That's what I get for not being precise about the point I'm trying to make.

What was that point? It starts with a point I have tried to make repeatedly since last season ended, namely my belief that there were several positions where improvement was needed and that expecting all of that improvement to come from players currently on the roster is a recipe for failure. Before free agency started, I believed, and I still do, that there wasn't enough talent on the end-of-season Packer roster to cover the improvement needed at at starting LT, at starting RG, at starting RT, at backup TE, at starting DT, at rotation DE, at starting ILB#1, at starting ILB#2, at starting OLB #2, at backup LB, and at backup CB.

And after pre-draft veteran free agency, that list expanded to include starting CB #2.

Now, clearly no one here seems to agree with my list. That's fine. But whether this or that part of the list, or even two thirds of the list for that matter, belongs on it, is not the point. The point is that I do not think highly of the Packers' deep-into-playoff chances in 2015 if all 22 starters (or, if you prefer to substitute RaiderPride's "players with significant playing time" substitute for "starter,") are drawn from players who were on the roster at the end of last season.

I believed that in last January, and I will go on believing it until I am shown otherwise.

Which brings me to the post with which I started this thread: Believing as I do, and having a organization that for whatever reasons people want to give, did nothing to find outside veterans to provide serious competition for that end-of-2015 roster, that competition must come from either draft or UDFA.

I don't believe its good practice to expect rookie draft picks to become starters. I do believe that given (i) the number of positions at which some serious competition for starting/significant game reps is needed and (ii) the *lack* of players at on the end-of-2015 roster who can reasonably be expected to provide competition at *all* of those positions and (iii) the *lack* to date of any 2016 veteran free agent acquisitions that might provide that competition at *any* of those positions, then the only places we can expect that serious competition to come from are either rookies or UDFAs.

And, as I said, I don't see it except, maybe, at one ILB position, with Ryan. And to be honest, as high as I am on Ryan, I don't see him as a substantial upgrade as a rookie either.

Most everyone else seems to think that all the improvement needed to go late into the playoffs can come from the current roster (maybe with one/both of the S/CB hybrids getting significant reps in nickel/dime packages).

I just don't see it. Long run, Randall and Rollins may be all pros. In 2016, I see them as competing for reps with whoever loses the battle between Hayward and Hyde, Bush, and Richardson. Montgomery? He's going to be a number three WR. Ryan, ok, that's serious competition for one ILB position.

Meanwhile, we have no competition added for starting/significant time for either side of the line. Okay, I understand people are never going to see my argument on Lang and Bulaga's being not good enough. But do people seriously think a "developing" Bahktiari is what we should be satisfied with at LT. Do people seriously think that a serviceable Guion (who still may well be suspended for part of the season) and a B J Raji whose only consistency is his inconsistency, and maybe Pennell or whoever's "unproven potential" on last year's roster you like is enough competition for the NT position in a 3-4 defense?? How many years are we going to hope for Neal and Perry and D. Jones and Boyd et al to provide the oomph at DE they haven't yet provided? And we have no competition added for OLB (since I guess Perry or whoever will continue to improve enough?), the other ILB.

Yes, there is going to be competition for Tramon's position. But at this point that competition is Hyde and Hayward. Period.

I am not bothered just because the Packers haven't drafted players to compete for starting jobs. I am bothered because everyone seems to think that the Packers don't have to bring in ANY outside competition for ANY starting jobs.

And I, emphatically, disagree.

Hell, I'd disagree even if the Packers had won the Super Bowl last year and had 10 players in the Pro Bowl.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I think many here wouldn't mind an increase of some form in free agents coming in, though I think how much more activity people want would vary considerably. I myself wouldn't mind the occasional deal like the one with Peppers once every couple years as there was potential high end payoff and if it didn't work out we could move on without too much of a hit.

Out of curiosity, which free agents this year would you have wanted the Packers to pursue and what would you have been happy paying them? In particular, who at tackle do you think could've provided any real competition at good value? Most pundits had Bulaga as the top tackle in free agency and looking at the scraps that Jacksonville shelled out for I'd agree. If given the choice, would you have traded for someone and if so who? I think that would be an interesting discussion (and apologies if you've already provided elsewhere on the forum).

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 

several positions where improvement was needed and that expecting all of that improvement to come from players currently on the roster is a recipe for failure. Before free agency started, I believed, and I still do, that there wasn't enough talent on the end-of-season Packer roster to cover the improvement needed at at starting LT, at starting RG, at starting RT, at backup TE, at starting DT, at rotation DE, at starting ILB#1, at starting ILB#2, at starting OLB #2, at backup LB, and at backup CB.

And after pre-draft veteran free agency, that list expanded to include starting CB #2.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

Haloti Ngata, but was probably out of our price range.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Wade, there's no poster I have more all around respect for than you. However, I don't think it was a matter of you not being understood correctly. I think you are swimming against the tide, and frankly, the tide has it right and you don't - IMNHO.

Your long laundry list of needs has some items that ring true to some extent. Last off-season, I was very disappointed/disgusted with the fact that Bakhtiari was the best we could do at LT, and of course, there is the NT situation. And ILB and Corner after losing Williams and House, etc. The overriding point, though, is that we came within an eyelash of going to the Super Bowl - against a team we beat pretty handily during the season. Sure, that's in extremely large part, due to having the greatest QB in the history of the world, and if he got hurt, we'd instantly become aware that the leadership has failed to maximize talent around him. Just the same, as I have said, if we got no help from the draft at all, we would have a high quality team that a damn good chance to win it all - a lot of the other contenders seem to have been degraded a little bit.

On top of all that, we DID have a draft that has a strong chance to contribute - beat out the starters going in? maybe not, but because what we have is generally damn good, not for any lack of draft quality.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

God damn it. Why do people always ask this question?

Ted has been here ten years. He has hit three big free agents. In a goddamn decade. It isn't just about whether I would have gone after this or that free agent in one year. It is that if you only sign three of them per decade, you have to draft better AND develop faster than the average.

(Oh, and Haloti Ngata wasn't out of our price range. The Packers had plenty of cap room to bring him in if they were serious about it. The reason why Ted never goes after the Ngatas is that he doesn't like the kind of risk that paying that price brings with it.

That's his approach. He ain't changing and I ain't going to be bothered by it all that much. BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO DO is hold him to a "higher than average" standard for success at "draft-and-develop" than I will for someone who puts "draft-and-develop" together with major free agent signings more than 3 times per decade.

Originally Posted by: Wade 

So you are satisfied with Bahktiari having no serious competition at LT? Don't bitch to me then when some defensive thug blows past him and we're looking at Scott Tolzien to take us deep into the playoffs, and I promise to stop bitching as soon as Scott Tolzein turns out to be this year's Earl Morrall.

I spend most of my life going against the tide. Why should Packer stuff be any different?

(Besides, the tide of public opinion, unlike the lunar tides, is usually wrong anyway. The "tide" elected you-know-who twice in a row, after all. 🙂 )

Originally Posted by: Wade 

It starts with a point I have tried to make repeatedly since last season ended, namely my belief that there were several positions where improvement was needed and that expecting all of that improvement to come from players currently on the roster is a recipe for failure. Before free agency started, I believed, and I still do, that there wasn't enough talent on the end-of-season Packer roster to cover the improvement needed at at starting LT, at starting RG, at starting RT, at backup TE, at starting DT, at rotation DE, at starting ILB#1, at starting ILB#2, at starting OLB #2, at backup LB, and at backup CB.

And after pre-draft veteran free agency, that list expanded to include starting CB #2.

Originally Posted by: Wade