PDA

View Full Version : Best draft in the NFC North?


Yatta!
04-26-2009, 06:56 PM
Chicago Bears
3.4 DT Jarron Gilbert, San Jose State
3.35 WR Juaquin Iglesias, Oklahoma
4.5 DE Henry Melton, Texas
4.19 CB D.J. Moore, Vanderbilt
5.4 WR Johnny Knox, Abilene-Christian
5.18 OLB Marcus Freeman, Ohio State
6.17 S Al Afalava, Oregon State
7.37 OG Lance Louis, San Diego State
7.42 WR Derek Kinder, Pittsburgh
9 picks

Detroit Lions
1.1 QB Matthew Stafford, Georgia
1.20 TE Brandon Pettigrew, Oklahoma State
2.1 S Louis Delmas, Western Michigan
3.12 OLB DeAndre Levy, Wisconsin
3.18 WR Derrick Williams, Penn State
4.15 DT Sammie Lee Hill, Stillman
6.19 RB Aaron Brown, TCU
7.19 OT Lydon Murtha, Nebraska
7.26 OLB Zack Follet, California
7.46 TE Dan Gronkowski, Maryland
10 picks

Green Bay Packers
1.9 NT B.J. Raji, Boston College
1.26 OLB Clay Matthews, USC
4.9 OT T.J. Lang, Eastern Michigan
5.9 FB Quinn Johnson, LSU
5.26 OT Jamon Meredith, South Carolina
6.9 DE Jairus Wynn, Georgia
6.14 CB Brandon Underwood, Cincinnati
7.9 OLB Brad Jones, Colorado
8 picks

Minnesota Vikings
1.22 WR Percy Harvin, Florida
2.22 OT Phil Loadholt, Oklahoma
3.22 CB Asher Allen, Georgia
5.14 ILB Jasper Brinkley, South Carolina
7.22 S Jamarca Sanford, Ole Miss
5 picks


Let the homerism begin...

regoob2
04-26-2009, 06:58 PM
Lions
Bears
Packers
Vikings

Yatta!
04-26-2009, 07:01 PM
Dammit I should have made it a public poll. Dunno if a mod can change that?

The Dynasty
04-26-2009, 07:08 PM
Packers
Lions
Bears
Vikings

I think the Packers, Lions and Bears all had good drafts. They got good players that fitted needs as well. I think the teams are all close but I really like Raji and Matthews so I went with Packers. As for the Lions I really like going for a franchise QB and giving him a TE and we all know a good TE is a Young QB's best friend. They also get a leader on the defense in Louis Delmas. Just thought overall it was a good draft for the Lions. As for the Bears they got very lucky with people falling and I though they did a good job picking up players that are good as well as fitting needs. Was impressed with all the teams from the NFC North.

As for the Vikings..I think they did a decent job the first 3 picks filled needs that we had. Percy can be a Boom or Bust prospect that can spread the field and gives defenses another option to watch other than Adrian Peterson. Phil Loadholt is a big nasty OT that will take the spot of Ryan Cook to give AD some holes. Asher Allen looks like a Nickel or Dime CB at the moment and he seems to be physical and not afraid to come up and tackle. Jasper Brinkley seems like a good Special Teams player that can bring depth for the vikings and a big hitter. As for Jamarca Sanford he just seems like a special teams player at best.

regoob2
04-26-2009, 07:09 PM
Packers fans dont feel you gave up way to much for Clay Matthews?

ImBrotherCain
04-26-2009, 07:22 PM
Packers fans dont feel you gave up way to much for Clay Matthews?

I do... but its hard to deny the talent we got from that pick.

Honestly i see 4 major players the Pack drafted. Where i only see 3 for the Bears. and the Lions... well they got talent but really was a TE necessary that early? Why wouldnt you want to protect your 78 million dollar investment?

regoob2
04-26-2009, 07:51 PM
I do... but its hard to deny the talent we got from that pick.

Honestly i see 4 major players the Pack drafted. Where i only see 3 for the Bears. and the Lions... well they got talent but really was a TE necessary that early? Why wouldnt you want to protect your 78 million dollar investment?They got Gosder from last draft who I think will be a great player.

Burger
04-26-2009, 07:54 PM
Gosder sucks, get over it.

regoob2
04-26-2009, 08:05 PM
I do... but its hard to deny the talent we got from that pick.

Honestly i see 4 major players the Pack drafted. Where i only see 3 for the Bears. and the Lions... well they got talent but really was a TE necessary that early? Why wouldnt you want to protect your 78 million dollar investment?
4? You wouldnt rather of had Everette Brown or Clint Sintim and 2 3rds?

ImBrotherCain
04-26-2009, 08:10 PM
4? You wouldnt rather of had Everette Brown or Clint Sintim and 2 3rds?

Hind sight is always 20-20... Brown wouldnt have been bad but idk im afraid of his bust factor. I was never to high on Sintim.

I do think we gave up too much a 2nd and one 3rd would have been more reasonable. But TT never trades up so he obviously really liked Matthews

regoob2
04-26-2009, 08:13 PM
Hind sight is always 20-20... Brown wouldnt have been bad but idk im afraid of his bust factor. I was never to high on Sintim.

I do think we gave up too much a 2nd and one 3rd would have been more reasonable. But TT never trades up so he obviously really liked MatthewsI think all 4 teams had very good drafts. The Pack got great value in Raji and the 2 OL. Vikes got there guy in Harvin and Loadholt who is a perfect fit. Lions got probably 4 day 1 starters and good value. Bears got excelllent value at all there picks.

aqua
04-26-2009, 09:02 PM
I also think all 4 teams did very well for the picks they had and players they got.

PACKmanN
04-26-2009, 09:53 PM
Packers fans dont feel you gave up way to much for Clay Matthews?

a lot of teams gave up picks to move up. Look at the Panthers for example. This was just a strange draft all together.

BGB
04-26-2009, 11:36 PM
Vikings fan here. I actually voted Bears just becasue I thought they got great value with their picks. Factoring in that you landed Cutler and I am giving you the obvious off season crown.

If Harvin lives up to his potential with Loadholt plowing rushing lanes on the right side our draft could be pretty impactfull but I couldn't give us the nod just because we didn't have near as many picks.

TitleTown088
04-26-2009, 11:45 PM
Packers and Bears killed it pretty well.
Lions did ok too.

Don't think too much of the Viking's draft, and they're still without a QB.

umphrey
04-27-2009, 12:41 AM
See the thing about the Matthews trade is that the guys we were looking at with the third rounders were expected to fall to the 4th/5th and they did. We got the OL we were targeting, I'm sure. Matthews is head and shoulders above anyone else we could have put at OLB, given the board. Brown is a bad fit I really believe and Matthews has experience playing almost the same position with very low bust potential.

I've decided that when it comes to the NFL draft, NFL execs pick out players that they have the most confidence in and go out and get them. I think that happened with Clay. Also, why bother adding more average talent when you are just going to start cutting the ones from last year.

drowe
04-27-2009, 09:31 AM
I think all 4 teams did well...in different ways.

The Bears really made the best out of what they had. I think people had Iglesias going to them in the 2nd or 3rd for a while, so that's a hard pick to argue. And the Gilbert selection really went a long way towards addressing the D-line need.

The Vikings really went for improving their team right now. Percy Harvin could come in right away and add a whole new dimension to that offense. And, Phil Loadholt was really the perfect pick for a running team looking for a right tackle. Those 2 can really make the 2009 Vikings a better team.

The Lions had a hard draft to screw up. And they got 3 good players early that'll help long term. But, I wasn't impressed by the Lions draft. For a team that had problems on the offensive and defensive line, they did VERY LITTLE to address these issues. And for a team that bad, it should all start up front.

The Packers just did an excellent job of filling needs with great value picks. Yes, it does seem like they gave up a lot to move into late round 1. But, honestly, if somebody told you on friday that the Packers were gonna draft BJ Raji, Clay Matthews, Jamon Meredith and TJ Lang, wouldn't you be highly impressed?


Packers-
Pros-Great value. filled needs.
Cons-Got Bellicheck'd

Bears-
Pros-Good value with late picks.
Cons-not a lot of picks early due to giving up a lot for Jay Cutler. Also, need at WR is still there.

Lions-
Pros-first 3 picks should contribute right away.
Cons-Did not addres the need up front.

Vikings
Pros-Needs addressed and could contribute right away.
Cons-Still dont' have a QB. And they're relying on a Florida WR.

PACKmanN
04-27-2009, 11:00 AM
you know whats funny, we didn't trade down, but we traded up and still ended up with 8 picks. I love TT :)

tjsunstein
04-27-2009, 11:10 AM
I would take our draft over anyone else's in the NFC North. I think our draft was only behind the Eagles for best in the NFC. Matthews I had rated over Cushing as a more complete LB and a 3-4 rusher being that he played DE the year Rivers was there. Raji fell into our laps and we got two solid tackles. Meredith could have gone in the 2nd or 3rd round and no one would have said anything about it. Lang is a great versatile OL as well. The Lions first three picks were good but they didnt have a bigger need than a TE? I doubt that. I think the Vikings draft has bust written all over it. The Bears did a solid job. Only time will tell.

VoteLynnSwan
04-27-2009, 11:36 AM
the Vikings offensive line somehow just got even bigger.

sweetness34
04-27-2009, 02:29 PM
If we are including Cutler in this thing Chicago takes the cake. But if going solely off draft picks then I would say Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota in that order. But it's pretty damn close, no one had a "knockout" draft but I think each team had a good draft that will help in the long run.

85BearFan
04-27-2009, 02:51 PM
Like the Vikings 1st 2 picks, can't knock the Lions landing the #1 QB, #1 TE and #1 Safety, and the Packers made unsurprising yet strong moves to build their new D. But when we get down to sheer value, the Bears without question had the best draft, even taking Cutler out the equation. Gilbert (68), Iglesias (99), Moore (119), Freeman (154), is just very impressive.

marshallb
04-27-2009, 05:22 PM
I think all four teams had very good drafts. I'd rank them Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit.

Green Bay got two very good players for their new defense. I'm not a big fan of Matthews, and think they could have gotten a player of equal value at their 2nd round pick, such as Barwin, Sintim, and Everette Brown. Lang was a good pick and Meredith was a great value there. Grade: B+(slightly higher than Chicago's though)

Chicago's draft was very solid, but they didn't get any superstars imo. They got real good value in Gilbert, Iglesias, Moore, and Freeman. I think they could have gotten better players with a couple of their other picks, but it was very solid, but not spectacular, but you have to remember that Cutler was part of this draft too. Grade: B+(slightly lower than Green Bay's though)

Minnesota got a boom or bust player in Harvin, I'm not a fan of his, but no doubt he's very talented and can definitely be a superstar. He also could be a total bust if he can't stay healthy or out of trouble. Loadholt was good value there at 54, and fills a huge need, another big guy to plow open running lanes for Peterson. I didn't like passing on Moore and Macho for Allen, but obviously they knew something that we didn't as both of those guys fell quite a bit farther. Brinkley provides good depth and a nice Special teams guy, Sanford is nothing more than a special teams player most likely. Grade: B

Detroit had a good draft in taking Stafford, I think they'd have been better off taking Jerry or Oher there, someone who'd provide a bigger impact immediately. Levy is another small LB, in the mold of Sims, which kind of puzzled me as I thought they'd be going for a bigger LB. I don't like Williams, and I think they could have gotten a better guy who fills a bigger need there. Sammie Lee Hill is a talented player, but he will likely be a project. Grade B-

umphrey
04-28-2009, 08:39 AM
1) Packers: They got two cornerstone, frachise players where they needed them to move to the 3-4. Dominant nose tackle and OLB that is almost guaranteed not to bust. Past that they got some good players including the #1 rated fullback and two solid lineman that could be starters.

2) Lions: I like their draft a lot it just doesn't seem like they added players that are going to help them win. Stafford = probowler. I like Pettigrew, Delmas, Williams, Hill. But they had a lot of ammo. They didn't add any front 7 players that are going to make their defense competent. They still can't rush the passer and they have no cover guys whatsoever. On the other side of the ball they improved but their horrible OL is going to make it impossible for even Stafford, Pettigrew, CJ to succeed.

3) Vikings: Harvin scares me a bit as a Packer fan. Still can't get him the ball though. Loadhart was a great addition for their team. Nothing too exciting after that; they didn't have many picks. If Harvin doesn't change his behavior this draft could be very forgettable for them.

4) Bears: Should Cutler be included in their draft? I say no because they used next year's pick as well. They had very little ammo to work with. I really like the receivers they got (particularly Knox) but they know a lot of the guys they drafted won't be on the team in 3 years and they have to depend on some of the mid/late picks to blosson to remember anything about this draft besides Cutler.

Gay Ork Wang
04-28-2009, 08:47 AM
they know a lot of the guys they drafted won't be on the team in 3 years and they have to depend on some of the mid/late picks to blosson to remember anything about this draft besides Cutler.

how do u figure?

umphrey
04-28-2009, 08:55 AM
they know a lot of the guys they drafted won't be on the team in 3 years and they have to depend on some of the mid/late picks to blosson to remember anything about this draft besides Cutler.

how do u figure?

You guys drafted 9 guys and none on the first day. Without knowing much about your depth the numbers still stay that you are going to lose some. Probably as many as half in 3 years. For example, you took 3 receivers. At least one isn't going to stick.

You drafted quantity not quality. Drafting multiple players for a single position which you did at DE and WR would make me think that Angelo doesn't have a great deal of confidence in any one player but he thinks he can improve his chances with more shots.

Now that I read what I wrote a few times it's actually somewhat redundant/meaningless because you could make that statement about any team (no one expects to hit on every pick and even successful prospects leave the team for any number of reasons). It is just especially true for your team because with no picks on the first day you are even farther away from any guarantees.

Gay Ork Wang
04-28-2009, 09:12 AM
we argueably had the best 2nd day out of anyone. did u even follow the late round pick success jerry angelo had?

Jerry picked BPA at the positions at need, he didnt pick more DEs just because he doesnt have confidence but because those were the best players on board.

just because we didnt have a day one pick that automatically makes us have a bad draft? that logic is horrible. why would anyone draft in the latter rounds then

umphrey
04-28-2009, 09:16 AM
"late round pick success"

That doesn't make a draft. You guys got some players that have the possibility to be starters someday, some depth and some special teamers. You really can't be arguing that all or even most of those guys are going to turn into NFL caliber players.

For the Packers I like both our tackles, but I know realistically only one will probably stick. And even though I love our 6th and 7th round picks, I wouldn't even bet on them to make the roster. I think they can start on the practice squad and make a name for themselves as ST aces on the roster, and maybe we got lucky and found a guy who can really play. But really you have to temper your expectations when a player lasts until a certain round.

regoob2
04-28-2009, 09:42 AM
"late round pick success"

That doesn't make a draft. You guys got some players that have the possibility to be starters someday, some depth and some special teamers. You really can't be arguing that all or even most of those guys are going to turn into NFL caliber players.

For the Packers I like both our tackles, but I know realistically only one will probably stick. And even though I love our 6th and 7th round picks, I wouldn't even bet on them to make the roster. I think they can start on the practice squad and make a name for themselves as ST aces on the roster, and maybe we got lucky and found a guy who can really play. But really you have to temper your expectations when a player lasts until a certain round.
With that thinking then you guys only got 2 starters and then just depth. Iglesias and Moore possibly even Marcus Freeman were better prospects than Lang and Meredith.

Gay Ork Wang
04-28-2009, 09:45 AM
With that thinking then you guys only got 2 starters and then just depth. Iglesias and Moore possibly even Marcus Freeman were better prospects than Lang and Meredith.
so was Gillbert

regoob2
04-28-2009, 09:48 AM
so was Gillbert
Goes without saying. :p

umphrey
04-28-2009, 10:22 AM
With that thinking then you guys only got 2 starters and then just depth. Iglesias and Moore possibly even Marcus Freeman were better prospects than Lang and Meredith.

I don't disagree. Except for Quinn Johnson for a number of reasons so 3 starters. He was the #1 rated fullback, he's probably better than Hall/Kuhn, teams let fullbacks fall on draft day, easy position to adapt to, I could go on.

The rest of the guys I'm hoping for 1-2 depth players and 1-2 starters that will take time to develop. I expect some of them to flake out. Raji/Matthews are the only rock solid prospects. I wouldn't say that about any first rounder though.

Edit: Look at the 3rd rounders for the last 3 years of Bears drafting:
Earl Bennett
Marcus Harrison
Garrett Wolfe
Michael Okwo
Dusty Dvoracek

Now do you believe me? Some of you are simply being too optimistic.

regoob2
04-28-2009, 11:30 AM
I don't disagree. Except for Quinn Johnson for a number of reasons so 3 starters. He was the #1 rated fullback, he's probably better than Hall/Kuhn, teams let fullbacks fall on draft day, easy position to adapt to, I could go on.

The rest of the guys I'm hoping for 1-2 depth players and 1-2 starters that will take time to develop. I expect some of them to flake out. Raji/Matthews are the only rock solid prospects. I wouldn't say that about any first rounder though.

Edit: Look at the 3rd rounders for the last 3 years of Bears drafting:
Earl Bennett
Marcus Harrison
Garrett Wolfe
Michael Okwo
Dusty Dvoracek

Now do you believe me? Some of you are simply being too optimistic.Dvoracek was our starting NT before the injuries. Harrison is now our starting NT. Bennett is going to start at WR. They said they wanted to get Wolfe more involved at RB and hes a great STs guy. Whats wrong with 3 starters? The Packers now have 3 first round pick LBs. The other 2 havent exactly been great. Good yes. Not great. Especially seeing how you dont really need to draft LBs that early. Matthews is a nice prospect. Dont think hes going to be some monster Ware type LB though.

russie
04-28-2009, 05:35 PM
detroit took a te when it clearly had needs on the offensive and defensive line and a qb that has a decent shot at being a bust, green bay took a workout warrior that had few starts in college and traded a lot of picks to move up, chicago took a slow receiver and a defensive tackle whose real claim to fame is that he can jump out of a pool, minnesota took a pothead that will be suspended at least once in his career and slow tackle that can really only run block.

none of the teams had stellar drafts(fool yourself with your homerism if you want). can some of these players step up and have great careers? definitely. do not be suprised if only two or three of the 32 picks made by the nfc north are names anyone can remember in 15 years



by the way, best draft goes to detroit. they got the best player at 3 different positions, none of them were reaches, and all of them were needed positions, regardless of whether they had bigger needs or not.

SRogers92
04-29-2009, 09:26 AM
If Matthew Stafford turns out to be a Pro Bowler(have to think he does), then the Lions win this draft over and over and over ...

Wallzy
04-29-2009, 09:30 AM
And if Matthew Stafford proves his accuracy and consistency problems in college weren't a fluke, and he struggles...then the Lions will be on the clock at #1 in 2011!

Gay Ork Wang
04-29-2009, 03:10 PM
I don't disagree. Except for Quinn Johnson for a number of reasons so 3 starters. He was the #1 rated fullback, he's probably better than Hall/Kuhn, teams let fullbacks fall on draft day, easy position to adapt to, I could go on.

The rest of the guys I'm hoping for 1-2 depth players and 1-2 starters that will take time to develop. I expect some of them to flake out. Raji/Matthews are the only rock solid prospects. I wouldn't say that about any first rounder though.

Edit: Look at the 3rd rounders for the last 3 years of Bears drafting:
Earl Bennett
Marcus Harrison
Garrett Wolfe
Michael Okwo
Dusty Dvoracek

Now do you believe me? Some of you are simply being too optimistic.
last DT packers got was Harrell.

Raji = bust?

PACKmanN
04-29-2009, 03:16 PM
last DT packers got was Harrell.

Raji = bust?

the last prospect the Bears draft was Williams

Bears 2009 draft = bust?

TitleTown088
04-29-2009, 03:17 PM
last DT packers got was Harrell.

Raji = bust?

last 20+ QBs Chicago got = See sig :)

Gay Ork Wang
04-29-2009, 03:17 PM
the last prospect the Bears draft was Williams

Bears 2009 draft = bust?
well obviously u didnt understand what i was trying to say...

PACKmanN
04-29-2009, 03:19 PM
well obviously u didnt understand what i was trying to say...

well the only reason Harrell is considered a bust is because of injuries, so by that Williams = bust.

Gay Ork Wang
04-29-2009, 03:20 PM
well the only reason Harrell is considered a bust is because of injuries, so by that Williams = bust.
...

well u still didnt understand what i am trying to say
besides that harrell had 3 years

SRogers92
04-29-2009, 03:29 PM
And if Matthew Stafford proves his accuracy and consistency problems in college weren't a fluke, and he struggles...then the Lions will be on the clock at #1 in 2011!


Stafford's accuracy wasn't a problem ... I believe he had, what? 62% completion ... stop looking at years 1 and 2 ... he was a true freshman/sophomore ... he improved every single year and took a large step this past season to improve, despite his OL being below average ... he wasn't any more consistent then most college QBs coming out as a true Junior ... his defense was atrocious and put him into some sticky situations where he had to force plays to get back into the game ...

PACKmanN
04-29-2009, 03:31 PM
...

well u still didnt understand what i am trying to say
besides that harrell had 3 years

I'm not trying to understand what you said; I'm giving a point on the "Harrell=bust" comment.

Gay Ork Wang
04-29-2009, 03:52 PM
I'm not trying to understand what you said; I'm giving a point on the "Harrell=bust" comment.
well after 2 years of doing nothing its kinda not a good sign...

PACKmanN
04-29-2009, 06:47 PM
well after 2 years of doing nothing its kinda not a good sign...

a bust is someone who has given the opportunity to do something and does nothing. Injuries haven't given Harrell that opportunity.

regoob2
04-29-2009, 07:31 PM
a bust is someone who has given the opportunity to do something and does nothing. Injuries haven't given Harrell that opportunity.
So if he never plays a down in his NFL career because of injuries he's not a bust?

BloodBrother
04-30-2009, 06:55 AM
I think every NFC North team did very well in their drafts. Lions hopefully got their QB of the future. And here only a few years ago it was the Pack with Favre and that was pretty much it in the NFC North. Now we have Rodgers, Cutler, and potentially Stafford. Vikes are still searching, however

onto the draft. I'd pick the Packers as having the best one, and that should come to no surprise. The reason I picked them though is I think about 4 of these players they picked can have an immediate impact this season, especially at key positions of need. Even the guys they got late should at least be helpers on Special teams, which was another bit of weakness for the Packers...mainly kickoff return coverage. I LOVE the value picks by the Bears, and considering they didn't have a Day 1 pick at all it makes their draft even more impressive. Got to see Gilbert quite a bit over here since I live near San Jose. Love that pick and I love the Moore pick

I like the Lions first 3 picks a lot although I think they would have been better off going with Oher with their 2nd 1st rounder rather than Pettigrew.

Vikings surprised me passing on an OL and taking Harvin. Clearly that nugget of info about how the Vikes crossed off 78 names due to character concerns was nothing more than a smokescreen. Harvin is a great athlete and a very dynamic player, but he comes with obvious risk. If he pans out, the Vikings have another great weapon to go along with AP for years to come. Getting the beast loadholt with their next pick took care of that OL they needed.

I don't think any of these teams should get anything lower than a B-...and I don't think any of them have by most experts.

final grades:

Packers: A-
Bears: B
Lions: B
Vikings: B-


Packers fans dont feel you gave up way to much for Clay Matthews?


My thoughts as I heard the details was an obvious yes...and according to the draft value chart they did give up too much. Seeing them nab Lang/Quinn Johnson/Meredith in day 2 with their 4th/5th round picks basically eased/erased my concerns over that trade. Would have been nice to keep the picks, obviously, but for years Thompson has been hoarding picks and adding more picks as the draft goes along. Every year it seemed they would finish with 10-12 picks, and would have to end up cutting 2-3 of those guys by the time roster cuts comes around. Couldn't keep stockpiling all those picks. I'm just glad they didn't end up giving up a 1st or 2nd rounder next year, which is what Belicheck did to other teams during the draft.

Addict
04-30-2009, 12:00 PM
I see your homer claim and raise you a 'as a Lions fan I voted packers'

VoteLynnSwan
04-30-2009, 12:19 PM
last 20+ QBs Chicago got = See sig :)

your sig is funny, the only problem is that the quarterbacks that we have had don't make it to the endzone.

Addict
04-30-2009, 12:20 PM
last 20+ QBs Chicago got = See sig :)

they all got to the endzone?

Gay Ork Wang
04-30-2009, 12:20 PM
Muhammed isnt a QB either

and its obviously their own endzone for a safety

VoteLynnSwan
04-30-2009, 12:25 PM
Muhammed isnt a QB either

and its obviously their own endzone for a safety

we've never had Dan Orlovsky on our team though...

Addict
04-30-2009, 12:29 PM
we've never had Dan Orlovsky on our team though...

it's a well-known fact that the only QB who ever got a safety called against him is Dan Orlovsky.

He got the dumbest, I'll give you that.

Gay Ork Wang
04-30-2009, 12:34 PM
He got the one that will always be remembered.

Fixed it for you.

Addict
04-30-2009, 12:38 PM
Fixed it for you.

you read my mind, that's a pretty elaborate typo on my part though.

TitleTown088
04-30-2009, 06:26 PM
Muhammed isnt a QB either

and its obviously their own endzone for a safety

Blah blah, he was the one who said Chicago is the place where Qbs go to die. Pacific is workin on it.

Gay Ork Wang
05-01-2009, 05:20 AM
Blah blah, he was the one who said Chicago is the place where Qbs go to die. Pacific is workin on it.
no its the place where WRs go to die ;)

johbur
05-03-2009, 05:01 AM
Bears didn't have the early picks, so you have to decide if you're grading the draft, or grading the off-season. They had a "Meh," draft, IMO. Nothing too special. They had decent value on some picks, not sure I see a starter for 2009 in the bunch. Maybe Iglesias, though not for 2009 given how rooks do at WR. Now, off-season wise, the Cutler trade makes them my pre-season pick for the NFC North.

Lions were burdened with #1 pick. 40 million guaranteed for a kid that hasn't taken an NFL snap? The NFL needs to fix that. That being said, they turned the NFC QB picture into one of the most interesting in the league, with Stafford, Cutler and Rodgers looking like franchise QBs. Lions took the right guy for #1, but why pass Oher for Pettigrew? Oher a starting LT. Pettigrew will be solid for them, reminds me of Bubba Franks, who went to two Pro Bowls for the Packers and was a solid edge blocker for Ahman Green. Built some depth, but considering the roster overhaul they need considering they were 0-16, this was a good draft.

Packers came away with two probable starters for the defense with Raji and Matthews. Toss in the #1 FB likely starting. The two OTs are going to build the depth and were great value with Lang having a chance to start given the injury to RT Mark Tauscher and OG Spitz moving to center due to the Scott Wells injury. Check sig for Brad Jones, who I think will be the #3 OLB behind Kampman and Matthews.

Vikings went boom/bust. Not sure they needed to. The defense is solid and they have AD. They still have Rosenfells and Jackson at QB. Their WR looks better with Harvin, but he looks like one of those character risks. Because of the character issue, when I heard he was out with dehydration, it made me wonder if he'd been on a coke binge. If he stays on the field, he could help them overcome the QB situaton to take the NFC crown. That's if he stays on the field. Loadholt should take over at RT. The pick I like most was Jasper Brinkley at MLB. When the Williamses come back off their drug suspension, the interior of their defense should be even harder to run against.

On just draft,
I think the Packers took the day and made the most improvement to their team in areas they were weak. Lions next, but they also have nowhere to go but up. Then Vikings and last the Bears.

shady00
05-18-2009, 10:43 PM
If you include Cutler, Bears won the draft by a mile.

Iamcanadian
05-21-2009, 09:02 AM
If we are including Cutler in this thing Chicago takes the cake. But if going solely off draft picks then I would say Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit, Minnesota in that order. But it's pretty damn close, no one had a "knockout" draft but I think each team had a good draft that will help in the long run.

I do agree that you have to include Cutler in any draft discussion about how the Bears did and it clearly puts them on top of the list. If it is just about picks, they obviously finish last since they had no 1st or 2nd rounder.

With Cutler:
Bears
Lions
Green Bay
Minny

2 through 4 is pretty close IMO.

Without Cutler:
Lions
Green Bay
Minny


Bears

Again it is pretty close 1 through 3. We won't know for 3 years how Stafford will develop but assuming he comes through, Detroit will win the draft race if Cutler isn't included.

Gay Ork Wang
05-21-2009, 09:08 AM
i dont understand the assessment that no 1st rounder means bad draft

Maybe Next Year Millen2
05-21-2009, 11:51 AM
You have to include Cutler in the discussion for the draft. Its basically you used a 1st round pick to get a player which is what you use them for anyways. Just because it wasn't on a draft pick doesn't mean you didn't use the pick to better your team. Its not like it was some old dude like Favre or Jason Taylor either for one year. Cutler will be in Chicago for a long time.

The real answer is everyone gets an incomplete as a grade for production.

For value, I think every North team got really good value for their picks.
Harvin may be a steal only dropping for off field reasons, Raji was definitly a steal and fit a huge need, Lions got a possible franchise QB/signed him already which is huge, Pettigrew dropping was a slight steal and all the other picks for every team fit needs/fit the draft board for their respective teams/draft boards around the league/draft boards of the draftnik experts. I'd say its all pretty even value wise.

Theres no real head scratcher of a pick. I know Scott hates Pettigrew over Oher(my same first reaction), but Pettigrew had a very high grade and he aids the team in multiple areas. Something an 0-16 team needs. You better believe he'll help our pass protection(just look at how our tight ends blocked last year,I'd put 2 Jared Allen sacks on the tight end/last one on tight end/Backus), you better believe he'll be a receiving threat as a good safety valve and in the redzone, and you better believe he'll help the running game.

Everyone got good value.

jsa230
05-21-2009, 11:16 PM
I think the Packers had the safest draft. They really needed some quality guys (I know. . . what team doesntZz) to help the transition to the 3-4. They also needed some depth on the offensive line. These were the two main concerns headed into the draft and Thompson nailed them both. I think the Packers had the best DRAFT but DA bears did get Cutler for their picks so we have to include that. Everybody got pretty good value but the Packers are the only team that actually impressed me on draft day. This draft looks amazing on paper but I will have to wait and see how Matthews and Raji play before declaring it my favorite Packers draft ever. Heres how i have them ranked.

1. Bears - Should be last but they got Cutler

2. Packers - TT knows what he is doing.

3. Lions - Did the right thing and got Stafford

4.Minny - The Vikings lose because they drafted Percy

DHVF
05-22-2009, 12:49 AM
4.Minny - The Vikings lose because they drafted Percy
Soon, very soon, shall this thought change as you witness the wonder that the good lord has placed among the Vikings in Percy.

VoteLynnSwan
05-22-2009, 01:33 AM
people did ***** out the Bears for taking Hester if you guys will remember... Hester though didn't have the injury issues that Percy did. Hester also didn't really have a position.

TitleTown088
05-22-2009, 01:38 AM
people did ***** out the Bears

I can't figure out what word that is.

Gay Ork Wang
05-22-2009, 05:15 AM
i assume the b word

regoob2
05-22-2009, 10:48 AM
people did ***** out the Bears for taking Hester if you guys will remember... Hester though didn't have the injury issues that Percy did. Hester also didn't really have a position.
Percy doesnt have a true position either. He worked mostly as a RB at Florida. I assume he'll be a slot WR in Minny though. Imagine him in the backfield with AP. They should run the wildcat with those 2, maybe add TJax.

TitleTown088
05-22-2009, 11:38 AM
i assume the b word

Yeah, i thought about that later. Pretty easy one actually.

VoteLynnSwan
05-22-2009, 12:53 PM
Percy doesnt have a true position either. He worked mostly as a RB at Florida. I assume he'll be a slot WR in Minny though. Imagine him in the backfield with AP. They should run the wildcat with those 2, maybe add TJax.

eh, at least there's a general consensus that Percy will be used on the offensive side of the ball.

Addict
05-22-2009, 02:18 PM
i assume the b word

you mean br**d? What the hell did a loaf ever do the the censors?

Gay Ork Wang
05-23-2009, 04:37 AM
you mean br**d? What the hell did a loaf ever do the the censors?
dude its obviously not br**d. its br**m. ******* br**m

SINCE1978
10-31-2009, 10:40 AM
Detroit
Green Bay
Minnesota
Chicago

Breakdown:
Detroit had so many holes but they appear to have hit on some solid talent. Stafford is legit and here the stay. AMEN! Delmas is 2nd on the team in tackles so far as a safety and was rookie of the month. Levy has worked his way into the starting line-up at arguably the deepest/most talented position on the Lions. Pettigrew has struggled at TE but will be just fine. Hill is a starter at DT and was missed the last few weeks b/c of injury. Brown/Williams have been effective in spurts with receiving out of the backfield & in the slot. Also returning kicks. Follett is a SP guy who could develop nicely. That is 8 of 10 picks with instant impact. I know, not that hard on an 0-16 team but they gathered talent for sure & hit on guys into the 7th round! HUGE change from the Millen-lead Leo's ;o)

Green Bay got 2 solid starters on D in Raji & Matthews... I liked both of them in the draft. Meredith has showed okay skills at RT but the line is getting dragged through the mud everywhere in the league it seems, so some changes are necessary there. Raji & Matthews made you #2 in my vote, outside of them though just okay but not many holes to fill so that is alright.

Minnesota again did not have many holes to fill and targeted 2 players in Harvin & Loadholt that are instant starters on a very deep team. With only 5 picks they rocked it and Brinkley & Allen were both high on my board. If drafted in Detroit they would probably see the field this year (hahaha)

Chicago got Cutler but in my opinion, Cutler does not count as part of the draft. I may get burned for saying this but I am not seeing the chemistry and something seems just a bit off with Jay in Chi-town to this point?!?! Could be injury? Could be playbook/chemistry/coaching? Could be he's just not a leader of men & Josh Mcdaniels was right about him? There I said it.
About the draft, Gilbert jumped out of a pool & Knox & Afalava are looking like late round steals but starting in the 3rd round you are already at a disadvantage. Did not address the Oline and they seem shaky.

** and b/c the cheese heads have by far the highest number of followers on this website, of course they are going to get the most votes ;o) Thus proving this is a homer pick. **

P-L
10-31-2009, 10:57 AM
Right now we still more time to judge the Lions draft class. Right now, it looks like they had the best draft in the division (not hard when you draft first in each round and have two 1st Round picks), but it's still up in the air. We still don't know if the Lions picks are that good or they are just better than the scrubs we had in there before.

Gay Ork Wang
10-31-2009, 10:58 AM
Cutler sucks because of the ******* Oline. The Oline allows a lot of pressure and no running game. The bears are falling behind really fast and he has to push the ball down field which leads to mistakes, things id expect from most of QBs especially young ones. you gotta see crappy guard getting beat over and over again.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/chicago-bears/09000d5d813d19ba/WK-8-Playbook-Browns-vs-Bears

jackalope
11-06-2009, 08:15 PM
Meredith has showed okay skills at RT

Interesting. What has impressed you about him this season?

yo123
11-07-2009, 12:57 AM
4.Minny - The Vikings lose because they drafted Percy

This is a fun quote.

General Zod
11-07-2009, 01:08 AM
This is a fun quote.

Fun like a karate chop? :-)

Kid_Ego
11-19-2009, 12:32 PM
This years Draft has been kind to almost all the teams in our division.
Chicago got the qb they wanted *snicker* Wide Out that looks pretty good if he only had a qb Johnny KNox
Detriot Stafford looks very good
Green Bay I like the mathews pick and lang looks pretty good
Minnesota Percy Harvin rules. Asher ALlen and loadholt both look very very good. So far minnesota wins hands down

TitleTown088
11-21-2009, 03:38 PM
This is a fun quote.

Maybe it goes along with BF51's quote from draft day when he said Clay Matthews sucks. :)

dex
11-24-2009, 03:28 PM
This is obsurd. How in the world do the packers have a better draft than the Lions.

What has Raji even done? Is he even a starter yet? I get it that Matthews have done some good things but so has Levy.

Doesn't Levy even have better stats than Matthews?

Lions had the better draft. They got some good players early and late.

drowe
11-24-2009, 04:17 PM
Yeah, Lions win. Can't put a price on getting a QB of the future. Pettigrew and Delmas look like exactly what was expected out of 'em and Levy looks solid too.

Packers and Vikings are close...slight edge to the Vikings.

Bears are in a distant 4th.

BGB
11-25-2009, 03:06 PM
Vikings had the best draft hands down. They landed 2 studs in Harvin and Loadholt, CB with tons of starting potential in Asher Allen, and a special teams stud who may have future starting potential at S in Sanford.

drowe
11-25-2009, 03:34 PM
Vikings had the best draft hands down. They landed 2 studs in Harvin and Loadholt, CB with tons of starting potential in Asher Allen, and a special teams stud who may have future starting potential at S in Sanford.

So, they won 'hands down' because they got a #3 WR, a RT and a lot of potential?

don't get me wrong, i think the argument can be made that they had the best draft, but to say it is 'hands down' the best draft is a little homerish.

Especially when you're comparing them to a team that got a QB of the future and 3 other players that have started as rookies and played at a very high level.

DHVF
11-25-2009, 06:40 PM
So, they won 'hands down' because they got a #3 WR, a RT and a lot of potential?

don't get me wrong, i think the argument can be made that they had the best draft, but to say it is 'hands down' the best draft is a little homerish.

Especially when you're comparing them to a team that got a QB of the future and 3 other players that have started as rookies and played at a very high level.
Yeah I definitely agree with drowe here. As it stands now, you have to give the edge to the Lions.

EvilMonkey
11-26-2009, 11:31 PM
Lions for sure #1 at this point.

Vikings and Pack are pretty much a tie at 2 I think.

marshallb
11-27-2009, 11:47 AM
Lions for sure #1 at this point.

Vikings and Pack are pretty much a tie at 2 I think.

I agree that the Lions are probably #1, but they should be. They got their franchise QB, the hardest thing to find in pro football. I still think they made a huge mistake taking Pettigrew over Oher, like I said right after it happened, but Pettigrew has improved his play.

I would have to go with the Vikings at #2 slightly over the Pack, but that may be a little homerism showing.

EvilMonkey
11-27-2009, 01:08 PM
I agree that the Lions are probably #1, but they should be. They got their franchise QB, the hardest thing to find in pro football. I still think they made a huge mistake taking Pettigrew over Oher, like I said right after it happened, but Pettigrew has improved his play.

I would have to go with the Vikings at #2 slightly over the Pack, but that may be a little homerism showing.

it's argueable either way. It's hard to compare since the difference in # of draft picks and if I honestly had to pick one I would take GB, but it's close so I just put it as a tie since I'm sure there's some homerism in my thoughts.

Matthews, Raji, Lang, Jones have all started and Underwood and Johnson have played a good amount with injuries. That's 6 guys making an impact for the Pack while the Vikes only had 5 picks so they can't have that many guys making an impact. That being said Harvin has been great and Loadholt has been fine started at RT. Allen has looked good but missed so much time I can't put his impact greater than any of the Pack's 4 guys who've started, and Sanford's impact on special teams can be compared to johnson or underwood's on the Pack so that's a wash in my opinion. Brinkley should be ok in the future, but minimal impact. I take the Pack and the main reason why is Raji's starting to make an impact and Matthews has really stepped it up the last few weeks.

marshallb
11-28-2009, 06:12 PM
it's argueable either way. It's hard to compare since the difference in # of draft picks and if I honestly had to pick one I would take GB, but it's close so I just put it as a tie since I'm sure there's some homerism in my thoughts.

Matthews, Raji, Lang, Jones have all started and Underwood and Johnson have played a good amount with injuries. That's 6 guys making an impact for the Pack while the Vikes only had 5 picks so they can't have that many guys making an impact. That being said Harvin has been great and Loadholt has been fine started at RT. Allen has looked good but missed so much time I can't put his impact greater than any of the Pack's 4 guys who've started, and Sanford's impact on special teams can be compared to johnson or underwood's on the Pack so that's a wash in my opinion. Brinkley should be ok in the future, but minimal impact. I take the Pack and the main reason why is Raji's starting to make an impact and Matthews has really stepped it up the last few weeks.

I understand what you're saying and can see it, but I still have to lean to the Vikings, but it probably could go either way. Also, Brinkley has been playing on STs and has played pretty well there.

descendency
11-30-2009, 02:55 AM
Cons-Got Bellicheck'd

The Packers won their trade with NE, marginally. I'd say it was even value really.

Then again, Belichick was probably glad to pay for a NT prospect in a weak NT class with the potential that his NT would be gone soon due to the high value of NTs due to the massive shift to the 34 defense that was coming.

Too bad Ron Brace isn't doing anything right now... but that's hindsight. The draft trade isn't. It was a good trade.

TitleTown088
11-30-2009, 10:10 AM
I think you can pretty clearly say it's GB so far.
Stud OLB ( Matthews)
A DE/NT who is really starting to show why he went #9 overall( Raji)
A nice swingman OL who has had a few solid starts (Lang)
Another stating OLB now, who seems to be serviceable. This is based on just a few starts though. ( Jones)
A rookie CB who is now getting some PT as the nickelback ( underwood)

I'd say based on this season Minny had the 2nd best draft with Harvin and Loadholt alone.
Granted I haven't seen the lower picks from Detroit play as much. Not to mention detroit had had most of their draft picks hurt a good deal already. Of course this could change if Staff turns out to be the real deal in the future.

regoob2
11-30-2009, 11:51 AM
I think you can pretty clearly say it's GB so far.
Stud OLB ( Matthews)
A DE/NT who is really starting to show why he went #9 overall( Raji)
A nice swingman OL who has had a few solid starts (Lang)
Another stating OLB now, who seems to be serviceable. This is based on just a few starts though. ( Jones)
A rookie CB who is now getting some PT as the nickelback ( underwood)

I'd say based on this season Minny had the 2nd best draft with Harvin and Loadholt alone.
Granted I haven't seen the lower picks from Detroit play as much. Not to mention detroit had had most of their draft picks hurt a good deal already. Of course this could change if Staff turns out to be the real deal in the future.
Stud OLB? lol. What? Is he even a full time starter? He appears to be in a rotation. In the Lions no doubt. Bears draft is dead last. Id take Minny over GB as well. Harvin and Loadholt are playing well.

Brothgar
11-30-2009, 12:00 PM
#1 overall - Matthew Stafford, QB - Georgia - 11 TDS, 14 INTS - 1,911 yrds - 66.9 rating

Had his breakout game against the Browns (422 yrds, 5 TDS 2 INT). I was worried after the Seattle game (5 INTS) and I didn't like the 50+ pass attempts in two consecutive weeks. He has heart and brings something to the QB position we haven't had in a LONG time. I don't think Joey Harrington would have done what Stafford did against the Browns. I just hope he can stay healthy.

#20 overall - Brandon Pettigrew, TE - Ok. State - 29 catches, 334 yards 2 TDs

Has been highly criticized from the get go because of the players that were drafted him. We need to be patient with Pettigrew. After the drops and inconsistent play earlier in the season things could have gone south for him, but he battled through and is developing every week. I love the matchups he creates and once Stafford learns where to throw the ball to utilize his size then we are money. His blocking has left a lot to be desired and thats where we thought he would excel in right away. He is a complete TE and is going to open things up for the offense.

2nd round - Louis Delmas, FS - Western Michigan - 55 tackles, 1 INT, 1 sack in 9 games played
Won defensive rookie of the month earlier this year. Has brought some much needed talent to the secondary. Still has a lot of learning to do, but you have to like what he's brought to the table so far. I'd like to bring in a veteran SS next year to pair him up with. Seems like a lot of blown coverages are coming from the safety position but I'm not sure which one.

3rd round - Deandre Levy, WLB - Wisconsion - 47 tackles, 1 FF, 1 INT in 10 games played, 5 started
Stepped in for Ernie Sims and seemed to immediately be more productive than him. Brings new energy to the defense and is a good blitzer. Love having Peterson and Foote around to help him ease into the league. Already basically supplanted Sims.

3rd round - Derrick Williams, WR - Penn State
Has battled injuries since training camp, was doing a decent job on kickoffs until he got hurt again. Only 5 recs for 47 yrds so far this year, but WRs take a while to develop and he is a raw prospect. I think he can be our slot guy of the future and I like his speed.

4th round - Sammie Lee Hill, DT - Stillman
Scott Wright had Hill as a sleeper from early on in the draft process, and was pretty happy when he drafted. I didn't think it turn out so well like it has though. He was incredibly raw coming out and not in the best shape. I think once the season is over and he gets a chance to recover and then have another training camp he is going to have a better NFL body. This guy has the raw talent or he wouldn't be starting for us. Solid solid pick.

6th round - Aaron Brown, RB - TCU
Brown brings some team speed that we have been lacking in years past. He can contribute in the return game, as a WR, and a speedy scat back. He caught a TD pass from Stafford against the Browns. For a sixth round pick I like the potential here.

7th round - Zack Follett, LB - Cal
Has already made a memorable special teams hit earlier in the year and brings some much needed energy to a poor special teams unit. Him and Dizon are good players to have on the roster.

7th round - Lyndon Murtha, OT - Nebraska
Claimed off the practice squad.

7th round - Dan Gronkowski, TE - Maryland
Made some nice catches in pre-season, on the practice squad. Hopefully he takes the third TE spot next year.

Mayhew's first draft class have been incredibly fruitful. To hit on so many picks makes me believe in his ability as a GM. You can be lucky and hit on a few picks but this was just a really solid draft class. I'm already looking forward to what he does with this next draft.

Lions I think are the best draft.

jackalope
11-30-2009, 04:33 PM
I think you can pretty clearly say it's GB so far.
Stud OLB ( Matthews)
A DE/NT who is really starting to show why he went #9 overall( Raji)
A nice swingman OL who has had a few solid starts (Lang)
Another stating OLB now, who seems to be serviceable. This is based on just a few starts though. ( Jones)
A rookie CB who is now getting some PT as the nickelback ( underwood)

I'd say based on this season Minny had the 2nd best draft with Harvin and Loadholt alone.
Granted I haven't seen the lower picks from Detroit play as much. Not to mention detroit had had most of their draft picks hurt a good deal already. Of course this could change if Staff turns out to be the real deal in the future.

Quinn Johnson has also looked good lately. I have high hopes for him.

And, yes, Clay Matthews is a stud.

TitleTown088
12-02-2009, 04:35 PM
Stud OLB? lol. What? Is he even a full time starter? He appears to be in a rotation. In the Lions no doubt. Bears draft is dead last. Id take Minny over GB as well. Harvin and Loadholt are playing well.

Well, that post makes it blatantly obvious you haven't watched the Packers play too often this season.

regoob2
12-02-2009, 09:00 PM
Well, that post makes it blatantly obvious you haven't watched the Packers play too often this season.
Ive watched several. Just not the ones against the Lions where the majority of his sacks came from. He seems to be pretty aggressive but never shed a block.

Brothgar
12-02-2009, 11:55 PM
Lions draft: All but one player is on an active 53 man roster can anyone else say that?

DHVF
12-03-2009, 12:18 AM
Lions draft: All but one player is on an active 53 man roster can anyone else say that?Umm I know the Vikings can, seeing as how all of their draft picks are on their 53 man roster.

regoob2
12-03-2009, 12:29 AM
Well the Bears top pick was active for one game....
Iglesias none
Melton on the IR
Moore none
Freeman was cut

Well Afalava is horrible in coverage and Knox is ok.....

:(

vikes_28
12-03-2009, 12:54 AM
Umm I know the Vikings can, seeing as how all of their draft picks are on their 53 man roster.

This. And all of them are contributing, in some way sahpe or form.

TitleTown088
12-03-2009, 12:26 PM
Ive watched several. Just not the ones against the Lions where the majority of his sacks came from. He seems to be pretty aggressive but never shed a block.


Ok. Since you're implying he dosen't do it vs good teams... Don't mention:

Sack, FR, TFL vs Cowboys.

2 TFL, FF,FR, for a TD vs Vikings

Sack vs Cincy.



Packers also have all but one player on their roster from this draft, and the only who isn't (Meredith) has started a few times for the Bills.

LonghornsLegend
12-04-2009, 08:59 PM
So, they won 'hands down' because they got a #3 WR, a RT and a lot of potential?

don't get me wrong, i think the argument can be made that they had the best draft, but to say it is 'hands down' the best draft is a little homerish.

Especially when you're comparing them to a team that got a QB of the future and 3 other players that have started as rookies and played at a very high level.

So that's all you consider Percy Harvin, is a #3 WR? I guess that's an easy way to make him sound not nearly as good or important as he really is I guess.


I like the Lions draft, really like the Pettigrew pick, but cannot ignore how good Oher has been and how good he'd be as a LT there for them.

umphrey
12-05-2009, 05:23 AM
I think it's pretty obvious that
Lions draft > Packers > Vikings > Bears
But mostly it's because that's because the team with more draft ammo out drafted the team with less. If you are going to try to rank who got the best value out of all their picks, it's going to be really tough or impossible to find an answer. For example, do you take points away from Detroit because Stafford isn't a ROY favorite? I hate getting into ranking the drafts this way.

#1 Lions: Found a franchise QB who IMO had MVP talent. Pettigrew and Delmas both look like sure fire above average starters. Levy has shown he can play. Derrick Williams and Sammie Lee Hill have contributed and are good developmental players.

#2 Packers: Clay Matthews was the big impact player this year and he is in the running for DROY, though probably won't win it. Raji has been beastlike since healthy and there is no doubt he has pro bowl talent at the most important layer of a football team (DL). TJ Lang has shown he can play all over the OL. Brad Jones is outplaying Kampman (who strugged, to be honest) but he's been very capable starting with lots of room to improve. Wynn and Underwood make good developmental guys.

#3 Vikings: Added an electric receiver with Harvin, the OPOY favorite. Loadhart is doing very well on the right side of the line. Besides that, not much. Allen hasn't seen the field much, Brinkley looks like a career backup, Sanford hasn't done anything I know about, so they got 2 starters and 3 developmental guys.

#4 Bears: Johnny Knox, the only Bears rookie I've noticed, looks like a solid receiver but he has some faults I don't think he'll ever shake. Still a solid player that profiles as a #2 receiver primarily as a deep threat. Afalava is listed as a starter at SS with 41 tackles, 2 sacks, 0 PDef. I would have to ask a Bears fan about him. Gilbert, Iglesias, Moore, Louis made the team and were burried on the depth chart, some being deactivated on game days. 3 players appear to have been cut.

TitleTown088
12-09-2009, 03:36 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that
Lions draft > Packers > Vikings > Bears
But mostly it's because that's because the team with more draft ammo out drafted the team with less. If you are going to try to rank who got the best value out of all their picks, it's going to be really tough or impossible to find an answer. For example, do you take points away from Detroit because Stafford isn't a ROY favorite? I hate getting into ranking the drafts this way.

#1 Lions: Found a franchise QB who IMO had MVP talent. Pettigrew and Delmas both look like sure fire above average starters. Levy has shown he can play. Derrick Williams and Sammie Lee Hill have contributed and are good developmental players.
.

What have the Lions draftees done so far...? Most of them warm up the bench or on IR.

The Packers draft picks have largely contributed to the "#1 ranked" defense in the league.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
12-09-2009, 09:15 PM
What have the Lions draftees done so far...? Most of them warm up the bench or on IR.

The Packers draft picks have largely contributed to the "#1 ranked" defense in the league.

Are you serious they all contribute. Stafford obviously has shown some potential to be a franchise QB,Pettigrew did before IR so 10 games, Delmas for sure does and is the lone bright spot in our secondary and is a ballhawk, Levy has taken over Sims spot and is playing well, Hill has been a starter all year and improved our run D at 330lbs. 5 long time starters right there who have all played well as rookies.

Aaron Brown is decent as a KR and has some speed to be a change of pace back.

Derrick Williams is one guy who hasn't produced.

Murtha is on the Dolphins roster snatched up, Gronko is a 7th round pick but on our roster,Follett contributes on special teams very well.

Very good draft. Pack got 2 great starters and Jones is a nice suprise but gave up some of the draft to get Matthews. Lang might turn out but you are relying on Clifton and Tauscher again.

Boston
12-10-2009, 01:22 AM
Are you serious they all contribute. Stafford obviously has shown some potential to be a franchise QB,Pettigrew did before IR so 10 games, Delmas for sure does and is the lone bright spot in our secondary and is a ballhawk, Levy has taken over Sims spot and is playing well, Hill has been a starter all year and improved our run D at 330lbs. 5 long time starters right there who have all played well as rookies.

Aaron Brown is decent as a KR and has some speed to be a change of pace back.

Derrick Williams is one guy who hasn't produced.

Murtha is on the Dolphins roster snatched up, Gronko is a 7th round pick but on our roster,Follett contributes on special teams very well.

Very good draft. Pack got 2 great starters and Jones is a nice suprise but gave up some of the draft to get Matthews. Lang might turn out but you are relying on Clifton and Tauscher again.

You realize that being a starter on the Lions is a bit different from starting on the #1 ranked defense in the league, don't you? That's great that you have five "potential starters," but when you're the Lions, and you just lost 16 games the year before, you damn well better get at least five starters in the next draft.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
12-10-2009, 09:03 AM
You realize that being a starter on the Lions is a bit different from starting on the #1 ranked defense in the league, don't you? That's great that you have five "potential starters," but when you're the Lions, and you just lost 16 games the year before, you damn well better get at least five starters in the next draft.

It makes life easier for Raji and Matthews being surrounded by talent. Better chance for them to succeed. And Raji is part of a rotation but is coming on strong of late now that the ankle injury is done.

The Lions rookies are all playing fairly well with little help around them. Other than Calvin,Foote and Peterson the rookies are the only ones we can count on consistently. Stafford has his ups and downs but you can't deny the guy has shown some serious potential as a franchise QB. Delmas has zero help in the secondary at all but shines. Levy has very little Dline help in front of him but playing next to Foote helps. Levy has taken over for Sims a 1st round pick because of good play. Sims is injured but when Sims is healthy, Levy gets most of the snaps. Hill has helped the run D and will be a starter. He's a 330 lb very atheltic DT. Pettigrew is like Raji, coming on strong lately until the injury. Those guys will be 5 starters for years based on their play so far IMO not just because there is no other talent. They are the talent.

umphrey
12-10-2009, 10:12 AM
Well it's odd arguing the Lions side on this one...especially because I'm in love with this Packers draft...but IMO Stafford's value is through the roof and that's what did it for them. Raji and CM3 are special players but a 21 year old franchise QB is hard to compete against.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
12-10-2009, 10:52 AM
Well it's odd arguing the Lions side on this one...especially because I'm in love with this Packers draft...but IMO Stafford's value is through the roof and that's what did it for them. Raji and CM3 are special players but a 21 year old franchise QB is hard to compete against.

Very true.

Yes the Packers have the #1 D and Matthews/Raji have contributed, especially Matthews who is a stud but the argument is not who has the better team. Pack obviously had more D pieces in place.

Delmas,Levy,Hill,Pettigrew,Stafford are all playing well which makes the draft the most successful so far for the Lions. Things could change obviously and it is really too early to grade completely. Any team without a QB would love to have drafted Stafford(and any team with a QB already wouldn't need to draft a franchise QB). But if the Colts didn't have Manning and needed a QB they would be happy with Stafford based on what he's shown this year IMO.

Delmas could start on many teams IMO and Pettigrew as well other than of course the entrenched vets like Tony G,Witten,Gates which those teams wouldn't be looking for a tight end anyway. Levy and Hill were mid round picks. Did Hill get the start due to lack of talent at DT sure, but he has played well making him a good draft pick thus will be a starter in the future. He will not need to be replaced for another DT IMO making him a good draft pick. Could we add another 3 tech DT like Suh or McCoy, yes but Hill will still be the starting nose tackle and do his job as run stuffer. And Levy beat out Sims. Plus Levy was part of a trade down that allowed us to get Hill. Matthews was part of a trade up which was worth it since he's a stud, but still costly. Pettigrew cost us Roy Williams but that was a good trade for a 1st/3rd since Roy didn't want to resign and wanted badly to be in Texas.

All those things combined, make the Lions draft better, but most importantly its a franchise QB and five players playing well/showing immense potential.

drowe
12-10-2009, 11:39 AM
The Lions had a good draft. But, they misfired badly. The fact that Michael Oher was just sitting there to be taken and the Lions passed on him was a mistake. Pettigrew has had a mediocre rookie season. One or two good games, and some injuries. It's hard to say a team had the best draft when they could've solved a major need by taking a guy that could make the pro bowl AS A ROOKIE. It's not hindsight being 20/20 either. This was a pretty obvious pick at the time...apparently to everybody except those in the Lions' war room.

And, between the Packers and Vikings, it's close. Time will tell. If TJ Lang can really be a solid starter, he'll go down as a great pick. He's already contributed more than a rookie 4th rounder should be expected to.

Clay Matthews is a DROY candidate. Raji has been getting better every week. Flashes of absolute brilliance there. It makes me sad to think how good he could've been this year if it weren't for that nagging ankle injury.

Brad Jones was a steal too. Athletic. Instinctive. a rookie 7th rounder made it barely noticeable that Aaron Kampman is on IR.

-The Vikings....yeah, Harvin and Loadholt look like everything they wanted when they drafted them.

Harvin is an OROY candidate and Loadholt looks like a solid RT for years.


Time will tell. based on this year, I'd say the Packers had the best draft. The Vikings rookies are successful because they're in a great offense. The Packers defense is successful because they have some great rookies.

Maybe Next Year Millen2
12-10-2009, 12:16 PM
The Lions had a good draft. But, they misfired badly. The fact that Michael Oher was just sitting there to be taken and the Lions passed on him was a mistake. Pettigrew has had a mediocre rookie season. One or two good games, and some injuries. It's hard to say a team had the best draft when they could've solved a major need by taking a guy that could make the pro bowl AS A ROOKIE. It's not hindsight being 20/20 either. This was a pretty obvious pick at the time...apparently to everybody except those in the Lions' war room.

And, between the Packers and Vikings, it's close. Time will tell. If TJ Lang can really be a solid starter, he'll go down as a great pick. He's already contributed more than a rookie 4th rounder should be expected to.

Clay Matthews is a DROY candidate. Raji has been getting better every week. Flashes of absolute brilliance there. It makes me sad to think how good he could've been this year if it weren't for that nagging ankle injury.

Brad Jones was a steal too. Athletic. Instinctive. a rookie 7th rounder made it barely noticeable that Aaron Kampman is on IR.

-The Vikings....yeah, Harvin and Loadholt look like everything they wanted when they drafted them.

Harvin is an OROY candidate and Loadholt looks like a solid RT for years.


Time will tell. based on this year, I'd say the Packers had the best draft. The Vikings rookies are successful because they're in a great offense. The Packers defense is successful because they have some great rookies.

Pettigrew struggled early but did come on stronger before the injury. Same as Raji pretty much who struggled early(due to injury) then came on. Only difference is Raji didn't have a freak knee injury. Pettigrew did well blocking most of the year even early which is another reason we drafted him, maybe the main reason him being a good all around tight end with strong blocking skills. Pettigrew had similar numbers in less games to Tony G's rookie year, not saying he will be a Tony G but Pettigrews development is far from done as a receiver. He has shown he can definitely be a good target though and has the ability to go over the middle and has great leaping ability. Yes we could have taken Oher but he was mediocre at LT the two games he played this year due to Gaithers injury. Of course he is a rookie, but he would have been a rookie for Detroit in a worse situation with no Ben Grubbs next to him and a rookie QB instead of a 2nd year QB and a terrible defense that puts the team in obvious passing situations unlike the Ravens D.

Oher as RT is very good but the Lions had Gosder so no way were we looking at a RT in Round 1. Oher being a stud LT is really an unknown still and we may never know unless the Ravens stop liking Gaither at LT and make the switch. Both Pettigrew and Oher will be solid starters for years at TE and RT IMO. Lions weren't going to fix everything in one year and they thought Pettigrew was BPA as did many others in terms of just ranking the prospects. BPA strategy is fine with me if it produces drafts like the last one Detroit had. In terms of need Oher might have fit better if the Lions saw him as a LT prospect. Don't know if they did or didn't or if they just thought Pettigrew was BPA and Tight End was a need too. Tackle is more important but Tight End is more versatile help to a team with many needs.

We'll see what the Lions do this year to address LT given Backus' age,mediocre play and high contract. Could be looking at Okung who is a better prospect than Oher or a Round 2 LT in a deep class. Jason Fox etc. Okung/Gosder and Pettigrew on the edges sounds like an even better situation in the long run if you ask me but of course the Defense might be ignored in Round 1 only mainly DT of Gerald McCoy. But if we get more mid round picks like Delmas,Levy and Hill the D and free agents like Foote/Peterson(trade), the D will start to shape up eventually too. Plus again its going to take more than 2009 and 2010 drafts. But its more than just LT for the Lions Oline. Everyone on the line who was extended in the offseason(Raiola,Peterman who is on IR), plus Gosder are going to have to pick up their game. Plus we need to find a LG too since Loper from the Titans didn't work out.

And rookie QB with rookie LT(who might be a RT prospect) might not have been the best situation. Worked for Atlanta but the Lions don't have the running game, a LG like Blalock, a right side of the line that progessed very well in 2008(Clabo,Dahl) and a stud RB in Turner to help ease things. Oher would have been left out to dry in Detroit as a LT. Long run he may be the answer at LT and it could have been a mistake but thats unknown.