• Bearmeat

    no more WR’s in round 1/2/3 for a few years. defensive players please teddy.

    that is all.

  • Zack

    Why would we add another reciever to a team that has other organizations begging our practice squad WR’s to join their active roster? We’re so stacked that I think we need to trade or cut a couple of our current recievers. I’d go even further bearmeat and say no recievers period for 2 years.

    • Adam Czech

      Thompson will, and should, draft the best player avalaible when it’s the Packers turn to pick.

      You would really want Thompson to pass on a WR that’s at the top of his draft board in favor of a defensive player that’s further down?

      • Zack

        The WR situation is a rare case… we have so many good players at that position that we don’t know what to do with them. our practice squad guys that everyone is so excited about including me are getting offers from teams like the vikings. the packers aretalking seriously about restructuring DD. JJ has a few years left on his contract. What would we do with another reciever? We literally don’t have the roster room… It would be a waste of the pick. Yes even if a WR is more talented player he shouldn’t pick him. He shouldn’t draft best player available in the case of WR. You’re acting like this philosophy: BPA is a set in stone absolute when it comes to actual drafting strategy I would say that it’s a general guideline and can be abandoned when common sense applies.

        • Adam Czech

          I’m sure need is factored in when Thompson sets his draft board. If there’s a WR that he feels is so good that he must be picked if he’s somehow still around for the Packers, Thompson will, and should, take him.

          I think we’re worrying way to much about a couple of guys on the practice squad. Yes, they appear to be talented. But it’s the practice squad.

      • Ron LC

        Adam, have you ever heard of the “Law of Diminishing Returns?” A higher rated WR added to an already highly rated wide receiver group will provide less of a return to the team than a lesser rated, let’s say, DE who is much better than the existing DE stable on the team.

        Incremental improvement is the real measure for the draft.

        • Adam Czech

          I disagree. If I’m the GM of a team that has a stud stable of WRs and horrible DEs, I’d gladly take another WR if I felt he was a game-changer over a DE that would take that position group from horrible to not-as-horrible.

          You try to hit home runs w/ your first-round picks. Incremental and depth guys can be had later in the draft.

  • Ron LC

    They already have two young guys on the practice squad, who they’re interested in upgrading. Too much talent at WR indicates that need trumps best at this position.

    • Adam Czech

      I’ll take a WR that Thompson views as a first-round talent over a couple of guys on the practice squad every time.

      • Ron LC

        And just how much playing time will this guy get that will add to the Packer offense?

  • Adam Czech

    To be clear, I’m not advocating that the Packers draft a WR. All I’m saying is that Thompson might have a WR on his board that he views as a game-changing guy. If that WR is still around, Thompson will, and should, draft him over a lesser DE or pass rusher.

    Do I think that type of WR will be around when the Packers pick? Probably not, but who knows.

    If it comes down to drafting a halfway decent WR or a halfway decent DE, by all means, Thompson should take the DE.

    • Zack

      In the unbelievably rare case that a 1st or 2nd round caliber reciever falls to the 4-7 rounds I’ll concede but beyond anything bizzare like that happenning I’m sticking to my guns, no recievers for 2 years.

  • Mojo

    Receivers? Receivers? We don’t need no stinking receivers.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx6TBrfCW54

    • Mojo

      In the above clip, insert the word “receiver” in place of “badger”.

Back to top
mobile desktop