Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
5 Pages«<2345>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline DoddPower  
#31 Posted : Saturday, January 18, 2014 12:06:56 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2016FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2015

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA
Applause Given: 3,414
Applause Received: 940
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
I think they would have screamed bloody murder at the time but if we would have drafted Patterson I think they may be OK with it now.



How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 1/18/2014(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#32 Posted : Saturday, January 18, 2014 8:54:20 AM(UTC)
Rank: Senior Member

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN
Applause Given: 383
Applause Received: 808
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.


Don't you think there would have been an uproar of negative responses last year it Ted Thompson would have drafted Patterson? At least more so than the uproar of negative responses that folowed the Jones pick. People didn't see a WR as as big of a need as a pass rusher so if Ted Thompson would have taken Patterson most people would have been upset. At this point yeah, I think almost everyone would be OK with it and I said so in my post.


Take this year for example. The majority of people seem to feel a safety or DL or OLB are our biggest needs. If the BPA is a TE and Ted Thompson takes him most of those people will be angry. If that TE turns out to be the next Graham or Gronk people will change their minds. That is what I meant.

As far as taking the BPA all the time that depends. It's also very subjective. I doubt any two GMs or any draft "experts" have the exact same board so what may be the BPA for half of them may not be the BPA to the other half. Non GMs can make their draft boards without factoring in need. If they think this CB is just a little better than that WR they will have him higher. A GM of a team that desperately needs a WR may have those two players reversed. When it comes time for that GM to make his pick he will probably take the WR. He thinks he is taking the BPA and the experts think he is drafting for need.

Obviously if we are talking about 1 or 2 spots its not a big deal. The problem comes in when the team right in front of your GM takes that WR and now your GM takes a WR he had rated 10 spots below the CB just to fill the need. That is not the right move to make.

The question is should GMs take their current roster into account when they make up their board or should they go simply on their opinions of the players in the draft. I guess ideally they would forget about their current players and simply make a list of the best players in the draft. That would eliminate the possibility of a current weakness on the team influencing their opinion of a particular player or position causing them to inflate their value.
Offline DoddPower  
#33 Posted : Saturday, January 18, 2014 5:40:32 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2016FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2015

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA
Applause Given: 3,414
Applause Received: 940
sschind said: Go to Quoted Post
Don't you think there would have been an uproar of negative responses last year it Ted Thompson would have drafted Patterson? At least more so than the uproar of negative responses that folowed the Jones pick. People didn't see a WR as as big of a need as a pass rusher so if Ted Thompson would have taken Patterson most people would have been upset. At this point yeah, I think almost everyone would be OK with it and I said so in my post.


Take this year for example. The majority of people seem to feel a safety or DL or OLB are our biggest needs. If the BPA is a TE and Ted Thompson takes him most of those people will be angry. If that TE turns out to be the next Graham or Gronk people will change their minds. That is what I meant.

As far as taking the BPA all the time that depends. It's also very subjective. I doubt any two GMs or any draft "experts" have the exact same board so what may be the BPA for half of them may not be the BPA to the other half. Non GMs can make their draft boards without factoring in need. If they think this CB is just a little better than that WR they will have him higher. A GM of a team that desperately needs a WR may have those two players reversed. When it comes time for that GM to make his pick he will probably take the WR. He thinks he is taking the BPA and the experts think he is drafting for need.

Obviously if we are talking about 1 or 2 spots its not a big deal. The problem comes in when the team right in front of your GM takes that WR and now your GM takes a WR he had rated 10 spots below the CB just to fill the need. That is not the right move to make.

The question is should GMs take their current roster into account when they make up their board or should they go simply on their opinions of the players in the draft. I guess ideally they would forget about their current players and simply make a list of the best players in the draft. That would eliminate the possibility of a current weakness on the team influencing their opinion of a particular player or position causing them to inflate their value.


Well, I was completely speaking in hindsight. I understand it's not easy to truly identify whether one player is actually "better" than the other, regardless of position. But if a general manager feels that one player is truly the best player available, than I hope he would take them every time. I liked the Datone Jones pick, and still do. But based on this last season only, Patterson was the better pick. The Packers could have probably signed a dozen different free agents that gave them what Datone Jones did this season, and possibly more. I'm not sure that's the case with a guy like Patterson, unless the Packers traded for Percy Harvin or something . . . and that didn't work out either.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 1/18/2014(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#34 Posted : Monday, January 20, 2014 11:40:48 AM(UTC)
Rank: Registered

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 724
DoddPower said: Go to Quoted Post
How could anyone complain with a team adding another potentially elite player, regardless of position? Almost any average NFL caliber player could offer what Datone did this season. There are only a few players from every draft that have the talent of Patterson, if that. Obviously this could change, but at this point, Patterson is absolutely the better pick, even for the Packers.

Of course I truly believe in BPA. If a team adds elite talent almost every single year, chances are they will find a way to have a good team. Be it by draft and develop, trades, having the teams strengths being so strong that they outweigh the weaknesses, or whatever. There is always free agency to fill a couple of holes with average players, at least for some teams. I'll take elite talent every time, and find ways to fill any gaps that it creates. Just seems much easier and logical that way than the reverse.


Your point is well taken DoddPower. Imagine how differently this team may have fared this year had we taken Patterson instead of Jones...
Offline porky88  
#35 Posted : Monday, January 20, 2014 9:49:10 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2016Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 511
My first mock draft of the year.

Quote:
21. Green Bay Packers -- C.J. Mosley, LB, Alabama
Getting tougher upfront is a necessity if Green Bay is to compete with San Francisco and Seattle in the NFC. Mosley fits the bill. Many regard him as one of the elite prospects of this draft, but linebackers tend to fall on draft day, and the Alabama tag makes him a little overrated. Still, Mosley is an excellent two-down linebacker. He and long-time Green Bay linebacker A.J. Hawk would give the Packers a rugged look at the position.
thanks Post received 2 applause.
wpr on 1/21/2014(UTC), DoddPower on 1/21/2014(UTC)
Offline Rockmolder  
#36 Posted : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:14:03 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2010

Netherlands
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 245
Applause Received: 384
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
My first mock draft of the year.



May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?
Offline steveishere  
#37 Posted : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:56:35 AM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2013

Joined: 7/28/2012(UTC)
Applause Given: 58
Applause Received: 1,755
Rockmolder said: Go to Quoted Post
May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?


Yeah, I was under the impression that his strength was pass coverage ability.
Offline cheeseheads123  
#38 Posted : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:56:56 AM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 9/28/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 85
Applause Received: 179
Remember that time Kiper had Brohm #1?
Offline porky88  
#39 Posted : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:17:38 PM(UTC)
Rank: Veteran Member

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2016Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2013Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Silver: 2014PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Silver: 2015

Joined: 4/26/2007(UTC)
Applause Given: 253
Applause Received: 511
Rockmolder said: Go to Quoted Post
May I ask why you see him as a two-down linebacker?

I think he’s a good player who is being mistaken for a great player. I conclude this based on two things.

1. He doesn’t react quickly to a play. That doesn’t mean he won’t make the play, but it also means he may not make as many as he should.

2. Do his workout numbers translate into his on-field athleticism? I’ve seen some reports suggest he runs a 4.5 or 4.6 in the 40. I don’t see that on the field. In my opinion, he’ll cover the flats well enough, but he’s not going to turn and run stride for stride with quality NFL tight ends.
Offline wpr  
#40 Posted : Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:35:56 PM(UTC)
Rank: Select Member

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Silver: 2014FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 3,959
Applause Received: 2,017
porky88 said: Go to Quoted Post
I think he’s a good player who is being mistaken for a great player. I conclude this based on two things.

1. He doesn’t react quickly to a play. That doesn’t mean he won’t make the play, but it also means he may not make as many as he should.

2. Do his workout numbers translate into his on-field athleticism? I’ve seen some reports suggest he runs a 4.5 or 4.6 in the 40. I don’t see that on the field. In my opinion, he’ll cover the flats well enough, but he’s not going to turn and run stride for stride with quality NFL tight ends.


Hawk 2.0
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<2345>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : Damn-Falcons coach Dan Quinn tells reporters that WR Julio Jones (foot) will be limited this week but will be “ready to rock” on Sunday.
Zero2Cool (2h) : Packers defense has a red zone INT in each of the last 3 games... Hyde with two of them. (One being the clutch 4thQ INT vs DET in Week 17)
Zero2Cool (4h) : Randall Cobb, Damarious Randall, Quentin Rollins, James Starks, Clay Matthews, Ty Montgomery & Jared Cook. OUT
Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers inactive list when they lost 33-32 to the Falcons week 8.
Zero2Cool (5h) : There is no emphasis, it's just a little bit of info. Take it or leave it. No harm.
Smokey (5h) : Zero, I believe that you and some others place too much emphasis upon data. no harm intended.
Zero2Cool (5h) : It’s the 1st time since 1970 all 4 conference championship teams finished the regular season on winning streaks of 4+ games
TheKanataThrilla (5h) : Salt mine. Love it.
TheKanataThrilla (5h) : The refs kept that game close. We should have blown them out early.
DarkaneRules (5h) : Hyde and Gunter are special and I'm hopeful D Ran gets back to where he can be
mi_keys (6h) : That whole forum is a salt mine. It's beautiful.
Zero2Cool (6h) : Burnett's back up, Kentrell Brice lead team in tackles.
uffda udfa (11h) : Hilarious reading below. I like Carter. Only guy who gets it.
uffda udfa (11h) : http://boards.dallascowboys.com/topic/71647-so-we-are-supposed-to-believe/#entry3978081
uffda udfa (12h) : Great news.
Zero2Cool (15h) : Jordy has "legitimate hope" to play, per @RobDemovsky.
Zero2Cool (16h) : Packers had one call on defense if called, no issue, wans't called. I didn't watch OL so dunno. I watched WR's
Zero2Cool (16h) : Dallas OL had some holds weren't called and 2 defensive holds, not called.
uffda udfa (16h) : I think the Pi vs just a holding call is a legit complaint. Terrible call.
GoPack1984 (16h) : Dallas can't complain about the officials. They got away with so many defensive holding calls.
uffda udfa (16h) : Dallas radio postgame: Dallas wins 7 out of 10 times.
uffda udfa (16h) : Brice led Pack w/ 6 tackles including the hardest of the game.
uffda udfa (16h) : Post game show said same thing. Everyone wondering how it didn't stay left.
Zero2Cool (16h) : Tornado warning forces players, fans to stay put at AT&T Stadium
Zero2Cool (16h) : Skip:More I see winning FG, more I see a very weird thing: It hooked hard left, then straightened out. Obviously no wind. Like meant to be
Zero2Cool (16h) : @RealSkipBayless: More I see winning FG, more I see a very weird thing: It hooked hard left, then straightened out. Obviously no wind. Like
uffda udfa (17h) : I don't believe Dallas is better than us. When Aaron is on we're the best.
beast (17h) : The huddle penalty was an odd one. Without Burnett and Nelson.
uffda udfa (17h) : Cowboys radio team initially called Crosby GW NO GOOD. Lol.
DarkaneRules (17h) : we beat an arguably better team at their place without morgan burnett. still can't believe it
uffda udfa (17h) : Re emphasized we aren't the better team. Sour grapes are sweet to me.
uffda udfa (17h) : Complaining of PI call and huddle penalty.
uffda udfa (17h) : Dallas play by play guy said we aren't best team.
uffda udfa (17h) : NBC is off the air down here. This is an OTA broadcast signal.
uffda udfa (17h) : Tornado warnings in Dallas area. Sign of aPACKalypse to Cowboys fans.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
15m / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

15m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / hardrocker950

43m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

45m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

46m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

1h / Around The NFL / Smokey

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Porforis

1h / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey


Packers Headlines