The discussion has focused, for me, on 1st round draft choices...not 2nd rounders, not Julius Peppers signing as a FA.
Originally Posted by: uffda udfa
Two posts earlier...
Nope...sizzle can be any round. I was lamenting that our franchise, and that includes TT's tenure, seems to pass on guys who can change games.
It is then pointed out that we have quite a few players with "sizzle" or that can "change a game" and then it's back to the 1st round focus.
And if Ted is willing to take a risk in free agency to bring in a "sizzle player," or is willing to do it in early round 2 and everywhere else in the draft, and, hell, even does it with Raji and Matthews in round 1; then I don't see how one can continue to make the assertion that they are willfully avoiding "game changers."
Minnesota has landed far more 1st round sizzle/game changers whatever you'd like to say. I linked sizzle and game changer from the outset. There was nothing said, negatively, about TT's drafting other than Round 1, and it was more of the organization over the years not just TT's tenure. There was praise for our drafting after Round 1. I'm lamenting the lack of hits in Round 1, only. I never insinuated RC18 and the gang weren't fine WR's...they are not, however, and nowhere close to a Randy Moss or a Dez Bryant. The New Orleans Saints do not have a great stable of WR's. The TE is the best thing going there by a mile. Colston has been their bellcow for years, and he's not all that impressive. I would take Cobb, Nelson and James Jones would've been close to what Colston is as a WR. Matthews was outstanding... it cost us two extra picks in the 3rd round to get him but he turned out to be a game changer that is what I'm saying I want them to do more of. Clay was what? A late 1st rounder. A high rising prospect after his Sr. Bowl and the numbers for his 10 yard split being as impressive as they were. We seem to get guys who are busts in Round 1 way more than we should. No team is going to hit an insanely high percentage of 1st rounders, but you should hit some home runs every now and then. This would be a good year to do just that.
And if you wanted to have an honest discussion about 1st round picks, then fine. I said in my first post you can make that point; but then why all this dancing around "sizzle."
After we won Super Bowl 45, we would have looked at TT's first round history and saw:
'05: Rodgers - grand fucking slam
'06: Hawk - has been a steady player for us
'07: Harrell - bust (injury w/ injury history in college)
'08: N/A (traded out)
'09: Raji - home run (at the time, this has since changed)
'09: Matthews - home run
'10: Bulaga - good pick
At the time, his first round record looked pretty good with really only one miss. Now we look at it and have to make some earlier revisions to get:
'05: Rodgers - grand fucking slam
'06: Hawk - has been a steady player for us
'07: Harrell - bust (injury w/ injury history in college)
'08: N/A (traded out)
'09: Raji - flash in the pan
'09: Matthews - home run (with recent injury problems)
'10: Bulaga - good pick (held back by injuries)
'11: Sherrod - injured (w/ no significant injury history in college)
'12: Nick Perry - injured (w/ no significant injury history in college)
'13: Datone Jones - hasn't played much, slowed by preseason injury
It would be nice if one of our first round picks could stay healthy.
I think most non-Packers fans/objective NFL fans would tell you Green Bay is Jax without Rodgers. They were painful to watch when Aaron was no longer in the huddle with them. The Bears were as good or better without Cutler...the same was not true for Green Bay.
No, they wouldn't. Going into last season, would you have traded any of our position groups for Jacksonville's?
And of course it hurt the Packers more to lose Rodgers than the Bears to lose Cutler. Rodgers is actually good. That would be like expecting losing Dujuan Harris to hurt the Packers as much (pre-Lacy) as losing Peterson hurt the Vikings.
Born and bred a cheesehead