After watching Peterson and the Vikes...

Post #1 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 7:39 pm

would you sell out for Darren McFadden?

Of most any team in the league in that 'great, not elite' range (face it, there are only two elite teams in the NFL), I think that the Packers need superstar caliber playmakers, not more youth and depth.

The youngest team in the league, they've shown they're obviously good enough to win games. What they can't do is run the ball, however, and I'm not sure adding just any first round talent is going to cure what ails the running game.

Many have said that Arkansas Darren McFadden is every bit as good as Peterson, maybe better. My guess is he goes anywhere from #3 to #6. Moving up from where we're likely to pick (probably somewhere between #31 and #28) may be next to impossible. We'd be talking a 1st, 2nd and next year's #1 in all likelihood.

Chicago was offered a deal from the Redskins, holders of the #6 pick this last draft. #6 for Lance Briggs and #31. Personally, I would have jumped all over that if I were Chicago.

But with that kind of precedent, you can see what it might take to move up. In this case, a young and elite talent and a first round pick.

Most teams at the top prefer to keep their picks or at least like to stay in the top half of round one. They need playmakers and have money to spend.

However, in 2008 there's one team that won't have a lot of money to spend on unproven rookies and frankly, they don't need 'em: the New England Patriots.

New England will receive San Fran's #1 pick and as it turns out, San Fran has been awful. They might win 3 more games the rest of the way and if they do, they'll be 5-11 and giving NE a pick in the 4-6 range.

Most think that NE will deal the pick for a good vet and picks to add depth.

It's hard to say what we could offer that would entice NE. My guess is Corey Williams, our #1 and next year's #1 would be the starting point.

I think the move has to be explored. We'll have a team looking to move down in the draft and an elite franchise type talent at our greatest position of need.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #2 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 8:02 pm

but the Vikings have a suck record, if you're going to sell out for somebody, sell out for Brian Brohm.

Franchise QB's lead teams to SB way more than franchise RBs do.

Post #3 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 8:05 pm

Devilzsidewalk wrote:but the Vikings have a suck record, if you're going to sell out for somebody, sell out for Brian Brohm.

Franchise QB's lead teams to SB way more than franchise RBs do.

Brian Brohm couldn't throw the ball across the street and the record at Louisville isn't overly impressive this season. Besides, I don't care if Carson Palmer is in this draft; we don't need a QB.

Devilzsidewalk · Post #4 » by **Devilzsidewalk** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 8:09 pm

they're 5-4 and the defense is giving up 4 touchdowns a game on average and they lost their head coach

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 8:22 pm

Doesn't change the fact that Brohm has a noodle arm.

Fort Minor · Post #6 » by **Fort Minor** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:08 pm

Would i sell out? Yes. Yes I would.

xTitan · Post #7 » by **xTitan** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 9:28 pm

the philosophy to sell out is sound, but I am really somwhat reluctent to do that simply because the Packers have more holes then just 1 player.........they badly need to start finding quality CB's to eventually replace Harris and Woodson, and who can also play the nickel now. You are also foregttting 1 very important thing, as great as Peterson is he has an excellent run blocking offensive line ahead of him, where as GB's biggest problem in there run game currently is that they can't run block at all....personally I believe in building from the inside out, that offensive line needs upgrading fast.

KeyRabbit · Post #8 » by **KeyRabbit** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:14 pm

xTitan wrote:the philosophy to sell out is sound, but I am really somwhat reluctent to do that simply because the Packers have more holes then just 1 player.........they badly need to start finding quality CB's to eventually replace Harris and Woodson, and who can also play the nickel now. You are also foregttting 1 very important thing, as great as Peterson is he has an excellent run blocking offensive line ahead of him, where as GB's biggest problem in there run game currently is that they can't run block at all....personally I believe in building from the inside out, that offensive line needs upgrading fast.

I see what you are sugguesting, DB, but I think xTitan's got the right idea. To the CBs and OL, I'd add better depth at LB, a developmental QB (Rodgers either has to get his shot soon or we trade him, I think), a TE to replace Franks when he's cut, and in light of Bigby's recent play and Collins' injury, a playmaking S.

Plus, as Denver has illustrated, you can get great value from a RB in later rounds in the ZBS system. Keep the picks, let TT continue to try to hit home runs...

Post #9 » by **ReasonablySober** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 10:23 pm

Believe me, inside out is my philosophy as well. But McFadden, like Peterson, is a guy that can take something that might be a three yard gain and turn it into 10. Or a 8-10 yard gain into 40. Do you think that if we had Peterson, right now, that we'd still be a terrible rushing team? Granted, we don't have a left side of the line that the Vikes do, but Peterson is still probably getting 80 to 100 yards per game.

As for other needs, I think we could use a legit starting caliber player at any position in the defensive backfield. So staying put and grabbing a CB and offensive lineman in the first two rounds wouldn't upset me at all.

But an elite level runningback would make more of an impact now and in the future in my opinion.

xTitan · Post #10 » by **xTitan** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:11 pm

I was actually hoping AP would drop a little more so they could go after him, but on that, I note I would think he would have at least 200 less yards running behind this pathetic offensive line........I guess I just don't feel that GB is at the point where they could mortgage a whole draft at hopes of getting an elite back, if he doesn't turn out then you are absolutely pushed back....GB may be better off finding there version of Joeseph Addai...this is shaping up to be a very deep draft for very good backs, maybe be able to get an elite later in the first, second, or third.

BuckPack · Post #11 » by **BuckPack** » Thu Nov 8, 2007 11:12 pm

Agreed DB....that's why I wanted to do anything to move up to get Peterson last year-movin gup from 16-6 ('Skins' pick) would have taken a heckuva lot less than what it should take this year. If the Pats are interested, then go for it. Unfortunately, I could see the Pats taking Howie Long's kid in the top 10 b/c he's a perfect 3-4 fit for them, but if he's gone (as are Jake Long and Glenn Dorsey), then I definitely think they'd consider a trade. I just don't think TT will do it.

This team doesn't need anymore depth. IMO, (and this isn't something I'd do normally, but since this team has great depth, I think the situation warrants it) this team should mortgage their picks to get a superstar at a playmaking position (which would obviously be RB now b/c the WRs look great and Lee has been a wonderful surprise). Rodgers will be a damn solid QB, but I have doubts about whether he's going to be a perennial pro bowler. A big time RB would certainly ease the pressure when he eventually takes over (which, could be another year down the road as far as I'm concerned).

So, while yes we may have some big time problems at Guard and we do have some LT needs at corner, I'm counting on TT's ability to find talent in rounds 3-5 that we can groom into replacements, rather then foregoing the opportunity to get a big time difference maker at RB...

Right now, I'd be for the trade. But, I'd like to wait and see who comes out obviously and who's projected to be available at our selection. If we could get our hands on Felix Jones or James Stewart, then I'd probably prefer to just sit tight. If not, and we'd have to trade up to get them, then we might as well go for Darren.

PS: Brohm stinks. Hard to find another player whose draft stock took a bigger hit (will still go top 10 most likely, but he was the consensus 1 heding into the year). now its likely he's behind Ryan and Woodson, for sure....

El Duderino · Post #12 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 12:05 am

Absolutely no chance could i see Thompson moving way up in the draft....a few spots MAYBE, way up, no chance.

SugarRay34 · Post #13 » by **SugarRay34** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 1:03 am

No doubt I would sell out for this guy. Absolute freak and would instanty come in and be a top 10 back in the NFL. I would give up 1st, 2nd, and next years 1st, if we would have a chance for this guy. Otherwise if we do stay put I am begging for Malcolm Jenkins out of tOSU. Plays great bump and run coverage already. Good size and perfect for our system

MikeIsGood · Post #14 » by **MikeIsGood** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:59 am

SugarRay34 wrote:Otherwise if we do stay put I am begging for Malcolm Jenkins out of tOSU. Plays great bump and run coverage already. Good size and perfect for our system

That would take the Packers trading up or having a horrid second half of the season. Malcom Jenkins won't come close to us otherwise. He's been off-the-charts this year.

Post #15 » by **ReasonablySober** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:08 am

I tend to hold off on projecting skill positions that rely on speed until they run. I think the 40 yd is the most overrated measuring tool out there, but every year good players drop while worthless athletes rise because of the stupid number. If Jenkins doesn't light up the stopwatch, he'll drop, no matter how well he's played.

MikeIsGood · Post #16 » by **MikeIsGood** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:16 am

$10 on him not coming close to us if we stay around this draft position.

EDIT: And I should say barring injury. Note that I do understand your point, but I rate Jenkins atop a list of all CBs that have come out over the past few years. He's dynamite, and he is fast.

Mags FTW · Post #17 » by **Mags FTW** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:52 am

I don't think I would trade any good young players, but I would trade any combination of picks to get him. A bird in the hand beats 2 in the bush.

El Duderino · Post #18 » by **El Duderino** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 6:55 am

No doubt I would sell out for this guy. Absolute freak and would instanty come in and be a top 10 back in the NFL. I would give up 1st, 2nd, and next years 1st, if we would have a chance for this guy.

Thompson when asked about the Browns offering up next years first rounder to us so they could draft Brady Quinn said he doesn't believe in trading away or for future first round picks. I can't remember how exactly he phrased his reasoning for this, but he sure didn't sound like someone that would be doing either anytime soon.

I can understand fans talking about what they'd like to do, but when it comes to the real GM in charge, the odds of Thompson doing what's been brought up in this thread even if a team at the top of the draft were willing strike me as smaller than microscopic.

KeyRabbit · Post #19 » by **KeyRabbit** » Fri Nov 9, 2007 1:53 pm

Lots of good points in here, and I guess the great thing about this is that either way (staying put and shoring up weaker areas vs. getting the home run RB) the Packers are dealing from a position of being good and getting better. The last time that happened was about '94, when they had the good young core, were only a couple of pieces away and then did everything--drafting quality, drafting deep and picking up impact FAs.

Nice.

Mags FTW · Post #20 » by **Mags FTW** » Sat Nov 24, 2007 9:05 am

Bumping this after McFadden's performance against LSU. I posed this question to some of my diehard Packer fan friends and they didn't know who McFadden was because they don't follow college FB. Yet they're the same tools who will rip on TT for not picking up WR/RB/TE x.

Hopefully I will see a group of you after the DAL game and we can debate this like reasonable, informed, drunken, adults.