NFL Draft

Remove all ads!

The unofficial start of the NFL season! It is a time when hope abounds for all teams, when everyone is hoping to get that one player that will make the difference the following year.

The thing I find most amusing in the week leading up to the draft is that you can't believe a word of what any team is saying. Teams with higher picks always "leak" reports about what players they are interested in (even though many times they have no interest), hoping that teams below them are interested in that player too, and will offer a trade of additional picks for the rights to move up a few slots.

The best example of that this year is probably New Orleans. They have the 2nd overall pick, but the guys they are really interested in can probably be had even if they picked several slots lower than they currently are picking. One position they aren't picking is a quarterback, but they say they are looking at the QB prospects because they hope a team picking after them will offer a trade to move up to thier spot. New Orleans then would pick later, but they'd still get the player they want, plus additional picks from the team moving up to their spot.

So what players are your team after? As a Steelers fan, we're definitely in "best player available" mode. When you win the Super Bowl, you pick last, so all the "can't miss" prospects are long gone. Still, the Steelers have done very well in recent years picking players in later draft rounds that were able to contribute to the team.

 

I do believe the Packers are after a QB, what with Favre's imminent retirement (still haven't heard whether he'll play this year, but you don't go out on such a crappy season as his last one), but I really think we need to shore up the defense. After losing Sharper, we've got nothing in the backfield.

And FYI for everyone out there, the draft is April 29th, four days from now.

 

the Viqueens have so many glaring holes it doesn't matter who they draft, the bottom line is they will still suck.

We need a quarterback, Brad Johnson's getting too old, we need wide recievers as we don't have a primary reciever as it is. We lost three of our running backs over the course of the last two years. Our defense still can't stop anyone one, but at least our D line doesn't need any work.

*Sigh* God only knows why I bother to watch the Twins, the Timberwolves and the Vikings.

 

@Fel - Didn't the Packers select Aaron Rodgers with their first overall pick last year, as Favre's heir-apparent? If Favre doesn't play, I definitely think that the Pack could use another QB, but I don't think drafting another inexperienced QB is the way to go. Maybe an aging veteran who only has a year or two left before he makes room for Rodgers is the way to go. I don't know, I think Tommy Maddox is available, but he definitely is a short-term solution.

Plus, who ever is the QB after Favre is screwed - just like Tommy Maddox was doomed as the guy to replace John Elway. You never want to be the guy who follows "The Guy". You want to be the guy that follows the guy that follows "The Guy".

 

Rodgers is a hack, and even the Packers know it by now. But for some reason they don't seem to recognize Nall's skill, so they'll probably go for another QB. It burns my toast, but it's not like they haven't done the stupid thing 50 times before, and that's just in the last couple years.

 

How can they know that for sure, if he's never been given the opportunity to play? Roethlisberger is the exception - by and large all rookie quarterbacks suck their first year of playing, so as one would expecet, he looked bad his first year. It's unlikely they would write him off so quickly without giving him an opportunity to play. Plus it's speaks volumes about team mismanagement when you botch a first round pick so badly that he can't even get an opportunity to prove himself on the field. There's always a chance to botch a pick, even in the first round, but to know he's that bad without him even playing? That's really bad.

 

Rodgers has played, both in preseason and regular season, and he sucked every time. I also disagree with your statement that all quarterbacks suck their first year; Nall didn't. In the few games during his first year where he got playing time, Nall was incredible, and I can't fathom how in hell Sherman and Thompson missed it. They even cut him! The one thing I will agree with you on is that the royally botched the first round pick last year. We needed defense, and they go for a QB that the teams who scouted him passed up, picking him just because of the buzz. Thompson should be shot.

 

Has he yet to play in a meaningful game? Or rather has he only played with the 2nd team offense in preseason, or with the second team offense during the regular season when the score is 45-3 (regardless of who's winning) at which point it doesn't matter who your QB is. All I'm saying is that you can't judge a guy's career based on a handful of passes, and that's all you have to go on with either Nall or Rodgers.

I just looked it up. Last year Rodgers threw only 16 passes in 3 games. Nall's body of work is not all that great either. While he has a better completion percentage, Nall has thrown just 33 passes in his four seasons with the Packers.

Nall didn't even get onto the field his first year with the packers. In his second year, he appeared in one game, but had zero pass attempts, so his good year that you refer to was actually his third in the league. You can't base an entire judgement on a player based on that small sample size. In the case of Nall his career with the Packers amounts to about the number of passes one would throw in a single game.

[ April 26, 2006, 18:08: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

No, Rodgers played with the first string in both preseason (they had to get the new guards broken in) and regular season. You're also missing that Nall's third year was his first actually on the team, while I guess I forgot about the time he spent on the practice squad. And if you can't base your judgements on such a "small" sample, then you can't make any judgements at all, which is just plain retarded. That's basically saying that you can't judge anyone on the team, ever, unless they play first string or are with the team for ten years. If you apply the same logic to GMs, you'd cripple their decision-making.

What I base my judgements on is not just stats, but form, decision-making, and how he works with the rest of the team, both on passing plays and running plays. Completions are only one small part of a good QB. Screwing up a handoff slightly so that the halfback loses time adjusting or not taking account of rushing defenders or guys sitting in a zone don't make it into the stats. You have to actually watch them play. 33 pass attempts could mean over a hundred plays, and they all tell you something about the player if you're watching.

[ April 26, 2006, 21:14: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this. All I'm saying is that typically, one SEASON isn't sufficient to gauge a QB, never mind three games where he had maybe 100 snaps. A full season - that's several hundred passing plays, and several hundred running plays. Allow me to present to the jury Exhibit A: Drew Brees. He absolutely flat-out sucked for the first TWO YEARS on the NFL. The Chargers stuck with him, and in his third year he blossomed. He continued to play well in his fourth year, so much so that the Chargers couldn't afford to keep him so he signed a $60M deal with New Orleans in the offseason. Other times, what you see in the first year is what you get. Best example of that is probably Brees' predecessor, Ryan Leaf.

You are correct that completion percentage doesn't tell the whole story, although it does give some indication of one's accuracy as a passer, which is a pretty damn important characteristic. What it doesn't tell you about are mechanics, team leadership, how he responds under pressure, etc. If Rodgers sucks in all of the above, then perhaps you're right - he sucks. But, if you're talking strictly about mechanics, those can be worked on and improved.

Let's take some other examples from last year. J.P. Losman was about as bad as bad can be for the Bills last year, his first season as a starter, yet he is expected to be the starter again this year. Same goes for Charlie Frye of Cleveland, although in fairness he didn't start until around the mid-point of the season. And probably the biggest example is Smith out in San Francisco. He started all 16 games last year and totalled ONE touchdown pass. Yikes. What do all these players have in common? They all flat-out stunk up the place in their rookie seasons, but they'll all be back next year because most GMs realize that the pro game is so much faster paced than the college game that it takes about ONE YEAR TO ADJUST.

And even the Football Hall of Fame is filled with people (and Hall of Famers to be) who didn't play well their rookie years. Like Roethlisberger, Marino is the exception in that he played well pretty much from the day he took over as the starter. Others, like Terry Bradshaw lead the Steelers to a record of 1-13 in his first season, where he had twice as many interceptions as touchdowns, yet in the end, that worked out pretty well for Pittsburgh. Indianapolis went 3-13 in Peyton Manning's rookie season. The Bengals went 6-10 the year Carson Palmer took over. Look at him now.

All I'm saying is that GMs and others evaluating NFL talent have to be better at it than you or me, and if they feel you need at least a year to evaluate a QB, I'm inclined to believe them. Of course, this is all pretty much moot now that Favre is slated to return - I don't think they'll expect him to compete with Rodgers for the starting spot.

 

'Twould seem I was wrong about them picking a QB in the first round, but only because of another bonehead move that I missed: they cut Na'il Diggs. Now I'm hoping that was to free up some money and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one since they actually went with a defensive first pick. Plus I'm rather partial to linebackers, so using the first pick to replace the one they got rid of rubs me the right way (for once).

RE: Exhibits: I'm not all that impressed with Brees even now, but I haven't watched him play much (the Chargers aren't even a 'favored' team), so there could be something I'm missing. I haven't seen Losman at all, and I don't even know who Frye and Smith are. The one name I'm surprised you didn't bring up in the fourth paragraph is Favre, seeing as we're talking about the Packers. I'm pretty sure he stunk it up his first year as a backup for the Falcons, but there were moments of genius. (Popular Favre trivia question: Who did Favre complete his first pass to? Himself, off a tip.)

I wasn't saying that only crap players play poorly in their first year, just that not all players do; something you seem to agree with me on if your Marino example is any indication. Also that a certain level of crapiness simply isn't likely to be overcome, and that's Rodgers in spades.

Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper too? One thing that factors into GMs' decisions is how they play in practice. I think that's BS. Practice isn't even close to a game situation; all it's good for is getting familiar with your teammates so you can play better together in the actual game.

Speaking of actual games, I forgot about NFL Europe. I've seen Nall and Rodgers play there too. Nall looked like a young Favre, and I just know the Packers will be sad they let him go some day. The Bills don't know what a gift they've gotten.

They f***ing better not. Rodgers isn't good enough to clean Favre's jock strap, nevermind lead his team.

 

You don't even have to be partial to linebackers to like A. J. Hawk. The guy is a beast. The Packers got not only the best linebacker coming out of college, but the best guy on the board with that pick. You should be happy that the Packers didn't pick a QB IMO. I'm of the firm belief that you don't get many top 5 picks unless you're a team like Detroit that sucks every year. So during the rare times that you get a pick like this, you have to spend it on the "sure thing". I use quotes because there's always a chance that a pick flops, but Hawk seems to be the real deal by all accounts. What you don't do is spend it on a QB who may or may not be good. You can spend the 24th overall pick on a guy like that (Rodgers) but not 5th overall.

And I was echoing that sentiment in agreement with you. However, Marino and Roethislberger are the only two QBs from the last 25 years that have seen success from the beginning that I can think of. How many more QBs have we seen falter in their first year, even those that go on to have promising careers?

I can understand never hearing about Frye before, as he only started for the Browns towards the end of last season, and was drafted the previous year in the 3rd round. So he didn't get any press, and unless you're a football junkie like me, I can readily accept your not knowing him. However, I can hardly believe that you don't know who Smith is, seeing as how he was selected with the first overall choice by the 49ers in the 2005 Draft. That's first overall - not just the 49ers first choice. What did the 49ers get from that investment? 16 games, 1 TD pass. That's a major yikes. Smith is slated to be the starter again this year. Do you think Rodgers, had he played in 16 games would have done worse than this?

Of course not, but I'm looking at reality, not a newspaper right now. Observation: Most NFL teams give QBs drafted in the first round more than 1 year, and certainly more than 3 games to develop into a quality, starting QB. Most get more like 2 or 3 years. Observation: Owners pay GMs and coaches millions of dollars to fulfill their duties, which basically amounts to winning football games. Observation: If allowing a QB to develop did not pay long term dividends, it would be in the coach's and GM's best interest to NOT start rookie QBs because rookies don't win a lot of games. Yet rookies start all the time, often with predictably disasterous results. Conclusion: Either making millions of dollars means nothing to these people or spending a year or two to develop a QB and not passing judgement too soon is considered a sound NFL tactic for deciding on your QB.

Also, it is interesting that you bring up Favre. There's a classic case of a team giving up too soon on a QB. How silly do you think Atlanta feels when they think about that trade? Maybe if they had only held onto Favre for another year or two they would have realized his value. Rodgers clearly isn't Favre, but I for one, would rather give the kid a chance to become good than trading him away or cutting him and then see him become a decent starter somewhere else.

You mean pre-draft workouts? GMs don't see players in practice until after they draft them. So they can't very well decide to draft a player based on what he does in practice, because that doesn't happen until after he's drafted. Still, if you meant pre-draft workouts, I agree. There's no defender drawing up a bullside on your blind side ribs, and it has to be easier to complete passes to receivers when there are no defenders covering him, when you don't have to read blitz packages or zone coverages.

[ May 01, 2006, 18:08: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Believe me, I am. It's quite a pleasant surprise, coming from a generally incompetent GM.

Oh right, him. If you'd said "first pick of the draft" before, or maybe a first name (or initals), that might have clued me in. But to be honest, I didn't hear a thing about him after the draft, so he wasn't exactly on my mind. And yes, I think Rodgers would have done considerably worse. I'm thinking somewhere in the area of 30+ interceptions, and a guaranteed 0-16 season. At least that'd get them first pick again the next year to replace him, though.

Oh, I do know the value of developing a rookie QB into a good player, but when the best you can do is turn a really crappy QB into a kinda crappy QB, it's just plain not worth it. Rodgers doesn't have any of the spark that I've seen in so many other good QBs, including Nall and even Favre in his first year; he just doesn't have the right stuff. Combining that with the fact that Favre himself agrees with me, you're not going to shake my belief that Rodgers could be the worst thing to happen to the Packers in my lifetime.

I'm talking about both. Pre-draft workouts for before the draft, practice sessions afterward to judge whether or not to keep them on the team, it's all just practice and going through the motions. Scrimmages are the only things that even come close, and even then I look at them with a sideways glance. Pre-season even doesn't have the same ring, as you might be playing with second string, or against second string, or just the fact that the games don't really matter to your season so there's not as much pressure.

 

Is the GM who drafted Rodgers still employed by the Packers? Because if they let Rodgers go without giving him the opportunity to start, then his selection in the first round was indefensible. If you spend a 1st round pick on a QB, and he turns into Trent Green, that's not great, but you can live with it. If you spend a 1st round pick on a QB and he turns into Kyle Boller, that's simply not acceptable. As a 1st round QB you are paid millions of dollars because you're expected to eventually be a starter and a team leader, and Rodgers has no doubt already earned millions holding the clip board on the sidelines. The price you pay though for all this money being handed to you is constant analysis. As a QB, there's no place to hide you, because you handle the ball on every snap.

In fact, these reasons will turn out to be why the Rodgers experiment will continue, because admitting failure without even putting him on the field is career suicide. I feel it is far more likely that you will have to endure at least one year of Rodgers as the starter because you have to justify that pick.

Rodgers is screwed no matter how well or poorly he plays, simply by virtue of following Favre. The only way you can be accepted by a fan base when you're following a Hall of Famer, is when you turn out to be a Hall of Famer as well, and the only example I can think of that fits that bill is Steve Young following Joe Montana. Rodgers is likely not Steve Young. It is far more likely that Favre-Rodgers will follow the path of Bradshaw-Malone, Aikman-Wright, Elway-Maddox, or Marino-Fiedler.

Well, that's because you don't really tee off on the QB in a scrimmage. Even if you're unblocked, you'll just knock him on his butt and not slam him to the turf. That having been said, you can't write off practices altogether, as that's really the only way to gauge development other than putting the guy in the game.

 

Yep. Ted Thompson, the man who has my bullseye on his head.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we will. And that season will be a time of mourning for the Pack...

 

Fel,

Something just occured to me. I seem to remember hearing that the Packers are the first (and to this point only) publicly owned NFL team. Meaning, in essence that all of the Packers officials have fudiciary powers on the team, but there is no one official "owner" for making mangement decisions. If this is so, then who decides whether or not Thompson keeps his job? I'm assuming they have some sort of Board of Trustees set up, but these must ultimately be answerable to the stockholders. Therefore, if the Board is making extremely questionable decisions by employee people who make poor personnel decisions, why aren't the stockholders up in arms about this?

 

Actually, no. Stockholders even have less power than regular fans of the team, as they give you no power to make/influence decisions and there is a clause in the stock purchase that says that you are not allowed to say anything bad about the team in public. The person who makes the decisions is the owner in all but name, instead being called the CEO. I don't remember how he is "elected", but the Board of Trustees thing sounds about right.

 

So the person who gets to decide if Thompson keeps is job is Thompson? That has to be the sweatest job in the U.S. You get a six figure salary, your salary is not commensurate with your performance, and you get to keep the job as long as you want!

Anyone ever challenge this? That can't be legal. If I buy stock in IBM it doesn't mean I can't bad mouth IBM in public - especially if I think they happen to be squandering the money I invested in them.

 

Thankfully no, Thompson is not the CEO. The CEO is Bob Harlan, and he makes decisions on upper level staff like the GM, head coach and non-playing oriented staff, the head coach makes decisions on game-oriented staff, and the GM makes decisions on players.

EDIT: A link about the Executive Committee and Board of Directors.
Linky linky.

It's quite legal (you can voluntarily give up your right to free speech), and spelled out on both the stock certificate as well as during the purchase. It's also only forbidden to speak ill of the team in public IIRC, so you can rant and rave all you want in the privacy of your own home. I think it's dumb as hell, but for some people it's worth it to feel like you belong to the club more than just your average fan, not to mention the exclusivity since the Packers have only put stock up for sale at three points during their entire history. All in all, the only thing you get when you buy stock in the Packers is something pretty to hang on your wall for your donation to the team.

You'll have to excuse my guffaws, but that is almost word for word what my dad said when he was told that.
EDIT:

As do you.

[ May 03, 2006, 22:42: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

You dad sounds like an very intelligent guy.