What did the Bear Victory cost the Pack?

[esoxx]

Yeah, and if we had lost to the Bears and were able to draft Marshawn Lynch and he ends up being a bust or a bad apple or whatever, then what would have been the cost for losing to the Bears? Maybe instead of Lynch we end up picking a WR or S or lineman that turns out to be the real deal instead. There's plenty of drafts where the 16 turns out better than the 11.

We can play this "what if" game all day long but it's pretty pointless. The draft is far from an absolute science to begin with so to sacrifice a win against the Bears, who had beat us four times in a row and had their obnoxious fans reminding us of it at every turn...just to move up in the draft is downright asinine imo.

[VermontPackFan]

I hear what you are saying NYR but its hard to quantify. Beating the Bears is sweet no matter what time of year, and a win is a win in the NFL. As we have come to realize over the last 2 years, they are not easy to come by no matter who you play or what time of year.

Lets drink some more kool aid and bring on the draft!

[hurleyfan]

Yeah, and if we had lost to the Bears and were able to draft Marshawn Lynch and he ends up being a bust or a bad apple or whatever, then what would have been the cost for losing to the Bears? Maybe instead of Lynch we end up picking a WR or S or lineman that turns out to be the real deal instead. There's plenty of drafts where the 16 turns out better than the 11.

We can play this "what if" game all day long but it's pretty pointless. The draft is far from an absolute science to begin with so to sacrifice a win against the Bears, who had beat us four times in a row and had their obnoxious fans reminding us of it at every turn...just to move up in the draft is downright asinine imo.

esoxx,

you're entitled to your opinion(every one has one) but I think you've missed my point..

I simply asked what the "cost" in draft position was based on beating the Bears in a game that meant nothing in the standings, meant LOTS in our hearts, but may cost the Packers a great deal in future years for a difference of #16 versus possible # 11..

[Joemailman]

Seems we had this same conversation last year after the Pack beat Seattle in the last game of the 2005 season. Well, I'll take the guy we had to "settle" for (Hawk) anyday. All the win over the Bears did was give the Pack a shot in the arm heading into 2007, as well as the confidence that the Bears can be beaten.

[hurleyfan]

Seems we had this same conversation last year after the Pack beat Seattle in the last game of the 2005 season. Well, I'll take the guy we had to "settle" for (Hawk) anyday. All the win over the Bears did was give the Pack a shot in the arm heading into 2007, as well as the confidence that the Bears can be beaten.

Joe,
good point, but what if the Packers lost to the 'Hawks, and had to "settle" for possibly Vince Young or Reggie Bush (one more loss moves the Pack into top 3 or 4 spots) last year?

I'm very happy with A J Hawk also, I was just looking for thoughts and ideas of this years difference between # 16 (beat the Bears) or a shot at a higher draft pick??

Five or six spots in the first round makes a huge possible difference in the talent selected...

[MJZiggy]

If we had to "settle" for Vince Young, he'd be warming the bench with ARod. Can Bush run in the zone? And it's STILL the friggin' Bears. You beat them no matter what.

[Patler]

I'm not sure there is a huge difference between #16 and #11 (if that's what GB would have gotten by losing).

However, I do think there is a big difference between 8-8 and 7-9 for a season record. I also think winning convincingly, no matter the circumstances, was very important after the first Bear game.

They are better off for havng won the game, even with the lower draft pick.

[oregonpackfan]

Beating the Bears: Always a good thing!

[Joemailman]

I honestly don't think there is much difference in the talent level of the 12th versus 16th pick in this year's draft. Is there any concensus regarding who the 12th best player is? For instance, a lot of people have Marshawn Lunch going 12th, a lot have him going 16th, some have him going 19th, a few think he'll slip to the 2nd round. The main difference between picking 12th or 16th is that the Packers will be picking 16th on every round instead of 12th. But even that is less significant than the confidence the Packers got from beating the Bears.

[Bretsky]

The Bucks better not win a meaningless game tomorrow night; it might screw up their draft position

[esoxx]

Yeah, and if we had lost to the Bears and were able to draft Marshawn Lynch and he ends up being a bust or a bad apple or whatever, then what would have been the cost for losing to the Bears? Maybe instead of Lynch we end up picking a WR or S or lineman that turns out to be the real deal instead. There's plenty of drafts where the 16 turns out better than the 11.

We can play this "what if" game all day long but it's pretty pointless. The draft is far from an absolute science to begin with so to sacrifice a win against the Bears, who had beat us four times in a row and had their obnoxious fans reminding us of it at every turn...just to move up in the draft is downright asinine imo.

esoxx,

you're entitled to your opinion(every one has one) but I think you've missed my point..

I simply asked what the "cost" in draft position was based on beating the Bears in a game that meant nothing in the standings, meant LOTS in our hearts, but may cost the Packers a great deal in future years for a difference of #16 versus possible # 11..

I don't think I missed your point but you appear to have missed mine.

Simply, we don't know the "cost" of winning that game. It very well may turn out that the lost draft position could turn out to be a blessing in disguise as maybe that 11 pick is the bust, not the 16. No one really knows for sure how it will turn out until a few years from now and we can see in hindsight.

In '89 we had the 2 pick. If we had a better record some other team would have picked that mistake and we would have had to settle for a much better player further down in the draft. What was the cost of picking 2 that year? Plenty!

I'm sure SD felt the same way the year they settled for Ryan Leaf at 2 and passed on many players that turned out to be Pro Bowlers.

Draft = inexact science. No one knows how it will turn out.

The basic premise isn't arguable, picking 11 is better than picking 16. That said, it doesn't mean you end up with the better player.

[b bulldog]

Settle for Young, did you mean the rookie of the year?

[RashanGary]

Bretsky,

The Hawks won so it gives us the 3rd slot gauranteed.

[b bulldog]

Isn't it a ping pong ball lottery?

[Bretsky]

Bretsky,

The Hawks won so it gives us the 3rd slot gauranteed.

That's great news; we have about a 40 percent chance of landing either Oden or Durrant