Content
X

Create Account

Or log in with Facebook

X

Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Packers Early Draft Picks: Do's and Don'ts

By Category

Packers Early Draft Picks: Do's and Don'ts

Over the past week, the Green Bay Packers have seen six of their former key players (T.J. Lang, J.C. Tretter, Datone Jones, Micah Hyde, Julius Peppers, and Eddie Lacy) depart for other teams.  Tight end Jared Cook won't be back after the Packers added Martellus Bennett and Lance Kendricks and is still looking for a new home.  Don't forget the retirement of cornerback Sam Shields.  From a year ago, that's eight major players from the last two seasons who are gone.  That's a lot to replace.  

As an expansion on Chris Peterson's writing about Packers players lost in free agency, I explore how they might replace some of those areas via the upcoming NFL draft.

Ah, the draft.  Also known as Ted Thompson's playground.  The Packers general manager has become known as the Godfather of "draft & develop" over the years, whether that moniker is deserved or not.  Thompson often defers to younger and, let's be honest, cheaper options to replace lost veterans.  In a few recent seasons past (2013, 2015), he's done nothing in free agency outside of his own former players and exclusively used the draft to re-stock the cupboard.

I'm not here to start tossing names of who should be drafted where.  I'll leave that to our draftniks and those who know better.  What I do want to discuss is how the Packers might and might not approach this draft.  

Often times when a team loses a player, fans immediately look for a veteran replacement on the open market.  For example, Lacy leaves and everyone is clamoring hard for Jamaal Charles or LeGarrette Blount.  The reality is that Thompson prefers to draft his backs but Lacy's departure doesn't suddenly mean a running back has to be a first-round priority.  Taking a running back in round one is a risk at any spot, let alone late in the round.  Ted doesn't like risk, as we know.

Lang and Tretter's departures have many thinking that Forrest Lamp should suddenly be Green Bay's top pick.  In the last 12 drafts, when has Thompson drafted a guard in the first round?  He hasn't.  After hitting on Lang, Josh Sitton, David Bakhtiari, Tretter and Corey Linsley in later rounds, don't expect that philosophy on where to find offensive line help to change.  Thompson clearly doesn't value guard like some other teams do.  

Often it's said that teams should draft the best player available in round one and address needs later on.  The reality is that some needs require a player who can realistically start on day one.  That most likely means a first rounder.  That then requires teams to shuffle their board of best overall players and find the one that instead best fills a hole.  

In the Packers' case, many want to see a cornerback or pass rusher taken first.  We've seen Ted take the best overall player and we've seen him fill a need in round one.  It's hard to say what he does this year but if he finds, say, a Corey Davis sitting there when their pick comes along, he may have to jump on that.  Many will criticize the move with the Packers defense having so many needs.  But remember the draft is the time to take the best players to help in the future. 

It might be this year's draft but that doesn't mean the Packers are solely thinking about this season alone.  In the next few years, there are more big departures possible and so there are many future concerns to account for.  This is one of the reasons why Thompson has been so big on accumulating picks and not compromising the compensatory pick formula by signing a lot of unrestricted free agents.

Some look at the players lost this year and how there are only two players left from the 2012 draft and just one from 2013 and question whether the Packers and Thompson are still succeeding at developing who they draft.  Last year, Damarious Randall and Quinten Rollins failed to make jumps from year one to year two, leaving the cornerback position hamstrung at times (namely the NFC Championship game).  Another example is the safety position in 2013 and the inside linebacker position in recent years.

Those memories have many wanting Thompson to take safer options early in the draft to address a big need.  A guy like T.J. Watt, for example, seems to be an easy selection to add pass rush.  Watt has the name and pedigree, but he's never played a down in the NFL.  With any rookie, there is risk.  Every team misses on a pick now and then.  Thompson and the Packers have hopefully done enough due diligence to minimize the chances that they'll be letting most of these new players leave in four years.

When all is said and done, the Packers need to drown out the outside noise and stick to what works for them when draft day comes.  They can't solve all of the needs in one day or with one pick.  I've said before, cheetah's don't change their spots and we shouldn't expect Green Bay's draft strategy to deviate much from years past.

 

 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 1 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (55) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

croatpackfan's picture

Jasone, you nailed twice:
1. "I'm not here to start tossing names of who should be drafted where. I'll leave that to our draftniks and those who know better.";
2. "When all is said and done, the Packers need to drown out the outside noise and stick to what works for them when draft day comes. They can't solve all of the needs in one day or with one pick."!

I agree with you on your thoughts regarding team & draft!

EDIT: When Packers lose lot of players to FA, many questions their draft & develop ability. On contrary, those loses talkes how good Packers are in D&D, because there is quite a lot of teams ready to pay (overpay?) big money for Packers "products"...
Think like that and you'll see that it is rocognitionhow good Packers are in D&D!

Turophile's picture

I have seen the Forest Lamp in round one stuff. It's rubbish.

If you go that route you don't get a 10 year starter, you get a guy for five years max, because if he is that good, he will be too expensive when his second contract comes around (too expensive for the Packers, anyway). Don't make the mistake the 49ers made when they drafted Iupati, it's that same situation.

Edge rusher and CB are priorities in rounds 1&2, but Jason is right, you never know who will drop, and that may upset all the plans. Abandoning plan A has been done before, it ended up with Aaron Rodgers.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I don't get what you are saying. Should TT avoid drafting prospects who will be really good in the NFL because they will be too expensive to re-sign? Or is your position limited to certain positions like OG? We did give 2nd contracts to Sitton and Lang. Both were lucrative, and Sitton's was at least put him in the top 3 or top 5 OGs.

i certainly agree with your 2nd paragraph. If someone drops who figures to be really good, we might have to forego CB and/or OLB in round 1.

WKUPackFan's picture

I can't figure out what Turo is saying either. Whatever the meaning is, it begins from the false assumption of a 10 year with one team player. Outside of franchise QBs, those players don't exist anymore.

First round picks get a 4 year contract with a club 5th year option. The other draft picks get 4 year contracts. Thus the churn of players four years after a particular draft, this year from 2013. The only real leverage a team has during that time is offering a slightly lower second contract with accompanying player financial security against injury.

The TKstinator's picture

(Cook just signed with Oakland.)
What does "drown out the outside noise" mean?

Savage57's picture

Stick your fingers in your ears while going "Lalalalalalalala".

You know, like kids do when they don't want to listen to you.

jasonperone's picture

There's no shortage of those telling Thompson who to draft, what to do. That noise could even come as closely as Mike McCarthy, Dom Capers, Joe Whitt. Yes, MM is the head coach and should theoretically have some say but ultimately Ted makes the pick and has the background to acquire talent. He needs to stick to what has worked in the past.

akeemthedream's picture

"what has worked in the past"

So by "past" I assume you mean prior to 2010.

akeemthedream's picture

My free advice for Ted Thompson:

Step 1. Evaluate the draft strategy you've been using since 2010.

Step 2. Do the exact opposite of what you've been doing in the draft since 2010.

You're welcome.

UmpireMark's picture

Do you have to be like that?

What purpose does that serve? If you disagree with someone, disagree. But why make the derogatory remark?

Unnecessary.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Well, I do agree, Umpire. But Akeem's advice isn't of any use. What does it mean for TT to do the opposite of what he's been doing? Don't take the player you think will help the team the most? Does that mean drafting a UDFA prospect in round 1? Throwing darts at your draft board? What?

Akeem's advice really wasn't advice at all; it was simply an attack on TT with no specifics. And no, I am hardly TT's biggest fan.

akeemthedream's picture

Pretty cool that you've taken on the responsibility of defending Thompson's drafts (which have been bad since 2010) for him.

Since everyone says you can't look at a drafted player until 3 years after he was drafted (which, I think is silly - difference makers are usually difference makers pretty fast), we'll hold off on the 2015 and 2016 groups.

From 2010 to 2014 the Packers made 45 picks.
11 are still Packers (10 + House leaving and coming back).

Since 95 percent of NFL players are replaceable JAGS, what a team really needs is to find difference making players. From 2010 to 2014 I will say that the Packers have drafted 2 such players (Bakhtiari, Daniels). Bulaga, Clinton-dix, Cobb, Adams are nice players but are not elite.

Thompson has just not been as successful in the draft as he's had to be since 2010, especially considering he is so dependent on that singular method of player procurement.

The Packers (Thompson) need to adjust the criteria they use for selecting players (check out Justis Mosqueda on twitter for athletic measurables the Packers use).

akeemthedream's picture

Nope.
See, here's the thing.
I'm not saying that Thompson has never been good at drafting.
He has been.
He drafted Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Collins, and Jennings.
Every one of those guys were/are stars.

But if you go back and read my posts, you will clearly see that I only referenced Thompson's draft performance since 2010.
From my original post - "Step 2. Do the exact opposite of what you've been doing in the draft since 2010."

I want the old (pre-2010) Thompson back.
He's been lacking since.

Oh - and I am most certainly a fan.

Nick Perry's picture

dobber said it best last week in one of his comments. Sorry but I'm not going to go back and search through all the comments but the main point to his comment was the Packers are in the middle of a "Mini Rebuild"

IMO a "Mini Rebuild" sums up the Packers Offseason perfectly and if you pay attention to which Packers are going to be FA each year, you could tell 2017 was a year there would be a lot of turnover way back in 2014.

Ted does his best drafting when he takes the BPA. I think you could argue Thompson has drafted for need in the 1st round in every draft since 2011. It's to early to tell if Randall and Clark will work out but missing on Sherrod and Jones hurt, especially when you factor in most players picked after them were busts. This is a draft that could really help the Packers this year and in years to come.

Take the BPA in the 1st, ESPECIALLY if Davis is there. When cuts start up in June and July pick up some veteran depth to fill some spots on the roster instead of filling it out with nothing but UDFA. Hopefully the 2017 Packers don't have a record that reflects a "Mini Rebuild". The Offense should be as good as ever if we can find a decent RG but anyone not worried about the defense right now is being overly optimistic.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

The notion that TT views 2017 as a re-building year has begun to lurk in the back of my mind. Seems to me that TT viewed 2014 - 2016 as an opportunity, and made a push to win it all. I don't think TT has given up on 2017: the offense should be stellar and if enough things go right through internal improvement, and one or two draft picks at the right positions come through, we have a chance. It seems not inconceivable that TT is looking towards 2018 and 2019 when he gets a bunch of comp picks, should have a significant amount of cap space, to make a push at that time. I don't really have a problem with that. No way to really know what TT thinks.

Savage57's picture

MM - "No more experiments, please?"

TT - "Yeah, but I was all chinged up."

Nick Perry's picture

Hmm... Just saw Barwin signed with the Rams for a 1 year deal for a maximum value of $6.5 million. If $6.5 million is the MAX, that was another deal that would have been very affordable for the Packers at a position of need.
I don't understand how TT can justify paying Matthews $15, 075,00.00 and not pay Barwin $6.5. Then again maybe paying Matthews $15, 075,00.00 is the problem to begin with. Here's hoping Matthews shows us all he can stay on the field AND be productive in 2017.

Bearmeat's picture

NP,

You and I have been clamoring for TT to be gone since early in 2014. He is the reason GB has been in the title hunt for so long. He is also the biggest reason they are never favorites.

I want him gone. I'm so damn sick of him.

Nick Perry's picture

BM

I'm trying to be supportive and this season at least he's dipped his toes in FA. I'm hoping for a 2013 type draft where we get some instant help, only without the 1st round bust if you wanna call Jones a bust.

Rodgers is so good he'll get you to the Playoffs every year. He'll win 10 games almost by himself. But when you're BLOWN out in the Playoffs every season or go to OT and never touch the ball because your defense can't come up with one stop, it's tough to not be critical. I think NOT being active in FA has proven to be uneffective. After all the praise Woodson and Pickett have received on this site from posters, I'm surprised more don't feel the same way.

pooch's picture

Schneider is why they got Woodson and Pickett not Thompson.

dobber's picture

Schneider didn't pull the trigger. He had TTs ear. Who has TTs ear now?

Ryan Graham's picture

I tend to agree with you guys. The whole Leopard doesn't change his spots thing, that's all fine let him not change his spots in retirement. I haven't been on this site all but a month, but I've been calling for his name and Capers for years. Less so Thompson just because he does a decent job of finding talent offense, but it seems to be a challenge for him to find defensive talent. The reality is we got these guys for another year. And if they do win the SB, maybe more.

It wouldve been nice to have Barwin but he was never interested in playing with the Packers, seems pretty clear to me. Chris Long is still available, and there are other options out there that will be even cheaper than he.

porupack's picture

Nick....
we do feel same. TT mismanaged several contracts that could have prevented the number of departures this year. He could have extended some contracts earlier and gotten better deals on Perry, maybe been able to retain Lang and Lacy.
TT isn't any better than 25 other GMs that all manage the cap. Even NE has more cap, and still heaving money at some high priced FAs.
So TT is over-rated on his cap management. Average.

cuervo's picture

Again, you have no idea if the Packers offered Barwin anything OR if he even wanted to come here. He ended up going to play with Wade Phillips who has coached him earlier in his career and there is mutual respect between them.

I know it's convenient to use things like the Barwin signing to bitch and moan...but it doesn't mean the Packers didn't try, didn't offer, or don't care.

Nick Perry's picture

You're right I have no idea, hell I don't have a clue just like everybody else here. Maybe TT was hot on the heels of Barwin as just missed out...but I doubt it. Only because 99.8% of the players who the Packers are supposed to be interested in never sign with the Packers.

I completely agree with you about Phillips, especially on a one year deal. Who would you rather play for to perhaps drive up your price for next season, Capers or Phillips?

pooch's picture

Ha your giving Ted way to much credit,look at the last 5 years enough said

Nick Perry's picture

I know Dan...I can only hope to know as much as you one day. I mean you're an expert on everything right? Everyone else is uninformed, stupid, clueless, a moron, or should have their heads buried in the sand, just to name a few of the insults you throw around when people disagree with your opinion.

You're the man Stroh, oops, Dan S, oops, Desert Pack Fan or whoever the hell you are.

RCPackerFan's picture

This is the truth. We have no clue what happens behind closed doors in Lambeau...
Even the players we sign, we usually don't find out until they sign. Look at Bennett, Kendricks and House. Peppers was the same way. No one hears they are in Green Bay or anything until they sign...

UmpireMark's picture

What little I can find on the Web, it sounds like the Bengals were the only other "Barwin suitor" before signing with the Rams. Again, with what little I could find it sounds like the Packers had just the initial contact before the Bennett signing.

But that's just what was reported; obviously we are not privy to anything inside the walls of Lambeau.

RCPackerFan's picture

I get everyone wants to target Mathews and talk about his contract.

The truth is, why would it matter what his contract numbers are?
They are currently 27 million under the cap. That is plenty to do what they want with it. Mathews contract is not limiting this team from doing what they want to do. Its the GM that is holding the team back from signing free agents and whatnot.

If they were tight against the cap then it would be a problem, but honestly they have done a good enough job of managing the cap that there are no issues.

As for Mathews, you know my opinion on where Mathews should play. IMO, he will be the most productive in the hybrid LB role.

Bearmeat's picture

"It's the GM"

From your mouth to God's ears, RC. TT can only roll over 10 million to next year, correct? The draft class will cost about 6 million a year, so what is he doing with the extra 12 million? He can't keep it and the organization doesn't need it. There's no profit allowed in GB, profits just go into a rainy day fund and for structural improvements, so why NOT kick the tires on a 30 year old pass rusher who has been productive recently? Or perhaps a 30 year old CB? Or perhaps a 29 year old pounder RB? Especially when you have no young guys on the roster who would lose snaps who could reasonably be looked at as meaninful contributors down the road??

I'm done being polite to TT. I've not given up on the team, but I'm sick and tired of this organization not doing everything it can to build a championship contender on a yearly basis with 30 years of Zeus at the most important position in sports.

TT, please, for the love of all that is holy, RETIRE.

dobber's picture

I'm no expert, but the most positive spin I can put on it is that he's planning to re-up some of Adams/HHCD/Linsley/Taylor before the season starts, which would change their cap numbers and their cap impact on this year's values.

stockholder's picture

Adams will want money and isn't worth the risk yet. (If Ever) Linsey and Taylor Yes! HHCD. It seems like it took TT forever to replace Collins. I hope he does sign him too. But I'm drafting a Safety this year. As Burnett plays more LB. The loss of Hyde. TT better draft another Safety.

cummings's picture

Actually, I wish you would retire. Your diatribes are getting old.

stockholder's picture

Ok -please contact Cow. You might find something in common.

Nick Perry's picture

I agree with what you're saying RC, Matthews contract isn't "The" problem. The problem is paying Matthews THAT much money to begin with. Many people thought the contract was way too much to begin with, before Matthews showed any decline.

I think you know I completely agree with you about moving Matthews inside. Personally I think Matthews could be every bit as effective inside as he was the 2nd half of 2014 and that is WHY I believe having a player like Barwin could help this defense so much. A threesome of Perry, Matthews, and Barwin for example would make any secondary better. Barwin will be 31 in November so there IS that. But with the need at CB and OLB being pretty big it would give Thompson that much more flexibility with his 1st round pick.

Plus we've done the Draft & Develop for years and it's not got us over the hump, not with playoff losses like the Packers have had

marpag1's picture

"Just saw Barwin signed with the Rams for a 1 year deal for a maximum value of $6.5 million. If $6.5 million is the MAX, that was another deal that would have been very affordable for the Packers at a position of need."

I'm not arguing with you, Nick. I'm a bit surprised at the price myself. But whenever the Packers fail to sign someone to a "bargain price," it's good to remember that 30 other teams didn't sign him at that price either.

Edge defenders are arguably the most sought after players next to QBs. Whenever a pass rusher has a soft market and signs for less than everyone thought, I usually suspect that the league knows something that most fans like me don't.

Nick Perry's picture

Good point marpag...He was out there for awhile but still, I would have liked him in Green & Gold. You also have to consider he'll be 31 about halfway through the 2017 season. I thought maybe he was looking for a team with a 3-4 defense who's a contender, but signing with the Rams does make you wonder who had interest, the Packers included. Rumors are just that, rumors. Maybe TT never was interested in the 1st place.

I think he'll excel with Phillips, but most OLB do playing for him. At the end of the day it looks as though the Packers will depend on their young players to develop, just like they usually do.....Kyle Frackrell I'm looking at you!

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

Nick, under the CBA, TT can roll over all of our current unused cap space. We are well within the 89% rolling average.

RCPackerFan's picture

With Thompson as a GM, you just have to look at his previous drafts to understand what he typically does.

First you have to pay attention to the schools. In 4 of the last 5 drafts he has drafted a player from the Pac-12 with his first round pick. The other pick in those years was from Alabama.

In the last 4 years he has drafted 4 players from UCLA. 3 from Stanford. 2 from Cal, Arizona State and Alabama.

Don't be surprised if we see more Pac-12 players picked for the Packers in this draft.

For first round possibilities. Following Thompsons patterns, in the first round of his drafts he has drafted
1-QB, 4-DL, 3-LB's, 2-OT's, 1-S, 1-CB. Following that pattern expect him to draft defense in the first round. likely someone from the front 7.

While studying the Packers drafts under Thompson you can find patterns to his drafting, and see what positions he puts more values on players.

In 8 of his 12 drafts he has drafted an OL in the 4th or 5th rounds. In 11 of 12 drafts he has drafted an OL. In 8 of the 12 drafts he has drafted multiple OL.

For other patterns, Thompson has drafted at least 1 DB in 11 of his 12 drafts. He has taken a DL in every draft. He has taken a LB in 10 of his 12 drafts. He has taken at least 1 WR in 9 of his 12 drafts.
Where as he has only drafted a RB in 6 of the 12 drafts. TE's 6 drafts out of 12. QB's 4 drafts out of 12.

Taking this info you can do what you want with it. But it kind of tells you what to expect when Thompson is in control of the draft.

Ryan Graham's picture

I understand Ted always has his montra of drafting "BPA" but like everything else Ted has to say to the media, that is extremely vague. BPA meaning, most talented? Or best according to the teams needs? Or best according to scheme fit? From what I've noticed, Ted mostly addresses need when recapping a full draft and all his drafts collectively, and if you ask me those trends you presented back that up. Those are where the needs have been the majority of the time. Front seven on defense due to all the wiffs, particularly on the D line and linebacker, really the entire defense. Offensive line is always a growing need on any team because, well it accounts for half of the offensive lineup. And of course you need depth.

Running back is not in high demand in the west coast offense, which is why guys like Ryan Grant and James Starks are able to see success at times in said system. The position is not highly depended on for running but more so for pass blocking, which by the way is where Montgomery really needs to improve, and probably why Ted went out of his way to get two tight ends.

stockholder's picture

"When all is said and done, the Packers need to drown out the outside noise and stick to what works for them when draft day comes. Thats just non-sense. They need to start listening. TT especially! This team has not gone back to the super-bowl since 2010. TT use to be a scout. He was tied to Wolf. The Packers have blown it every year since 2010. You can't keep wanting draft picks and use them so badly. He's had enough picks to get the best, if not better players. (To many serviceable players.) If the majority wants Watt, Take him. We want a voice now! They can't solve all of the needs in one day or with one pick."! This was your best statement. Give the fans 1 pick and TT gets the other. Bet the fans pick stays longer! To many holes. And they were caused by bad coaching and TT.

marpag1's picture

"The Farce is strong with young stockholder...."

stockholder's picture

Farce? Since 2010 marpag1. Watch the poles! This site did it's fair share about Bitching about TT. Picks. Busts. Free Agency. Not to mention the coaches. ESPN even published articles on MM and who should be replaced. Seems to me I suggested a tighter reign. Kiss-ups are for losers. How many times have you and others wanted a ILB . (example Bishop.) ETc. My comments are to undermine the hype. I appreciate good games and winning. Not slaughters such as what the falcons did. And not teams that don't have the product to become a dynasty. (example Patriots are a dynasty) They win, we Lose. TT has had more picks. I remember the days when New England got picked on for their drafts. And look what they became. It's not about promotion with me.

egbertsouse's picture

Pass rush is the name of the game in today's NFL. Fabio is past his prime in that regard. Ted needs to do what he has to do.to get a good edge-rusher in the 1st round. And not one of his patented "square peg-round hole" projects.

dobber's picture

As more college teams play the 3-4 (and more are), there will be less projection for those players and less position swapping. Last year, the only defensive draft pick the Packers made who didn't play in a 3-4 in college was Lowry (I think). That's going to help with time.

marpag1's picture

"Thompson clearly doesn't value guard like some other teams do."

I don't really agree with that, JP. The fact that late rounders turned into solid reds and even blues doesn't mean that the Packers don't value guards. It just means that the Packers have drafted O-linemen better than almost anyone else.

In fact, I would argue that over the past few years, almost no one has valued guards MORE than Green Bay has. Don't look at the draft position, look at the MONEY. Out of 64 starting guards, here is how Sitton and Lang ranked in terms of average annual salary:

2015: Sitton - 7th, Lang - 13th
2014: 5th and 12th
2013: 8th and 13th
2012: 7th and 13th

In other words, BOTH guards were in the top 25% of the pay scale in each of those four years running. Who paid more for guards than GB did?

jasonperone's picture

From the pay standpoint, I see what you're saying. But those contracts weren't necessarily great values they just paid them market price to keep solid, proven vets. It was smart, don't get me wrong. My statement of value here referred more to the draft and where they'll use a pick on a true G or T that they want to convert.

They can claim all day that they knew Lane Taylor would hold up solid after Sitton was let go. I don't buy it. There were likely some white knuckles in Green Bay when the season started. What their plan is to replace Lang is an unknown until the draft is over. They're not guaranteed the guys they like most so they can't hang their hats on that. And we've seen TT inexplicably leave a position as is after the draft before so this is a "we'll see" for me.

marpag1's picture

I would guess that the Packers were much more confident about Lane Taylor than many people think. In 2016, Taylor's $2,075,000 salary ranked 37th among NFL guards. The Packers signed him to that contract just last March. Granted, it was only a two year contract, and not much of it was guaranteed, so the downside was minimal. (It's also true that some guys who play guard might be listed as tackles - e.g. Don Barclay). But still that's a lot of coin to drop on someone you view as a scrub. It doesn't really make sense to give average starter money if you don't think the player will be solid.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

I think Marpag's probably correct that GB viewed Taylor as more than a scrub. Sitton and Lang were both older guards with plenty of miles and surgical scars on them. An adequate back-up was probably a good idea. The $2M/yr contract is not starter money, it is decent back-up money, with little risk given it had just $600K guaranteed.

The knuckles probably whitened every time Lang or Taylor were slow to get up, because due to cutting Sitton, and with Linsley and Tretter taking turns being hurt, the next man up certainly at least early in the year, was Barclay. That would have been ugly.

pacman's picture

I've been pretty ticked off at the Packers since the playoff loss. Even though the improbable run was great and the playoff loss was heavily due to injuries, it still shows how the club let it get this way.

So free agency has been not all unexpected with TT not willing to pay. So nothing new to write about. Then I just saw how Patriots signed a $65M CB to shore up the defense. That's what the SB champs did. That's what winners do.

REALLY SAD to say - but this organization as a whole does not have willingness to do what it takes to win the SB while you have AR as your QB.

Packer_Pete's picture

None of us knows what is going on behind closed doors. What players are really in the conversation to be brought in? What players actually are brought in for workouts and/or negotiations? What players have received offers by the Packers and declined and signed elsewhere? Who has Ted's ear and suggests FAs or draft picks? Who will make final decisions, is it mainly a team decision or Ted's alone? And there could be other questions that one could have... Unless anybody knows the answer to all those, it's silly to say that Ted doesn't do enough. Nobody knows either way. Maybe he isn't doing much at all, maybe he is doing a lot but players don't want to come to Green Bay. Woodson back in the day was candid enough to admit that he didn't want to come to Green Bay but in the end that was his only option, no other team was interested....

So I'm not going to say whether Ted is not doing enough or not. All I can say is that as GM I probably wouldn't have paid the players who left as much money as they got elsewhere. Lang and Hyde especially. I don't blame the players for wanting the payday, nor do I blame the Packers for not overpaying. The question only is, how will those players be replaced? And that answer we will probably not know until start of training camp at the earliest...

I also find it a bit silly to say that Ted didn't do enough to bring in enough help to make it to the SB or win it. People underestimate how hard it is I think. Look at Oakland - they might have had a shot but Carr got injured. 1 player! The Packers are perennial post season contenders. That's the first step. And then it all matters whether a team gets hot or not, and whether injuries hit some teams harder than others...

Fact is, had it not been for Bostick, the Packers would've won in Seattle. They had a shot in Atlanta, but Rip fumbled and it all went downhill from there. There are many games where a lucky bounce here or there leads to a totally different outcome. And after all, weren't the Cowboys the big team last season? Everybody thought they're on a clear course to the SB. How did that work out for them?

pacman's picture

It wasn't just Bostick. It was a few mistakes that they made. And Rip didn't really fumble - the ball was totally ripped away.

As good as AR is, he needs help. I just saw this while looking around:
foxsports.com/nfl/story/green-bay-packers-aaron-rodgers-clutch-nfc-championship-stat-012217

You can't expect AR to put up 45 points to beat the Falcons. So they picked up 2 TE's and non-starting CB. Packers need to replace Shields with the same quality. No time left for draft and develop. How many years does AR have left? What are the odds of getting 3 HOF QB's in a row?

Tundraboy's picture

Isn't it?

A Leopard never changes it's spots.

Gabriella632's picture

attributes and also eliminated some of the most common insects from It takes less buffering time and streams faster compared to ever.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos 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.

Or log in with Facebook

 
 
 

Quote

"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."