the Aaron Kampman mold

[HarveyWallbangers]

Awesome depth at one position, and no depth at others??? Does building a team even enter into his equation??? I think the answer is obviously no.

I wouldn't say depth is the problem. They have a bunch of young guys backing up at just about every position. The problem, I think, is that they can't be sure what they are going to get from those guys. Does Blackmon, Underwood, Culver, Hodge, Jolly, Holliday, Pope, Alcorn, these rookies, etc. have what it takes to take the leap up into solid NFL player? Who knows.

[HarveyWallbangers]

It is beyond me that people think DT was the deepest position, deep with what? Dreck?

I don't agree with that. I think our DL is solid. However, they didn't have a stud on the inside. If you think a guy can be a stud at DT, it's not a bad idea to take him. More than anything, having an absolute stud at DT will help your team more than anywhere else.

[pbmax]

I don't think you can call a D Line that is medicore defending the run solid.

Unless you think Poppinga was the source of the problem, and I am letting Barnett and Hawk off the hook here, then you have to look at the line.

Were there other positions of greater need? Yes.

But if the body drafted was the same as the the bodies you have what is the point of taking them in the first round?

I understand wist's points on the positions selected in the later rounds, but only time will tell if they upgrade anything or just replace a body with another cheaper/younger body.

Harrell's pick is justified if he is better than Corey Williams and can stay healthy. From what I have seen of the D Line, I am much more worried about the healthy part (which is the only part of the draft I find inexplicable).

It is beyond me that people think DT was the deepest position, deep with what? Dreck?

I don't agree with that. I think our DL is solid. However, they didn't have a stud on the inside. If you think a guy can be a stud at DT, it's not a bad idea to take him. More than anything, having an absolute stud at DT will help your team more than anywhere else.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think you can call a D Line that is medicore defending the run solid.

Unless you think Poppinga was the source of the problem, and I am letting Barnett and Hawk off the hook here, then you have to look at the line.

Well, they struggled at times against the run, but I don't think it was a major weak spot. 4.1 isn't bad, and they faced some good RBs. I think, more than anything, having Jenkins as a full-time starter at RE will help that. Teams ran 2/3 of their outside runs at KGB. I consider Kampman, Pickett, and Jenkins all above average against the run. This guy should give them four guys on early downs that are good run defenders.

[wist43]

They improved by leaps and bounds when Jenkins took over for KGB...

As for the LB's - Poppinga is probably their best run defender. He slams it in there better than Hawk, and Barnett is a liability against the inside run. To the outside Barnett covers a lot of ground, but inside, it's not like he'll ever be a stack and shed guy.

The Packers seemed to get gouged on the ground a lot when they were in the nickel. Poppinga is out of the game, KBG at LDE... might as well put out a sign that says, "please run the ball down our throats".

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, I disagree with your infatuation with Poppinga. I think he's okay as a run stopper, solid as a blitzer, and below average in coverage. I'm hopeful he'll improve with a year of experience and being a year removed from his injury. Time's running out though. He was old for a rookie coming in, so he should be in his prime this year.

[MasonCrosby]

i just think we need to generate more pressure on the qb, since we face guys like grossman, tavaris jackson, mcnabb and force them to make bad throws and not those amazing ones. harrell should help make and open up plays like that. now our secondary is weak but hopefully should improve with guys staying healthy...

[pbmax]

I agree with Kampman. Whatever doubts I had have been erased. He may not be a game changer, but he does everything else.

Pickett and Jenkins are OK. Pickett is not immovable like Jackson was, but he's younger and healthier. Jenkins is an improvement over KGB against the run, but my mother would be an improvement over KGB.

Last four games (with Jenkins playing end I believe)
San Fran: 19 runs for 139 yards
Detroit: 16 for 52
Minn: 20 for 72
Chicago 22 for 136

Gore had two big runs if memory servers before Jenkins went in. But I'd say its far from clear he solves the problem. He is an improvement.

[wist43]

I like Harrell as a player... if he can stay healthy (a big if) he immediately becomes our best DT.

Don't know that that will appreciably improve the team though... this team still has some huge holes on the roster, and TT is pretty oblivious to that.

I also like Jackson as a player, but it's not like he's a 20-25 carry per game guy... I like him better than Morency, but I think what we have there now is 3 third down backs.

The Packers have the worst RB situation in the league... and they're not much better at WR or TE.

After TT's third draft, I think we can start putting together a pattern... team building be damned; BPA no matter what; no moves to address needs - yes, it is possible to move up and down in the draft to address needs.

He seems to be shaping up as a 6-10 to 10-6 type of GM, more interested in proving how good a scout/talent evaluator he is, than in actually building a contender.

I know he'd argue that taking the BPA religiously year after year, will eventually add up to a contending team... 5 year plan??? Forget about that - TT is on the 15 year plan.

[Patler]

Are any of the RBs as good as Green in his prime? Probably (perhaps even positively) not, few teams had a back as good as Green in his prime, all-around. Can the backs on the roster be as good or better than Green would have been for GB in 2007 or 2008? I think they can. I don't think Green is finished just yet, but he also is not the back he once was.

Will Jones and Clowney improve the WR group? I think so, even if neither one starts. Jones looks like he could be a guy to go to in the red zone. Can fight for the ball and come up with it. Clowney seems to have speed that no one else on the roster has. Both look like they can improve weakness in the WR group while at the same time moving the likes of Martin, Holliday and others to fight it out for the 5th spot. Moving those guys down the depth chart makes the group better as a whole, because none of them should be #3 receivers.

Several look to be good ST guys, which can mean two things. STs will be better with a greater number of good performers, AND there will be no reason to keep Ferguson. In a way, guys like Rouse, Hall, Bishop and others, while filling the bottom of their position groups might make the WRs better because their ST play will decrease the need to keep a guy like Ferguson.

A rotation of Pickett, Williams and Harrell sounds better than Picket, Williams, and Cole or Jolly. Cole is what he is. The knock on Jolly in college was that he got in to position to make plays, but too often did not actually make them. I think we saw a bit of him "being close" last year too. Harrell reportedly made the plays when in position to do so, and will likely make the pass rush even better teaming at DT with Williams on third down situations. I know there is an injury concern with Harrell, but he apparently is healthy now, so who knows for sure?

Harris at TE is an interesting player. Might also be a guy that can help in the red zone and be a willing blocker.

Did GB land a super star? Probably not.

Did GB get better overall at WR and RB? Did they get better in the redzone? Did they get better on D against the run? I think the answer might be "yes" to all of those.

Did they get better against the pass? Probably a better pass rush, but not any help for an aging secondary from this draft. Hopefully Blackmon and Underwood will provide improvements from 2006.

There are possibilities at kick and punt returns coming from the draft class and returning from injuries. Hopefully one or more will distinguish themselves.

On paper (which is all we have to go on) in comparing 2007 to 2006, I do not see an area or position that has clearly gotten worse, and there are legitimate possibilities at improvements in the weaker areas coming from the draft, injury recoveries and improved play of younger players. Only time will tell for sure.

[Sparkey]

Everybody can see that the Packers need help in certain areas - RB, TE, OT, CB, KR, and generally depth everywhere. Oh yeah, except DT, which was the deepest position on the team - and, of course, TT, just to "show us", takes a DT in the 1st round.

TT has told us over and over that he will never draft for need - and he's proving that. I think he's also proving my point of late - that he'll likely never be able to build a SB calibur team, b/c he's more interested in proving what a great talent evaluator he is, as opposed to being an all around GM that can build a Superbowl contender.

Jason Wilde went off on a rant on the radio this morning, accusing TT and the entire Packer front office of being condescending, and obsessed with proving how much smarter they are than everybody else - "we're smarterism". So at least I'm not the only one beginning to see TT as being rigid to the teams detriment.

I really don't know what to make of this 3rd draft. There are some players I like - Harrell, Jackson, Barbre, Clowney... but, is the team appreciably better after his draft???

We will be able to tell when the game roll around. Fact is, our special teams has been pretty sad recently, mostly do to poor depth on the team. These last two drafts should appreciably help depth, thereby making special teams better. If a few of these guys turn into starters and we get one top caliber player, then it was a good draft.

[wist43]

I don't think they're better at RB, despite, as I said, the fact that I like Jackson.

To me, Jackson is more solidly built than Morency, and may be able to pound the rock a little more, but for the most part he strikes me as being just a slightly tougher version of Morency, i.e. the Packer now have 3 3rd down backs, and no legit starter.

Also, I don't think they're any better at WR... I'm faster than Jones - not only did he time slow, every "highlight" I saw of him showed him having to fight for the ball b/c he had no seperation from the DB. Scouting reports say he runs good routes - he's going to have to, b/c he certainly isn't going to scare anyone with his sun dial timed speed.

Like I said, I think TT drafted a couple of good player (maybe even a very good player in Harrell), a few intriguing prospects in Rouse, Clowney and Wynn... but really didn't do much to improve the team.

There was an article in the paper today talking about ST... it seems like TT started drafting players with ST's in mind in the 3rd round and out.

If he keeps trading down and drafting 85 guys every year, eventually you run into the situation where you're replacing last years draftees with this years... TT's drafts are getting laughable.

[Lurker64]

I'm not particularly worried about Harrell staying healthy. His most recent injury, a torn bicep is something that's almost always recovered from completely with surgery and rehab (Harrell had both and his rehab apparently went spectacularly.) It's apparently not uncommon for power-lifters to completely tear a bicep worse than Harrell did (so much that it curls up into a little ball and the arm is impossible to use) and then they get surgery and do rehab and they're back to power-lifting next year. Admittedly playing DT and power-lifting are different kinds of activities, but I'm willing to bet that the latter puts more strain on your biceps.

The other injuries are mainly broken ankle kinds of things, and those are just things that happen occasionally in the trenches when someone falls on you awkwardly. It's entirely possible that those are just bad luck. He managed to play the entire 2005 season without an ankle problem, so it's not chronically recurring.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't think they're better at RB, despite, as I said, the fact that I like Jackson.

To me, Jackson is more solidly built than Morency, and may be able to pound the rock a little more, but for the most part he strikes me as being just a slightly tougher version of Morency, i.e. the Packer now have 3 3rd down backs, and no legit starter.

Also, I don't think they're any better at WR... I'm faster than Jones - not only did he time slow, every "highlight" I saw of him showed him having to fight for the ball b/c he had no seperation from the DB. Scouting reports say he runs good routes - he's going to have to, b/c he certainly isn't going to scare anyone with his sun dial timed speed.

Like I said, I think TT drafted a couple of good player (maybe even a very good player in Harrell), a few intriguing prospects in Rouse, Clowney and Wynn... but really didn't do much to improve the team.

There was an article in the paper today talking about ST... it seems like TT started drafting players with ST's in mind in the 3rd round and out.

If he keeps trading down and drafting 85 guys every year, eventually you run into the situation where you're replacing last years draftees with this years... TT's drafts are getting laughable.

I don't think Morency and Jackson are similar backs. Jackson is a more compact, shifty in the hole, with good all around skills but isn't a home run threat. Morency seems to be quick and fast, better in space, not quite as compact, and not quite as shifty in the hole.

Bottom line is that we don't know anything about Jones. I read 4.6 originally, but then I've read that time was on a very slow field at his campus workout (wet grass), and there are also reports that say he runs 4.52--which is certainly fast enough. I don't think his highlights show a guy that's constantly covered--like the Sidney Rice highlights. On a positive note: he looks very strong (just looks like a good football player). He also looks very shifty. I think the Packers see Clowney as a down the field threat and Jones as a slot receiver.

[Patler]

Morrency and Jackson are not third down backs. In ability, they have what you want your starter to have. They may not have the durability/stamina of a so-called "feature back", but that doesn't make them third down backs in my opinion.

Combined, they easily can be as good, or maybe even better than Green was in 2006. He was nothing more than "OK" last year. I'm not suggesting he is washed up by any means. But if you are comparing the Packers potential in 2007 to what they were in 2006, RB is not an area that has clearly declined. Green himself may be better in 2007 than in 2006, and the Packers may have been able to "improve" in 2007 by having kept him.