Packers 2nd Rounder | Mike Neal

[bucks59]

So, the Packers keep Favre and have one of the worst records in the NFL and end up with Sanchez instead? Or trade up for him somehow? Thats what you're advocating?

So, you'd rather the future Packers QB be Clauson and not Rodgers?

[Kerb Hohl]

a lot of Packers fans didn't like the Rogers pick at the time it was made. they wanted the packers to draft an immediate impact player like an o-lineman or a defensive tackle. if the packers didn't draft rogers, they probably would have bowed down to favre and let him play a couple more years. Maybe we would have drafted Sanchez last year instead or clauson this year. would that have been so bad?

http://deadspin.com/5452869/mark-sanchez-is-the-new-jamarcus-russell-only-worse

Rodgers for Russell straight up. Would you do it?

[Balls2TheWalls]

Why did Purdue suck? They had a terrible Quarterback. Plain and simple. Not only could they not stop anyone, but Joey Elliott (who I have actually smoked marijuana with on campus while Painter was still the QB) couldn't stop throwing the ball to the other team.

Get out of here with all of this anti-Neal garbage and how no one cares about him getting drafted out of Purdue. Purdue was awful. No one was excited about the football team, they were garbage. Aside from a running back that could be electric in the open field, we had nothing other than Neal and the defensive end that consistently benefited from Neal getting double teamed in Kerrigan.

Multiple defensive players have had motivational problems playing for Brock Spack, and it has led to Purdue being incapable of creating a fluid or dominating defense since Niko Koutouvides left for the pros.

I think that Neal will show a lot like he did at the Shrine Game. I have officially come around on the pick.

[chuckleslove]

a lot of Packers fans didn't like the Rogers pick at the time it was made. they wanted the packers to draft an immediate impact player like an o-lineman or a defensive tackle. if the packers didn't draft rogers, they probably would have bowed down to favre and let him play a couple more years. Maybe we would have drafted Sanchez last year instead or clauson this year. would that have been so bad?

It would have been terrible. Rodgers is a top 5 NFL QB now and assuming he doesn't get injured he will remain as such for the next 5-10 years. I don't think Claussen is ever going to do much of anything personally and Sanchez is greatly overrated.

[MajorDad]

balls2 walls - Purdue sucked for a lot of reasons. they almost beat oregon, notre dame, northwestern and mich st but couldn't make the plays on defense to hold their late 4th qtr leads. You can't blame elison for those 4 losses. he gave them the lead and they couldn't hold it. you can blame Coach hope for his bad clock management in two of those games. but most of the blame for losing those 4 games lies squarely on purdue's defense. And yes , it's a team effort. but nobody else on purdue's team was even drafted - period.

neal made as big of an impact in the Senior bowl and Shriner's classic as he did playing for purdue.

and balls , stop smoking weed with purdue QBs. You may be part of the problem. You don't think your smoking might have "clouded" your judgement?

i don't want this to be a favre /rogers debate. And i hate people who try to play arm chair QB. but i do know a lot of people didn't like the rogers pick at the time it was made in 2005. A lot of people didn't like the hawk pick either. a lot of people preferred TE Davis who went to SF. just think if the packers had drafted jason campbell instead of rogers in 2005. Campbell was the next pick in that draft. maurice clarett was picked ahead of marion barber. if the packers hadn't drafted rogers, maybe they would have drafted lienhart or Cutler instead of hawk the following year. or maybe brady Quinn instead of justin harell . or chad henne rather than brain brohm. there's endless possibilities.

What i was saying is if the packers hadn't drafted Rogers in 2005, there were some other QBs in the next 4 years they could have drafted. Who knows? maybe Cutler or Lienhart could have become as big of a star as rogers if the packers had drafted them.

neal played 5 years at purdue because of injuries. he played 10 games his last year because of injuries. I see a lot of similarities in Neal as i did in Harrell. I haven't seen harrell translate his tremendous athleticism into anything for the packers. and you expect Neal will be able to? .

he's a tremendous athlete. he's got a great attitude. he has a great work ethic. but he's been mediocre on game day. maybe that will change. but it was a huge reach to take him in the second round. and i have to believe he would have lasted until our regular third round pick or someone of equal talent would be there for the taking.

and unlike some people , I' m not going to complain about the neal pick three years from now. i' m going to do it now before he ever plays a down for green bay. I' m not saying neal is a bad pick-up. i' m just saying he was a bad choice for the second round and better players were still available. i' m not going to come back here next year and say we could have/should have drafted Charlie brown or oregon's RB blount. i'l l praise the pick or complain about it on the day it was made. there are too many other factors to complain about it 3 years from now. what if the packers had drafted TE keller instead of trading down in 2008 to take jordy nelson? there are too many examples and too many factors to pla y the wha t if game.

Since the packers have built there team primarily through the draft, I hate to see them use their first and second round picks on prospects. I liked the Bulaga pick because I expect him to be starting by midseason at guard or one of the tackles. i hate to see a guy like neal watch and learn on the sideleines for 2 years before he becomes a contributer.

that's my point . you can agree with it or disagree with it.

[Wade-A-Holic]

i' m just saying he was a bad choice for the second round and better players were still available.

If you would just leave it at this, nobody would really have an issue.

[bucks59]

Its not a question about whether or not you should take Rodgers, its a question of whether or not you should draft a QB in round 1 or 2 to sit on the bench. You stated that you would only want to draft players that are "impact players" and don't sit on the sidelines for several years. How does drafting Campbell or Cutler fit within your philosophy? If the Packers draft Campbell, he sits behind Favre and is not an "impact player" immediately. Same goes with Cutler.

My point with Rodgers, and it maybe wasn't very clear, was that a player who sits on the bench for several season can turn into a very solid NFL player and a philosophy that precludes developmental players can preclude the possibility of selecting a future Pro Bowler. Taking a different player that would play immediately instead of Rodgers/Campbell maybe helps short term but definitely not long term.

I have no idea how good this Neal guy is, and I appreciate your comments about his play in college. My only criticism is with your drafting philosophy.

[LUKE23]

DB - you get it and also " inadvertantly" echoed what I've been saying.

he 's great during work-outs! he's tremendous during work-outs. he's an all american in workouts. he's a future NFL all pro in work-outs. Obviously, the packers' scouts were at those work-outs.

But when it comes to putting all that work-out greatness into a live game situation, he's less than mediocre. he got 1 assist in the Senior bowl and 2 tackles in the Shrine game. That's basically what he did at Purdue.

he's the second coming of Haislip and Alexander: an athlete with tremendous tools who can't translate those tools in a game situation.

As a GM I would place more emphasis on actual game accomplishments than physcal attributes and combines and work-outs. That's the philosophy of a few NFL gms including the Colts.

Neal will be a project. My thoughts are no NFL second round pick should be a project.

That wasn't a workout, it was a competitive game against good players who all had something to lose or gain (draft status/hype).

Your comment on "prospects" makes no sense. All players are prospects. You said you want immediate guys drafted in round 1 and 2, well, what makes you think all those guys are guaranteed to pan out? Do you honestly believe the vast majority of the guys drafted in round 1 and 2 are going to be surefire players? Come on.

[chuckleslove]

Its not a question about whether or not you should take Rodgers, its a question of whether or not you should draft a QB in round 1 or 2 to sit on the bench. You stated that you would only want to draft players that are "impact players" and don't sit on the sidelines for several years. How does drafting Campbell or Cutler fit within your philosophy? If the Packers draft Campbell, he sits behind Favre and is not an "impact player" immediately. Same goes with Cutler.

My point with Rodgers, and it maybe wasn't very clear, was that a player who sits on the bench for several season can turn into a very solid NFL player and a philosophy that precludes developmental players can preclude the possibility of selecting a future Pro Bowler. Taking a different player that would play immediately instead of Rodgers/Campbell maybe helps short term but definitely not long term.

I have no idea how good this Neal guy is, and I appreciate your comments about his play in college. My only criticism is with your drafting philosophy.

You are obviously responding to me with this and I have never ONCE said I expect a 1st or 2nd round player to step in and have an immediate impact, ESPECIALLY a QB. I think all QBs would benefit from being able to sit on the bench for 2-3 years.

I don't see Bulaga coming in and being a starter his first year but I do see him learning a ton of valuable information from Clifton and Tauscher about how to live in the trenches of the NFL and that will be invaluable, obviously he will probably get some snaps in game times, and play more than Rodgers did as a rookie but he won't have much of an impact on the field until someone gets injured or the following season and I am 100% good with that.

So maybe some people have said they want an immediate impact player in the first 2 rounds, I am not one of them.

[LUKE23]

a lot of Packers fans didn't like the Rogers pick at the time it was made. they wanted the packers to draft an immediate impact player like an o-lineman or a defensive tackle. if the packers didn't draft rogers, they probably would have bowed down to favre and let him play a couple more years. Maybe we would have drafted Sanchez last year instead or clauson this year. would that have been so bad?

Have you ever seen Aaron Rodgers play?

It is the "I have to have instant gratification" fans like yourself that just don't get the intelligence of TT's big picture approach to team building. You seem to be on the side of the fans that call into radio shows and demand we spend all of our FA money on big names, or just draft the best player at positions of need regardless of upside. That isn't how TT operates and it never will be. It is also why the Packers will be competitive for years upon years upon years over just a short-term run.

[Wade-A-Holic]

Yep. Thompson is always looking 5 years down the road, and there are a few times when I wish he'd be a bit more aggressive in free agency, but you can't argue with his approach when he's doing the same thing that has brought so much success to Indianapolis and Pittsburgh.

[LUKE23]

Yep. Thompson is always looking 5 years down the road, and there are a few times when I wish he'd be a bit more aggressive in free agency, but you can't argue with his approach when he's doing the same thing that has brought so much success to Indianapolis and Pittsburgh.

I do wish now that we'd get in on the REALLY good available players. Guys like Dumervil, Merriman. I think we're close now. I'm more speaking to the fans that want us to make signings every offseason regardless of who it is just to spend money.

I would like to get aggressive on Dumervil now if we could. Only 26, long-term answer and would turn our pass rush scary.

[bucks59]

You are obviously responding to me with this and I have never ONCE said I expect a 1st or 2nd round player to step in and have an immediate impact, ESPECIALLY a QB. I think all QBs would benefit from being able to sit on the bench for 2-3 years.

I don't see Bulaga coming in and being a starter his first year but I do see him learning a ton of valuable information from Clifton and Tauscher about how to live in the trenches of the NFL and that will be invaluable, obviously he will probably get some snaps in game times, and play more than Rodgers did as a rookie but he won't have much of an impact on the field until someone gets injured or the following season and I am 100% good with that.

So maybe some people have said they want an immediate impact player in the first 2 rounds, I am not one of them.

My bad ... I was responding to Major Dad ... its been a long day so I apologize if my posts aren't entirely coherent.

I agree with what everything you said there.

[chuckleslove]

You are obviously responding to me with this and I have never ONCE said I expect a 1st or 2nd round player to step in and have an immediate impact, ESPECIALLY a QB. I think all QBs would benefit from being able to sit on the bench for 2-3 years.

I don't see Bulaga coming in and being a starter his first year but I do see him learning a ton of valuable information from Clifton and Tauscher about how to live in the trenches of the NFL and that will be invaluable, obviously he will probably get some snaps in game times, and play more than Rodgers did as a rookie but he won't have much of an impact on the field until someone gets injured or the following season and I am 100% good with that.

So maybe some people have said they want an immediate impact player in the first 2 rounds, I am not one of them.

My bad ... I was responding to Major Dad ... its been a long day so I apologize if my posts aren't entirely coherent.

I agree with what everything you said there.

Nope, not your bad, MY BAD, I didn't even look at the post name clearly and thought your post was MajorDad now I look like the fool I was only trying to argue with him not you

[bucks59]

I think we all just need a drink.

[bucks59]

Out of curiosity, what was the last "win now" move either Pittsburgh or Indi made? I cant think of one but I might be forgetting something.

[Balls2TheWalls]

I think we all just need a drink.

I think Reed needs a sedative.