ROUND 1 PICK 26 (f/Baltimore through New England) - OLB Clay Matthews (USC)

Mike speaks.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/43746152.html

quote:

On the OTs: "the right tackle position is definitely a place were Allen Barbre will have an opportunity. Giacomini has done a good job. Lang."

Its interesting that the second round pick has three times the posts than the first round pick.

Thats because there is not controversy about the 1st Pick.

Whats even more interesting is they never had a second round pick ...

quote:

Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Then today, just when I thought TT couldn't possibly be any dumber, TT goes and makes his picks today....

My feelings about TT

My whole premise really had nothing to do with Campen but the projection of Sitton and Barbre into guard positions only. You called the cupboard "bare" when Spitz and Colledge are solid quards. Spitz has the potential to better the center position with Sitton at guard or tackle. I hate the convert picks of Moll and Giablahblah but to say these young guys offer nothing is ridiculous to me.

TT went crazy today. If the last 4 years of pick doesn't offer enough depth and starters then I will be the first to join in the chorus of TT/Campen failure. But, the picks made in the last two years signal a move away from the "athlethic ZBS" guy to the mauler guy of old.

And another thing, the FB situation with GB is another full out battle position to open up the run.

WTF kind of UFC move is this?

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:
WTF kind of UFC move is this?

Our kind of UFC move?

quote:

Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
Then today, just when I thought TT couldn't possibly be any dumber, TT goes and makes his picks today....

My feelings about TT

quote:

Originally posted by Koopla Krash:
I believe Britton will be a very good player. I am as giddy as a school girl about getting Meredith. TT proved he is a master at this whole drafting thing. Simply amazing draft.

Saw this note in King's column this morning:

• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

Not sure if this a veiled accusation of the use of PEDs but I would think with the genes the Matthews family has, getting "big" wouldn't be shocking.

Freshman 150?

quote:

Originally posted by Brak:
WTF kind of UFC move is this?

Horsecollar. 15 yards.

Nastiness. I like that in a linebacker.

I perused this thread and and didn't see this possiblity brought up- sorry if it has and I missed it:

Thompson is making a statement about this draft and where he thinks this roster is with the moves made on SAT. He did not want to pay for 3 3s and 2 2s or whatever it is, and figured that he would be better off getting two guys he likes than bringing a massive youth movement onto the team.

I look at it this way- in this day and age, 2nd and 3rd rounders that can't beat out incumbants is approaching failure. You have to land a lot of these level of picks because of the economics of it. Therefor, if you are looking at your roster and don't see any 2nd or 3rd rounders that could beat out your key incumbants where you would want to improve, then you are adding bullets to your gun for trade up possibilities.

I think that Thompson is making a big-time gamble that both these guys end up stars for this team. It was his answer to the "doesn't do enough to improve the team now" question. You expect both of these 1st rounders to have an impact because that's why you paid so much.

I suspect that with so much on the line this year, and with the fan base starting to wonder about the future of Thompson and McCarthy, they provided the answers everyone was looking for. They gutted the D staff and were bold in making their selection of a 3-4 guru with a massive track record of success. And though they stood pat in FA, they were bold in the draft with their early picks and landed two guys they really wanted. If they are right on these decisions, Thompson and McCarthy will be solid for years to come in this organization. If these measures do not produce a winning season (more specifically a playoff appearance) in an improving division and conference, then they will be on their way out.

Thompson has proven himself to be pretty smart in his evaulations- I don't doubt that the moves this weekend are going to bear fruit.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Saw this note in King's column this morning:

• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

Not sure if this a veiled accusation of the use of PEDs but I would think with the genes the Matthews family has, getting "big" wouldn't be shocking.

Does King know what 4 years of weight training and taking supplements can do for you? It's not like he did it in a year or two. Sheesh.

Peter King knows a little something about gaining weight...he's done it for years.

I read somewhere that Matthews grew a few inches while in college, too. Is that from steroids too?

quote:

Originally posted by The Artist fka TD:

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Saw this note in King's column this morning:

• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

Not sure if this a veiled accusation of the use of PEDs but I would think with the genes the Matthews family has, getting "big" wouldn't be shocking.

Does King know what 4 years of weight training and taking supplements can do for you? It's not like he did it in a year or two. Sheesh.

This happens all the time. Didn't Jason Smith walk into Baylor as a TE that weighed 230 or 240? Isn't he at 310 now? I agree its uncommon to go from 160 to 240 in 5 years, but this guy's entire family played either D1 or NFL football, so it was clearly in his genes to get bigger. Hell, I gained 45 pounds my Junior and Senior year of high school. I think he's just a late bloomer.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by Packdog:


A few of us(JZ was with me on this)had an inside track on Greg Jennings and knew how good he was, but it was damn fun to see the majority of this board lose it over not taking Jackson.

I was on the Juanny Zamboni/Packdog wagon when it came to Jennings and a overall fan of drafting guys that produced considering the previous "potential/tweener" regime.

Right LSUGB? I still got that soap handy.

I come on and read a couple pages...and here's the omnipresent Cap'n.

The only debate I recall was whether Jennings could be counted on as some sort of impact player/commodity after that year of injury-affected production. Turns out obviously he could but there was no evidence for that then. I'm impressed w/ some's precognitive skills here though...and what ever happened to JZ???

The couple pages I read in this thread are funny. If you think #41, #73, and #83 was too much to give up for Matthews (and Meredith - a huge get in the 5th IMO) you're a TT hater.

Let's face it, it was a lot to give up. Matthews better hit considering 3 decent picks to get him. The Meredith score minimizes that IMO as I don't think people would've blinked had he gone in the 3rd.

Personally, I wanted TT to be a bit more aggressive and 'swing for the fences' a bit if you will. My impression is TT did that a bit. Furthermore, his actions on draft day back up his assertion that he feels good about their overall talent. This should be a hard team for a rook to make.

We'll know in a few years but I liked what GB did. Some risks sure (like Matthews and starting 1yr) but so what? No guts no glory. GB has plenty of young decent talent - they lack studs so maybe they found some?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Saw this note in King's column this morning:

• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

Not sure if this a veiled accusation of the use of PEDs but I would think with the genes the Matthews family has, getting "big" wouldn't be shocking.

I think that's exactly what it is.

He tested clean at the Combine, and the 80 lbs. were added over the course of what, 5 years? It's not like Aaron Maybin who put on 30 lbs. of muscle in 4 months or whatever it was leading up to the Combine.

That's a pretty reckless and irresponsible implication by Peter King without one iota of proof. If he's got any proof whatsoever that Matthews was involved with PEDs he should put it on the table. If not, he should avoid the cheap shots and act like a journalist.

quote:

Originally posted by LSU4GB:
Personally, I wanted TT to be a bit more aggressive and 'swing for the fences' a bit if you will. My impression is TT did that a bit.

A bit? TT's move to get Matthews was more than just a bit aggressive. It was huge! Personally, I did not think TT had it in him to do such an aggressive trade. While I think Sherman's ultimate downfall was involved with too many swings-and-misses, I am glad to see that TT is not afraid to take the occasional risk. Matthews may in fact flame out, but he also could be a very long-term starter for the Packers. I have confidence in Capers to give Matthews every opportunity to be a productive player for the Packers.

quote:

Originally posted by michiganjoe:
That's a pretty reckless and irresponsible implication by Peter King without one iota of proof. If he's got any proof whatsoever that Matthews was involved with PEDs he should put it on the table. If not, he should avoid the cheap shots and act like a journalist.

He broke those rules when he started doing Brett last year.

According to draft value charts, the Packers got the 26th and 162nd pick (a total of 726.6) 41st, 73rd and 83rd (a total of 890). Not a huge discrepancy, especially when you consider who were the players Packers could have gotten at those spots.

quote:

Originally posted by fdl:
He tested clean at the Combine, and the 80 lbs. were added over the course of what, 5 years? It's not like Aaron Maybin who put on 30 lbs. of muscle in 4 months or whatever it was leading up to the Combine.

I heard in ESPN today that it is not true that he weighed 160 when he arrived at USC- more like 200 lbs. 160 is pretty small even for a walk on. 200 sounds a lot more resonable. Not sure who King's sources are, but it defies logic...

I think it comes from the fact that Clay was 160 as a junior in high school, which would be around the time he'd be scouted by potential colleges. I'm guessing people took that number and just extended all the way to when he walked onto USC two years later. Which is fair I guess, since men generally don't grow at all from the ages of 16 to 18....

quote:

Originally posted by Point Brewmaster:
A bit? TT's move to get Matthews was more than just a bit aggressive. It was huge!

Although using 'a bit' 3x in 2 sentences was a bit much , the characterization was about TT's draft as a whole. Obviously, I agree the move for CMIII was extremely aggressive bordering on haphazard. The rest of the draft was much less so hence the overall assessment.

Pretty much every other pick appeared to represent pretty good value according to the JSO scout crap I read.

In the end if CMIII was among TT's top-15 or whatever it was likely absolutely worth the cost on a team w/ solid young talent. I hope he's right and look forward to seeing some of these jokers in TC.

According to Wilde, the Packers began looking to acquire the pick they would use on Matthews at #18.

quote:

To get Matthews, the Packers felt they had to get ahead of the Miami Dolphins, picking 25th, so they started exploring trades beginning with Denver at the 18th pick but couldn’t find the right price. When Miami took Illinois cornerback Vontae Davis, the Packers struck a deal with New England at No. 26 to take Matthews, who combined to fill the two most pressing needs on the new defense

As was pointed out earlier, that satisfies the holy pick value document. In fact, they did end up paying less that what the chart would have required to get to #18. They certainly, without question, did not tell the Patriots they would pay more than the Patriots asked, as one poster suggested was analogous to the story (as he questioned my logic---KA-BOING!).

Further, as events have shown, guys that many folks would have been comfortable getting with those 3rds (Lang, Meredith) were acquired with later picks, indicating that perhaps that value tier was monstrous, encompassing 2 or 3 entire rounds.

What I'm trying to say is the the value chart is just a guideline, nothing more, nothing less. It assigns a value in the abstract, not the specific. It does not take into account the target player or the pool of players available at the later picks that are used to move up. The players that are actually picked with the commodities of the draft choices are far more subjective in value. It's pretty clear that the Packers placed a lot of value on Matthews. It seems equally reasonable to assume they did not think much of the pool available in the 3rd. There are a lot of reasons to believe they are right. I look forward to the unfolding story of whether they actually were right.

Not to mention, TT specifically said that the Ultimate Draft Chart Commandments popularized by Jimmy Johnson was only one of a few different versions of their valuation guidelines. What's done is done - between the value they placed on Matthews on their own board, the not-so-set-in-stone value chart that is not by any means the NFL's governing document for all draft day trades and the apparent lack of tallant in the later rounds as mentioned by many GM's all add up to the reasonable conclusion that this was not some bone-headed trade. If TT had given up three picks for a punter or some workout warrior, or even one for a stiff like Thompson, that'd be a different story. If Matthews busts, it'll be a bad trade. If not, it'll be worth it - just like every other pick they made without trades.

I'm fine with the trade and all, but the Packers gave up a good bit more than they got point wise. Draft day trades usually work out pretty even points wise .. this one didn't.

The Packers offering price should have been lowering as they went from 18 down to the eventual 26. TT and the boys basically decided they were willing to give up more to get their guy.

Bottom line is they got the player they wanted and were willing to pay more than the going rate to get him ... that' all fine, but lets not try to make it seem like the Packers got fair value for their picks.

Josh McDaniel came on NFL N and said they placed a 1st round grade on Alphonso Smith which explains why they traded next years 1st rounder to get back up high in round 2 this year.

He also went on to say, "It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. It only matters what we think and the grade we place on the player." I agree 100% These teams go through a vast evaluation of a player and if they feel he's worth it, they're going to go for it.

Same goes for TT and the move they made to get C.M.

I went back over the draft and was a little surprised that Miami didn't take Matthews. Parcells obviously felt (rightly so) that corner back was a tougher spot to find a player than LB'er, so it makes sense.

I just want to highlight what others have already stated and this is an extremely fundamental point of disagreement.

Let's say the Packers rated Matthews as #15.

Now, it seems that you are asserting that the value of the trade should be based on what OTHERS felt as well and so Matthews is given a value at where he was drafted. Given that, it was a bad trade.

But, what of the Packer's perspective? If they had a pick at 15, they likely would have taken Matthews. Even though he fell to when they did pick him, I am sure they held onto their assessment of him (#15 ranked player in the draft). If so, I see no rationale for doing up the whole equation thing where Matthew's worth is taken to be 28 and not 15. To do so would be tantamount to the Packer's brain trust not having confidence in their own assessment of player rankings and just doesn't make sense to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix138:
I think it comes from the fact that Clay was 160 as a junior in high school, which would be around the time he'd be scouted by potential colleges. I'm guessing people took that number and just extended all the way to when he walked onto USC two years later. Which is fair I guess, since men generally don't grow at all from the ages of 16 to 18....

He's a late bloomer. I graduated High School at 5'10" and 160 pounds. By the time I was 25 I was 6'2" and 250 pounds. Definitely a small percentage of people but it does happen.

TT probably offered a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th to move up, but Belicheat countered by asking for the Packers #41 pick plus a 1st rounder in 2010. TT said .. hell no .. best I can do is go with our 2nd, and 2 3rd's. Judging from Belicheats other moves he was big on getting next years picks from people.

I went from from 150 to 220, freshman year to senior year of college. Beer and jack's frozen pizza's or a schedule weight room regiment, it can be done.

quote:

Originally posted by grbaypack:
I'm fine with the trade and all, but the Packers gave up a good bit more than they got point wise. Draft day trades usually work out pretty even points wise .. this one didn't.

The Packers offering price should have been lowering as they went from 18 down to the eventual 26. TT and the boys basically decided they were willing to give up more to get their guy.

Bottom line is they got the player they wanted and were willing to pay more than the going rate to get him ... that' all fine, but lets not try to make it seem like the Packers got fair value for their picks.

I couldn't care less about points. They have nothing to do with the player and how he fits with your team.

Besides that, as others have alluded to, the Packers don't need 150 picks in the draft anymore, they're looking for blue chippers to push the level of competition up and hope that guys like Matthews and Raji can crack the starting lineup and eventually become all-pros. Obviously, they felt the guys in rounds 2 and three were not as capable of that as Matthews was. And, they felt there was some value left in the later rounds. Remember, this draft class was relatively weak.

For those that think TT payed too much to move up I guess the question would be who do you select with those picks.

quote:

Originally posted by MN Cheese:
Peter King knows a little something about gaining weight...he's done it for years.

"Pete, it's okay, just please step away from the sandwich."

I can't believe people are still wound up about moving from a 3rd round pick to a fifth.

We had to give up a 2nd and a 3rd to get up to 26. That's understood.

We then gave up our other 3rd and got a 5th back.

All of this is about a loss of two rounds.

Let it go.

quote:

Originally posted by crowhead:
For those that think TT payed too much to move up I guess the question would be who do you select with those picks.

Actually the way it worked out player wise I think the Packers got the better of the deal, but that's just based on my personal preferences. We won't really be able to judge it for a few years.

quote:

Originally posted by grbaypack:
Bottom line is they got the player they wanted and were willing to pay more than the going rate to get him ... that' all fine, but lets not try to make it seem like the Packers got fair value for their picks.

Kiper and Jimmy Johnson don't set the intangible, subjective point value per selection that you seem to be using to claim it's so obvious that they overpaid. Tell us what TT's point value is, and that'll be that. TT was quite opaque in his allusion to the equity involved, but again, you don't know what those values were, and neither do I. He said that the Ultimate Draft Point Value No Matter What is one system he uses along with their own and a hybrid verson. Based on the Holy Bible of draft points, I think I read that GB gave up 100-something points. How much is each point worth? One tackle? One sack? 10 yards rushing?

Point is it's moot. If Matthews reaches the potential GB thinks he has, they got way more than fair value. If he doesn't, they didn't. Excel sheet-generated points have almost nothing to do with it. Neither does the success or failure of the players picked with the spots GB gave up, as obviously it's unlikely GB would've taken the same players.