QCHuskerFan
11 years ago
Please let me know where I said there was no need for a QB. I am saying that picking Aaron Rodgers with the number 1 pick brought no direct value to the team in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Look it up. Let me know what I missed.

The original comment I responded to was Porforis saying that you don't draft someone in the first round with zero value when you have needs. I responded that's what Rodgers was. I am quite aware why it was done and it worked out incredibly well. But someone that doesn't start a game for 3 years and only plays in 7 total in that 3 year time is offering nothing to that team. The future team? Maybe. But AR's ~350 passing yards in 3 years is not an impact. He offered no value to the teams in 2005, 2006 or 2007. If Favre had retired the day after the draft in 2005, then he would have had immediate value. But Favre didn't.

You said, "I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons." Nearly everyone did not think OK. Finding a replacement for Favre was a priority. But it was not necessary to draft that person in Rd 1, when there were other needs. Much of Packer Nation was quite upset. That is why I accused you of distorting history. Choosing to look at the past with rose colored glasses, does not change the past. Favre still had a tremendous amount of supporters that viewed this draft choice as the franchise turning their back on #4 as well as failing to make the team markedly better. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. Just didn't make it overwhelmingly popular. Additionally, Favre played 6 years after that draft so it was not "imperative to get his replacement in the next 2 years" as you stated. But that's hindsight.

Did drafting Aaron Rodgers in the first round in 2005 work out well for the Pack? Duh. But that doesn't mean it offered value at the time.
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

In the same regard there are a couple of other factors.

1. Favre's yearly dance with retirement.. Rodgers slipping to us only helped push the timeline (by a couple of rounds maybe) the need to find a successor.

2. Additionally that was an aging team that had cap issues and some real depth concern, hence Sherman being relived by Thompson in the first place.

3. We currently still have a team with a relatively large window of opportunity with Rodgers at the helm to make some noise. Favre was closer to the end than the beginning and with the roster being turned over because of issue #2 it wasn't clear how fast the team could reload for a run.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



I sincerely hope you are correct in #3. I am concerned that after extending AR, Raji, Matthews, that the window will be very small. Those 3 could easily consume 30-35% of the CAP. I am not sure that is feasible for fielding a competitive team. I hope we can, but...
play2win
11 years ago

Please let me know where I said there was no need for a QB. I am saying that picking Aaron Rodgers with the number 1 pick brought no direct value to the team in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Look it up. Let me know what I missed.

The original comment I responded to was Porforis saying that you don't draft someone in the first round with zero value when you have needs. I responded that's what Rodgers was. I am quite aware why it was done and it worked out incredibly well. But someone that doesn't start a game for 3 years and only plays in 7 total in that 3 year time is offering nothing to that team. The future team? Maybe. But AR's ~350 passing yards in 3 years is not an impact. He offered no value to the teams in 2005, 2006 or 2007. If Favre had retired the day after the draft in 2005, then he would have had immediate value. But Favre didn't.

You said, "I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons." Nearly everyone did not think OK. Finding a replacement for Favre was a priority. But it was not necessary to draft that person in Rd 1, when there were other needs. Much of Packer Nation was quite upset. That is why I accused you of distorting history. Choosing to look at the past with rose colored glasses, does not change the past. Favre still had a tremendous amount of supporters that viewed this draft choice as the franchise turning their back on #4 as well as failing to make the team markedly better. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. Just didn't make it overwhelmingly popular. Additionally, Favre played 6 years after that draft so it was not "imperative to get his replacement in the next 2 years" as you stated. But that's hindsight.

Did drafting Aaron Rodgers in the first round in 2005 work out well for the Pack? Duh. But that doesn't mean it offered value at the time.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



This is such BS.

I clearly remember the boo birds lining the fence that 2005 training camp. I'm just talking about what I believe was the majority of Packers fans, understanding fully that we were going to have to address a replacement for Favre going into his 14th season. When a QB who was rated #1 overall for most of the period leading up to that draft, falls to 24, yeah, if you like him you take him. It is my belief MOST fans understood the move by Thompson that day.

I'll say this too, there is a twisted logic to thinking you can draft a player and immediately solve a problem. Most draftees require a good year of development at the pro level before they make significant contributions. Sure there are exceptions to that, but they are few. That is why I am pushing for Ted to make some good moves in FA this season. We need help now, and we've needed it in the same places for two years running, with no improvement.
stevegb
11 years ago
Outside of the obvious P and K in the first round my biggest WTF Ted selections would probably be in the CB position or maybe the OLB position. I think we are very deep at CB and I'd be a little upset if we gave up on Perry so early. Don't get me wrong I don't mind if we draft either a CB or OLB but I'd expect it to be at least 3rd round or later.

QB would be disappointing but NE continually draft highly touted QB's late in the first round and manage to trade them off for future mid-round picks+. We have a very good QB coaching staff in Green bay so I'd have confidence we could get some pretty good value for them, although Ted has never done anything to prove hes a very good trader.
blank
nerdmann
11 years ago

Outside of the obvious P and K in the first round my biggest WTF Ted selections would probably be in the CB position or maybe the OLB position. I think we are very deep at CB and I'd be a little upset if we gave up on Perry so early. Don't get me wrong I don't mind if we draft either a CB or OLB but I'd expect it to be at least 3rd round or later.

QB would be disappointing but NE continually draft highly touted QB's late in the first round and manage to trade them off for future mid-round picks+. We have a very good QB coaching staff in Green bay so I'd have confidence we could get some pretty good value for them, although Ted has never done anything to prove hes a very good trader.

Originally Posted by: stevegb 



We need as many stud OLBs as we can get.

And I expect Perry AND Moses to be able to get it done this year.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Yerko
11 years ago
I'd be upset if we drafted defensive line in the first round.




:-"
😝
:-$
UserPostedImage
play2win
11 years ago

I'd be upset if we drafted defensive line in the first round.




:-"
😝
:-$

Originally Posted by: Yerko 



Why?
texaspackerbacker
11 years ago

I'd be upset if we drafted defensive line in the first round.




:-"
😝
:-$

Originally Posted by: Yerko 



yeah, why? I'd be upset if we don't draft a D Lineman in the first round. To answer the original question of the thread, I think RB in round one would tick me off the most. It's so easy to get good ones on the scrap heap, and so difficult - basically a crapshoot whether a first round pick becomes a star player.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
11 years ago
look at his smilies. its is in jest.
UserPostedImage
play2win
11 years ago
Well, if they got busy in FA a bit and landed a couple of good defenders, I could see them nabbing a top RB or LT. Maybe even a TE if they were to let Finley go. As much as I want them to hit the D hard, I wouldn't have a problem with them taking a offensive player round 1.

I'm having doubts that would be the case though. So, I'm right with you texas.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (16h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (16h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (17h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (19h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (20h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (23h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (28-Mar) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
1h / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.