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

Why this draft made no sense at all

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Oannes, May 5, 2007.

  1. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Yup....Urlacher was better........now how does that matter to Packer fans?
     
  2. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    What did you begin bitching about Urlacher for then?
     
  3. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    You tell me... I've been wondering this for the last 50 posts. I wasn't fueling the debate. I just refused to let someone tell me that AJ Hawk was everything Urlacher was as a rookie.

    Hopefully, this can end.

    The point of this post was that we should've dealt with Cleveland and we didn't. I'm going to miss Cleveland's pick in Round 1 next year when I'm watching the draft. When there's that player on the board that you're just drooling over just remember we won't be in position to take him and that we have Harrell instead. I just hope Harrell is good enough to not make it as bothersome as it will be.
     
  4. Pack93z

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

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    No doubt about that... Urlacher is a rare breed, gifted physically. But one thing he has to have, like Barnett is clear space. He struggles to shed blocks, this is where Hawks game is different. He can fight off the blocks with the more stout frame. Both are gamers and sell out every play.

    The reason Urlacher had such an impact is that he wasn't confined by abilities to the box as much as say Hawk so far. Hawk isn't as fluid in pass coverage, but is every bit as physical. My opinion on Hawk is that if you had him in the middle he would be more dominant. An enforcer type. But then you displace another productive member of the defense.

    Hawk was learning to play a position and scheme that he wasn't accustomed to playing where in coverage he got more than 10 yards deep. In college he played mostly a short zone with everything in front of him. So the Wil spot is new and foreign where Urlacher was moved all over in college and transitioned in faster.

    That is my opinion.
     
  5. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    EVERYTHING is a chance. Harrell is a chance, next years draft is a chance. There is NO guarentee that next years Cleveland pick would be a great one.
    And Harrell might be great. NO ONE knows for sure right now.
    And i bet there would be quite a few people here that would have blasted TT if he had traded away this years 1st round pick.
     
  6. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    A rookie DT like Harrell will probably help Brett Favre more than a raw rookie receiver like Meachem. Meachem will take some years to develop because he is so raw.
     
  7. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    You're right... The people who would've blasted him are the ones who think Brett Favre could go out with another Lombardi if we'd have only drafted Bowe or Meachem, or a Greg Olsen.

    I would've loved the move. We still could've taken Jarrett at the Top of Round 2.

    Everything is a CHANCE...right. I get that. There are degrees of chance though. Cleveland picking high next year is a GREAT chance. It's a greater chance than Harrell being a total stud.

    I have to bring this out one more time for emphasis to those clinging to the chance/crap shoot argument. This season hasn't yet begun. So, every team has a CHANCE of winning the SuperBowl, right? Go to Vegas and lay your money on Cleveland winning it all. They do have a CHANCE. I'll put mine on New England. They also have a CHANCE. We're talking degrees of chance. New England has the better CHANCE. Clevleand picking Top 10 is a better chance than New England winning the SuperBowl imo.
     
  8. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Cleveland won't win it all, but they shouldn't be quite the pushover they've been lately. Their O-line has drastically improved this offseason (Steinbach, Thomas). Decent WR's, decent RB pickup if he's still got legs. Their D's a bigger question mark.
     
  9. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    and WHO is going to be playing QB? Look at Troy Aikman and Peyton Manning's records when they started as rookies. Cleveland is going to be playing Brady Quinn and he's really going to struggle. Even if they don't play Quinn, and play Frye or Anderson they aren't good enough to elevate this team above what it is now.

    Seriously, if Brady Quinn plays, this team very well could be picking FIRST next season and we could've had our hands on that pick.
     
  10. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, the QB issue is the main wildcard. But who knows.. maybe he'll pull a Vince Young or a Ben Roethlisberger. We'll find out in about 7 months! I know I will have forgotten about this discussion by then.
     
  11. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    argue all you want about urlacher being better than hawk his rookie year...

    the bears went 5-11 the packers went 8-8...

    and hawk never lost his starting job.


    and i dont wanna hear anything about hype. Urlacher is one of the most hyped and overrated players in the NFL.

    i am in no way saying that Urlacher isnt a good player. hes great in fact. he just gets a lot of credit for what a great defense should be getting.
    in that respect hes grossly overrated. im just saying if im starting a defense... my MLB is gonna be Ray Lewis everytime. hes a better player.


    so if you wanna compare hawk to the best lineback... compare him to Ray Lewis.
     
  12. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    or he could play pretty well, like Big Ben, Matt Leinart, Vince Young or Jay Cutler.
     
  13. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    We're back to this same CHANCE argument. Roethlisberger was with a VERY GOOD team. I don't think Cleveland qualifies as such. The Cards finished?...and they are loaded with offensive talent save for the Oline. Jay Cutler? He's with a very good team. Tennessee... the worst of the clubs but a very well coached team with a good O coord. Vince Young is simply a special athlete. Brady Quinn is not.

    How confident in these hypotheticals are you? The Browns have a REALISTIC shot of finishing with the first overall pick next year. They do NOT have a realistic shot of making a playoff run, and literally no shot of winning a champiohship.
     
  14. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    The thing that makes Urlacher truly great, beyond his incredible physical skills, is the fact that he has always had excellent D lines in front of him. The Bears have placed a premium on their defensive front seven for years, which is a great way to build a winning team.
     
  15. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    I couldn't agree more digsthepack....Hence, the pick of Justin Harrell. We're trying to be the Bears.
     
  16. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    I love the Harrell pick. Bottom line is that a bad-*** D-line makes the entire defense better....which gives the offense more chances to do their thing.
     
  17. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    To me it looks more like we are trying to become the '96 Superbowl champions again.
     
  18. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    I would agree with you Bertram, had we added Randy Moss and, or, Michael Turner/Larry Johnson.

    There's little question the old LB himself, TT, knows the value of his LB's and their need to be freed up to do their thing. I just hope Harrell helps us accomplish that end. I will be closely following Cleveland's record all season long. It'll make this year that much more fun for me.
     
  19. MassPackersFan

    MassPackersFan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    Messages:
    803
    Ratings:
    +0
    Who would Randy Moss and Larry Johnson represent on the 96 Superbowl team?
     
  20. Bertram

    Bertram Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    532
    Ratings:
    +1
    we had a running game by comittee with Levens and Bennett.

    Also our WRs weren't much better than that of today.

    However, in 96 we excelled at special teams. Brett Favre said himself, the Packers wouldn't have won that year if it hadn't been for Desmond Howard.
     
  21. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Making excuses for why guys like Ben and Jay succeeded. You sure are the fortune teller.
     
  22. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hmm why are Urlachers numbers down since Briggs became the player he is now. I guess Urlacher isn't the "focus" of the D. Hawk being the very good player that he is will naturally take oppurtunities away from Barnett just like Briggs in Chicago.



    If it's not a debate then why are you STILL debating it? To compare Jennings and Boldin with Hawk and Urlacher is assinine. Boldin set rookie records. Urlacher not so much. You have to stop comparing every position because it doesn't work.
     
  23. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Making excuses? Okay. How good a team is has nothing to do with how well a rookie QB will perform. It's just meaningless?

    Fortune teller? If anything, I'm being master of the obvious.
     
  24. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Urlacher's numbers are down since Briggs became the player he did? Right now, Lance Briggs is as good as he's ever been... I mean this past season.

    Lance Briggs did NOT hurt Urlacher's numbers, in fact, Urlacher had 141 tackles last season...the SECOND most in his 7 year career. Briggs, meanwhile, had the most tackles of his career last season. So, Urlacher's tackles did NOT go down because of Briggs emergence. Go compare all the seasons. You will find it's inaccurate to say Briggs hurt Urlacher's numbers.

    But... AJ Hawk's arrival certainly hurt Barnett's numbers.

    My Jennings vs. Boldin was for effect. What is asinine is continually arguing a point that was lost before it was argued in the first place.
     
  25. Cory

    Cory Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    959
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yep and how good that rookie is has nothing to do with their peformance, either. Tommy Maddox couldn't win with that team, but Ben could. They bench Plummer in the middle of a playoff run in favor of Cutler. The fact is they can play and it's being a "fortune teller" to say how Quinn is going to do or how any rookie is for that matter.
     

Share This Page