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="Arles" data-source="post: 147190" data-attributes="member: 786"><p><strong>Re: A TYPICAL PACKER FAN DRAFT REVIEW</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, I think your analysis was solid and I can see your point of view. I don't agree with most of your points, but I found your post very reasonable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the type of logic I really don't get. First for Bush, there's a legit chance you won't get one productive down from Bush in all of 2007. With all this "push for Favre", why would you draft a RB that may not even play a down in the second round? The only way you make a pick like this is if you have a proven RB (ie Buffalo with McGahee) and can afford to sit him.</p><p></p><p>As to Irons, Leonard, Pittman and Jackson - all were within 5-6 "points" of each other (/100) at Scouts, inc. If you chose 5 different draft sites, you'd see these guys ordered in 5 different ways. All had warts - durability/size (Jackson, Irons, Pittman), speed (Leonard), or unable to carry the load (all). Saying someone like Pittman or Irons is much less of a reach than Jackson is simply not true. All were similar in value and seems reasonable to take the back who ran in a system that was very familiar to what GB does (Jackson). I could see saying this if GB passed on Irons to take Garrett Wolfe, but all these guys were close in value. You can say you don't like the pick, but to act like it's a reach and someone like Pittman or Bush would have been less of a reach simply isn't true.</p><p></p><p>The only reasonable argument in this draft is to say GB should have traded up to take Lynch. IMO, though, Lynch is going to be the traditional Cal back and flop in the NFL. Being a Pac-10 fan, I saw Lynch enough to know he's not the guy I want for GB. He would put up 150 yards against Portland State or Minnesota, but get held to 80 or under against Tennessee, USC or UCLA.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arles, post: 147190, member: 786"] [b]Re: A TYPICAL PACKER FAN DRAFT REVIEW[/b] First, I think your analysis was solid and I can see your point of view. I don't agree with most of your points, but I found your post very reasonable. This is the type of logic I really don't get. First for Bush, there's a legit chance you won't get one productive down from Bush in all of 2007. With all this "push for Favre", why would you draft a RB that may not even play a down in the second round? The only way you make a pick like this is if you have a proven RB (ie Buffalo with McGahee) and can afford to sit him. As to Irons, Leonard, Pittman and Jackson - all were within 5-6 "points" of each other (/100) at Scouts, inc. If you chose 5 different draft sites, you'd see these guys ordered in 5 different ways. All had warts - durability/size (Jackson, Irons, Pittman), speed (Leonard), or unable to carry the load (all). Saying someone like Pittman or Irons is much less of a reach than Jackson is simply not true. All were similar in value and seems reasonable to take the back who ran in a system that was very familiar to what GB does (Jackson). I could see saying this if GB passed on Irons to take Garrett Wolfe, but all these guys were close in value. You can say you don't like the pick, but to act like it's a reach and someone like Pittman or Bush would have been less of a reach simply isn't true. The only reasonable argument in this draft is to say GB should have traded up to take Lynch. IMO, though, Lynch is going to be the traditional Cal back and flop in the NFL. Being a Pac-10 fan, I saw Lynch enough to know he's not the guy I want for GB. He would put up 150 yards against Portland State or Minnesota, but get held to 80 or under against Tennessee, USC or UCLA. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
SudsMcBucky
Magooch
Latest posts
New Proposed Kick-Off Rule
Latest: Curly Calhoun
30 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Nearly Perfect Draft...
Latest: tynimiller
35 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Packers Push to Ban the **** Push
Latest: Curly Calhoun
40 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Good Bye J’aire Alexander
Latest: Curly Calhoun
41 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
H
Your Do Not Draft List
Latest: Heyjoe4
Today at 6:50 AM
Draft Talk
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
