Official 2016 NFL draft thread

[mraynrand]

I understand this is how it is supposed to work. Lately it hasn't worked that way. So my question is: Then what?

look at fourth and lower:

2010 saw Starks and Shields. 2011 not so good. Daniels was a 4th in 2012. Hyde, Boyd, Palmer, and Barrington is a mixed bag in 2013 (Franklin career ending injury). 2014 Linsley, Abby and Janis have shown and still have the chance to show a lot of promise. What about Pennel?. 2015 - it's still too early. Hundley and Ripper and maybe Gunter could all be players...

[Smidgeon]

So, Smidge, are you saying that if a team has more than 3 pressing needs, then the draft cannot fill all the team needs? If so, what then?

Are you saying that the Packers should never enter the free agency market to fill needs?

The article you posted is crap, poorly written and poorly researched. Just look at the Packer championship teams going back all the way to Lombardi and you'll find them "Packed" with non-drafted vet players that were brought in to fill needs.

Willie Davis, Henry Jordan, Zeke Bratkowski, Carroll Dale, Lee Roy Caffey, Ben Wilson, Chuck Mercein, Don Chandler, Brett Favre, Jim McMahon, Don Beebe, Andre Rison, Desmond Howard, Keith Jackson, Frank Winters, Reggie White, Sean Jones, Santana Dotson, Gilbert Brown, Ron Cox, Mike Prior, Eugene Robinson, Ahman Green, Howard Green, Ryan Pickett, Erik Walden, Charles Woodson, Ryan Grant...

Are you saying Green Bay could have been just as successful over the years by developing players only by the draft and by not making these trades or signing these free agents?

How many of the free agents you mentioned were acquired before modern free agency? Ron Wolf said himself that he wasn't wired to run a team under today's rules. Meaning most of the guys you previously mentioned are before the current context, and therefore irrelevant.

I'm not saying not to try at all. Charles Woodson, Ryan Grant, Julius Peppers, all great because they've worked (but those were all major risks too: Woodson was wanted by only one other team and only as a safety, Ryan Grant was buried on the Giants roster, and Julius Peppers was projected to a new position and many thought he was done). But the modern context is one where big free agent signees do not put a team over the top (those that do are the exception, not the rule) and play off teams are built through the draft, unsigned free agents, and bargain free agents.

The way it's supposed to work is the top 3 rounds select BPAs that also magically fit the biggest needs on the team. The remaining rounds are simply BPAs that don't necessarily fit a need now, but could develop into real players, so they'd be available when the need arose. Between that, undrafted free agents, and bargain free agents, you build a team, a core. Free agents are supplements to support that core.

Woodson is a once in a generation free agency find. The last one like that the Packers found was Reggie White, more than a decade prior.

[Maxie the Taxi]

look at fourth and lower:

2010 saw Starks and Shields. 2011 not so good. Daniels was a 4th in 2012. Hyde, Boyd, Palmer, and Barrington is a mixed bag in 2013 (Franklin career ending injury). 2014 Linsley, Abby and Janis have shown and still have the chance to show a lot of promise. What about Pennel?. 2015 - it's still too early. Hundley and Ripper and maybe Gunter could all be players...

I understand, really I do, but here's what I mean (two examples):

1) In the last five years the Packers have drafted four TE's, two of whom were busts, one is Backman and one is DickRod. If TT had signed Greg Olsen in 2011, he would have had four draft choices to spend on higher priorities. Maybe they could have gotten Stephone Anthony last year or taken a flyer on an ILB to develop the year before. Not to mention the fact that our offense would be much better not only in the last five years but also during this year's Jordy missing experience.

2) When TT failed to sign Tramon and House, he drafted two CB's in the 1st and 2nd rounds (some would say he had no choice). If he had signed House, say, or a FA CB like Charles Tillman, he might have been able to draft Anthony or a RB like David Johnson or a CB to develop. Again, immediate problem solved and the team improves.

So swearing off FA signings affects everything. Both examples are the Carolina Panthers.

There's more than one way to skin a cat. That's all I'm saying.

[Maxie the Taxi]

How many of the free agents you mentioned were acquired before modern free agency? Ron Wolf said himself that he wasn't wired to run a team under today's rules. Meaning most of the guys you previously mentioned are before the current context, and therefore irrelevant.

I'm not saying not to try at all. Charles Woodson, Ryan Grant, Julius Peppers, all great because they've worked (but those were all major risks too: Woodson was wanted by only one other team and only as a safety, Ryan Grant was buried on the Giants roster, and Julius Peppers was projected to a new position and many thought he was done). But the modern context is one where big free agent signees do not put a team over the top (those that do are the exception, not the rule) and play off teams are built through the draft, unsigned free agents, and bargain free agents.

The way it's supposed to work is the top 3 rounds select BPAs that also magically fit the biggest needs on the team. The remaining rounds are simply BPAs that don't necessarily fit a need now, but could develop into real players, so they'd be available when the need arose. Between that, undrafted free agents, and bargain free agents, you build a team, a core. Free agents are supplements to support that core.

Woodson is a once in a generation free agency find. The last one like that the Packers found was Reggie White, more than a decade prior.

Our opinions are not that different. I'm not suggesting we change TT's draft-first philosophy of team building in favor of hog wild FA signings. I am suggesting that to avoid FA signings completely is a huge mistake. See the example below re: Carolina's signings of Olsen and Tillman.

You say FA's are a huge gamble. So are draft choices. But I'd rather gamble on a proven pro (say Joe Thomas or Mario Williams -- to use topical examples) rather than an untested rookie, especially to fill a critical hole in the offense or defense.

[Smidgeon]

Our opinions are not that different. I'm not suggesting we change TT's draft-first philosophy of team building in favor of hog wild FA signings. I am suggesting that to avoid FA signings completely is a huge mistake. See the example below re: Carolina's signings of Olsen and Tillman.

You say FA's are a huge gamble. So are draft choices. But I'd rather gamble on a proven pro (say Joe Thomas or Mario Williams -- to use topical examples) rather than an untested rookie, especially to fill a critical hole in the offense or defense.

Olsen was a trade, so he doesn't count in the free agent angle. And if Tillman had been a bust? Our R1 and R2 easily project to be bookends for the Packers for the next decade. With Shields, they are set for quite a while. I'll take that over Tillman (who just tore an ACL and is out for likely half of next year...if he plays since he's old) and House/and old Tramon. We don't have to worry in a year or two about grabbing another Tillman or another House/Tramon.

As for your last statement, that's precisely the point. A proven pro doesn't translate as well as you imply. Unproven rookies tend to fit holes better. Why? I don't know. But that's what is happening right now in the NFL. Again, that doesn't mean to ignore the proven vet, it just means find one for the right price. Often, if the proven vet isn't in the right system, he's just a waste of money.

Replacing unproven rookies with proven vets just delays the inevitable. Tillman is 34 years old, ancient for a CB. Signing him would mean that we missed on Randall or Rollins and would be back with another need a year later.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Olsen was a trade, so he doesn't count in the free agent angle. And if Tillman had been a bust? Our R1 and R2 easily project to be bookends for the Packers for the next decade. With Shields, they are set for quite a while. I'll take that over Tillman (who just tore an ACL and is out for likely half of next year...if he plays since he's old) and House/and old Tramon. We don't have to worry in a year or two about grabbing another Tillman or another House/Tramon.

As for your last statement, that's precisely the point. A proven pro doesn't translate as well as you imply. Unproven rookies tend to fit holes better. Why? I don't know. But that's what is happening right now in the NFL. Again, that doesn't mean to ignore the proven vet, it just means find one for the right price. Often, if the proven vet isn't in the right system, he's just a waste of money.

Replacing unproven rookies with proven vets just delays the inevitable. Tillman is 34 years old, ancient for a CB. Signing him would mean that we missed on Randall or Rollins and would be back with another need a year later.

Well, I ain't gonna beat this thing to death. I still think we're not that far apart. I count trades as FA because TT seems adverse to that avenue as well (except for trades up during the draft). As for our bookends, this draft was deep in CB's. A bunch of them could have been drafted lower to take Rollins' place.

I think money is the reason TT operates like he does. Rooks play for less salary than vets. Other teams do it differently with good results and they're vet friendly.

[dsilby]

Well, I ain't gonna beat this thing to death. I still think we're not that far apart. I count trades as FA because TT seems adverse to that avenue as well (except for trades up during the draft). As for our bookends, this draft was deep in CB's. A bunch of them could have been drafted lower to take Rollins' place.

I think money is the reason TT operates like he does. Rooks play for less salary than vets. Other teams do it differently with good results and they're vet friendly.

Yes and no. I think money definitely plays a part which is why this team under Ted has never been in a bad salary cap situaiton. People sometimes complain that there's money under the cap, so go spend it. But it's smart having that reserve just incase you have the opportunity to go grab someone last second. I guess like having some money in savings in case of emergency.

I as well would like Ted to dabble in the free agent market if it's a lower risk signing. I have never been the fan of diving into the free agent market and paying that 1 guys huge dollars. Sure, it can work out. But not to often is "that guy" the reason a team makes the Super Bowl. Situations like Woodson where it was a solid gamble because nobody else wanted him or Peppers who people thought was washed up as well were good gambles.
But then you get teams like Seattle who traded away their pro bowl center for a pro bowl TE who got hurt. And now the team is actually playing better without Graham but the offensive line took a big hit. Now the Hawks don't have Graham or Unger and are out a #1 draft choice.

The Packers need a TE, another receiver and some line help. I think a receiver can be taken in the draft, but I'd like to see a free agent TE and O-lineman to get in here. A vet with experience. Doesn't have to be a big name guy, but someone who can get downfield.
Rodgers won't have this same season next year. If those few changes are made, this team is a Super Bowl contender again.

[Joemailman]

Hate the Data you just provided; we don't have a punchers chance for a title. Since we play with ourselves throughout free agency and use that at PTO, they desperately need a ILB to get Matthews back outside to give us another title shot.

Why do some think this team desperately needs to move Clay outside? I think the defense has functioned quite well with him inside. In my opinion, what they need is an ILB with cover skills so that Clay doesn't have to drop into coverage so much. Problem is if you read the scouting reports on ILB's in the draft, ILB's with good cover skills are hard to find.

The more I think about it, the more I think maybe taking Kendricks last year would have been a good move. Not that Kendricks is necessarily a better player than Randall, but because it's easier to fing good CB's than it is ILB's with cover skills.

[yetisnowman]

Honestly I doubt TT goes with a receiver in the first few rounds, unless a cant miss guy just falls in their lap. With Jordy and Monty coming back, he will trick himself into thinking it's not a position of need. Would be nice if he went after a free agent wr, again for depth. Jermaine Kearse, Nate Washington, a few of guys I think would be a good fit and not too expensive. Travis Benjamin.....pipe dream I'm sure. But this dude can fly. He racked up almost 1000 yds in Cleveland, imagine what he could in Green Bay. What we need this offseason, in order of importance(imo) 1)OT 2)ILB 3)TE 4)WR 5)DL 6)pass catching scat back. He needs to get 3 or 4 of these right, and at least take a stab at the other 2. Via free agency/trades/draft. A lot of this depends on what we do with our own free agents obviously. We need speed! we are treading water as the league passes us by, it's not 1965 anymore. Somehow I doubt Raglind falls into the 20s but he would be a score. Scooby Wright and Kendell Beckwith are guys I would also target at LB.

[Joemailman]

1. Jack Conklin OT Michigan St.
2. Pharoh Cooper WR South Carolina
3. Scooby Wright ILB Arizona
4a. Tyler Higbee TE Western Kentucky
4b. La'Raven Clark T/G Texas Tech
4c. Aaron Green RB TCU
5. Jared Norris ILB Utah
6. Trent Matthews FS Colorado St.
7. Terrance Smith LB Florida St.

[esoxx]

An OT from Michigan State with the first round pick?

What could go wrong?

[pbmax]

Why do some think this team desperately needs to move Clay outside? I think the defense has functioned quite well with him inside. In my opinion, what they need is an ILB with cover skills so that Clay doesn't have to drop into coverage so much. Problem is if you read the scouting reports on ILB's in the draft, ILB's with good cover skills are hard to find.

The more I think about it, the more I think maybe taking Kendricks last year would have been a good move. Not that Kendricks is necessarily a better player than Randall, but because it's easier to fing good CB's than it is ILB's with cover skills.

How has Kendricks been against the run? Because while Matthews has shortcomings, he has bolstered the run D, even if it still bleeds a bug run now and then.

[Maxie the Taxi]

ILB 52 Matthews, Clay ACT TCKL 66 SCK 6.5 FF 0 INT 1 GB

MLB 54 Kendricks, Eric ACT TCKL 92 SCK 4.0 FF 0 INT -- MIN

MLB 50 Anthony, StephoneACTTCKL 112 SCK 1.0 FF 2 INT 1 NO

[pbmax]

Raw tackle totals are worthless normally, even mores for Matthews who spends 1/3 to 1/2 his game rushing the passer (where its either sack[rare] or nothing).

Has anyone watched enough of him to know if he would improve the run D or just coverage options?

[Maxie the Taxi]

Raw tackle totals are worthless normally, even mores for Matthews who spends 1/3 to 1/2 his game rushing the passer (where its either sack[rare] or nothing).

Has anyone watched enough of him to know if he would improve the run D or just coverage options?

I watched him Sunday. He looked good. And that's the truth.