Shall we grade the draft already?

To me, it's like the scene in "A Christmas Story" where Ralph imagines the grade he's going to receive on his essay from the teacher, and she can't stop writing pluses on the board after his A.

No.

Check with me in two years and we'll see about a grade. TT and the Packers are all about long term, not the next quarter. After all, I'm a fourth generation Packer fan, and I've got grandkids who are sixth generation fans. Snap analysis is for Vikings fans and TV yappers.

That said, I'm happy with the choices. Picking 28 (after picking 32 last year) is like not having a first round pick at all. Looks like 3-4 guys who will see significant playing time next year and a lot of new faces on the defense. Competition and some of the guys who don't make the grade will drop right out of the league. That's what happens when you're the 32rd ranked defense.

Thompson didn't solve the tight end problem.

F-

F did not draft Goalline, as his self-appointed agent what happen to my commission?

I gave it an A+. This draft kicked ass!

Any grade should at this point be based on what they got and what they needed. The players the selected all seemed to be regarded favorably, and their biggest need (defense) was most certainly addressed. Two high picks with very good ratings were added for pass rush, another 2nd for better quality depth for the cb corps, and some more depth on the front 7 to boot.

I am a little disappointed a RB was not picked, as it seems to me to be a need. With Sherrod's uncertain status for this coming Eason and the loss of their veteran LT, they could have picked an earlier OL, but mabe that's just the way the board fell.

I say A-, considering what they got ratings wise and their gotta-haves.

quote:

Originally posted by turnip blood:
F did not draft Goalline, as his self-appointed agent what happen to my commission?

Will Ryan Kalil's mom do?

I thought we had 12 picks....only drafted 8??? Did we give away for next year?? or what?? Just asking.

trades

quote:

Originally posted by Goldie:
I thought we had 12 picks....only drafted 8??? Did we give away for next year?? or what?? Just asking.

By the way.

Lindbergh made it!

I think TT is trying to limit the number of potential new boyfriends for Goldie to stalk.

Wow.

Holmgren was in a wheeler-dealer mood this year, so TT missed the obvious opportunity to grab Joe Thomas. Very frustrated by that grievous miss.

Jokes aside, this draft is full of athletic guys:
Worthy can be W. Sapp-like if he decides he wants to play all the time (I feel much better about getting him in the 2nd rather than @ 28).
Daniels will be a pain in the a$$ for opposing OL.
The DBs are good depth in case Chuck W loses another step this year.
All of us wanted a young QB for MM to develop and I'll be damned, TT actually listened to us. lol

Based on potential. I'll give it an A- .

I give it 3 boners.

No, it's way too early.

For a boner?

I loathe polls.

I think trying to grade a draft before 'three years later' is pointless an dum.

I give an 'A' again.

BPA... at, ironically 'positions of need' each time! Oh lord slap me with a wet turtle tail.

I see need for reservations about the first couple of picks, but seriously, if Dom and Kevin can't get it out of these kids, who would?!

I watched Worthy flat out pwn OL players that got drafted much earlier. In big games, when it mattered. Glad to have him on the club.

Perry seems SO much better than Cox for philly. Its an A draft, all the way, now lets see who works out. But, I really can't doubt the man at this point.

No idea if any of the players will pan out, but I give TT an A for abandoning his typical conservative nature and becoming quite aggressive when he feels the situation warrants it.

quote:

Originally posted by Blair Kiel:

quote:

Originally posted by Goldie:
I thought we had 12 picks....only drafted 8??? Did we give away for next year?? or what?? Just asking.

By the way.

Lindbergh made it!

We landed on the moon!

Can't give the draft a grade. People wanted to call Nelson a bust after year one and look at him now.

TT had one hell of a draft though. The first 3 picks fit and were the best players left at their positions. As I said before, I hate MSU but Worthy was a man-child and gets off the ball quick. If he can do that against good Badgers OL along with GA's decent OL, this guy could really end up being a great player. On passing downs, he will definitely play inside and be able to provide the push they've lacked with Jenkins gone.

The rest of the draft was gravy with guys that can push some of the others for roster spots. It was nice to see that many of them played some ST's in college too.

Allowing the Bears to grab the best player in the draft is inexcusable.



Who was he again?

No point in grading it now. It's an art, not a science. I trust TT. Looks good on paper

What the hell is the matter with TT??

First, he Has pick #163, then he trades it away and then he trades up for the same pick later in the draft.

The man needs a shrink.

I gave it a solid B+.

Im not sold on Perry being a fit in the 3-4.

I do like the Worthy, Datko picks alot.

Coleman hopefully develops into someone we can trade for a 2nd or 3rd in a few years.

Plenty to like about this years draft. But I think it would be fun to have a dedicated draft thread each year following the draft that graded the picks from 2 years prior. That's the only way to evaluate how the draft really went.

Looking at the 2010 draft:

Brian Bulaga
Mike Neal
Morgan Burnett
Andrew Quarless
Marshall Newhouse
James Starks
CJ Wilson

That's an A- IMO. Neal prevents it from being better but Bulaga and Burnett have been solid contributors. Starks played a key role in a SB run. Newhouse looks like the future LT. Quarless was coming along nicely before the injury. Lot's to like about these picks.

quote:

Originally posted by Rusty:
Have to say this may be the most unTT draft ever. Taking two players with potential character issues with the first two picks, all the trading up, and some of those players having possible injury concerns.

unTT is not a good thing IMO.

This was a Mike Sherman draft.

It could be a stinker.

He means Mike Sherman in style with all the trade ups.

I'm hopeful the players we selected can contribute very quickly.

We cannot have these draft picks take 3 full years to develop. We need production immediately.

Trading up for combine superstars with character and effort issues.
Drafting much more need oriented than TT usually does.


Mike Sherman style.

There is no bigger TT fan than me, but I've got a bad feeling about this.

There's a difference.

Sherman traded up without a plan. The only time it ever made anywhere near any sense was in 2002, as they needed a receive, and they were starting to come off the boards. Other than that, it was panic buying where in his own paranoid mind he was convinced other teams were going to snag the fast rising B.J. Sander and James Lee from under his nose.

TT knew what he was going for when he went up to take Worthy. That and the trade for Hayward cost very little in the terms of picks given up. The only headscratcher was how much the Manning pick cost, but honestly who else were the Packers going to take at those spots? Besides a C prospect, they would likely have been trading just because they had to and would have taken guys that play positions that were already full. That makes no sense to me. I'd rather give up picks to land a quality player than stay put just for the sake of adding another Craig Bragg or Clark Harris.

Barring injuries, this draft has made this a better team, especially on defense.

Watching the recap discussion on e'spit'n is rough. First Bruschi suggests the Packers might not win the division - really? from 15-1 to not winning the division?

And then Edwards pipes in "and take aways! they didn't take the ball away last year". Good grief.

Why do they insist on making it so hard to watch their programming?

I agree with what hof said about grading drafts. you really can't know until a few years down the line. but for what it's worth, Walter Football gave us an A-.

quote:

I thought the Packers had to address the rush linebacker and defensive positions in the first couple of rounds, but I never mocked it that way because players who fit the range at those positions sometimes didn't fall to Nos. 28 and 59.

Well, they did on Draft Day. Nick Perry and Jerel Worthy were both really good picks. I didn't feel like the former fit the 3-4 really well, but Green Bay's head coaches apparently disagree. At any rate, these two players will bolster a front seven that couldn't put pressure on the quarterback last year, which will make things easier for the beleaguered secondary.

Speaking of which, Casey Hayward was a solid selection at No. 62. I wish I could say the same for safety Jerron McMillian, but he was a reach at the end of the fourth round.

I really liked Green Bay's draft overall though. Two great selections in the final few rounds pushed this up from a B+ to an A-; there's no way in hell Andrew Datko should have been available in the middle of the seventh.

quote:

Originally posted by ChilliJon:
I think it would be fun to have a dedicated draft thread each year following the draft that graded the picks from 2 years prior. That's the only way to evaluate how the draft really went.

Is two years even enough? What grade would we have given Rodgers, Jordy Nelson, T.J. Lang, or Nick Collins?

Glad to see more people realizing each year how absurd the grading of a draft within days really is. Even the mainstream media/bloggers seem to be taking up this tone in growing numbers.

I think what’s different about this draft is that we can get excited about the thought of these guys contributing right away. BPA is without a doubt the way to build a team and the reason GB is so young, deep and competitive. The only “downside” has been that high draft picks tend to be guys we don’t plan on seeing right away, and thus lose some sex appeal in the slow spring months after a draft. Guys like Sherrod, Bulaga, Neal, Cobb topped the most recent draft boards, and all were seen as depth/role players at the time of their drafting.

What’s so fun about this draft is that the first six guys taken are all instantly in the discussion for some serious snaps, if not “starting” roles. It brings the same sense of excitement the Raji/Clay draft of aught nine.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbleboy789:
I agree with what hof said about grading drafts. you really can't know until a few years down the line. but for what it's worth, Walter Football gave us an A-.

quote:

I thought the Packers had to address the rush linebacker and defensive positions in the first couple of rounds, but I never mocked it that way because players who fit the range at those positions sometimes didn't fall to Nos. 28 and 59.

Well, they did on Draft Day. Nick Perry and Jerel Worthy were both really good picks. I didn't feel like the former fit the 3-4 really well, but Green Bay's head coaches apparently disagree. At any rate, these two players will bolster a front seven that couldn't put pressure on the quarterback last year, which will make things easier for the beleaguered secondary.

Speaking of which, Casey Hayward was a solid selection at No. 62. I wish I could say the same for safety Jerron McMillian, but he was a reach at the end of the fourth round.

I really liked Green Bay's draft overall though. Two great selections in the final few rounds pushed this up from a B+ to an A-; there's no way in hell Andrew Datko should have been available in the middle of the seventh.

I questioned the McMillian pick also but Mr. Hair was fine with it as he had McMillian as his #8 safety.

quote:

“I’m ashamed. I’m not my father’s son any more. My father was very frugal. It’s pathetic,” Thompson said of his uncontrolled spending. - Ted Thompson

TT Did what he had to

A