The Packers sucess has finally caught up, and this downfall shouldn't be suprising... but it is.

The NFL, if it does one thing well, is continuity. It also does cycles well too. For a good 10-20 years a team may do well, then 10-20 years it may do bad. Ofcourse there are variables as drafting, importances of certain positions, free agency impact these cycles. But for the most part the cycle idea is shown.

The Packers past six draft picks have been in the 20-30th. Six years of pure lower end drafting. It should make sense, in this view, why we are doing as poor as we are. We are simply less talented then other teams, right?

The way to cure this, as we know when packer land, is the "draft and develop method." The idea is that you can take lower placed players who contain potential and coach them to perform like first round draft picks. Any time this happens though it's a gamble. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it works, it is glorious. But where do you put the blame when it fails? Is it either the general manager, the coaches, or the fate of the nfl cycle?

For the past four 1st round picks, we have chosen a defensive player. Our defensive is, yes, getting better. But it isnt as good as 4 first round draft picks are worthy of.

I list, in order, the three main issues we have currently:
1. No one is getting open on the passing game
2. Our offensive line is inured and fails to pass protect
3. Our secondary is still giving the big plays up

For next year we will be given a chance to fix this with, again, a low draft pick. So again I ask, who do you blame? The coaching staff for failing to develop talent? The GM for providing lack of talent in the draft? The GM for failing to make more Free Agency deals? Or just pure fate? So what do YOU do?

---

*looks at New England*

Yeah, you're done.

---

You didn't read my post. You were "done" reading once you saw lots of words. Let me simplify.

They obviously have a good GM, a good coach, or most importantly, both. They suceed in the draft and develop. Why don't we?

---

I don't buy the low pick argument.

There are always good players to take. It's just a matter of selecting them.

Example: Davante Adams

There are quite a few very good receivers in the draft that were taken after him. So is his suckage because we had a low pick? No. It's that we did not take the correct receivers.

---

What true WR weapon came after Adams? And no, John Brown for the Cardinals isn't a weapon.

The correct recievers came before Adams.

---

This whole team fucking sucks from top to bottom. that is our downfall

Aside from Julius Peppers, this entire football team is made up of players who have played for the Packers and only the Packers.

If that's not draft and develop, I don't know what it is.

The lower pick argument is horseshit. We didn't even have a first round draft choice, but escaped that draft with Jordy Nelson in 2008. We draft better than most teams. None of us wanted the Packers to take Damarious Randall and Quentin Rollins with the first two picks, and while they haven't been flashy, those are two good starting-caliber corners.

Aaron Rodgers was picked 24th. Clay Matthews 26th. Josh Sitton, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Corey Linsley, Eddie Lacy... those guys aren't even first rounders.

---

And also, if there are good players to pick ,aybe Adams is good but he hasn't been developed right?

But I can promise you this. 6 top 10 draft picks in a row and atleast one of them will have pure talent that needs no developing.

---

Green_Ninja, I think it is quite improper to say our o-line is injured, and then suggest our team building approach is wrong. Injuries will often make any sound approach look bad if there are enough of them.

I wonder what the breakdown would be of the position players drafted with high picks. I'm willing to guess the majority are accounted for at the QB, D-Line, and O-line positions. I don't think we have glaring holes at any of these positions (yes, when healthy I think our o-line starters are good enough).

Before this season, was there ever a complaint that we didn't have "fast" enough WRs? I don't really remember it. And frankly, in a WCO based system that Mike McCarthy utilizes, you really don't need speed burners.

I don't think this is an issue of bad draft picks or wrong players picked by Ted. You can blame him for no speed at TE, but it has been pretty clear (even going back to Finley and him being asked to put on more weight) that Mike McCarthy prefers thicker TEs. You should still have had a team able to exploit the middle of the field by using Cobb and Montgomery. Both are quicker players, and Montgomery is "bigger" than your average slot WR.

The drafting of players to fit McCarthy's system is fine. Ted's method isn't the problem - he could stand to be more aggressive or dip into the FA pool more, but his method has still gotten us talented enough players.

---

Then why is this team on position to probably have no chance of breaking the second round of the playoffs? (Granted I hope Im wrong and we win the Super Bowl lol) Why hasn't Cobb "developed into a #1 WR? why hasn't Adams broken out yet? Why do teams with just a decent passing game crush us? Are they secrect top 5 draft picks that just havent shown yet and have an odell beckham jr hidden on our team?

---