LOL - Just read the comment in todays GBPG where Pelissero recommended you start your own blog. Good stuff....

Aaron - I don't thing Pelissero is contradicting Bedard. If I infer properly from where he commented in his chat today he's simply emphasizing the point that you already know what kind of player you have from watching years of college tape. Most franchises, not all, send staff to the Senior Bowl or combine to CONFIRM that the kid has:

Strength, explosion, competitive nature, nasty disposition, lateral ability, flexibility, etc.

I'm being long-winded. You go to the practice and game to confirm the kid is what you already knew he was from watching years of tape.

P.S. - I'm forever taking Peliserro's overall football/league knowledge with a grain of salt. During yesterdays chat he said Philip Rivers was better than Aaron Rodgers (which I have no problem with) because he does more with less (this I have a problem with). Pelissero said, "who did he have other than Gates or Sproles?" Ugh, ever hear of Vincent Jackson or Chris Chambers? Jimminy Crickets......

1) Players tape in college.
2) Scouting Combine.
3) Senior Bowl.
-
You take what you see from that, compare with the competition the kid had, project how he'll fare in your scheme, project his built, his upside, how much he can grow, and that's it.
-
Senior Bowl isn't insignificant, but it's not the key component in scouting a player. It's one component.
-
And Pelissero is totally right... Having 6'5 4.3 Wrs that can catch and an OL that actually protects you is terrible for any QB. Poor Rivers, he has to endure all that... C'mon! I'd take the Packers Wrs over the Chargers anyday, but it's different skill set. Rivers, like Cutler had with Marshall, has the option of just throwing the ball up when he's pressured. Rodgers doesn't.

I don't really like the Senior Bowl that much. What's more important, how well a player plays in one game, or how well he plays cumulatively in 4 years?

Go Pack Go!

PackersRS - I won't necessarily disagree with your message or premise with Rivers, but you need to read what Pelissero was saying in the context of his chat. He didn't even know the two existed. It's one thing to question Rivers play or the surrounding talent, but he didn't know they EXISTED.

Also, to be devils advocate for a moment: Didn't the Packers vaunted receiving core drop the 2nd most balls in the NFL at 50, only behined the Chiefs? I may be asking for it with this comment, but right now I would take Jackson and Chambers over everybody but Jennings (CSS ducks and runs for cover........)

Prove that he didn't know they EXISTED? That would change my view on Pelissero completely...
And you're right... But on the same tone, you'd take Miles Austin and Sidney Rice over DD and Jennings? 2007 almost the same receivers we had last year led the league in YAC, if I'm not mistaken...
-
P.S.: I think you're reffering to Jackson and Floyd? Chambers was with the Chiefs last season...

CSS,

You ARE asking for it.

I would take V-Jax over anybody on our roster except #85, as well (Only over DD because of age).

Chambers, not so much.

I think Jordy and James have every bit as much talent as Chambers and they're MUCH, MUCH younger.
Chambers has averaged 53.1 yds/game and 14.4/yds per reception, for his career. Broken 1,000 yards just once in T-E-N years, all the while he was 'suppose' to be the #1 in Miami. Oh, and he's missed 20 games in his career.

If Jordy Or James had an opportunity to be the #1 somewhere (shitty QB or not), I feel confident in saying, they could post those #'s.

Jackson = good
Chambers = pedestrian

GBP 4 LIFE

RS,

Chambers played 7 games for the Bolts. 9 rec for 122 yds, with 1 TD.

Even if he is talking Floyd, 45 rec, 776 yds, 1 TD. Nice YPR average,but I don't think it's anything that JJ or Jordy aren't more than capable of if either were the #2, DD's taking alot of balls away from those guys (not a bad thing, just the facts).

GBP 4 LIFE

Hey, Tra Thomas just got cut by the Jaguars...what do you think are the chances of the Packers bringing him in for a look?

Thompson has implied that he likes the seniors first. I believe last year he said he just feels that the seniors are just one more year farther along in life. One year may not seem like that big of a difference, but personally I really think it is. Those seniors have ran the college gauntlet & IMO are just more ready to know what it takes to be good. Of course that isn't always the case, but IMO if there is a senior stud player & a junior stud player who grade out equally to your scouting staff, I'm taking the senior, because he is farther along in life. May sound crazy, but I'm going to gamble on the one that I think should be more mature & ready to handle what is going to be expected of him.

Could it be MJS has the budget to go the the senior bowl, GBPG does not?
--
Was it at the senior bowl last year that the just fired defensive coaches ripped on the Packers for not having any coaches at the senior bowl? And stating how impossible it would be to make the transition to a 3-4 with out loud laughter?
--
What you get at the senior bowl is a player practicing in contact drills with NFL coaching. Cant get that anywhere else.

Bedard fails, Tom wins on this one. Players at the senior bowl tend to have had good careers, hence why they are invited, hence why they get drafted highly. Senior bowl performance is irrelevant- Tebow had a bad day at the senior bowl but his supporters still love him and his doubters still doubt him.

This is ABSOLUTELY off topic, but I didn't know where else to put this.
-----------------
So, I read an article about Jay Cutler's interceptions being broken down by Ron Jaworski in the Chicago Sun-Times. In the article, they credited Jaws as someone who watches "over 30 hours of game film a week." That's impressive, right? But is that even friggin possible?
-------------
Just a month or two ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a story that said in an average NFL game, only 11 minutes of actual plays occur. So on average, that would be the length of the "game film" for any given game. Now, the NFL season has 256 regular season games and 15 post season games, for a total of 271 games. If you take the average time of 11 minutes and multiply it by 271, you get 2981 minutes, which breaks down to just under 50 hours of "game film." Total. For every friggin game in a season.
-----------------------
So basically, either Jaws watches the same film over and over in a season, or it's obvious BS. It also makes you wonder why some players(cough cough, Manning) get so much credit for being relentless film-watchers, considering they really don't have anything else to do and it REALLY shouldn't take them that long to watch every bit of film there is....
-----------------------

Like I said, I know this is way off-topic, but I had nowhere else to put my thoughts for now and it really chaps my ass every time a guy is lauded for being a "film" guy. WTF are the guys who don't watch film doing? I mean, seriously, how hard is it to watch like, maybe 3 hours of film over the course of a week?
-----------
/end rant. Sorry.

Packsmack - surely watching film is a little more than simply putting on the tape and watching? I would imagine you put on a particular play and pause at key moments to break down coverages/assignments etc. This would be particularly time consuming if you are the QB who has to watch every guy in coverage in detail. Obviously we don't know what goes on, but that would be my guess.

Adam, I know, it's not as simple as just pushing "play." But you don't have to watch EVERY play for EVERY team in a given week, either. A QB wouldn't watch the special teams plays, and would likely only watch the opposing team's defense and his own offense on film. Sure, it's likely to take more than the 11 minutes, but what I'm saying is that it's not THAT time-consuming, especially when you consider that they have PLENTY of time to do it. And comeon, Jaws watching 30 hours of game film A WEEK is just ridiculous. There is simply no way he does that.

Packsmack - If Jaws is watching every game played of a week in the season then that's under 2 hours a game to reach 30 hours of film watched. Considering he will be reading both sides and probably making notes of who's in the game and formations etc it's not to hard to imagine him spending that long watching that much film over a week.

Not saying I necessarily believe him btw, just saying it's possible.

According to a study by digitalhome.ca the average American watches 31 hours of TV every week. So yes it's not impossible for a guy include watch 30 hours of game tape in one week.

Was tuning in to Sirius NFL Radio today and heard a interesting bit of info regarding this years free agency. Out of the entire 2010 FA class there are seventy-five actual starters. Each team is allowed to tag two players and once free agency actually begins that number drops drastically. How drastic you ask? This number blew my mind. The number of UFA starters will be eleven! 24 teams trying to nail down eleven starters. Free agency is dead even before it begins.

Jersey. I heard Arkish say that each team can declare 3 franchise players. If that is true it should put TT in a position to prove his "Draft and Develop" thoery this year.
___
In either case you're right, FA as we knew it is gone. The only FA value will be to pick up fillers at the bottom tier.

Ron,

Hub Arkish is the Antichrist (dude's so far up Virginia McCaskeys' ass, it's pathetic).. FYI. Not that it has ANYTHING to do with your post... I just feel it's my duty to inform EVERYONE that Hub's heart lies with duh quears, take anything he says with a TBS of salt (especially regarding duh quears or the GBP... he's tainted)

GBP 4 LIFE