I guess what I'm saying is this: Saying you're "good enough" is a recipe for mediocrity, even if you are at the top of the pile. And Green Bay isn't at the top of the pile.

I'm really worried if our GM is operating as if he doesn't need to do what we can to upgrade starters at several positions on this team, including,especially, ILB, CB, DT, and TE. I'm not saying he has to draft entirely by need, and I'm not saying he's going to be able to get the improvement at all the positions.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Except you can think you are "good enough" and still improve if an opportunity presents itself. Saying or thinking you are good enough doesn't mean it has to stay how it is. Saying your are good enough is not a recipe for anything. Thing is you still have to prioritize at some point. If 2 guys are rated exactly the same but are the highest on the board and it's a ILB and a NT you are taking the ILB but if you have a NT rated the best player in the draft and he's available your taking him over the ILB.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

If the two players with the highest grade are Nose Tackle and Inside Linebacker, I absolutely take the Nose Tackle. A great defensive line will make a mediocre linebacker look better than the other way around. 

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I said NT because that's a much less likely spot for a rookie to start than ILB, which was the point of my post. If NT doesn't work for you then choose a different position like WR or RB where we are "good enough" for next year. Not to mention your line is not likely to be very "great" with a rookie at NT though on our team he'd more than likely be on the bench all next year.

Either way point = equally graded players, take the most needed. Player at a position where you are currently "good enough" rated way higher vs player at a need, take way higher rated player.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

I don't think starting by default makes you better.  Using your example, actually allow me to use names because it will be easier.  Melvin Gordon and Amari Cooper are available #30 and the Packers have them both rated high and above anyone they could get by trading down, I take Gordon. 

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

It doesn't mean the player is automatically better than another player but if you have 2 equally rated players 1 will probably start or at least play a lot and 1 probably wont see many snaps then taking the one that will start WILL make your team better for the next season. Your example would better better if you used Melvin Gordon vs Erik Kendricks then assumed both players are rated equally. We'd probably take Kendricks

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

My example, no, that was your example. All I did was apply two names to make it easier and make a decision.

Since you have modified your example, I will play along. If you have Melvin Gordon and Erik Kendricks and both are equally rated as the two best prospects, I would take Kendricks. But that is not what you posed in your example of RB and WR. So annoying when people do this.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

That wasn't what I was saying. I was saying if you don't believe NT to be a position we are "good enough" for the example then substitute in either a RB or a WR instead of the NT so Kendricks vs Gordon would be EXACTLY what I was posing. as opposed to say Kendricks vs whoever that's a NT. I didn't say anything about comparing a RB vs a WR, reread what I wrote.

Originally Posted by: steveishere