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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower 

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.

My first mock draft  of the year.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

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

Originally Posted by: Rockmolder 

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.

Originally Posted by: porky88