NFL Draft pick

[KillerMuffin]

Well, I'm missing our annual NDP party due to my, ah, vacation to Wisconsin. But hey, I get to watch the whole thing with minimal interruption. Just getting my heplock flushed. It's a sexy process, if you're a freak.

Anyway, it's kind of poignantly poetic that I am in Wisconsin on the day of the NDP. It brings tears to my eyes. The only thing more perfect for NDP would be to be in Green Bay. Or, the only thing more perfect than that would be to be down on the field watching Green Bay win the Super Bowl again. Or the only thing more perfect than that would be to be in the Owner's box watching my team, Green bay win the super bowl again.

They get 10th in the first round. We'll see what happens, right?

 

[DarkAngel]

Yawn...

 

[TonyG]

Muff...it's the Eagles turn in 2002 to win the super bowl. Sorry.

 

[KillerMuffin]

*kicks DA* Deal with it buddy.

The Eagles? Sure, okay, if you think so sweetie.

It's Packers all the way.

 

[DarkAngel]

*kicks DA* Deal with it buddy.

*OUCHY*

I'm telling.....

 

[TonyG]

Dreamer!

 

[DevilMayCare]

It's Packers all the way.

You're obviously a fan, as in fanatic. Only a fanatic could so suspend judgment to come to the conclusion this sorry group of players will get back to the Super Bowl anytime soon. Last I noticed they were limping badly.

Having grown up a Vikings fan, which was certainly a thankless venture, I've followed Packer's teams for years. I've been away from the area long enough that I was able to appreciate their glory years. But Brett Favre is too erratic to rely on to win it all. Have fun, but don't be surprised if the Vikings take the division and any of a number of teams that don't were green and gold win the conference. It's sure fun though to follow your team.

I hope Mark Chmura wasn't one of your heroes KM...

 

[nitengale]

Just getting my heplock flushed. It's a sexy process, if you're a freak.

Is there a nitrous leak in your room??

 

[funny_guy]

Jamal Reynolds

I think it was a good pick, but we'll see what happens. The Pack could use another end rusher since they haven't been able to fill Reggie White's shoes yet.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Yes, I am a fanatic. Where do you think the word fan comes from? I'm a raving fanatic. The StudMuffin is a Chiefs fan. You can imagine the interesting times we have during football season.

Realistically? The Pack will probably make the playoffs without skating in on the wildcard this year. Hope they make the bowl.

Damn I'm missing a good party too. The best part of football season. Sunday football Barbaques, Monday Night Football hangouts.

*sigh* Maybe I'm too into this guy thing. I think I'd better get a reassessment of my femininty. Which one of you guys is a mary kay professional? We could a facial class during commercial breaks.


No Nightengale, I couldn't get so lucky. Just some backwashing blood.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Jamal Reynolds

I think it was a good pick, but we'll see what happens. The Pack could use another end rusher since they haven't been able to fill Reggie White's shoes yet.

Was it?? I would have liked them to go with a skill position. Gardner or Moss to help out Freeman. Maybe trade down and get Heap or McAllister. I don't think Reynolds can be the player they want him to be.

Brees would have been good too as Favre seems easily hurt to me.

And you are all dead wrong. Its the Colts this year. Go Vanderjagt!!!!

 

[Weevil]

Yes, I am a fanatic. Where do you think the word fan comes from? I'm a raving fanatic.

Actually the term comes from "Fancier" as in I'm a Redskins Fancier. Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[SweetNick]

Muff...it's the Eagles turn in 2002 to win the super bowl. Sorry.

Make up your mind Tony. One day its the 'boys, the next the Eagles. You scared someone down at 10th & Shunk is reading the thread?

 

[TonyG]

Nick

I'm not the 'boys fan, that's xanadu. I hate the 'boys (sorry xan). Plus, as for 10th & Shunk or 33rd & Lehigh, they all know my allegience.

 

[DevilMayCare]

KM - Since you're such a fan you probably know this site but I'll pass the URl along anyway. I've been enjoying browsing the site this afternoon as the draft proceeds. This is the Packer's page. Have fun!

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/draft/teams/packers.html

 

[angie girl]

sports town

Sorry guys. My roomie tends bar at a sports bar and hands down the concensus is that after the Blues win the Cup, and the Cards win the World Series, the Rams will be back in the Super Bowl. A bunch of drunk auto workers all agree, so how can that not be right?

 

[DevilMayCare]

Is St. Louis big league or what! Hockey, baseball, football and autoworkers. Pass the pitcher babe, I could use a cold one.

 

[Weevil]

Man I bet you live in Kansas City. Or Boston

 

[SungHi]

My roomie stuck her foot in her mouth here, so now it's my turn. My favorite bar stumper is about baseball so I guess I can squeeze it in here? This one stumps almost everyone, the problem being it don't do me any good to win a free beer, me being the bar tender.

The Yankees are the winniest team in the history of baseball, hands down, with like 25 World Series and gawd knows how many regular season victories. But what is the one team that holds a century long winning record over the Yankees? I'll give you a Miller Genuine Moment if you know.

 

[Guest]

Brett Favre

Um, EvilBollWeevil, Brett Favre recently set a record for most consecutive starts by an NFL QB. I hardly think that qualifies him as "easily injured." Drew Brees is a fine QB, but backup QB is not GB's most dire "need position."

I AM somewhat concerned that Jamal Reynolds wasn't worth the #10 overall pick. While GB needs a pass rush desperately, they also need an every down defensive end. I'm not sure they got that in Reynolds. The Packers' trade up from 17 to 10 may not have been a particularly good deal. They created a hole at backup QB and did not necessarily make a major improvement in their first round options. The top two wide receivers and the defensive linemen that the Pack really wanted have always been slotted to be picked in the first nine. Trading up to #10 did little for them.


Packers picked up a big wide receiver (Robert Ferguson from Texas A&M)in second round who most draftnicks feel would be a top ten pick in 2002 if he had stayed in school his senior year. I'm fairly optimistic about him. I prefer him over Santana Moss (Moss's lack of size is offset by his skills as a return man, and Packers have a good return man in Allen Rossum) and Ferguson may have more potential than Gardner.


Vikes picked up Michael Bennett (RB- Wisconsin) who is amazingly fast (I actually saw him play high school ball at Milwaukee Tech.) But Bennett has some developing to do. He is a straight line runner without much wiggle, and the Badgers never threw him the ball. Vikes ignored glaring holes in secondary to pick up ANOTHER offensive weapon. In this case, it won't turn out to be the superstar that they got by taking a chance on Moss.

Buccaneers have added Brad Johnson in offseason and then picked up the draft's best O-lineman on Saturday. I hate to admit it, but they look like NFC Central Champs to me.

Packers are still a team who won 6 of their last 8 games and look like a playoff contender to me, but not a division champ.

And my dear KM, as a Packer fan you have to realize that while you could watch the Pack from a luxury box, you could never watch the Pack from the "owner's box." The Pack is the only publicly owned team in the league and isn't for sale. Even to a fine writer such as yourself.

And "Fan" is derivative of fanatic, not fancier. Anyone who "fancies" a football team has no genuine understanding of what being a fan truly is.

 

[Weevil]

Re: Brett Favre

Um, EvilBollWeevil, Brett Favre recently set a record for most consecutive starts by an NFL QB. I hardly think that qualifies him as "easily injured." Drew Brees is a fine QB, but backup QB is not GB's most dire "need position."

I AM somewhat concerned that Jamal Reynolds wasn't worth the #10 overall pick. While GB needs a pass rush desperately, they also need an every down defensive end. I'm not sure they got that in Reynolds. The Packers' trade up from 17 to 10 may not have been a particularly good deal. They created a hole at backup QB and did not necessarily make a major improvement in their first round options. The top two wide receivers and the defensive linemen that the Pack really wanted have always been slotted to be picked in the first nine. Trading up to #10 did little for them.


Packers picked up a big wide receiver (Robert Ferguson from Texas A&M)in second round who most draftnicks feel would be a top ten pick in 2002 if he had stayed in school his senior year. I'm fairly optimistic about him. I prefer him over Santana Moss (Moss's lack of size is offset by his skills as a return man, and Packers have a good return man in Allen Rossum) and Ferguson may have more potential than Gardner.



Buccaneers have added Brad Johnson in offseason and then picked up the draft's best O-lineman on Saturday. I hate to admit it, but they look like NFC Central Champs to me.


And "Fan" is derivative of fanatic, not fancier. Anyone who "fancies" a football team has no genuine understanding of what being a fan truly is.

Ooooooh some fightin' words

A few things. First, Favre's hand imjury made him play fairly mediocre last year. Hand injuries are a bitch and I would have taken a QB just in case. Weinke would have been a good call too.

I agree about Reynolds. I think Gardner would have been a great pick for them though. He's a big stong Wideout who can play with Terrel or Robinson. Its a shame they couldn't grab Justin Smith. He'd have been a great Packer as opposed to the mediocre Bengal I'm sure he'll be.

Walker, while good, isn't as good as Davis. I agree with the Cardinals on this one. Davis is huge, athletic and could block a Mack truck.

Lastly you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. The term derives from fancier. If you think it doesn't match well with Football you're right. It came from Cricket.
The Fanatic myth is a persistent one but it is dead frigging wrong.

 

[Guest]

fans and Favre

From New Webster's English Dictionary:

"fan: a devotee of a particular sport, pursuit, entertainer, entertainment etc. [shortened fr. FANATIC]"

Fancy that. (I probably never would have corrected you in the first place, but you had corrected KM and left yourself open to it.)

Football--Yes, there is a chance that Favre, one of the all-time tough guys ever to play QB, could get injured. And I would love to have Brees or any other top young QB in camp to learn under him. But in this draft, it was a luxury they could not afford. How can you not address such glaring needs at D-line and WR in order to snag an insurance policy?

Outside of the inconsistent and somewhat unreliable Antonio Freeman, who did not look like a #1 receiver this year, the Packers receiving corps is a group of oft-injured #3 and 4 guys. Maybe hometown favorite Billy Schroeder is developing into a #2, but I really don't think so.

Just as desperate--the Packer defensive line lacks a single explosive guy. I was hoping for someone other than Reynolds, but at least he makes sense--given the situation. A good d-lineman will have a bigger impact on this particular team than a a good WR would.

These were real needs to be filled and there is no way they could take a guy to ride the pine behind Favre. For a backup, they are kind of pinning hopes on Henry Burruss, who they picked up as a free agent. Apparently this guy passed for several hundred miles in the CFL this year--and only threw 7,000 interceptions along the way. I can't honestly evaluate him.

As for the quality of receivers picked, I have no real problem with your man, Gardner. The Pack just felt that there was similar talent available in the early second round. I think that they were right about that.

As for the Kenyatta Walker debate, I will say that you are just as likely right about Davis. Hell, I'll even concede that you probably are right.

 

[Weevil]

Re: fans and Favre

From New Webster's English Dictionary:

"fan: a devotee of a particular sport, pursuit, entertainer, entertainment etc. [shortened fr. FANATIC]"

Fancy that. (I probably never would have corrected you in the first place, but you had corrected KM and left yourself open to it.)

Football--Yes, there is a chance that Favre, one of the all-time tough guys ever to play QB, could get injured. And I would love to have Brees or any other top young QB in camp to learn under him. But in this draft, it was a luxury they could not afford. How can you not address such glaring needs at D-line and WR in order to snag an insurance policy?

Outside of the inconsistent and somewhat unreliable Antonio Freeman, who did not look like a #1 receiver this year, the Packers receiving corps is a group of oft-injured #3 and 4 guys. Maybe hometown favorite Billy Schroeder is developing into a #2, but I really don't think so.

Just as desperate--the Packer defensive line lacks a single explosive guy. I was hoping for someone other than Reynolds, but at least he makes sense--given the situation. A good d-lineman will have a bigger impact on this particular team than a a good WR would.


As for the quality of receivers picked, I have no real problem with your man, Gardner. The Pack just felt that there was similar talent available in the early second round. I think that they were right about that.

A couple things friend. One I hate disagreeing with the Websters Dictionary but I have to. Henry Chadwick popularized the term in his early Baseball writing and in its earliest known use it was from Fancier. It no doubt was turned into being short for Fanatic with the onset of the American Association which was the first league to allow liquor to be sold.

Think of the time frame. Chadwick wrote in the late 1860's, back when it was a gentlemans pursuit. Would he have called a gentleman a Fanatic? No. I have no doubt that in its current form it is intended to be a short form of Fanatic but KM had stated that it came from Fanatic. Regardless, I suppose I'll concede to you for the moment as I can't really say that I care too much about the subject.

First I agree that if Jevon Kearse was in the draft the Packers would be best off taking him. I think the Pack let their need for a good DE blind them to what they were doing. I don't see Reynolds as a successful NFL DL and as such I see the pick as being a gamble vs. a sure thing that admittedly would have come at a less crucial spot. Trading down for McAllister or Moss would not be as good as getting a dominant DE but I think they got a guy who I'd call the 6th or 7th best DL in the draft who I don't see being a huge impact player.

Do the Pack need to upgrade their DL? They sure do. Was this the time and place to do it? I don't think so. I think a better course of action would have been taking a Hutchinson or Gardner at 10 and then trying to get Rogers out of Texas in the second round.

There was a glut of talent in the draft through the 15 through 50 picks that made picking at certain positions kind of tricky. However I still contend that Gardner was the best wideout in the whole draft and as such should have been top ten.

Oh well. I still like the Colts next year, bad D and all.

 

[Guest]

Aw, Hell!

I'm beginning to think you might be right about the etymology of "fan." As I read your last post, some of the things you mentioned struck me as familiar. I'm afraid that you're probably right--as is Webster's. I think "fan" was first used as derivative of "fancier." The false cognate of fan being derivative of "fanatic" has, however, become both the connotative and the denotative meaning. When someone says "fan," they mean it to be derivative of "fanatic" so Webster is right as well.

As for the draft, about January next year, one of us will be able to stick our tongue out at the other and claim to be the better prognosticator. Of course, the other one won't be able to see it...

Overall, I go back to one of my original assertion that the Pack probably actually erred long before draft day. I don't think losing Hasselbeck to move up to 10 from 17 was worth the end result. From here, only Jamal Reynolds can prove me wrong about that.

 

[Weevil]

Yes, until next year then. I hope for good things for the Pack but I disagree with you about Hasselback, not in the worth of the trade but that I think he should be a successful NFL Quarterback and should, therefore, have the chance to play. The NFL is not better off with the Trent Greens and Doug Fluties on the bench.