Article from Yahoo explaining a little bit of Lawrence Guy, our 7th round selection.  Apparently he had a difficult childhood with a single dad, learning disabilities, and bullies.  Hope he makes the team and if he doesn't then hopefully he'll succeed elsewhere.  Ted Thompson seems to find high character men who've sometimes overcome hardship, especially in this class with the selection of TE D.J. Williams. 

Here is the great interview with D.J. Williams on his very difficult childhood.

Really hope these men spend their careers with the Pack.

Trust me, I root against the Bears, Vikings, and occasionally the Cowboys almost as much as I root for the Pack.  I pray the Bears collapse and have loved every minute of the Vikings dismal season up to now, in which I have some reservations.  Now this may not happen given current projections but it even being close to possible makes me nervous.

 I worry about the Vikings getting so high up in the draft that they have the possibility of getting Andrew Luck.  Andrew Luck is in mine and most others opinions the best QB in this Draft.  Not just that but he hasn't reached his ceiling as a redshirt sophmore.  He's 6'4", more fast and agile than most first round QB's his size, memorizes playbooks with no problem, has a deep booming voice for calling snap counts, great fundamentals.  With the weapons the Vikings still have, and seeing what Sanchez, Matt Ryan, and Joe Flacco have done in their first couple of years on good teams and Lucks better than they are, the Vikings may very well become immediate playoff contenders with some better coaching, no rebuild years necessary, though I hope that they do have some rebuild years.  I think Luck looks like, he may not turn out great, but he looks like the best QB coming out of college since Peyton Manning.  See where I'm going with this?  Understand what could happen?  If most teams had to choose between an '04 Aaron Rodgers and '10 Luck most are picking Luck.  

Here's where I get paranoid, rightly or wrongly.  The Vikings and Bills play each other, the Bills could beat the Vikings, the Vikings might lose the rest of their games.  Would Carolina take Luck if they're first? They took Clausen last year.  Would the Bengals? The Niners?  Browns have McCoy.  Broncos took Tebow,  Cowboys have Romo and Lions Stafford.  I guess my point is this, I want the Vikes to do bad but at the same time I don't want them to get Luck.  I worry less about them getting Jake Locker, Ryan Mallett or a few others cause they have more bust potential.  Other than Luck they're is no game-changer in this draft like an Adrian Petersen Randy Moss or N. Suh. I don't care if they get Patrick Peterson who's probably the 2nd best, CB's can only do so much.  Since the Vikes are crippled and done for I hope they beat the snot out of the Bears (division lead),  beat the Giants and Eagles (playoff seeding) and Bills (draft), and hope there are teams ahead of the Vikes in the Draft that will definitely take Luck no matter what.  I'd rather have years of average play in Minnesota than one terrible year followed by years of contention.  I don't mind being called out for "rooting" for some Vikes wins, that's a fine opinion.  Now of course if the Vikes only beat the Bears and still don't get a shot at Luck then that would be nice too, but man, it's so risky!

Let me know, am I off my rocker?

The Vikes new Stadium deal is up in the air and according to the article Minnesota lawmakers say the Vikings may be leaving the no-man's land between Eden and the Dakotas.  I won't discuss the details of possible agreements but rather want to open a discussion on the possible absence of the Vikings from the NFC North.  

I guess the question is whether to be gleeful or dissapointed at losing what has been a great rivalry.  Part of me wants them to leave just to watch the fans suffer (is that sadistic?)  Not sure why but I find it somewhat interesting that a team that has been so good for much of the super bowl era, in a city much bigger than Green Bay, cannot support its team.  It seems obvious, they are a hated team, why shouldn't I cheer at them leaving or dissolving?  But then comes the respect antagonistic men sometimes have for each other.  Having them has made 2 games a year must see television and rivalries can be pretty fun (or stress-inducing).  

Pros for the Packers for them leaving would be eventual expanded market for the Packers (they rooted for Favre this year, anything can happen.)  That may take a few years.  Another short term pro is that we lose the second best team in the division and it's our for the taking until Rodgers retires of course.  

Cons would be no more lucrative ticket sales from their fans coming to Lambeau, though we sell out anyways so its no too much of a loss.  Losing television time because Pack-Vikes is often nationally televised.  And we may lose some passion out of the fan base.  

Then the question is about who joins the North?  A Vikings-Rams switcharoo seems to be the easiest but I rather detest them, in a pitying way, and they're always ugly uniforms.  I thought of the "Greatest show of turf" as nothing more than a massive and thankfully short lived bandwagon.  Rams are a team that may also move unless they improve and Sam Bradford becomes the next Payton Manning.  Okay, so I can't stand the Rams.  Then there are the Colts, Bengals, and Browns.  I would suggest the Colts mainly because they used to be NFC and they would solidify us as the most Old-School football division which to me equals coolness.  Short term cosequences are the Rams suck and we beat them twice a year, or we have fierce competition from the Colts every year for the division until Manning retires after trouncing Favres records.

If the Vikings happen to stay then they better have an outdoor stadium because football deserves to be played outside, I don't appreciate indoor stadiums.  Please Comment since I wrote this mainly to hear all of your opinions on the possible future without the dreaded Purple Pansies.  What's your opinion and what are the pros & cons?

All the experts seem to think Bulaga is the perfect pick for the Packers and I happen to agree.  Fills both value and need in one swoop with a Big-10 guy this is great.  Some may say he might not turn out to be LT of future...soooo...he'll replace another need and be RT of the Future, win all around.  No he's not Joe Thomas or Jake Long but no one in this draft is though.

Some are disappointed at not having Kyle Wilson but I feel need at CB was not big enough.  I feel Hughes isn't as safe a pick as Bulaga either.   Now for pass rush, Sergio Kindle is still up there.  He could be even more valuable than Wilson, Bryant, or Bulaga by now.  If Kindle is THE GUY, basically if he is another Clay Matthews I think he's worth number's 2,3, and possibly 4, but hopefully 5.  But this is only if he is TT's guy, if he is not then we should sit tight I think and stick around for hopefully another steal.  Problem: Kindle was arrested in 2007... why?  To me thats the most important question about Sergio is character.

*UPDATE*: After reading some of your opinions I feel he's no longer worth it, if he falls really close and we just give up a 2nd and 4th maybe.  But hearing about injury issues (which are new to me)  Ted Thompson made the right choice in not going for Kindle.  Jermike Finley may be dissapointed!

This is the first year I've been interested in the draft and here a mock according to my limited knowledge. Somewhat of a dream draft. Sort of in order of my preferences

1 Round:  OLB Brandon Graham,  OLB Jerry Hughes, G/T Mike Iupati, OLB Sergio Kindle, OLB Sean Weatherspoon then DE Jared Odrick.  Also CB Kyle Wilson if available. 

We Definitely need a good pass rusher on the (weak?) side, that is more important than a 1st round OT in my opinion, unless Iupati is available then he is to valuable to pass up.  Yes I pick Graham over Hughes cause he has more value I suppose. I hear only Hughes of Odrick may be available.  Iupati's up there cause there's talk of him being a future left tackle.

Continue reading this post »

Any problems/ benefits with a  keeping of Badger DE/LB Schofield in the state of Wisconsin?  I think it could give us a 2nd Clay Matthews to replace Kampman.  He's a hybrid.  Two problems, he's injured, and I think he played on the right side.  I have no predictions of where he could be drafted.  Our pass defense is a weakness (unless we play sub-par Quarterbacks.)  I say take him before a Cornerback or before others get him maybe.  Too bad he got injured.  This is all fantasy though unlikely to happen.  I feel Favre, Big Ben, Warner, shredded us not because our coverage was bad but because they were hardly touched.  WE NEED MORE PASS RUSH before we need better coverage, that's my opinion.  Kampman can't play linebacker.  I wish we could trade him for a draft pick but oh well.  I feel nervous signing him just to trade him away.    OT before OLB before DE before S before CB  we should also get a punter as well.  Half-back any one?  Most people here say we need a corner early on which is what I used to think but after watching our losses and seeing opposing QB's stand tall I say no, we pass rush before corner  but I could be wrong so Let me know.

I happen to live in Eugene, OR and I saw the Oregon Ducks destroy one of the best defenses USC on Halloween .  Oregon runs a spread option most plays and is always in the shotgun formation.  Then whilst viewing the Green Bay Minnesota game the first half McCarthy had Rodgers under center dropping back with tight formations.  Neither the run game or the pass game was there.  Then comes the 2nd half and the Packers put 3 or more receivers out and Aaron starts picking the defense apart.  Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the packers ran a form of the spread back in 2007 with great success with Flarve or whatever his name was.  With a shotgun spread i see Aaron Rodgers explioting blitzs, the wideouts getting Yards after Catch in the open field, Rodgers getting yards with his legs, better protection,  I also think the spread will allow Grant this use his speed and power better in the open field.   What do you guys think? Is my analysis asinine (stupid)?  Perhaps.  I read an article in the Wall street journal talking about why scoring is higher than average this season and part of it is the use of the spread offense.  I wish we'd go with more spread earlier in the game and on first downs but I could be wrong.  Not all teams can run spread because they don't have a good enough QB and HB but I think we do.  Aaron Rodgers is our best player and and he does better (I think) with the spread.  I have no stats to back me up so I don't know if I'm right or not. What is your opinion?