Rajion Neal

Status
Not open for further replies.

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)

I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.

I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,797
I did not foresee RB being such a weakness at this point of the season and I'd have to say that a guy like Gurley would really help, but then I really like Randall too. I wouldn't doubt if he wins us at least one game before this year is out from a big play he's going to make.
 

C-Lee

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 9, 2015
Messages
2,144
Reaction score
420
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)

I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.

I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
Yeah, because everyone thought Lacy would be this bad...
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)

I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.

I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.

With the offensive line struggling in run blocking I'm not sure how much of an impact Gurley would have had with the Packers so far.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)

I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.

I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
Why not revisit 2013? DeAndre Hopkins is still on the board, and we select Datone Jones. He would make a much bigger difference, as he could actually be a go-to guy right now and give defenses somebody to plan for.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
How would the Packers look right now had they decided to pick Roddy White instead of Aaron Rodgers in 2005? We can play this game all day. I think a lot of teams were fearful of Gurley's torn ACL and not knowing how or if he would recover. Lacy was the right choice, we very well could have chosen Ball instead.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
How would the Packers look right now had they decided to pick Roddy White instead of Aaron Rodgers in 2005? We can play this game all day. I think a lot of teams were fearful of Gurley's torn ACL and not knowing how or if he would recover. Lacy was the right choice, we very well could have chosen Ball instead.

Actually this discussion is absolutely pointless as Gurley was selected 20 spots before the Packers first-rounder.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
The gist is a poster, eli, promoted drafting a rb and he was severly criticized in this thread. The common theme of posters was that you do not draft the best player available but you draft for need. Capt wimm assured me that a RB would never get a single carry.

Now it turns we have a major need at RB and the OP is completely vindicated.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
I did not foresee RB being such a weakness at this point of the season and I'd have to say that a guy like Gurley would really help, but then I really like Randall too. I wouldn't doubt if he wins us at least one game before this year is out from a big play he's going to make.
I think he already has.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
Personally, I don't see the need for a running back more then I see the need for a healthy Lacy as well as an OL that can open holes for a RB AND a passing game that actually forces teams to respect the pass more then the run.

Add to all of this that as Captain pointed out, Gurley was taken with the 10th pick, someone we would have never had a shot at anyway without losing other picks/players (see TT's resume)
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)

I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.

I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.

If Gurley was available and by far the top guy on the board, they would have taken him if no good trades worked out.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
If we are playing the crystal ball game at running back, I would have rather gotten Lynch in 2010 from Buffalo for a 4th rounder (Chris Hairston) and a conditional pick (Tank Carder). But hindsight is always 20/20. I'm scratching my head why people are already throwing the towel in on Lacy.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
Add to all of this that as Captain pointed out, Gurley was taken with the 10th pick, someone we would have never had a shot at anyway without losing other picks/players (see TT's resume)
I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.

I did read the thread and Eli's desire to draft Melvin Gordon in the first round of the 2014 draft, a pick we still were not in a position to make. How has that worked out for San Diego taking him #15? Now we are talking about Gurley who was drafted #10 in the 2015 draft, yet another pick we didn't have access to.

I fail to see the relevance of the discussion, since Lacy was taken in the 2013 draft, had a great rookie year and a good second year. The guy has some injuries on top of playing in a totally disheveled offense and people are throwing him under the bus AND then saying I told you so?

Now had Gurley/Gordon been in the Lacy draft AND available when we picked Lacy and Gurley/Gordon was performing better then Lacy at this point in their careers, someone might peak my interest with a post saying "damn we missed out on Gurley/Gordon". Bottom line, after we drafted Lacy there has been no need to use a #1 pick in the proceeding 2 drafts on a RB.

As I said Cherry picking decisions and using the rear view mirror to do it, makes for a GREAT after the fact fantasy football coaching.
 
Last edited:

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.
C'mon Amish, you just made a mistake:
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
Gurley was taken at #10 and Gordon at #15. No one in their right mind would have suggested the Packers trade up from #30 to secure either of those picks. Would you prefer Randall or T.J. Yeldon (#36) or Ameer Abdullah (#54) because they would have had to be taken instead of Randall with pick #30. So advocating for either Gurley or Gordon is not only using 20/20 hindsight, it's entirely unrealistic. Regarding hindsight, who on this board predicted Lacy's production would go from back-to-back 1,100+ yards per season and about 4.3 ypc to what he's done this season?
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
I did read the thread and Eli's desire to draft Melvin Gordon in the first round of the 2014 draft, a pick we still were not in a position to make. How has that worked out for San Diego taking him #15? Now we are talking about Gurley who was drafted #10 in the 2015 draft, yet another pick we didn't have access to.

I fail to see the relevance of the discussion, since Lacy was taken in the 2013 draft, had a great rookie year and a good second year. The guy has some injuries and people are throwing him under the bus AND then saying I told you so? Now had Todd Gurley been in the Lacy draft AND available when we picked Lacy and Gurley was performing better then Lacy at this point in their careers, someone might peak my interest with a post saying "damn we missed out on Gurley".

As I said Cherry picking decisions and using the rear view mirror to do it, makes for a GREAT after the fact fantasy football coach.
This isnt second guessing hindsight because it wasnt an option.
Moral of the story in my mind, is you always take BPA because you never know when a position of strength becomes a weakness.
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
C'mon Amish, you just made a mistake: Gurley was taken at #10 and Gordon at #15. No one in their right mind would have suggested the Packers trade up from #30 to secure either of those picks. Would you prefer Randall or T.J. Yeldon (#36) or Ameer Abdullah (#54) because they would have had to be taken instead of Randall with pick #30. So advocating for either Gurley or Gordon is not only using 20/20 hindsight, it's entirely unrealistic. Regarding hindsight, who on this board predicted Lacy's production would go from back-to-back 1,100+ yards per season and about 4.3 ypc to what he's done this season?
I am not advocating picking Gurley. I never advocated picking gurley. I advocated taking BPA even if it was a RB. I was told it would be a wasted pick because he would not play. Well, that was wrong. Gurley would be playing for us now and the packers would be better for it.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
This isnt second guessing hindsight because it wasnt an option.
Moral of the story in my mind, is you always take BPA because you never know when a position of strength becomes a weakness.

I guess I fail to see what point you are trying to make then? Walk me through your BPA in the 2013-2015 drafts, without hindsight of course. :cool:
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
I am not advocating picking Gurley. I never advocated picking gurley. I advocated taking BPA even if it was a RB. I was told it would be a wasted pick because he would not play. Well, that was wrong. Gurley would be playing for us now and the packers would be better for it.

Explain the scenario of how Gurley becomes a Packer, I am lost. :cautious:
 

AmishMafia

Cheesehead
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
7,571
Reaction score
2,717
Location
PENDING
Explain the scenario of how Gurley is a Packer, I am lost. :cautious:
I stated in this thread we should take BPA regardless of position.
As an example if BPA is Clearcut and a RB we should take him.
Eli posted he advocated taking Gordon.
Many posters thought this stupid.
Many posters want the packers to draft for need regardless of quality.
I think this is stupid.
I was told any RB we drafted qould not touch the ball for his entire Packer career.
Imagine if Gurley was available at our pick and we drafed him do you think the Packers would be vetrer off?

The whole point is draft BPA and dont worry about what was a strength last year. Too many thinfs can happen. Look now at our WR corp. We could use some more talent there, who would have thought that a few monts ago @ draft time?
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
34,205
Reaction score
9,311
Location
Madison, WI
You and I have a different philosophy on how the BPA is fully used. Might as well send TT on vacation during the draft and just hire a ball boy with a BPA chart to call in the draft based on the BPA each pick.

BPA is also a great rear view mirror scenario when analyzing past drafts...and for people wanting to say "I told you so....He was was there for the taking and the BPA and we passed on him?" By the BPA scenario, should we draft another QB in the 2016 draft if one is available in the first round? Don't you think TT and others use their BPA (widely varying no doubt) during the drafting process? Do you think they also may use a team needs chart as well? Will go back to the upcoming 2016 draft for a second. We pick say #25 and a QB is there that has a BPA of 24 and an ILB that has a BPA of 29. Who do we take?

This debate is further muddled and rather ridiculous to look back, since everyone else keeps pointing out that neither Gordon or Gurley were draft options, nor was there a perceived need to use a #1 pick on a RB in either drafts for the Packers.
 
Last edited:

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,334
Reaction score
1,561
IMAGINE IF

Right now I'm imagining the Packers haven't lost a game since I became a fan in the mid 70's.. Great stuff this imagination.

I understand what you are saying but you have to admit you started your post off all wrong which has lead to the posts against you.

You said Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. but that was not the scenario.

Had you said "Imagine this scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there." That's totally different and may be worthy of discussion.

As far as BPA goes there is a lot of misconception on just what it means and how the different GMs (and pundits I suppose) develop their big boards. Some people seem to think there is one big board and if your GM doesn't take the one player at the top of the "official" big board he isn't taking the BPA. In reality it is likely that there are 32 unique boards (just counting GMs) and there is likely a lot of variation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Top