1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

What to do with TEN picks in Day 3...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by BorderRivals.com, Apr 26, 2013.

  1. ExpatPacker
    Offline

    ExpatPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,068
    Location:
    A Galaxy Far, Far Away
    Ratings:
    +388 / 7 / -0

    Patton will probably come off the board right away. If the Packers want him I bet they'll have to move into the top 4 or 5.
  2. FrankRizzo
    Offline

    FrankRizzo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,771
    Location:
    Dallas
    Ratings:
    +1,608 / 59 / -33
    Packer Fan Since:
    1969
    Or top 1, 2, 3 yes I agree.
    One would think......
  3. ThxJackVainisi
    Offline

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    2,739
    Ratings:
    +1,887 / 48 / -33
    I understand this is “venting” or “ranting” but it contains some strange “logic” or assumptions. “Thompson just couldn’t help himself” implies that Thompson has a compulsion to trade down for trading down’s sake. But just last year he traded up three times. He went into that draft with 12 picks and got 8 players – and he had four comp picks he couldn’t trade. So Thompson obviously could have "helped himself".

    The next assumption is picks in rounds 4-7 will battle for the last spots on the roster. Daniels, McMillian, House, Lang and Sitton. That’s a partial list of Thompson’s 4th rounders. We don’t need 10 more players? Remember how many UDFAs they signed after last year’s draft? Getting extra picks is a recognition that even with all the man hours and money spent on the draft it’s a crap shoot. And the more picks you have the better your chances of hitting on a player.

    Should Thompson have taken Lacy at #55 instead of #61? Of course not, right? And if Thompson and staff determined the talent tier extended from pick #88 through #109, trading down and picking up 3 more chances on hitting on a keeper makes all kinds of sense. I am confident that if there were a player at #88 or #93 that they viewed as head and shoulders better than any other, they would have pulled the trigger on him.

    Ironically (regarding BorderRivals’ post) there’s an April 20th packernews.com story titled, “For Thompson, drafting quality begins with quantity” http://www.packersnews.com/article/...For-Thompson-drafting-quality-begins-quantity
    It notes since Thompson arrived the Packers have averaged two more picks per draft than the next closest division rival, the Bears. Thompson learned a baseball analogy applicable to the draft from Wolf: “… if you have more swings you have a better chance at getting a hit.”
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Shawnsta3
    Offline

    Shawnsta3 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    926
    Location:
    Manawa & Shawano, WI
    Ratings:
    +319 / 41 / -1
    Packer Fan Since:
    1996
    Right again. I swear I agree with all your posts.
  5. gbpowner
    Offline

    gbpowner Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    192
    Location:
    Hudson, WI
    Ratings:
    +86 / 3 / -0
    With the massive CM/AR contracts, it will become imperative for the Packers to always supplement the roster with younger, cheaper talent to stay competitive. The philosophy of "more swings at the plate" will become our team building philosophy. However, this has been pretty much the Packers m.o. even before the 2 big contracts.
  6. PikeBadger
    Offline

    PikeBadger Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    188
    Ratings:
    +51 / 3 / -1
    Packer Fan Since:
    1963
    Great List!

    I'm not big on Barrett Jones though. I'd rather have Schwenke.
    I'm also hoping he drafts at least one high motor nose tackle that can replace Raji in 2014.
  7. PackFanNChiTown
    Offline

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Plainfield, IL
    Ratings:
    +348 / 22 / -4
    Am I the only one concerned about the lack of defensive picks so far other than Jones? I approve of the additions to the O-Line because that was also a need but wish we were focusing on safety and ILB. Still time obviously but I'm concerned about the D's ability to rise up against the mobile QBs and the run.
  8. ivo610
    Offline

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,057
    Location:
    Madison
    Ratings:
    +3,522 / 86 / -26
    I would have gone more defense heavy but as always, in Ted I trust
  9. PackFanNChiTown
    Offline

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    Plainfield, IL
    Ratings:
    +348 / 22 / -4
    So it turns out he DID get a couple LBs in the lower rounds, guess we'll find out what they can do.
  10. 13 Times Champs
    Offline

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,377 / 86 / -17
    Packer Fan Since:
    1960
    My take exactly. Ted has certainly had more success with third round picks.

Share This Page