Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
1.16: Who Should The Green Bay Packers Take? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Sigmund Bloom
- Start date
Aaronstory
Footballguy
Bloom and Lammey win the prize.
I have a feeling that if Revis and Lynch were both there at 16, they would still take Revis. We'll see.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Marshawn Lynch, Greg Olsen, and Ted Ginn would all be great picks on offense.
On defense, one of the corners, or if on the off chance that Branch falls that far would help.
My choice would be Ted Ginn.
On defense, one of the corners, or if on the off chance that Branch falls that far would help.
My choice would be Ted Ginn.
Michael Fox Fan
Footballguy
Really? I don't have major issues with the Revis pick - but I don't care for Cecil's rationale for the pick."The weapons are there on offense (although an upgrade or more depth at RB would be nice), so the Pack looks to improve it's defense."Green Bay lacks a quality starting RB, has no depth at WR beyond Driver & Jennings (unless you count K-Rob), and needs a TE who can open up the middle and stretch the field. We are in serious need of playmakers at ANY of those positions.Hopefully what Bloom and Cecil are saying is that Revis is the best player available, and Green Bay might need a starting CB as soon as 2008. I agree with that reasoning - but let's not pretend the offense is stacked with talent.Ted Thompson has shown so far the he will always draft for best player available, or trade down. If Lynch is there at #16, unless Teddy T sees Lynch dropping WAY down, then Teddy T will pick Lynch. Vernand Morency cannot be the starter in '07.
You're right, but the WR depth is there for them to get someone who will help in the 2nd or 3rd. Same with zone blocking type RBs like Pittman, Irons, and Jackson. One of them should fall to their 3rd. They can address the immediate situation at WR and RB with later first day picks.You're also discounting the possibility that still exists that they will trade for Moss.Love the passionate feedback, and I think you're right, they need to address the offensive weapons at the draft - they just don't need to do it in the first.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
I agree. Of course, last year I thought they should take Davis over Hawk. I'll most likely be proven wrong again.
bcr8f
Footballguy
I don't think TT would pick a WR in the first. He likes Jennings better than any of the FA's and would go RB or TE first. Or defense.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
You're right though that TT probably wouldn't go WR in the 1st.
bcr8f
Footballguy
From Packer update
According to a source, the Packers are spending an inordinate amount of time looking at tight ends and running backs in preparation for the upcoming draft. The team hasn’t selected a player at either position since 2002, but with Ahman Green in Houston, David Martin in Miami and Bubba Franks on his last legs, that surprising streak will almost certainly come to an end in a few weeks..... Daryn Colledge finished his rookie season looking more like a bulked up tight end than a guard. The former Boise State star was playing at 290 in December - down about 15 pounds from the OTAs in June. The coaches would like Colledge to report to training camp at 310 pounds. The feeling is he needs to stay close to 300 in order to consistently hold up against the massive defensive tackles that currently reside in the NFC North..... Ted Thompson’s interest in restricted free agent Michael Turner ended the moment contract terms were discussed.
According to a source, the Packers are spending an inordinate amount of time looking at tight ends and running backs in preparation for the upcoming draft. The team hasn’t selected a player at either position since 2002, but with Ahman Green in Houston, David Martin in Miami and Bubba Franks on his last legs, that surprising streak will almost certainly come to an end in a few weeks..... Daryn Colledge finished his rookie season looking more like a bulked up tight end than a guard. The former Boise State star was playing at 290 in December - down about 15 pounds from the OTAs in June. The coaches would like Colledge to report to training camp at 310 pounds. The feeling is he needs to stay close to 300 in order to consistently hold up against the massive defensive tackles that currently reside in the NFC North..... Ted Thompson’s interest in restricted free agent Michael Turner ended the moment contract terms were discussed.
I was wondering why the Packers have been so adamant in denying they had any interest in Turner.
packersfan
Footballguy
Highly doubtful. Thompson is a Ron Wolf disciple and Wolf strongly opposed taking a WR in the first round. I like Ginn and he would answer issues in terms of WR depth and in the return game but I don't see it happening. I'm not big on taking a TE in the first round unless he is a standout athlete with huge potential. I don't think Olsen fits the bill. I think it has to be Lynch if he's on the board. The Packers will be in a world of hurt if they don't come out of the first day with a potential starting RB. If Lynch is gone, I could see Thompson trading down and grabbing Olsen later in the round.Ginn would be MY pick.You're right though that TT probably wouldn't go WR in the 1st.
FYI, "standout athlete with huge potential" describes Olsen pretty well.packersfan said:
Aaronstory
Footballguy
Really? I agree with the athlete part, I just question where his ceiling is.
packersfan
Footballguy
I'm not seeing it. I'm not saying he's slow and worthless but I don't see a huge ceiling. My analogy was based on a player like Gonzalez, Winslow or Vernon Davis. To me, those are the types of TEs you take in the first round. If the player isn't at that level you hold off on the position until the middle rounds because there are always solid or better TEs to be found there. I just don't see Olsen having the ceiling to be a true star at the position and I think he needs to be if you're going to use a first-round pick on him. I felt the same way about Bubba Franks when the Packers took him in the first. I thought he was solid, but not the type of TE you use a first-round pick on - especially when there was a clear-cut talent on the board who I liked much better (Keith Bulluck).
It all comes down to whether you think his problems are fixable. If you don't, then yes, his upside is limited. If do think coaching could get him to be a tougher receiver in tight spaces, then the potential truly is huge. For me , the verdict is still out, but Im not about to say that I'm sure he can't become more than he was at Miami.
I grant that there's an argument that he won't be able to overcome his flaws, that his flaws limit his ceiling - I just think that the raw tools he possesses (both athletic tools and receiving instincts) could be unlocked into "huge potential" if he becomes more of a banger when the ball is in the air. What do you see as his largest flaws - ones that can't be overcome and therefore limit his long term potential?
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaronstory
Footballguy
IMO, he needs to become a better inline blocker. I wonder about his frame as well and whether he can add the bulk he needs to become an every down TE in the NFL.
Kleck.
Footballguy
This pick is a wild card. There is just about endless possibilities here, and trading down shouldn't come at any surprise - Which is what I'd like to see most, unless one of the top prospects should fall to them.
I'd prefer it not be a WR since I think there will be some great value in the 2nd at WR, or trade down in the first for one and pick up an additional 2nd or 3rd. However, Ginn would be a huge help in the return game and give the Packers a nice deep threat/3rd WR so I wouldn't be upset with the pick. TT has done well selecting 2nd round WRs so I'd like to see him stick with it.
I haven't soured on Lynch, but I'd rather see them go elsewhere in the 1st. I think this RB class is a little deeper than some think, and Green Bay could find a nice committee back to go along with Morency in the 2nd, 3rd or maybe even early day 2.
My dream picks of Landry, Okoye, Peterson, Willis, Branch are most likely slimmer than none. I don't see anyone in the 15-20 range being that far ahead of the 20-30 guys so my choice is to trade down and continue to build at multiple positions and depth.
I'd prefer it not be a WR since I think there will be some great value in the 2nd at WR, or trade down in the first for one and pick up an additional 2nd or 3rd. However, Ginn would be a huge help in the return game and give the Packers a nice deep threat/3rd WR so I wouldn't be upset with the pick. TT has done well selecting 2nd round WRs so I'd like to see him stick with it.
I haven't soured on Lynch, but I'd rather see them go elsewhere in the 1st. I think this RB class is a little deeper than some think, and Green Bay could find a nice committee back to go along with Morency in the 2nd, 3rd or maybe even early day 2.
My dream picks of Landry, Okoye, Peterson, Willis, Branch are most likely slimmer than none. I don't see anyone in the 15-20 range being that far ahead of the 20-30 guys so my choice is to trade down and continue to build at multiple positions and depth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kleck.
Footballguy
I have some concerns about Olsen too. I wouldn't be real excited with him at #16.
This is a good point and a drain on his draft value. It definitely holds true that Olsen's upside/potential is as a receiver (specifically the kind of receiving TE that demands the attention of the safeties and creates mismatches with both LBs and DBs), not as a two way TE.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
Agreed. I'm also not sure he's the type of TE who can make plays down the field. I see him more as an intermediate option. Nothing wrong with that but I don't see it being worth a first-round pick.
weasel3515
Footballguy
I think they should do all they can to move up and take Adrian Petersen. That would nearly complete their offense (minus tight ends) which could make it very scary.
packersfan
Footballguy
Thompson's draft approach thus far has been to move down and accumulate more picks; not trade up at the expense of his picks.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
weasel3515
Footballguy
AD would be much better than Mershawn Lynch, who has gotten very mixed reviews. Anyone remember how J.J. Arrington was supposed to be the next great sleeper back? By the way he plays it looks like he is just plain asleep. I think Cal's players are overhyped as they come from a prolific system vs. pathetic Pac-10 defenses. Their annual game against USC shows that when they actually play a real defense they do very little.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
There, we are in agreement.But there is no way on God's Green Earth Thompson will trade up to get him, unless he starts an unbeliveable slide. (Which I don't see happening)AD would be much better than Mershawn Lynch
As a Vikings fan, I think the Packers should take a punter. :horns:
As a fan of pro football and fantasy football, I guess I'd think that they'd LOVE to see AP fall, but might be best-served going TE or S/CB if Peterson isn't an option (via trade-up or ???). My bet would be on either a TE or "BPA" at defensive back or O-Line/D-Line depending upon who falls. I'll be rooting for a punter though. :(
As a fan of pro football and fantasy football, I guess I'd think that they'd LOVE to see AP fall, but might be best-served going TE or S/CB if Peterson isn't an option (via trade-up or ???). My bet would be on either a TE or "BPA" at defensive back or O-Line/D-Line depending upon who falls. I'll be rooting for a punter though. :(
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaronstory
Footballguy
You just loved the Sherman years, didn't you...As a Vikings fan, I think the Packers should take a punter. :horns:As a fan of pro football and fantasy football, I guess I'd think that they'd LOVE to see AP fall, but might be best-served going TE or S/CB if Peterson isn't an option (via trade-up or ???). My bet would be on either a TE or "BPA" at defensive back or O-Line/D-Line depending upon who falls. I'll be rooting for a punter though.
weasel3515
Footballguy
Schedule notwithstanding (and it's not the most favorable one but could be worse), I think Favre will have a renaissance season. Driver and Jennings give him two very nice targets, the O-line is coming together and the defense will be much improved. Just need a good RB (too bad they let Ahman go). And I am NOT a Packer fan!
Aaronstory
Footballguy
Wow, I wish I saw what you see. The offense was pathetic last year, esp in the red zone. Outside a trade for Moss, I don't see a deep threat on the roster that can stretch defenses. Driver is good, but he does all his damage from the slot on crossing routes, not on fly or post routes. That's the one thing that makes me think we could see Olsen in the fist round. He could stretch the defense, esp in the middle, which is perfect in a divison full of teams playing Tampa-2. (As I've stated elsewhere - I'm not advocating the pick - but I would understand it.)weasel3515 said:
packersfan
Footballguy
I'm not all that optimistic either. I don't see a lot of top-level talent (especially on offense) and we're three years into it and I still have no clue what Thompson's plan is. Plus, their schedule this season is brutal. I could see them losing at least 6 of their road games and maybe all 8.
Sigh, I miss those days. Sherman was on our Christmas Card list....and my wife baked him a delicious honey-baked ham every year as our way of saying thanks for some of Sherman's draft-day decisions. If only they would bring back Ahmad Carroll......Aaronstory said:You just loved the Sherman years, didn't you...
At least he never took a "pass" in the draft though...... MadMustaff
Footballguy
Marshawn Lynch because their running game needs some major help.
Aaronstory
Footballguy
I think his plan is to build a tough defense first team. So far, he's headed in the right direction. Remember, he's an old linebacker. He's hired his HC because he was a 'tough guy' ect. The key will be Hawk and the defense becoming better each season. If they show what they showed the last month of the season and improve upon it, they'll win their fair share of games. The question becomes - how do they score points? Because last year was just anemic on the offensive side of the ball, esp in the red zone.
M
Marc Faletti
Guest
Hey all,
First off, I fully expect people to double-take with a "Huuuuuh?!" when seeing my pick, but the OTC feature is expressly about how we believe the draft SHOULD go, and I felt this was the best fit for Russell, and also the earliest he should go.
There's a bias in the NFL that any QB with tools and a fair chance of success must go early, and I understand that -- QBs are hard to find and you don't want to miss out on the next big thing.
But if I had said David Carr was worth no more than the 16th pick in his draft, I would have seemed similarly crazy. Same is true for Couch. And Akili Smith. Even Eli Manning and Leftwich. Yet each of those players has either earned about that draft grade (Manning and Leftwich) or done much, much worse.
QBs are extremely hard to project accurately, harder than most positions. I would rather take a guy I believe has a VERY high chance of making a real impact like Landry or Willis or Adams or Okoye or Peterson than a guy who I think is 60/40 gonna make it, despite how hard it is to find a good QB.
Futhermore, when teams are talent-starved, one of the worst things they can do for their team and the player himself is to draft a "savior" QB at the top of the 1st. That player can easily be broken by a lack of support or protection, and the team really doesn't get any better.
Maybe Russell is another Vince Young. I dunno. But I think Vince is the exception, not the rule, and I tend to want to hold off on any player until he seems like value. IMHO, this is the first spot in the draft where Russell seemed like real value for the team drafting.
Maybe I'm craaaaaaazy. Or maybe I'm genius!
Or maybe i'm just
.
First off, I fully expect people to double-take with a "Huuuuuh?!" when seeing my pick, but the OTC feature is expressly about how we believe the draft SHOULD go, and I felt this was the best fit for Russell, and also the earliest he should go.
There's a bias in the NFL that any QB with tools and a fair chance of success must go early, and I understand that -- QBs are hard to find and you don't want to miss out on the next big thing.
But if I had said David Carr was worth no more than the 16th pick in his draft, I would have seemed similarly crazy. Same is true for Couch. And Akili Smith. Even Eli Manning and Leftwich. Yet each of those players has either earned about that draft grade (Manning and Leftwich) or done much, much worse.
QBs are extremely hard to project accurately, harder than most positions. I would rather take a guy I believe has a VERY high chance of making a real impact like Landry or Willis or Adams or Okoye or Peterson than a guy who I think is 60/40 gonna make it, despite how hard it is to find a good QB.
Futhermore, when teams are talent-starved, one of the worst things they can do for their team and the player himself is to draft a "savior" QB at the top of the 1st. That player can easily be broken by a lack of support or protection, and the team really doesn't get any better.
Maybe Russell is another Vince Young. I dunno. But I think Vince is the exception, not the rule, and I tend to want to hold off on any player until he seems like value. IMHO, this is the first spot in the draft where Russell seemed like real value for the team drafting.
Maybe I'm craaaaaaazy. Or maybe I'm genius!
Or maybe i'm just
.
