Ok.

In another thread, one of my "don't likes" about this draft was a lack of players who I see as offering serious competition for a starting role this year. IMO there is no team in the league, ever, that should be content to draft to improve depth. No one has 22 starters that should be free from serious competition for their starting job. No one has 22 players whose starting job should be "safe" after the draft. Not even the Lombardi Packers did, IMO.

In my opinion, if every week four starter this year was on the roster last year, this team will *not* go as deep into the playoffs this year as they did last year.

So here's my question for everyone, but especially for those who *liked* this draft: For which starting positions, if any, do you think are going to have a person from this draft seriously competing this year?

My opinion is that the only one even possible will be Ryan and that's only if CM3 goes back to OLB full time.

Go for it. Tell me why you think this draft has anyone in it who has a serious shot at starting this year, and why.

---

Either of the two corners probably have a shot at a starting position, other than Sheilds I don't think anyone on the roster has the starting CB job locked down. They could keep Hayward inside if they feel one of the rookies is good enough to play outside. One of the rookie CBs could get the nickel job, which is essentially a starting position in Caper's D.

Thats probably it, baring injury, other than the WR they drafted who will likely compete to start at PR/KR.

---

The prior seasons draft applies more to your theory than the current. This team is draft and develop and somehow we continue to forget that during the draft.

The whole "starter" thing is also over blown. The snap count matters a lot more than starting. What if the Packers open the game in base 3 - 4 but play the rest in nickel or go 3 - 2 - 6? Are you going to discredit the production from the extra defensive backs?

Anyhow, semantics aside, if I have to pick one player to "start" in this draft I would say ILB Jake Ryan has the best change to start and that won't be until the middle of the season. You do not want rookies on the field immediately unless they are exceptionally talented and superior over the player backing them up. After hearing Eliot Wolf endorse the ILB players already on the roster I have to think they are going to give one of those guys the starting nod over a rookie.

---

I don't know about "starter" but I'll go with "significant playing time," -maybe that is what you meant anyway.

I think both Randall and Rollins have a chance to compete for playing time in the defensive backfield in various looks.

Ryan was already mentioned a couple of times. It looks like Montgomery could challenge for KR duties right out of the gate.

Unfortunately, injuries happen as well. Most likely at least one of these guys and at least one of last year's contributors start the year on IR. That is going to change anything predicted today.

Coach made a bold statement in his press conference: "2-2 is not going to cut it this year."

Trust in that the entire staff is working to field a championship caliber team this year. They expect the early round guys to be quick learners that are able to make an impact this season.

My hope is that the first 4 picks in particular make a difference this year.

---

I don't think it's necessarily likely but both Ripkowski and Backman could compete for playing time. We'll have to see how they look this summer.

---

Yeah the whole "starter" designation is a bit outdated. The team is going to use more than 22 players next year. If the players they drafted are good enough and ready they will play whether they are out there for the first snap of the game or not

The rooks playing alot is a function of 2 things: are they good enough and is there a better player in front of them. Linsley, Baktieri only played because of injury; adams, rodgers played because Bostic and Boykin somehow lost their mental edge. Only Dix and Lacey played as rooks because of their talent; but ironically also in an area of roster weakness.

Our roster is loaded; heck a team tried to pay 2.5M for out #4 safety.

Every roster spot is strong to very strong except arguably NT, ILB and TE and those position are not weak. No remember I'm not comparing weak to the 66 Packers; but relative to real weaknesses every other team has-like Seattle's OL. W/ Q and Rodgers no rookie is playing TE, no not Maxx Williams; If Raji, Guion and Pennel play well as i expect no rook drafted #30 or lower will play there; and there was no Cj Mosely in this draft-none of those 5 ILB guys would beat out Perry [w/ CM3 inside] or Barrington and you will see in TC when Bradford and Palmer and maybe Thomas [assuming he can hold 240lbs] push Barrington, you'll be wondering why Ted Thompson even picked on Ryan.

Maybe this is the place to seriously discuss/analyze the draft picks.

I kinda disagree with some of what you say, Wade. IMO, it's highly unusual and a sign of badness in the team when several, or often, even one newly drafted player is EXPECTED to start. True, shit happens, and we may be devoid of Centers or sorely undermanned at Safety, but IMO, that's the exception, not the rule. Most years, most, maybe even all of the players are drafted with the idea they develop into quality starters.

I like the way this draft went. I have been saying, the Packers didn't have any urgent needs. Well, they sure drafted that way.

The two Corner/Safeties they got in the first two rounds both have the athleticism I would hope for - strong chance Whitt should be able to develop them. They both seem potentially a LOT better than House and also better than Tramon at his current age. I see that as a strong chance to end up being an upgrade.

I really didn't like the Montgomery pick originally, but considering return ability, and McCarthy even mentioning the possibility he could be a change of pace RB, he's worth getting. I'd rather see extra wideouts on the field than extra TEs, and having 6 good ones makes that more likely.

I was disgusted with the Ryan pick when I saw him listed as an OLB - another non-need, but when I read he played Middle LB for Michigan last season, the pick made sense. He reminds me of A.J. Hawk - who wouldn't have had a bad career if he had been a 4th round pick. I don't know if there is any truth to this story that Matthews didn't like playing ILB; I hope it's just media nonsense, because I liked what I say with him there - thus lessening need to draft an ILB early. As I said somewhere, I wish they'd try to use Jayrone Elliot the same way they did with Matthews.

Hundley is a definite bargain pick which I like. I still want Tolzien to be the primary backup this season, but Hundley is a quality prospect who opens up a LOT of possibilities - including but not limited to "wildcat".

Beyond that, who knows. It's all gravy.

---

IMHO, Ryan is the only draftee that will compete to start, simply because he is the only ILB at this point in time other than Barrrington.
Clay Mathews was moved inside as an emergency move because they had no one else that could do the job, he is and will be an OLB. The others mentioned who were with the Pack last year weren't good enough to get on the field in an emergency situation.
So perhaps they will compete and they will be competing against Ryan who will probably win the "starting" job.