The 2010 NFL Draft is over, and I have to say, I like what the Green Bay Packers did. I think the Packers added some much-needed depth (and talent) on the offensive line, while also doing the same on the defensive line. At time last season, the offensive line was just that – offensive – so while the pick of Bryan Bulaga may not help the team immediately, it should help solidify the line in coming years, as both the Packers’ starting tackles are on the wrong side of thirty. Additionally, Mike Neal will help provide depth to the defensive line, given the uncertainty surrounding Johnny Jolly (legal troubles) and Justin Harrell (medical issues), as well as the fact that the Pack will have some free agents on the defensive line following the 2010 season. While the Packers selections of Bulaga and Neal aren’t sexy, they’re solid picks that should yield good returns in the future.
However, I am disappointed the Packers didn’t do more to address their issues in the defensive backfield. While safety Morgan Burnett will provide depth (and possibly push Atari Bigby to be more consistent), the Packers didn’t do much to address what I see as a need for some good young cornerbacks, especially given the fact that Al Harris is coming off an ACL tear and both he and Charles Woodson aren’t getting any younger.
I roughly agree. I’ve seen Bulaga play, he’s a damn good football player & I like that pick. Similarly, I don’t mind the D-line picks. I think the best blueprint for success is a good, strong defensive line…they can make the entire team better. They engage blockers & prevent them from getting to LBs so those guys can run free to the ball and cut down the time the DB’s have to cover. And getting the defense off the field means the offense has more opportunities. But I really would’ve liked a corner. I’ve never been a fan of drafting safeties – draft corners & let corners grown/age into the safety position. Despite two very good corners, both are old enough to be of concern both for injuries and the drop-off that can happen very quickly.
I’m withholding judgment on the RB. That’s a position I would’ve loved to see them take early, even first or second round (and I say that being a huge Ryan Grant fan). The lack of production they got from that position after Grant was embarrassing. Absolutely no depth at all & if Grant goes down, they’re dead in the water. If Starks can be the answer, great. If not, they should’ve taken somebody higher.
Yeah, I’ll agree with you regarding the Pack drafting a running back, but I’d argue this draft wasn’t really deep with great running backs, so I can’t fault the team for not focusing on drafting a running back. When you draft for need rather than talent, you end up with inferior talent.
True, but there are few absolutes. As much as the Thompson line is always “best available player” it’s still only a general principle. People try to imply they don’t factor in needs as well, which is idiotic. The Dez Bryant thing is a perfect example. If Denver moved past us because they were afraid we’d take him, they’re really dumb – and probably fell for the disinformation that Thompson is so good at. He learned from the best, Wolf & Parcells were masters at not only playing it close to the vest, but making everyone think they were going to take somebody they had no intention of taking. Anyway, given our receiving corp, even if Bryant was best available, it would be stupid to take him because of needs AND caliber of other players available. You can argue about whether needs vs your assessment of best available should be 50-50 or 75-25 or 25-75, but only a fool would say 100% either way.
Look at any team with a Pro Bowl caliber QB who’s not terribly old or at the end of a contract. They’ll never take a QB early even though at some point, it’s most certainly true that a QB was “best available.” There’s only so much playing time available. I’ll take an inferior talent who is able to contribute over a more talented player stuck on the bench behind an even better one.
The other thing that’s interesting to me, is the built in arrogance. I’d argue needs should be more important than best player available for one very simple reason. You can trust your assessment much better. You know with a very high degree of certainty, where you’re needs are. On the other hand, if history has shown anything about the draft, it’s that even the very best in the business are wrong all the time in their assessment of the ability of the players. I don’t need to list the huge number of 6th & 7th round guys everyone passed on who become great pros or the even longer list of first round, can’t miss busts.
What about Aaron Rodgers? I’d argue the Packers had greater needs than a young quarterback when they drafted Rodgers, yet they went ahead and pulled the trigger on drafting a player who was arguably the best left on the board (if not the best in that draft).
Well as we all know, McCarthy & TT planned on pushing Favre out from the very beginning. 🙂
I’d put Favre in the “terribly old” category especially when you consider the miles in addition to the years. He’s a very good example of what I’m saying – it’s a combination of need and “quality.”
Given the full history with Favre and that it takes a couple of years to develop a quarterback, though it wasn’t an immediate need, there was definitely a need to get the next QB on the roster. Yes he was most likely the best available player too. But if Favre had been 26 instead of 36 at the time, regardless of how good they thought Rogers was they’d have been dumb to draft him.