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!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon...

OFFICIAL 2007 DRAFT PACK REVIEWS & PREDICTIONS

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by TOPHAT, Apr 29, 2007.

  1. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS: GREAT STUFF!

    You HAVE to "wait and see". None of us knows if these guys will be good or bad. You are judging it based solely on potential. Any of these players could be good or end up as busts. (I'm SURE Pyle will have a field day with this) I believe the Packer office did it's homework, and picked who they think will help the team the most of all the guys that were available at the time. But NO ONE knows which way it will turn out till time has actually gone by. Then we will have something more to judge it honestly on.

    Lots of people "booed" because the Packers didn't pick a flashy player. I think once Lynch was gone, there were no flashy guys the Pack wanted, or thought was worth it.
    Time ONLY will tell if they made the right or wrong moves.
     
  2. refpacker

    refpacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Messages:
    320
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS: GREAT STUFF!

    Holla to my grade F boys!!!!

    :whippin: < To the people who quote this

    LOL
     
  3. TOPHAT

    TOPHAT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    947
    Ratings:
    +0
    DRAFT REVIEWS: OFFENSE PLAYMAKERS...IS IT ENOUGH?

    http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/sports/index.php?ntid=132228&ntpid=1

    Packers' draft still hot topic BY OATES

    For fans and critics, it has become the draft that won't go away. No matter how much they try to forget about the Green Bay Packers' performance in last weekend's NFL draft, people can't let it go. It seems everyone has a strong opinion on general manager Ted Thompson, though those opinions are deeply divided. Some wanted Thompson to trade for wide receiver Randy Moss, some were violently opposed to it. Some wanted him to draft an offensive playmaker in the first round, some wanted him to take the best available player. Some wanted him to trade up for a halfback, some wanted him to trade down and gather additional picks. The only thing people seem to agree on is that quarterback Brett Favre must be seething as he sits on his tractor in Mississippi and wonders why Thompson went a third straight year without adding a sure-fire playmaker to the offense. Some think Favre should sue for non-support. Some think he should have called Thompson and retired on the spot.
    But with all due respect to Favre, the greatest player in Packers history, it doesn't really matter what he thinks. It's not Thompson's job to make sure Favre is happy with every decision. It is, however, his job to maximize Favre's ability in the final years of his career. Thompson fell down on the job again last weekend, but not because he didn't placate Favre. It was because he didn't give Favre the means to be fully productive at his age and diminished skill level. That affects the entire team, not just Favre.
    Despite his timid approach to building a team, Thompson has done some good things in Green Bay. With a whopping 34 draft picks in three years, he has fortified a roster depleted by Mike Sherman's mismanagement of the draft. The one thing Thompson has failed to do, however, is add game-breakers to a sluggish offense. Indeed, it has become increasingly apparent that Thompson is reading out of a 10-year-old playbook, one written by his mentor, former general manager Ron Wolf.
    During the Packers' Super Bowl years, Wolf spent his money elsewhere and handed Favre mid-round draft picks at the skill positions. In 1996 and '97, Edgar Bennett (fourth round) and Dorsey Levens (fifth) were the halfbacks, Robert Brooks (third) and Antonio Freeman (third) were the wide receivers and Mark Chmura (sixth) was the tight end. All of those players were good, but none was truly special. The Packers got away with it because Favre was such a dominant playmaker himself.
    At 37, Favre simply isn't the playmaker he once was. Yet, Thompson is still trying to surround him with good but not great skill players. He doesn't seem to understand that Favre needs more help than he once did. By refusing Saturday to trade for Cleveland's first-round pick in 2008, Thompson showed he wants to win now. That's why it's curious that he didn't give Favre more help. If Favre is going to be the quarterback, why not give him the weapons he needs at this point in his career?
    Wolf has said often that his biggest regret is not putting enough weapons around Favre during his prime. Thompson is doing the same thing at a time when Favre needs them more than ever.

    __________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070506/PKR01/70506031/1989

    Mike Vandermause column: Packers' offense remains biggest unknown


    The regular season is four months away, so perhaps it’s too soon to begin targeting the Green Bay Packers’ potential problems. Who can say what hidden roster gem might emerge and make a major impact? But staring at the upcoming season from a distance, there’s one nagging issue that can’t be ignored. Assuming no significant free agents are signed, a giant question mark looms over the Packers’ offense. This is a team that finished in the bottom third of the NFL in scoring last year and froze up in the red zone. This is a team that lost featured running back Ahman Green. This is a team that signed no free agents on the offensive side of the ball. How are the Packers going to score this season? If they ranked near the bottom of the league last year, what’s going to change in 2007 with quarterback Brett Favre a year older and no experienced workhorse ready to step in and replace Green? It’s possible the Packers will become a spinoff of the Chicago Bears, in which they rely on a dominant defense and happily accept whatever production they can muster out of the offense. It’s not the worst way to go, especially if you believe that defense wins championships. Packers general manager Ted Thompson, for one, isn’t sounding the alarms over a lack of talent on offense. “I think we have a pretty decent group of guys here,” he said of the offense following last weekend’s draft.
    “As a team, I think the best way, the most consistent way to get better is to get better from within. Our own guys have to try to keep getting better.” That seems to indicate no significant upgrades to the roster will be forthcoming. If the Packers improve on offense, they must do it with the talent on hand. Last year’s rookie linemen — Daryn Colledge, Tony Moll and Jason Spitz — are bound to get better, as will promising receiver Greg Jennings.
    But does coach Mike McCarthy have enough overall talent to make the offense flourish? Or will the Packers be forced to scratch and claw for every touchdown? “I am never one to complain about who’s not here,” McCarthy said Sunday following the team’s rookie orientation camp. “My focus has always been on who’s here.” It appears the Packers will use a running-back-by-committee approach that includes holdover Vernand Morency and rookie Brandon Jackson. “The role Ahman played and the job he did is going to have to be shared by some people,” said Thompson. “I think it’s going to be more of a group effort.”
    That might be the Packers’ best and only option, since Jackson never started a full season in college and Morency has been used strictly as a change-of-pace back in the NFL. History indicates rookie wide receivers aren’t typically difference-makers, meaning big things shouldn’t be expected of Packers third-round draft choice James Jones or fifth-rounder David Clowney. With the possible exception of Jackson, the rookie contributions shouldn’t matter too much if McCarthy’s theory about last year’s offensive struggles is correct. “We didn’t at the end of the day say, ‘Well, we just don’t have enough playmakers,’ ” McCarthy said. “We have players here that we need to put in position to be successful. If we do that and everybody does their job, we’ll be more productive.” Whether that’s a realistic possibility or wishful thinking remains to be seen.
     
  4. TOPHAT

    TOPHAT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    947
    Ratings:
    +0
    PACKER NATION POLLS

    TOP HAT'S NOTE: AMUSING SITES' CONTRAST.

    1. A SITE'S SMALL SAMPLING POLL:

    56% Give 2007 Pack Draft B or better.

    44% Give 2007 Pack Draft C or worse.

    2. PACKER FORUMS SMALL SAMPLING POLL:

    45% GIVE 2007 Pack Draft B or better.

    55% Give 2007 Pack Draft C or worse.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    TOP HAT'S NOTE: LARGE PACKER NATION POLLS AGREE.

    3. A SITE'S LARGE SAMPLING POLL:

    18% Give 2007 Pack Draft B or better.

    82% Give 2007 Pack Draft C or worse.

    4. A SITE'S LARGE SAMPLING POLL:

    22% Give 2007 Pack Draft B or better.

    78% Give 2007 Pack Draft C or worse.

    5. ESPN SPORTS NATION HUGE POLL:

    1. 21% Give 2007 Pack Draft B or better.

    2. 79% Give 2007 Pack Draft C or worse.
    _______________________________________________________________________

    TOP HAT'S NOTE: CRITICAL FANS SEE DRAFT IMPROVING TEAM.

    Are the Green Bay Packers 'better' after this years NFL Draft?

    1. 59% YES

    2. 41% NO.
     
  5. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS

    How could you be worse after a draft? Did the Packers take someone who will go through camp banging pots and pans at 3 AM and randomly tearing ACLs?

    Of course the Packers are better after the draft, it's just a matter of how *much* better they are. So far, GB has lost Green, Henderson and David Martin while gaining Frank Walker, another year of XP on the youngest team in football and nearly 20 new faces on draft day. Plus, there's a decent chance they will sign 3-4 more FAs before the start of camp. There is no logical reason to think this team will be worse unless one of their draft picks was Freddy Krueger.
     
  6. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS

    Unbelievable. So now we're saying that experience for young guys is making the team worse and by adding 11 draft picks we are worse?
     
  7. tromadz

    tromadz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS

    Thats an image that amuses me.
     
  8. TOPHAT

    TOPHAT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    947
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS


    Top Hat: Packer nation says 6 out of 10 better, but they had said 8 out of 10 that the draft is a C or worse, excluding 2 small sites that went different directions. How you interpret the vote along with critical draft ratings is up-to-you. I simply report the Packer nation voting. Do I hear an echo?
     
  9. TOPHAT

    TOPHAT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    947
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: PACKER NATION POLLS


    Top Hat: If you review today's articles in the "draft review" thread, I think fans and columnists are asking, "Is it enough, especially on THE offense?" Some analysts predict low scoring defensive loses in the coming year. Of course, it is too early to tell. I will add closing view shortly.

    :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
     
  10. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    We won't know if its enough on the offense until the season is over.


    What was the main reasons we lost games last year? Was it because we didn't score enough or was it because our defense didn't stop the other team enough?
     
  11. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Since ever other draft review has been posted, I thought we might as well get the economists view of the NFL Draft.. It proved out last year according to them :)

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aMZM4MOpUzVM&refer=home

    May 7 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. sportswriters analyzed the National Football League draft during the past week and quickly reached a consensus: The Cleveland Browns were the champs.

    The Browns wowed the football establishment by choosing both highly regarded offensive lineman Joe Thomas from the University of Wisconsin and quarterback Brady Quinn from the University of Notre Dame on the first round. Yet while both players may well turn out to be outstanding, the opinionated rankings aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

    Why rely on opinion when there is scientific evidence? The best available model of the football draft tells a very different story: It suggests that the Browns' draft was only the 17th best out of 32 teams. The big winner: The Oakland Raiders.

    To come to this conclusion, I relied again upon a model developed by economists Richard Thaler of the University of Chicago and Cade Massey of Yale University. A year ago, I used their study to evaluate the NFL draft, and the results were amazingly on target.

    On average, the teams that the model indicated had succeeded most in last year's draft won 2.25 more games in the 2006-2007 season than they had in the previous year. And the draft's losers on average lost 3.5 more games than they had the year before.

    So if you really want to know which club is going to improve the most next year and which ones will fall back, you should tune out the sports geeks and tune in to the economics of football.

    So Simple

    How does the model work? It is devilishly simple. Thaler and Massey found in their research that NFL teams make systematic errors in their valuations of players in the draft. They place too high a value on picks near the top of the first round and too low a premium on players in the lower rounds.

    The problem isn't that the players at the top are bad, it's that they seldom outperform their salaries. Since every team in the league has the same salary cap to work with, the only clubs that create winners are those that load up on players whose performance exceeds their earnings.

    If you select a running back in the later rounds and pay him $500,000 a year and he plays at a level normally associated with a $5 million-a-year veteran, then that player has given the team a ``surplus'' of $4.5 million. It is the teams with the biggest surpluses that gain the most.

    To make this insight operational, Thaler and Massey sifted through mounds of data and estimated the expected surplus from each position in the draft. They found that the surplus was actually highest for teams in the second round. They base their projection on the historic performance of players in the draft.

    Biggest Winners

    Using a back-of-the-envelope version of their model, I calculated the expected surplus in the 2007 draft for every NFL team, based on their picks in the first three rounds.

    The results? In addition to Oakland, the biggest winners in the draft were Atlanta, Detroit, Carolina, Miami and Tampa Bay. Interestingly, Oakland and Detroit were hamstrung with top picks; Oakland picked first overall, and Detroit second.

    But the management of these teams shrewdly maneuvered to stock up on later high-value picks as well. Oakland also had the 38th, 65th, 91st and 99th selections, giving them five in the first three rounds overall. Detroit did the same.

    The six biggest losers contain some familiar faces, and one big surprise. They were, in order, Washington, New England, Houston, Seattle, Dallas and the New York Jets.

    The Washington Redskins repeat as the worst loser of the draft. They squandered valuable later picks and left themselves with only one selection, a relatively low-value choice near the top of the first round. If they keep this sorry performance up, the model is going to end up implying a negative number of wins for the Redskins. Even they, as incompetently managed as they are, will be unable to accomplish that.

    Penalty on Seattle

    Similarly, Seattle foolishly gave up a late first-round pick as compensation for having acquired receiver Deion Branch last year -- and are paying Branch a salary that's likely to vastly exceed the value of his performance.

    The New England Patriots, a team that has demonstrated in the past a clear understanding of the economics of football, surprisingly also appeared in the loser column this time around. The Patriots not only traded their picks for established veterans like storied receiver Randy Moss, but exchanged other draft choices for selections in next year's draft.

    That means they will likely show up as big winners the next time around, which will help them in the long run, but the 2007- 2008 season will disappoint Patriots fans.

    The Problem With Veterans

    The problem with pursuing established veterans is that their salaries are set in a competitive market, so they are paid in a manner commensurate with their performance. Hence, they deliver little surplus.

    Economics can be a glorious field when it works, and seldom does it work better than the Thaler and Massey model did last year. The odds are, the winners and losers of the 2007 draft will be the winners and losers again next year in the regular season.

    (Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He was chief economic adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona during the 2000 primaries. The opinions expressed are his own.)
     
  12. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    This is a key point for this forum. There is much more value in draft picks than $1.5-3 million backups that this board is killing TT for not getting. There is a balance though (and I think TT should add another 2-3 vets by camp), but it's better to err on the side of an up and coming pick than a journeyman backup when it comes to certain depth spots. The latter is simply an overpaid band-aid who offers little down the road.
     
  13. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Yep... I am one to hammer TT for this point, BALANCE between them both. That is where I think he needs to improve... adding the right amount of leadership to balance some of the inexperience.
     
  14. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hey, if we haven't added any vets (esp at WR) until camp, I will be first in line to complain about TT on this front.
     
  15. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    For me, I would like to see at least one Vet brought in at RB. If nothing else than a benchmark of where the young guys stand. IMO.
     
  16. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    We could still pick up that dude who tore us up a few years back. I forget his name. He was a Titan. He had a long stride. Ahh Chris Brown. I think he'd be a decent fit. Not a workhorse or anything.
     
  17. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    I wouldn't mind signing him to a 1-year deal (so he could be a UFA). It's probably the best offer he would get (when you figure a chance to start).
     
  18. TOPHAT

    TOPHAT Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2007
    Messages:
    947
    Ratings:
    +0
    DRAFT REVIEW: SENSE OF URGENCY?

    http://www.packerforum.com/index.php?name=Forums&file=posting&mode=reply&t=10746

    Mike Lucas: Packers, Thompson show no sense of urgency By Mike Lucas

    The Green Bay Packers could do everyone a favor by signing Keyshawn Johnson to a contract. If nothing else, it would keep him off the air. The loquacious Johnson -- whose autobiography was aptly titled "Just Give Me the Damn Ball" -- was part of ESPN's marathon coverage last weekend of the National Football League draft. Johnson, the TV analyst, actually showed more potential than the insufferable Shannon Sharpe, who already has a steady CBS gig. Johnson might even be passable if he could keep himself out of the conversation occasionally. But, in his own third person world, that would be asking Keyshawn to do more than Keyshawn is willing to do.

    What are the Packers willing to do to help the offense and Brett Favre? Not much, according to the national pundits, who have been critical of Ted Thompson and the way the passive Green Bay general manager has been avoiding Favre and his needs. Thompson came under attack Tuesday on ESPN's sitcom, Pardon the Interruption, during which it was reported that Thompson was unwilling to offer a fourth-round draft choice to the Oakland Raiders in exchange for Randy Moss. The suggestion was that Thompson was playing hardball with the Raiders (and maybe Favre) and really not that interested in acquiring Moss.

    Green Bay Packers general manager Ted Thompson has showed no signs of wanting to upgrade his team quickly, instead he seems to be building for the future. At least not at that price. At THAT price? We are talking about a fourth-round draft choice, which is what New England dealt to Oakland as part of the deal. There was also the matter of restructured contracts, whether it was Moss or quarterback Tom Brady taking less to make it work. Pardon the interruption here, but it was implied that the Packers just didn't work hard enough to make it work. Especially if the reports are true, and Thompson didn't think Moss was worth a fourth-round draft choice. Heck, Mike Sherman burned a third-round pick on a punter. But Moss didn't have the same value as an unproven fourth-rounder? Get serious.

    There were other instances last weekend where Thompson may have been guilty of an Ahman Green -- "dropping the ball" -- in the draft. As it is, he has yet to replace Green, adding to the ongoing mystery surrounding the relationship between Thompson and Favre. Do they have a relationship? Do they communicate about team needs? Not Favre's needs, but team needs. Offensively, the Packers need better skill position players. Not to extend Favre's career or appease Favre. But to move the ball, and the chains. How about appeasing the offense?

    The NFL draft is akin to college recruiting. And there will be no attempt here to determine whether the Packers had a good draft or a bad draft. That will play out in time. But there is a growing perception nationally that Thompson and Favre are not on the same page. And maybe never have been. That can be traced to Thompson using a first-round pick on a quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, in his first draft with the Packers. How is Rodgers working out? Nobody knows, of course, which may be more of an indictment than endorsement of Thompson's selection.

    Right now, the general impression is that Thompson has little or no sense of urgency when it comes to Favre and whatever window is left for the Packers and Favre. And that comes off as self-defeating, if not selfish. You want selfish? Sign Keyshawn, a slow, possession receiver, who doesn't mind getting physical as a downfield blocker for the running game. Johnson will be 35 in July. Favre will be 38 in October, making for a potential odd and very old couple. Thompson wouldn't even have to part with a precious fourth-round draft choice to make this work, at whatever price.
     
  19. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    15,997
    Ratings:
    +4,014
    I know its hard not to grade players right after the draft (Im sure I will as everyone else will this weekend) but looking back at this it seems insane to grade players that havent played yet. Desmond Bishop looks like a gem now.
     

Share This Page