Cole Madison is coming back to play this season.

[SoonerPack]

Wonderful news! If the young man can find his way back to the field it will be extra gravy on the biscuit. I think we all love this kind of resurrection story and it's very fitting seeing as we have Easter knocking on our doorstep. Cole will be in my prayers and my hope is he can find peace in his life whether that involves playing ball or not.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Brian Gutekunst on his offensive line roster:

"I like our group, I like the way they compete. We're always looking to get better and add, but I like that group"

This is not a GM who feels pressure to take a OL high in the draft(first 2 rounds)

Gute is always looking to improve his roster and add depth, but judging from several statements he has made he does not feel the OL is a huge "need pick" early in the draft. As I have said here several times, there is no doubt he is looking to add depth at the position, but feels no pressure to use pick 12, 30, or 44 on any one position out of need. That is exactly how he should approach the draft.

Some here feel that OL is a huge "need" and he must take a OL in the first 3 picks. He may end up having a OL high on his board when he picks in round 1 and 2. If he does pick a OL early it WILL NOT be because he feels a "need" to do so.

Then he must be wasting his time on purpose having a couple of round 1 - 2 projection OTs among his 30 allotted on-site visits. I doubt he'll go OT at #12.

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

Brian Gutekunst on his offensive line roster:

"I like our group, I like the way they compete. We're always looking to get better and add, but I like that group"

This is not a GM who feels pressure to take a OL high in the draft(first 2 rounds)

This could be just smoke and mirrors, just like the Cards interviewing Bosa for a 2nd time. Front Offices are trying to fein a trade or certain players to fall their way.

I ABSOLUTELY mock a top lineman like Lindstrom at 44th if Gute isn't afraid to "reach" for the top FS Adderley at 30th.

As he should be, Turner as the better lineman should start at RG. I honestly believe Taylor won't get any better and Madison could supplant him by the bye week if not Day 1. If we were to take Lindstrom or a similar player at 44th Turner pushes to LG and Madison and Taylor backup RG and LG respectively. Take another OT like Scharping, Howard, or Prince in the 4th and that completely transforms this OL. If/when Bulaga goes down this unit keeps on ticking.

 

[HardRightEdge]

My whole point is that I don't think Gute feels any pressure to pick for need for any position group this draft.

When did it ever make sense to ignore a need? It just so happens he has multiple needs now and even more from a two year perspective. So, he can pick the "best available player" across most of the position groups as the picks tick off.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Gute has said that he signed players in FA this year that he saw as needs to open up his draft board so he isn't having to make "need" picks with his first 3 picks. The goal is to go into the draft with as many options open as possible.

We know Gute saw Edge, Safety, and OL as needs in free agency that he wanted to fill so his draft board is more opened up. You can't wrap your head around the fact that Gute possibly may not see OL as big of a need as you do?

Again for the last time, Gute may very well have a OL as the highest player on his board when he picks at 12, 30, or 44. He may take a OL as the best player available with those picks. He won't though be taking one under pressure of "need."

Gutekunst filled needs in free agency. He has quite a few more. This roster was exposed as having declining stars and poor depth behind them.

I'm pretty well convinced he's going to want an OT in those first 3 picks who can apprentice at OG for a season. There's a very good chance the best available player will be a DL who can bring pressure among those first 3 picks and it is generally not recognized how far Daniels has fallen off. S and ILB have highly questionable starter options (with Martinez in his contract year) with a good chance we'll see those guys down to the 4th. round.

OL, DL, S, ILB, RB and maybe a slot/returner would be the positions to keep an eye on.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

My whole point is that I don't think Gute feels any pressure to pick for need for any position group this draft.

I do believe he will take the players he has rated the highest on his board regardless of position when he makes his first 3 picks. I do think need and depth come more into play in the later rounds.

Positions of need always factor into a draft selection to a certain degree. Exceptions of a prospect being a tier above everyone else left on the board are rare (Rodgers being one of those cases).

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, basically the only time Ted Thompson drafted the best player available regardless of need was the Aaron Rodgers pick.

Smart general managers select players presenting the best value with need definitely factoring into the decision. The only exception being if there's only a single player left in the top tier, with the Packers drafting Rodgers being the prime example for it.

Ted Thompson who Brian Gutekunst often says "taught me nearly everything I know":

"We feel very strongly that our best policy is to draft the best player regardless of need. This isn't fantasy football"

Taking the best player is always the best approach and the Packers under Gute or his mentor TT before him, have stayed as true to this philosophy as any team in the NFL.

Actions speak louder than words though. Over the past seven drafts the Packers have used their first pick every single time as well as 16 of the 21 picks during the first three rounds on defense. That is a huge indicator that both Thompson and Gutekunst considered positions of need when deciding on which prospects to select.

 

[InGuteWeTrust]

Smart general managers select players presenting the best value with need definitely factoring into the decision. The only exception being if there's only a single player left in the top tier, with the Packers drafting Rodgers being the prime example for it.



Actions speak louder than words though. Over the past seven drafts the Packers have used their first pick every single time as well as 16 of the 21 picks during the first three rounds on defense. That is a huge indicator that both Thompson and Gutekunst considered positions of need when deciding on which prospects to select.

Ok, I am glad you believe "smart general mangers" always draft with "need" being a large factor in every pick they make.

You do know "needs" could change from now to August right? You perceive OL as as a bigger need than CB now right? Ok. 4 CB's could god forbid end their season in training camp. Is OL then still your biggest need?

Taking the best player is always the best way to set yourself up for success. I could quote countless very successful GM's over the course of the last 40 years saying the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Ok, I am glad you believe "smart general mangers" always draft with need as a large factor in every pick they make.

You do know "needs" could change from now to August right? You perceive OL as a as a bigger need than CB now right? Ok. 4 CB's could god forbid end their season in training camp. Is OL then still your biggest need?

Taking the best player is always the best way to set yourself up for success.

You don't understand that NFL teams don't have player ranked from 1-500 but in different tiers. If there are several players available within the top tier position of need definitely factors into a decision. How else do you explain the Packers having drafted extremely defense heavy over the past seven years???

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If there are 2 players with a similar grade by a GM on their board I do think need factors in. I also think need factors in more in later rounds.

We could go through the last 20 Packers drafts and find reasons to debate that "need" was used. And then find just as many instances that we could debate they took the BPA.

Neither of us are "smart GM's" of a NFL team and we have never been in a draft room during a draft so we are mostly speculating here, but judging from comments I've read and heard from countless NFL GM's over many years, I do believe taking the best player is your best path to success in any draft.

I have great faith in Gute and his staff and the hard work they do all year evaluating players. These first 3 picks are crucial to this team. I want Gute taking the best players in his mind and not worrying about what anyone perceives as the most pressing "needs" which could change by August.

Once again, I recommend that you read the article by Andrew Brandt I linked to before. He was in the Packers draft room during several drafts and provides some inside on how decisions are made.

 

[InGuteWeTrust]

Once again, I recommend that you read the article by Andrew Brandt I linked to before. He was in the Packers draft room during several drafts and provides some inside on how decisions are made.

I've read and heard a lot of Andrew Brandt's thoughts over the years. The Aaron Rodgers pick you speak on so much as giving you insight into the "board" process was this:

In 2005 they had about 20 players rated above the first round line. When they arrived at pick 24 the only name left above that line was Aaron Rodgers.

I'm not sure how that helps your case of picking for need, but that is what Brandt's memory of the pick was.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've read and heard a lot of Andrew Brandt's thoughts over the years. The Aaron Rodgers pick you speak on so much as giving you insight into the "board" process was this:

In 2005 they had about 20 players rated above the first round line. When they arrived at pick 24 the only name left above that line was Aaron Rodgers.

I'm not sure how that helps your case of picking for need, but that is what Brandt's memory of the pick was.

As I've mentioned on several occasions Rodgers was one of the rare examples in which he was truly the best player left on the board as he was the only one in the top tier available. The reason I referred to Brandt's article once again is the fact that teams use tiers to grade prospects with need definitely factoring into a decision as long as there are several players available in the top tier.

 

[InGuteWeTrust]

As I've mentioned on several occasions Rodgers was one of the rare examples in which he was truly the best player left on the board as he was the only one in the top tier available. The reason I referred to Brandt's article once again is the fact that teams use tiers to grade prospects with need definitely factoring into a decision as long as there are several players available in the top tier.

You like to use word "tier" which is irrelevant here.

It was 20 players that were above their first round line. It wasn't a group of players that they had rated all the same. There was a #1 player above that line and then and all the way down to a number 20 player. We don't know if Aaron was rated #1 or number 20. Only that he was the last player left of their Top 20 when they chose at pick twenty four.

You are too caught up in always trying to prove me somehow wrong on something to have a discussion with you. It gets old. Js.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You like to use word "tier" which is irrelevant here.

It was 20 players that were above their first round line. It wasn't a group of players that they had rated all the same. There was a #1 player above that line and then and all the way down to a number 20 player. We don't know if Aaron was rated #1 or number 20. Only that he was the last player left of their Top 20 when they chose at pick twenty four.

Once again, NFL teams don't have prospects rated from 1-500 but in different tiers, groups, rounds, whatever you want to call it. That doesn't change the fact that once several players in the same tier are still left on the board positions of need factor into the decision.

You are too caught up in always trying to prove me somehow wrong on something to have a discussion with you. It gets old. Js.

You make the wrong assumption that I care about you in any way. I'm solely here to talk football and there are posters around here I agree with a lot, some less and a few that have a completely different point of view with of course the latter resulting in more discussion.

 

[Half Empty]

Yes, basically the only time Ted Thompson drafted the best player available regardless of need was the Aaron Rodgers pick.

Keep thinking that

Never thought that Randall and Rollins were BPAs, but maybe you're right that they weren't 'need' picks.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Ted Thompson who Brian Gutekunst often says "taught me nearly everything I know":

"We feel very strongly that our best policy is to draft the best player regardless of need. This isn't fantasy football"

Fans perceived "need" now could be different in August due to injuries. And your new "need" in August could change in October.

Taking the best player is always the best approach and the Packers under Gute or his mentor TT before him, have stayed as true to this philosophy as any team in the NFL.

There is little evidence to support the contention that Thompson drafted the "best player regardless of need".

Thompson was notriously closed mouthed about what he was thinking. Saying "best player available" was a way to deflect questions about what he perceived as his needs. There is no advantage in being forthright and several advantages to being closed-mouthed. Gutekunst evidently learned that lesson.

Consider the use of capital available for roster building, cap and draft, two sides of the same coin. Would you say Gutekunst spent a pile of cap on free agents this offseason because they were the "best players regardless of need"? Certainly not. Why would one assume the draft would be treated differently? As for Gutekunst, you need look no further than last year's draft to see his need considerations.

The "best" policy might be to draft the best player regardless of need, but it is not the only policy, and conditions when that "best policy" can be practiced don't often arise. In a draft in general, that would be at a moment in time when the roster is loaded with no glaring weaknesses or at a particular pick where a player has been viewed as grossly undervalued. This is not the former, and the latter is uncommon.

Today there are enough need positions that Gutekunst won't be compelled to hold his nose and draft a guy he perceives as a reach for need in the upper half of the draft. Picks 5-7 on the other hand are a mixed bag that might include some developmental players. Gutekunst drafted a punter and long snapper (if that isn't need I don't know what is) mixed in with developmental WRs, the latter forced to play with Allison's injury and Moore's disappointing preseason.

The impact of the 2010 CBA should not be overlooked, with the rookie salary scale and 4 year draftee contracts. A big factor in getting to a winning roster is maximizing performance out of what became relatively cheap rookie contracts where the opportunity for performance above cap cost is greatest. Getting to a critical mass of impact players from the previous 4 drafts is close to an imperative. That's hard to do if you pick the best player available regardless of need where he's sitting on the bench behind a strong incumbent group.

There is one thing in those Gutekunst comments that cannot be disputed: this is not fantasy football. Since most fantasy league scoring is heavily weighted toward the offensive skill positions perhaps he is saying something about the frequent clamoring for players at these positions to the exclusion of others.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Never thought that Randall and Rollins were BPAs, but maybe you're right that they weren't 'need' picks.

The CB first-round-worthy cupboard was bare when the Randall pick came around. He was generally regarded as the highest rated FS in a draft that was thin at the top of the board. Now, if he had been drafted to play FS, that would have been arguably a "best available player" pick and the "wait, what!?" hue and cry would have been deafening with the C-D / Burnett combo in place.

"He played some CB in college" the story went. Well, I distinctly recall watching the game tape where he was moved to CB. That was not because his play there was expected to be stellar; it was because the guy he replaced was getting ripped.

Drafting Randall to play CB was a reach for need, a projection with little basis to go on.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We don't have the knowledge of who Ted or Gute viewed as the BPA when they made their picks. However, we do have the knowledge that Ted and Gute both have said: "We feel very strongly that our best policy is to draft the best player. This isn't fantasy football"

I do think need comes into play a little more in the later rounds. If you look over Ted's drafts I think a strong case can be made for that. But need is never the main reason a player is taken. Maybe other GM's do that, but not in Green Bay. At least under Ron Wolf, Ted Thompson, and Brian Gutekunst.

Some may argue that Jaire and Josh were need picks last year. Gute has said Jaire was the highest player on his board at 18. Josh then was still there at 45. Some will say "Well he isn't going to say he picked them for need but he really did." I tend not to buy that theory. And instead stick with Ted and Gute's long standing strongly held belief in taking the best player regardless of position.

You need to start putting less stock into what Gutekunst, LaFleur or any other member of the front office or coaching staff are saying and rather take a look at their actions.

Just to clarify, nobody has mentioned that position of need should be the main reason for selecting a prospect but it definitely factors into a decision.

 

[GleefulGary]

BPA in a vacuum does not exist. Need is ALWAYS accounted for.

For example, if they had a guy like Kyler Murray rated over Quinnen Williams, who do you think they're taking?

 

[gbgary]

best player available might be a thing in later rounds but not in the first as there are lots of exceptions to that rule in past Packers drafts. maybe it's a combination of the two...the best player available at out biggest need. lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I do not feel comfortable posting on this fan forum any longer as it is one of the strangest, and frankly creepy collections of posters I have ever seen and I've seen a lot. You are in no way a representation of the great and proud #PackersNation.

Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You need to start putting less stock into what Gutekunst, LaFleur or any other member of the front office or coaching staff are saying and rather take a look at their actions.

That goes way beyond the Green Bay Packers. If one were to compile a list of 224 essential life lessons, that would be a "first round pick".

 

[Mondio]

I do not feel comfortable posting on this fan forum any longer as it is one of the strangest, and frankly creepy collections of posters I have ever seen and I've seen a lot. You are in no way a representation of the great and proud #PackersNation.

I knew there was a reason I fit in so well here, strange and creepy are my ****ing wheelhouse *****es

 

[HardRightEdge]

I knew there was a reason I fit in so well here, strange and creepy are my ******* wheelhouse *****es

Speaking of strange and creepy, that guy ranks high on the list. False bravado and hurling insults at the drop of a hat were particular specialties. This guy thought he was wearing some kind of ring that should be kissed. Narcissistic tendencies, I'd say.

 

[sschind]

I completely agree. I think my post should have been clearer. I was a big proponent of drafting 2 olinemen in the draft, but I wouldnt necessarily advocate that as hard anymore. Even if the need shrunk only ever so slightly.

Since 2 draft picks would probably mean an early and a late round selection, I feel like to some extent we already made that late round selection with the return of Madison, and an OL on day 1 or 2 would suffice to create a solid unit.

I might be a bigger advocate of double dipping at TE, WR, ILB and S now. An additional option could be to use this "won" 5th round pick as firepower to move up. It would roughly take our 1st 4th rounder in the back end of the 3rd.

Madison has not shown us anything yet, but dito for any other late round rookie. Just brainstorming on what the implications for our draft strategy could be.

I can see your point and I do agree that him showing up is like gaining that extra 5th round pick but IMO Madison comes in with a strike against him that most other rookies wouldn't have. I don't necessarily mean strike in a negative sense like an injury or a disciplinary action, just that there is an additional question of whether he can handle it mentally. There is always that possibility for every player but for the most part none of them give you a reason to really even consider it. Cole Madison has. Of course, as I said in another post, there is a possibility that this experience has made him want it even more

I'd still like to see a double dip on the OL early and late but with Madison showing up I do agree that I won't be quite as disappointed if they don't make that late pick.