DoddPower
10 years ago

I think they would have screamed bloody murder at the time but if we would have drafted Patterson I think they may be OK with it now.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.
sschind
10 years ago

How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



Don't you think there would have been an uproar of negative responses last year it Ted Thompson would have drafted Patterson? At least more so than the uproar of negative responses that folowed the Jones pick. People didn't see a WR as as big of a need as a pass rusher so if Ted Thompson would have taken Patterson most people would have been upset. At this point yeah, I think almost everyone would be OK with it and I said so in my post.


Take this year for example. The majority of people seem to feel a safety or DL or OLB are our biggest needs. If the BPA is a TE and Ted Thompson takes him most of those people will be angry. If that TE turns out to be the next Graham or Gronk people will change their minds. That is what I meant.

As far as taking the BPA all the time that depends. It's also very subjective. I doubt any two GMs or any draft "experts" have the exact same board so what may be the BPA for half of them may not be the BPA to the other half. Non GMs can make their draft boards without factoring in need. If they think this CB is just a little better than that WR they will have him higher. A GM of a team that desperately needs a WR may have those two players reversed. When it comes time for that GM to make his pick he will probably take the WR. He thinks he is taking the BPA and the experts think he is drafting for need.

Obviously if we are talking about 1 or 2 spots its not a big deal. The problem comes in when the team right in front of your GM takes that WR and now your GM takes a WR he had rated 10 spots below the CB just to fill the need. That is not the right move to make.

The question is should GMs take their current roster into account when they make up their board or should they go simply on their opinions of the players in the draft. I guess ideally they would forget about their current players and simply make a list of the best players in the draft. That would eliminate the possibility of a current weakness on the team influencing their opinion of a particular player or position causing them to inflate their value.
DoddPower
10 years ago

Don't you think there would have been an uproar of negative responses last year it Ted Thompson would have drafted Patterson? At least more so than the uproar of negative responses that folowed the Jones pick. People didn't see a WR as as big of a need as a pass rusher so if Ted Thompson would have taken Patterson most people would have been upset. At this point yeah, I think almost everyone would be OK with it and I said so in my post.


Take this year for example. The majority of people seem to feel a safety or DL or OLB are our biggest needs. If the BPA is a TE and Ted Thompson takes him most of those people will be angry. If that TE turns out to be the next Graham or Gronk people will change their minds. That is what I meant.

As far as taking the BPA all the time that depends. It's also very subjective. I doubt any two GMs or any draft "experts" have the exact same board so what may be the BPA for half of them may not be the BPA to the other half. Non GMs can make their draft boards without factoring in need. If they think this CB is just a little better than that WR they will have him higher. A GM of a team that desperately needs a WR may have those two players reversed. When it comes time for that GM to make his pick he will probably take the WR. He thinks he is taking the BPA and the experts think he is drafting for need.

Obviously if we are talking about 1 or 2 spots its not a big deal. The problem comes in when the team right in front of your GM takes that WR and now your GM takes a WR he had rated 10 spots below the CB just to fill the need. That is not the right move to make.

The question is should GMs take their current roster into account when they make up their board or should they go simply on their opinions of the players in the draft. I guess ideally they would forget about their current players and simply make a list of the best players in the draft. That would eliminate the possibility of a current weakness on the team influencing their opinion of a particular player or position causing them to inflate their value.

Originally Posted by: sschind 



Well, I was completely speaking in hindsight. I understand it's not easy to truly identify whether one player is actually "better" than the other, regardless of position. But if a general manager feels that one player is truly the best player available, than I hope he would take them every time. I liked the Datone Jones pick, and still do. But based on this last season only, Patterson was the better pick. The Packers could have probably signed a dozen different free agents that gave them what Datone Jones did this season, and possibly more. I'm not sure that's the case with a guy like Patterson, unless the Packers traded for Percy Harvin or something . . . and that didn't work out either.
play2win
10 years ago

How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 



Your point is well taken DoddPower. Imagine how differently this team may have fared this year had we taken Patterson instead of Jones...
porky88
10 years ago
My first mock draft  of the year.

21. Green Bay Packers -- C.J. Mosley, LB, Alabama
Getting tougher upfront is a necessity if Green Bay is to compete with San Francisco and Seattle in the NFC. Mosley fits the bill. Many regard him as one of the elite prospects of this draft, but linebackers tend to fall on draft day, and the Alabama tag makes him a little overrated. Still, Mosley is an excellent two-down linebacker. He and long-time Green Bay linebacker A.J. Hawk would give the Packers a rugged look at the position.


Rockmolder
10 years ago

My first mock draft  of the year.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?
steveishere
10 years ago

May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 



Yeah, I was under the impression that his strength was pass coverage ability.
10 years ago
Remember that time Kiper had Brohm #1?
UserPostedImage
porky88
10 years ago

May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 


I think he’s a good player who is being mistaken for a great player. I conclude this based on two things.

1. He doesn’t react quickly to a play. That doesn’t mean he won’t make the play, but it also means he may not make as many as he should.

2. Do his workout numbers translate into his on-field athleticism? I’ve seen some reports suggest he runs a 4.5 or 4.6 in the 40. I don’t see that on the field. In my opinion, he’ll cover the flats well enough, but he’s not going to turn and run stride for stride with quality NFL tight ends.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
10 years ago

I think he’s a good player who is being mistaken for a great player. I conclude this based on two things.

1. He doesn’t react quickly to a play. That doesn’t mean he won’t make the play, but it also means he may not make as many as he should.

2. Do his workout numbers translate into his on-field athleticism? I’ve seen some reports suggest he runs a 4.5 or 4.6 in the 40. I don’t see that on the field. In my opinion, he’ll cover the flats well enough, but he’s not going to turn and run stride for stride with quality NFL tight ends.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



Hawk 2.0
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (25m) : No.
Mucky Tundra (2h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (3h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (6h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (7h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (17h) : 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 .
beast (25-Mar) : Simply fined in the week to follow
beast (25-Mar) : I agree with one NFL official, it'll probably be like some of the helmets hits, not really called by the refs on the field but simply fined
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
17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17h / 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 / Around The NFL / dhazer

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.