Packdog posted:
GreenNgoldBlood posted:

Don't understand all the Jimmy Graham blasting...Did those of you that are hating on him watch a single Tennessee game last year?? Obviously not, because if you did, you'd know who Delanie Walker is and how big of a role he played in ML's offense last year. Delanie Walker's role=Jimmy Graham's role this year.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Delanie Walker was injured in Game 1 last year - out for the season. He is a underrated TE and has had multiple good years in Tenn..... none of which were with Matt LeFleur. 

Yeah, but did you watch that game? He was targeted 7 times and caught 4 balls. He had a huge role in, uh, that one game. I'm guessing no one watched that game or any Titans games including GNGB. 

Packdog posted:
GreenNgoldBlood posted:

Don't understand all the Jimmy Graham blasting...Did those of you that are hating on him watch a single Tennessee game last year?? Obviously not, because if you did, you'd know who Delanie Walker is and how big of a role he played in ML's offense last year. Delanie Walker's role=Jimmy Graham's role this year.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but Delanie Walker was injured in Game 1 last year - out for the season. He is a underrated TE and has had multiple good years in Tenn..... none of which were with Matt LeFleur. 

michiganjoe posted:

Impressive use of the scrap heap by the Packers.

Is it an impressive use of the scrap heap or evidence that our drafting has sucked?

BrainDed posted:
michiganjoe posted:

Impressive use of the scrap heap by the Packers.

Is it an impressive use of the scrap heap or evidence that our drafting has sucked?

"Our" drafting?  Given all of your complaining, I take it you assume only GB makes poor draft choices.  You'd be wrong.  Below are a couple of articles for your reading pleasure (note that I didn't spend a lot of time looking so I don't know if there's anything more recent):

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/...ks-classes-2012-2016

https://bleacherreport.com/art...e-of-the-past-decade

That 28% doesn't account for our need to go on a FA binge this year.     Amos, Smith, Smith, New ILB.   That's 4 starters on D right there.    On offense we have Turner, Lewis, and Graham.   Now add Lazzard to the UDFA count and you should also count Tramon Williams as a FA too.  So, that's a total of 24 players equaling 45% of the roster.   If you exclude the 3 specialists, its 49%.

I don't thing I'm being a contrarian here with the opinion that the draft selections haven't been good.   

Drafting was poor in the last few years of TT's run. No one with half a brain is disputing that. But now you are just backpedaling on your assumption that having 15 undrafted guys on the roster was some kind of abnormal number. It's not. 

Oh, so now free agents that were drafted by others teams are a problem too. The Packers surely now have more free agents on their team than the average NFL team, right?

Hell, let's count Tramon TWICE. He's a UDFA AND LATER RETURNED AS A FREE AGENT! OMG! 

Don't stop there. How about anyone drafted after the 3rd round? Anyone with more than 4 vowels in their name? So many possibilities. 

Last edited by PackerHawk

How is finding good UDFA's indicative of poor drafting? They don't need 15 UDFA's, they didn't just find warm bodies to include on the 53, they believe (and I mostly agree) that they've found 15 good UDFA's that will be contributing. I don't see the two as related. I see only GMO, Tony Brown, Kumerow, Lancaster, Tonyan, and Vitale as players who will see significant PT and all of them have thus far shown an ability to contribute positively. I won't call them all starting quality, but I would expect GMO and Vitale to actually be starters and while Vitale is unproven I think GMO has proven himself to be starting quality. So you're looking at a lot of developmental guys with upside like Boyle, Shep, Light, etc. who likely won't play but could develop into quality players. There's nothing wrong with the back end of the roster being populated by UDFA's like Boyle and Shep. It's not indicative of anything. 

The correlation between having to sign FA's and poor drafting is very real, but is a completely separate discussion.  

"How is finding good UDFA's indicative of poor drafting? "

It's in an indication that you have roster spots to fill.   You're assuming because they made our roster they are good.   That's not always or even often accurate.   We have suffered from a lack of quality depth for a few years now.    I believe that is in part due to poor draft results.  

Every year we drool over the UDFA of camp and rarely do they turn out to be more than a warm body.    The Tramon Williams and Sam Shields of the NFL are rare and we haven't had one in a while. 

I don't see them as related at all. You're talking about UDFA's making up the bottom 1-2% of the roster. They're not seeking out UDFA's to fill important gaps on the roster, which ultimately is the consequence of drafting poorly. They're looking at developmental players who they believe will become contributors at some point...Lane Taylor, GMO, Tramon, etc. are great examples of this. UDFA is just an extension of the draft, not an extension of free agency. If we were looking at UDFA's to start immediately then yeah that's a huge issue, but that's not the case. 

Last edited by Grave Digger

One could argue that getting Shields and Tramon Williams as UDFAs (or street FAs in Tramon's case) was as important to winning the 2011 Super Bowl as anything other than drafting Rodgers and signing Woodson. 

I like the fact that they are turning over the bottom of the roster and seeing if they find contributors rather than holding on to guys like Carl Bradford, Janis, Spriggs, etc. for, in some cases, years after it was clear they weren't going to improve to be high-level contributors. The fact that Gute cut J'Mon Moore instead of some UDFA WRs or moved on from Kizer despite trading Randall for him is a great sign. Every GM makes mistakes. It's the guys that aren't afraid to move on from them and not keep guys around just because of a sunk cost who tend to have long-term success. 

BrainDed posted:

"I don't see them as related at all. You're talking about UDFA's making up the bottom 1-2% of the roster. "

How did we go from 28% to 2%?

Because the fact that the other 26% of UDFA’s on the roster are viable contributors, making the fact that they’re UDFA’s completely irrelevant. Who ****in cares if a contributor is a UDFA or a R1 draft pick? Kumerow beat out a 4th round draft pick for a roster spot, I’d rather have the better player than the draft pick. So your problem is the remaining 2% who still need to prove themselves and are just here based on potential.