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
Matt extended
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="Magooch" data-source="post: 1093233" data-attributes="member: 17987"><p>Yeah it's tough for me. </p><p>I mean on one hand, when we talk about guys like Gary or LVN or similar...it's tough to get "sure thing" guys a lot of the time. Even for where those guys were picked (~middle 1/3rd of the draft), there's not a lot of guarantees. So in one sense I understand the rationale behind taking "potential" there. </p><p></p><p>But on the other hand, sometimes I think it's a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Sometimes I get the feeling that erring on the side of "potential" vs "production" is a good way to get you stuck in good but not great - almost there but not quite. </p><p></p><p>It feels to me like most of the time if you offered the Packers brass the choice between</p><p>A.) Drafting a player who is currently a "7/10" without much wiggle room - they might become an 8/10 player but not much higher</p><p>or B.) Drafting a player who is currently a "5/10" and could become anything from a 5/10 to a 9/10 or a 10/10 if everything fell into place just right</p><p></p><p>Then I think they would take option B just about every time. And I think there are situations where that makes sense, but there are also situations where you simply need someone who can step in right away - there are cases where having a guy who is able to step in straight away and produce at a reasonably high level is more valuable than a guy who MIGHT reach a higher ceiling three years from now. </p><p></p><p>In the case of Golden, I can't really get my head around the rationale for seriously limiting his usage early on. Did we think he was simply not ready to play? That doesn't seem to be the case. Was he unable to grasp the offensive concepts? Again, don't really see it. Did we draft him exclusively to get a "win" for the fans at the draft and realistically could've taken a different WR later to develop slowly? The only answer I can ever really get is "The Packers historically like to work in rookies slowly" or "Packers rookie WRs never get that sort of heavy workload" or similar. And that certainly answers the "what" but it says nothing about the "why". it tells us what our historical approach has been but offers absolutely nothing to justify whether or not that is the *right* approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Magooch, post: 1093233, member: 17987"] Yeah it's tough for me. I mean on one hand, when we talk about guys like Gary or LVN or similar...it's tough to get "sure thing" guys a lot of the time. Even for where those guys were picked (~middle 1/3rd of the draft), there's not a lot of guarantees. So in one sense I understand the rationale behind taking "potential" there. But on the other hand, sometimes I think it's a case of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Sometimes I get the feeling that erring on the side of "potential" vs "production" is a good way to get you stuck in good but not great - almost there but not quite. It feels to me like most of the time if you offered the Packers brass the choice between A.) Drafting a player who is currently a "7/10" without much wiggle room - they might become an 8/10 player but not much higher or B.) Drafting a player who is currently a "5/10" and could become anything from a 5/10 to a 9/10 or a 10/10 if everything fell into place just right Then I think they would take option B just about every time. And I think there are situations where that makes sense, but there are also situations where you simply need someone who can step in right away - there are cases where having a guy who is able to step in straight away and produce at a reasonably high level is more valuable than a guy who MIGHT reach a higher ceiling three years from now. In the case of Golden, I can't really get my head around the rationale for seriously limiting his usage early on. Did we think he was simply not ready to play? That doesn't seem to be the case. Was he unable to grasp the offensive concepts? Again, don't really see it. Did we draft him exclusively to get a "win" for the fans at the draft and realistically could've taken a different WR later to develop slowly? The only answer I can ever really get is "The Packers historically like to work in rookies slowly" or "Packers rookie WRs never get that sort of heavy workload" or similar. And that certainly answers the "what" but it says nothing about the "why". it tells us what our historical approach has been but offers absolutely nothing to justify whether or not that is the *right* approach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
DABIGZ
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
51 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 7:18 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Cam Achord new ST coach - Fire him
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 6:20 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: OldSchool101
Yesterday at 10:10 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Matt extended
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
