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

Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all else?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by all about da packers, Apr 27, 2007.

  1. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    There are many draft that have two (if not all 3) of WR Ted Ginn, RB Marshawn Lynch, and TE Greg Olsen falling to the Packers at 16.

    My question is that let's say we have 2 of these players still available when we are on the clock... should we make the selection based on who TT thinks will provide immediate help, or based on how much long term playmaking potential he has?

    For example, if Lynch and Ginn are both there, do we go for Lynch because he can immediately contribute in a big way at a position of need, or should we draft Ginn, who (for the sake of this discussion) will be a #4 WR on the depth chart, but has greater playmaking potential?
     
  2. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Re: Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all els

    Man.....thats a tough question.
    To me, if Lynch can give immediate help, then he should be good for help in the long term too.
    I think it would come down to who Ted thinks can contribute in his overall career.
    Plus, IF they get Moss, then i think the RB situation would be addressed more with the draft.
     
  3. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    I still say trade down at 16. I'm not sold on Lynch or Ginn and Olsen would be a reach at that point. I really like S Griffin from Texas and he could be had at KC's pick (and they may want Lynch bad with LJ).

    IMO, after the top 7 this draft flattens out for the next 50-60 guys. I'd rather get 3-4 shots at picks 8-70 than settle at 16 and with our pick in round 2. This draft has some nice depth in rounds 2-4 and we should try to land more players in this range if possible (plus getting extra 3rds and 4ths could help bring in guys via trade).
     
  4. Timmons

    Timmons Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Messages:
    623
    Ratings:
    +1
    I like Arles' approach.
     
  5. vegOmatic

    vegOmatic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    393
    Ratings:
    +0
    Simple answer:

    You go for the immediate help. That implies someone who has "it."

    Someone with "potential" is a question mark.
     
  6. OregonPackFan

    OregonPackFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    356
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't see Olsen or Lynch as playmakers, Olsen didn't show anything in college that makes me view him like more than an ordinary TE, maybe not even that.

    Lynch didn't show anything that makes me think he's going to be anything more than an average back, he doesn't have LT abillities, LT is a playmaker.

    Ted Ginn Jr is the only one of these three I would call a playmaker, however the bust factor is way too high for my liking.
     
  7. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Re: Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all els

    Thats one of the mains problems with the draft. There is SO much hype, that unless you have access to really watch the players, it's really hard to figure out whos for real, and who might just be the product of a certain type of offense or defense. A guy might have a ton of yards rushing, but was it mostly because of an outstanding O-line, or did he do alot of it on his own? Unless you SEE the guy, if you are just basing your evaluation on numbers, it's hard to tell. A RB that maybe didn't put up that great of numbers might actually be more talented, but had a lousy O-line and had to do most of it on his own.
     
  8. Pack93z

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

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Someone that agrees with me on Griffin... :thumbsup:
     
  9. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The Packers need playmakers. Having said that it is unwise to drum one up that really isn't all that great in the draft.

    We can come out of this draft having addressed Safety and the #3 CB and maybe solid but not great WR's and RB's.

    One PLAYMAKER potential is that Figurs kid who could be had around the 5th round. He ran like a 4.2 something. He might have that D. Hester like special teams playmaking ability at less cost.

    But early round draft pick playmakers look more like a mirage than a reality to me. Those guys are going to have to come via trade or guys cut from other teams the way it looks.
     
  10. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would love to see Johnnie Lee Higgins, WR from UTEP. He's 6-foot, ran a 4.29 40 and should be available in round 4.
     
  11. dhpackr

    dhpackr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all els

    Packers should look for someone who can put the ball in the end zone.
    i.e. D. Jarrett & M. Bush
     
  12. Lare

    Lare Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    705
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all els

    What's difficult to decide is whether you draft a person for their playmaking production or if he can improve the playmaking production of those around him.

    For example, a Greg Olsen may not put up great numbers and may even be a liability in the blocking scheme initially, but if he can be effective enough to draw double coverage over the middle from a LB and a safety it leaves someone else (like Jennings or Robinson) open to make plays.

    Bottom line, you need production from your first round draft pick. If you don't, it sets your team back from teams that do.
     
  13. PWT36

    PWT36 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2005
    Messages:
    895
    Ratings:
    +0
    Re: Should the Pack still look for a playmaker above all els

    There was an article in Green Bay Press-Gazette by Michael Rosenberg of the Detroit Free Press on April 23, 2007 entitled "Fans focus too much on first round." He traced the Patriots first round draft choices since 1997.
    .
    Rosenburg writes: Quote

    "Do the names Logan Mankins, Vince Warren, Ben Watson, Ty Warren, Dan Graham, Richard Seymour, Damien Woody, Andy Kaizenmeyer, Robert Edwards, Tubucky Jones, and Chris Canty mean anything to you. Those are the New England partiots 11 first round draft choices since 1997. Of them, five remain with the Patriots. One of those is a pro bowler, Seymour is a perennial Pro Bowler.

    New England is the model franchise in the NFL. Second, the Patriots first round record is quite good. Wilfork is an above-average starter. Graham was productive before leaving for Denver in free agency.

    Yet the Patriots got only one perennial pro Bowler out of the 11 first round draft picks.

    The moral of the story? We inevitably make way too much of the top picks. First round draft choices are only one of several ingredients in building a championship team.'" unquote

    Yet considering the above, the New England Patriots are the most successful franchise since 2001.
     
  14. Krazygangsta

    Krazygangsta Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    583
    Ratings:
    +0
    Dont count me out ... i agree with you guys also
     

Share This Page