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 or

    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!
    Dismiss Notice

Check this out...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by millertime, Oct 30, 2006.

  1. millertime

    millertime Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    Man, looking at all those blown drafts is brutal. I know some of you will say that this is counter productive and its in the past, but this shows you how important the draft is. I'm glad we have TT selecting the picks for us.


    http://www.packers.com/team/how_built/
     
  2. millertime

    millertime Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    We only have one player left from each of the 2002, 2003, and 2004 drafts.
     
  3. spardo62

    spardo62 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    559
    Ratings:
    +0
    Only 5 players left from the 2001 -2004 drafts(I am guessing that was a minimum of 20 picks), not a very good percentage and also a big reason for where we were last year and this year.

    Although, we were a winning team and selecting towards the end of each round those 4 years making it a little more difficult, especially in the later rounds, but you would have thought we would have landed some solid players if not stars.
     
  4. Packers_Finland

    Packers_Finland Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Messages:
    283
    Ratings:
    +0
    We need better picks
     
  5. millertime

    millertime Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    I know all of those wasted 1st and 2nds kill.
     
  6. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Picking later is not a good excuse. A late first round pick should be better than the early 2nd rounders. Same for the late 2nd rounder. There's a lot of talent to be had throughout the draft. Just look at the gems we've got in a couple of 7th rounders: Driver and Tauscher.

    Drafting was the worst part of Sherman's work as a GM.
     
  7. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    TT thus far looks to me like at the very least the guy can flat out draft with the best of them.

    In this years draft he looks to have hit on AJ, Colledge(where did that poster go that said this guy was a disaster???), Jennings, Hodge, Spitz, Jolly, and Culver.

    All of these guys have shown the ability to either be good serviceable players all the way to great players on this team. Nice way to build a team.
     
  8. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    As long as youre taking the BPA of the middle first round you should be fine.
     
  9. millertime

    millertime Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    Messages:
    841
    Ratings:
    +0
    the colts and new england are two of the top teams. along with the eagles these teams win a lot of games, but still draft well. you win in the draft not free agency (redskins, browns)
     
  10. net

    net Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    980
    Ratings:
    +86
    There's a flaw in the logic.

    1)The new GM wants "his" players, so he makes moves accordingly. This is nothing new and happens with each team as they change managers.

    2)That type of turnover is not unusual....Jake DelHomme is the starting QB for a very successful team. Was he a #1 pick? Tom Brady? Drafting is a crap shoot at best. Donald Driver is among the league's best, but was a 7th round pick.

    Mike Sherman favored veterans. He didn't like rookies. Please don't try to make the case that Sherman was a failure. His record speaks otherwise. His PHILOSOPHY was he didn't like to draft rookies. He was successful doing it until Thompson arrived with a different philosophy.

    Ted Thompson likes to build through the draft. He has a coach who also can work with younger players. I think this approach will also be successful. BOTH APPROACHES CAN WIN.

    The lack of victories last season was the direct result of the changeover of philosophies, not the lack of players. The Packers defense, for example, was among the leagues best last year. Statistically, it's among the worst this year. Yet you think last year stunk and this year is ok.

    Both approaches can be successful. A winning team is a combination of talent, coaching, lack of injuries, schedule and flat out breaks.

    The draft is only one element of a successful team.
     
  11. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    17,843
    Ratings:
    +3,485
    Excellent post cept for the defense was among the best last year..The D was only average at best, 7th ranked?? Hardly, just cuz of the skewed stats of being #1 agasint the pass..And that stat is not a trrue measure of the D..

    ESPN has a stat page for the D last year, check it out
     
  12. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Of course...net. What new GM came in and drafted guys and then cut them all in favor of veterans on the team? And someone please explain to me once again what a great draft Thompson had in 2005. I will say that it looks like he did an excellent job in the 2006 draft but the 2005 draft sucked. It was a total waste. I loved Collins last year but he has played poorly this season. You can't even mention anyone else out of that draft. Poppinga is playing because we screwed up in our free agency with Ben Taylor. And don't give me any of that Rodgers crap....at least not until he has contributed to the team.

    I wish this subject would have come up previously...it would have been fun debating it :roll:
     
  13. Buckeyepackfan

    Buckeyepackfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    804
    Ratings:
    +0
    The re-writing of Packer history has to be done to make TT look like a genius!!!

    So far most of the moves he has done seem to be working out.

    So why not be happy with that and quit trying to write off the fact that when MS was in Green bay it was a pretty successful time.

    Some of you seem to be trying just a little to hard to prop up TT, things are what they are, nothing anyone on these forums can do about it.
     
  14. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Buckeye you nailed it. I don't think there are any TT haters on this board anymore (they were either kicked off or chose to leave), but there are soooo many people that would try to turn any incident into a "TT is a genius" event.

    Hopefully this team improves and this draft turns out to be as good as it looks. TT can be judged, I believe after this season. Not necessarily in the win/loss column but whether this team is competitive week in and week out with the decent teams in the NFL.
     
  15. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sherman was benefitting from taking over one of the top teams, and the Packers were on a downwards spiral ever since he took over till he left finishing with a crappy 4 - 12 season.
     
  16. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Although, we shouldn't judge TT's draft picking based on this, it's natural that there are many picks left from the recent drafts, we've also let some good former picks go, like Holliday or Hillenmeyer.
     
  17. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    Well Net I guess we just look at this from two different perspectives.

    As a GM Mike Sherman had a responsibility to consider the future of this team with each move he made. Not putting young talent at a reasonable price on the squad not only places a significant burden on how to handle turnover but also causes serious cap consequences. Both of which occurred in the case of the Packers.

    I'm not sure what philosophy changes you are talking about last year. What changes? MS was the coach, most all of the players returned from the previous year. If anything it got better by getting that idiot Slowick out of there and Bates in.

    I don't see ANY change over in philosophy. TT didn't tell MS how to coach and Sherman coached the same way he always did in the past. If anything the biggest difference was losing half the offense to injury. But philosophy? I beg to differ there.

    As far as the defense goes Bates did a respectible job with what he had but we were not a good defense. We were exploited mightily by a poor rushing defense and the few times we managed a lead the opposing team had no problem putting a drive together to change it around. We got killed in Time of Possession and couldn't buy a turnover.

    Bottom line is I don't care if Mike Sherman LIKED rookies or not he should have kept an eye to the future and where the moves he was making would put this team down the road. He chose to think in the NOW every year and by '05 we had no depth, no cash, and no youth.

    All of a sudden we were looking around and the Bears had become the big dogs of the North. Just look who they brought in thru the '03 and '04 drafts and you will see why we are now playing catch up in the talent department. We got absolutely massacred in respect to building a talent base in those years. So I'm sorry if I just don't really give a damn if MS liked rookies or not.
     
  18. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    "Sherman was benefitting from taking over one of the top teams, and the Packers were on a downwards spiral ever since he took over till he left finishing with a crappy 4 - 12 season."


    Actaually, when Sherman left as GM the Packers were a 10-6 playoff team. Last season's 4-12 team was Thompson's as far as being the GM.
     
  19. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    And 90%+ of the personnel was the same as it was under Sherman. There was no money and no ooportunity to make any significant changes to that team.
    We were 4-12 last year in large part to an INSANE number of injuries to key difference makers in the lineup. But this was still by and large Mike Sherman's squad personnel wise.

    The writing was ON THE WALL in '04. We did not beat a single team with a winning record, lost three games to teams that did not have one, and got bounced unceremoniously out of the playoffs.

    IMO that does justify a downward trend from the 12-4 teams of the past that actually had a shot of winning a SB. The '04 team was a shadow of those teams and we were certainly not moving in the right direction.
     
  20. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1

    NO...the 4-12 team was due mostly to an incredible amount of injuries.


    Why was this brought up again? Everybody knows where everybody else stands on the subject. Some people like to look at it from a subjective side while others of us prefer to look at facts such as win/loss records. To each their own.
     
  21. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Theres more 'facts' beneath the wins and losses, depack, not just warhawks subjectivity. why do you always lower other peoples thoughts\opinions? cmon now, man. you know damn well stats can lie, even the win\loss records. Hell, look at this years vikings. All week i had to hear about how playoff bound they were, then they played a real team, and got crushed. cmon depack, ur better than this.
     
  22. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    trom....once again ...if you don't like what I have to say or the way I say it ignore it. Remember the ignore button? I have tried to be fair with everyone but just like you get p1ssy when someone rips TT, I have the right to express my feelings when somebody rips Sherman. I realize that you don't like the fact that I use facts and records to support my case which is why I said some choose to look at it subjectively. I never said there was anything wrong with that, just pointing out the difference.

    Besides warhawk is a big boy. He doesn't need you to defend him.

    ORRRR are you really just trying to get the mods to come after me like you vowed? :thumbsup:

    BTW....save the effort of smiting me. I don't really care.
     
  23. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    fine, ignored, since ur just a child.

    and you do care about smiting, thats why you brought it up, but its not me. well it is this time.
     
  24. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    HAHAHAHA
     
  25. Bobby Roberts

    Bobby Roberts Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    770
    Ratings:
    +0
    Significant players from the 2005 draft: Collins, Poppinga, Montgomery, Underwood, Rodgers.

    Rodgers cannot be discussed yet because he hasn't had the opportunity to either prove himself or flop.

    Collins is suffering from a sophomore slump and suffering from playing next to NFLE quality Manuel. He doesn't yet have the experience to make up for Manuel's mistakes.

    Poppinga is playing rather well. Screwed up FA move or not, he's developing into a solid player.

    Montgomery is simply an ok backup at this point.

    Underwood unfortunately got injured, or else he should have been pushing Manuel as the starter. Murphy also suffered from an unfortunate injury.

    So from the draft we have two starters and four significant players on the 53 man roster. Next year it could easily be 4 starters (Collins, Underwood, Poppinga, Rodgers) and one backup (Montgomery).

    Sure, there are better drafts than this, but that's not a bad draft. It's a long ways away from being a total waste.

    IMO, Sherman did better in FA than TT, but TT has done better in the draft. Sherman's focus was as a HC and not on the future. So he got experienced players who could help the team now. TT is focused on the future, so he gets inexperienced players who likely will help the team in the future.

    One thing to also consider with the 2005 draft is the coaching change. An OL player like Witt fit in well with Sherman's running game, but he wasn't a fit for MM's zone blocking.
     

Share This Page