SI mockdraft for next year

[pack_in_black]

So much for going 8-8.....


Lol, check out the Packers' position.....

 

[Yared-Yam]

Someone has a lot of time on their hands.

Seriously, there aren't many things more worthless than a mock draft.

 

[Since69]

C'mon. Predicting slots and picks in next year's draft before this year's training camps have started? Might as well list teams in alphabetical order and pick names out of a hat...

 

[Zero2Cool]

C'mon. Predicting slots and picks in next year's draft before this year's training camps have started? Might as well list teams in alphabetical order and pick names out of a hat...

Some would argue that's how Ted Thompson makes his picks.

 

[Mortfini]

this is a joke right

i mean u got people tryin to pick what were gona draft next year..

this maybe even bigger B.S then farve wanting to be traded

 

[TOPackerFan]

It could be worse, we could be drafting where the Vikings and Lions are according to this clown.

 

[Oannes]

Sure, it's a big stretch trying to predict draft order a year ahead of time, but...

Can anyone really argue with where we're at in that pecking order?

Buffalo picked 12th in this recent draft and finished 7-9, which is exactly what we would've finished last year had Chicago had something to play for in the last game of the season.

I did notice he had the Browns picking 9th. By his "projection", had we made the Cleveland deal, we'd be sitting on 9th and 12th overall picks in Round 1. That would've been sweet.

 

[pack_in_black]

Sure, it's a big stretch trying to predict draft order a year ahead of time, but...

Can anyone really argue with where we're at in that pecking order?

Buffalo picked 12th in this recent draft and finished 7-9, which is exactly what we would've finished last year had Chicago had something to play for in the last game of the season.

I did notice he had the Browns picking 9th. By his "projection", had we made the Cleveland deal, we'd be sitting on 9th and 12th overall picks in Round 1. That would've been sweet.

Hot Dang! just like I said, some people love this.

There are just too many ridiculous statements in this quote for me to even begin.....

Some people are so dam pessimistic, it's just unbelievable. :rotflmao:

 

[Oannes]

I'd love to see you try to begin...

Pessimistic? I'd say realistic.

So, your thoughts are those of an optimist, which would mean they're higher than where they should actually be? My view of "pessimism" as you called it would mean I think less of what the situation actually is.

I realistically believe that 7-9 is our likely record. If I was being pessimistic I'd say we'll only win 5 games. I honestly believe we'll win 6 or 7.

I hope we go 16-0. There's a CHANCE right?

 

[MassPackersFan]

The way we played in week 17, Chicago was going down regardless.

 

[Oannes]

I completely, wholeheartedly, disagree with that.

I think we need a little refresher course on how we fared against some of the top teams in the NFL....

AT HOME vs. New England..... LOST 35-0
AT HOME vs. NY Jets..............LOST 38-10
AT HOME vs. Chicago.............LOST 26-0
ON ROAD vs. Philly................LOST 31-9
AT HOME vs. Saints................LOST 37-24
ON ROAD vs. Seattle..............LOST 34-24

and the one you're putting so much stock in...

ON ROAD vs. Bears...............WON 26-7

I'd say the 6 losses above are a much more representative sample than a win over a sleeping Bears team.

There's little chance we'd have beaten Chicago had they been playing for something.

 

[Zero2Cool]

The way we played in week 17, Chicago was going down regardless.

The homer in me agrees, but I am not sure. We played lights out for sure, it was awesome. I think it would have been a good game. Remember, the Bears had their starters in there the first half and we still smacked them around.

The Bears were playing for something, it wasn't a desperate need to win, but they wanted to go into the playoffs like every team, on a good note and what better way to enter the playoffs than to have swept your rival during the regular season?

They wanted the win, but the Packers wanted it more. I think we could have still won the game, but I think it would have been a much closer game. The Bear's games I've seen last year, the Bears came back strong in the second half. Game that comes to mind is the Giants game.


If its said we would have lost, that's fine, that doesn't hurt at all because when it comes down to it we won the game and they went on to lose the Super Bowl.

 

[pack_in_black]

I'd love to see you try to begin...

Pessimistic? I'd say realistic.

So, your thoughts are those of an optimist, which would mean they're higher than where they should actually be? My view of "pessimism" as you called it would mean I think less of what the situation actually is.

I realistically believe that 7-9 is our likely record. If I was being pessimistic I'd say we'll only win 5 games. I honestly believe we'll win 6 or 7.

I hope we go 16-0. There's a CHANCE right?

Yes, I am optimistic. There is no third option. When it comes to a football team's future record, you are either optimistic or pessimistic. At this stage of the season, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to accurately, or 'realistically', predict any team's record.

If you wanna talk about being realistic, talk about a mock draft for next year that predicts not only the best performing players in college, but 32 teams' records??? The whole thing was laughable to me, as well as to most posters here. But you found it credible because it put the Pack in a negative light.

 

[Zero2Cool]

I completely, wholeheartedly, disagree with that.

I think we need a little refresher course on how we fared against some of the top teams in the NFL....

AT HOME vs. Chicago.............LOST 26-0
AT HOME vs. Saints................LOST 37-24
ON ROAD vs. Philly................LOST 31-9
AT HOME vs. New England..... LOST 35-0
AT HOME vs. NY Jets..............LOST 38-10
ON ROAD vs. Seattle..............LOST 34-24

and the one you're putting so much stock in...

ON ROAD vs. Bears...............WON 26-7

I'd say the 6 losses above are a much more representative sample than a win over a sleeping Bears team.

There's little chance we'd have beaten Chicago had they been playing for something.

I know this probably doesn't comprehend much with you, but we were improving from game one to game sixteen. We were in the Philly game for more than anyone gave us credit, then got blown out, the Saints game was handed to them with Ahmans fumble (not an excuse, just mentioning my feeling) we were within FG range and could have tied the game-d'oh-but we didn't, we lost, the Seahawks game was terrible. We had how many INT's and still lost? Once the snow stopped, the Packers stopped. It was amazing how lethargic that game was.


It really doesn't matter, I'm just mentioning this because I think it shows the team has the potential and they did finish with a four game win streak. Anyone in the NFL or professional is going to tell you that no game is easy to win. I think that's sugarcoated, but we did win the games and confidence is HUGE, especially with a young team. That shouldn't be overlooked.

That's my opinion. I do agree with some points of your post though.

 

[Oannes]

Tell that to the bookmakers in Las Vegas. I guarantee they don't have an optimistic or pessimistic approach to setting lines. There is a third option... It's not being optimistic or pessimistic...it's called REALISTIC which is what the lines in Vegas are....REALISTIC.

Did I call the entire mock draft credible? No. I commented on where he had GREEN BAY picking. That sounds about right to me.

How does picking 12th put us in a negative light?

People are "optimistic" about this season...why?

Is it because you believe in TT's improve from within line and since we were 8-8 we'll do better than that in '07?

Is it because we finished on a 4 game win streak? If it is...look a little closer. We beat a horrific Vikings team who was starting a DIVISION II ROOKIE QB and we beat them 9-7. We struggled with a terrible Lions team but prevailed 17-9. The only impressive win was vs. SF at their place where we ALWAYS play well. The Bears game was a total fluke. We were geeked out of our gourds to get revenge for getting shut out at home. The Bears brought ZERO intensity to that game, but spin it how you like.

The improvement we're going to make isn't going to vault us to victories over teams the likes of the Patriots, Jets, Saints and Bears. Of course, it's possible to win on "any given Sunday" but I'm talking likelihood's here.

The other statement thrown out to disqualify my thinking is that all 32 teams had drafts. Seldom do draft picks impact what you're doing on the field that season. Besides, everyone thinks the other teams in the division did better than us.

There isn't anything wrong with hoping Brandon Jackson is better than Ahman Green, or James Jones might be a good receiver this season, or hoping Harrell is like a young Warren Sapp. The likelihoods of these are all minute. That is realism not pessimism.

I am optimistic about guys like Zac Alcorn. I expect him to be a nice contributor at TE. I'm hopeful Mason Crosby is a difference maker when we need a ridiculously long FG. I'm hopeful that Jennings is able to stay healthy and improve on last year as well as the Oline getting better. I'm hopeful McCarthy is a better coach in '07. I'm hopeful we finally don't have a huge black hole at our safety position and Rouse or Underwood can fill it.

Realistically, this all adds up to about 7-9. Why is that wrong?

What do you think is going to happen? 13-3 and a run through the playoffs?

 

[Zero2Cool]

What do you think is going to happen? 13-3 and a run through the playoffs?

As per my tradition I don't make my official prediction til atleast training camp is over, but I think 13 wins is a stretch. With the NFC as weak as it is, I can see us going 10 wins and one playoff game as a wildcard and losing to someone like the Cowboys or Panthers in the playoffs.

 

[PackFanInSC]

I completely, wholeheartedly, disagree with that.

I think we need a little refresher course on how we fared against some of the top teams in the NFL....

AT HOME vs. Chicago.............LOST 26-0
AT HOME vs. Saints................LOST 37-24
ON ROAD vs. Philly................LOST 31-9
AT HOME vs. New England..... LOST 35-0
AT HOME vs. NY Jets..............LOST 38-10
ON ROAD vs. Seattle..............LOST 34-24

and the one you're putting so much stock in...

ON ROAD vs. Bears...............WON 26-7

I'd say the 6 losses above are a much more representative sample than a win over a sleeping Bears team.

There's little chance we'd have beaten Chicago had they been playing for something.

I know this probably doesn't comprehend much with you, but we were improving from game one to game sixteen. We were in the Philly game for more than anyone gave us credit, then got blown out, the Saints game was handed to them with Ahmans fumble (not an excuse, just mentioning my feeling) we were within FG range and could have tied the game-d'oh-but we didn't, we lost, the Seahawks game was terrible. We had how many INT's and still lost? Once the snow stopped, the Packers stopped. It was amazing how lethargic that game was.


It really doesn't matter, I'm just mentioning this because I think it shows the team has the potential and they did finish with a four game win streak. Anyone in the NFL or professional is going to tell you that no game is easy to win. I think that's sugarcoated, but we did win the games and confidence is HUGE, especially with a young team. That shouldn't be overlooked.

That's my opinion. I do agree with some points of your post though.

Weren't there like 3 TDS right over AC's head in the Philly game? Wasn't Woodson out for that one? Take those 21 points away and we have a one point game

 

[Oannes]

Anyone care to make excuses for the games vs. New England and NY Jets...AT HOME?

We were blown off the field. We don't come close to comparing to those teams.

We were spotted a 14 point lead in the Saints game AT HOME and lost by 13. That's a 27 point swing after leading 14-0 due to turnovers.

We're not a good football team. It just isn't. Man, I wish it was but it isn't.

This whole we're improving from within thing fails to acknowledge that all other 31 teams are improving right along with us.

 

[pack_in_black]

Is it because you believe in TT's improve from within line and since we were 8-8 we'll do better than that in '07?

Is it because we finished on a 4 game win streak? If it is...look a little closer. We beat a horrific Vikings team who was starting a DIVISION II ROOKIE QB and we beat them 9-7. We struggled with a terrible Lions team but prevailed 17-9. The only impressive win was vs. SF at their place where we ALWAYS play well. The Bears game was a total fluke. We were geeked out of our gourds to get revenge for getting shut out at home. The Bears brought ZERO intensity to that game, but spin it how you like.

The improvement we're going to make isn't going to vault us to victories over teams the likes of the Patriots, Jets, Saints and Bears. Of course, it's possible to win on "any given Sunday" but I'm talking likelihood's here.
There isn't anything wrong with hoping Brandon Jackson is better than Ahman Green, or James Jones might be a good receiver this season, or hoping Harrell is like a young Warren Sapp. The likelihoods of these are all minute. That is realism not pessimism.

I am optimistic about guys like Zac Alcorn. I expect him to be a nice contributor at TE. I'm hopeful Mason Crosby is a difference maker when we need a ridiculously long FG. I'm hopeful that Jennings is able to stay healthy and improve on last year as well as the Oline getting better. I'm hopeful McCarthy is a better coach in '07. I'm hopeful we finally don't have a huge black hole at our safety position and Rouse or Underwood can fill it.

Realistically, this all adds up to about 7-9. Why is that wrong?

What do you think is going to happen? 13-3 and a run through the playoffs?

Just to be clear, I have no intention of starting a huge war with you. If you don't get offended, I won't either, and I apologize if I was inflammatory earlier. I hope we can stay civil and enjoy a debate. :thumbsup:

OK, the reason I believe the Pack will improve is this: If you look at our four wins at the end:

San Fran: they were a lot like us, young and improving. they needed the win as much as us, and we took it. It was a tough game for our team, considering the master almost always beats his understudy the first time around (Nolan v. McCarthy)

Detroit: Yeah they sucked, but had a high-octane offense, which we stopped. agree with that or not, we play them twice a year, so that gets factored into our record.

Minny: Awful team, Pack played poorly, but it's those tough, gutty games that they should win that make you like what's going on with this team. Also play them twice.

Chicago: It's all about the level of intensity that you bring, which was missing in games 1-4ish of last season. The no-doubt enthusiasm is what was really exciting about this game. I can honestly see these young men making waves if they can bring that kind of fire into games against a McNabb-less Philly, a sinking NYGiants ship, and both games vs. the Bears.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Weren't there like 3 TDS right over AC's head in the Philly game? Wasn't Woodson out for that one? Take those 21 points away and we have a one point game

That's the game Woodson started to really earn his money. He had a strip on the ball with the Eagles in striking distance.

 

[Oannes]

Let me be clear... I don't want any war....large or small.

I say things that are unpopular about a team that we all love. The perception is that I don't love them, and I'm trying to make you love them less.

It's tough for me. My fan experience changed after I spent some time in broadcasting. You have to, or should be, objective in that field. I worked very hard to honestly assess my opinions. It isn't as fun as being full of faith about your team, rightly, or wrongly.

My view of the Pack is a little cold and detached but that's the only way I can see them. If I honestly thought they were good, I'd be as positive as you guys. I just don't see it. I hope they prove to be much more than I believe. That'll be fun for me, and you, because you can tell me what a moron I was for saying 7-9.

I want to be wrong and do skew a little on the optimistic side. I know you have to be getting a good laugh about that. I've been following this team for nearly 30 years. It's hard to keep out some wishes from your overall perception.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Let me be clear... I don't want any war....large or small.

I say things that are unpopular about a team that we all love. The perception is that I don't love them, and I'm trying to make you love them less.

It's tough for me. My fan experience changed after I spent some time in broadcasting. You have to, or should be, objective in that field. I worked very hard to honestly assess my opinions. It isn't as fun as being full of faith about your team, rightly, or wrongly.

My view of the Pack is a little cold and detached but that's the only way I can see them. If I honestly thought they were good, I'd be as positive as you guys. I just don't see it. I hope they prove to be much more than I believe. That'll be fun for me, and you, because you can tell me what a moron I was for saying 7-9.

I want to be wrong and do skew a little on the optimistic side. I know you have to be getting a good laugh about that. I've been following this team for nearly 30 years. It's hard to keep out some wishes from your overall perception.

Being objective is the best way, in my opinion. Just be objective when you're comparing players. Try to make'em same position and atleast a year or two within the same NFL experience level

 

[warhawk]

[

quote="Oannes"]Tell that to the bookmakers in Las Vegas. I guarantee they don't have an optimistic or pessimistic approach to setting lines. There is a third option... It's not being optimistic or pessimistic...it's called REALISTIC which is what the lines in Vegas are....REALISTIC.

First of all what exactly does this have to do with anything.

Secondly, Vegas doesn't give a squat about being REALISTIC. They care soley, completely, and, entirely on the mass populations perception of what the number should be.

They base the number on what they feel millions of people will consider either to high or to low and hope they bet evenly and could care less about the real number.

Vegas is pure smoke and mirrors and has nothing to do with being realistic not that this has anything to do with anything which is getting to be the norm around here.

 

[Oannes]

I lived in Vegas for a few years.

Right...they want money equally bet on both sides to make their 10%.

So, in order to get their 10% they have to find the middle point. The "optimist" will predict more than X amount of wins, and the "pessimist" will predict less.

IE: Vegas will not have the Packers winning 13 games. Why? ALL the money will go on the under. You have to find the most likely number that will entice some to think a little more, and some a little less.

I think you drastically underestimate Las Vegas line making. If they can predict a point spread accurately they keep ALL the money. There is HUGE incentive for them to be REALISTIC. Now, when a line moves, some of the reality is lost.

Does anyone know what the over/under on the Packer win total is this season?

 

[Bertram]

I would rather have the 16th this year and anything above the 16th next year rather than the 9th and 12th pick next year.

Do you want to win or lose? If you think the 9th and the 12th is sweet you must really hate the Packers because that would mean we are going to regress.