Young man's league

H5Keyboard Warrior, troll hunter

Seems to be the theme these days, getting younger.

Changes from 2010 SB run.

"I think the way our program is designed tells you how we feel about young players," McCarthy said. "We've been a draft-and-development program going on year seven right now. It’s a young man’s league in my opinion...no disrespect to the older players. I think that’s a trend that’s only potentially going to pick up."

2/18/1312:52 PM

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

packerboiI lick rainbows

Not only does TT like to keep this roster with young players, he also seems drawn to those who feel jilted, weren't given a fair shot at _____ school, were snubbed by some big school that didn't want him, OR got passed x amount of times until GB drafted them.

He likes the player coming into the NFL with a bit of a chip on their shoulder, something to prove, and who's been told you won't amount to being a starter in the NFL or will fizzle out or won't be good because of this or that.

There's also been blurbs written about younger players simply trying harder. Whether it's because they are fighting for a starting role, a big contract, a SB ring, or whatever else it is young guys will throw themselves all over the field. You don't always see that with players pushing 3-0.

2/18/131:15 PM

fightphoe93Member

In a non-salary cap era, guys over 30 would be more valued. But with the cap, you just can't keep the old guys around unless they are exceptional or willing to play for the veteran minimum. Woodson was exceptional until '12.

There's no doubt in my mind there's a number of guys in their late '20s early '30s that are better than some of the bottom of the roster guys playing on teams around the league right now but there isn't room for them due to the cap. There's plenty of room for 7th round rookies and FAs who count very little towards the cap.

2/18/134:08 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

quote:
Originally posted by packerboi:
Not only does TT like to keep this roster with young players, he also seems drawn to those who feel jilted, weren't given a fair shot at _____ school, were snubbed by some big school that didn't want him, OR got passed x amount of times until GB drafted them.

Curious what makes you think that and give an example. Not saying you are wrong, just curious how you have come to that conclusion.

2/18/134:14 PM

TdogProspective Member

History for $100, Alex?

2/18/135:18 PM

WolfPackMember

quote:
Originally posted by packerboi:
Not only does TT like to keep this roster with young players, he also seems drawn to those who feel jilted, weren't given a fair shot at _____ school, were snubbed by some big school that didn't want him, OR got passed x amount of times until GB drafted them.

He likes the player coming into the NFL with a bit of a chip on their shoulder, something to prove, and who's been told you won't amount to being a starter in the NFL or will fizzle out or won't be good because of this or that.

There's also been blurbs written about younger players simply trying harder. Whether it's because they are fighting for a starting role, a big contract, a SB ring, or whatever else it is young guys will throw themselves all over the field. You don't always see that with players pushing 3-0.

you nailed it man, thats what TT covets. Which is why it kills me that he passed on Doug Martin. Seemed like the perfect fit. I was yelling at the TV. Martin was seething that he didnt receive any PAC 10 interest and damn if we coulda used him this year to take heat off AR. oh well I do think his approach will keep us competitive. You still have to keep & pay veterans, you just have to pick and choose and end up letting fan favorites walk.

forget the measurables and 40 times. football is as much mental and emotional.
look at the last couple SB winners- Theres more chips than Tollhouse out there.
Why cant Dallas, Philly and Washington win the last 20 years? Heck they outspend the entire league. I think TT is the perfect GM for a team in Green Bay Wisconsin.

2/18/135:30 PM

packerboiI lick rainbows

quote:
Originally posted by chickenboy:
Curious what makes you think that and give an example. Not saying you are wrong, just curious how you have come to that conclusion.

There are plenty of examples on this roster with a guy named Rodgers leading that category.

Here's CJ Wilson back in 2010:

quote:
On sliding in the NFL Draft: That’s always on my mind. I think about that three or four times an hour. I got passed up on. I deserved to go higher, but maybe they saw something else. We will just see. I’m not really worried about that right now. You can’t change that. It’s a lot of motivation because I got past on, but that is their deceision.

2/18/136:27 PM

FandameMember

I like the way TT puts the roster together, but I have to wonder if always being young and younger gets us to the playoffs and little further. With Rodgers, Woodson, Green, Jennings, and a couple others, we had some experience to blend in with the youth. The experience led the way and the youth followed. I am a bit concerned that if we always go young and younger, we won't have the developed leaders to get us the Lombardi trophy.

2/18/139:38 PM

TschmackMember

quote:
Not only does TT like to keep this roster with young players, he also seems drawn to those who feel jilted, weren't given a fair shot at _____ school, were snubbed by some big school that didn't want him, OR got passed x amount of times until GB drafted them.

I'll play

Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Josh Sitton, TJ Lang come to mind

2/19/135:14 AM

chickenboyTic Toc

quote:
Originally posted by Tschmack: Aaron Rodgers, Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, Josh Sitton, TJ Lang come to mind

The Rodgers thing has been

on here and I agree with that one. With his talent, no way he should have fell into TT's lap. He also had the whole junior college experience as well.

As far as the others go, I don't recall any stories of chips on shoulders, etc. In fact, wasn't Nelson considered a reach at the time? The others went to smaller schools...maybe that is why they have chips?

2/19/136:11 AM

YATittleMember

I think he goes for that type of player because that's what he was: an unheralded talent who managed to play in the league for a long time. He also sees the benefits of a player like that in the lockeroom and on the field (Driver, Jennings, AR, etc.)

2/19/137:58 AM

TdogProspective Member

Montee Ball with a chip on his shoulder? Does he have good BFI? hmmmm...

quote:
“They say I’m not special,” Ball said, via Pat Yasinskas of ESPN.com. “They say I’m not especially fast. They say I’m not especially big. Well, fine, I’ll take that as a compliment. They’re not tearing me apart. They’re just saying that I don’t do one thing special. So what? If you’re pretty good all the way around, then you can be a very good running back.”

2/19/1310:17 AM

Shoeless JoeMember

He couldn't out run the 5 dudes who wanted to beat his a$$... just sayin'.

2/19/1310:22 AM

Music CityMember

Ball would make a fine Packer. But I have doubts that Thompson would pick any RB before day 2. It's just not the position they seem to value in the upper portions of the draft. Personally I wish they would take a RB high because I am still of the opinion that they are not simply some a dozen players. I still think RBs of high skill make OLs better. And while there certainly are examples of power round guys being good, they haven't been playing in GB for a the last few years. I still think they need a consistent guy to compliment the passing game and make the OL more productive.

2/19/1310:54 AM

HerschelMember

It's symbiotic and I agree, Ball would be a good fit for the Packers as he's a good all-around back. Get a good, young Center and a healthy Sherrod possibly and maybe the Packers offense gets even batter and more well-rounded. A more rested defense would be a boon also.

2/19/1311:18 AM

El-Ka-BongYou ungrateful biscuit eating son of a bitch

No problem picking Ball at the back of the second round. Prefer to get him in the third.

2/19/1311:49 AM

HerschelMember

They're probably in a good spot to get Ball in the second. I highly doubt he'd be there for their third-rounder though.

2/19/1312:52 PM

FreeSafetyI wonder what the poor people are doing?

I don't have a specific reason, but I don't get the feeling Ball will be a very good NFL back.

2/19/131:29 PM

chickenboyTic Toc

quote:
Originally posted by FreeSafety:
I don't have a specific reason, but I don't get the feeling Ball will be a very good NFL back.

It's probably because that prolific college running game hasn't translated to the pro level. Go thru the list of some Badger runners:

Moss
Fletcher (he actually may have had the best career of any Badger back in the Alvarez/BB era)
Dayne
Clay

Not much there. Maybe Ball can buck the trend.

What I find interesting is that Bucky has had several successful WR/TE at the pro level from this era.

2/19/131:44 PM

Music CityMember

Ball does have great vision, and that translates at the NFL level most of the time. He has good speed, but that might be the biggest question- is it good enough? Will he be quick and fast enough to hit the hole.

I also like the way he showed up against tougher competition the last couple years. It wasn't like he beat up onnly patsies- he shows up pretty big in the biggest games.

I hope everyone thinks like you- then he'll fall and the Packers will have a chance to keep him in WI.

2/19/131:59 PM

packerboiI lick rainbows

quote:
Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
No problem picking Ball at the back of the second round. Prefer to get him in the third.

This. IMO he's not worthy of a 1st round pick. He's comes with a lot of wear in a program that beats running backs like dead mules. Nearly a 1000 carries?

That's a lot of wear for a position that isn't long in the NFL to begin with.

2/19/132:31 PM

Skip to main content

Add Reply

Membership Required

Remove From Your Block List

Manage Follow Preferences

Block

Please wait...