Rourke chortled at this.

---

Seriously? Those questions seemed to be there to focused at a larger point and I directly talked about what I thought to be your larger point... instead of playing the game... now you're complaining I didn't play your raindeer games?

And of course the injury game can be played with all teams as their isn't enough talented depth to go around... you're complaining about not having a clear good back-up when some teams don't even have a clear good starter.


The truth is that's YOUR OPINION... and NOT A FACT! ... as we have already hammered out, the stats go more against your opinion then with it, as the OL was quite effective in giving Rodgers the 4th longest average throwing time, despite teams knowing it was going to pass it, and one of the top 2 average rushing yardage.... but you keep ignoring everything that disagrees with your blind opinion that the OL is main problem while you seem to completely and totally ignore all other factors... unwilling to factor in the other 6 guys on offense.

And no one ever said running the ball as the sole answer... you're using false narratives to push your agenda. But the Packers do have OGs (Taylor, McCray, Patrick, etc) that would be able to hold up better with a higher dose of running play calls so the defenders and play callers don't have their ears pinned back ready to pass rush on every single play (because that's what they do when you call pass plays 70% of the time, which very few short ones).

That's because you're wrongly assuming those are the same, when those are two completely different things... one is ideally, what would be nice to happen, and the other is how the simulated draft fell...

I'm taking what I see as the best value, almost no matter the position, if I see OL as the best value, I'm taking the OL.... if I don't see the OL as the best value, then I'm not taking the OL.... I'm drafting my thought on their value, not just drafting a position.... I was shocked those FS fell that far... and felt like they were the best value (and an important need as well).


No, because I could agree with that... what you're doing is blindly blaming the OL and ignoring all fact that don't agree with your predetermined opinion... that the OL is the problem.

You put your players in a better position to success, just as the Patriots, Rams and Bears have done and you get a lot better results.... MM scheme with 70% passing calls and QB/WRs that are CLEARLY on different mental pages and QB that doesn't trust said WRs because of it... and you have put your OL in a HORRIBLE spot... because now defenses can tee off on your OL all game long and create schemes to avoid one of the OTs (usually by fake pass rushing an edge and getting the OGs in one on one match-ups time after time after time, and effectively forcing them to play like OTs (when they're not at that level of pass protection).



Which is what I was saying... 3 of the top 6 is too much! Maybe 3 in an entire draft... MAYBE!

---

Beast berated: Perhaps this is the essence of the disagreement....I am not taking the best player available, I am drafting for need subject to value. It seems a meaningless exercise to fill out these draft boards if you are not going to take team need into meaningful consideration.

Furthermore, IMO drafting the best player available is something teams with depth at most positions can do....and we don't have relative depth at almost any position, except corner. Second, to be frank, I think the statement many GMs say after the draft, such as "XXXX was the top rated guy on the board and we really wanted him" is largely BS in most cases.

Additionally, IMO the offensive line needs to be looked at as five positions, not one. I am not terribly interested in Composite Line Rankings. As previously stated, on the O line, you as strong as your weakest link. We have great starters at 2 positions, a pretty good one when healthy at another, and now a free agent plug in at another. I am greatly concerned about depth, and somewhat concerned about LG. Stated differently, if one of our top corners goes down, I think we would be OK, if one of our OL goes down, especially a tackle, we have major problems....and those need to be addressed in the draft.

Also, we are all surmising that our guys are going to work well/better with new blocking schemes. I am not yet convinced. Like most posters, I believe that a greater mix of runs, more creativity in play design, and quicker hitting pass plays will benefit the entire team (including 12.)

Therefore my opinion, for which I have now provided more that adequate rationale, is that posters are not taking OL need into consideration.

---

1) If it seems meaningless to you, then stop doing it and stop wasting your time watching others do it... because you're then just being a buzz kill for yourself and others.

2) I believe I clearly took meaningful consideration into my mock and you're still complaining about it, because it doesn't fit your personal want list...

But if we're talking about team needs, the team needs TEs, FS, DL, OL, ILB, back-up CBs for when (not if, but when King and/or Alexander go down with an injury), maybe even two.

3) So OL CLEARLY isn't the only need... yet it's the only one you seem to care about which is a huge difference between actual needs and needs you care about.

I feel like that's backwards... the more holes you got the more you can simply grab the best player available because that's a need position.

Yeah I agree with this, I think post draft is a lot of fluff BS.

If you're saying you're only strong as your weakest link then you are looking at then as one... which is exactly what you yourself are saying you shouldn't do.


All teams have problems where if certain guys go down, they're completely screwed, other than maybe the Patriots because their strength is amazing coaching. But some teams have sucky OTs like Spriggs starting because there isn't enough talent to go around. If anything I'd try to sign the veteran OT Donald Penn, who the Raiders just released, and is said to workout at the same place as Rodgers and Baktari (spelling) and I think others (Matthews maybe it was?)... I'm sure he want to start at LT, but maybe get him on a two year deal as backup insurance for Bulaga and try to draft a future guy.




That's an interesting opinion, and for some I'm sure you are correct.... but some are taking it AND other positions into consideration, which you are not seeming to do, as you solely only focus on one need when there are many.

---

Beast opined: 😕 Actually, it makes the point that as a unit, you have to look at each link to determine the units effectiveness...ergo, looking at each individual position is necessary.

Beast continuedGood idea. I think I will only view posters who aren't just taking the best player available. I hope we get the very best player on the OL who fills what I perceive to be a need there. If we can get value by trading down and picking up and additional pick, I am all for it.

Beast further stated: That is a very good point. IMO, after free agency, I see more relative weakness on the Oline than others. We still need other things, another RB, a TE, another safety, but on a relative basis, not at badly as an immediate starting caliber O lineman.

To be nice, and not a buzz kill, you seem to have actually thought about whether the player will be a good fit in our (new offensive) systems. To that end, if we take a TE at 12, I hope it is Hockenson who seems by all accounts to me more of an effective blocker at TE than Fant.

---

A TE at 12 is stupid.

---

Wait, so you draft for need?

---

I'm not an NFL GM (I'd have a short-ass career if I did), so I don't draft, period.

Drafting for need over best available player is how you set yourself up for failure. Always take the best available player. If you have two players that are rated equal, you then take the one of more need.

---

Invariably, one has to use a scale of some sort to compare players of different positions and by the time one fine tunes this scale, anyone can get the results they want regarding BPA.

Overriding all this stuff are immeasurables, heart, brains, guts, and determination.

Drafting is not an easy job.

---

Maybe not so much. You did say 3 of the first 6 but you didn't say which three and I said 1 with the first 4 and double dip in the 4th round that is 3 out of the first 6. I just don't want to see 2 first round OL. Not that we can't use them but I think I'd rather have the top pick used on someone else. Obviously that depends on who falls. It wouldn't kill me if we went 2 OL in the first if it were the right guys.

OL is easy to overlook if you have a good one but you need 5 starters and then you need backups. If you you only have 3 good starters that means your backups probably are not really very good and when those injuries hit it can be devastating.

Its also tough to consider drafting for depth when there are other needs as well.