Defensive Overhaul

[bobblehead]

I think there are a lot of reasons the D sucks.

1. Sustained success = less talent on roster due to drafting lower

The Colts went through this too. When you are picking at the bottom year after year, it is tough to keep talent when you don't sign FA. The Patriots have gone through it, too, but they keep the cabinet stocked by utilizing trades and strategic free agency. Another reason they are significantly ahead of everyone else in terms of consistent success. Best franchise in the league by a mile.

2. Injury prone draft picks

Mike Neal can't stay healthy. Even this year he never practices. Clay is hurt annually and misses a few games. Perry is consistently hurt. Brad Jones is always hurt. The linebackers consistently yet - not surprising given the injury epidemic there. At least Hawk is available. That's more than we can say for the rest.

3. Poor drafting

I think TT is a little overrated and a lot of his success can be attributed to Rodgers and Favre. Having said that, have to credit him with Rodgers. It seems to me that the quality of drafts have really dropped over the past 3-4 years when McKenzie, Schneider, the dude in KC, etc departing.

He hasn't drafted a star since 2009. We can give him epic credit for Clay, but Raji is a pretty big bust in my opinion for his draft position. Bulaga (can't stay on the field), Sherrod (Can't get on the field), Perry (Can't stay on the field) and Jones (Can't get on the field) have not been impressive at all for #1 picks. The #2 picks haven't been great, either.

I'm not suggesting TT has to go or anything like that, but it is clear that he is responsible for the quality of the roster and it is significantly less talented than the 2010 super bowl team.

Except that some had suggested that this was the most talented team yet.

[call_me_ishmael]

2011 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/119365564.html

Starters: Cobb

Sherrod, Cobb, House and Taylor are the only players left on the roster. None are key contributors beyond Cobb.



2010 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/91770084.html

Starters:
Morgan Burnett
Mike Neal

Every pick is still on the roster.


2009 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/43604117.html

Starters:
Raji, Matthews, Lang, Jones

The rest aren't on the roster anymore

2008 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/43604092.html

Starters:
Nelson, Finley, Sitton

Flynn was a #7. The rest are gone.


In general, poor drafting.

Out of the starters, here's how I rate them:

Cobb - Good starter
Burnett - Bad to Average starter
Neal - Average when healthy, rarely healthy
Raji - Average to below average starter
Matthew - All-star
Lang - Very good
Jones - Below average
Nelson - Very good
Finley - Below average, rarely healthy
Sitton - All-star

I think a lot of the problems can be based on 2010 and 2011. Too soon to evaluate 2012 but it's not looking good. We should have 6 starters from 2010 and 2011 combined to declare it a "good" draft by the Ron Wolf theory. We have 3. Two bad drafts in my opinion.

[red]

2011 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/119365564.html

Starters: Cobb

Sherrod, Cobb, House and Taylor are the only players left on the roster. None are key contributors beyond Cobb.



2010 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/91770084.html

Starters:
Morgan Burnett
Mike Neal

Every pick is still on the roster.


2009 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/43604117.html

Starters:
Raji, Matthews, Lang, Jones

The rest aren't on the roster anymore

2008 Draft:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/43604092.html

Starters:
Nelson, Finley, Sitton

Flynn was a #7. The rest are gone.


In general, poor drafting.

Out of the starters, here's how I rate them:

Cobb - Good starter
Burnett - Bad to Average starter
Neal - Average when healthy, rarely healthy
Raji - Average to below average starter
Matthew - All-star
Lang - Very good
Jones - Below average
Nelson - Very good
Finley - Below average, rarely healthy
Sitton - All-star

I think a lot of the problems can be based on 2010 and 2011. Too soon to evaluate 2012 but it's not looking good. We should have 6 starters from 2010 and 2011 combined to declare it a "good" draft by the Ron Wolf theory. We have 3. Two bad drafts in my opinion.

and like i said in this thread on somewhere else on here

when you have the turnover we have, and when you only try and use one sourse to build your team (the draft), you HAVE to fine 4 or 5 starters in each draft.

thats tough as shit to do, and TT's not getting it done by just drafting.

we gotta start looking for some help in other sources. it shouldn't come down to finding the best undrafted free agent on the market, when you need a quality starter

[mraynrand]

"I think a lot of the problems can be based on 2010 and 2011. Too soon to evaluate 2012 but it's not looking good. We should have 6 starters from 2010 and 2011 combined to declare it a "good" draft by the Ron Wolf theory. We have 3. Two bad drafts in my opinion."

It just seems weird to focus on the current starters. 2010 netted Bulaga, Quarless, and Starks - all who have started and been very effective at times - and all who have missed extensive time due to injury. Wilson and Outhouse provided some depth, though in the case of Outhouse, it was pretty lousy. Perhaps Thompson should be able to better draft guys who won't get injured, but I don't know how that evaluation works.

Anyway, if you're calling 2010 a bad draft, I disagree - especially considering how low they start in each round.

[pbmax]

I don't think you can get 4-5 starters out of each draft. That's an entire starting lineup in 4-5 years. Unless you are drafting in the top of each round, there just aren't good odds on that.

You have to get 3-4, have a few play into their 30s. The real difficulty is finding Rodgers and Matthews without picking in the top of each round.

[Rutnstrut]

a) Clay won't bitch
b) Clay can play in any defensive system invented. He is a football player, a complete player, and most importantly and instinctive player.

Now if we could only add C) Clay is a very durable player.

[red]

I don't think you can get 4-5 starters out of each draft. That's an entire starting lineup in 4-5 years. Unless you are drafting in the top of each round, there just aren't good odds on that.

You have to get 3-4, have a few play into their 30s. The real difficulty is finding Rodgers and Matthews without picking in the top of each round.

except we really don't like guys who play into their 30's. a-rod is probably the exception

of the 4 or 5 guys over 30 on the roster, all of them but a-rod have a really good chance of playing for another team next season

[woodbuck27]

"I think a lot of the problems can be based on 2010 and 2011. Too soon to evaluate 2012 but it's not looking good. We should have 6 starters from 2010 and 2011 combined to declare it a "good" draft by the Ron Wolf theory. We have 3. Two bad drafts in my opinion."

It just seems weird to focus on the current starters. 2010 netted Bulaga, Quarless, and Starks - all who have started and been very effective at times - and all who have missed extensive time due to injury. Wilson and Outhouse provided some depth, though in the case of Outhouse, it was pretty lousy. Perhaps Thompson should be able to better draft guys who won't get injured, but I don't know how that evaluation works.

Anyway, if you're calling 2010 a bad draft, I disagree - especially considering how low they start in each round.

Come on 'M' that excuse or draft position won't sell.

When TT calls in his first Round one selection he's picking at NO. 1.

The 2010 TT draft will go down in history as Pick one:

a) a good draft?

b) a bad draft?

Well all of the picks are still around and still being assessed. A huge loss for us in TC with Bryan Bulaga ending his season on Aug. 4, 2013 being placed on season ending IR.

Next best from that draft..a not consistent or disappointing now S Morgan Burnett.

Place Mike Neal, CJ Wilson, Andrew Quarless and James Starks in the ... ' Where are they going? ' FILE.

Place Marshal Newhouse in the ... 'Will TT have mercy on him, because of need on the OL ' FILE.

I'll be so bold as to predict that the future will yawn at that draft.

[bobblehead]

except we really don't like guys who play into their 30's. a-rod is probably the exception

of the 4 or 5 guys over 30 on the roster, all of them but a-rod have a really good chance of playing for another team next season

4 or 5 starters per draft? Great Googly Moogly. Do you also get 7 backups to be proportional to the roster? Thats 11-12 players a year in a 7 round draft...then you bitch at TT for trading down to aquire picks.

[red]

4 or 5 starters per draft? Great Googly Moogly. Do you also get 7 backups to be proportional to the roster? Thats 11-12 players a year in a 7 round draft...then you bitch at TT for trading down to aquire picks.

do the math

we need 22 starters

rookie contracts are 3 years for first rounders and 4 years for second rounders. if guys cost too much (jennings) or aren't that great (raji) we'll let them go after their rookie deal is up

a few fall through the cracks like tramon, a-rod and jolly that they keep until 30 or beyond, but most won't make it here until 30

i'd say about 6 years is the average lifespan of a green bay player draftee. so 22 starters divided by 6 years and you get just shy of 4 starters per year

throw in the fact that you need good backups that can step up if you're starters go down, and you have to hit on almost all your picks

which i think we can all agree is pretty impossible

which brings me to my conclusion. USE FREE AGENCY

i'm open to other math if you can come up with some, but this is the way i look at it

[bobblehead]

do the math

we need 22 starters

rookie contracts are 3 years for first rounders and 4 years for second rounders. if guys cost too much (jennings) or aren't that great (raji) we'll let them go after their rookie deal is up

a few fall through the cracks like tramon, a-rod and jolly that they keep until 30 or beyond, but most won't make it here until 30

i'd say about 6 years is the average lifespan of a green bay player draftee. so 22 starters divided by 6 years and you get just shy of 4 starters per year

throw in the fact that you need good backups that can step up if you're starters go down, and you have to hit on almost all your picks

which i think we can all agree is pretty impossible

which brings me to my conclusion. USE FREE AGENCY

i'm open to other math if you can come up with some, but this is the way i look at it

I think upon further analysis you will find that your numbers are off. I can't swear, but I think all rookie contracts are 4 years (Raji is in his 4th year, clay got upped early). I would say 6 years might be fair, but there are undrafted guys that pan out as well. They also factor into the math. That would bring your number a lot closer to 3 than 4.

Lets bring salary cap into the mix. You can only sign so many guys who are past their 4th year, and those guys always cost more. Now you must choose, do you resign your own, or do you shop? If you think TT drafts inferior and his players aren't worth as much as others, then you shop. Its a zero sum game. 53 man rosters, and salary cap. Any FA you grab is someone another GM didn't resign, now he has money to take Cobb or Shields off your hands.

On offense we have done very well playing this game. On defense, not so much. Tramon getting hurt messed a few things up. So did Woodson getting old. I think we may see another Pickett type signing this year. If there is a safety or MLB worth the coin, TT may delve into it. If Raji won't sign for a reasonable number and there is some talent to get, he might go after it. On the flip side, if there is a bunch of ho hum out there, and some guys who will cost us shields or cobb, then he might decide to sit tight and resign his own...again, its a zero sum game.

[bobblehead]

One other point. I think with the salary cap being static with the new CBA, TT has primed himself to be in position to take advantage of the fire sale some teams are going to be forced into. While we were signing guys like JJones and Finley to 2 and 3 year deals other teams were still acting like the cap was going up 15% a year.

I could be wrong, and TT sits on his hands again, but I think we might see him snag a few bargains in the next 2 years.

[red]

and pickett type signings is all i'm asking for, not woodson signings

2 or 3 guys in that pickett range would make me very happy

[woodbuck27]

Fr. post #61 ... call - me - Ishmael poster

Cobb - Good starter

Burnett - Bad to Average starter

Neal - Average when healthy, rarely healthy (an UFA that should be considered but his oft injured status is a concern)

X Raji X- Average to below average starter (ohh don't get me started... blow him up)

Matthew - All-star (injury prone and a little jacked up)

Lang - Very good

?Jones? - Below average ... an UFA and extend if not to costly.

Nelson - Very good

Finley - Below average, rarely healthy ...Good as gone !

Sitton - All-star

[Fritz]

Now that they don't need to think about cap space for Finley, and now that Raji looks like he's played himself out of an 8 mill per year contract, I'd like to see this team devote its attention to re-signing Sam Shields and James Jones.

If there's a free agent defensive lineman or inside linebacker or safety who really can play and is not going to gut the sal cap, go for it. But it doesn't seem that player is out there.