wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago



If you use $35 to buy a $25 steak, you don't get to have that $10 shrimp cocktail,


Originally Posted by: Wade 



So what good is it to get the $10 shrimp when you are so full you can't eat it all anyway?

GB only has a few holes to fill. Trading down for extra picks will only mean more players that won't make the team that they will release into the wild.

I understand more picks means more chances to have someone stick. But if they do their homework (and Uncle Teddy certainly does) they don't need the extra chances.


UserPostedImage
play2win
12 years ago
Wade, I see where you are coming from, but I disagree about him not being suitable for the #28.

I think there are a few other considerations at play here. Perry is one of the fastest, strongest DEs of the entire class. His numbers in two years of play are equal to or better than Coples, Ingram, Upshaw, Mercilus, Irvin and Jones. He's also a Junior. That is some pretty big production for two seasons, coming out early, and indicates room to grow. I think he is well worth the selection, and I believe he fell as a result of unfamiliarity, being a PAC 12 player on the West coast, more than anything. They just don't get as much attention and media blow up in general, especially mired in a USC program under restrictions, even though they played possibly better competition that most of the other players mentioned.

4 of Coples 10 sacks last year came against James Madison and Duke.
4.5 of Irvin's 8 sacks came against Marshall, UConn, and Louisville
9 of Mercilus's 16 sacks came against Arkansas St., Western Michigan, Indiana, Northwestern, a reeling Penn St. and Minnehaha.

The other thing is finding the trading partner. Sounds like Ted took offers to move both up and down, and didn't like what he was being offered to make a trade. He was protecting our interests, and he knew he absolutely had to hit with this pick.

I do think the soft press/exposure led both to Perry's falling on the boards, and this rather benign media response in falling into GB's laps without much splash and fanfare. Nick Perry is a pretty damn good pass rusher - and a great bookend for Matthews, and I doubt highly we could have gotten him mid to low R2, which is where I'm guessing Ted was getting offers for his #28. We surely don't need what I'm guessing would be the R4 throw in on that, to miss out on what we need now, and what many project to be a sure NFL starter at OLB/DE. An R2+R4 doesn't add up to our R1 at 28, and neither do any of the R2+R3 combinations, except for the top 10-12, and maybe those teams just weren't offering... enough. Maybe they like Perry that much. Sounds like a good pick to me, with great value and upside.
DoddPower
12 years ago
I suppose I can understand Wade's opinion, but I'm glad Ted Thompson doesn't agree with him (Luis Castillo, anyone?). I think Perry is going to be a beast. I'm sticking by my "poor man's LaMarr Woodley" statement. It may take awhile to get there, but that's the case with most players in the draft. Of course it's yet to be seen how effective he will be, but I love the pick. As Porky mentioned, we needed more speed on defense. Not only does Perry add that, but he also adds strength and toughness.

Perry will be a great #2 pass rusher, which is exactly what we needed. Ted Thompson thinks that he fits what the Packers need, and he got him. That's most important to me, not getting a few more picks. More than likely, Ted did not feel the trade options would perfectly suit the criterion of BPA and need.

I expect a lot of activity in days 2 and even more so day 3. Ted has 12 total picks; he has a ton of flexibility to add MORE pass rushers while still having someone he thinks capable of being a solid #2 OLB. Sweet deal. I don't think for one second that Perry is solely being depended on to fix the pass rush. He'll have every opportunity, but he's going to have to earn it through what I imagine will be stiff competition with a few more rookies and hopefully improvement from players currently on the roster.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
And it actually surprises Finley that people react to twitter postings?

I suppose that is one of the things that frustrates me about young people. They do something and then are shocked by the fallout to what they did.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
12 years ago

So what good is it to get the $10 shrimp when you are so full you can't eat it all anyway?

GB only has a few holes to fill. Trading down for extra picks will only mean more players that won't make the team that they will release into the wild.

I understand more picks means more chances to have someone stick. But if they do their homework (and Uncle Teddy certainly does) they don't need the extra chances.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



"Few" holes?

Needed:
1. starting OLB (ok, lets say everyone's right and that's filled now.)

AND:
2. starting DE (Hargrove may work here; but I'm not convinced he's a long term solution; and he is going to be 29 this year)
3. starting safety.
4. nickel back (essentially starting CB) -- Woodson ain't around a lot longer.
5. ILB starter improvement.
6. OT (at least quality backup)
7. C (Saturday ain't going to be around long either.

By my count, they need quite a few things. RB, WR, QB, TE, LB -- these positions only need tweaks re: depth, can be satisfied by late round picks. But DE, S, CB, ILB, OL -- these need more than tweaks.

Again, it's not just more picks. It's more picks in the top 125.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

"Few" holes?

Needed:
1. starting OLB (ok, lets say everyone's right and that's filled now.)

AND:
2. starting DE (Hargrove may work here; but I'm not convinced he's a long term solution; and he is going to be 29 this year)
3. starting safety.
4. nickel back (essentially starting CB) -- Woodson ain't around a lot longer.
5. ILB starter improvement.
6. OT (at least quality backup)
7. C (Saturday ain't going to be around long either.

By my count, they need quite a few things. RB, WR, QB, TE, LB -- these positions only need tweaks re: depth, can be satisfied by late round picks. But DE, S, CB, ILB, OL -- these need more than tweaks.

Again, it's not just more picks. It's more picks in the top 125.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



with so many holes it is a wonder this team can compete for the division little alone winning 15 games last year. GB should have gotten the first pick of the draft.
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
12 years ago
What a bunch of apologists for the man you all are.

I mean -- what's the point of being a fan if you can't be unreasonable regularly?

Besides, even the Vikings were 15-1 once. Big deal. If 15-1 were enough, the Vikings would be a real team instead of never-won-it-all losers.


And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Zero2Cool
12 years ago

"Few" holes?

Needed:
1. starting OLB (ok, lets say everyone's right and that's filled now.)

AND:
2. starting DE (Hargrove may work here; but I'm not convinced he's a long term solution; and he is going to be 29 this year)
3. starting safety.
4. nickel back (essentially starting CB) -- Woodson ain't around a lot longer.
5. ILB starter improvement.
6. OT (at least quality backup)
7. C (Saturday ain't going to be around long either.

By my count, they need quite a few things. RB, WR, QB, TE, LB -- these positions only need tweaks re: depth, can be satisfied by late round picks. But DE, S, CB, ILB, OL -- these need more than tweaks.

Again, it's not just more picks. It's more picks in the top 125.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



1, done.
2, don't you think it's a little early to write off guys like Lawrence Guy, C.J. Wilson, Johnny Jones and Jarius Wynn? As you said, who knows about Hargrove.
3, don't you think it's a little early to write off guys like M.D. Jennings and Anthony Levine?
4, don't you think it's a little early to write off guys like Davon House and Brandian Ross?
5, why won't you give D.J. Smith some props? He did well during his time filling in for A.J. Hawk, even had an athletic INT.
6, Packers used 2 first round picks on Tackles in the last two drafts prior to this year. Why do you want to count them both out already? At worst, Marshall Newhouse can be a solid backup if not a starter.
7, this is the biggest need left that does not involve the pass rush for the defense.



I'm not saying the Packers have all the pieces on the roster. It's too soon to say we know already that they don't. Keep in mind these young players missed an off season which is very beneficial to them last season. That means players like Marshall Newhouse (who could be a fine backup Tackle) missed a lot of proper preparation.

UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

What a bunch of apologists for the man you all are.

I mean -- what's the point of being a fan if you can't be unreasonable regularly?

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Because you sound like a bunch of women, even Gunny!
UserPostedImage
play2win
12 years ago

"Few" holes?

Needed:
1. starting OLB (ok, lets say everyone's right and that's filled now.)

AND:
2. starting DE (Hargrove may work here; but I'm not convinced he's a long term solution; and he is going to be 29 this year)
3. starting safety.
4. nickel back (essentially starting CB) -- Woodson ain't around a lot longer.
5. ILB starter improvement.
6. OT (at least quality backup)
7. C (Saturday ain't going to be around long either.

By my count, they need quite a few things. RB, WR, QB, TE, LB -- these positions only need tweaks re: depth, can be satisfied by late round picks. But DE, S, CB, ILB, OL -- these need more than tweaks.

Again, it's not just more picks. It's more picks in the top 125.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



Wade, how can we possibly need another WR and TE? Haven't you been reading my special "trade up" thread?

Are we going to go 8 wide, with Saturday and Sitton in to block? That will be one quick f'in release. Hey, come to think of it, it might work!

šŸ˜› šŸ“
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (11h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (17h) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (22h) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas šŸŽ„šŸŽ
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
19h / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

19h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Dec / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.