Micah Hyde

Jack nail;ed it!

Woooh, Jack!

Not gonna lie, my first impression of the Pack's draft is.....not impressed at all. 2 RB's? 2 OL?? No 'beef' until the 5th?? No S (maybe Hyde)? No WR? No LB's? Still a few late picks to go, though, I guess.
Also wish I'd known about J. Williams' knees and Swope's noggin. Sure wouldn't have been as gung-ho for them, otherwise.

My first hit in two years!!!!!


I could have had a second if I mentioned Josh Boyd, but alas, I dumped him after I read his production dropped from his junior to senior year and he tends to play to the level of competition.

The guy does has run stopping potential.

Overall I give myself of rating 'sucked moose balls' for this years draft discussion. Next year I need to do a better job on homework.

Does anyone know anything about the seventh round picks? No clue on those three.

"Not gonna lie, my first impression of the Pack's draft is.....not impressed at all. 2 RB's? 2 OL?? No 'beef' until the 5th??"

I liked the draft. One way to get tougher is to run the ball. In the 2010 playoffs we were able to run the ball and I think the whole team fed off of that. So in that sense the 2 rbs and 2 OL make sense.
I have more questions about Boyd, the beef you mention and Jack almost takes credit for
He seems a 4/3 guy all the way like Worthy

Jack Vainisi wrote:

Overall I give myself of rating 'sucked moose balls' for this years draft discussion. Next year I need to do a better job on homework.

Does anyone know anything about the seventh round picks? No clue on those three.

It's always fun to talk draft with you, Jack.

I don't know anything about Palmer or the 2 7th round WRs but I think we found the reason TT made all those trades. The guys he brought in to visit as potential FAs were just too good athletes to take the chance he could sign them as free agents and he wanted to make sure he got them.

The only pick, besides Boyd, I question is Barrington. He seems like a bigger DJ Smith. I can imagine him taking Francois' spot as special teams guy and emergency ILB but not much more.

I’m surprised the Packers didn’t take a safety in the draft. Obviously they think MD Jennings or McMillian have a future in the NFL.

As Thompson took Hyde in the fifth round after he was arrested in a bar fight (court date pending), I’m thinking the guy has more potential then I originally thought.

What I don’t see is the point of bringing 11 draftees into camp when your already considered the deepest team in football. I realize this was a deep draft, but three picks in the seventh round seems like overkill. However we will see come camp. Obviously there are WR spots to be filled and maybe these two guys will surprise.

But the top five guys they drafted all fell beyond where they were expected to go.

Lacy was considered a first round pick. David Bakhtiari was projected as a second round talent by some. Franklin and Tretter were thought of as third rounders.

The more I read on Tretter, the more I like the pick. I can see him turning into a fourth round steal. Very smart - football smart. Plays with a mean streak and has a lot of athletic ability.

I dismissed Franklin before the draft because he’s not a good receiver or blocker on the blitz, but the guy was productive playing in a zone read offense.

It’s as different world for the Packers now. With the money they have tied up in Matthews and Rodgers, there’s not a lot of wiggle room in the cap. Retaining solid players is going to be tougher. Signing free agents is limited to the bargin bin.

Perhaps throwing a lot of darts at the board on draft day and hoping several (three or more prospects) turn into solid starters is the way to go – especially when you know it’s a deep draft year.

I feel sorry for Russ Ball. Trying to look two or years into the future and project what your going to need to spend on guys McCarthy really wants to keep has to be a nightmare job.

I see the Packers as a title contender every year for the next five years or so baring injuries to key players. But I don’t see them as a favorite to win another title. It’s tough – lot of money tied up in 2 key players and drafting towards the bottom every year is like swimming against the tide.

By the way – New Yorker magazine has some very good segments on the Boston Marathon bombing in the front section ‘around the town’. Quick reads for anyone at the magazine rack in a bookstore. I recommend them.

WSS, it's three (small) articles you'd enjoy based on your reading style.

"With the money they have tied up in Matthews and Rodgers, there’s not a lot of wiggle room in the cap"

Actually they are both bargains. Matthew's extension was 13M a year for 5 years but the total value of the contract is 6 years $69 million compared to 66M for Ware who signed 2 years ago.

Rodger's extension is 110M for 5 years but his total contract is 7 years 130M, which is a smaller yearly value than Flacco or Brees. I don't have our current cap numbers but we had over 17M after the Matthews signing so I suspect we have about 8M still available. Enough to extend Shields, Burnett or Bulaga this year and still sign all the rookies.

Well, at least TT drafted a few WR's and LB's after I whined about it.

lutzz, I still have very fond memories of Starks running wild at the end of the SB season. Just thought the 2 RB's (even though they are completely different) was overkill when #12 is the QB and MM is the HC. And now Starks and quite possibly Green will be out of jobs. I won't miss Green at all, but I was hoping Starks would get one more shot to stay healthy and liked the odds with it being a contract year for him.
Still puzzled by the O-Line picks, though....

"Lutzz, I still have very fond memories of Starks running wild at the end of the SB season. Just thought the 2 RB's (even though they are completely different) was overkill when #12 is the QB and MM is the HC. And now Starks and quite possibly Green will be out of jobs. I won't miss Green at all, but I was hoping Starks would get one more shot to stay healthy and liked the odds with it being a contract year for him."

I think Starks will stick as a back up power runner to Lacy with Harris as the backup 3rd down guy and maybe kick returner. I don't see Green sticking around.

Let's also give props to WSS, he not only got Lacy but predicted 2 RBs, something I never thought would happen.

I wonder what happens to Kuhn in all of this, as well. Seemed to me his legs really started failing him at times last season. Would not miss him getting 3rd/4th and short calls in the least.

denvercheddarhead wrote:

I wonder what happens to Kuhn in all of this, as well. Seemed to me his legs really started failing him at times last season. Would not miss him getting 3rd/4th and short calls in the least.

And he also has a 2.5M cap number. I was hoping TT would nab the Harvard FB and cut Kuhn. I don't see what he will bring to the team this year, he is a mediocre blocker and won't be used as a 3rd down back as before. His cap $ could be used to reup with some guys.

OK, so we agree, Kuuuuuuuhhhhhhhnnnnnn's a gooooooonnnnnneeeerrrr.

O-Line will be very interesting with the 2 new guys, that's for sure. Don't see any way TT would cut a 4th Rd. pick, but also would be surprised if they could be stashed on the PS. I was hopeful Barclay and Datko would make 2nd year jumps and have T covered. Sherrod is probably in a get healthy enough to play this year or else situation, I would guess.
Could they really be thinking one of these guys could be a starting G (with Lang moving to C) or C (one of them beating EDS out straight up) this year?

denvercheddarhead wrote:

OK, so we agree, Kuuuuuuuhhhhhhhnnnnnn's a gooooooonnnnnneeeerrrr.

O-Line will be very interesting with the 2 new guys, that's for sure. Don't see any way TT would cut a 4th Rd. pick, but also would be surprised if they could be stashed on the PS. I was hopeful Barclay and Datko would make 2nd year jumps and have T covered. Sherrod is probably in a get healthy enough to play this year or else situation, I would guess.
Could they really be thinking one of these guys could be a starting G (with Lang moving to C) or C (one of them beating EDS out straight up) this year?

Denver, My best guess is that they are going to try many different combinations on the OL but I imagine the 2 guards will be the same. I don't expect the 2 rookies to play much this year but I can't imagine either getting cut.

lutzz wrote:

"With the money they have tied up in Matthews and Rodgers, there’s not a lot of wiggle room in the cap"

Actually they are both bargains. Matthew's extension was 13M a year for 5 years but the total value of the contract is 6 years $69 million compared to 66M for Ware who signed 2 years ago.

Rodger's extension is 110M for 5 years but his total contract is 7 years 130M, which is a smaller yearly value than Flacco or Brees. I don't have our current cap numbers but we had over 17M after the Matthews signing so I suspect we have about 8M still available. Enough to extend Shields, Burnett or Bulaga this year and still sign all the rookies.

In today's JSOnline, ARod's and Matthews contracts are cap friendly to point that the Packers are still $13.5mil below the cap and figure to spend between $5-$6mil on rookie contracts leaving approximately $7mil that can be applied to Raji or other long term contracts.

It will be interesting when the day comes for Wilson and Kaepernick for their salary demands and how it will affect Seattle and SF's salary caps in a few years.

Jack Vainisi wrote:

By the way – New Yorker magazine has some very good segments on the Boston Marathon bombing in the front section ‘around the town’. Quick reads for anyone at the magazine rack in a bookstore. I recommend them.

WSS, it's three (small) articles you'd enjoy based on your reading style.

Thanks jack, good reads indeed.

I don't know much about Nate Palmer, when I heard or rather saw his name I thought it wasa mistake and they meant the WR from Northern Illinois, so that pick seemed a little reachy and Ted does that to me at least once every draft, sometiems he is right sometimes I am.

As for the WR's, I don't know much about the guy from Maryland Doesey and it always scares me when I see a Senior drop in production like that though QB issues may be a big contributor to that. Charles Johnson however was really getting some 5-7th round pub the closer we got to draft time, big strong and fast. The more I read about him the more I like.

I also think that Theodores process might have mirrored mine a little when it comes to the Franklin pick in that there are some durability not ability questions on Lacy so maybe he hedged his bets a bit. Of course with the stable of RB's we have had we needed to upgrade there the same as we did on the DL. Guys better be ready to fight big time for their jobs at those spots because the ones that aren't will be looking for work elsewhere.

If I may go out on a limb here, it appears there may not even be a FB in GB next year and they may use more of an H-Back type of blocker with Ryan Taylor and possibly Stoneburner whihc is fine with me. I love Kuhn like the rest of you, but as pointed out his legs may have just given out too much now.

lutzz deserves a lot of credit with his analysis of this years draft, again he is the best of us. Well Done Sir!

Why So Serious? wrote:

If I may go out on a limb here, it appears there may not even be a FB in GB next year and they may use more of an H-Back type of blocker with Ryan Taylor and possibly Stoneburner whihc is fine with me. I love Kuhn like the rest of you, but as pointed out his legs may have just given out too much now.

Agreed. Although I like Kuhn, and he is a fan favorite, having a FB with his salary is a luxury we can no longer afford. He is an average blocker, but he seemingly has not been able to grind out the yards we need in short yardage situations. H-back scenarios using TE rotations should and will become the norm.

Why So Serious? wrote:

I love Kuhn like the rest of you, but as pointed out his legs may have just given out too much now.

I got nice legs, WSS.

lutzz wrote:

"With the money they have tied up in Matthews and Rodgers, there’s not a lot of wiggle room in the cap"

Actually they are both bargains. Matthew's extension was 13M a year for 5 years but the total value of the contract is 6 years $69 million compared to 66M for Ware who signed 2 years ago.

Rodger's extension is 110M for 5 years but his total contract is 7 years 130M, which is a smaller yearly value than Flacco or Brees. I don't have our current cap numbers but we had over 17M after the Matthews signing so I suspect we have about 8M still available. Enough to extend Shields, Burnett or Bulaga this year and still sign all the rookies.

That's a good point. You could look at it and say 'well, Matthews deal simply replaced the money the Packers were paying Woodson'

But I have a hard time getting away from the concept that the Packers have devoted about 22% to 25% of their cap resources (2014 and 2015) to two players.

Keep in mind that my cap philosophy is influenced by the stasticially probability in tournament poker. In a game with quick moving blinds, you have about 50 hands before the blinds increase to the point where your limited in your moves.

Devoting 25% of your chips in two hands severely decreases you ‘wiggle room’ in the rest of your tourmanent life. You’d better win those two hands or your going to get flushed.

I see the Packers as a team close to winning a title every year in the next five years. But I don’t see them having the financial resources to add a free agent who could ‘put them over the top’ in a certain year. That wiggle room is gone.

In other words, the Packers will not be signing a free agent like Charles Woodson in the near future.

Retaining an aging player like Cullen Jenkins becomes more risky then before. You can’t afford to eat the salary if the player starts to break down physically. You really have to look at a player like Ryan Pickett in the offseason and make a decision if you wish to retain him. Fiscal discipline is now a necessity.

However, we will see. In a year or so, you might look back at this post and be able to tell me to ‘suck it’.

We need to either add more posters or start using multiple ID's.

The former is probably a better idea.

Why So Serious? wrote:

lutzz deserves a lot of credit with his analysis of this years draft, again he is the best of us. Well Done Sir!

Thank you. I've just been doing it longer and work at home so I probably have more time.

Why So Serious? wrote:

If I may go out on a limb here, it appears there may not even be a FB in GB next year and they may use more of an H-Back type of blocker with Ryan Taylor and possibly Stoneburner whihc is fine with me. I love Kuhn like the rest of you, but as pointed out his legs may have just given out too much now.

That makes sense. It allows us to keep 4 RBs and 4 TEs.

Been really surprised at the paucity of comments on the RB's we drafted. So many things to talk about.

1.) Were you surprised both of these guys dropped as far as they did?
2.) Did they drop for a reason ... and therefore perhaps GB made a mistake in grabbing what "appeared" to be a steal for both of the. (Note, some said that about A-Rod and look how he turned out).
3.) Are you glad we got BOTH of them?
4.) Which will ultimately be better ... will BOTH play a lot ... right away?
5.) Should we have gone for Montee Ball instead?
6.) Overall, are you pumped about the two RB's? Down about it? Jury is still out?

I just think getting both these guys ... and getting them where we did ... and drafting RB's when TT doesn't usually do so ... so much to talk about. Surprised you folks haven't had more to say on this.

I was waiting for someone else to fire up the machine before going to work.

Lacy certainly fell in the draft, but I’m thinking he has no-one to blame but himself for that chain of events.

I was really high on the guy until we started talking about his pro day performance. His physical conditioning forced him to stop and take a break during the workout. At that point and time in his life, the workout obviously was going to determine where he was going in the draft. He didn’t do so well.

The Packers had a shot at him in the first round and passed. They had another in the middle of the second and chose to trade down instead. Rumor has it, they were looking to make another trade in the bottom of the third, but it fell through.

At that point, they made Lacy their pick. The next day they made an aggressive move trading up to acquire Franklin as a second RB.

Based on draft day events, I’m not sure Thompson is entirely convinced Lacy is the answer at RB. I think his proday obviously soured teams. I’m wondering how he did in the team interviews.

I didn’t do much research on AR back in 2005 because at the time there was no way he was going to become a Packer. The predraft reports had him as a top 10 pick and the Packers had no means to move up that high.

AR was a product of the Telford system and every Telford QB before him had failed at the NFL level. That had to be a red flag for teams in 2005.

It’s not like he took the NFL by storm – in limited playing time his first three years, he always got hurt. He looked pretty bad in camp and preseason in 2005. In his first two years, he usually pointed his finger at another player when things went wrong on a play, which (IMO) showed a lack of maturity and leadership ability.

It’s not like the Packers showed complete confidence in him after Favre retired. Thompson drafted Brohm that year, who if you remember was supposed to be the most NFL ready QB in that years draft.

Being drafted 25th and being allowed to sit for three years worked out great for AR and the Packers. But if the team had expected him to play and contribute immediately, I wonder how his career would have turned out – especially on a team like the 2005 packers, which did not have a good year.

I thought Neal and Worthy in the second round were both bad picks. Others on this blog will disagree with that assessment – which is fine. Group-speak sucks.

I don’t think Lacy was a bad pick in the second – don’t think he would have been a good pick in the first.

At this point, I’m simply curious as to how his career will turn out. Hopefully a lot better then Steve Atkins (worst case) and hopefully like Ahman Green (best case).

"Telford system and every Telford QB before him had failed."

It's Tedford, isn't it? Not sure.

'tedford' it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Tedford

Several high picked busts before AR:

http://usc.247sports.com/Board/29/Why-is-Jeff-Tedford-considered-a-QB-Guru-4734162/1#a4735272

JoeThePlumber wrote:

Been really surprised at the paucity of comments on the RB's we drafted. So many things to talk about.

1.) Were you surprised both of these guys dropped as far as they did?
2.) Did they drop for a reason ... and therefore perhaps GB made a mistake in grabbing what "appeared" to be a steal for both of the. (Note, some said that about A-Rod and look how he turned out).
3.) Are you glad we got BOTH of them?
4.) Which will ultimately be better ... will BOTH play a lot ... right away?
5.) Should we have gone for Montee Ball instead?
6.) Overall, are you pumped about the two RB's? Down about it? Jury is still out?

I just think getting both these guys ... and getting them where we did ... and drafting RB's when TT doesn't usually do so ... so much to talk about. Surprised you folks haven't had more to say on this.

1.) Lacy, no. Lacy had a bad pro day and had a list of injuries so the red medical flag was up on him.
2.) Lacy dropped for the above reasons and Franklin was a trade-up because he fit the Packer system and there was probably a little fear that Lacy might be a bust.
3.) Yes. I think we got Lacy at great value under the assumption that his bad pro day and injuries might "wake him up" to realize that he better "shit or get off the pot" or he will have a short pro career. Franklin was good insurance for Lacy and also adds the dimension of speed in the backfield. I think MM and TT want to have the same running game that the Giants had with Jacobs/Bradshaw a few years ago.....a GB version of Thunder / Lightning running game.
4.) RB's usually play right away in comparison to other position players....our two RB's should be immediate contributors.
5.) I actually liked the trade down to get more picks AND still get a back like Lacy who almost fell to the third round! I would have been happy with either back.
6.) Jury is still out but as of now I am delighted about both backs. I think Lacy and Franklin gives the Pack an opportunity to develop a running game that will force defenses to honor the run and not just sit deep in the secondary choking off the passing game. I think MM's dream is to hammer teams with Lacy and Franklin to force teams to put 8 in the box, then have AR kill them with the deep ball. Another thing I would like about these backs would be the opportunity to run games down when in the lead and keeping the pass to a minimum (eating time off the clock). In turn, this would help keep Rodgers' from taking as many sacks as he's been having the last few years.

Another change mentioned in JSOnline is the shift of Buluga to LT and Sitton to LG and Lang to RG with Barclay and Sherrod battling for RT.....definitely a smart move to protect AR's blind side. MM wasn't too thrilled with Newhouse's performance at LT according to the press. This is the first draft that appears to be one that MM and TT are going to a more physical brand of football after the last two seasons of one and out to physical teams.

Jack Vainisi wrote:

I thought Neal and Worthy in the second round were both bad picks. Others on this blog will disagree with that assessment – which is fine. Group-speak sucks.

I don’t think Lacy was a bad pick in the second – don’t think he would have been a good pick in the first.

At this point, I’m simply curious as to how his career will turn out. Hopefully a lot better then Steve Atkins (worst case) and hopefully like Ahman Green (best case).

Neal reminds me of Shawon Dunston (potential label) and is still waiting to reach expectations. Worthy is way too early for me to judge -- a limited body of work before getting hurt.

Agree with you on the Lacy pick....second round pick at best....shot himself in the foot prior to the draft. Hopefully he gets his act together and figures it out before he's out of football.

The one thing I do hope for out of the O Line changes and these backs is better short yardage. I cringe whenever the Pack has 3rd or 4th and a half yard to go. Last year, I wished they would just pretend it was 3rd and 7 yds to go ... they'd have a much better shot.

I'm a huge football fan, but don't know much about the details, but tell me if this is true. On 3rd and inches, shouldn't you virtually be able to go up to the line, tell the defense you are going to run straight ahead, and still be able to push enough to get a foot or so. It seems on those plays, the Pack can't even get back to the line of scrimmage half the time.

So that is a big goal for me. A guy who can get a half yard or yard regardless of whether the defense knows what's coming. And that is on the O-line too, I guess.

Any thoughts on why the Packers have decided to switch Lang and Sitton at guard? I don't remember a team doing a flip-flop like this in recent years.

If BB has trouble at LT, the Packers can always go back to Newhouse. Not really sure how this is going to work out - the Seattle game is still on my DVR and BB still looks terrible against speed rushers in that contest.

If McCarthy ever devises a pass happy game plan like that first half, I'm thinking BB is effed - especially against J Allen.

But give McCarthy credit for changing after that horrible first half. The Packers always tried to make an effort to run the ball after that game. A motivated, healthy and physically conditioned Lang would help.

McCarthy said he wants his 2 best linemen on the left ... on A Rod's blind side. He feels Sitton is his best left guard.