Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    Next year, this club needs 3 superstars with the 1st 3 picks we have, they should be between 3-38. OLB and DE have to be addressed (Everyone loves Ingram, but if you pass on the next Seymour for him, and don't get an all-pro for our 3-4, it will hurt. Try and sign Jamaal Charles or D'Angelo Williams) Then we'll have 3 more picks between 50-115... I say turn that into 3 more VERY solid players, using our low 4th and 5th-7th rd picks to move up Team won't need more than 6 players next year... make sure they are all in the top 100 and call it a day, resign the 2-3 FA's we'd actually miss, bring in 2-3 vets who know how to win and are hungry and BAM We are where we were in '01, only with a reverse, young defense and nasty veteran offense, primed for 4-5 incredible years till Brady retires
    Posted by rameakap

    Completely agree, and I think you keyed on one of the problems....we have a lot of mediocre/OK players...Who knows what they will be like in 2 years, but drafting high impact, starting caliber playmakers is absolutely critical at this juncture. It comes down to quality vs. quantity. I think BB took the quantity/value route in 2006-2008, and now needs to use his 4 draft picks in rounds 1 and 2 next year and grab playmakers. I know the draft is not an exact science and teams often miss, but if he can grab 2 playmakers out of the 4 picks and combine them with our current team, then the future i think looks bright. 



     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GadisRKO. Show GadisRKO's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Lets see, 4 guys to one, I say the 4 guys we have now because you never know how well they might progress, Tate may turn out to be a number 1 WR when Moss leaves. Gronk has looked like a beast and he is only in his rookie year. Butler has had his ups and downs but give him time, he might turn out to be a decent nickle back. Keep him off Tall WR's and he should be fine. Edelman has been mighty impressive for a 7th round QB turned WR.

    Yes we could use Clay but you never know how he would function in our system, BB's system.

    I'm in the majority apparently seeing as the vote is 45 to 4.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from btownteamsrking. Show btownteamsrking's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    wow at 50 to 6, this one is over. This result surprised me with how much fans complain about the pass rush. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from N464Mex-N460A. Show N464Mex-N460A's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    he didnt test positive at the combine. his body does not look natural to me though

    Could Clay Matthews Be Next? Hold Your Breath Packers Fans

    By (Analyst) on May 8, 2010

    0 likes

    5,854 reads

    96 comments

    GLENDALE, AZ - JANUARY 03:  Linebacker Clay Matthews #52 of the Green Bay Packers on the field against the Arizona Cardinals at University of Phoenix Stadium on January 3, 2010 in Glendale, Arizona.  (Photo by Jamie Squire/Getty Images) Jamie Squire/Getty Images

    Do you think Clay Matthews has ever taken steroids?

    Yes, and still does Yes, but in college No Don't care if he does or did Submit Vote vote to see results

    If you're an avid football follower, then you've probably already heard that Houston Texans' linebacker and the 2009 NFL defensive rookie of the year Brian Cushing has tested positive for steroids and will be suspended four games at the beginning of next year.

    While this is a significant blow to an up-and-coming Texans squad, it seemingly would have little impact in the minds of Green Bay Packers' fans.

    When you take a closer look however, Packers fans have to be worried about the connections with this story and their own Clay Matthews.

    Matthews and Cushing were college teammates at the University of Southern California, and by all accounts, are still very close friends. Matthews is probably feeling bad for his former teammate, but the steroid connections don't escape him either.

    Matthews and Cushing both were reported to have tested positive for steroids at the 2009 NFL Combine in Indianapolis, and while the reports later turned out to be false, the suspicions of the two linebackers had already been placed in the minds of the general public.

    Without the incident at the combine, the rise of Clay Matthews is still a rather suspicious story already. Matthews' body has undergone an incredible makeover, transforming from a 6'1", 165 pound high school junior to the 6'3", 250 pound specimen he is today. Matthews put on over 80 pounds of weight, which is far from impossible but a daunting achievement as well.

    And while I don't want to discount all the hard work Matthews has put in to become what he is today, is it so far of a reach to wonder if steroids aided in his rise to stardom? In this era of sports, athletes throughout the world are burdened with that question—especially ones with connections to performance enhancers.

    In addition, both his dad, Clay Matthews Jr., and his uncle, Bruce Matthews, played in the NFL when steroid abuse was prevalent. Surely, even if both were clean players, they knew the ins-and-outs of steroids and most likely knew a place where they could get them. My guess is that Matthews would have little trouble in acquiring such substances.

    And now that Cushing has indeed proven his steroid connections to be true, could Matthews be next? The thought of that most definitely has to be worrisome to Packers fans.

    For everyone following the Green and Gold, hold your breath that Clay Matthews avoids the same fate that has fallen upon his former teammate Brian Cushing.


     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    BB plays odds.  Let's assume that a first round pick has an 80% chance of being good enough to start and a third round pick a 25% chance.  Four third round picks would be worth more than one first round pick.  It's more complicated than that, of course, but that's the concept.  BB is increasing the number of picks he has in order to maximize his odds of getting decent starters.  In the specific case of Clay Matthews he may have missed a real talent, but in general the odds of getting a star with the 26th pick aren't all that high and, since nothing is certain ahead of time, BB goes with the best odds.
    Posted by prolate0spheroid



     I totally agree with your idea. By accumulating so many picks of course we have a higher chance of getting impact players in later rounds and committing less of the cap to said players. Of course by the same theory we have a higher chance of getting busts, but for the financial commitment made to non 1st rounders, I would say a bust  or 2 is worth the gamble. Good Post.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Muzwell. Show Muzwell's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have? : You do realize Pats pay to the cap as well, just like other organizations. We just happen to pay less to the biggest players and spread it more inbetween. Or well, used to before the monster Brady and Wilfork contracts.
    Posted by murghkhor


    No cap this year.  Worry about that stuff in 2012, when football (hopefully) resumes. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Pancakespwn. Show Pancakespwn's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    Lol did anyone watch that MNF game this past week and how Gruden and Jaws were riding Matthews jock but then when he was getting stood up on his bull rush they didnt say a damn thing?

    Dudes a great LB but I swear the media makes him out to be god with blonde hair. 
     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from zbellino. Show zbellino's posts

    Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?

    In Response to Re: Reviewing the whole deal. Which side would you rather have?:
    Lol did anyone watch that MNF game this past week and how Gruden and Jaws were riding Matthews jock but then when he was getting stood up on his bull rush they didnt say a damn thing? Dudes a great LB but I swear the media makes him out to be god with blonde hair. 
    Posted by Pancakespwn


    Indeed. People look at the stat lines. He gets run at often as well. He is a legit pass rusher, and given the amount of junk he has(undoubtedly) put in his veins, I'd say he's getting his money's worth. But he isn't the panacea this team needs. 

    They need someone who is larger and generates a more crushing type of pressure, and who can seal off an edge against a tackle.

    Perhaps someone like Greg Romeus fits that bill in the next draft. I don't know.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share