You are the ONLY one who thinks this is a good idea though, that's the problem. And attempting to defend it only makes it worse. The RB position is fine as is, no need to waste a pick, yes WASTE, on Gordon in the 1st Rd.
Rajion Neal
- Thread starter gopkrs
- Start date
- Status
You are the ONLY one who thinks this is a good idea though, that's the problem. And attempting to defend it only makes it worse. The RB position is fine as is, no need to waste a pick, yes WASTE, on Gordon in the 1st Rd.
Joe Nor Cal Packer
Cheesehead
Can't argue with your logic. Plus it would help the fragile egos of aspiring punters and kickers everywhere. It might nab TT a Nobel peace prize for humanity. Brilliant!I'd rather we pick a P or K at the 30th spot.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Rajion Neal?
If we somehow combine Raji, Guion and Neal into one player, we will have something amazing! 980 lbs with power from Raji, strength of Guion and tenacity/speed of Neal
If we somehow combine Raji, Guion and Neal into one player, we will have something amazing! 980 lbs with power from Raji, strength of Guion and tenacity/speed of Neal
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
No, he is not the only one. If he is the BPA at the Packers pick, take him! You can only be a great team by taking great players. As soon as you drop talent tiers to acquire a need, you team will be suffer. Maybe not this season or even the next, but down the road you will regret not taking the better player. Im surprised at all the negativity towards Eli.
I think we as fans tend to just look at the here and now and not the longterm prospects of the Packer team. Of course I think he will be a very good pro.
You will never convince me that this would be a good pick. Unless they plan on converting him to CB or ILB sorry it's a waste.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
There's no reason to drop talent tiers. Looking out two years to the following free agency class, there are plenty of needs to be filled with plenty of quality prospects in the first round.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Only time will tell if you have a impact player or just a solid player because you purposely drafted an inferior player to fill a perceived need of a few seasons prior.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Yes there is, that is the premise of the scenario. Do you want a great player at a position of strength or a lesser player at a current position of need?
I think you always go for the better player. You never know when a position of strength becomes weak from injury or whatever, and a position of weakness becomes a position of strength from young pups developing. If you draft inferior players as suggested, you become an inferior team. Maybe you win a game or two more in the draft year and the next, but you don't win superbowls without impact players on your roster.
Last edited:
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
That's your premise, which happens to be a bit of a straw man.
How much lesser? How do you measure that? And what makes you think the guy you want will be "great"?
Did anybody think Clinton-Dix would be "great"? Does anybody believe that now? Not if they're paying attention. But a solid starter in lieu of some "guess he'll be great" pick in the low first round expected to see a lot of bench time is hardly a compromise.
Last edited by a moderator:
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
The premise is that TT's board has a player ranked in a higher tier than the player at a position of need. Whether they are or not, by the virtue of your evaluation process, you have determined player X is probably going to be a better player than player Y.
It stands to reason that your evaluation process will not be perfect but the higher the ranking the more likely the success.
I don't get all of them right, but I am one who thinks Clinton-Dix will be great. I really thought he would be a top 10 pick and was surprised he made it to us.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Again, that's your premise.
We are talking about Melvin Gordon, right? He might be a "great player" (another of your premises) for somebody else, but not likely in the Green Bay scheme. It's designed for one-cut-and-go runners, the antithesis of Gordon's jump-cut, bouncd-to-the-outside style. And then there's the Badger's blocking...Gordon was untouched to the second level time after time where he could use his quickness to elude college tacklers. There's a question how he'd translate to the faster NFL game while working in tighter spaces.
While I think Gordon is a first round talent, it's not like he's the second coming of Adrian Peterson. His upside is more along the lines of a tick-or-two-slower-C.J. Spiller without the pass catching cred.
Last edited by a moderator:
jetfixer
Cheesehead
One thing in common with great running backs.....(for the most part) is great lines. Yes Berry Sanders, A.P. and others are great, but give me blockers any day. I think Neal could be good, as some other late round picks. There will be equally ranked talent that serves needs at our first pick, no we shouldn't pick a RB.
David Johnson late round from N. Iowa looks interesting.
David Johnson late round from N. Iowa looks interesting.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Yes. That's the premise I proposed. If Melvin Gordon is up a talent tier above the next available player at a position of need, do you take him or not?
You are apparently on record saying you will pass on great players to take lesser players. I think GMs who do that do not last very long in the NFL. To each their own.
Melvin Gordon is FAR from great, he's a complete unknown. Come on.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
"Apparently" to you, whereas that is not the case. I question your premises. Gordon is 20 - 50 tier player.
yooperpackfan
Cheesehead
NEVER draft a running back in the 1st round! EVER!
Sky King
158.3
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2012
- Messages
- 2,817
- Reaction score
- 331
It would be no surprise if either San Francisco or Dallas make the Gordon draft debate moot.
But one thing we may all agree upon about a respectable draft is that it should go down real good, and nicely complement a decently cooked brat.
But one thing we may all agree upon about a respectable draft is that it should go down real good, and nicely complement a decently cooked brat.
The number 1 or 2 rated RB in the draft is a complete unknown? Its you who should come on. Compared to the other players in the draft I'd say he is bordering on great. His NFL ability may be completely unknown but then again so is every single player in the draft.
That's a pretty big tier, late 1st to late second round. I'm not disagreeing with you but that would seem to put him in the Lacy/Bell category (based on where they were drafted) Would you agree with that?
I honestly don't expect Gordon to be there for us either although it is a deep draft for RBs apparently. If it plays out like last year someone is going to get a hell of a bargain ala Lacy/Bell and a few others.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
20 - 50 is not some rigid tier I'd carry from year to year, or even necessarily a tier I'd apply to this year. It's a ballpark area where a lot of very good players are typically clustered.
On the general matter of ranking players or constructing tiers, the idea that it would be done independently of scheme fit or need is a bit absurd. Laser focus on one need as preeminent to the exclusion of others is nearly as absurd. There are always several areas of need. One thing you can take to the bank...you're not going to take a player in the first round that you don't project as at least a role player in year 1, and then as a starter by year 2. Otherwise, what's the point? After year 4 he could be gone. There are not enough picks nor cap money to have starter quality players at every position languishing on the bench.
I doubt Gordon would fall to 50 in the draft, but perhaps in another year where no power blocking teams were in need of a running back that might be the case. Also, with the dearth of quality pro style QBs coming out of college, there are signs of a gradual shift toward higher value placed on the running game.
Gordon would be a good fit in Dallas...a power blocking scheme. SF ran a nifty power blocking scheme under the previous regime; I don't know the plans of the new regime. I reiterate, I'd have doubts about Gordon's productivity behind a zone blocking line, and then there are those pesky receiving and pass blocking questions.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
I think everybody will agree with me that it's probable the Packers will re-sign Lacy after his rookie deal has expired to a long term contract.
If that's true Gordon would most likely sit on the bench for four years before leaving in free agency. I would be disappointed if the Packers had spent a first round pick for a scenario like that while having way more pressing needs on defense. But hey, I guess some of us would be fine for getting a late round compensatory pick in the 2020 draft in return.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
So much for your stated belief in BPA.
Thank God TT is not as short sighted. If so we would not have Rodgers, jordy, cobb etc on our team.
So if a Marshawn Lynch was sitting there you will instead draft an AJ hawk at MLB because of need. And yep, Lynch would ride the pine for 4 years because the Packers give 100% of touches to 1 RB.. Yep, you really want to build a winner. I guess some people want a marginal playoff team rather than one that can contend for a SB.
Just for the purposes of argumentativeness you have to post something regardless of how silly it is.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Yeah, spending a 1st. round pick on a guy who will sit on the bench, while also being a questionable scheme fit, is a surefire way to win a Super Bowl.
If we were to get the 2010 version of Hawk, when he still had some wheels, for the next 4 years, that will be a win.
And of all the picks in all the drafts the best you can come up with is 3 BPA names, two of which are highly questionable. How about the last seven 1st. round picks?
You can argue BPA all you want, but you should not associate it with Ted Thompson.
Last edited by a moderator:
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Got it. You prefer a player of AJ Hawk's caliber to a better player of Marshawn Lynch's caliber.
You argue the basis of a premis from a position when neither of us knows the truth (TTs draft board).
Why do i bother?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 6794
Guest
Show me a single post where I stated my belief in Thompson selecting the BPA available all the time.
Rodgers is the only example for Thompson selecting the best player available a lot of BPA proponents bring up all the time to justify using it for every single pick.
You tend to ignore some very important stuff about that pick though. First of all Favre was already threatening to retire at that point for some time and Rodgers was by far, BY FAR, the BPA at the Packers pick at that time. Still Thompson tried to trade that pick away before selecting #12.
Lacy got 2/3 of the Packers' carries last season while turning into a reliable receiving threat in second half of the season, there's no reason to spend a first round pick on a backup while having more pressing needs on defense.
While calling me silly you haven't come up with a reasonable idea how to use Gordon at all. Great way to advocate for spending a first round pick on him.
- Status
