Fans need to let the young players mature

[Patler]

Fans complain that HHCD isn't another Nick Collins and Davante Adams isn't another Jordy Nelson, but how far off are they? HHCD already has more interceptions and more tackles than Collins had his first three years. Adams already has a lot more receptions for more yards and more TDs than Nelson had his first three years. Each Collins and Nelson had breakout seasons their 4th years.

[Pugger]

HHCD isn't lighting the league on fire this because he and Brunett are compensating for our poor corners. Adams isn't as fast as Jordy was but he is playing much better this year compared to last.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

Fans complain that HHCD isn't another Nick Collins and Davante Adams isn't another Jordy Nelson, but how far off are they? HHCD already has more interceptions and more tackles than Collins had his first three years. Adams already has a lot more receptions for more yards and more TDs than Nelson had his first three years. Each Collins and Nelson had breakout seasons their 4th years.

Who in Hades compared Clinton-Dix to Collins? Tony O'Day? Only an idiot would make such a doltish comparison. Collins was a fast, all over the place, playmaking "free" saftey. Dix resembles the great "Erin" Rouse more than Collins. Like Rouse, Dix's a "looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane" saftey. Dix's not fast enough to play the "free." Move him to the "strong" and pray to Hades he balls better than the mediocre Burnett. Doubt it since, despite his size, Dix's soft.

Nelson, first 3 seasons, played with Jennings, Jones, Driver and J-Mike. He was "targeted" less than Adams, hence the inferior stats.

[gbgary]

i don't have a problem with any of the players mentioned. i do have a problem with standing pat if an upgrade is available...for ANYONE!

[pbmax]

Who in Hades compared Clinton-Dix to Collins? Tony O'Day? Only an idiot would make such a doltish comparison. Collins was a fast, all over the place, playmaking "free" saftey.

He was none of those things in his first three years. He was slow to react and late to get there.

Dix resembles the great "Erin" Rouse more than Collins. Like Rouse, Dix's a "looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane" saftey.

And now I question your soundness of memory.

[Patler]

Who in Hades compared Clinton-Dix to Collins? Tony O'Day? Only an idiot would make such a doltish comparison. Collins was a fast, all over the place, playmaking "free" saftey. Dix resembles the great "Erin" Rouse more than Collins. Like Rouse, Dix's a "looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane" saftey. Dix's not fast enough to play the "free." Move him to the "strong" and pray to Hades he balls better than the mediocre Burnett. Doubt it since, despite his size, Dix's soft.

Nelson, first 3 seasons, played with Jennings, Jones, Driver and J-Mike. He was "targeted" less than Adams, hence the inferior stats.

My point was that a lot of players need four years to become the player they can be, and it doesn't matter if they are similar to or very different than other players. What matters is if they are productive in their own way.

Collins started from day 1 and may have been worse his third season than either his first or second. At times he looked totally lost and many feared the NFL was too much for him.

Jermichael Finley had little impact on Nelson's first three years. Finley rarely saw the field in '08 and played just 5 games in 2010.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

He was none of those things in his first three years. He was slow to react and late to get there.

And now I question your soundness of memory.

I understand Collins wasn't All-Pro his first three seasons, and he played so terribly at one point that the poster NickCollins changed his screenname to JustinHarrell in disgust and embarrassment, but man, Collins was fast - something Dix isn't.

Go rewatch that play in which Dix bounced off Luck in the clutch, as if he was the 1-2-3 Kid bouncing off Yokozuna. Looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane - or Rouse.

[pbmax]

I understand Collins wasn't All-Pro his first three seasons, and he played so terribly at one point that the poster NickCollins changed his screenname to JustinHarrell in disgust and embarrassment, but man, Collins was fast - something Dix isn't.

Go rewatch that play in which Dix bounced off Luck in the clutch, as if he was the 1-2-3 Kid bouncing off Yokozuna. Looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane - or Rouse.

You need to be Nick Perry size to not bounce off Luck. Dix's problem was angle, he should have reset his feet, jumped on him and hung on.

[Zool]

Hey Tank, how is 2009 treating you? You getting close to the 2010s yet? It's a fun decade, you should come try it out.

[texaspackerbacker]

The first post and most of the rest of the thread kinda illustrates a disturbing trend. Rather than drafting and developing more athletic high potential guys like Collins, we are going after "finished products" like Dix who basically aren't gonna get much better. The same is true of Adams, although I don't recall if Nelson was already high level in college or not. Ryan and Martinez are the same thing - already developed/not much higher ceiling. Randall the same, although Rollins is more of a project.

This is all related to Ted's distaste for bringing in veteran free agents. If they are gonna "let the young players mature" without a serious drop off in quality, they need somebody good enough to start ahead of those young players.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

My point was that a lot of players need four years to become the player they can be, and it doesn't matter if they are similar to or very different than other players. What matters is if they are productive in their own way.

Collins started from day 1 and may have been worse his third season than either his first or second. At times he looked totally lost and many feared the NFL was too much for him.

Jermichael Finley had little impact on Nelson's first three years. Finley rarely saw the field in '08 and played just 5 games in 2010.

Still, I don't think anyone other than O'Day said Dix was gonna be the next Collins. Just look at their combine 40s and you'll see that that's a foregone conclusion. I thought Dix was a poor man's Sean Taylor when he got drafted. I was wrong - too slow. He's a rich man's Rouse.

Regardless of whether J-Mike made an impact or not, Nelson was still targeted less in his 1st three seasons than Adams in his first 3. Nelson was mostly the #4 receiver those three years, even got into McCarthy's doghouse for not chasing after a bomb. Adams was the #2 guy last season and he produced like Ruvell Martin.

Little known fact: Martin attended the same school as future Pack great Jeff Janis - Saginaw Valley State.

[Maxie the Taxi]

If it's true that "a lot of players need four years to become the player they can be," what does that say about TT's system of draft and develop, especially in light of the fact that the average career of a player in the modern NFL is somewhere between 3.3 and 6 years? By the time the average draftee lives up to his potential it's time for him to retire.

These facts are especially significant if a team drafts close to last every year. Presumably these players selected later are less talented and would need the full four years to reach the point where they can fully contribute. It's the difference between drafting an Erik Kendricks and a Jake Ryan. Kendricks is able to contribute immediately and significantly in his first four years. Ryan won't be able to contribute fully for four years.

Plus, the better the talent (i.e., a blue chip, high draft choice rookie), it makes sense that the longer his NFL career will be.

If you look at our roster in light of the above, it's kind of apparent what's going on. The blue chippers we draft, like Clay, Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Raji, Daniels, Arod etc. produce almost immediately, but their windows are open only so long and their success results the team drafting even lower where we get players who have to play three or four years before their window even opens...and then the window starts closing almost immediately.

The draft and develop system would seem to require perfect timing for all the players talents to gel or peak at about the same time to produce a really good championship team. Without a serious entry into the FA market each season to plug the holes in the draft and develop system, you wind up with talent that is either always turning over or always in development. The end result? Teams that are good but rarely ever great.

[Patler]

Go rewatch that play in which Dix bounced off Luck in the clutch, as if he was the 1-2-3 Kid bouncing off Yokozuna. Looks like Tarzen, plays like Jane - or Rouse.

You do realize that Luck has about 4" and 35 pounds on Dix, don't you? Lots of guys bigger than Dix have failed to get Luck down, too.

We see safeties fail to make that play on big or quick QBs quite often. They can't hit too high, or it's a penalty. They can't hit too low either. They can't hit straight on for fear of their helmet sliding up and making any contact near the QB's head. If they hit too hard, something is normally called. In short, they get there then have to gear down and almost limit themselves to an arm tackle, or risk being penalized.

[hoosier]

If it's true that "a lot of players need four years to become the player they can be," what does that say about TT's system of draft and develop, especially in light of the fact that the average career of a player in the modern NFL is somewhere between 3.3 and 6 years? By the time the average draftee lives up to his potential it's time for him to retire.

These facts are especially significant if a team drafts close to last every year. Presumably these players selected later are less talented and would need the full four years to reach the point where they can fully contribute. It's the difference between drafting an Erik Kendricks and a Jake Ryan. Kendricks is able to contribute immediately and significantly in his first four years. Ryan won't be able to contribute fully for four years.

Plus, the better the talent (i.e., a blue chip, high draft choice rookie), it makes sense that the longer his NFL career will be.

If you look at our roster in light of the above, it's kind of apparent what's going on. The blue chippers we draft, like Clay, Jennings, Nelson, Finley, Raji, Daniels, Arod etc. produce almost immediately, but their windows are open only so long and their success results the team drafting even lower where we get players who have to play three or four years before their window even opens...and then the window starts closing almost immediately.

The draft and develop system would seem to require perfect timing for all the players talents to gel or peak at about the same time to produce a really good championship team. Without a serious entry into the FA market each season to plug the holes in the draft and develop system, you wind up with talent that is either always turning over or always in development. The end result? Teams that are good but rarely ever great.

108-61 since 2006. Where do you suppose that ranks among NFL teams? I would guess 2nd behind NE and ahead of Pittsburgh. You can say they are rarely ever great but to that I have two responses: isn't that true of all teams (with the notable exception of New England under Belichick)? And would you really trade one year of greatness, assuming you could get it, for consistently being in the hunt?

[Anti-Polar Bear]

This is all related to Ted's distaste for bringing in veteran free agents. If they are gonna "let the young players mature" without a serious drop off in quality, they need somebody good enough to start ahead of those young players.

Best post in this thread thus far - by a wide margin over Zool's post about me still living in 2009.

Tex, I reckon you know a lot about cyberspace? You ever come across anything like time travel?