Cory's Corner: Solving the Packers' draft

People have been known to question or criticize Ted Thompson’s most important job.

But the Packers’ general manager actually showed a method to all of the NFL Draft madness — which amazingly included a gas mask and Ole Miss looking for a large hole in the sand.

Last year, the Packers kicked off the draft by grabbing two dynamic defensive backs. Damarious Randall and Quinten Rollins are arguably the most athletic players on the team and really breathed life into a defense that had a strong year.

That brings me to this year. First, Mike Pennel was slapped with a four-game suspension for violating the league’s substance abuse policy and then B.J. Raji decided to take this year, and perhaps more, off.

Thompson always says that he drafts the best guy available — which is the safest bet for any team. If you take the best guy at every moment in the draft, you’re going to assemble a pretty strong roster.

Except this year — and obviously Thompson will never admit it. Robert Nkemdiche was easily the best player still in the draft when the Packers picked at 27. But Thompson used a two-prong justification that he needed a nose tackle to stop the run and he disliked the character issues. Enter Kenny Clark.

And then Thompson did the unthinkable and moved up nine spots for another big man — this time a versatile offensive lineman in Jason Spriggs.

So that means that next year’s draft will likely hit on more skill positions with Eddie Lacy and Jared Cook in contract years.

It was another ho-hum draft for Thompson. He didn’t take any chances with injury or off-field problems and instead opted for the safe play. Think about it, the only reason everyone dislikes Dallas’ draft so much is because the Cowboys took Jaylon Smith in the second round and he may not be the same player ever again.

The Packers aren’t in a position to take that kind of risk. With the quarterback and defense that this team has, there’s no need to essentially go for broke and hope the pick doesn’t get wasted.

Thompson has done a pretty remarkable job as the GM. He is great at getting value late in the draft and understands probably more than any other NFL front office employee, that Green Bay isn’t for everyone. It’s a small town that was lucky enough to keep an NFL franchise and some players would likely turn their noses up at playing in the smallest market in all of sports.

This year, I think I understood Thompson. Last year, he went for athleticism and this year he went for lumberjacks. You can be upset about not landing a top inside linebacker, but just remember that it doesn’t matter who’s playing linebacker if the defensive line cannot get any push whatsoever. It’s pretty tough to stop a team when you give up seven yards on the ground on first and second down only to stare down a very difficult 3rd and 3.

So remember that Thompson isn’t just drafting guys for the 2016 roster. He is concerned about maintaining consistency. He only has two seasons under .500 during his 12 years picking as a Packers’ general manager.  

I’m not saying you cannot criticize Thompson. Just make sure you put the pieces together first. 

-------------------

Cory Jennerjohn is a graduate from UW-Oshkosh and has been in sports media for over 15 years. He was a co-host on "Clubhouse Live" and has also done various radio and TV work as well. He has written for newspapers, magazines and websites. He currently is a columnist for CHTV and also does various podcasts. He recently earned his Masters degree from the University of Iowa. He can be found on Twitter: @Coryjennerjohn

NFL Categories: 
0 points

Comments (44)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
Evan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:14 am

Two things.

1. TT absolutely drafted athleticism this year. Spriggs, Davis, Fackrall, Martinez can all move.

2. I didn't know people didn't like Dallas' draft. To me, Smith wasn't the bad pick (though definitely earlier than I expected him to go and they are very much in "win now" mode). To me, Elliott was the mistake. That offensive line made Darren McFadden look legit, and that was with literally zero threat from the passing game. They don't need an elite RB. They need help on defense. Ramsey or Bosa would have been the better pick.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:15 am

I agree with you on Dallas.

If Bosa didn't go a pick earlier I wonder if Dallas would have chose him over Elliott.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:38 am

Oh, right. I forgot San Diego had the 3rd pick - I thought Dallas did. I bet they would have taken Bosa had he been available.

Still, I would have taken Ramsey or Buckner.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:53 am

Personally I think they should have taken Ramsey.

I get why they took Elliott, but they could have found a RB later that maybe wouldn't be as productive but wouldn't have been as big of a drop off as going from Ramsey to the next CB/S.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:23 am

"...hat maybe wouldn't be as productive ..."

That'd debatable.

I was listening to The Ringer's new NFL podcast yesterday and they tore this pick apart. What was interesting, was they differentiated between having a productive running back and having a productive running game. The former is far less important than the latter.

The Cowboys could/would have a very effective running game in 2016 with or without Elliott. According to the podcast, Cowboys were #9 in rushing DVOA last season with McFadden and no Romo. Just getting Romo back would improve their rushing attack.

They also pointed out that last year, there were (I think) only 7 1,000 rushers and only 1 (AP) made the playoffs. On the flip side, when looking at teams with the best total running attack, those were the playoff teams (Carolina, Seattle, Arizona).

Found it interesting.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:37 am

Yeah very true. I mean, I do think Elliott could be special. Really do. But I think they could have found a RB in the mid rounds that wouldn't be that much of a drop off.
Basically what I'm saying is its easier to find really good productive RB's then it is to find great CB/S.

What you were listening to really does make a lot of sense. Having a productive RB vs rushing attack. There is a lot of truth in that.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EdsLaces's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:48 am

Jerry is all about showmanship. I absolutely can't stand the man. He could have rolled with Morris and grabbed a RB later as someone else just mentioned but nope. That's not the jerry jones way. He had to get the big first round RB to add to the Jerry show. And ofcourse which defensive player would make the most headlines. Jalen Smith. They need a freaking CB or Safety but nope we better get that linebacker that might not ever be the same again. Jerry Jones...idiot.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:55 am

I forgot they signed Morris!!!

haha...yea, taking Elliot was stupid.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:06 am

I just thank God that Jerry Jones owns the Cowboys. That is one less team that we have to worry about in our schedule

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:15 am

Not if, but when Tony Romo gets hurt that whole offense will go in the crapper, anyway. They'd be Vikings south, only with a decent OL.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:46 am

Great running game = less series for Defense = fresher Defense

I'm just sayin'...

Elliot can have a bigger impact on the Defense than a Defensive player can.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:14 am

But my point is with that offensive line, the running game was going to be good to very good pretty much by default. As I mentioned above, they were #9 in rushing DVOA last year with McFadden and zero passing threat. Romo's presence alone would have a greater impact on the running game than Elliott, imo.

With that team, that OL, that aging QB, I'd rather have Ramsey/Buckner + someone like CJ Prosise in the 3rd. And they still could have taken Smith in the 2nd.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

May 03, 2016 at 11:07 am

Lol, look man, I'm not about keep giving the Cowgirls props. Elliot is a special player. I think we play them again this season. We'll see if we have an answer.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
jeremyjjbrown's picture

May 03, 2016 at 06:57 am

Ted deserves credit for his sucesses and failures just like everyone else. I've been critical of Ted about his failures including leaving huge holes in the roster by refusing to sign any veterans and drafting a bunch of players who don't fit the system in 2011-12.

However, Ted has been doing a great job over the last 13 months. Drafting guys who have done what they will be asked to do in the Packers systems in College and bringing in a sensible veteran to file in at TE. Hopefully it pays off in another championship.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Nick Perry's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:16 am

If you look at the drafts since and including the 2013 draft, TT has done a pretty good job picking players. Thompson ALWAYS picks while looking a year ahead, our 2nd, 3rd, and 6th round picks are proof of that but the picks also gave them much needed depth at those positions. I mean we drafted not one but TWO Linebackers who can actually cover a TE or RB. I CAN"T wait for Jacksonville!!!!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

May 03, 2016 at 01:53 pm

I have 50 yard line seats to that game. 2 hours from my house!!!! :D

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:18 am

Nkemdiche was not the best player left. Jack was, but there were injury woes. But regardless, you will probably buy a lot of off-the-field issues with Nkemdiche. As someone else remarked on draft day, you usually see families at the tables with players. You see a lot of "buddies" or "the entourage" or "hang-arounders" with Nkemdiche. Red flag times 5....

Overall I am happy with the draft. And I also disagree with you, Ted actually drafted a lot of athletic guys. Clark is more athletic than most DL of his size in the draft. Spriggs was the most athletic OT in the draft. Fackrell and that WR are very athletic. He really only got one lumberjack, and that was Murphy, as even Lowry tied the 40 time of Nkemdiche. In fact, he was the fastest of the DL in the draft. So I am not entirely sure what you are basing your statement on that Ted drafted "lumberjacks"...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:53 am

Agreed on Jack. Between a guy who will bust his @$$ on a bad knee and a guy who failed to meet expectations on and off the field, give me the guy with the bum knee every time. Nkemdiche and Ndonkeykong. Both spell trouble.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
EddieLee's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:24 am

Maybe Kenny Clark was the BPA that didn't get drunk/high and fall out a hotel window right before the combine. Character matters at 1265. And maybe Kenny Clark was BPA who didn't have Justin Harrell sized medical red flags.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:54 am

I think we can change that "maybe" to a "definitely."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:05 am

I agree EddieLee. I think Clark was BAP by Packers draft board. I'm stunned that people here really thinks that e. g. Billings is top 10 prospect. 32 teams put him where he belongs - at 4th round! Similar to others. I trully believe TT pick BAP- additional prove is trading up and picking Spriggs. Packers need OL contributor, but that pick is pure BAP and TT reach for him!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:49 am

I think these guys who can't keep their noses clean between the end of the college season and the draft throw up red flags of an entirely different kind. Call it self-control, call it intelligence, call it entitlement, call it whatever: those 5 months are a different kind of test that doesn't measure how fast you run or how many Buicks you can bench press. Some of these guys cost themselves significant coin.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 07:48 am

I have seen a lot of people saying this was a need based draft. I don't 100% agree with this being a need driven draft. I have seen that written pretty much every where.

The strength of this draft was the DL and the OL. What positions did the Packers draft the most players at? DL and OL...

The Packers drafted 2 OL and 2 DL. They traded up for a LT. That trade up move could be viewed as a need based trade. Usually you don't trade up for a player unless you have some sort of need at the position. Or it could be viewed as he was clearly the last player they had with a first round grade left on their board.

I'm sure need taken into account when drafting these players. I'm sure they have tie breakers in which need wins out. But without knowing how their board is set up we truly don't know where they had players ranked. And which players they took off their board completely.

'So remember that Thompson isn’t just drafting guys for the 2016 roster.'

This part is completely true. That is the thing to remember to during the draft. Thompson is always looking ahead.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:06 am

I'm not saying that TT didn't take the right guys in the right spots for value, although some would disagree (e.g. Fackrell). What I am saying is this: If you took the collective wisdom of the internet, or even just the collective wisdom of JerseyAl, and you said, "Hey, if you were TT, what would you see as the Packers' needs, in order of importance," you could very well have come up with this list:

DT - the good Lord only made so many/success starts up front/don't be soft in the middle/we gave up too many yards against the run
OT - gotta protect the franchise QB better after giving up 51 sacks/DBakh hits FA next year/Bulaga seems to get injured a lot
OLB- gotta get after the QB/Peppers' contact is up next year/gotta limit Peppers' snaps as he is getting older
ILB - never really solved that one, but hey, its only so important
WR - we got a need for speed/but hey, we have a lot of other guys
2DL - could use more depth/never had a real 5-tech
2OL - could use more depth/could lose Sitton or Lang next year
TE - we added one in FA but maybe we could use another

Forget the names. Forget who was taken. Just look at the positions and the relative strength of the rationales, and tell me that this isn't a very plausible needs list that just happened to get filled in the right order.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Idiot Fan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:36 am

I also think there's a bit of misconception about BPA. It's not like scouting is so good that they can say, "Player A is definitely a 89.5 grade out of 100 and Player B is 92.7, therefore in order to take BPA, we have to take Player B." In reality, I'm sure it's more like, "Both of these guys are around a 90 grade, but one is a DT and one is a WR. We need a DT more, so let's take the DT." I think there's often some flexibility even within BPA (it's probably more like BPsA). But I do think that TT does generally follow BPA in the sense that he might get to his pick at the end of round one and say, "we could use an ILB, but there aren't any with a grade higher than round 2 left, so let's not reach and take one."

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:48 am

I definitely think that rings true, IF. As fans that follow the draft industry, we're used to seeing every player ranked by number. Whether it is 1-50, 1-100 or 1-300 (or even more). There are no ties. And that becomes the filter which we apply to viewing prospect.

I seriously doubt pro teams evaluate like that. It seems more likely they pool players with similar grades and pick from the pool with the highest ranking. So if a pick in the 3rd round (for example) has a pool of players that includes 4 different positions, it's pretty easy to draft BPA for need simultaneously. I often wonder why people insist on saying every pick was one or the other. A pick can be both, Quite easily, in fact.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:53 am

When we thing of how we draft FFL, we usually work in "tiers". Here are the tier 1 players overall or at a given position...here's tier 2. Who do you take out of that tier? What do the deficiencies in your roster to date dictate? I recognize that to generalize this out to the NFL is a little presumptuous, but my bet is it's not terribly far off.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Spock's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:08 am

Idiot Fan. Exactly! I made a similar point about Jason P's article yesterday. BPA and NEED are interlocked, not exclusive of each other.
Ted always tries to look ahead, I think that is fairly obvious when we look at his drafts.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:42 am

I completely agree with you on this.

NFL Live on ESPN had a really neat show a couple of weeks ago. it should basically how teams set up their boards. Obviously teams go more in depth but it was really neat to see how they layout the boards. They have each position and each round and put players in where they fit.

Spriggs for example I had heard the Packers had a 1st round grade. So they moved up 9 spots to get him in the middle of the 2nd round. Likely he was the last player they had a first round grade on.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:58 am

My needs for the Packers were (immediate need) DL, ILB. (future need) OLB/OL/TE, RB, CB/S.

My biggest need was DL. DL was clearly the strongest and deepest position in the draft. Much like a couple of years ago when WR was the deepest and the Packers drafted 3.
For their first pick pretty much everyone thought they would go with DL or ILB with their first pick. With the strength of the draft the DL was the obvious choice. Doesn't make that a need pick. Just means they took the best player available that fit their team. Some will argue that other players were better. Well obviously they thought that Clark was the best player for them.

I didn't view OL as high of a need as others. I was hoping they would come up with 1-2 in the draft, but I didn't think it was a crucial need. I thought they could find one in the mid rounds that could be a good backup and develop into a starter. Much like they have done in the past. I think that was a combination of need and best player available. I had heard they were thinking about taking Spriggs with their first pick. Chose Clark instead. So when Spriggs was falling they decided to move up and get him. I'm assuming they had a first round grade on him.

The Fackrell and Martinez I think they probably viewed each as a combination of need/bpa. Fackrell being the best pass rusher/OLB available that fit there team.
Martinez, the best 3 down ILB available that would fit their team.

I have no idea how their board was at the time, but IMO, they probably took the players they felt were best available but also filled a need and fit what they like to do. That is the other part that people don't talk about when drafting players. Its either need or bpa. People forget to mention that its also drafting the player that fits the team the best.

WR to me was not a need as was the 2nd OT. I think they felt both players were the best players available at the time.
Packers did not draft a RB, TE, or CB/S in which they did have need at those positions.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Icebowler's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:17 pm

O-line is a big need simply because TT screwed up by having four of our top six having their contracts expire after this year. Our Tackles left a lot to be desired last year and our guards battled various injuries. I'm really glad that they moved up and nabbed Spriggs. I like our first three picks, Beyond that, who knows. If at least two pan out, it will be a decent draft.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 03, 2016 at 02:51 pm

How is signing Martinez, along with B. Brown, and Pikula as UDFA's not addressing ILB?! They may also play Fackrell there. I wouldn't characterize that as "unaddressed". Martinez is a very good versatile ILB. Brown had an r4 grade. Pikula was a HPFA/ r7 signing primarily because of the school. They absolutely addresses ILB and come the reg season, the position will have been significantly upgraded IMO.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
croatpackfan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:11 am

Nice article Cory and I will disagree on just one claim - Robert Nkemdiche was not BAP, not even BA DL P at that moment. Packers got better with TT pick, Cardinals are not better with their pick!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Razer's picture

May 03, 2016 at 08:27 am

Individuals in leadership roles will always have people second guessing their final decisions. Last year it was two DBs, back to back. This year people are wondering about all the big bodies and their athleticism. Have we forgotten how we hobbled into Arizona with a guard playing tackle last year?

As for best available, you have to yield to TT and his staff. They had the pick of the DT crop at the end of round one. They chose Clark because they saw a more complete player with greater upside than the Bama boys or Billings or all the other options. I had Billings as my favorite because of a couple of video clips where he was dominant. I obviously don't know.

I like that we got bigger, we got stronger in the trenches and we got guys who naturally play the positions that we need. What is not to like!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
al bundy's picture

May 03, 2016 at 09:16 am

First Ted does not draft the BPA. That's a joke and a mis direction to make people think he is a genius.
If anything this draft proves it. He knew his number one pick was to fill a need a nose tackle and he did it. The guy he got was by far NOT the BPOA period. Not even for his position.
Now, the reality. Ted and Dom insist on players who can play multiple positions. His nose tackle had to be able to also move outside if needed. So forget a lot of the better nose tackles, only one guy fit that mold, the guy they took. So he drafted the BPA to fit their method of play.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 03, 2016 at 12:49 pm

...so you start by saying Ted does NOT take BPA and finish by saying he DOES take BPA?

I don't think TT cares if anyone thinks he's a genius or not. Sometimes, I don't think TT even has a pulse...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 04, 2016 at 04:32 am

Well said, dobber.

To add my mite, if a player has only the ability to play in base NT and no where else, that reduces his value since we play so much nickel. So, for the GB Packers, a guy who can play 0, 1 and 3 Tech like Clark might well have better value and might be the best player/choice for our team as opposed to a Jarran Reed type, who many suggest can only play 0 and 1 Tech, even if one supposes that Reed is better against double teams and is the better run stuffer as a NT.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

May 03, 2016 at 11:36 am

If anyone pretends to know that Kenny Clark was NOT the best player available, he's talking out of his butt. Worse yet, if anyone pretends to know that the Packers did not see Kenny Clark as the best player available... well, he's talking out of two or three butts at the same time.

There are plenty of smart football people who think that Clark was picked right where his value said he should be picked, and there were others who thought he should have been picked higher.

Dan Shonka is an analyst for Ourlad's NFL Scouting Service. He is a former player, a former coach, and a former scout for the Eagles, Redskins and Chiefs. He's been a football guy for 40 years. Shonka said: "Kenny Clark was our 23rd rated player. The Packers got him at 27. Love it."

Doug Farrar at SI gave the pick of Clark an "A." Bucky Brooks at NFL.com ranked him on the big board at... guess what... 27th. The folks over at Fox Sports seemed to like Clark, too. Peter Schrager said, "He could be a steal at 27th overall." Joel Klatt rated him at 15th overall, and said, "His potential is endless, and I am more bullish on him than others." And Fox's senior college football writer, Bruce Feldman, said, "I was surprised Kenny Clark didn't go even higher." JSOnline quoted one AFC scout who said, "He goes 11 to 20." The well respected Evan Silva of Rotoworld said, "Love the Packers' pick of Kenny Clark."

Mel Kiper ranked Clark at 32.... and he also ranked Nkemdiche two slots LOWER at 34. But I won't get into where we should rank "the other guy." The point is that there are a lot of people who think that Kenny Clark was a very great value at 27, and certainly not everyone agrees that Robert "Red-Flag" Nkemdiche would have been better value.

So if you are saying that TT obviously abandoned BPA and drafted for need, can you please tell me how you know that? Cuz honestly, I don't think you do...

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 01:35 pm

I like your argument, but I hate comments that work from the premise that anyone who says x is full of it and should shut up. If that is your premise (and others here have been far worse in how they put it than you) then you might as well say there shouldnt be blogs and there definitely should be no comments sections. Shut er down!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
marpag1's picture

May 03, 2016 at 01:58 pm

No, that isn't my premise at all.

Packer Fan #1 says, "Personally, I think that Nkemdiche would have been a better value than Clark."

Packer Fan #2 says, "Ted Thompson SAYS that he drafts the best player available, but he's lying. Ted clearly took Clark to fill a need, even though Ted knows perfectly well that Nkemdiche is a better value. I know all this, you see, although Ted himself will never admit it."

Packer Fan #1 is A-OK. Packer Fan #2 is talking out of his butt.

Why should I believe some dude on the internet who claims to know what Thompson is thinking better than Thompson knows it himself? Or how can anyone claim with authority that Ted DOESN'T think what he says he thinks?

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 01:35 pm

I like your argument, but I hate comments that work from the premise that anyone who says x is full of it and should shut up. If that is your premise (and others here have been far worse in how they put it than you) then you might as well say there shouldnt be blogs and there definitely should be no comments sections. Shut er down!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
MarkinMadison's picture

May 03, 2016 at 01:35 pm

I like your argument, but I hate comments that work from the premise that anyone who says x is full of it and should shut up. If that is your premise (and others here have been far worse in how they put it than you) then you might as well say there shouldnt be blogs and there definitely should be no comments sections. Shut er down!

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

May 03, 2016 at 03:37 pm

One Undrafted Free agent player that I am looking forward to seeing perform is Brandon Burks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKcle3ZzkyQ

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0
Clay Zombo's picture

May 03, 2016 at 10:34 pm

With TTs record of drafting DL in the 1st or 2nd round, im scared that Clark wont amount to Jack, no pun intended. Im glad I didnt watch the draft this year because I would have gone mad seeing all the options that he had available at 27 and having him pick Clark of all people.

No bloody way was Clark the BPA at 27, I dont believe that for 1 second. Not the way the 1st round went down. He might have been the safest most well rounded DL available but in no way the BPA.

I hope to the football gods that I am way wrong on this but history says im probably not.

For the record I would have taken Jack or Nkemdiche at 27. Spriggs in the 2nd was a good choice and trade then I would have taken Billings in the 3rd.

+ REPLY
0 points
0
0

Log in to comment and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.