LambeauLeap1250 WSSP


  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 29 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

TJ Watt

Author Message
Offline  TJ Watt
#1

Posted: September 10, 2017, 6:00 PM Post
Posts: 259
Anyone else starting to get that sinking feeling that the Packers may have really blown it with their first pick by passing on TJ Watt(trading down) and instead going with need by picking King?

He had a big pre-season and then came out and had 2 sacks and a pretty impressive leaping pick as an OLB'er dropping in coverage and snagging a deep out or a comeback(couldn't tell which from the highlight).

I know the narrative was that they ended up getting an extremely athletic CB in King who is 6'3 and the more productive OLB'er at Wisconsin in Biegel with the decision to pass on Watt at 28 and move down 5 spots...but I think everyone could see Watt was more athletic than Biegel.

I understand why they made the picks they made, and I'm absolutely not questioning Kevin King or Vince Biegel at this point...but man, TJ Watt really does look like the OLB'er version of his big bro right now.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#2

Posted: September 10, 2017, 8:19 PM Post
Posts: 251
I wanted Watt to be a Packer in the worst way. I believe the Pack thought the would get TJ with the first pick in the 2nd round. I think he could be special. He could be the one who got away.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#3

Posted: September 10, 2017, 9:02 PM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4050
Its hard to say, but certainly is in the short term.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#4

Posted: September 10, 2017, 9:13 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 16921
I wanted Watt or Foster.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#5

Posted: September 10, 2017, 9:25 PM Post
Posts: 259
docduany said:
I wanted Watt to be a Packer in the worst way. I believe the Pack thought the would get TJ with the first pick in the 2nd round. I think he could be special. He could be the one who got away.



He definitely looks like he could be special...but I don't think the Packers would have passed if they were that confident he was gonna be there at 33. I think people had a pretty strong feeling given the Steelers need at OLB'er that they were gonna take one and Watt was up there on the board.

It's just going to be that much worse if he becomes a superstar given that we had a shot at him. I completely understand why they moved back, but after watching him today...he looked like a bigger, longer version of Clay Matthews. If that's the case, it'd be real tough for King to measure up.

Of course as CheezeWiz points out, it's early.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#6

Posted: September 10, 2017, 9:34 PM Post
Posts: 259
trwi7 said:
I wanted Watt or Foster.



I think all Packer and Badgers fans were torn. Watt looked really talented in his one year starting for the Badgers, but watching Gunter line up as our top CB last year and getting torched in the NFC Championship game it was hard to question Thompson's logic in filling our biggest need with Rodgers in his prime.

Foster looks a bit like Ray Lewis did coming out of Miami but I didn't think the Packers were go with a MLB'er over OLB'er and Corner.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#7

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:05 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 426
yes, after yesterday's performance, definitely had that sinking feeling. as one of the radio guys said a few weeks ago, the decision not to draft Watts will be second-guessed for years to come. but gotta admire Thompson's stones for knowing that and going with what he felt was best. like all wisco fans, loved watt, but also love biegel of course and king's upside. hopefully watt and Biegel/King all have long, excellent careers.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#8

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:19 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 66
I know it's difficult to remove the Wisconsin homer glasses, but I think we should wait until the end of the season before making the determination that Watt is more valuable than King/Biegel. Heck, they are one game into the season, and Biegel hasn't even played a down for the team. Watt would have had a ton of pressure on him had he gone to GB. Plus he wasn't exactly known for his durability while in Madison.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#9

Posted: September 11, 2017, 12:47 PM Post
Posts: 1636
Location: Madison, WI
OnTheBlack said:
trwi7 said:
I wanted Watt or Foster.



I think all Packer and Badgers fans were torn. Watt looked really talented in his one year starting for the Badgers, but watching Gunter line up as our top CB last year and getting torched in the NFC Championship game it was hard to question Thompson's logic in filling our biggest need with Rodgers in his prime.

.


Yup, last season was essentially ruined by the worst defensive backfield probably assembled in the modern era. They had to focus on that glaring need. And knowing they likely would've taken King where they were picking anyway, they were smart to move back 5 spots and still get their guy plus another pick. You don't always want to draft for need, but in this case the need was so glaring beyond a normal weakness that they didn't really have a choice.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#10

Posted: September 11, 2017, 5:01 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2373
Location: California
If you watched the Packers last year, and even in yesterday's game, the weakness on D was not with the pass rush. When healthy, Clay, Perry, Daniels consistently make the push. It was quite evident at the end of last year, the true deficiency was CB. Randall, Rollins and Gunter all looked like 4th or 5th CBs. While House could be a 2 or 3, it was apparent CB was the largest need. King was the best player at the position left and Biegel was an added bonus. If Watt had been say a Trojan or Seminole or Longhorn, the hand-wringing would be much less. It's because Watt is one of our own that we have a what-if perspective.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#11

Posted: September 11, 2017, 7:34 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4519
Snap count: Kevin King - 6, Josh Jones - 0

Watt's number of impact plays was half of the total number of snaps of King and Jones.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#12

Posted: September 11, 2017, 9:26 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2734
I agree with Warning Track; have Watt play at UCF instead of Wisconsin and you'd have a few people who'd have wanted him, but not to this degree. I try to feel better by remembering that Biegel wouldn't have been a Packer if we hadn't taken King. Maybe there's also some shades of Troy Vincent vs. Terrell Buckley with the Watt situation, too, knowing that passing on a Badger hasn't always been the best decision.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#13

Posted: September 11, 2017, 10:34 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 16921
Warning Track Power said:
If you watched the Packers last year, and even in yesterday's game, the weakness on D was not with the pass rush. When healthy, Clay, Perry, Daniels consistently make the push. It was quite evident at the end of last year, the true deficiency was CB. Randall, Rollins and Gunter all looked like 4th or 5th CBs. While House could be a 2 or 3, it was apparent CB was the largest need. King was the best player at the position left and Biegel was an added bonus. If Watt had been say a Trojan or Seminole or Longhorn, the hand-wringing would be much less. It's because Watt is one of our own that we have a what-if perspective.


So drafting for need instead of BPA?

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#14

Posted: September 12, 2017, 8:15 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 66
LouisEly said:
Snap count: Kevin King - 6, Josh Jones - 0

Watt's number of impact plays was half of the total number of snaps of King and Jones.


Dom is not a fan of playing rookies when he has other options, especially early in the season. I hate to sound like the "small sample alert" police here, but come on. It's one game into the season!

As far as drafting for need over BPA, who says King wasn't ranked higher than Watt on the Packers' board?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#15

Posted: September 12, 2017, 11:11 AM Post
User avatar
Global Moderator
Posts: 4050
As far as drafting for need over BPA, who says King wasn't ranked higher than Watt on the Packers' board?

Technically, they didn't draft King over Watt. They traded down over drafting Watt. After trading down, they didn't have the choice to draft Watt.

Pretty typical TT is having a number of similarly ranked players and trading down. Pick up a draft pick while still getting one of the group.

I think the only effect of Watt being a Badger is that we got to see his progression up front and close. I don't think we wanted him BECAUSE he was a Badger. Given how little development time he had at OLB after moving from TE and how well he played... it was tantalizing to think what he could become.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#16

Posted: September 12, 2017, 11:15 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 2373
Location: California
trwi7 said:
Warning Track Power said:
If you watched the Packers last year, and even in yesterday's game, the weakness on D was not with the pass rush. When healthy, Clay, Perry, Daniels consistently make the push. It was quite evident at the end of last year, the true deficiency was CB. Randall, Rollins and Gunter all looked like 4th or 5th CBs. While House could be a 2 or 3, it was apparent CB was the largest need. King was the best player at the position left and Biegel was an added bonus. If Watt had been say a Trojan or Seminole or Longhorn, the hand-wringing would be much less. It's because Watt is one of our own that we have a what-if perspective.


So drafting for need instead of BPA?

And had they drafted Watt would you say they are wasting the best years of Rodgers by not addressing their most obvious need?


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#17

Posted: September 12, 2017, 1:08 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 16921
Warning Track Power said:
trwi7 said:
Warning Track Power said:
If you watched the Packers last year, and even in yesterday's game, the weakness on D was not with the pass rush. When healthy, Clay, Perry, Daniels consistently make the push. It was quite evident at the end of last year, the true deficiency was CB. Randall, Rollins and Gunter all looked like 4th or 5th CBs. While House could be a 2 or 3, it was apparent CB was the largest need. King was the best player at the position left and Biegel was an added bonus. If Watt had been say a Trojan or Seminole or Longhorn, the hand-wringing would be much less. It's because Watt is one of our own that we have a what-if perspective.


So drafting for need instead of BPA?

And had they drafted Watt would you say they are wasting the best years of Rodgers by not addressing their most obvious need?


I'd just like TT to not draft complete scrubs like Randall and Rollins were last year, realize that he drafted complete scrubs and then compound that by taking a player at a position of need (because he sucked at drafting two players in the 1st and 2nd round a year before) over more talented players who also fit our system/fill a need.

Cards' fans wear jorts.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#18

Posted: September 12, 2017, 6:10 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 4519
Randall and Rollins were hurt last year. Randall had leg surgery in the middle of the season and then returned to play. Corners who don't have legs that are 100% don't do well.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#19

Posted: September 12, 2017, 6:37 PM Post
Posts: 259
Joey Meyer Bombs said:
I know it's difficult to remove the Wisconsin homer glasses, but I think we should wait until the end of the season before making the determination that Watt is more valuable than King/Biegel. Heck, they are one game into the season, and Biegel hasn't even played a down for the team. Watt would have had a ton of pressure on him had he gone to GB. Plus he wasn't exactly known for his durability while in Madison.



I haven't seen anyone..at least up until your post suggest otherwise. In fact, I tried to go out of my way to say that this had nothing to do with King or Biegel and that it's way too early to say anything about them(good or bad).

But I also certainly don't buy that the pressure he would have faced would have meant anything....like..at all. Biegel's from closer to GB and played at Wisconsin. Watt has an older Brother who's the best player in the NFL when compared to others at his position. And he went to a team that's produced HOF, AP and Pro Bowl LB'ers non-stop for decades. I think the pressure is there.
Also, while Watt wasn't known for durability, it was a broken foot and it was one season.

There was no strong argument AGAINST Watt. The argument was more FOR a CB. I will never be one of those who bashes TT regardless how good TJ becomes...even if he becomes better than JJ, because at the time, it was hard to argue with his logic.


This thread has been about how good TJ Watt is, not about what King or Biegel have or haven't done.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Offline  Re: TJ Watt
#20

Posted: September 12, 2017, 6:43 PM Post
Posts: 259
trwi7 said:
Warning Track Power said:
If you watched the Packers last year, and even in yesterday's game, the weakness on D was not with the pass rush. When healthy, Clay, Perry, Daniels consistently make the push. It was quite evident at the end of last year, the true deficiency was CB. Randall, Rollins and Gunter all looked like 4th or 5th CBs. While House could be a 2 or 3, it was apparent CB was the largest need. King was the best player at the position left and Biegel was an added bonus. If Watt had been say a Trojan or Seminole or Longhorn, the hand-wringing would be much less. It's because Watt is one of our own that we have a what-if perspective.


So drafting for need instead of BPA?



My guess is that their boards has King really close to Watt. In fact, I don't remember who the 5 guys were(you mentioned Foster) but there were 5 guys who fit our needs and who were all really good players.

I think at the Packers pick, they just saw a group of guys all rated really close on their board and jumped on the chance to grab the 1st pick in the 4th.

And you know in the NFL need is always factored into picking unless there's a major discrepancy. So if they had Watt just a hair above King, thought they could trade back and get King, it made sense. I don't think they thought there was any chance Watt would be available at 33 with the Steelers lurking, but maybe I'm wrong.


And I don't think it's because Watt's a Wisconsin kid. I think it's because he has a Brother who's on his way to becoming an all-time great and he's jumped out to a ridiculously good start. Though maybe having watched him make some of the plays he made last year did help bump him up. That screen that he picked and took to the house really stands out in my mind as being an extremely athletic play.


 Top
 
Quote   Reply 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1, 2  Next  [ 29 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply
  


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search this forum (phpBB search):
Jump to:  
Search entire board (Google search):
Google
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Test