What's the roster makeover going to look like, who stays/goes??

[wist43]

2018: Alexander/Jackson/Burks
2017: King/Jones/Adams
2016: Clark/Spriggs/Fackrell
2015: Randall/Rollins/Monty
2014: Dix/Adams/Thorton
2013: Jones/Lacy/Bach
2012: Perry/Worthy/Hayward
2011: Sherrod/Cobb/Green
2010: Bulaga/Neal/Burnett
2009: Raji/Matthews/Lang

Counting on a once a decade development is not a smart way to proceed. 2010 and 2013 came close, but Neal and Jones never really started. They were regular contributors at most.

Teams that ascend hit on those picks, teams that don't are also rans.

If you're a scout and GM, and you don't expect to hit on your first 3 picks, you should be selling insurance.

[Joemailman]

Not sure if they can make the money work, but Clay Matthews can still play. Id like to see him return.

[texaspackerbacker]

Agreed on the Clay Matthews thing.

More than ever today's game, I have a positive feeling about a lot of these cheap fill-ins on defense - Breeland for sure, but also Tony Brown, Morrison, Lancaster, etc.

The other games are going right so far, so maybe the Packers aren't dead yet. My Cowboys are coming through so far - both for themselves and helping the Packers by knocking off the Eagles.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Breeland might be worth bringing back as the veteran presence (injury replacement for when King gets injured again) at CB.

[pbmax]

Breeland might be worth bringing back as the veteran presence (injury replacement for when King gets injured again) at CB.

Seems like he can play inside at safety too. Would like back.

[pbmax]

Teams that ascend hit on those picks, teams that don't are also rans.

If you're a scout and GM, and you don't expect to hit on your first 3 picks, you should be selling insurance.

Bolded: Sure. Because they are bad for 8-10 years and you remember the two drafts that they did it. But those teams can also be drafting 3 players inside the Top 50 often. Its easier to draft if you stink.

Teams can't plan for 100% on day 1 and 2 picks, it just doesn't happen. Its a 50% bust rate. You need a backup plan. Not having a backup plan means you should be in control of the Bengals.

[texaspackerbacker]

Yeah, and I say AGAIN that hitting and missing on draft picks is more about LUCK than about smart choices.

[Joemailman]

Seems like he can play inside at safety too. Would like back.

Breeland had signed a 3 year, 24 million dollar contract last March with Carolina, but then failed his physical due to a non-football injury. I wonder what his market value will be. Would the Packers be inclined to pay big money to keep him?

[wist43]

Bolded: Sure. Because they are bad for 8-10 years and you remember the two drafts that they did it. But those teams can also be drafting 3 players inside the Top 50 often. Its easier to draft if you stink.

Teams can't plan for 100% on day 1 and 2 picks, it just doesn't happen. Its a 50% bust rate. You need a backup plan. Not having a backup plan means you should be in control of the Bengals.

1) We're gonna have 3 picks in the top 50.

2) If you're not hitting on starters at the top end of your draft - you're not gonna be GM for very long.

You're an excuse maker max... you defended every pick TT ever made, when better players were clearly available.

[pbmax]

1) We're gonna have 3 picks in the top 50.

2) If you're not hitting on starters at the top end of your draft - you're not gonna be GM for very long.

You're an excuse maker max... you defended every pick TT ever made, when better players were clearly available.

Its easy to argue you know who the better players were after the fact. You overlook your mistakes and highlight the times you mention someone successful.

If you were an NFL GM, you'd hit on starters in draft picks less than 50% of the time. But you like to pretend it easy. That's just making a bold claim and never having to back it up.

Actual GMs need to live with their mistakes, you can ignore yours.

[Rutnstrut]

Bolded: Sure. Because they are bad for 8-10 years and you remember the two drafts that they did it. But those teams can also be drafting 3 players inside the Top 50 often. Its easier to draft if you stink.

Teams can't plan for 100% on day 1 and 2 picks, it just doesn't happen. Its a 50% bust rate. You need a backup plan. Not having a backup plan means you should be in control of the Bengals.

You also need a back up plan for draft picks not panning out. It's called trades, waivers, and free agency. All of which TT failed at and why there are huge, glaring holes all over this team. The Packers back up plan has been, we have Rodgers.

[mraynrand]

You also need a back up plan for draft picks not panning out. It's called trades...

If your draft picks don't work out, who do you trade?

[oldbutnotdeadyet]

If your draft picks don't work out, who do you trade?

The coach?

[mraynrand]

The coach?

for 1 or 2 rolls of tape?

[Bossman641]

Its easy to argue you know who the better players were after the fact. You overlook your mistakes and highlight the times you mention someone successful.

If you were an NFL GM, you'd hit on starters in draft picks less than 50% of the time. But you like to pretend it easy. That's just making a bold claim and never having to back it up.

Actual GMs need to live with their mistakes, you can ignore yours.

Agreed, it's nice to say " you have 3 top 50 picks and they should all work out" but the reality is that 1/3 of 1st round picks fail to become even long term solutions.