2010 Packers Draft Revisited

[Curly Calhoun]

I remember hearing once that you can't really evaluate a draft class until five years after the fact, That's when you look at who you drafted, who is still on the team, and who is at least still in the league. That said, Ted's class of 2010 looks like one of his better efforts:

2010 - Green Bay Packers

1 23 Bryan Bulaga T Iowa
2 56 Mike Neal DE Purdue
3 71 Morgan Burnett SS Georgia Tech
5 154 Andrew Quarless TE Penn State
5 169 Marshall Newhouse T Texas Christian
6 193 James Starks RB Buffalo
7 230 C.J. Wilson DE East Carolina

 

[tynimiller]

Be very very tough to top this draft honestly from a top to bottom way of thinking.

 

[Clev44]

My personal opinions,

1- Bulaga is a top tackle in the league when healthy, struggles at times with speed but I think he was a steal.

2- Neal is productive player, but expectations were a little higher (doesn't help that he is asked to play a different position almost yearly)

3- Burnett hasn't really shined, for being such a ball hawk in college it hasn't really translated much to the NFL. But a starter year in and year out, good value for third round pick.

4- Quarless is not the most productive player, but is on his second contract and does what he is asked to do. Not going to be a top 10 TE, but thats not what is expected out of him either. Great value for a 5th round pick.

5- Newhouse always had the measurable and played when needed, but it always seemed like their was more potential then actual ability. Doesn't have the necessary fire that offensive linemen require to be a consistent starter.

6- Starks great value in the 6th round, an absolute steal. Has his limitations in the passing game and injuries but very productive player for a backup. Helped win us a Super Bowl with his playoff performance.

7- CJ Wilson another productive player in the 7th round. Still starting in the league and thats more then you usually expect from a 7th rounder. Always under appreciated here, did his job well when playing. Did the dirty work, nothing more and nothing less. Wasn't the type that made eye catching plays but was dependeble and his production > expectations.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I remember hearing once that you can't really evaluate a draft class until five years after the fact, That's when you look at who you drafted, who is still on the team, and who is at least still in the league. That said, Ted's class of 2010 looks like one of his better efforts:

2010 - Green Bay Packers

1 23 Bryan Bulaga T Iowa
2 56 Mike Neal DE Purdue
3 71 Morgan Burnett SS Georgia Tech
5 154 Andrew Quarless TE Penn State
5 169 Marshall Newhouse T Texas Christian
6 193 James Starks RB Buffalo
7 230 C.J. Wilson DE East Carolina

You can tell what you have after 3 years.

 

[tynimiller]

You can tell what you have after 3 years.

Typically I'd agree...however I bet after 3 years opinions of guys like Quarless would differ.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Typically I'd agree...however I bet after 3 years opinions of guys like Quarless would differ.

Not as far as I'm concerned, particularly with respect to Quarless. These players are essentially who they were after 3 years, with one exception. Neal dropped 25 lbs., plus or minus, and switched to OLB. He's a little more impactful at his new position, but nothing that shows up in the win-loss column.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

You can tell what you have after 3 years.

Yes and no. After 5 years, if all or most of your players are still in the league, that says a little bit more than the same after three years. The packers got a least some productivity out of all of these guys, and Starks turned out to be a good value for a sixth rounder.


There was an interesting story about how Starks ended up in Green Bay - It seems that the Bears were interested in him as well, and when their turn was coming up in the sixth round, someone from the Bears called Starks and told him he was coming to Chicago. Starks was watching the draft on TV and watched in disappointment as the Bears took a quarterback (Dan LeFevour). Starks eventually dropped all the way to Green Bay. LeFevour ended up in the CFL.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes and no. After 5 years, if all or most of your players are still in the league, that says a little bit more than the same after three years.

According to the league office at the time of the last CBA negotiation, the average career of rookies that make an opening day roster is 6 years. Obviously, when excluding guys who have a career ending injury in the first 5 years, the average is longer. Having most draftees stick in the league for 5 years is not that remarkable.

 

[Packer Fan in SD]

Not sure why the qualifier of "making the opening day roster". Per the NFLPA the average career length (includes all players drafted or signed) is 3.3 years. Quite a difference since obviously not very player drafted makes an opening day roster. I would agree having this many players still in the league 5 years later is quite a haul from one draft.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not sure why the qualifier of "making the opening day roster". Per the NFLPA the average career length (includes all players drafted or signed) is 3.3 years. Quite a difference since obviously not very player drafted makes an opening day roster. I would agree having this many players still in the league 5 years later is quite a haul from one draft.

You'd have to ask the NFLPA who they are including.

Perhaps they include the 15% of players on the old 8 man practice squads, many of whom wash out after a year or two, lowering the average. Or maybe they go so far to include anybody who ever made an 80 man training camp roster, or whatever the number was at the time. Many of those guys end up with a just a couple of months of service.

2010 was a decent draft, not great, and we knew that after 3 years. The 2011 draft was weak; we don't need another year to make that judgement, just as we know 2012 to have been weak without having to wait any further to know it.

 

[profile_removed]

I actually thought 2008 was the best TT draft. The only bust he seemed to have in that class was Brian Brohm. Flynn started multiple games for us, and he was a 7th rounder!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Burnett hasn't really shined, for being such a ball hawk in college it hasn't really translated much to the NFL. But a starter year in and year out, good value for third round pick.

Burnett had a great season in 2014, especially supporting against the run as a strong safety. He had an off-season in 2013 but that year he had a tough assignment playing next to the doctor and McMillian.

 

[Clev44]

Burnett had a great season in 2014, especially supporting against the run as a strong safety. He had an off-season in 2013 but that year he had a tough assignment playing next to the doctor and McMillian.

Our definitions of great must be different. I would say he was an adequate starter, but didn't make many game changing plays to be considered great in my eyes. Hopefully Clinton Dix helps him to be better, more reliable partner then what he was working with. Burnett is good against the run, but always a step behind in coverage. And like I said 2 turnovers forced in 2 years is far below his college production, he was labeled as a turnover machine and ball hawk coming out of college, that hasn't translated yet.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Our definitions of great must be different. I would say he was an adequate starter, but didn't make many game changing plays to be considered great in my eyes. Hopefully Clinton Dix helps him to be better, more reliable partner then what he was working with. Burnett is good against the run, but always a step behind in coverage. And like I said 2 turnovers forced in 2 years is far below his college production, he was labeled as a turnover machine and ball hawk coming out of college, that hasn't translated yet.

Burnett mostly lines up at strong safety with his main assignment to help in run defense. PFF had him ranked as the best safety in run defense last season and he was third in run stop percentage.