| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What grade would you give TT? |
| A |
|
32% |
[ 43 ] |
| B |
|
51% |
[ 68 ] |
| C |
|
11% |
[ 15 ] |
| D |
|
1% |
[ 2 ] |
| F |
|
3% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 133 |
|
| Author |
Message |
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 26524
Location: Madison
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I've said this many times, but I think grading a draft is one of the stupidest things you can possibly do because the entire metric of doing so is completely misguided.
Let's consider: we draft Mike Neal in the second. He gets a "grade" of a C because we "could've had him later" and that it was a "reach". Lets hypothetically flash forward six months, and in this instance Neal somehow wins Defensive Rookie of the Year. Suddenly, writers are doing a 2010 redo draft and Mike Neal goes in the top five. Now that "grade" should certainly be looked at as an A, because you got a pro-bowl type player. If the Packers would've taken Demeco Ryan fifth overall in 2006 it probably would've got a resounding F, but the guy sure can play ball and in hindsight it would've been a good move probably.
Seriously, the entire thought process is broken, especially because the entire premise of knocking the picks is based entirely off speculation. Some might say we could've gotten Mike Neal later in the draft and that it was a reach, but in reality, the team drafting immediately following us could've picked him as well. There's seriously no way to know, and its pure speculation by both sides.
The entire premise is stupid.
_________________
[quote="detfan782004"]
When teams step on the field both teams have a 50% chance to win. Pretty simple[/quote]
DETFAN782004 - The man who can bankrupt Las Vegas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RashaanSalaami
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29147
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | I've said this many times, but I think grading a draft is one of the stupidest things you can possibly do because the entire metric of doing so is completely misguided.
Let's consider: we draft Mike Neal in the second. He gets a "grade" of a C because we "could've had him later" and that it was a "reach". Lets hypothetically flash forward six months, and in this instance Neal somehow wins Defensive Rookie of the Year. Suddenly, writers are doing a 2010 redo draft and Mike Neal goes in the top five. Now that "grade" should certainly be looked at as an A, because you got a pro-bowl type player. If the Packers would've taken Demeco Ryan fifth overall in 2006 it probably would've got a resounding F, but the guy sure can play ball and in hindsight it would've been a good move probably.
Seriously, the entire thought process is broken, especially because the entire premise of knocking the picks is based entirely off speculation. Some might say we could've gotten Mike Neal later in the draft and that it was a reach, but in reality, the team drafting immediately following us could've picked him as well. There's seriously no way to know, and its pure speculation by both sides.
The entire premise is stupid. |
I agree completely, but it's usually brings out better conversations because people are too lazy to just read large blocks of text.
_________________
Top 50 Franchise Cornerstones (2012) - COMPLETED! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| RashaanSalaami wrote: | | AirOnRodgers wrote: | I've said this many times, but I think grading a draft is one of the stupidest things you can possibly do because the entire metric of doing so is completely misguided.
Let's consider: we draft Mike Neal in the second. He gets a "grade" of a C because we "could've had him later" and that it was a "reach". Lets hypothetically flash forward six months, and in this instance Neal somehow wins Defensive Rookie of the Year. Suddenly, writers are doing a 2010 redo draft and Mike Neal goes in the top five. Now that "grade" should certainly be looked at as an A, because you got a pro-bowl type player. If the Packers would've taken Demeco Ryan fifth overall in 2006 it probably would've got a resounding F, but the guy sure can play ball and in hindsight it would've been a good move probably.
Seriously, the entire thought process is broken, especially because the entire premise of knocking the picks is based entirely off speculation. Some might say we could've gotten Mike Neal later in the draft and that it was a reach, but in reality, the team drafting immediately following us could've picked him as well. There's seriously no way to know, and its pure speculation by both sides.
The entire premise is stupid. |
I agree completely, but it's usually brings out better conversations because people are too lazy to just read large blocks of text. |
No, I'm fine with it here, because honestly whatever we talk about has no bearing on anything. We're just a bunch of guys on the internet talking shop. It's all fun and games here, my problem comes when a professional passes it off as fact.
Just getting on my soapbox.
_________________
[quote="detfan782004"]
When teams step on the field both teams have a 50% chance to win. Pretty simple[/quote]
DETFAN782004 - The man who can bankrupt Las Vegas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
incognito_man
Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 26524
Location: Madison
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | | I flash Mike Neal. |
After some careful editing, the truth comes out.
I graded it on how I liked it. Something I like gets an A, something I hate get punched. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RashaanSalaami
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 29147
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 2:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | | RashaanSalaami wrote: | | AirOnRodgers wrote: | I've said this many times, but I think grading a draft is one of the stupidest things you can possibly do because the entire metric of doing so is completely misguided.
Let's consider: we draft Mike Neal in the second. He gets a "grade" of a C because we "could've had him later" and that it was a "reach". Lets hypothetically flash forward six months, and in this instance Neal somehow wins Defensive Rookie of the Year. Suddenly, writers are doing a 2010 redo draft and Mike Neal goes in the top five. Now that "grade" should certainly be looked at as an A, because you got a pro-bowl type player. If the Packers would've taken Demeco Ryan fifth overall in 2006 it probably would've got a resounding F, but the guy sure can play ball and in hindsight it would've been a good move probably.
Seriously, the entire thought process is broken, especially because the entire premise of knocking the picks is based entirely off speculation. Some might say we could've gotten Mike Neal later in the draft and that it was a reach, but in reality, the team drafting immediately following us could've picked him as well. There's seriously no way to know, and its pure speculation by both sides.
The entire premise is stupid. |
I agree completely, but it's usually brings out better conversations because people are too lazy to just read large blocks of text. |
No, I'm fine with it here, because honestly whatever we talk about has no bearing on anything. We're just a bunch of guys on the internet talking shop. It's all fun and games here, my problem comes when a professional passes it off as fact.
Just getting on my soapbox. |
Mel Kiper is the first to come to mind. It's also because they didn't draft the top player on HIS board so they must have immediately not made the best selection possible.
_________________
Top 50 Franchise Cornerstones (2012) - COMPLETED! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWood21
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 30895
Location: 'Merica
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | I've said this many times, but I think grading a draft is one of the stupidest things you can possibly do because the entire metric of doing so is completely misguided.
Let's consider: we draft Mike Neal in the second. He gets a "grade" of a C because we "could've had him later" and that it was a "reach". Lets hypothetically flash forward six months, and in this instance Neal somehow wins Defensive Rookie of the Year. Suddenly, writers are doing a 2010 redo draft and Mike Neal goes in the top five. Now that "grade" should certainly be looked at as an A, because you got a pro-bowl type player. If the Packers would've taken Demeco Ryan fifth overall in 2006 it probably would've got a resounding F, but the guy sure can play ball and in hindsight it would've been a good move probably.
Seriously, the entire thought process is broken, especially because the entire premise of knocking the picks is based entirely off speculation. Some might say we could've gotten Mike Neal later in the draft and that it was a reach, but in reality, the team drafting immediately following us could've picked him as well. There's seriously no way to know, and its pure speculation by both sides.
The entire premise is stupid. |
You bring a completely valid point, but it's more of a subjective thing. For example, Sergio Kindle obviously fell for some serious reason, but he's considered a big steal in the draft.
_________________
^sandwhich on the sig^
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | Or you just think that b/c the Pack was 10-0 made them hotter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidatMIZZOU
Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 6272
Location: The ZOU
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
B.
Bulaga was a great selection. Again it seems that a good player falls right in our lap. I think Neal is good, not the player I would have taken, but the more I read about him the more I like the pick. I love the Burnett pick. Especially since it looks as if it was taking the Bears' pick from under them. I didn't think that we got a good value giving up our 4th rounder, but if it works out no biggie. Quarless seems like he will be like J-Mike. I hope he is. Newhouse should be good. Starks was probably a steal if he is recovered fully from injuries. Wilson could be a good end for our scheme, although I really don't think that we should have taken another DE, we are pretty deep there. That being said, no reason to get worked up over a 7th round pick.
Right now it looks like we got guys that can contribute at some point. They are not really flashy. I am also a bit disappointed that we did not add a LB, I think another player there may add more to camp competition than DL.
_________________
GO PACK GO!
I won an award on the Packers forum, most grumpiest or something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msmre
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 20329
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
Morgan Burnett, Brandon Ghee and Amari Spievey were the only 3, but we got one of the those in the next round. I don't think that I could pick a 5 tech after Neal that I liked.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11856
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| incognito_man wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
I would have liked Amari Spievey, Jerome Murphy, Myron Lewis or Brandon Ghee there, but again like I said, at the end of the day, don't think he's a bad player, but it most likely means the end to Harrell, who I would have liked to see given one last chance.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Packerraymond wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
I would have liked Amari Spievey, Jerome Murphy, Myron Lewis or Brandon Ghee there, but again like I said, at the end of the day, don't think he's a bad player, but it most likely means the end to Harrell, who I would have liked to see given one last chance. |
I really don't think that's true at all. I think if Harrell comes to play in camp then we move Wilson to the PS and roll with a rotation of:
Raji, Jenkins, Jolly, Pickett, Neal, Harrell, and Wynn
_________________
[quote="detfan782004"]
When teams step on the field both teams have a 50% chance to win. Pretty simple[/quote]
DETFAN782004 - The man who can bankrupt Las Vegas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Packerraymond
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 11856
Location: UW Oshkosh
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
I would have liked Amari Spievey, Jerome Murphy, Myron Lewis or Brandon Ghee there, but again like I said, at the end of the day, don't think he's a bad player, but it most likely means the end to Harrell, who I would have liked to see given one last chance. |
I really don't think that's true at all. I think if Harrell comes to play in camp then we move Wilson to the PS and roll with a rotation of:
Raji, Jenkins, Jolly, Pickett, Neal, Harrell, and Wynn |
If you can get Wilson to the PS, the guy was a better college football player than Neal by far, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him ahead of him on the depth chart. We drafted Neal off of what he could be and Wilson based on what he already is.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AirOnRodgers
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 7919
Location: Madison, WI
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Packerraymond wrote: | | AirOnRodgers wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | incognito_man wrote: | | Packerraymond wrote: | | I give it a "B" the Neal pick is the one that I don't like. We get a fine player, Im not doubting that, but with what was on the board in terms of DB and OLB help, it just wasn't the right pick. Thank goodness Al Harris works his tail off because TT just put a lot of pressure on him with this draft. My favorite part of the draft is that the OL should finally be set, that makes me very happy. |
Which OLB and DBs did you like better there? |
I would have liked Amari Spievey, Jerome Murphy, Myron Lewis or Brandon Ghee there, but again like I said, at the end of the day, don't think he's a bad player, but it most likely means the end to Harrell, who I would have liked to see given one last chance. |
I really don't think that's true at all. I think if Harrell comes to play in camp then we move Wilson to the PS and roll with a rotation of:
Raji, Jenkins, Jolly, Pickett, Neal, Harrell, and Wynn |
If you can get Wilson to the PS, the guy was a better college football player than Neal by far, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him ahead of him on the depth chart. We drafted Neal off of what he could be and Wilson based on what he already is. |
If teams let Wilson slip to the 7th round I really doubt they're going to be tripping over themselves to guarantee him a 53 man roster spot.
_________________
[quote="detfan782004"]
When teams step on the field both teams have a 50% chance to win. Pretty simple[/quote]
DETFAN782004 - The man who can bankrupt Las Vegas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CWood21
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 30895
Location: 'Merica
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| AirOnRodgers wrote: | | If teams let Wilson slip to the 7th round I really doubt they're going to be tripping over themselves to guarantee him a 53 man roster spot. |
There is absolutely no guarantee that Wilson will make it through the waivers and make it to our practice squad, in fact I'd probably put those odds at less than 5% chance especially if he flashes his potential in the preseason.
My guess is we carry seven defensive lineman: Jenkins, Pickett, Jolly, Raji, Neal, Harrell/Wilson/Wynn (two of those).
_________________
^sandwhich on the sig^
| Superman(DH23) wrote: | | Or you just think that b/c the Pack was 10-0 made them hotter? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Greg_Jennings
Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 22849
Location: Milwaukee
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 25, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I gave it an A. I think this might be one of TT's best yet.
_________________
In the end, it wasn't guns or bombs that defeated the aliens. It was the humblest of all God's creatures, the Tyrannosaurus Rex. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
