Grading Green Bay's Draft

[Jay 0]

1.5 -- AJ Hawk, OLB

 

Strengths -- Very productive player, someone that you could consistently see making plays on the field and at times dominating and taking over a game. His speed and strength measurables are outstanding. Athletic. Strong at the point of attack. Good character player and leader. Is a football player in the old-school sense of the word.

 

Weaknesses -- Does not have ideal height, which will be a limitation in man-to-man coverage against tight ends, and will also be a limitation in zone coverage limiting the effect of the drop into coverage, opening up larger holes in zone defense. Also is somewhat stiff in coverage. Not a pure pass rusher that can line-up on the line and make his own path to the quarterback.

 

Overall -- Hawk is a very good player, but he does not have the ideal physical characteristics that you would expect in a top-5 outside linebacker. His lack of height and fluidity in coverage will likely limit him to the weak side as an outside linebacker. It's possible that he might actually be a better inside linebacker that could use his speed making plays sideline to sideline (unfortunately, the Packers already have a linebacker like that in Barnett). Overall, a good player, but not equal to the hype that follows him around. A safe, solid pick, but not necessary an impact player as an outside linebacker at the NFL level, which is what you expect from a top-5 pick.

 

Grade=B-

 

2.15 -- Daryn Colledge, OT/OG

 

Strengths -- Very productive starter at demanding left tackle position. Durable, starting every game for four years at the left tackle position. Very athletic, can easily reach the second level of blocks. Outstanding playing and measurable strength.

 

Weaknesses -- Does not have ideal lower body bulk and explosive hip strength to blow defenders off the ball. Does not always use proper leverage on blocks, preferring instead to wall defenders off.

 

Overall -- While not a "name" player, this looks like an outstanding pick. There is a good chance he'll play right away at guard, but he has the athleticism to continue at left tackle if that makes sense for the Packers in the future. Is a much better athlete with better durability than the more well-known prospects that were available.

 

Grade = A-

 

2.20 -- Greg Jennings, WR

 

Strengths -- Very productive player. Started three years with increasing productivity each season, ending with an outstanding senior season. Decent size and good speed. Jennings performed well in the post-season workouts. Was a good returner.

 

Weaknesses -- Not ideal height. Played mostly against inferior competition, so there is risk that the production will not translate to the next level. Does not have superior athleticism expected in a #1 wide receiver, and might be limited to a complementary receiver at the next level.

 

Overall -- Probably the next best receiver on the board at the time. It fills a need position, but difficult to imagine him as more than a solid #2 at the next level with some risk that he can't make the jump at all. Could provide value as a returner and special teams immediately, which adds some value to the pick.

 

Grade = B-

 

3.2 -- Abdul Hodge, LB

 

Strengths -- Very productive three year starter at big-time program. Led team in tackles all three years as starter. Good coverage linebacker that was never forced to leave the field. Makes plays all over the field. Good blitzer. Another football player in the old-school sense of the word.

 

Weaknesses -- Does not have ideal size to play on the inside or height to play on the outside. Ran around blocks in some situations because he did not have the bulk to take on blockers at the point of attack. Does not have superior speed. Not a pure pass rusher that can line-up on the line and make his own path to the quarterback.

 

Overall -- Hodge is a good football player, and might be every bit as good as his more heralded counterpart Chad Greenway who went two rounds earlier. The Packers project that he can play on the outside to contribute immediately, but in any situation, the Packers got a premier player and possibly the best inside backer in the draft. Outstanding value pick.

 

Grade = A

 

3.11 -- Jason Spitz C/OG

 

Strengths -- Productive starter at guard at the college level. Good size and speed. Can get to the second level of blocks and get to the outside as a pulling guard. Versatile enough to play either guard or center.

 

Weaknesses -- Does not have the ideal athleticism that his size and speed ratio would indicate. Lack of athleticism leads to the use of poor technique and the inability to sustain blocks in the running or the passing game.

 

Overall -- It seems to be a be too early for this calibre of player. With few guards off the board and lots of value in the middle rounds, this is a bit of a reach for need. His versatility is important, as the Packers have needs to fill at both center and guard, so that helps the grade a little.

 

Grade = C

 

first day grade = B

 

4.7 Cory Rodgers, WR -- Very productive talented receiver who did not time well at his Pro Day. Is a solid returner Grade = B

 

4.7 Will Blackmon, WR/CB -- Was a productive corner and wide receiver at the college level. Personally, I thought he was a better corner prospect than wide receiver, but has ability as both. Good returner and overall athlete that provides some versatiliy whereever the Packers decide to use him. Grade = B

 

5.15 Ingle Martin, QB -- Ideal developmental prospect. Played against inferior competition and doesn't have ideal size, but has a great arm and ability to make plays inside and outside of the pocket. Grade = B+

 

5.33 Tony Moll, OT -- Unknown prospect, default grade = C-

 

6.14 Johnny Jolly, DT -- Good size and athleticism, but he doesn't play as strong or as well as his measurables would dictate. Solid developmental prospect with some upside. Grade = C+

 

6.16 Tyrone Culver, FS -- Unknown prospect, default grade = C

 

7.45 Tollefson, Dave DE -- Unknown prospect, default grade = C+

 

Second day grade = B-

 

Overall -- I think the Packers had a very strong draft. They did a very good job of moving down and continuing to accumulate picks. I think they had a very good first day. I particularly liked the College and Hodge picks on the first day and the Ingle Martin pick on the second day. I'd probably give the Packers a better grade if they weren't aided by the Jevon Walker trade. Losing Walker will undoubtedly hurt the Packers, even though the relationship was probably not salvagable at this point. It still casts a bit of a cloud on what was otherwise a very solid day for the Pack.

[ROBOKOP 0]

Wow, thats the first knock on AJ Hawk Ive seen. I would have considered him a no-brainer pick.

[ShaneFalco 0]

As I've said before, I think Jennings is going to be a very good NFL WR. People often put too much weight on 40 times and height, etc. I've seen every WMU home game and the kid can play football. He has great hands, runs great routes, and is a good kick returner. I was glad to see him stay in the division and I think he'll turn out to be a very good pick for the Pack.

[Mr Anonymous 24]

Jennings is going to be a very good NFL WR. He has great hands, runs great routes

 

I respect Jay almost as much as any poster here, but to not note the importance of these two attributes in the west coast offense and even more importantly on grass in Green Bay where speed is often a non-factor, is missing the boat on this kid.

 

I think he'll enjoy the same meteoric rise that Terrance Murphy was enjoying before the unfortunate injury. I just hope he doesn't share the same fate.

[Walter34 3]

I respect Jay almost as much as any poster here, but to not note the importance of these two attributes in the west coast offense and even more importantly on grass in Green Bay where speed is often a non-factor, is missing the boat on this kid.

 

I think he'll enjoy the same meteoric rise that Terrance Murphy was enjoying before the unfortunate injury. I just hope he doesn't share the same fate.

 

I dont mean to piss on his grave, but what meteoric rise? Murphy only had 5 catches last year. he had some potential, but I think the guys legend is growing exponentially because of the injury.

 

ok, I'm going to hell ...

[XToday 0]

Isn't Barnett faster? If so, he would be a great strongside guy or TE coverage and keep the heavy-hitting Hawk in the middle. I like Barnett but too many times he seems to pick the wrong hole by diving the wrong way. Maybe it's just too fast for him in the middle. Give him one side to worry about and be done with it...

 

I still think Green Bay should have a 3-4 defense...

[kristv 0]

I am very happy with the Packers' draft. I feel their Day 1 grade is a solid A. Day 2 was not quite as good and I think they may have missed on a couple of players, but I wouldn't give them any lower than a C+. Overall for the weekend, a solid B is a pretty fair grade, and I'm happy with that.

[Jay 0]

I respect Jay almost as much as any poster here, but to not note the importance of these two attributes in the west coast offense and even more importantly on grass in Green Bay where speed is often a non-factor, is missing the boat on this kid.

 

I think he'll enjoy the same meteoric rise that Terrance Murphy was enjoying before the unfortunate injury. I just hope he doesn't share the same fate.

 

The most important attributes in a WCO wide receiver are size and YAC (yards after catch). The size is necessary to defeat the jam at the line of scrimmage in order to keep the timing of the play intact. Jennings doesn't have the size to be a #1 WCO wide receiver. His return ability does translate well to YAC ability, but physically, he appears to be limited to a #2. Terance Murphy was a similar questionable pick with the same limitations last year, and I think that his return ability contributed to the Packers' interest. The Packers picked a lot of guys with return ability this year as well, attempting to still fill that need. It helps that this draft is loaded with top-notch returners, unlike last year where it was necessary to take Murphy a little earlier than his skills as a receiver in the WCO would dictate.

 

 

Isn't Barnett faster? If so, he would be a great strongside guy or TE coverage and keep the heavy-hitting Hawk in the middle. I like Barnett but too many times he seems to pick the wrong hole by diving the wrong way. Maybe it's just too fast for him in the middle. Give him one side to worry about and be done with it...

 

I still think Green Bay should have a 3-4 defense...

 

Their straight-line speed is similar. Hawk has outstanding speed for a player his size. Barnett is smaller than Hawk and weaker at the point of attack, but he is much more natural and fluid in coverage. Barnett was an outside linebacker in college and the Packers moved him inside when he got to the pros. If I'm not mistaken, he struggled a bit on the outside for whatever reason. Very similar story to Urlacher, who is also undersized. Urlacher is a better overall athlete, but Barnett's skill set in terms of strengths is very similar.

 

Almost every one of the Packer linebackers would be drasticly undersized for a 3-4. Hawk is the only one that could do it, and he would need to play in the middle. In a 3-4, you have to consistently be strong at the point of attack. You'll see a lot of converted DEs as linebackers in the 3-4. The Packers are on the other side and have built their linebacker corps on speed. On the flip side, KGB would make an interesting OLB prospect in the 3-4 the Packers have a lot of 3-technique DTs that would make good 3-4 defensive ends.

[listen2me 23 1,873]

Instead of drafting 3 alright WRs...well one is a WR/CB.....

 

I think they should of held that 2nd round pick instead of trading it to the Pats....and picked Chad Jackson...the smarter Pats moved up to get a very good WR...all we did was move down every pick...

 

I think taking Jackson would have made our WR position more clear...with all the average WRs besides Driver like we had last year....all we ever do is hope one of our 3rd 4th and 5th WRs pan out....its always a "hope" with us...

[Jay 0]

In fairness, it was a weak WR draft, and Chad Jackson is more of a prospect than a football player right now and goes against the philosophy that Ted Thompson is trying to bring to the draft. I don't know if there was a WR in the entire draft that would have improved our WR corps all that much. It's an off year for the position. I actually wish they would have used the second pick in the 2nd for a different position entirely, as I see a lot of the guys they took at WR as similar prospects. It was a rough year to have a need at WR.

[hoffdaddy 1]

Instead of drafting 3 alright WRs...well one is a WR/CB.....

 

I think they should of held that 2nd round pick instead of trading it to the Pats....and picked Chad Jackson...the smarter Pats moved up to get a very good WR...all we did was move down every pick...

 

I think taking Jackson would have made our WR position more clear...with all the average WRs besides Driver like we had last year....all we ever do is hope one of our 3rd 4th and 5th WRs pan out....its always a "hope" with us...

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=209033

 

My thoughts on this are the the thread linked above. Personally, I think Jackson is no more ready to contribute right now than Jennings. And overall ability wise, while Jackson may have more "upside," I don't think the difference between the two is all that great. As Jay said, this draft is a little weak at WR.

 

And I agree on Jennings' strength really being YAC. He will likely never strike fear into an opponent as a #1 WR, but he has the potential to be a very good #2.

[swamp dog 0]

i think they get a b for the linebackers alone...it could move up from there depending on how it all shakes out in a couple of years.

 

i was surprised with all those picks they didn't take a flyer on a kicker. that part i didn't understand.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

i think they get a b for the linebackers alone...it could move up from there depending on how it all shakes out in a couple of years.

 

i was surprised with all those picks they didn't take a flyer on a kicker. that part i didn't understand.

 

Good Point Swamp...With all the picks they acquired, and the poor current status of their kicker position, you'd think they'd draft one to compete against all the crappy kickers they signed in the offseason.

[Let Da Big Dog Eat 40]

Good Point Swamp...With all the picks they acquired, and the poor current status of their kicker position, you'd think they'd draft one to compete against all the crappy kickers they signed in the offseason.

 

I've said this here before. I don't think the Pack's K or P is on the roster yet. Seems like teams can always pick up a servicable or better K or P off the FA wire. That's how we got Longwell. That seemed to work out better than OK. That's how Az got Rackers. That worked out. It seems K's and P's get a lot better after they have seen the street. Don't know if it's concentration or what but it seems to be the case. I am glad they did not draft either.

[remote controller 143]

The B- on AJ is a ...............Explain where EVERY other draft guru missed it.

[Jay 0]

The B- on AJ is a ...............Explain where EVERY other draft guru missed it.

 

Every other draft guru didn't miss it. The ones who know what they are talking about pointed out Hawk's limitations as well as his strengths. There is a lot of cutting and pasting in the draft "guru" circles. Also, once a player is annointed as a superstar, the label sticks. The fact is that he's a tweener linebacker with a lot of talent. He probably realisticly should play in the middle. The Packers already have a good player in the middle that may not project well to the outside. Therefore, the Packers have to put Hawk where he might not be best suited and hope that his limitations are not exploited there. He doesn't have the overall athleticism of an Arrington or even a Julian Peterson. Hawk is not the prototype outside linebacker in terms of size. Linebackers don't go high in the draft, because it's a position that can be found later. This is an EXTREMELY deep linebacker draft. For these reasons, I don't think Hawk was a value pick at 1.5 Hodge, who I see as being another very solid linebacker prospect with less but similar limitations, in the third round, I see as an A. If we picked Hawk at 1.15, the grade would increase. That is the difference. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I make my own evaluations, either as a compilation of evaluations, or in the case of Hawk, based on actual games that I've seen as well as evaluations and scout rumors.

[uubeee 0]

In fairness, it was a weak WR draft, and Chad Jackson is more of a prospect than a football player right now and goes against the philosophy that Ted Thompson is trying to bring to the draft. I don't know if there was a WR in the entire draft that would have improved our WR corps all that much. It's an off year for the position. I actually wish they would have used the second pick in the 2nd for a different position entirely, as I see a lot of the guys they took at WR as similar prospects. It was a rough year to have a need at WR.

 

 

I have to disagree. Jackson is not better than Jennings. Jackson is mostly hype. I read somewhere that the difference between Jackson, Jennings, Moss, and Holmes was very small. Lots of potential, but players that would have fallen much farther in a different draft.

 

TT is building the D. That LB group could turn into the best in the league. And that could make the whole unit 10 times better. Not to mention the upgrades of Pickett, Woodson, and Manuel.

 

TT knows what he is doing. My confindence in him is very high right now!

[Walter34 3]

That LB group could turn into the best in the league

 

ahem

[uubeee 0]

ahem

 

I said it could, not it would. You have to admit, Hawk, Barnett, and Hodge sounds really good right now.

I know Chicago has the rights to that claim, but we are at your heals now.

[Walter34 3]

I said it could, not it would. You have to admit, Hawk, Barnett, and Hodge sounds really good right now.

I know Chicago has the rights to that claim, but we are at your heals now.

 

They do have potential, but we'll see whether seemingly good picks translate into actual good players. I do like the way GB has put together their D over the off season. Woodson, Pickett and these two should show some immediate improvement.

[Riddlen 1]

ahem

ohhhh urlacher <slober> you are so goog <slober, slurp, suck>

[Agamemnon 2]

I know Chicago has the rights to that claim, but we are at your heals now.

 

The Bears are starting a Packer cast-off in Hunter Hillenmyer! I always wondered why the Pack dumped Hunter and kept the likes of Paris Lenon!?!