Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
OFFICIAL 2007 DRAFT PACK REVIEWS & PREDICTIONS
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TOPHAT" data-source="post: 147189" data-attributes="member: 781"><p><strong>A TYPICAL PACKER FAN DRAFT REVIEW</strong></p><p></p><p>Summary Statement: To a fan, this draft has got to be pretty disappointing. I know I was yelling at the TV this weekend. There was a definite lack of "sizzle". Yes, some positions of need were addressed, but as I look back at the moves the Packers made (or didn't make), I have a look on my face that displays a combination of confusion and smelling rotten milk.</p><p></p><p>1) Harrell - Both Harrell and Reggie White wore #92 at Tennessee. Maybe TT was watching old film and the player he thought he was watching was actually Reggie White. I am not going to speculate as to whether or not this pick will pan out - but Harrell was a big reach at #16, in my opinion. Defensive linemen usually are "reaches" because good ones are so valuable. Year after year, teams pick D-Linemen higher than they should, and year after year, there are D-Line busts in the First Round. I guess I could go either way on this pick. On the plus side, the Packers needed an impact player. Just as RB is the easiest position on offense for a rookie to step in and make an impact, I think DL is the equivalent on defense. So on those lines, Harrell SHOULD be able to step in and play immediately. The same might not have held true for Reggie Nelson (my choice), Robert Meachem, or Greg Olsen.</p><p>But on the down side, Harrell was a reach at #16. If the Packers were going to reach, why wouldn't they have reached for a player that played a position that they needed more help at? I know - you "don't draft for need". But if you're going to reach, why not reach for Reggie Nelson or Michael Griffin at Safety? Why not reach for Meachem or Bowe at WR or Olsen at TE? The Packers already have Ryan Pickett, Corey Williams, Cullen Jenkins, Colin Cole, Johnny Jolly, and Kenderick Allen. While no one is going to confuse them for the "Fearsome Foursome" or the "Purple People Eaters", D-Line was hardly a "need" position. And what about Alan Branch? He was projected as a Top-10 pick a couple of weeks ago. Is Harrell really a better choice at DT than Branch? This pick was a real head-scratcher for me.</p><p>2) Brandon Jackson - another head-scratcher. At #47, the Packers had their choice of the "next level" of RBs. Brian Leonard, who some mock drafts had going in the first round, was there. Antonio Pittman (my choice at 2nd-tier RB), Kenny Irons, and Michael Bush (injury issues, but upside) were all there at RB; Eric Wright (character issues) was there at CB; Steve Smith (experienced, good production in good conference) was there at WR. But TT decided to trade out of #47 and missed out on Leonard, Irons, and Wright, and Smith, PASSED on Pittman and Bush, and chose Jackson? ackson is a work in progress. He was a feature back for all of 9 games in his career, he's kind of small, he's not a burner, and he's had injury issues. He may have good feet and good vision - which translates well to a ZBS - but surely, he would have lasted to the third round... wouldn't he? i'm not against picking Jackson as much as I am against picking him over some other guys (Leonard, Smith, Wright, Pittman). This pick has boom-or-bust written all over it, and at #63, I think he was a reach too.</p><p>3a) James Jones - great pick... IN THE 7TH ROUND!! This was the best player on the Packers' draft board? Maybe I'm missing something, but if Randy Moss has a better season in 2007 than James Jones does, I think this pick was awful. </p><p>3b) Aaron Rouse - the next pick in what looks like a boom-or-bust Day 1 for the Packers. One quote I read about Rouse really scared me: looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. I've coached guys like that. I can't explain it... athletic, hard-working, intelligent enough, but when you put the pads on the kid, he disappears. This kid better be the king of the special teams because this pick could be another stinker. When you look at scouting reports that say "not instinctive in coverage," "does not have good ball skills," and "liability in zone coverage," and you are counting on Kurt Schottenheimer to turn him into a player, special teams may be the only chance Rouse will have to contribute in 2007. Who knows - maybe they plan to move him to Sam LB. That might almost make sense...</p><p>4) Allen Barbre - project. Someone has to play LT when Clifton's knees decide they've had enough. Decent, yet unexciting pick.</p><p>5) David Clowney - The Packers need someone with deep speed to stretch the field. Clowney might be that guy, but not in 2007. I actually could see him develop from skinny track guy into legitimate WR like Donald Driver did. Not a bad pick. Can they turn this guy into a kick returner?</p><p>6a) Korey Hall - yawn... LB who will get a shot at FB. Note to TT: Cory Anderson from Tennessee is a FA. At least he's played FB for a couple of seasons.</p><p>6b) Desmond Bishop - strictly a special teamer in this style of defense.</p><p>6c) Mason Crosby - BY FAR, Crosby is the Packers' draft pick that I am most excited about. That's not saying much, is it? Still, I think Crosby has the best shot at making an impact in 2007. Great value in the sixth round.</p><p>7a) DeShawn Wynn - good measurables, below-average production. Boom-or-bust player worth it in the 7th round.</p><p>7b) Clark Harris - OK... my question is "Why?" Ben Patrick, a Day One pick on just about every mock draft, was still there in the 6th round when the Packers had three picks. Crosby over Patrick in the 6th round? Absolutely. But Hall and Bishop? Come on! Clark Harris is a project. They might have gotten something out of Patrick in 2007.</p><p>Conclusion: The Packers went into this draft with obvious holes at RB, S, WR, TE and CB. I don't see a single pick that makes me think "Ah-ha - this guy will plug that hole," and that is very troubling. Round after round, it seemed TT was too wrapped up in trying to find his "diamonds in the rough" when there were diamonds staring him right in the face. And when even TT says that he starts to place more value in plugging holes on Day 2, his selections don't always make sense. With the 16th pick, the Packers did NOTHING to address their most glaring holes. And if that isn't troubling enough, Picking Harrell had a domino effect on the Packers hole-filling efforts. By Round 2, they had the same holes that they had in Round 1 - but now, the menu of players was less appealing. Consider: Harrell (DT), Jackson (RB), Jones (WR), and Rouse (S), or 1) S - Reggie Nelson or Michael Griffin 2) WR - Steve Smith 3) RB - Michael Bush / Antonio Pittman / Brandon Jackson 4) DT - Marcus Thomas Nelson / Griffin starts at Safety and is a HUGE upgrade over Marquand Manual.</p><p>Smith is in that "next tier" of WRs, stepped up when Dwayne Jarrett missed a few games, played all four years and started 27 games for a pro-style offense, and put up good numbers in 2006 despite playing with an inexperienced QB. I could see him winning the Packers' #3 WR job coming out of training camp. Bush's injury makes him a bit of a gamble, but he could turn into a stud. A featured back on a Big Ten team, Pittman's main knock is his size (5' 10 3/4", 207)? In a ZBS offense, could he be another Warrick Dunn? Compared to Pittman, Brandon Jackson is shorter, slower, and only weighs 210 - and he may very well have still been there in the 3rd round too. Marcus Thomas - 1st Round talent, but with baggage stemming from a failed drug test (marijuana). Still, he's big, strong, quick, and very distuptive at the LOS.</p><p>Trading a 4th round pick for Randy Moss would have been worth doing too. To top it all off, James Jones might still have been there after the draft to sign as a free agent! Like I said, it seemed to me that TT was chasing diamonds in the rough by trading down, rather than selecting the diamonds right in front of his face on Day 1. After last season's draft and FA acquisitions, depth isn't as big of an issue as it was after the 2005 season. This team already had decent depth at several positions, and now would have been a good time to try to add an impact player or two at positions that aren't so deep (i.e. Nelson or Griffin at S, Randy Moss at WR).</p><p>And on Day 2 - when TT himself admitted to placing a greater emphasis on need - he did uncover a possible deep threat. But he also passed on a Day 1 TE (Ben Patrick) in favor of a couple of LBs (one who projects as a FB and one who will most likely only see the field on special teams), he couldn't find another DB worth selecting, and with the selection of Crosby, managed to upgrade a position that wasn't necessarily a glaring weakness.</p><p>This draft may very well end up helping the Packers a great deal - but with so many "sleeper" picks, "boom-or-bust" picks, and "project" picks, that may not happen until 2008 or 2009. The only immediate help I see will come from Justin Harrell and Mason Crosby - and neither of them play "need" positions. This draft was very disappointing for me. Between this draft's lack of sizzle and the Packers' failure to bolster any of their weaker positions via trade or free agency (my apologies to Frank Walker), any optimism that last season's 4-0 finish may have generated for me - is now lost. I am really bummed. That said, I wonder how excited Favre is to get his new "weapons" in Jackson, Jones, Clowney, Wynn and Harris...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TOPHAT, post: 147189, member: 781"] [b]A TYPICAL PACKER FAN DRAFT REVIEW[/b] Summary Statement: To a fan, this draft has got to be pretty disappointing. I know I was yelling at the TV this weekend. There was a definite lack of "sizzle". Yes, some positions of need were addressed, but as I look back at the moves the Packers made (or didn't make), I have a look on my face that displays a combination of confusion and smelling rotten milk. 1) Harrell - Both Harrell and Reggie White wore #92 at Tennessee. Maybe TT was watching old film and the player he thought he was watching was actually Reggie White. I am not going to speculate as to whether or not this pick will pan out - but Harrell was a big reach at #16, in my opinion. Defensive linemen usually are "reaches" because good ones are so valuable. Year after year, teams pick D-Linemen higher than they should, and year after year, there are D-Line busts in the First Round. I guess I could go either way on this pick. On the plus side, the Packers needed an impact player. Just as RB is the easiest position on offense for a rookie to step in and make an impact, I think DL is the equivalent on defense. So on those lines, Harrell SHOULD be able to step in and play immediately. The same might not have held true for Reggie Nelson (my choice), Robert Meachem, or Greg Olsen. But on the down side, Harrell was a reach at #16. If the Packers were going to reach, why wouldn't they have reached for a player that played a position that they needed more help at? I know - you "don't draft for need". But if you're going to reach, why not reach for Reggie Nelson or Michael Griffin at Safety? Why not reach for Meachem or Bowe at WR or Olsen at TE? The Packers already have Ryan Pickett, Corey Williams, Cullen Jenkins, Colin Cole, Johnny Jolly, and Kenderick Allen. While no one is going to confuse them for the "Fearsome Foursome" or the "Purple People Eaters", D-Line was hardly a "need" position. And what about Alan Branch? He was projected as a Top-10 pick a couple of weeks ago. Is Harrell really a better choice at DT than Branch? This pick was a real head-scratcher for me. 2) Brandon Jackson - another head-scratcher. At #47, the Packers had their choice of the "next level" of RBs. Brian Leonard, who some mock drafts had going in the first round, was there. Antonio Pittman (my choice at 2nd-tier RB), Kenny Irons, and Michael Bush (injury issues, but upside) were all there at RB; Eric Wright (character issues) was there at CB; Steve Smith (experienced, good production in good conference) was there at WR. But TT decided to trade out of #47 and missed out on Leonard, Irons, and Wright, and Smith, PASSED on Pittman and Bush, and chose Jackson? ackson is a work in progress. He was a feature back for all of 9 games in his career, he's kind of small, he's not a burner, and he's had injury issues. He may have good feet and good vision - which translates well to a ZBS - but surely, he would have lasted to the third round... wouldn't he? i'm not against picking Jackson as much as I am against picking him over some other guys (Leonard, Smith, Wright, Pittman). This pick has boom-or-bust written all over it, and at #63, I think he was a reach too. 3a) James Jones - great pick... IN THE 7TH ROUND!! This was the best player on the Packers' draft board? Maybe I'm missing something, but if Randy Moss has a better season in 2007 than James Jones does, I think this pick was awful. 3b) Aaron Rouse - the next pick in what looks like a boom-or-bust Day 1 for the Packers. One quote I read about Rouse really scared me: looks like Tarzan, plays like Jane. I've coached guys like that. I can't explain it... athletic, hard-working, intelligent enough, but when you put the pads on the kid, he disappears. This kid better be the king of the special teams because this pick could be another stinker. When you look at scouting reports that say "not instinctive in coverage," "does not have good ball skills," and "liability in zone coverage," and you are counting on Kurt Schottenheimer to turn him into a player, special teams may be the only chance Rouse will have to contribute in 2007. Who knows - maybe they plan to move him to Sam LB. That might almost make sense... 4) Allen Barbre - project. Someone has to play LT when Clifton's knees decide they've had enough. Decent, yet unexciting pick. 5) David Clowney - The Packers need someone with deep speed to stretch the field. Clowney might be that guy, but not in 2007. I actually could see him develop from skinny track guy into legitimate WR like Donald Driver did. Not a bad pick. Can they turn this guy into a kick returner? 6a) Korey Hall - yawn... LB who will get a shot at FB. Note to TT: Cory Anderson from Tennessee is a FA. At least he's played FB for a couple of seasons. 6b) Desmond Bishop - strictly a special teamer in this style of defense. 6c) Mason Crosby - BY FAR, Crosby is the Packers' draft pick that I am most excited about. That's not saying much, is it? Still, I think Crosby has the best shot at making an impact in 2007. Great value in the sixth round. 7a) DeShawn Wynn - good measurables, below-average production. Boom-or-bust player worth it in the 7th round. 7b) Clark Harris - OK... my question is "Why?" Ben Patrick, a Day One pick on just about every mock draft, was still there in the 6th round when the Packers had three picks. Crosby over Patrick in the 6th round? Absolutely. But Hall and Bishop? Come on! Clark Harris is a project. They might have gotten something out of Patrick in 2007. Conclusion: The Packers went into this draft with obvious holes at RB, S, WR, TE and CB. I don't see a single pick that makes me think "Ah-ha - this guy will plug that hole," and that is very troubling. Round after round, it seemed TT was too wrapped up in trying to find his "diamonds in the rough" when there were diamonds staring him right in the face. And when even TT says that he starts to place more value in plugging holes on Day 2, his selections don't always make sense. With the 16th pick, the Packers did NOTHING to address their most glaring holes. And if that isn't troubling enough, Picking Harrell had a domino effect on the Packers hole-filling efforts. By Round 2, they had the same holes that they had in Round 1 - but now, the menu of players was less appealing. Consider: Harrell (DT), Jackson (RB), Jones (WR), and Rouse (S), or 1) S - Reggie Nelson or Michael Griffin 2) WR - Steve Smith 3) RB - Michael Bush / Antonio Pittman / Brandon Jackson 4) DT - Marcus Thomas Nelson / Griffin starts at Safety and is a HUGE upgrade over Marquand Manual. Smith is in that "next tier" of WRs, stepped up when Dwayne Jarrett missed a few games, played all four years and started 27 games for a pro-style offense, and put up good numbers in 2006 despite playing with an inexperienced QB. I could see him winning the Packers' #3 WR job coming out of training camp. Bush's injury makes him a bit of a gamble, but he could turn into a stud. A featured back on a Big Ten team, Pittman's main knock is his size (5' 10 3/4", 207)? In a ZBS offense, could he be another Warrick Dunn? Compared to Pittman, Brandon Jackson is shorter, slower, and only weighs 210 - and he may very well have still been there in the 3rd round too. Marcus Thomas - 1st Round talent, but with baggage stemming from a failed drug test (marijuana). Still, he's big, strong, quick, and very distuptive at the LOS. Trading a 4th round pick for Randy Moss would have been worth doing too. To top it all off, James Jones might still have been there after the draft to sign as a free agent! Like I said, it seemed to me that TT was chasing diamonds in the rough by trading down, rather than selecting the diamonds right in front of his face on Day 1. After last season's draft and FA acquisitions, depth isn't as big of an issue as it was after the 2005 season. This team already had decent depth at several positions, and now would have been a good time to try to add an impact player or two at positions that aren't so deep (i.e. Nelson or Griffin at S, Randy Moss at WR). And on Day 2 - when TT himself admitted to placing a greater emphasis on need - he did uncover a possible deep threat. But he also passed on a Day 1 TE (Ben Patrick) in favor of a couple of LBs (one who projects as a FB and one who will most likely only see the field on special teams), he couldn't find another DB worth selecting, and with the selection of Crosby, managed to upgrade a position that wasn't necessarily a glaring weakness. This draft may very well end up helping the Packers a great deal - but with so many "sleeper" picks, "boom-or-bust" picks, and "project" picks, that may not happen until 2008 or 2009. The only immediate help I see will come from Justin Harrell and Mason Crosby - and neither of them play "need" positions. This draft was very disappointing for me. Between this draft's lack of sizzle and the Packers' failure to bolster any of their weaker positions via trade or free agency (my apologies to Frank Walker), any optimism that last season's 4-0 finish may have generated for me - is now lost. I am really bummed. That said, I wonder how excited Favre is to get his new "weapons" in Jackson, Jones, Clowney, Wynn and Harris... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
weeds
Latest posts
2025 NFL Free Agency
Latest: OldSchool101
5 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2023 round 3 pick #78: Tucker Kraft TE
Latest: tynimiller
54 minutes ago
Draft Talk
H
How much time?
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 3:15 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Bucks 2024-25 Season Thread
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 3:00 PM
Milwaukee Bucks Forum
S
2025 Roster - Semi Live Thread
Latest: Schultz
Today at 1:29 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
OFFICIAL 2007 DRAFT PACK REVIEWS & PREDICTIONS
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
