I'd have gone with Robinson because of the better size, explosiveness, and having proved that his athleticism is effective against talented teams like OSU.
I like it. But I was verbal on here about not caring much for Adams even before he started dropping everything in sight.
I understand that. I just think that since Thompson makes much more money than we do, he should be a much better talent evaluator than we are. And if he wants to rely on the draft for 99% of the team, we should hold him responsible for every pick he makes. The people making these scouting reports likely don't make near that dough, so they can be given a pass when they screw up.
Just so you all know, I probably wouldn’t participate in second guessing Thompson’s pick for the reasons you point out. Beyond not having the time, I am not a draftnik (not that there’s anything wrong with that) so even if I had the time, I wouldn’t. So it’s easy for me not to be overly judgmental of Thompson’s picks at the time they’re made. For those like me, if all we can use is hindsight evaluations I think an element of humility should accompany that evaluation. As adambr2 points out, it’s not as if Thompson passed up an obviously more talented WR to take Adams. IMO Thompson and his staff deserve to be criticized for bad drafts, but regarding individual picks unless they pass up an obvious pick for an obscure one recognizing it’s only hindsight that proves them wrong should be taken into consideration. I made the suggestion for a thread for those who pay closer attention and for those who think Thompson is making an obvious mistake in real time.
I’m not sure what you are getting at regarding WRs in the third round: Since Thompson has been GM, the Packers have only picked two WRs in the third round, Jones and Montgomery. You previously counted Jones as one of four who have made a real impact and Montgomery as having time to see what happens.
Of course one valuable player is worth more than four who never play and you could even say one star is worth more than four average players. But the reason putting that into practice isn’t Thompson’s philosophy is because the draft is not a scientific venture where you know for certain trading away your first and second (and maybe third) round picks to move up in the draft gets you a sure star. You may in fact strike out, even with a top 5 pick and then you will have eviscerated the top of your draft for no return. (This is why I wish Thompson would use UFA more – even if you question whether or not a vet on another team can meld with the Packers locker room and scheme, you know he’s NFL-ready and the kind of performance you can expect. But that’s another topic.) That’s why Thompson has traded down much more often than up, particularly when he was building the roster early, because even spending thousands of man hours and millions(?) of dollars on the draft it still is in the end a crap shoot. In Thompson’s view it’s better to keep those 4 picks to increase your odds of getting that one difference maker.
My analysis that it was not a good draft was based around them spending draft picks on a FB and backup QB. To me, this is them saying that they are absolutely set at every single position. I would have rather them get some depth at the weaker positions so they could have more people push for playing time.
The local high school here is The Red Land Patriots.
Yes. I too was disappointed with the Hundley pick because I didn’t think he’d take Tolzien’s spot this season and I thought it was too early to be looking for Rodgers’ replacement (which of course would be a remarkable feat in the 5th round). But what if the Packers had him rated as a third round pick? I took a look at the NFL draft tracker ratings and of course the top two QBs had much higher ratings than the rest at 6.7 and 6.2. Then there’s a group of four rated 5.24 to 5.4 (I’m using these ratings just as an example). The third QB taken at pick 11 of the third round was Garrett Grayson. His grade was 5.38. Hundley’s was 5.35. If the Packers rating of the QBs was similar I can see them thinking Hundley was just too great a value to pass up in exchange for the 30th pick of the fifth round (#166) and the 30th pick of the seventh round (#247). IOW, they could have seen him at pick #147 as the lone player available from a higher talent tier at the most important position in football. And I don't remember a Packers rookie QB having a better preseason debut.
Calling the draft crap was an overreaction, but I certainly don't put much stock into TT's drafting philosophy. I'm sure he has a good plan, but that doesn't exactly translate into good picks on draft day, especially on the defensive side...He just can't seem to comprehend that most 4-3 DEs do not make good 3-4 DEs OR linebackers. He drafted a LB who looks like he might be able to get the job done, but he still has the weaknesses that the DE converts had...average lateral quickness, could be troublesome for pass coverage and running sideline to sideline.
I said most.. I am absolutely aware that some players are talented enough to make the transition. But scouts predicted Perry might not transition well because of his weaknesses, and that's what we're seeing. It's completely reasonable to say that many can't make the transition because they likely don't possess that lateral agility, because that really wasn't required to succeed at what they were used to doing.
I agree that he does a good job through the draft, but Seattle has built an even stronger contender, and many of their great players came after the 1st Round. They are a young team, and Rodgers is getting older, so I feel like we need to raise the bar a little. The defense has felt like an unfinished product for years, during which time Seattle has drafting at a much higher level than TT.
