most of them won't make the team and writing off the ones you don't like just because you don't like them is par for the course on an internet forum but its not rational and won't convince anyone.

It just statistics 3irty1...

I've broken down the numbers - the numbers do not support TT's spitball approach. If TT were a late round God, we'd have a roster bursting at the seams with players that necessarily have to move on to other teams b/c we can't afford them.

If you can't assail my argument, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assail me.

Thanks

[3irty1]

It just statistics 3irty1...

I've broken down the numbers - the numbers do not support TT's spitball approach. If TT were a late round God, we'd have a roster bursting at the seams with players that necessarily have to move on to other teams b/c we can't afford them.

If you can't assail my argument, I'd appreciate it if you didn't assail me.

Thanks

I apologize you're right I shouldn't have said that.

In regards to the stats though I think there is a more scientific way to get your results.

Nobody expects a GM to do better late than he would early... that much is obvious. The best way to determine his use of draft picks in the late rounds is to assign a value to each draft slot (lets say points from a trade chart) a player was taken in and find out the total points/player in rounds 1-3 and the points/player in rounds 4-7. Does that makes sense?

[woodbuck27]

Its hard to put dents in hot air wist. The argument that Ted passed on legit starters to draft a bunch of JAGs, spitballs, bums, camp fodder, and unrosterable players is based on the assumption that a guy sitting in a bomb shelter with a tin foil hat on can better evaluate players via youtube than a NFL GM with a team of NFL scouts can do full time. We know two things for sure. 1. Ted has a lot more information than us. 2. He disagrees with you unless you think he's deliberately drafting bartenders in which case that's an argument I'd like to hear. Saying most of them won't make the team and writing off the ones you don't like just because you don't like them is par for the course on an internet forum but its not rational and won't convince anyone.

I do not have to defend Wist43 as he's doing very well.

This isn't about Wist43.This is all about (for) you Packer fan to simply consider.

I respect you as a solid poster here 3irty1:

All the same....

Your miscast in terms of your intelligence and argument and as a result. Ignoring the simple TRUTH that Wist43 has presented to you and others here over... and over ... and over ... time and again.

I'm astounded at how very strong his argument is in this respect. That you and others here are missing it. His argument is 'in fact' beyond solid. His argument is soundly based; concrete in it's construction.

Your not being objective;cannot be so, 'if your a HOMER'. I'm not decided as to that and you 3irty1. If your 'a homer' so be it. That's all well and fine. That will lend to you a certain passion. If your 'a Homer' ... it's not your fault. There is nothing wrong with being a die hard dedicated fan of any team.... even to the degree of being 'labeled'... a homer.

Your more than likely aware of this. Intelligence may be clouded or tainted in 'HOMERISM. A homer has difficulty being objective. A 'Homer' lacks a certain insight into really examining an issue; that might reflect poorly on the team in any manner. ie The Green Bay packers GM, Ted Thompson.

Homers somehow actually believe that any critique of Ted Thompson is akin to blasphamy.

Maybe that's hardly 'the case' and you? You may simply be entertained by argument? I hope not as this is rather ... harmless intended debate. Argument ends up with damaged feelings.

You simply appear to me like some here.

Those posters that actually believe that TT is infallable. Such a position isn't intelligently defenseable, because of 'certain prejudice and/or bias' towords anything Green Bay Packer. It has to be in a certain order. Anything else is mocked, ridiculed or otherwise attacked with course insult.

Thus such a position or HOMERISM will 'as a bottom line'. Only disrespct an offending position.

Can you possibly admit that there can be a better way than Ted Thompson's way in specific determination? Unless the answer is a definite 'YES' or positive. That's hardly a reasonable position.

I'm not here to debate the above. I simply toss that down as it's merited; in accordance to ultimately reaching a proper and mutual resolution/agreement.

Did Ted Thompson conduct himself (with his draft team) strategically best in this last draft.

My position is clear that he didn't for very obvious reasons. Ted Thompson could have done better.

Again... I believe today that he realizes that as a fact...a TRUTH.

GO PACK GO !

[cheesner]

Its hard to put dents in hot air wist. The argument that Ted passed on legit starters to draft a bunch of JAGs, spitballs, bums, camp fodder, and unrosterable players is based on the assumption that a guy sitting in a bomb shelter with a tin foil hat on can better evaluate players via youtube than a NFL GM with a team of NFL scouts can do full time. We know two things for sure. 1. Ted has a lot more information than us. 2. He disagrees with you unless you think he's deliberately drafting bartenders in which case that's an argument I'd like to hear. Saying most of them won't make the team and writing off the ones you don't like just because you don't like them is par for the course on an internet forum but its not rational and won't convince anyone.

Good stuff!

I
Your not being objective;cannot be so, 'if your a HOMER'. I'm not decided as to that and you 3irty1. If your 'a homer' so be it. That's all well and fine. That will lend to you a certain passion. If your 'a Homer' ... it's not your fault. There is nothing wrong with being a die hard dedicated fan of any team.... even to the degree of being 'labeled'... a homer.

Ahh, same old Woodbuck. Nice to check back in once and a while.

You are correct! 'Homerism' can cloud judgement. A worse 'cloud' is blind hatred/prejudice. It becomes quite evident when a poster, for whatever reason, hates our GM and will find fault in whatever he does. Some posters become even delusional, thinking they understand football and the draft better than a team of professionals who have access to 100x more information than the average fan. GMs make mistakes - of course. THere is a risk/reward value to every pick they make. Thompson understands this, not every poster does.