I don't really see a position on our line where you'd expect a rookie to come in and be the better player day 1 than who we have besides C. So yeah drafting a o lineman is a fine idea but expecting him to be able to come in and save the day is not.

I can see one of the top Centers being able to compete for a starting job if we draft one. Other than that, I think we are pretty deep everywhere else on our OL.

I don't expect a rookie OL to save the day. I don't expect ANY rookie to come in and save the day.

I do think that the OL needs improvement, however. Everyone is convinced that Bahktiari/Sherrod/Bulaga/Barclay will be sufficient at tackle, everyone seems to be confident that Tretter is going to be okay at C, everyone seems to be content with Lang at RG. Well, I'm not. I count four positions on that line that need improvement over last year. Four.

Oh, sure, they could have been a lot worse than they were last year. I get that. But there's a difference between "better than the year before" and "good enough". And there's another difference between "good enough" and "dominant." Not only do I not think the current OL is dominant (nor will it be this year), I don't think it is good enough yet.

Maybe the current roster has it in them, maybe it doesn't. Hell, maybe B J Raji and Mike Neal and Brad Jones have it in them to improve to become "good enough". Let's not bother drafting anyone, since this is a team that makes the playoffs every year and everyone has potential for improvement.

I call bull.

This team needs significant improvement (IMO) on the OL or its going to lose Rodgers for more and more games. And the way you get improvement is by bringing in competition. And since you can't or won't bring in competition in FA before the draft, that means bringing in competition during the draft.

And there's some great competition available at the OL positions in this draft.

I don't expect Taylor Lewan or Zack Martin to last until 21 but I'd jump on either of them if they did. Other than those two, I wouldn't use the first rounder on an OL this year.

Some of these are going to be available to the Packers with either their second, third, or fourth round picks, though:
OT: Ju'Wan James, Joel Botonio, Jack Mewhort, Antonio Richardson, Morgan Moses, Laurent Duvernay-Tardiff, Cameron Fleming, Billy Turner, Charles Leno, Antonio Richardson

OG: Xavier Su'a-Filo, Gabe Jackson, Joel Botonio, Trai Turner, David Yankey, Dakota Dozier, Anthony Steen, Chris Watt, John Urschel

C: Marcus Martin, Weston Richburg, Travis Swanson

Any of these will add serious competition in camp. Not just competition for depth, but competition that can say to Bahktiari, Bulaga, Lang, and the rest, "Here we are. You better get better, or we're going to push you aside. THAT's what I want.

I want drafting that considers "better depth" is the worst-case scenario. I want drafting that says to everyone on the current OL roster but Josh Sitton, the starting job is yours *only* if you improve, not drafting that says its yours by default because you're the best we happen to have at the position.

A team that needs multiple rookies to come in and start is a losing team. A team that brings in rookies that will compete and push and claw and fight incumbents for starting jobs -- *that* is a winning team. *That* is a team on its way to dominance.

*THAT* is what I want.

You want potential to develop into high performance. Make these bastards fight for a starting job until they become dominant. Bring in competition for them every year until they either become dominant, get beat out by someone who is better, or retire.

If you are satisfied with "good enough", if you are satisfied with "potential for future development," if you are satisfied with "won't hurt us" and "serviceable," all you're going to end up with is mediocrity and one-and-done.

You may strive for dominance and never get it. But if you don't strive for it, in and out, every year, by insisting the non-dominant compete for their jobs, you will end up stuck in mediocrity and "We'll improve next year. We have to."

The strength of this draft is that the Packers won't have to "draft for depth" until sometime in the fifth round or later. There is so much talent that any pick they have or get before the fifth (and probably halfway into it) can be used on someone who will push a present starter for playing time.

That's what makes trading down such an attractive idea this time around. Given all the positions that need starters being pushed if not replaced (FS, SS, ILB, OLB, DT, DE, OT, RG, C, TE, WR3), this draft a gives quantity of opportunity rarely available.

I'm not going to be upset if the Packers don't go OL in the first. As I said above, there aren't likely to be high enough quality OL left. But I will be upset that if they don't use at least one pick in the 4th or earlier on the OL. And if Ted can managed to finangle some extra picks in the 2nd through 4th, I'll be arguing for more than one.

And if BPA in 2nd and 3rd is OG and OT, then I hope he goes OG and OT rather than reaching on a Zumwalt, Skov, Reynolds or Loston or Fiedorowicz just because those needs are "bigger."

Don't draft for starters. Don't draft for depth.

Draft for DOMINANCE.

---

There a 3 or 4 OT's that are projected to go in the 1st rnd, and I sure hope they go early, the more offensive players to go in the top 20, the better for the Packers.

Center may be a position Ted is looking to add some depth at and there are 4 really good ones that should be available between late 1st rnd - late 3rdnd.

Marcus Martin, C, Southern California (Late 1st early-mid 2nd)
Weston Richburg, C, Colorado State Late 2nd early 3rd)
Travis Swanson, C, Arkansas (mid - late 3rd)
Bryan Stork, C, Florida State (late 3rd)

Anyone of these guys could contend for the starting job if Ted decides to draft them, most likely they would end up as good depth.

IS IT DRAFT DAY YET?????????

8-[ 😰 😰 😰 😰 😰

---

Again, drafting MORE OL is a mistake. Why continue to waste resources on that position until a competent coach is employed?

How many more first rounders do you want us to blow away on OL?

---

Haha every team should consider every position in the draft. This title made me chuckle.

---

That's what I was thinking when I read Wade's post above, too. Of course the Packers will strongly consider any player that they view is the "Best Player Available" regardless of position (at least they should). However, if the draft doesn't work out that way to add another big time offensive linemen, the Packers will still be OK. I do think it can be much better, but it will be average at worst, and often "good." It would obviously be much better if it could be "dominant," as would every other position group, but that's not always possible. I'm sure Ted is trying to make the entire team that way, as is every other general manager in the NFL.

I'm actually still not sold on Bacteria as anything more than a serviceable-to-average left tackle, so I would definitely like some competition there. I'm confident Ted Thompson will be drafting and/or adding some offensive linemen.

A rookie TE could come in and have a pretty big impact. I also think a rush OLB could do the same and certainly an ILB. Plus, a WR like Beckham/Latimer/Moncrief/Matthews could be pretty impressive and supplant a guy like Boykin for 3rd WR before the season is over. Any S could produce more than starter MD Jennings, and even Morgan Burnett. Center, which has already been mentioned, is another area where a rook could shine.

Michael Rodney of PackerUpdate.net floated the idea of taking Bridgewater at 21. Wouldn't that cause some buzz in Packerland. People would be rioting. A kicker would probably evoke less of a response.

I hope they don't take a QB, CB, DT, DE, OL, K, RB, FB or P in Round 1. That leaves WR, TE, ILB, OLB, or S.

---