Mock Draft - The "Now for something completely (1 Viewer)

[Evilgrin 72]

I see your point very well, but they'd have to move Rodgers, you simply can't draft a guy in the first round, pay him first round money, then nail him to the bench for the rest of his career.  Do you think they move rodgers?  If so, then this pick makes a ton of sense.

I don't think they're paying him that much.

Rodgers's deal was a five-years for $7.7 million, $5.4 million guaranteed, with escalators that would increase value of contract to overall $30 million if all performance and roster bonuses were met. So, if he sits, he's making $1,540,000 per, which is not absurd for a backup at all, but if he ends up playing significant time, he could end up costing them a lot.

Exactly. So if he sits behind Young, BFD.

I hear you. I don't know, man - I just think if I were the GM, I'd be thinking we addressed QB and that we need to plug some holes on defense. their defense is just brutal. I'd be all over Ngata.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Is there any discussion beyond Vince Young?

I don't think the Steelers would draft Watkins that high unless he's projected to the second round universally. There are a few safeties out there, and Clark is young and is no slouch. He's not a star, but neither was hope.I think Rod Wright, Max-Jean Gilles, or Charles Spencer go #32 - just a hunch.

 

[Gargoylez]

Green Bay would be in the cellar for another 3-4 years IMO if Young was their draft pick. They need serious holes filled and QB isnt even in the top 5.

You think Rogers is the solution at QB?

No more a solution then Young IMO. A huge powerful DT would do a heck of alot more for the Pack in the next 2-3 years then Young will. I really don't think that is questioned... is the mystique of Vince Young worth throwing a first rounder away? Can the Packers afford to take yet ANOTHER chance, that in 2 or 3 years he MIGHT be good... or get a player that has a much better chance of suceeding and a fill of a definate need?

Young doesn't make sense on almost every level.

So you're a Young hater. Noted. I can see where you'd hate this mock then.I think you're wrong, but no big deal.

Not a hater... he could be the next amazing QB, but my reason for laughing at the Packers pick is because Young is not a sure thing, not even close, its around 50/50 with teams, scouts, etc... as far as I have read and saw. Cutler is higher and Leinart is much higher. But there are people who are in love with him, and rightfully so, but that doesnt make him some sure fire winner, or a good choice that early on for a team who had a wretched defense adn JUST drafted a QB last year in the first round. SUre the salary doesnt matter but you spent a 1st rounder on him... I dont beleive the Packers are the Bills and are going to give up on him already.DT, OG, LB, CB, WR, all are more pressing then a QB... MUCH more pressing. But people drink the Vince Young Kool-Aid and won;t be proven wrong.

I hope he drops like panties on prom night, but I am sure a team like the Cardinals and Raiders will jump all over him.

I appreciate your thoughts, but you cannot know how the Packers grade him. The Michael Jordan comment is compelling. It is very possible that Young is far far and away the best football player in this draft. Likewise it is possible that he doesn't translate to the NFL. His ceiling is among the brightest stars. His floor is Aaron Brooks. Every player in the top 10 is always a huge risk, and we never truly know who will and won't work out. Professional scouts were sincerely torn between Leaf and Manning. Disagree with the pick, fine. Go way over the top with the negatives before the kid ever sees the frozen tundra, over reacting.

So what your saying is that a Top Talent DT is just as risky as the top 3 QB's? I dont buy that and I never will. QB is the riskiest pick in the draft, hardest position to play.And if your banking your future on Pickett... LOL.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I see your point very well, but they'd have to move Rodgers, you simply can't draft a guy in the first round, pay him first round money, then nail him to the bench for the rest of his career.  Do you think they move rodgers?  If so, then this pick makes a ton of sense.

I don't think they're paying him that much.

Rodgers's deal was a five-years for $7.7 million, $5.4 million guaranteed, with escalators that would increase value of contract to overall $30 million if all performance and roster bonuses were met. So, if he sits, he's making $1,540,000 per, which is not absurd for a backup at all, but if he ends up playing significant time, he could end up costing them a lot.

Exactly. So if he sits behind Young, BFD.

I hear you. I don't know, man - I just think if I were the GM, I'd be thinking we addressed QB and that we need to plug some holes on defense. their defense is just brutal. I'd be all over Ngata.

But they signed Ryan Pickett, who while no Ngata precludes them taking Ngata in my mind.

 

[msommer]

Drafting a second QB opens GB up to Matt Millen like comments about WRs - if they are willing to live with that and are pretty sure that Favre will stick around to teach Vince a thing or two it could happen.

Who is their veteran backup these days

 

[Chaos Commish]

Green Bay would be in the cellar for another 3-4 years IMO if Young was their draft pick. They need serious holes filled and QB isnt even in the top 5.

You think Rogers is the solution at QB?

No more a solution then Young IMO. A huge powerful DT would do a heck of alot more for the Pack in the next 2-3 years then Young will. I really don't think that is questioned... is the mystique of Vince Young worth throwing a first rounder away? Can the Packers afford to take yet ANOTHER chance, that in 2 or 3 years he MIGHT be good... or get a player that has a much better chance of suceeding and a fill of a definate need?

Young doesn't make sense on almost every level.

So you're a Young hater. Noted. I can see where you'd hate this mock then.I think you're wrong, but no big deal.

Not a hater... he could be the next amazing QB, but my reason for laughing at the Packers pick is because Young is not a sure thing, not even close, its around 50/50 with teams, scouts, etc... as far as I have read and saw. Cutler is higher and Leinart is much higher. But there are people who are in love with him, and rightfully so, but that doesnt make him some sure fire winner, or a good choice that early on for a team who had a wretched defense adn JUST drafted a QB last year in the first round. SUre the salary doesnt matter but you spent a 1st rounder on him... I dont beleive the Packers are the Bills and are going to give up on him already.DT, OG, LB, CB, WR, all are more pressing then a QB... MUCH more pressing. But people drink the Vince Young Kool-Aid and won;t be proven wrong.

I hope he drops like panties on prom night, but I am sure a team like the Cardinals and Raiders will jump all over him.

I appreciate your thoughts, but you cannot know how the Packers grade him. The Michael Jordan comment is compelling. It is very possible that Young is far far and away the best football player in this draft. Likewise it is possible that he doesn't translate to the NFL. His ceiling is among the brightest stars. His floor is Aaron Brooks. Every player in the top 10 is always a huge risk, and we never truly know who will and won't work out. Professional scouts were sincerely torn between Leaf and Manning. Disagree with the pick, fine. Go way over the top with the negatives before the kid ever sees the frozen tundra, over reacting.

So what your saying is that a Top Talent DT is just as risky as the top 3 QB's? I dont buy that and I never will. QB is the riskiest pick in the draft, hardest position to play.

I didn't say that. I said all top 10 picks are very risky. There's elite talent available and you're fishing for the best of what's there with each pick. It should rarely be an equation slanted towards team needs, and almost always should target the biggest impact player. You're right about QB being the most difficult position to play and the riskiest to draft. But you have to have a QB, and having a great one has a bigger impact than having a great DL. Is Young a significantly higher risk than Hawk? Absolutely, LBs rarely bust with such high grades. Should that scare away a cellar dweller? Maybe, maybe not. It's up to them to decide.

 

[Gargoylez]

I see your point very well, but they'd have to move Rodgers, you simply can't draft a guy in the first round, pay him first round money, then nail him to the bench for the rest of his career.  Do you think they move rodgers?  If so, then this pick makes a ton of sense.

I don't think they're paying him that much.

Rodgers's deal was a five-years for $7.7 million, $5.4 million guaranteed, with escalators that would increase value of contract to overall $30 million if all performance and roster bonuses were met. So, if he sits, he's making $1,540,000 per, which is not absurd for a backup at all, but if he ends up playing significant time, he could end up costing them a lot.

Exactly. So if he sits behind Young, BFD.

I hear you. I don't know, man - I just think if I were the GM, I'd be thinking we addressed QB and that we need to plug some holes on defense. their defense is just brutal. I'd be all over Ngata.

But they signed Ryan Pickett, who while no Ngata precludes them taking Ngata in my mind.

Maybe Im wrong but Pickett has been a bust since he was drafted, plus injured. A DT, is a NEED maybe the biggest need IMO.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I see your point very well, but they'd have to move Rodgers, you simply can't draft a guy in the first round, pay him first round money, then nail him to the bench for the rest of his career.  Do you think they move rodgers?  If so, then this pick makes a ton of sense.

I don't think they're paying him that much.

Rodgers's deal was a five-years for $7.7 million, $5.4 million guaranteed, with escalators that would increase value of contract to overall $30 million if all performance and roster bonuses were met. So, if he sits, he's making $1,540,000 per, which is not absurd for a backup at all, but if he ends up playing significant time, he could end up costing them a lot.

Exactly. So if he sits behind Young, BFD.

I hear you. I don't know, man - I just think if I were the GM, I'd be thinking we addressed QB and that we need to plug some holes on defense. their defense is just brutal. I'd be all over Ngata.

But they signed Ryan Pickett, who while no Ngata precludes them taking Ngata in my mind.

Maybe Im wrong but Pickett has been a bust since he was drafted, plus injured. A DT, is a NEED maybe the biggest need IMO.

Fine. Then take Claude Wroten, Rodrique Wright, or John McCargo - one of whom will be there with the 2nd round pick.

 

[Hobbes]

So what your saying is that a Top Talent DT is just as risky as the top 3 QB's? I dont buy that and I never will. QB is the riskiest pick in the draft, hardest position to play.

I'm guessing that you missed the entire thread dedicated to this topic. It is a BIG misconception that QBs are more risky and more likely to bust than other positions at the top of the draft. Seriously...go back and look at past drafts.

 

[mbuehner]

Young to the Pack is indeed intriguing. Rodgers has a pretty reasonable incentive based contract. If he's standing on the sidelines he's not hurting the Packs cap space. It shouldnt be too tough to move Rodgers if Young pans out early on. Some mediocre team is going to lose their QB early and be looking for a 1st round quality youngster for a reasonable price (im looking at you, New Orleans). Beats wasting a season. Anyway, the bottom line is that with the contract he has Rodgers is a commodity, not a liability.

 

[Despyzer]

19 San Diego - Tye Hill

They added Marlon McCree to play safety, so while that may have been the pick originally, they now turn to corner, another area of glaring need. Picking the fastest guy in the draft is a bonus.

20 Kansas City - Jimmy Williams

I can really buy into the logic here of the Chargers addressing their secondary. It is obviously their most glaring need. If Williams and Hill are both available when they draft, they would have to think everything rolled right for them. But if both were available, would they be more likely to go with Hill? Generally, I have seen Williams rated higher. The Chargers haven't traditionally been a team that drafts for speed over skill, and one outstanding Senior Bowl appearance probably wouldn't compensate for an inferior 2005/career.

 

[Trig2U]

Nice job, Andy. Fun to kick things around from a slightly different angle.

Not to pile on but I likewise have a tough time seeing the Packers taking Vince... on the other hand I am convinced Vince Young is a top 5 pick, and if he was still on the board I could certainly envision maybe Zona moving up to that slot to grab him.

Also, despite LenDale White being a local guy, DeAngelo would seem a much more likely RB of choice for the Broncos. Still, I like the reasoning behind your going with LenDale there (ie Skeletor wants to show what a brilliant, against-the-grain talent evaluator he is).

That's a pretty big slide for Jimmy Williams, but I agree he's gonna slip. The other one I was thinking about was the Tye Hill pick. Does anybody else get the feeling that Jason Allen might have slipped past Hill due to his more NFL-friendly heighth, plus that great workout?

Oh, and my question is, so if the Colts don't get Maroney in round one, how long do they wait and who do they target? Addai will be gone by the end of round 2, so do you see them as being cool with a Maurice Drew/Jerome Harrison/Jerious Norwood? Obviously that would be *very* interesting from a FF perspective.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

19 San Diego - Tye Hill

They added Marlon McCree to play safety, so while that may have been the pick originally, they now turn to corner, another area of glaring need.  Picking the fastest guy in the draft is a bonus.

20 Kansas City - Jimmy Williams

I can really buy into the logic here of the Chargers addressing their secondary. It is obviously their most glaring need. If Williams and Hill are both available when they draft, they would have to think everything rolled right for them. But if both were available, would they be more likely to go with Hill? Generally, I have seen Williams rated higher. The Chargers haven't traditionally been a team that drafts for speed over skill, and one outstanding Senior Bowl appearance probably wouldn't compensate for an inferior 2005/career.

Williams is more of a "'tweener" than Hill and I thought that they'd go with the more pure cornerback, which is Hill. It could easily go the other way around.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The other one I was thinking about was the Tye Hill pick. Does anybody else get the feeling that Jason Allen might have slipped past Hill due to his more NFL-friendly heighth, plus that great workout?

Allen should (repeat, SHOULD) stay at safety while Hill is more of a corner, so I think the comparison is apples/oranges. Probably the more intriguing question is can Allen leapfrog Huff? Probably not, but once a player gains momentum leading up to the draft, anything goes.

 

[Trig2U]

I see... sounds right. Hill also had a great workout, if I recall. hey BTW I edited in another question about the Indy RB situation (see above). If you get a chance I'd be interested in your take.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Oh, and my question is, so if the Colts don't get Maroney in round one, how long do they wait and who do they target? Addai will be gone by the end of round 2, so do you see them as being cool with a Maurice Drew/Jerome Harrison/Jerious Norwood? Obviously that would be *very* interesting from a FF perspective.

Part of my Colts writeup was going to be how they got outsmarted and missed out on one of the top four RBs.I think they'll draft a RB in round 2 that will split time with Rhodes. After Addai, there really isn't an obvious feature back left. I think they'd have to consider themselves lucky if Brian Calhoun is still on the board.

If they end up with someone like Jerrious Norwood, it's not the end of the world, but that window of opportunity just closed quite a bit more on the Colts.

In the end, though, it's highly unlikely that the Colts brass would let it come to this as it is a worst-case scenario.

 

[ren hoek]

Drafting a second QB opens GB up to Matt Millen like comments about WRs - if they are willing to live with that and are pretty sure that Favre will stick around to teach Vince a thing or two it could happen.

Who is their veteran backup these days

Not at all. The casual fan may feel that way if they end up drafting another QB, but if I were a Packers fan, I wouldn't have been exactly jazzed about them picking Rodgers in the 1st place to begin with, and I'd bet there are a lot of Packer fans who have very little confidence in him to do well. But even with that aside, this is Ted Thompson's 1st year running the franchise. The previous personnel director (Mike Sherman I believe) should have very little impact on the direction that Thompson goes with this franchise.

Personally, if I were a Packers fan and they drafted Vince Young, I'd be thrilled.

 

[jimmy b]

I could see the Packers drafting Vince Young.......it also might just pacify Javon Walker into coming back....

 

[fatkid]

5 Green Bay - Vince Young

A shock, I know. But really, does Aaron Rogers have ANY chance of succeeding in Brett Favre's shadow? No way. Replacing a legend is something only another "legend" (albiet at the college level) can do.

Vince Young reminds me a TON of a young Brett Favre. Can make plays with his feet, tremendous leader, but throws too many picks and seems to have trouble reading defenses. I wish I could find a college scouting report on Favre. I bet they would look nearly identical.

It seems a classic Sherlockian case of the dog that didn't bark. The Pack isn't talking about Young hoping nobody leapfrogs them.



Skewed the whole draft... Stopped reading fromthere.

With all the holes they need to fill and the lack of depth on both lines, you honestly think Ngati wouldnt be a slam dunk here??? an AJ Hawk would make a hell of alot of sense... who do you think the Packers are, the Lions? Drafting a QB in the first round 2 years in a row? then next year another?

Never in a million years. Appreciate the limb you went out on, but the mock is skewed and the order is screwed up with this one.

If they trade Rogers for a #2 like people have talked about it makes a lot of sense...

Culpepper went for a 2nd rounder. Rodgers wouldnt command a 4th rounder right now. If Alex Smith and Aaron Rodgers were in the draft this year, they might not even be drafted in the first round. Don't get me wrong, it wasnt a run of the mill draft, and Kudos for going out on a limb, but it doesnt matter who is calling the signals in Green Bay, if they continue to let up a ton of points a game, wouldn't it make sense to give Rodgers an actually CHANCE (since they did spend a 1st rounder on him last year) and try and stop a team or two with a better defense? Unless Vince Young can play DT for a few games... Hawk, Haloti Ngata, Bunkley... all make sense and would anchor the defense for years and years to come.... I for one think Young is a bust waiting to happen, another fat Quincey Carter or Aaron Brooks... but that is strictly my thoughts on him.

Green Bay would be in the cellar for another 3-4 years IMO if Young was their draft pick. They need serious holes filled and QB isnt even in the top 5.

Technically Miami gave up a 2nd Round Pick and a big Contract for Culpepper. Weras any team trading for Rodgers would just need to give up a pick and would have him locked up for a while at his rookie deal.All that being said, I think the 4th that the Jets Gave up for Ramsey is a little more accurate.

For San Diego, AJ Smith Just kicked Brees to the curb and got nothing for him. I expect him to draft a WR or a Offensive Line man with this pick. He has to make Rivers successfull in order to keep his job. Also, the Chargers are sitting on a ton of cap room, so I bet they sign Law, Woodson, or at least Plummer before the draft.

For Cleveland, Lawson is a workout freak, but I haven't heard to much about him being a domminent player. I expect that Crennel will go with the Belicheck school of thought to find dominent players first, and athletes later. I would expect Carpenter or Greenway are ahead of Lawson on thier board.

Andy, as a Minnesota expert, don't you think they will move up to select Cutler? Was projecting where the hard part, or do you not see it happening?

Good Mock.

 

[Assani Fisher]

Green Bay would be in the cellar for another 3-4 years IMO if Young was their draft pick. They need serious holes filled and QB isnt even in the top 5.

You think Rogers is the solution at QB?

No more a solution then Young IMO. A huge powerful DT would do a heck of alot more for the Pack in the next 2-3 years then Young will. I really don't think that is questioned... is the mystique of Vince Young worth throwing a first rounder away? Can the Packers afford to take yet ANOTHER chance, that in 2 or 3 years he MIGHT be good... or get a player that has a much better chance of suceeding and a fill of a definate need?

Young doesn't make sense on almost every level.

So you're a Young hater. Noted. I can see where you'd hate this mock then.I think you're wrong, but no big deal.

Not a hater... he could be the next amazing QB, but my reason for laughing at the Packers pick is because Young is not a sure thing, not even close, its around 50/50 with teams, scouts, etc... as far as I have read and saw. Cutler is higher and Leinart is much higher. But there are people who are in love with him, and rightfully so, but that doesnt make him some sure fire winner, or a good choice that early on for a team who had a wretched defense adn JUST drafted a QB last year in the first round. SUre the salary doesnt matter but you spent a 1st rounder on him... I dont beleive the Packers are the Bills and are going to give up on him already.DT, OG, LB, CB, WR, all are more pressing then a QB... MUCH more pressing. But people drink the Vince Young Kool-Aid and won;t be proven wrong.

I hope he drops like panties on prom night, but I am sure a team like the Cardinals and Raiders will jump all over him.

I appreciate your thoughts, but you cannot know how the Packers grade him. The Michael Jordan comment is compelling. It is very possible that Young is far far and away the best football player in this draft. Likewise it is possible that he doesn't translate to the NFL. His ceiling is among the brightest stars. His floor is Aaron Brooks. Every player in the top 10 is always a huge risk, and we never truly know who will and won't work out. Professional scouts were sincerely torn between Leaf and Manning. Disagree with the pick, fine. Go way over the top with the negatives before the kid ever sees the frozen tundra, over reacting.

Aaron Brooks is a former pro bowler who has led his team to the playoffs. His floor is much lower than that. Ryan Leaf was a #2 overall pick(and many thought he should be #1). Vince's floor is Ryan Leaf.

 

[Despyzer]

For San Diego, AJ Smith Just kicked Brees to the curb and got nothing for him. I expect him to draft a WR or a Offensive Line man with this pick. He has to make Rivers successfull in order to keep his job. Also, the Chargers are sitting on a ton of cap room, so I bet they sign Law, Woodson, or at least Plummer before the draft.

I'll assume you are just trying to be colorful when you say that Brees was kicked to the curb, as it would be hard to interpret that complicated circumstance as one GM getting fed up and getting rid of that one player. I've seen no indication that Smith's job lays in the balance of Rivers' success or lack thereof.If a strong WR, a strong CB, and a strong OT were all available when the Chargers' number comes up, I think the WR would take a seat, as it is one of SD's deepest positions.

I'd be happy if the Chargers went after a top FA CB, but that definitely is not AJ's style. San Diego is more or less done in the free agent market this year. They won't make any splashes.

 

[Keysersoze666]

Andy, you surely stirred up a hornet's nest with the Packer/Vince Young thing, which I don't agree with but good for you creating an entertaining thread. A couple of quick points about this selection.

1) Over and over in the past few years I've noticed that people seemed obsessed with Green Bay selecting a QB "like" Favre as their next QB of the future. I don't get this obsession, even attemping to find a player with similar characteristics is silly strategy at best. When Ron Wolfe came to GB he had already identified Favre as a guy he wanted. This had nothing to do with hiring Mike Holmgren who certainly wouldn't have selected Favre as his ideal candidate to run the 49er west coast offense. Holmgren was inhereiting Don Majkowski as the starter, but as it turned out, the combination of Wolfe's talent acumen, Holmgren's coaching, Ty Detmer's QB brain and Favre's talent, resulted in the Favre we all watched succeed. That combination of elements is not likely to be duplicated.

2) A pure west coast type of QB, accurate, smart, mobile against the rush at the minimum, would benefit the team and NOT Being a gunslinger like Favre would ASSIST in that player becoming accepted by Packer fans. Holmgren had to "tame" Favre down to even attempt the precision principles the offense demanded. Attemping to build a team in the image of the one main player that proceeded it is folly, in my opinion. Maybe Rogers is the guy and maybe he isn't but "trying" to be like Favre is a much greater crime than being different from him.

3) McCarthy has some background developing QB's, after he went to New Orleans they traded for Brooks who was starter material. His time in GB he coached the trio of Favre, Matt Hasselbeck and Brooks. He also developed Jake Delhomme and his QB schools date back to techniques developed by the late Tom Landry and taught to McCarthy by Paul Hackett. McCarthy's situation allows him to be much more of an influence on the Packer's future QB situation than Mike Holmgren was in. I just can't see him betting his future on Young.

Unless Thompson or McCarthy has the same love for Young that Wolfe had for Favre, I just don't see this pick. Thompson saw what it took up close and personal for Hasselbeck to develop in Seattle and McCarthy knew him as well. He was smart, coachable and already had experience in the offense in Green Bay before he ever went to Seattle. I cannot see the pair of them thinking that Young is the future of the franchise, when both have to be thinking in 3-year increments.

To me, Young is a big Michael Vick, a great college player who doesn't translate well to the NFL in his early years. If I were McCarthy, I wouldn't hitch my star to a player who may need 3 years to even approach being a good pro. As a Packer fan, I would be horrified if they took him at 5. Build a defense and find a smart QB who can understand that NOT being Favre is his best chance to succeed.

 

[Kleck.]

Keysersoze666

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Packer homers - on the Young/Rodgers thing - has the team really soured that much on Rodgers? I, for one, would really want to give the kid a legitimate shot before drafting another QB. I mean, Rodgers was widely projected to be the #1 overall pick before Alex Smith's stock soared of late - it seems to me, the Packers got a guy graded (right or wrong) as a potential franchise QB with the 24th pick. Why not give the kid a long look before relegating him to the bench or trading him for a draft pick? If he turns out to be even an above average starting QB in the next couple of years, they've got themselves a bargain (considering the bonuses in his contract aren't easily attainable or strictly individual stat-related - I couldn't find any details.)

 

[Gargoylez]

Andy, you surely stirred up a hornet's nest with the Packer/Vince Young thing, which I don't agree with but good for you creating an entertaining thread. A couple of quick points about this selection.

1) Over and over in the past few years I've noticed that people seemed obsessed with Green Bay selecting a QB "like" Favre as their next QB of the future. I don't get this obsession, even attemping to find a player with similar characteristics is silly strategy at best. When Ron Wolfe came to GB he had already identified Favre as a guy he wanted. This had nothing to do with hiring Mike Holmgren who certainly wouldn't have selected Favre as his ideal candidate to run the 49er west coast offense. Holmgren was inhereiting Don Majkowski as the starter, but as it turned out, the combination of Wolfe's talent acumen, Holmgren's coaching, Ty Detmer's QB brain and Favre's talent, resulted in the Favre we all watched succeed. That combination of elements is not likely to be duplicated.

2) A pure west coast type of QB, accurate, smart, mobile against the rush at the minimum, would benefit the team and NOT Being a gunslinger like Favre would ASSIST in that player becoming accepted by Packer fans. Holmgren had to "tame" Favre down to even attempt the precision principles the offense demanded. Attemping to build a team in the image of the one main player that proceeded it is folly, in my opinion. Maybe Rogers is the guy and maybe he isn't but "trying" to be like Favre is a much greater crime than being different from him.

3) McCarthy has some background developing QB's, after he went to New Orleans they traded for Brooks who was starter material. His time in GB he coached the trio of Favre, Matt Hasselbeck and Brooks. He also developed Jake Delhomme and his QB schools date back to techniques developed by the late Tom Landry and taught to McCarthy by Paul Hackett. McCarthy's situation allows him to be much more of an influence on the Packer's future QB situation than Mike Holmgren was in. I just can't see him betting his future on Young.

Unless Thompson or McCarthy has the same love for Young that Wolfe had for Favre, I just don't see this pick. Thompson saw what it took up close and personal for Hasselbeck to develop in Seattle and McCarthy knew him as well. He was smart, coachable and already had experience in the offense in Green Bay before he ever went to Seattle. I cannot see the pair of them thinking that Young is the future of the franchise, when both have to be thinking in 3-year increments.

To me, Young is a big Michael Vick, a great college player who doesn't translate well to the NFL in his early years. If I were McCarthy, I wouldn't hitch my star to a player who may need 3 years to even approach being a good pro. As a Packer fan, I would be horrified if they took him at 5. Build a defense and find a smart QB who can understand that NOT being Favre is his best chance to succeed.

Well said.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Andy, you surely stirred up a hornet's nest with the Packer/Vince Young thing, which I don't agree with but good for you creating an entertaining thread. A couple of quick points about this selection.

1) Over and over in the past few years I've noticed that people seemed obsessed with Green Bay selecting a QB "like" Favre as their next QB of the future. I don't get this obsession, even attemping to find a player with similar characteristics is silly strategy at best. When Ron Wolfe came to GB he had already identified Favre as a guy he wanted. This had nothing to do with hiring Mike Holmgren who certainly wouldn't have selected Favre as his ideal candidate to run the 49er west coast offense. Holmgren was inhereiting Don Majkowski as the starter, but as it turned out, the combination of Wolfe's talent acumen, Holmgren's coaching, Ty Detmer's QB brain and Favre's talent, resulted in the Favre we all watched succeed. That combination of elements is not likely to be duplicated.

2) A pure west coast type of QB, accurate, smart, mobile against the rush at the minimum, would benefit the team and NOT Being a gunslinger like Favre would ASSIST in that player becoming accepted by Packer fans. Holmgren had to "tame" Favre down to even attempt the precision principles the offense demanded. Attemping to build a team in the image of the one main player that proceeded it is folly, in my opinion. Maybe Rogers is the guy and maybe he isn't but "trying" to be like Favre is a much greater crime than being different from him.

3) McCarthy has some background developing QB's, after he went to New Orleans they traded for Brooks who was starter material. His time in GB he coached the trio of Favre, Matt Hasselbeck and Brooks. He also developed Jake Delhomme and his QB schools date back to techniques developed by the late Tom Landry and taught to McCarthy by Paul Hackett. McCarthy's situation allows him to be much more of an influence on the Packer's future QB situation than Mike Holmgren was in. I just can't see him betting his future on Young.

Unless Thompson or McCarthy has the same love for Young that Wolfe had for Favre, I just don't see this pick. Thompson saw what it took up close and personal for Hasselbeck to develop in Seattle and McCarthy knew him as well. He was smart, coachable and already had experience in the offense in Green Bay before he ever went to Seattle. I cannot see the pair of them thinking that Young is the future of the franchise, when both have to be thinking in 3-year increments.

To me, Young is a big Michael Vick, a great college player who doesn't translate well to the NFL in his early years. If I were McCarthy, I wouldn't hitch my star to a player who may need 3 years to even approach being a good pro. As a Packer fan, I would be horrified if they took him at 5. Build a defense and find a smart QB who can understand that NOT being Favre is his best chance to succeed.

This is terrible posting. Vince Young must be turning people insane.What you're essentially saying is that you wouldn't draft Brett Favre if given the chance because it takes too long for that player to develop.

I'm not saying that VY is the exact same player as Brett Favre. For one, I don't think that Young is as reckless as Favre. Second, Young is more athletic than Favre. He doesn't have the cannon that Favre does, but what he does have is the ability to make plays and incredible leadership ability.

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

 

[brewer]

The funniest thing about this argument to me is that the real Brett Favre wasn't even a first round pick. VY will be one this year, that is for certain. Will he be top 5, I dunno, but it sure looks like top 10 is a safe bet.

This will be one of the biggest risk/reward picks in recent history.

If I were running the Packers, I would draft defense and see if Rogers can be the guy rather than roll the dice with VY but I can certainly see the other side of the argument.

to Andy for stirring the hornets nest.

 

[Kleck.]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

Not when you're in position to draft a player with multiple times the upside of the guy that you drafted the year before.My biggest contention is that Aaron Rogers has very little chance of succeeding in the shadow of Brett Favre.

Just because the Bills have J.P. Losman, they shouldn't consider Vince Young? Just because the Redskins have Jason Campbell, they wouldnt' consider Vince Young if given the chance? The Ravens picked Kyle Boller two years ago, why are they considering Jay Cutler? Why did the Chargers take Rivers when they already had spent a high pick on Brees?

If they believe the guy they're targeting is much better than the guy they took the year before there's no reason not to take him.

 

[fatkid]

Packer homers - on the Young/Rodgers thing - has the team really soured that much on Rodgers? I, for one, would really want to give the kid a legitimate shot before drafting another QB. I mean, Rodgers was widely projected to be the #1 overall pick before Alex Smith's stock soared of late - it seems to me, the Packers got a guy graded (right or wrong) as a potential franchise QB with the 24th pick. Why not give the kid a long look before relegating him to the bench or trading him for a draft pick? If he turns out to be even an above average starting QB in the next couple of years, they've got themselves a bargain (considering the bonuses in his contract aren't easily attainable or strictly individual stat-related - I couldn't find any details.)

Here are the details of Rodgers Contract posted on a free Unoffcial Packer Salary Cap Site:Unofficial Packer Salary Cap Site

Aaron Rogers - (2005) signed a reported five-year, $7.7 million, deal. The contract included a signing bonus of $1.5 million. He has a $3.01 million option bonus due about March 10 that the team must decide whether to exercise. If the Packers don't, Rodgers would remain their property but his base salaries from 2006-'08 would become guaranteed against both skill and injury and increase by $753,000 in '06, by $770,000 in '07 and by $808,000 in '08.

2005 230,000 + $300k PRSB + $620k LBTE <was not prorated>

2006 310,000 + $300k PRSB + $3.01m 'option bonus'(~March 10)

2007 505,000 + $300k PRSB

2008 680,000 + $300k PRSB

2009 800,000 + $300k PRSB

Rodgers Contract is very team freindly in terms of Cap numbers. If I had to choose between Rodgers at these numbers and Young at what the 5th pick gets over the next 3 years, I would probably take Rodgers. But the Packers know more about Rodgers than I do, and if they were not impressed last year, then all bets are off. If I was Rodgers, I would be living in Green Bay this offseason, because if the Packers take Young, his career is over. It would be years before he gets another shot at starting. Sure, he wont get cut, but he would never see the kind of money Drew Bress got. Despyzer - I'll admit to being colorful with the term about brees. AJ Smith's future with the Chargers is going to be predicated on them winning more than on the results of any single decision. But it would have been a lot easier to win the next 2 years with Brees rather than Rivers.

When I first posted, I could only name 2 WR for San Diego, McCardell and Parker. I knew McCardell was old, so I thought they would draft one to replace him. Turns out they took a 2nd round WR last year, so maybe this isn't the need position that I thought.

Finally, I went and looked at their stats from last year, and they were terrible against the pass. They seem to have the pass rush under control with Merriman, so it does seem to be a DB.

 

[Kleck.]

Packer homers - on the Young/Rodgers thing - has the team really soured that much on Rodgers? I, for one, would really want to give the kid a legitimate shot before drafting another QB. I mean, Rodgers was widely projected to be the #1 overall pick before Alex Smith's stock soared of late - it seems to me, the Packers got a guy graded (right or wrong) as a potential franchise QB with the 24th pick. Why not give the kid a long look before relegating him to the bench or trading him for a draft pick? If he turns out to be even an above average starting QB in the next couple of years, they've got themselves a bargain (considering the bonuses in his contract aren't easily attainable or strictly individual stat-related - I couldn't find any details.)

From my understanding, no. Rodgers has not progressed as fast as some would like but nowhere have I seen or read that anyone was ready to give up on him. A bit early to do that, IMO.He was a hell of a bargain at #24. Although I wanted to see them go defense, I really can't argue with the pick on a value standpoint.

 

[Kleck.]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

Not when you're in position to draft a player with multiple times the upside of the guy that you drafted the year before.My biggest contention is that Aaron Rogers has very little chance of succeeding in the shadow of Brett Favre.

Just because the Bills have J.P. Losman, they shouldn't consider Vince Young? Just because the Redskins have Jason Campbell, they wouldnt' consider Vince Young if given the chance? The Ravens picked Kyle Boller two years ago, why are they considering Jay Cutler? Why did the Chargers take Rivers when they already had spent a high pick on Brees?

If they believe the guy they're targeting is much better than the guy they took the year before there's no reason not to take him.

Rodgers has had very limited game time and zero starts to prove himself. Much less than Losman and the others you listed, and none of those teams in your example used or would be using consecutive 1st round picks on QBs. I think you make decent points why Young could be a better "Favre replacement" than Rodgers, but my biggest contention is that NO QB will be able to replace Farve and never will. I don't think it's in the teams best interest to be loking for a Favre II that doesn't exist and rely on that guy to win them games. The real Favre can't win games by himself and I don't see how Favre II would do any better. They need to build the rest of the team and improve in those areas before Green Bay becomes a serious playoff contender again.

If Thompson feels Young is the BPA at #5 he might just do it. I won't say that it is impossible because with Thompson you really never know until a decison is made. I also don't know how he has the rookie ranked and Lord knows he won't give any hints, but I think it will be very hard for him to sell that to the team and fans.

 

[Spike]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

If it was the same GM who made the picks, I would agree. I think, if Young (or another QB) is the pick, it'll be easier to sell.

 

[cstu]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

Not when you're in position to draft a player with multiple times the upside of the guy that you drafted the year before.My biggest contention is that Aaron Rogers has very little chance of succeeding in the shadow of Brett Favre.

Just because the Bills have J.P. Losman, they shouldn't consider Vince Young? Just because the Redskins have Jason Campbell, they wouldnt' consider Vince Young if given the chance? The Ravens picked Kyle Boller two years ago, why are they considering Jay Cutler? Why did the Chargers take Rivers when they already had spent a high pick on Brees?

If they believe the guy they're targeting is much better than the guy they took the year before there's no reason not to take him.

Rodgers has had very limited game time and zero starts to prove himself. Much less than Losman and the others you listed, and none of those teams in your example used or would be using consecutive 1st round picks on QBs. I think you make decent points why Young could be a better "Favre replacement" than Rodgers, but my biggest contention is that NO QB will be able to replace Farve and never will. I don't think it's in the teams best interest to be loking for a Favre II that doesn't exist and rely on that guy to win them games. The real Favre can't win games by himself and I don't see how Favre II would do any better. They need to build the rest of the team and improve in those areas before Green Bay becomes a serious playoff contender again.

If Thompson feels Young is the BPA at #5 he might just do it. I won't say that it is impossible because with Thompson you really never know until a decison is made. I also don't know how he has the rookie ranked and Lord knows he won't give any hints, but I think it will be very hard for him to sell that to the team and fans.

I think there's also the risk of destroying a potentially good QB by making him follow a legend. Steve Young is a guy who did but he was in his late 20's and knew the system well before taking over. I hate the idea of throwing a young QB to the wolves to get killed by the media and fans for not being Favre. I'd really like to see Favre play another year and let Rodgers gain another year of experience on the bench before taking over in 2007.

 

[Keysersoze666]

Andy, you surely stirred up a hornet's nest with the Packer/Vince Young thing, which I don't agree with but good for you creating an entertaining thread.  A couple of quick points about this selection.

1) Over and over in the past few years I've noticed that people seemed obsessed with Green Bay selecting a QB "like" Favre as their next QB of the future.  I don't get this obsession, even attemping to find a player with similar characteristics is silly strategy at best.  When Ron Wolfe came to GB he had already identified Favre as a guy he wanted.  This had nothing to do with hiring Mike Holmgren who certainly wouldn't have selected Favre as his ideal candidate to run the 49er west coast offense.  Holmgren was inhereiting Don Majkowski as the starter, but as it turned out, the combination of Wolfe's talent acumen, Holmgren's coaching, Ty Detmer's QB brain and Favre's talent, resulted in the Favre we all watched succeed.  That combination of elements is not likely to be duplicated.

2) A pure west coast type of QB, accurate, smart, mobile against the rush at the minimum, would benefit the team and NOT Being a gunslinger like Favre would ASSIST in that player becoming accepted by Packer fans.  Holmgren had to "tame" Favre down to even attempt the precision principles the offense demanded. Attemping to build a team in the image of the one main player that proceeded it is folly, in my opinion.  Maybe Rogers is the guy and maybe he isn't but "trying" to be like Favre is a much greater crime than being different from him.

3) McCarthy has some background developing QB's, after he went to New Orleans they traded for Brooks who was starter material.  His time in GB he coached the trio of Favre, Matt Hasselbeck and Brooks.  He also developed Jake Delhomme and his QB schools date back to techniques developed by the late Tom Landry and taught to McCarthy by Paul Hackett.  McCarthy's situation allows him to be much more of an influence on the Packer's future QB situation than Mike Holmgren was in.  I just can't see him betting his future on Young.

Unless Thompson or McCarthy has the same love for Young that Wolfe had for Favre, I just don't see this pick.  Thompson saw what it took up close and personal for Hasselbeck to develop in Seattle and McCarthy knew him as well.  He was smart, coachable and already had experience in the offense in Green Bay before he ever went to Seattle.  I cannot see the pair of them thinking that Young is the future of the franchise, when both have to be thinking in 3-year increments.

To me, Young is a big Michael Vick, a great college player who doesn't translate well to the NFL in his early years.  If I were McCarthy, I wouldn't hitch my star to a player who may need 3 years to even approach being a good pro.  As a Packer fan, I would be horrified if they took him at 5.  Build a defense and find a smart QB who can understand that NOT being Favre is his best chance to succeed.

This is terrible posting. Vince Young must be turning people insane.What you're essentially saying is that you wouldn't draft Brett Favre if given the chance because it takes too long for that player to develop.

I'm not saying that VY is the exact same player as Brett Favre. For one, I don't think that Young is as reckless as Favre. Second, Young is more athletic than Favre. He doesn't have the cannon that Favre does, but what he does have is the ability to make plays and incredible leadership ability.

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

Hey Andy, I was simply trying to recreate the circumstances under which Favre ended up with the Packers and how unlikely that whole situation was. Favre was not a QB that a guy like Holmgren would have hand-picked. I also don't think Young is the type that McCarthy would drool over. Young is talented I won't argue differently, I live in Ohio and I can still see that pass that beat the Buckeyes. BUT, McCarthy loves a precision offense and had issues with Brooks in NO at various times over this exact issue. He and Thompson will have had alot more time together to make a QB decision than the Wolf/Holmgren combo did and in my opinion this gives McCarthy "more" input into the decision that Holmgren had. I also think that Mario Williams or AJ Hawk are can't-miss types that don't carry Young's risk level.

Young is not polished at taking snaps under center. He is not polished at reading defenses during his dropback. Compared to a QB like Lienart I just don't see him developing those "pro" level skills as quickly. If you reread what I wrote before I never once said I thought Rogers is more "cerebral", that was your choice of word. In fact I didn't say a single positive word on Rogers, the post was all about the process that MIGHT lead to Young's selection. I did insinuate that McCarthy would be better off tying his first head coaching job to someone other than Young at QB. Maybe that's Rogers and maybe it isn't.

Lastly, I know Young and Favre aren't exactly alike, Young was more athletic and ran ALOT more in college. You and I agree that where they are similar is in their ability to make a positive play after the original play had broken down and in their own sense of self-confidence. I think this is the legacy that set Favre apart and that Ron Wolf coveted. Favre continued this in the pros and we are debating whether Young can do the same thing. I've looked high and hard to see if there are any Ron Wolf comments on Young because Ted Thompson is a Wolf protoge and after Wolf's run of picking QB's with the Packers you know Thompson has mined the old master's mind. I have not found any thus far but if Wolf were high on Vince then you may have a scoop indeed.

One thing is true, no one considered Favre cerebral and many thought he was too wild to ever to tamed; one guy thought differently and look what happened. I guess I'm trying to figure out who that GUY is in this situation. I'll also admit that I may just be flat wrong on evaluating Vince Young, truth be told, I was pissed when I heard about the Favre trade, though most of us had never seen him play, unlike Young. Still a good topic, well done.

 

[Gargoylez]

Kind of a moot point, cuz it will NEVER happen. So anyways, on to other mocks...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Skewed the whole draft... Stopped reading fromthere.

With all the holes they need to fill and the lack of depth on both lines, you honestly think Ngati wouldnt be a slam dunk here??? an AJ Hawk would make a hell of alot of sense... who do you think the Packers are, the Lions? Drafting a QB in the first round 2 years in a row? then next year another?

Never in a million years. Appreciate the limb you went out on, but the mock is skewed and the order is screwed up with this one.

In terms of "skewing" the draft you could always just pretend Hawk went at 5 and Young at 7 like many mocks have. Those two are the same here (except switched) so I don't see how it skewed the whole thing even if you don't think the pick is possible.

 

[Gargoylez]

Skewed the whole draft... Stopped reading fromthere.

With all the holes they need to fill and the lack of depth on both lines, you honestly think Ngati wouldnt be a slam dunk here??? an AJ Hawk would make a hell of alot of sense... who do you think the Packers are, the Lions? Drafting a QB in the first round 2 years in a row? then next year another?

Never in a million years. Appreciate the limb you went out on, but the mock is skewed and the order is screwed up with this one.

In terms of "skewing" the draft you could always just pretend Hawk went at 5 and Young at 7 like many mocks have. Those two are the same here (except switched) so I don't see how it skewed the whole thing even if you don't think the pick is possible.

Good point, never thought of that.

 

[Wadsworth]

Vince Young is certainly like Mike Vick in one way. People seem to either love him or hate him.

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

When are the Cards going to replace Jim Hart? Who was the last great QB to suit up for the Bears, Lions, Ravens(/old browns or old colts), Jets, or Giants? The list could go on for a while. If the brass in Green Bay think Vince Young is that good, then they have to take him. QB is the most important position in football and having a great QB improves your team more than having a great player at any other position.

If they take Vince and he's great it doesn't mean that they won't still have a lot of work to do, but it's a lot easier to find players at every other position. You simply don't pass on QBs that you think could be great.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Vince Young is certainly like Mike Vick in one way. People seem to either love him or hate him.

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

When are the Cards going to replace Jim Hart? Who was the last great QB to suit up for the Bears, Lions, Ravens(/old browns or old colts), Jets, or Giants? The list could go on for a while. If the brass in Green Bay think Vince Young is that good, then they have to take him. QB is the most important position in football and having a great QB improves your team more than having a great player at any other position.

If they take Vince and he's great it doesn't mean that they won't still have a lot of work to do, but it's a lot easier to find players at every other position. You simply don't pass on QBs that you think could be great.

It just depends on how they grade him.

 

[Kirby]

I'll just reply to the two teams I pay attention to.

Miami - Chad Jackson... this is the pick I expect them to make... brilliant!

Cincy- I think they go with Youboty... they do need a young safety.. but it's a position where you can find a diamond in the 2nd.

 

[nygiants56]

Andy , great list! like what you've done.. the `VY to GB` prediction is bold but makes PERFECT sense - they have a bad o-line and need a QB who can run and create on the fly!

I'm intrigued by the Denver picks..my question is do you think they bundle the picks together and move up to take Vernon Davis IF Ricky Williams wins his appeal, and isn't suspended? Does Denver then become the frontrunner for Ricky's services? did they leaked the report about the failed test perhaps to scare others away and to lessen Miami's asking price, so they can get him for peanuts with a late round pick?

another direction Denver could take is to draft Santonio Holmes and a TE at #15 or 22 and trade for Ricky Williams of he wins his appeal..do you see this happening at all?

Leinart to Tenn makes perfect sense..he'll be the opening day starter if McNair is released.

what about the Gmen trading up to take a LB early?

 

[Gargoylez]

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

Its does. Big time. First round pick are traditionally foundation players and to excuse it otherwise means to me, if the Packers do draft Young, they just blew a first round pick last year and possibly this year as well on the same risk they are taking with Rodgers. Essentially two possible top flight defensive players who could REALLY help the team has been lost to no one who is going to make the team better in say 2-3 years... inf act they will hinder them if they play until they get their legs about them.Bigtime needs are EXTREMELY important to a team trying to rebuild. For the Colts, yeah, I can buy that theory, but to shun BIGTIME needs on a team that is struggling and rebuilding...



No Offense, but thats ridiculous. Young will goto the Raiders or Cardinals most likely... Both need other things but has a history of drafting less then spectacular. Maybe the Lions too, LOL.

 

[Keysersoze666]

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

Its does. Big time. First round pick are traditionally foundation players and to excuse it otherwise means to me, if the Packers do draft Young, they just blew a first round pick last year and possibly this year as well on the same risk they are taking with Rodgers. Essentially two possible top flight defensive players who could REALLY help the team has been lost to no one who is going to make the team better in say 2-3 years... inf act they will hinder them if they play until they get their legs about them.Bigtime needs are EXTREMELY important to a team trying to rebuild. For the Colts, yeah, I can buy that theory, but to shun BIGTIME needs on a team that is struggling and rebuilding...



No Offense, but thats ridiculous. Young will goto the Raiders or Cardinals most likely... Both need other things but has a history of drafting less then spectacular. Maybe the Lions too, LOL.

I agree Gargoylez, I can't see Mike McCarthy thinking that Young will be great in any kind of time-frame in which McCarthy would still be the head coach. However, I can see he and Ted Thompson agreeing that AJ Hawk or Mario Willams would have an Immediate impact on the team's play.

 

[Kleck.]

To say that you would take a player like Rogers because he's more "cerebral" than Vince Young is lunacy.

I won't argue that Rodgers is going to be the better Pro than Young, but using two first round picks on QBs in consecutive years is whats lunacy. It will be very tough for Thompson to sell that to the fans.

If it was the same GM who made the picks, I would agree. I think, if Young (or another QB) is the pick, it'll be easier to sell.

It would be the same GM. Thompson took over as GM before the 2005 draft.

 

[Wadsworth]

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

Its does. Big time. First round pick are traditionally foundation players and to excuse it otherwise means to me, if the Packers do draft Young, they just blew a first round pick last year and possibly this year as well on the same risk they are taking with Rodgers. Essentially two possible top flight defensive players who could REALLY help the team has been lost to no one who is going to make the team better in say 2-3 years... inf act they will hinder them if they play until they get their legs about them.Bigtime needs are EXTREMELY important to a team trying to rebuild. For the Colts, yeah, I can buy that theory, but to shun BIGTIME needs on a team that is struggling and rebuilding...



No Offense, but thats ridiculous. Young will goto the Raiders or Cardinals most likely... Both need other things but has a history of drafting less then spectacular. Maybe the Lions too, LOL.

You are basing your opinion on how you grade out Young. Yes, if they think he's just another guy that might develop one day(which is what you seem to think), then of course they go another direction. But the Packers should be basing their choice on how they grade Young. And while there are certainly a lot of people that consider him a risk or even a bust, there are also many that think he's a special leader, with freakish skills that is close to ready to start. Young to the Pack would be a shocker. But to say there's no reason to do it because they took Rodgers last year is not sound reasoning. You grade out the players and make your choices based on those grades. If the Pack grade him out as the top player in the draft, how can they pass on him? And why should they pass on him?

You don't pass on Michael Jordan because you already have a 2 guard. Is Vince Young Michael Jordan? I don't think so, but it doesn't matter what I think. If the brain trust in Green Bay think he's Jordan, they should pull the trigger.

 

[Keysersoze666]

I agree that if the "brain trust" in Green Bay thinks Vince Young is Jordan then they SHOULD pull the trigger, I just think I would disagree on what the target should be. Most experts advocate putting the gun to your temple and not in your mouth for a more assured kill.

Again, if you follow McCarthy's offensive concepts there is virtually nothing about Vince Young at this point to make him be a sure-fire NFL QB. Brains, accuracy and decision-making are not at the top of his good list. Now I'd be the first to admit that I could be totally wrong and Young may end up being great as an NFL QB. As I've stated before, these attributes were not at the top of Favre's list either. BUT, the GM LOVED Favre and acquired him whether Holmgren wanted him or not.

I simply do not see this same situation now and I'd be shocked if the Packers took Young. The analogy is weak at best anyway because no one KNEW for sure that Jordan was Jordan when he got drafted. Besides, how much of a reach is it to say that IF they have him rated as the TOP pick that they should take him at #5?

 

[Kleck.]

I gotta hand it to you Andy Dufresne, I never put much thought into Green Bay possibly selecting Young at #5 until your mock. I've actually had quite a few conversations about it with others since, and a couple guys really agree that he should be the pick if available.

What I believe is best for the team means jack####, it's all Thompson and at this point is anyone's guess. I wasn't happy with Rodgers right off the bat last year and I came around later on to support the pick. As a fan I'm sure I'd do the same if Young is drafted, but I will need to hear some solid reasoning from Thompson before for doing so.

Agree or disagree, you have started a great topic of discussion and I compliment you on having the nuts to post it, and moreso having some reasoning to back it up.

 

[Gargoylez]

The only question for the Pack in regard to this pick is if they think Vince Young can be a great QB. If the answer is yes, then they should draft him. Taking a QB in the first last year doesn't matter. Having many other bigtime needs doesn't matter.

Its does. Big time. First round pick are traditionally foundation players and to excuse it otherwise means to me, if the Packers do draft Young, they just blew a first round pick last year and possibly this year as well on the same risk they are taking with Rodgers. Essentially two possible top flight defensive players who could REALLY help the team has been lost to no one who is going to make the team better in say 2-3 years... inf act they will hinder them if they play until they get their legs about them.Bigtime needs are EXTREMELY important to a team trying to rebuild. For the Colts, yeah, I can buy that theory, but to shun BIGTIME needs on a team that is struggling and rebuilding...



No Offense, but thats ridiculous. Young will goto the Raiders or Cardinals most likely... Both need other things but has a history of drafting less then spectacular. Maybe the Lions too, LOL.

You are basing your opinion on how you grade out Young. Yes, if they think he's just another guy that might develop one day(which is what you seem to think), then of course they go another direction. But the Packers should be basing their choice on how they grade Young. And while there are certainly a lot of people that consider him a risk or even a bust, there are also many that think he's a special leader, with freakish skills that is close to ready to start. Young to the Pack would be a shocker. But to say there's no reason to do it because they took Rodgers last year is not sound reasoning. You grade out the players and make your choices based on those grades. If the Pack grade him out as the top player in the draft, how can they pass on him? And why should they pass on him?

You don't pass on Michael Jordan because you already have a 2 guard. Is Vince Young Michael Jordan? I don't think so, but it doesn't matter what I think. If the brain trust in Green Bay think he's Jordan, they should pull the trigger.

Who is to say Cutler isn't on top of there list. As a simple FAN, making observations, Cutler would be a much better fit then Young will. Cutler has the smarts and arm strength. Young does not or has not showed it yet.The Pack will draft a DT most likely. I like the topic, its IS something different, but it was meant for discussion, not to be based on reality. The chances of them taking young is maybe 5%. So we are discussing 5% of one pick in what 250+.

Lets move on and figure out who the Packers have a much better chance of drafting... seriously.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The Pack will draft a DT most likely.

Now who's ?

Lets move on and figure out who the Packers have a much better chance of drafting... seriously.

I'd settle for discussion on ANY of the other 63 picks.