Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 607657">You excised a couple of other notables Dougherty mentioned, and there are a couple of others he didn't.Dougherty states, "In '10 and '11, neither of Thompson's first-round tackles, Bryan Bulaga and Derek Sherrod, was drafted to play as a rookie. But Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton were nearing the end of the line. Tauscher, in fact, didn't even make it through the '10 season; Clifton broke down the next year."Need is not just about filling an immediate hole (though it certainly could be); it is also about mitigating immediate risk, be it injury risk or impending free agency.At the time of the 2010 draft, Clifton had finished his 10th season where he missed 4 games, while his knees were an ongoing question mark.  At the same time, Taucher was also a 10 year vet who missed 8 games in 2009, while his contract ran through the 2011 season.  Losing 12 OT starts from two 10 year vets with injury concerns should be stamped "big red flag", particularly when talking about the OT position.  And that's the way it worked out, with Taucher playing 4 games in 2010 then retiring, with Bulaga jumping in. Skip ahead a year and Tauscher is gone with Clifton a year older on still gimpy knees.  McCarthy at the time was not fond of the idea of switching Bulaga to the left side, or switching sides with any lineman since they'd have to learn mirror image technique.  Sherrod was an immediate risk mitigation at LT, and worked at guard in training camp for his apprenticeship.  Like Tauscher, Clifton broke down after 6 games in 2011.  That Sherrod did not work out is beside the point.  It's also worth noting that many of the mock drafts, which nearly always resolve themselves into needs-based projections, had Sherrod pegged for the Packers.There's one other 1st. round pick out of the last 7 that is so far unaccounted for:  Matthews.  While he was not the Packers first pick in the 2009 draft, he was a first round pick.  There was a clear need for an edge rusher who fit the 3-4 scheme being implemented that season.Applying the risk mitigation concept to the current draft, we should ask the question, "what are the chief vulnerabilities now or in the projected 2016 roster?"  The entire offense is signed through 2016, they're young or in their primes, nobody is coming off any career-threatening injury.  On the defensive side of the ball, Daniels, Raji and Guion (the likely starting base group) present free agent risks, with performance question marks with Raji and the other DL names on the roster.  DL is already fairly high (or should be) on everybody's need list, right behind ILB and cover corner (pick your order), because the event horizon is one year away.But the elephant in the corner (literally and figuratively) is Peppers.  He could hit the wall at any time at 35 years of age.  His contract calls for a 2016 cap hit of $10.5 mil and a cap savings of $8 mil if he's released, not to mention the fact that a 2015 Super Bowl might spell retirement.  While many might view an OLB in the first round as proof of eschewing need for talent, I do not.  If the obvious best player on the board is an edge rushing talent, Thompson should take him, and he won't go to waste in the interim.  He can play when Matthews moves to the middle, and he would afford the opportunity to give Peppers more snaps at DT.  Some nickel packages with rookie "X" and Matthews on the edge and Peppers inside would be particularly threatening.It's been reported that Thompson held a post-Combine private interview with Randy Gregory, a 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB prospect with an early first round grade until he tested positive for THC at the Combine.  After seeing Gregory's admission/apology/explanation, I can understand why Thompson would want to probe further.  If Thompson is satisfied with Gregory's story, and he falls to #30 (or even a trade up 5 spots), Thompson should absolutely pick him.If that were to transpire, I would surmise many would cite it as a BPA pick.  Not in my book.  Need-picking is not isolated to just the immediate 2 inches in front of your face.  With one exception, nobody says, "I need to fill one particular position and I'm going to take the best player available at that position in the 1st. round no matter what."  The exception appears to be cellar dwellers without a QB have a tendency to reach, which is somewhat understandable.In my book, the needs, in approximate order, are ILB, cover corner, D-Line, OLB.  I'm fairly certain Thompson will be picking for one of those positions in the first round because there will be several "good, solid players" or whatever the exact term was that he used, at one or the other of those positions.This approach extends into day 2 of the draft.Hawk was mentioned as a need pick in 2006.  Thompson "fired" two of the three staring LBs in what was then a 4-3 defense.  He took Abdul Hodge with the #67 pick to pair with Hawk.Jump ahead to 2014.  Adams was taken with the #53 pick.  Cobb was entering free agency and Boykin, while serviceable, showed no signs of being a bona fide #2.  Then there was Rodgers in the 3rd. round at #98, an attempt to bring back some of the dynamic lost with Finley's departure.  I could itemize more day 2 example in the interim...wait...Alex Green (strike out), Lacy (home run)...but going in depth for the very few who would have read this far reaches the point of diminishing returns, if I haven't already carried enough coal to Newcastle.</blockquote>

Verification

Members online

Total: 84 (members: 3, guests: 81)

Latest posts

Post Draft/UDFA/Off-Season Signings - Each Position Trade Block
- Latest: gopkrs
- 55 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Is it time?
- Latest: Pkrjones
- Today at 9:01 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
NFC North Predictions
- Latest: Half Empty
- Today at 8:18 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 NFL Schedule Release
- Latest: milani
- Today at 7:09 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2025 Roster - Semi Live Thread
- Latest: tynimiller
- Today at 5:28 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum