Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2013 needs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 476223"><p>So long it is acknowledged that need is a component of the decision process, then the term "best player available" is rendered meaningless.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>That's a bit of revisionist history. At the time of the draft, Shields was so deep in the dog house they started camp with Bush at the top of the depth chart. You have to believe they were aware of Bush's limitations, which gives some indication of how p*ssed they were with Shields' 2011 play. House was injured almost from the start of camp in 2011. They went into the draft with Tramon and a bunch of question marks. Woodson going to safety exacerbated the problem. They needed a quality guy who had a chance of coming in and producing as a rookie to offset those risks.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Nelson is really the only high pick example I can thing of that fits BPA, with many examples that don't. Arguing that Rodgers pick did not have a need component is naive. Favre was turning 36 in the year Rodgers was drafted. Proper planning would have a rookie QB should sit on the bench for the first two years. Notice I did not even mention Favre's pain-in-the-*** tendencies.</p><p> </p><p>Ask youself this...had Favre been 25 years old when the chance to pick Rodgers had come along, would they have picked him? The answer has to be "unlikely", for the same reasons we have Harrell and Coleman sitting on our bench. In that case Rodgers might have been the best player available, but that would have been a lot of money (pre-rookie salary structure) for a guy who would not see the field in a Packer uni, and that's a need consideration.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>You'll get no argument from me. But that's not the same thing as "best player available" and that does not preclude reaching some to fill a need.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 476223"] So long it is acknowledged that need is a component of the decision process, then the term "best player available" is rendered meaningless. That's a bit of revisionist history. At the time of the draft, Shields was so deep in the dog house they started camp with Bush at the top of the depth chart. You have to believe they were aware of Bush's limitations, which gives some indication of how p*ssed they were with Shields' 2011 play. House was injured almost from the start of camp in 2011. They went into the draft with Tramon and a bunch of question marks. Woodson going to safety exacerbated the problem. They needed a quality guy who had a chance of coming in and producing as a rookie to offset those risks. Nelson is really the only high pick example I can thing of that fits BPA, with many examples that don't. Arguing that Rodgers pick did not have a need component is naive. Favre was turning 36 in the year Rodgers was drafted. Proper planning would have a rookie QB should sit on the bench for the first two years. Notice I did not even mention Favre's pain-in-the-*** tendencies. Ask youself this...had Favre been 25 years old when the chance to pick Rodgers had come along, would they have picked him? The answer has to be "unlikely", for the same reasons we have Harrell and Coleman sitting on our bench. In that case Rodgers might have been the best player available, but that would have been a lot of money (pre-rookie salary structure) for a guy who would not see the field in a Packer uni, and that's a need consideration. You'll get no argument from me. But that's not the same thing as "best player available" and that does not preclude reaching some to fill a need. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
SudsMcBucky
Latest posts
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: milani
25 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: CarryTheG14
52 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
M
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Magooch
Today at 11:43 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
P
The Crew - 2026
Latest: Pugger
Today at 10:17 AM
Milwaukee Brewers Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: Curly Calhoun
Today at 8:28 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2013 needs
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
