Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="porky88" data-source="post: 228487" data-attributes="member: 489">Mike Sherman ran that entire 2004 draft top to bottom so I don't know how much that draft can even be factored in.As Trom said it did produce Scott Wells but it also produced Corey Williams who were both starters last season but I don't think anyone can deny that the draft was a failure. You can argue that it's the reason why Sherman got demoted and then eventually fired a year later.2005 Draft will look pretty good if Aaron Rodgers ends up being the Packers franchise QB.2006 is a gold mine right now with Hawk, Colledge, Spitz, and Jolley all penciled in as starters.2007 and 2008 are to be determine right now although I see potentially 2 starters from 07 and that doesn't include James Jones and Brandon Jackson who might play key roles on this team for years to come.Like Trom said the Packers draft more by design. Green Bay's philosophy is to trade down and pick up more players and develop from within. As raptorman stated in his post, Green Bay has 8 more draft picks on their roster than Minnesota does. That's a huge number when you think about it. That's like having another draft on your roster. That's in part of drafting well and the philosophy of stockpiling on picks. If that's the best negative that someone can come up with about the Packers drafts then things will probably be pretty good for the Packers in the post Favre era.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 757 (members: 0, guests: 757)