Rajion Neal

[AmishMafia]

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 have out the BPA chart with a gopher who calls 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.

No they were't available. It was a scenario thrown out there merely for the purpose of discission and illustration.

I believe 99.9% of the work is done prior to the draft. When the Packers pick at 25 (your example) there will probably be several players with the same grade available. TT at that point will factor in need and select or he may trade back and pick up more selections later.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

Was John Hadl one of our QB's during that stretch?

 

[TJV]

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.)

"...revisit the scenario... Packers are on the clock ... Gurley was sitting there." Looks an awful lot like a misstatement of facts with no qualifiers like "pretend..." "if...", etc. No big deal, just say'n.

 

[gopkrs]

In need vs best available I have to say that either way you go the odds are you are wrong and your guy isn't all that great (especially when you are drafing toward the bottom). I say go for solid and go for helping out your team which could be several positions. I think we got it right this past year.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

No they were't available. It was a scenario thrown out there merely for the purpose of discission and illustration.

We could spend an entire decade on discussing "would have could have should haves" as they pertain to the NFL draft, but that is merely fantasy. If I invoked that kind of logic with the stock market, I would be rich.

By the OP's logic (we should draft Melvin Gordon), we should have drafted JJ Watt, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, etc.

 

[AmishMafia]

We could spend an entire decade on discussing "would have could have should haves" as they pertain to the NFL draft, but that is merely fantasy. If I invoked that kind of logic with the stock market, I would be rich.

By the OP's logic (we should draft Melvin Gordon), we should have drafted JJ Watt, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, etc.

Posters dont want jj watt, aj green or julio jones. They want average players at positions of need.

 

[AmishMafia]

"...revisit the scenario... Packers are on the clock ... Gurley was sitting there." Looks an awful lot like a misstatement of facts with no qualifiers like "frim pretend..." "if...", etc. No big deal, just say'n.

What does the word "scenario" mean?

I am guessing you wouldn't check, so here goes from dictionary.com:

"An imagined or projected sequence of events"

Just sayin . . .

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Posters dont want jj watt, aj green or julio jones. They want average players at positions of need.

Well as it turns out, the OP would have been correct had we traded down to get Gordon, we would have ended up with an average (if that) player and no Randall as well as losing a few other picks.

 

[Mondio]

We could spend an entire decade on discussing "would have could have should haves" as they pertain to the NFL draft, but that is merely fantasy. If I invoked that kind of logic with the stock market, I would be rich.

By the OP's logic (we should draft Melvin Gordon), we should have drafted JJ Watt, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, etc.

I think the point was, nobody thought RB would be as weak as it is right now for GB and going into the draft everyone pretty much though we were set at that position.

I'd counter by saying, I like our 1st round pick and we could play if's and but's, "but" I like Randall, I think he's going a high quality player for a long time. I think he's going to be one of those guys that everyone that picked before us in the round will be saying, man, we should have picked him. So, whoever was available at RB to us in the first round, Gurly, MG, whoever, I like our pick and we'd be losing something if we was not on our team.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think the point was, nobody thought RB would be as weak as it is right now for GB and going into the draft everyone pretty much though we were set at that position.

I'd counter by saying, I like our 1st round pick and we could play if's and but's, "but" I like Randall, I think he's going a high quality player for a long time. I think he's going to be one of those guys that everyone that picked before us in the round will be saying, man, we should have picked him. So, whoever was available at RB to us in the first round, Gurly, MG, whoever, I like our pick and we'd be losing something if we was not on our team.

I agree completely. Randall will be an excellent player for us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

To me it's a pointless after the fact argument really, and not even sure why I am even arguing it LOL. Both Gurley and Gordon were in drafts when we did not need a RB (see Lacy stats). Further, both players were off the board well before our picks.

If you want to debate if Lacy is a bust and TT should have known that and gone after Gordon, that is a different topic and I don't think he is a bust, nor as it turns out so far, would Gordon have been worth drafting. But for a poster to come back and "say I told you so" because they believe Lacy is a bust is ludicrous.

 

[sschind]

Was John Hadl one of our QB's during that stretch?

Yeah, and I'm imaging him hoisting the MVP and the Lombardi Trophy. Sweeeeeeeetttttttt!!!!!!!!!

 

[sschind]

We could spend an entire decade on discussing "would have could have should haves" as they pertain to the NFL draft, but that is merely fantasy. If I invoked that kind of logic with the stock market, I would be rich.

By the OP's logic (we should draft Melvin Gordon), we should have drafted JJ Watt, A.J. Green, Julio Jones, etc.

Well? Shouldn't we have?

 

[AmishMafia]

To me it's a pointless after the fact argument really, and not even sure why I am even arguing it LOL. Both Gurley and Gordon were in drafts when we did not need a RB (see Lacy stats). Further, both players were off the board well before our picks.

If you want to debate if Lacy is a bust and TT should have known that and gone after Gordon, that is a different topic and I don't think he is a bust, nor as it turns out so far, would Gordon have been worth drafting. But for a poster to come back and "say I told you so" because they believe Lacy is a bust is ludicrous.

Prior to draft a poster wanted a RB.
Again, prior.
He was ridiculed because we didnt need a RB.
Now we need a RB.


He was correct.


No hindsight. No second guessing.no imagination.


Eli Haugen was vindicated. Even if Gordon isnt looking good, drafting a good player at RB would not have been a wasted pick.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Prior to draft a poster wanted a RB.
Again, prior.
He was ridiculed because we didnt need a RB.
Now we need a RB.


He was correct.


No hindsight. No second guessing.no imagination.


Eli Haugen was vindicated. Even if Gordon isnt looking good, drafting a good player at RB would not have been a wasted pick.

So TT and Eli are sitting at the draft table and shock the world by trading away our #1, #2 and #4 picks to move up and grab Melvin Gordon. How does this exactly vindicate Eli today?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Are we throwing into this scenario, Melvin Gordon is currently leading the league with 1400 yards rushing and 600 passing? Also, if you read Eli's post, he wasn't making some grand prediction that Lacy was a bust, he wanted the best 1-2 combination and kick returner (chuckles) in the league.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I almost feel like I just got the Golden Ticket and walked into Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get it, you guys disagree on the Gordon pick at #30. I disagree with you. Kick returner isnt a joke. we havnt had a full time kick returner who was great in forever. A steady rotation, including a half dozen or so last year. Gordon might be terrible returning kicks too, so what ever. He is big, strong, and FAST enough to be a great one though too.

And maybe you all could open your brain box 1/4" to make room for this thought? What is Lacy goes down?

HUH?!?!?!? What? yea what? What if Lacy goes down week 4 of preseason? Or worse yet, week 17 before playoffs. WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??? Rajon Neal?!?!?

Now look at the possibilities of Gordon on the roster. Gordon BEATS Starks for the back-up releif role. And a hungry Starks sits in the ranks the next few years, stepping in when one tandem goes down. I would speculate Lacy/Gordon would be the best RB duo in the NFL. And would be feared, considering Rodgers and our pass attack is also unstopable.

Think about it.

What we have here is some real solid thoughts. I need to close my "brain box" a 1/4" and politely leave this conversation to preserve my sanity.

 

[AmishMafia]

So TT and Eli are sitting at the draft table and shock the world by trading away our #1, #2 and #4 picks to move up and grab Melvin Gordon. How does this exactly vindicate Eli today?

Dont make stuff up to support your argument. He says to draft a RB at 30.

 

[TJV]

What does the word "scenario" mean?

I am guessing you wouldn't check, so here goes from dictionary.com:

"An imagined or projected sequence of events"

You're right. My apologies.

 

[Vrill]

Prior to draft a poster wanted a RB.
Again, prior.
He was ridiculed because we didnt need a RB.
Now we need a RB.


He was correct.


No hindsight. No second guessing.no imagination.


Eli Haugen was vindicated. Even if Gordon isnt looking good, drafting a good player at RB would not have been a wasted pick.

Nobody in a million years would have thought that Lacy would have regressed like he has. He was being pegged as a franchise type of RB after last season. Fantasy owners were salivating over him. Its real easy to base things after the fact and after its already happened. There aren't any Nostradamus's around here, sorry. And nobody is vindicated either. It was just a fan that (AT THE TIME) wanted to draft a RB when it wasn't a high need (AT THE TIME) - So if someone here wants to tell me that they knew Lacy was going to be this way before the season even started, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Again (AT THE TIME) drafting a RB in the first round would have been a stupid move on our parts. Yes, it wouldn't look stupid now, however, nobody at the time could see into the future either to discover Lacy's unforeseen regression.

 

[JK64]

Too bad Lacy is out of shape. He really helped the offense the last couple of years.

 

[thisisnate]

is montee ball really so bad that he's been sitting around as a free agent most of the season?

 

[OldSchool101]

Too bad Lacy is out of shape. He really helped the offense the last couple of years.

Too bad we've gone away from what made us a #1 Offense. As a play caller, you have to adapt to your strengths and weaknesses on any given day. I see a massive reduction in passing attempts to him and the few he's had are successful. As a play caller, you do what works. Too bad we're falling into the trap of wearing blinders when we need peripheral vision to operate through muck.

 

[JK64]

Too bad we've gone away from what made us a #1 Offense. As a play caller, you have to adapt to your strengths and weaknesses on any given day. I see a massive reduction in passing attempts to him and the few he's had are successful. As a play caller, you do what works. Too bad we're falling into the trap of wearing blinders when we need peripheral vision to operate through muck.

I agree that the passing game should go more to Lacy. Too bad he's hardly on the field to catch any passes, because he's fat and out of shape.