I don't like how strict this philosophy is. It means there is more pressure put on young, inexperienced players to fill important gaps in our roster, and the "need" factor then becomes more in play on draft day. At least, it seems that way.

Will we pass on a top WR to fill a DL need this draft in R1? Maybe. Maybe not. Nab that WR and your DL need is still unaddressed going into the 2nd day of the draft. Now, you maybe reach on a day two player to fill a hole, hoping he will not only start, but be a difference maker, where you really need one.

There is risk with this philosophy that could make us miss out on top talent, both in FA and in the draft.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

I was being just a bit of a smart @ss. But there are times when it seems like the team fails to use every method available to them because they are a "draft and develop" team.

It is really impossible to have every spot on the roster filled with depth backing up all the starters. Sometimes it is better to have the drafted players backing up and one day taking the place of a UFA that they signed.

Then again I have wondered if GB is content with winning the division and being in the playoffs on a consistent basis or spending more money and being a serious contender for a SB.

I could live with a team that was in the SB every 5 years and then had to tear the team down and rebuilt making it back 5 years later over a team that went 11-5 or 10-6 every single year, year after year, only to lose in the playoffs in either round 1 or 2.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

For every Albert Haynesworth that Ted passes over, he signs a DuJuan Harris, Dez Moses, Sam Shields. Even an Erik Walden or a Harold Green. Part of the system is that you have great talent evaluators, who are capable of assessing value.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Except, in my opinion, with respect to the OL.

Take away the out-of-the-park-HR that was Josh Sitton, and this personnel department can only seem to find "potential" and "serviceable" on the OL.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I could live with a team that was in the SB every 5 years and then had to tear the team down and rebuilt making it back 5 years later over a team that went 11-5 or 10-6 every single year, year after year, only to lose in the playoffs in either round 1 or 2.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Except that isn't how it works and no you wouldn't be content with that anyways. Look at all of the people who are discontent now because we haven't won the Superbowl in just 2 years. The teams that have the best chance at winning the Superbowl are the ones that are more consistent with their roster and stay competitive year after year. It does take a lot of luck to get through a playoff run and win the Superbowl and trying to bet it all on 1 season every few years is the dumbest way to go about it.

Originally Posted by: steveishere 

I said pick up a QUALITY player or two to fill a gap. (every team has them.)

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Problem with that is the Packers aren't a player or two away from being a certain Super Bowl contender. They can't afford to gamble over paying for tier 2 talent with a tier 1 salary because they have quite a few players to re-sign themselves. It's easier to groom a new to NFL player to your methods and teachings than it is to grab a player that's been in a different system for X years. You then have to break them of their habits.

I don't think free agency yields enough reward for the risk.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Breno Giacomini would have been good to keep around. I do not understand how they could let a guy like that walk. He is exactly what we could use now. Started all 16 games at RT last year for the Seahawks. We could be switching Bulaga to LT and save a pick there.

Originally Posted by: play2win