I promise I'm not trying to be difficult with this ...

Player for player, yes (no bias) Barry Sanders > Ronnie Lott, but which would have helped that team MORE during that time?

Did the '81 Packers need an QB more than a S?
Did the '89 Packers need an OL more than a RB?

Would a Ronnie Lott have helped the '81 Packers more/less than Barry Sanders would have helped the '89 packers?

Barry Sanders averaged just over 85 yards on 79 "grass" games and nearly 115 yards on 74 "turf/carpet" games. (Barry averaged nearly 110 yards on Lambeau Field [regular season], with a 5.4 yards per carry, 2 fumbles, 1 lost and 2 TD's)

'89 Packers w/Barry Sanders, who also the year prior drafted Sterling Sharpe ... I don't believe Tom Braatz gets fired, nor does Lindy Infante, which we all know opened the door for Ron Wolf, Mike Holmgren and Brett Favre.

I think maybe Infante and Braatz last a few more years with the Sharpe/Sanders combo, then ultimately get let go, then '94 is Sharpe's last season ... I just don't see the Packers winning it all because Favre wouldn't have been a Packer and Reggie White would have signed with the Redskins instead.

I really believe that Tony Mandrich pick had this big of a domino effect. And strongly feel the Packers would not have reached the Super Bowl.



I don't know the history of the '81 Packers at all so I don't know that domino effect, but I can only assume its less important because the Packers didn't win a Super Bowl between '81 and '89 after the Campbell selection.

Therefore, I could see how Rich Campbell was a bigger bust.

"Greg C." wrote:

I don't think Sanders would have been as good on grass. Lott would have looked good in GB though.
I recall Campbell saying that the coaches ruined his career by messing with his throwing motion. Dunno what all happened with that, I was too young at the time.
Also don't know why Brent Fullwood didn't make the list. Dude wouldn't be healthy enough to play, but he was fine to go out dancing later in the night. Darrell Thompson sucked too, but at least we got something out of him.
Iirc Fullwood returned a ko for a td on his first touch, but then fumbled right before the goal line or something.

"lords_of_thelema" wrote:

I've heard all of this before, but I don't think it factors into this discussion. If a bad draft pick may have had a paradoxical effect of causing a team to ultimately get better, that doesn't make the pick any less bad. Also, the main reason the Packers eventually got better was because they picked the right GM, the right coach, and the right players. The Mandarich pick led to a changing of the guard, but if they hadn't made exactly the right changes, it would not have mattered.

"Greg C." wrote:

EDITORS NOTE: Former Green Bay Packers quarterback Rich Campbell serves as the Martin County columnist for Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers in Florida. This column by Campbell is reprinted with permission.

Mike Vandermause, sports editor of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, recently compiled his list of the top 5 first-round busts in team history (Green Bay Packers draft busts start with QB Rich Campbell).

Im No. 1 and still making headlines after all these years!

Rounding out the top 5 are Michigan State offensive tackle Tony Mandarich (No. 2 overall in 1989), Nebraska quarterback Jerry Tagge (No. 11 overall in 1972), Florida State defensive end Jamal Reynolds (No. 10 overall in 2001) and Iowa quarterback Randy Duncan (No. 1 overall in 1959).

Me, No. 1?

Ahead of Mandarich?

That hurts.

Once again, a sports writer is guilty of ignoring the contributions or lack thereof of an offensive lineman (Mandarich), and giving a quarterback (me) more credit or blame than I deserve.

At this point the reader probably expects me to launch into a defense of myself and attack Mandarich. However, I'm bigger than that. Much bigger.

Besides, most football insiders are familiar with Mandarichs story: Prior to the 1989 draft, the 6-foot-5, 315-pound lineman bench pressed almost 550 pounds and ran a 4.65 40-yard dash. He was coveted by every NFL team. Sadly, Mandarich's size, strength and speed were the result of chemical enhancements.

Without steroids to prop him up in the NFL, Vandermause writes, Mandarich was a shell of his former college self and the Packers suffered the consequences.

Sounds like a solid No. 1 to me.

This past weekend, I watched ESPNs Whos No. 1? Biggest NFL Draft Busts. Mandarich was No. 2 out of 20 of the entire league. My name didnt appear anywhere on the list (though I sweated through each selection).

That has to count for something.

Vandermause is a skilled, astute writer when analyzing the career of Mandarich, whom he refers to as a stiff who lasted three dreadful seasons in Green Bay. In fact, this is some of the best sports journalism Ive ever read. However, his critique of my four fruitless years in Green Bay is far less convincing, even though he wrote twice as much about me as he did the others on the list.

I was the No. 1 draft choice (No. 6 overall ) of the Green Bay Packers in 1981. Thirty-years later I'm still No. 1, but on a different list.

Id provide examples to counter his argument ... if I could think of some. Just take my word for it: Vandermause is wrong.

I dont dispute my inclusion on his list. But No. 1?

Since poor Randy Duncan continues to be mentioned among the all-time draft busts in Packers history 52 years after the fact I guess I can expect similar treatment in the years ahead.

Wonder if hed like to trade places?

Campbell is right. I don't know what Vandermause was smoking when he wrote that column.

"Greg C." wrote: