PackersHome
»
Lambeau Field
»
Let's Talk Green Bay Packers
»
Which position would tick you off the most...
Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 125
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 31
|
Originally Posted by: Porforis  QB or P. Best player available or no, you don't need to draft someone that has zero value for your team when we've got holes to fill. Isn't that how we got AR? I agree with you, but I just found it ironic when I read this. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,161
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 343
Applause Received: 198
|
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Isn't that how we got AR?
I agree with you, but I just found it ironic when I read this. No. Favre's successor WAS a hole to fill. Without question. He had been feigning retirement for some time prior. The fact that Rodgers dropped in our laps was a giant stroke of good luck. He was mocked to go #4 to TB by Walter. We had defensive needs at the time in our secondary. Walter had us mocked to pick CB R1, then to pick QB Charlie Frye R2. I saw Matt Cassel as our R1 pick in a Scout mock. So, word was out, and really, it was common knowledge that we needed a QB. Fave was entering his 14th season. Not bustin' your balls QCHuskerFan, but that is the way it was then. I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons. Funny too, that those defensive needs were addressed with Ted's R2 pick of Nick Collins. What a draft!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 125
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 31
|
Originally Posted by: play2win No. Favre's successor WAS a hole to fill. Without question. He had been feigning retirement for some time prior. The fact that Rodgers dropped in our laps was a giant stroke of good luck. He was mocked to go #4 to TB by Walter.
We had defensive needs at the time in our secondary. Walter had us mocked to pick CB R1, then to pick QB Charlie Frye R2. I saw Matt Cassel as our R1 pick in a Scout mock. So, word was out, and really, it was common knowledge that we needed a QB. Fave was entering his 14th season.
Not bustin' your balls QCHuskerFan, but that is the way it was then. I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons.
Funny too, that those defensive needs were addressed with Ted's R2 pick of Nick Collins. What a draft! We look at value differently. Aaron Rodgers contributed nothing to the team in the 3 years after he was drafted. In hindsight, was it a great pick, yes. But to me, it offered zero value at the time. And for the following 2 years. Unique situation, though. Don't distort history. There was a tremendous amount of criticism at the time. The team had immediate needs. They had gone 10-6 the previous season and were the #3 playoff seed. They were outclassed in Rd 1 of the playoffs. I would suggest that most people felt that team's window was small, just like right now. TT's pick addressed none of the needs that would get that team farther in the playoffs. Plenty of people were pissed! Favre was at the front of the line. Instead of giving him a player of immediate use, Ted Thompson chose someone that wouldn't see the field. Packers ended 2005 at 4-12 and out of the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers offered no value to that team or the following 2 years. If Ted Thompson picked someone this year in the first round that was not expected would see the field this year, would you see value? |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Hall of Famer
Posts: 12,114
Joined: 3/16/2007(UTC)
Location: North Central Wisconsin
Applause Given: 268
Applause Received: 695
|
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan We look at value differently. Aaron Rodgers contributed nothing to the team in the 3 years after he was drafted. In hindsight, was it a great pick, yes. But to me, it offered zero value at the time. And for the following 2 years. Unique situation, though.
Don't distort history. There was a tremendous amount of criticism at the time. The team had immediate needs. They had gone 10-6 the previous season and were the #3 playoff seed. They were outclassed in Rd 1 of the playoffs. I would suggest that most people felt that team's window was small, just like right now. TT's pick addressed none of the needs that would get that team farther in the playoffs. Plenty of people were pissed! Favre was at the front of the line. Instead of giving him a player of immediate use, Ted Thompson chose someone that wouldn't see the field. Packers ended 2005 at 4-12 and out of the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers offered no value to that team or the following 2 years.
If Ted Thompson picked someone this year in the first round that was not expected would see the field this year, would you see value? In the same regard there are a couple of other factors. 1. Favre's yearly dance with retirement.. Rodgers slipping to us only helped push the timeline (by a couple of rounds maybe) the need to find a successor. 2. Additionally that was an aging team that had cap issues and some real depth concern, hence Sherman being relived by Thompson in the first place. 3. We currently still have a team with a relatively large window of opportunity with Rodgers at the helm to make some noise. Favre was closer to the end than the beginning and with the roster being turned over because of issue #2 it wasn't clear how fast the team could reload for a run. |
People gather bundles of sticks to build bridges they never cross.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,161
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 343
Applause Received: 198
|
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan We look at value differently. Aaron Rodgers contributed nothing to the team in the 3 years after he was drafted. In hindsight, was it a great pick, yes. But to me, it offered zero value at the time. And for the following 2 years. Unique situation, though.
Don't distort history. There was a tremendous amount of criticism at the time. The team had immediate needs. They had gone 10-6 the previous season and were the #3 playoff seed. They were outclassed in Rd 1 of the playoffs. I would suggest that most people felt that team's window was small, just like right now. TT's pick addressed none of the needs that would get that team farther in the playoffs. Plenty of people were pissed! Favre was at the front of the line. Instead of giving him a player of immediate use, Ted Thompson chose someone that wouldn't see the field. Packers ended 2005 at 4-12 and out of the playoffs. Aaron Rodgers offered no value to that team or the following 2 years.
If Ted Thompson picked someone this year in the first round that was not expected would see the field this year, would you see value? I would be pissed. And please, don't give me that distort history BS. I clearly said we needed help in the secondary going into that draft. AND we needed an eventual replacement for Favre. YOU are distorting history by saying we didn't need a QB. Big difference with Rodgers going into his 8th season, vs. Favre going into his 14th.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 125
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 31
|
Please let me know where I said there was no need for a QB. I am saying that picking Aaron Rodgers with the number 1 pick brought no direct value to the team in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Look it up. Let me know what I missed.
The original comment I responded to was Porforis saying that you don't draft someone in the first round with zero value when you have needs. I responded that's what Rodgers was. I am quite aware why it was done and it worked out incredibly well. But someone that doesn't start a game for 3 years and only plays in 7 total in that 3 year time is offering nothing to that team. The future team? Maybe. But AR's ~350 passing yards in 3 years is not an impact. He offered no value to the teams in 2005, 2006 or 2007. If Favre had retired the day after the draft in 2005, then he would have had immediate value. But Favre didn't.
You said, "I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons." Nearly everyone did not think OK. Finding a replacement for Favre was a priority. But it was not necessary to draft that person in Rd 1, when there were other needs. Much of Packer Nation was quite upset. That is why I accused you of distorting history. Choosing to look at the past with rose colored glasses, does not change the past. Favre still had a tremendous amount of supporters that viewed this draft choice as the franchise turning their back on #4 as well as failing to make the team markedly better. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. Just didn't make it overwhelmingly popular. Additionally, Favre played 6 years after that draft so it was not "imperative to get his replacement in the next 2 years" as you stated. But that's hindsight.
Did drafting Aaron Rodgers in the first round in 2005 work out well for the Pack? Duh. But that doesn't mean it offered value at the time. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 125
Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)
Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 31
|
Originally Posted by: Pack93z In the same regard there are a couple of other factors.
1. Favre's yearly dance with retirement.. Rodgers slipping to us only helped push the timeline (by a couple of rounds maybe) the need to find a successor.
2. Additionally that was an aging team that had cap issues and some real depth concern, hence Sherman being relived by Thompson in the first place.
3. We currently still have a team with a relatively large window of opportunity with Rodgers at the helm to make some noise. Favre was closer to the end than the beginning and with the roster being turned over because of issue #2 it wasn't clear how fast the team could reload for a run. I sincerely hope you are correct in #3. I am concerned that after extending AR, Raji, Matthews, that the window will be very small. Those 3 could easily consume 30-35% of the CAP. I am not sure that is feasible for fielding a competitive team. I hope we can, but... |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,161
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 343
Applause Received: 198
|
Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Please let me know where I said there was no need for a QB. I am saying that picking Aaron Rodgers with the number 1 pick brought no direct value to the team in 2005. Or 2006. Or 2007. Look it up. Let me know what I missed.
The original comment I responded to was Porforis saying that you don't draft someone in the first round with zero value when you have needs. I responded that's what Rodgers was. I am quite aware why it was done and it worked out incredibly well. But someone that doesn't start a game for 3 years and only plays in 7 total in that 3 year time is offering nothing to that team. The future team? Maybe. But AR's ~350 passing yards in 3 years is not an impact. He offered no value to the teams in 2005, 2006 or 2007. If Favre had retired the day after the draft in 2005, then he would have had immediate value. But Favre didn't.
You said, "I think nearly everyone thought, "well, OK..." when we went Rodgers. The pick made perfect sense. Favre had seemed invincible, but everyone knew his time was running out, and getting his replacement was imperative over those next two seasons." Nearly everyone did not think OK. Finding a replacement for Favre was a priority. But it was not necessary to draft that person in Rd 1, when there were other needs. Much of Packer Nation was quite upset. That is why I accused you of distorting history. Choosing to look at the past with rose colored glasses, does not change the past. Favre still had a tremendous amount of supporters that viewed this draft choice as the franchise turning their back on #4 as well as failing to make the team markedly better. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right choice. Just didn't make it overwhelmingly popular. Additionally, Favre played 6 years after that draft so it was not "imperative to get his replacement in the next 2 years" as you stated. But that's hindsight.
Did drafting Aaron Rodgers in the first round in 2005 work out well for the Pack? Duh. But that doesn't mean it offered value at the time. This is such BS. I clearly remember the boo birds lining the fence that 2005 training camp. I'm just talking about what I believe was the majority of Packers fans, understanding fully that we were going to have to address a replacement for Favre going into his 14th season. When a QB who was rated #1 overall for most of the period leading up to that draft, falls to 24, yeah, if you like him you take him. It is my belief MOST fans understood the move by Thompson that day. I'll say this too, there is a twisted logic to thinking you can draft a player and immediately solve a problem. Most draftees require a good year of development at the pro level before they make significant contributions. Sure there are exceptions to that, but they are few. That is why I am pushing for Ted to make some good moves in FA this season. We need help now, and we've needed it in the same places for two years running, with no improvement. Edited by member Wednesday, March 6, 2013 3:41:42 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 107
Joined: 10/30/2006(UTC)
Applause Given: 9
Applause Received: 4
|
Outside of the obvious P and K in the first round my biggest WTF Ted selections would probably be in the CB position or maybe the OLB position. I think we are very deep at CB and I'd be a little upset if we gave up on Perry so early. Don't get me wrong I don't mind if we draft either a CB or OLB but I'd expect it to be at least 3rd round or later.
QB would be disappointing but NE continually draft highly touted QB's late in the first round and manage to trade them off for future mid-round picks+. We have a very good QB coaching staff in Green bay so I'd have confidence we could get some pretty good value for them, although Ted has never done anything to prove hes a very good trader. |
blank |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Pro Bowl MVP
Posts: 4,400
Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 1,001
Applause Received: 188
|
Originally Posted by: stevegb Outside of the obvious P and K in the first round my biggest WTF Ted selections would probably be in the CB position or maybe the OLB position. I think we are very deep at CB and I'd be a little upset if we gave up on Perry so early. Don't get me wrong I don't mind if we draft either a CB or OLB but I'd expect it to be at least 3rd round or later.
QB would be disappointing but NE continually draft highly touted QB's late in the first round and manage to trade them off for future mid-round picks+. We have a very good QB coaching staff in Green bay so I'd have confidence we could get some pretty good value for them, although Ted has never done anything to prove hes a very good trader. We need as many stud OLBs as we can get. And I expect Perry AND Moses to be able to get it done this year. |
It's not whether you get knocked down, it's whether you get back up again. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,679
Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Elmwood Park, IL
Applause Given: 63
Applause Received: 111
|
|
 Formerly known as "G-Force" |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,161
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 343
Applause Received: 198
|
Originally Posted by: Yerko Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 5th Round Draft Pick
Posts: 499
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas
Applause Given: 31
Applause Received: 51
|
Originally Posted by: Yerko yeah, why? I'd be upset if we don't draft a D Lineman in the first round. To answer the original question of the thread, I think RB in round one would tick me off the most. It's so easy to get good ones on the scrap heap, and so difficult - basically a crapshoot whether a first round pick becomes a star player. |
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What. |
 1 user applaud's texaspackerbacker for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Most Valuable Player
Posts: 9,621
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Applause Given: 1,365
Applause Received: 728
|
look at his smilies. its is in jest. |
One does not simply walk into Mordor.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick
Posts: 1,161
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee
Applause Given: 343
Applause Received: 198
|
Well, if they got busy in FA a bit and landed a couple of good defenders, I could see them nabbing a top RB or LT. Maybe even a TE if they were to let Finley go. As much as I want them to hit the D hard, I wouldn't have a problem with them taking a offensive player round 1.
I'm having doubts that would be the case though. So, I'm right with you texas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|
PackersHome
»
Lambeau Field
»
Let's Talk Green Bay Packers
»
Which position would tick you off the most...
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.