IMO, the biggest impact will be ST. This returner has been compared to Cordorelle Patterson. If he's anything near that dude, he's gonna be awesome.

You got two CBs, you got an ILB, you got a FB. That's five in one draft, on a loaded roster.

---

You know this how?

You may be right - I read that disturbing article that Matthews was dissatisfied, but I chalked it up to some media asshole stirring up trouble. IMO, Matthews and his athleticism made a huge positive difference inside for the Packers, and they still took advantage of his OLB ability on a lot of downs. I also liked Barrington's motor and some degree of toughness and athleticism. Hopefully this Ryan contributes, but IMO starting him would be going back to settling for a Hawk-like not as athletic player.

IMO, if any newby starts, it will be one of those athletic DBs if Hayward falters or hurts him hamstring again, or maybe the rookie FB, as Kuhn maybe wouldn't be that hard to beat out.

---

Yooper, i think you're right about Ryan being the only one to compete as starter; but CM3 in 2013 played some inside on passing downs and in mini camps he was playing quite a bit inside as well. The idea was to move him around making harder for D to game plan and his versatility could be used to cover, spy on those pesky QBs; blitz up middle; blitz off same side as Peppers; stunt w/ Peppers; etc. CM3's move was not a total emergency; but you're probably right in that the amount of snaps he got inside in 2014 was due to the emergency issues you cited.

If I'm defensive coord, as long as Perry's playing well, I have Wildman Clay in a position where the QB can see him relentlessly coming over and over and then occasionally lining him up on blindside to make the QB wonder where he's at.

I don't think "draft and develop" depends on bringing in rookies who have to start this year to keep the machine running. It's a pipeline. We aren't going to start the same 22 as last year, but the replacements may come from last year's class, or the previous year's -- the "develop" part of draft and develop. A few of these rookies may start, maybe even later this year, maybe next year after they develop a little. The question though: is the 3-year pipeline stocked so we have a steady drip of new talent, year after year? I believe things are fine on that point, with the possible exception of specifically needing some ILB talent this year.

---

This is another uffda situation. If you are going to make claims that the packers had a shitty draft because you don't think their picks are going to push for starting positions, you better come at us with an analysis of other teams' drafts. I'd love to know how many teams have 3 or more picks "pushing for starting positions." Also, which of those teams you think weren't shitty teams last seasons.

I don't know how you can sit here and say that our top 2 picks aren't pushing the guys ahead of them. Sammy is the only guy I see with his spot locked down. Jake Ryan is an obvious choice for this, as everyone was screaming for an ILB to be drafted. The FB we drafted could very well make John Kuhn expendable.

That's 4 in our draft.

Now where do the other teams stand?

I could easily see one of the CBs starting by mid season and the other contributing along with Ryan and Montgomery.

---

We had four rookies that came in last year and contributed at a significant level. I don't think you really want to see that every single year and the hope is to invest in rookies and develop them into outstanding players. I think Randall and Rollins under Witt will have a great chance of becoming outstanding players whether they set the world on fire this year or not.

Going by past history it seems rookies are called on every year to step in and step up due to injury or whatever and for the most part they seem to hold up very well when it happens. I would much prefer though that players with a couple more years experience that have earned their chance (like Hyde and Hayward) stay healthy and get the job done.

That's the ideal draft and develop scenario. Learn, pay your dues, develop into a solid starter, with someone behind you following the same path.

A rookie starting means one of three things. They are that good and beat everyone else out, or, the starter got hurt, or, the starter sucked and they had to replace them. So two of three doesn't look to me like rookies starting actually means it's a good thing.

Of course around here every rookie that doesn't come in and earn a starting spot and play terrific is labeled a bust by the end of the first year anyhow. I can't imagine any job harder than going from college football to professional football and why it's such a mystery to some that it takes time for that to happen just really puzzles me.

---

Drafting youth and them competing for a spot of a veteran is always a good thing. The problem comes in when there isn't good veteran competition for them to compete with. In those cases is where outside veteran competition is needed.

---

That's what I get for not being precise about the point I'm trying to make.

What was that point? It starts with a point I have tried to make repeatedly since last season ended, namely my belief that there were several positions where improvement was needed and that expecting all of that improvement to come from players currently on the roster is a recipe for failure. Before free agency started, I believed, and I still do, that there wasn't enough talent on the end-of-season Packer roster to cover the improvement needed at at starting LT, at starting RG, at starting RT, at backup TE, at starting DT, at rotation DE, at starting ILB#1, at starting ILB#2, at starting OLB #2, at backup LB, and at backup CB.

And after pre-draft veteran free agency, that list expanded to include starting CB #2.

Now, clearly no one here seems to agree with my list. That's fine. But whether this or that part of the list, or even two thirds of the list for that matter, belongs on it, is not the point. The point is that I do not think highly of the Packers' deep-into-playoff chances in 2015 if all 22 starters (or, if you prefer to substitute RaiderPride's "players with significant playing time" substitute for "starter,") are drawn from players who were on the roster at the end of last season.

I believed that in last January, and I will go on believing it until I am shown otherwise.

Which brings me to the post with which I started this thread: Believing as I do, and having a organization that for whatever reasons people want to give, did nothing to find outside veterans to provide serious competition for that end-of-2015 roster, that competition must come from either draft or UDFA.

I don't believe its good practice to expect rookie draft picks to become starters. I do believe that given (i) the number of positions at which some serious competition for starting/significant game reps is needed and (ii) the *lack* of players at on the end-of-2015 roster who can reasonably be expected to provide competition at *all* of those positions and (iii) the *lack* to date of any 2016 veteran free agent acquisitions that might provide that competition at *any* of those positions, then the only places we can expect that serious competition to come from are either rookies or UDFAs.

And, as I said, I don't see it except, maybe, at one ILB position, with Ryan. And to be honest, as high as I am on Ryan, I don't see him as a substantial upgrade as a rookie either.

Most everyone else seems to think that all the improvement needed to go late into the playoffs can come from the current roster (maybe with one/both of the S/CB hybrids getting significant reps in nickel/dime packages).

I just don't see it. Long run, Randall and Rollins may be all pros. In 2016, I see them as competing for reps with whoever loses the battle between Hayward and Hyde, Bush, and Richardson. Montgomery? He's going to be a number three WR. Ryan, ok, that's serious competition for one ILB position.

Meanwhile, we have no competition added for starting/significant time for either side of the line. Okay, I understand people are never going to see my argument on Lang and Bulaga's being not good enough. But do people seriously think a "developing" Bahktiari is what we should be satisfied with at LT. Do people seriously think that a serviceable Guion (who still may well be suspended for part of the season) and a B J Raji whose only consistency is his inconsistency, and maybe Pennell or whoever's "unproven potential" on last year's roster you like is enough competition for the NT position in a 3-4 defense?? How many years are we going to hope for Neal and Perry and D. Jones and Boyd et al to provide the oomph at DE they haven't yet provided? And we have no competition added for OLB (since I guess Perry or whoever will continue to improve enough?), the other ILB.

Yes, there is going to be competition for Tramon's position. But at this point that competition is Hyde and Hayward. Period.

I am not bothered just because the Packers haven't drafted players to compete for starting jobs. I am bothered because everyone seems to think that the Packers don't have to bring in ANY outside competition for ANY starting jobs.

And I, emphatically, disagree.

Hell, I'd disagree even if the Packers had won the Super Bowl last year and had 10 players in the Pro Bowl.

---

Yes. Well said.

And that is what I think is the case with this team.

---