ThatJerkDave Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 57 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: Not this again. Can I just kill this talk right now before it starts? Somebody who has let every single guard go that wanted a cent more than Thompson was willing to pay, somebody who let Rivera and Wahle go the second he got here, somebody who let Sitton and Lang go and all the other guards we've had over the years, somebody who's gotten Sitton, Lang, Taylor and all the other guards we've had in the fourth round and beyond is NOT going to be taking a guard in the first round. Higher investment on the interior line and you're looking at a third/fourth round pick, MAYBE second round pick, but you're probably not even looking at second round guards as long as Thompson and his pupils are running things. It's just not a value pick when we get so much value there from later picks. Where in my post did I ever suggest that the Packers should take an interior offensive lineman in the first round? Where? Can't suggest any ******* thing here without someone jumping on the most extreme case. The fact of the matter is, this team has no depth at the interior offensive line and the top 4 players at those positions are all free agents at the end of this season. The team will need to add quality players to the mix at those positions because as the roster sits right now, the cupboard is bare. When letting go of Colledge, and Sitton, the team had a replacement. When letting go of Rivera and Wahle, there was garbage, and the team suffered for it. They signed Evans in place of Lang, that will probably work out. They need to add some talent, or spend money on the current soon to be FA players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 Just now, DavidatMIZZOU said: Where in my post did I ever suggest that the Packers should take an interior offensive lineman in the first round? Where? Can't suggest any ******* thing here without someone jumping on the most extreme case. The fact of the matter is, this team has no depth at the interior offensive line and the top 4 players at those positions are all free agents at the end of this season. The team will need to add quality players to the mix at those positions because as the roster sits right now, the cupboard is bare. When letting go of Colledge, and Sitton, the team had a replacement. When letting go of Rivera and Wahle, there was garbage, and the team suffered for it. They signed Evans in place of Lang, that will probably work out. They need to add some talent, or spend money on the current soon to be FA players. Where in my post did I ever suggest you suggested that the Packers should take an interior offensive lineman in the first round? Where? Can't reply to any ******* thing here without someone being sensitive on the most extreme case. The fact of the matter is that our interior offensive line has been fine, is fine and will be fine. We have consistently been above average on the interior of the offensive line as long as this staff has been in place. From nobody expecting anything from Lang or anything from Sitton to nobody expecting anything from Taylor and currently nobody expecting anything from Patrick. Our staff knows what they're doing, and they're going to continue knowing what they're doing well enough to trust the players and the progression that they have without investing a first three rounds pick on an interior offensive lineman, which they've consistently proven to see as not a high value position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Not gonna lie. I was definitely like uh he never said anything about first round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 1 hour ago, NormSizedMidget said: Not gonna lie. I was definitely like uh he never said anything about first round. I didn't even say he did say that. I responded to him and said we weren't going to invest a first round pick in one, and that we probably aren't even going to invest a first three rounds pick on one. 13 drafts, 62 first through fourth round picks now and we've taken a guard once in the first 4 rounds (TJ Lang and Josh Sitton were tackles). That's not a coincidence, that's a pattern. Clearly our staff thinks that a guard isn't worth that investment, but a tackle is, so we'll draft tackles, and if they can't hack it at tackle, THEN we'll move them to guard. And it makes sense. Why would a team spend a first or second round pick on a guard that isn't versatile when you can constantly provide an influx of talent on the offensive line (tackles) that are versatile enough to try a different position if they fail at being a tackle? My entire point was that no, we don't need to invest highly in an interior offensive lineman. We haven't the entire time this staff has been in place, and we've been fine the entire time, too. I've backed up my claim with 13 years worth of repeated patterns, behaviors and talent on the interior of the line, and he got upset about it for whatever reason, but that doesn't change the fact that I still think it's stupid to think we have to upgrade an interior offensive line that we haven't put that kind of investment in since 2006 and we've consistently gotten excellent return on low investment there. Sue me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 2 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: I didn't even say he did say that. I responded to him and said we weren't going to invest a first round pick in one, and that we probably aren't even going to invest a first three rounds pick on one. 13 drafts, 62 first through fourth round picks now and we've taken a guard once in the first 4 rounds (TJ Lang and Josh Sitton were tackles). That's not a coincidence, that's a pattern. Clearly our staff thinks that a guard isn't worth that investment, but a tackle is, so we'll draft tackles, and if they can't hack it at tackle, THEN we'll move them to guard. And it makes sense. Why would a team spend a first or second round pick on a guard that isn't versatile when you can constantly provide an influx of talent on the offensive line (tackles) that are versatile enough to try a different position if they fail at being a tackle? My entire point was that no, we don't need to invest highly in an interior offensive lineman. We haven't the entire time this staff has been in place, and we've been fine the entire time, too. I've backed up my claim with 13 years worth of repeated patterns, behaviors and talent on the interior of the line, and he got upset about it for whatever reason, but that doesn't change the fact that I still think it's stupid to think we have to upgrade an interior offensive line that we haven't put that kind of investment in since 2006 and we've consistently gotten excellent return on low investment there. Sue me. I totally agree. I just think reading between the lines it was like you intimated that's what his idea was and you were arguing this is why it won't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Just now, NormSizedMidget said: I totally agree. I just think reading between the lines it was like you intimated that's what his idea was and you were arguing this is why it won't happen Yeah, I'll acknowledge that it looked bad. Sorry @DavidatMIZZOU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 57 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said: Yeah, I'll acknowledge that it looked bad. Sorry @DavidatMIZZOU Hey we can't get mad at Dave. C'mon hz. You know better lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 9 hours ago, deltarich87 said: EDGE, IOL, WR would be the top 3 positions of need. CB could be in that conversation but you'd hope that's not the case with the young guys they've invested into that group the past few drafts(Randall, Rollins, King). Ideally we see improvement/breakouts from Randall and Rollins and King shows flashes The most amusing thing from me is how many people were anti-Watt at all costs, and now they like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalhounLambeau Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13RgfxMu4CW0NKMZebZ88cgg7b7MlszjfzXxEeId7Y34/edit?usp=sharing I've got over 900 draft eligible prospects documented here by position. - Player name is linked to their college team page. - Player height/weight is linked to their NFLDraftScout page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Daryn Colledge was a 2nd round pick and Jason Spitz was a 3rd. Spitz was a C/G prospect but they intended to play Colledge inside from day 1. Just because they played OT in colledge doesn't mean they are OT prospects for the NFL. Sitton and Lang were both going to be G from day one also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Just now, spilltray said: Daryn Colledge was a 2nd round pick and Jason Spitz was a 3rd. Spitz was a C/G prospect but they intended to play Colledge inside from day 1. Just because they played OT in colledge doesn't mean they are OT prospects for the NFL. Sitton and Lang were both going to be G from day one also. Come on, man. The point is they all played tackle in the NFL except for Spitz, so they were all versatile. We've taken one pure guard in the first four rounds in 13 years, 62 picks. Colledge and Spitz were when we actually had a bad offensive line and we panicked. That was Thompson's second draft with us. He took both those players in his second draft after a bad year from Will Whittacker, a 7th round draft pick, was our starter there. So I could say 11 years, 34 picks in the first three rounds, and not a single interior offensive lineman to get past the arguments of Colledge, Lang, Sitton, but I'm sticking to my guns because all three were clearly versatile. Even Spitz was versatile according to you (I don't remember him well at all) if he could play guard/center. But a second and a third round pick in a year a very bad year as a panic move to fix the interior 11 years ago is not an indication that I'm wrong in my assessment. We don't value the interior of the offensive line. We don't need to value the interior offensive line because of how well our staff can turn hopeless cases into good players. I'm certain that this time next year, people will be very angry about something to do with the interior of the offensive line just like they were in 2004 with Rivera and Wahle, just like they were in 2016 with Sitton, just like they are this year with Lang. And just like 2005/2006 (that one took a full year to get fixed, big whoop), just like 2016, just like this year, somebody that nobody expected will come in and thrive. You can say the same thing with the center position. What was the guy we let go before Evan Dietrich Smith? Because people were mad we let him go. "Oh, I can't believe we're going into the season against the Seahawks with a rookie center, he's gonna get destroyed." Corey Linsley AND Tretter happened, and both of them were fine at center when they played there. Everybody panicked, and so we signed Jeff Saturday and everybody was like, "Yeth, excthellent," and Saturday sucked and EDS came in and played well for the next three years. Scott Wells. See? He was a good center and I couldn't even remember him without looking him up. That's what we do. We make good offensive linemen, we make the fans desperate for us to re-sign them, we don't re-sign them, and then we make the fans forget all about them because we find a younger, cheaper option that performs just as well. Flanagan-Wells-EDS-Linsley *2 years* Rivera-Colledge *2 years* Wahle-Spitz Colledge-Sitton-Taylor Spitz-Lang-Evans Nobody expected much out of any of those replacements. And that's how it's going to be next year. Something very good is going to come from one of Amichia (even though he didn't make the 53), McCray, Patrick, or Murphy moving to guard. And it's going to cost us less than a third round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 One final point (probably not, but one extra point) is that we let go of Rivera and Wahle and then we drafted Coston in the fifth and Whiticker in the seventh to replace them. We didn't panic. We had a really bad year on the interior of the offensive line from both spots, so we took a guy in the second, then waited two picks before we took our second one. It's pretty par for the course. We only spend premium picks on positions if we have a really, really bad year at the position the year before. It doesn't matter if we let players go, the only thing that compels us to go after those positions high is if we have a bad year at those positions. So, considering Evans and Taylor probably won't have a bad year, we're probably not doing much there. If Taylor and Evans both leave, we'll probably see if we can get by with Patrick, McCray, Murphy and a few late picks (5-7). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spilltray Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 They've had solid guys so they haven't needed the investment. Sitton and Lang both got very nice 2nd contracts from the Packers and that means the G position had been stable and not in need of investment. Why would you be picking IOL high? Even then they drafted Tretter who yes could play all over the line but it was known from day 1 he'd be best at the interior positions. When they last needed IOL, they have drafted guys high to fill that role. Colledge (2nd) and Spitz (3rd), Lang and Sitton (4ths). Yes that's not many, but those picks have worked. There was also Tretter as a 4th as well. If they are looking for a starter and they like they guy, I could see a 2nd or 3rd on a guy who may have played OT in college but they clearly intend on making the day one heir at G. I don't think anything in the drafting history suggests they wouldn't do it. I'm not saying count on it either, of course, the right fit has to be on the board. Sure I doubt they'd draft a pure G high. They also very well could draft a C/G or a G/T kind of guy, fully intending on him to be the next starting G, regardless of his versatility. Just because they target a guy who may have played T and be a T/G prospect in say the 2nd round, if they plan on him being a G day one, he's a G. 2004 was a different situation. One was a FA, one was a bad contract and the team was in cap hell. That made some cuts that you wouldn't have to make if the situation were managed better. I don't think it speaks to an overall level of value of a G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltarich87 Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 9 hours ago, CWood21 said: The most amusing thing from me is how many people were anti-Watt at all costs, and now they like him. Lol twitter was flooded by Pack fans who were going crazy after Watt had 2 sacks in a preseason game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted September 3, 2017 Share Posted September 3, 2017 Just now, spilltray said: They've had solid guys so they haven't needed the investment. Come on, man. This doesn't account for it, and I've made my case pretty strong and pretty clear. I'm going to sum up in quick bullet points: *Zero IOL picks in rounds 1-4 that wasn't versatile. *One IOL pick in rounds 1-3 that wasn't technically a tackle, regardless of plan. *Repeated history of letting IOL go in free agency or cutting (Rivera, Wahle, EDS, Wells, Tretter, Lang, Sitton...). *Few of them live up to their contracts with second teams. *Repeated, almost unheard of track record of getting unexpected strong seasons out of the least likely players. We've let go more good interior offensive linemen than most teams have HAD in the past 13 years. You add all this up and you can come to the conclusions that we don't highly value IOL, we can get more out of IOL players than most teams can, and we're not planning on making a high investment in them either through high draft picks or high contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.