Packers Draft Mailbag: Melvin Gordon Is Tempting, but Green Bay Will Pass

The former Wisconsin Badger is supremely talented, but with Eddie Lacy in the fold, the Packers already have a go-to running back.

Wisconsin Badgers running back Melvin Gordon—Jonathan Dyer, USA TODAY Sports.

Wisconsin Badgers running back Melvin Gordon—Jonathan Dyer, USA TODAY Sports.

In the run-up to the NFL Draft, we are publishing a weekly “Mailbag” feature here at Cheesehead TV.

If there’s something you’d like answered, tag your queries with the hashtag #PackersDraft on Twitter.

I understand the temptation that might exist when the Packers are on the clock with the 30th pick in the first round, and they have their pick of the litter at the running back position. Fans from Wisconsin are intimately familiar with Melvin Gordon and would love to see a former Badgers player suit up in the green and gold. Coming into the 2014 season, I never used to agree with the comparisons to Jamaal Charles of the Kansas City Chiefs because in his first three seasons at Wisconsin, Gordon had a total of three receptions. Charles, meanwhile, is a player that's had up to 70 catches in one season with the Chiefs. But to Gordon's credit, he became a well-rounded running back in 2014, catching 19 passes, three going for touchdowns. Granted, that's not nearly as many as Charles, but Gordon started to flash reliable hands on passes that weren't just screens and check downs.

It's not just Gordon, either. Georgia's Todd Gurley would appear to be another elite running back in spite of his torn ACL this past season. But a variety of factors will likely prevent the Packers from taking a running back early in the NFL Draft. One is their committment to Eddie Lacy, who emerged as a true three-down player this past season, someone that can be trusted to run as well as protect Aaron Rodgers. Another reason for avoiding the first round running back is their notorious history for underachieving. In fact, a good article was posted at Rotoviz.com earlier this week on the topic. As good as Gordon and Gurley seem to be, history says we can't bank on them living up to expectations. I can't see the Packers addressing running back in the first two rounds, but from Round 3 onward, I wouldn't rule anything out.

Regardless of the quality of the players in the draft, I can't see Matthews making a full-time transition to inside linebacker, although I don't think we've seen the end of him there, either. From midseason onward in 2014, the Packers appeared to take full advantage of Matthews' skillset, generally lining him up on the inside on early running down and then putting him back on the line of scrimmage, rushing off the edge on late passing downs. Credit Matthews, who accepted the switch to inside linebacker without public complaint despite rumors to the contrary. His opportunities to rush the quarterback may have dwindled, but his effectiveness did not. His future looks to be as a movable chess piece the Packers can line up wherever they want, whenever they want to take advantage of match-ups.

I wouldn't put much stock into what some analysts think of the caliber of talent at either the inside or outside linebacker positions in this year's draft class. As a Packers fan, you've seen the team select A.J. Hawk with the fifth overall pick in the draft and turn out to be a marginal NFL player. And on the flip side, you saw the Packers ignore the position last year while Chris Borland emerged as one of the top young inside linebackers in the league as a third round draft choice. I know some people see some of the same traits in Denzel Perryman that they saw in Borland as undersized, overachieving player. I'm not guaranteeing it happens, but it's quite possible the Packers could come away with the player like Perryman on Day 2 of the draft.

Like Melvin Gordon above, I can understand the attraction to Nick O'Leary. He won a national championship, was named the Mackey Award winner as the nation's top tight end and was a trusted target of quarterback Jameis Winston. He also caught more than 100 passes for more than 1,500 yards and 17 touchdowns over the course of his college career. It all looks good on paper. O'Leary, however, is listed at just 6' 3", although we'll find out his official measurement in short order at the NFL Combine.

In general, I'm not a fan of NFL tight ends under 6' 4". There are always exceptions to the rule, but in order to overcome concerns about height, they have to possess some outstanding trait that trumps it. Again, we'll find out for sure at the Combine, but I don't think either O'Leary's speed or strength measurements are going to blow anyone away. He might also have the most reliable hands among all the tight ends, but the Packers already found a guy last year that's got a pretty good pair of hands. It's possible O'Leary has a future as an H-back, but he still has a lot to prove as a move-blocker. And even so, H-backs are not highly sought-after commodities.

Like Seth Meyers' Ya Burnt segment on NBC's Late Night, we've run out of time. Sorry, Packer Ranter.

But enjoy this video of Ya Burnt. NFL cornerback prospects do not want to make this list.

Brian Carriveau is the author of the book "It's Just a Game: Big League Drama in Small Town America," and editor at Cheesehead TV and its "Pro Football Draft Preview." To contact Brian, email [email protected].

NFL Categories: 
0 points
 

Comments (41)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
4thand1's picture

February 17, 2015 at 09:23 am

Why BAP? Eddy lacy tears acl in training camp. Nobody wants to see something like this happen, but it does.

0 points
0
0
D.D.Driver's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:01 am

Exactly. Best player available. If MG3 someone slips down to 30 you have to draft him, just like when Aaron Rodgers slips to 20s, it doesn't matter that you already have Brett Favre.

It's weird to think about, but coming into his 3rd season, Lacy is about at the midpoint of his career. With his style of running it is highly doubtful he is productive for more than five seasons.

MG3 is a special player. He is not Montee Ball, Ron Dayne or PJ Hill. He will have a productive pro career.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

February 17, 2015 at 12:57 pm

Oh, no, no, noooooo. [/sarcasm]

When I was saying we should get a QB in the 3-4 (whoever was the highest rated) I was jumped on AND that was the season after Rodger's collarbone injury. On top of that, no one is sold on Flynn/Tolzien.

0 points
0
0
Big_Mel_75's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:24 am

I love Gordon as much as any one but saying that he will have a productive pro career with out touching the NFL field yet is not smart with Wisconsin running backs.. Everyone thought that Dayne was going to do something but did not. Lots of good running back from Wisconsin don't do anything in the NFL. As for Gordon going in the first round? Not happing.. Look where all great running backs were taken just two years ago. Lacy, Ball, Bell, Bernard all in the 2 round. Gordon will be taken in 2 and hope will have a good career but I wouldn't hold my breath.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:42 am

My opinion is that if Melvin Gordon is on the board and is clearly the best player, you take him.

At pick 30 there are no guarantees that whoever you get will be able to come in and start right away. So why not get a guy who can come in and make an impact when he does play.

Gordon would get a lot of playing time even with Lacy.

Thompson has done a very good job of not always drafting for true need, and drafting the best player available. Was Cobb drafted for need when they already had Jennings, Driver, Nelson, and Jones?

Also, what was Wolf's biggest regret. Not surrounding Favre with enough talent.
Adding an explosive RB to the offense will add another weapon for Rodgers.
While it is rare, there were some games where Rodgers didn't play his best. Those games, if they had 1 more go to option on offense, they very well could have won those games. What better option is there then adding and explosive playmaker.

If Gordon is there at 30, I have no problem with them taking him.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 11:20 am

I don't get this.

You start off by saying at #30 there is no guarantee whoever they pick will be able to come in and start.

Then you go on about how Gordon will get a lot of playing time, will make an impact, will be an explosive playmaker.

Those two thoughts seem to be in direct conflict of each other. Gordon is no more likely of being a playmaker or getting playing time than any other player. And, actually, according to the stats, as a RB he has less of a chance.

As for TT drafting for need, it's usually been a need 1 or 2 years down the line. Cobb was drafted, in part, to replace Jennings who was entering his final year (Driver was pretty much already done at that point anyway). Bulaga was similar - with both Clifton and Tauscher on their last legs. More recently he seems to have been drafting, at least in the 1st round, for immediate need.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 11:57 am

Correct. At pick 30 there is not a guarantee that the player you get will be an instant impact player. Might just be a rotational player to start out.

The difference being is Gordon is an instant impact type of player. Gordon is a special player. He has speed and power and the ability to make players miss. If he were in the draft 5-10 years ago, he would likely be a top 10 pick, no worse then top 15. The RB position is being devalued and that is why Gordon is dropping. Doesn't mean that you can't take a player at pick 30 at that position. 3 picks from the 2nd round, I think is safe to draft a RB. There isn't a rule that you can't take a RB in the 1st.
Gordon wouldn't be a starter for Green Bay right away, but they wouldn't need him to be. They could form one hell of a duo at RB.

Basically if they were to draft Gordon, he would take over most of Kuhn's and/or Starks playing time. He would get plenty of playing time.
Lets not forget that Lacy takes a beating. He has missed some time due to injuries. Also Starks is entering his last year of his contract, and Harris seems to have fallen out of favor in Green Bay.

I don't think they were in direct conflict of each other. Maybe just the way I was thinking though and maybe i didn't explain myself enough.
I think Gordon is a playmaking type of player. He can make a difference in a game. He may not get the majority of playing time, but he might make bigger plays or impact the game more when he does play.

I agree with you for drafting for need 1-2 years down the road. Rodgers and Cobb were 2 that I think were drafted purely on being the best player available. It could be argued that they were drafted for future need, but they were clearly the best players available.
Cobb was drafted because they were going to need him in the future.

My whole point to all of this is, if Gordon is clearly the best player available, then I have no problem with them drafting him. Will they? probably not. I can see them drafting a RB later in the draft more then drafting one in the end of the 1st round.
I'm just saying, that if he is the best player available, then draft him.
If he is their 20th rated player and the next person on their list is a DE rated at 35, I go with the 20th rated player.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 01:01 pm

All I'm really saying is you can't say "Gordon is an instant impact type of player." He carries as much boom or bust potential as anyone.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:27 pm

Couldn't disagree more. Running back is the one position a player can make an immediate impact. Eddy Lacy proved it.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 06:35 am

I believe he is a special type of player. RB's are typically players that are instant impact players. Typically they can come in and play well..

With Gordon, I think he has a higher ceiling then a lot of players and a higher floor as well... Therefore I think he has more boom potential and less bust potential then a lot of players have.

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 11:10 am

Pass on Gordon. Pass on any RB in the 1st round. It's just not a good value pick, even before factoring in Lacy.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 12:02 pm

While I mostly agree with you.
Would you pass on Adrian Peterson in the first round?

Also, How would you feel if they traded back to the 33rd pick and drafted a RB? That is the start of the 2nd round.
Is that when you would start considering drafting a RB?

0 points
0
0
Evan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 01:00 pm

I'd pass on Adrian Peterson if they already had a young, top 5 RB on the roster and other needs to fill, yeah.

If Gordon or Gurley are there at 62, then it gets much more interesting.

I just see a #2/change-of-pace back to be a luxury item and your first pick (whether it's 30 or 33), should not be a luxury item.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 17, 2015 at 08:48 pm

It's not about luxury vs. necessity in all cases. The Packers need a vertical threat TE but they won't reach to get one. They shouldn't reach to get a middle of the road ILB or DT either if Gordon is available just because they need them. They'd be better served trading out of the first to a suitor that covers Gordon. Personally I think Green Bay would be foolish to pass him up unless they can accumulate significant picks. Otherwise they should take Gordon. I don't think he'll be there anyway.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 06:46 am

I am not saying that I think Gordon is Peterson or anything. I was just asking if you would take Peterson in the 1st round.

I'm not sure when it happened but all of a sudden the RB position has been devalued so much that all of a sudden most fans don't think a RB should go in the 1st round no matter what.

I do agree with what your saying for the most part. I just think anytime you have a chance to add a special player (which I think Gordon is), then you take him. So why not make the offense even stronger?
We know we need more help on defense, but at the same time, The defense played lights out in the championship game. The offense is what really let us down. Adding more firepower on offense I don't think is really a luxury item. I think its strengthening a strength.

And again, for me it comes down to value of the pick. If the Packers are picking at 30 and the clear cut best player on the board is Gordon, I take him. If Vic Beasley is available, I take him.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 17, 2015 at 04:24 pm

I'm just some internet hack sitting on my couch watching games on TV. But Melvin Gordon looks like a special player to me. He's no Dayne or Ball or Clay or whoever else has been the guy in Madison over the years, IMO. He's different. He's much better.

I can guarantee a special runner would have made a world of difference in Seattle when Rodgers was struggling with the combo of his injury, the #1 defense and windy, wet conditions. Damn right that's worth the #30 pick.

If TT and his staff agree with my assessment, they would be foolish to pass on "special" at 30 if given the opportunity. Eddie Lacy is good but he's not special. If my couch vantage point is telling the story, Lacy would be the change of pace guy, not Gordon.

The only reason it would not be worth the #30 pick is if you disagree with the assessment that Gordon is special. That's a perfectly reasonable position. I don't claim to have a crystal ball..just an opinion. But it is completely unreasonable to pass on special because you already have good.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

February 17, 2015 at 04:44 pm

It's reasonable to pass on "special" when the middle of your defense is like ours. I'm sure there's no one in the front office hoping for any QB, WR, RB, or TE to fall in the 1st round. I'd rather go OL than RB in the first if we don't go defensive.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 17, 2015 at 05:04 pm

Rodgers, Nelson and Cobb are not Packers today if TT shared your philosophy. So I'm thankful he does not.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

February 17, 2015 at 06:43 pm

I don't believe Nelson or Cobb were 1st round picks. Pick up your face.

Favre was pretty much out the door when we drafted Rodgers, so that pick made tons of sense.

Anything else?

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 06:51 am

The whole thing is. If there isn't a player worthy of being picked at 30 at those positions, what do you do? The best option is to go with the best player on the board. Regardless of position (except for QB, P, K....)

You would rather go OL in the 1st then RB? If the Packers resign Bulaga, where will that OL play? They will be sitting the bench unless there was an injury. If your drafting a player to sit on the bench, why not take a RB who can help the team?

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 17, 2015 at 08:41 pm

Lacy is the equivalent of the hitter who is a tough out and wears on a pitcher. Gordon can grind as well but also has the ability to hit the home run at a moments notice. Lacy isn't that type of back. I agree...there is no such thing as being overstocked with talent at the RB position..

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:31 pm

Could agree more POC

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 18, 2015 at 06:53 am

Great way of phrasing the style of Lacy and Gordon, Paul. The only Packer RB I've ever seen play that had the ability to grind down a defense while still possessing home run ability is Ahman Green, who is the best Packer RB of my lifetime, easily.

I'm not sure that Gordon will be as good as Ahman Green but I think he can be. And I'd take Green over Lacy any day based on what I've seen of both in a Packer uniform. That's not a knock on Lacy, either. He's pretty darn good too.

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

February 17, 2015 at 06:07 pm

TT has said any team is a sprained ankle away from a need at any position. So he goes BPA.

What I'm curious about is how the decision is made when say 3 players at different positions have identical draft grades. THEN does "need" take over? I'd ASSume so. And I know the risks involved in doing so.

0 points
0
0
DrealynWilliams's picture

February 17, 2015 at 06:48 pm

Do the Colts draft a QB in the first 2 rounds in any of the next 5 seasons?

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 17, 2015 at 08:36 pm

Yes if they believe any are markedly better than Luck but they won't because you don't try to create controversy at that position. You create stability. Runningbacks have a short shelf-life so the BPA methodology doesn't usually apply to the QB position when a young or in his prime QB is in place as it does for other positions like RB.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 18, 2015 at 07:21 am

The comparison of the RB and QB position is silly. Nobody successfully platoons QBs. Nobody even tries. QB is a unique position in football. There is an old saying that goes "If you think you have 2 good QBs, you probably don't have one". The basis of the saying is that you have to have one guy that is the undisputed guy.

Lots of teams successfully platoon RBs. In fact, it is becoming increasingly rare to see a NFL team commit exclusively to one RB being a workhorse. Even Marshawn Lynch and Eddie Lacy get rotated out and both are classic workhorse backs.

0 points
0
0
NitschkeFan's picture

February 17, 2015 at 07:11 pm

Too many needs. This team is ready to contend now. D is very needy up the middle, ILB and DT

Pick up a RB in later rounds if a quality RB drops that far. I am not that familiar with how "special" Gordon is, but if he is that special perhaps trade up into top half of round 2 to pick him up. If he's really really special and you must take him in round 1, then how likely is it that ILB and DT will be addressed with rookie starters?

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:35 pm

There will be an ILBer in round 2. I do like Dawson. He will most likely go in rd 1

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 07:01 am

I think Gordon is and will be special. Watch the Auburn bowl game, and even the LSU game earlier in the season. That's against the SEC which is essentially the NFL's minor league right now.

The Packers do need help on defense. But you simply can't reach for a player to fill a need. That isn't what Thompson does.

'but if he is that special perhaps trade up into top half of round 2 to pick him up.'
That doesn't make much sense to me. Packers are picking at 30 right now. Your saying to draft an ILB or DT with their first pick, then trade up from 62 to into the 30's to draft Gordon. They would be giving up their 2nd, 3rd, and probably 5th round picks to move up that high.
Why wouldn't they just draft him at 30 and then draft a DT or ILB in the 2nd round?

0 points
0
0
NitschkeFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 08:33 am

If the Packers rank Gordon as significantly higher than the available ILB or DT when pick 30 comes about, it's hard to argue against picking him.

I am just looking ahead to next season and really badly want an improved defense (especially up the middle) and not impressed that adding Gordon will significantly improve what is already one of the top 3 offenses in the league (assume that Cobb and Bulaga are back).

I do agree with "best available player" over "need" if the gap is significant, but i don't have a definition of "significant" - 10 spots better on your draft board, 15 , 20 ? If you rate Gordon just a few spots higher than the next available ILB/DT then I would take the defensive guy.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 18, 2015 at 08:51 am

The addition of Gordon would not be so much about propelling the Packers up the offensive rankings list as much as adding another dimension. And a rather important one considering the nasty weather in January that can wreck havoc on even the most well-oiled passing attack.

The simple fact is that Rodgers is less effective in January than in Sept-Nov. That's not any knock on Rodgers. Every QB that plays outside in the northern part of the country is the same. Wind and wet make passing more challenging and it is more likely to be windy and/or wet in Dec & Jan.

I absolutely agree that middle front 7 defense is the priority for this team this offseason. I don't think a credible argument can be made otherwise. But looking back at 2014, it sure would have been nice to grind out a few more 1st downs on the ground in Seattle. Had they been able to do that, they would be picking 31 or 32, instead of 30. That statement is all I need to think it is worthwhile to draft a special RB at 30...especially if there is no special talent at NT or ILB available.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 09:22 am

yeah, I completely agree.. You and i are thinking the exact same way with this.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 09:20 am

I completely get what your saying and agree with it.

I am just looking at the current rankings (on CBS) and they have Gordon as the 21st rated player. The top ILB if you count Paul Dawson is 44 overall...

Just looking at where the Packers are they would be better staying at 30, drafting Gordon (if he's the best available) and then if they had to, trade up in round 2 to get an ILB that they want.
I think the 2nd round is the better spot to land a Kendricks or a Perryman, anyways.

0 points
0
0
Tundraboy's picture

February 17, 2015 at 07:44 pm

With the lack of any ILBs oher than Barrington and a greater need for a DL,CB,TE, and OL, RB while a need has to be last.

0 points
0
0
Packer_Pete's picture

February 17, 2015 at 07:55 pm

agreed, especially since Lacy, Starks, and Neal are all under contract (only Harris is a FA at RB), and TT always finds some RB as undrafted FA. I believe a RB will be taken in the draft, but maybe during rounds 4 - 6.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 07:11 am

I agree, that RB is lower on the need list.

My whole point has been, If Gordon is the clear cut best player available, and all the players available at those positions aren't as good, why not take the best player?

ILB is probably the Packers top need. Problem with that is when you look at the where each player is rated there isn't an ILB worthy of their 1st round pick.
Currently on CBS, they have their top ILB rated at 48th overall. (44 if you consider Paul Dawson as a ILB) Is that 48th overall player worthy of the 30th pick? No...
There are 6 DT's rated with a 1st round grade. What if they are all gone?
There are 4 CB's with a 1st round grade that they may consider. What if they are all gone?

There is a lot yet to be determined and some players will move up in ranks and some will move down. I just think its better to take the best player available then to reach for a need.

0 points
0
0
Paul Ott Carruth's picture

February 17, 2015 at 08:27 pm

Highly unlikely Gordon drops out of the first round. Lowest he goes is 31 to Seattle. He could go as high as 10 to the Rams. I predict he goes 11 to the Vikings as Zimmer looks to put weapons around Bridgewater as Peterson is phased out over the next year. The Richardson experiment in Indy looks to have failed and the Colts need a back that can compliment Luck. Gordon could also end up in Dallas and Baltimore.

If he is available at 30 the Packers should take him. Athletically, Gordon is more explosive than any other back to come out of Wisconsin. He runs with power, is elusive and can outrun defenders. He can catch the ball despite what some scouts believe. Simply put he's a difference maker. The only other skill player that tilts the field is Cooper. These two guys are NFL ready from day 1. If you have a chance to get that type of a player regardless of need you take him because he instantly adds to your team. I think the Packers would be foolish to pass up Gordon and reach for an inside linebacker in a weak crop. There just aren't that many difference makers in the draft and when one falls in your lap you take it. I'll say it now....he's not getting past Schneider if he gets to 31.

0 points
0
0
4thand1's picture

February 17, 2015 at 10:38 pm

I know, then they let beast mode walk. nutcase.

0 points
0
0
HankScorpio's picture

February 18, 2015 at 07:03 am

With Marshawn Lynch doing the annual retirement kabuki dance thing, I completely agree that Seattle is the stopper to any possible slide by Melvin Gordon.

0 points
0
0
RCPackerFan's picture

February 18, 2015 at 07:25 am

I completely agree with you.

I can see any of those teams you mentioned taking him, or Gurley for that matter.
I think the highest would be 11 with the Vikings. I can see the Browns, Cardinals, Cowboys, and possibly the Broncos all considering him as well as who you mentioned. I also think the lowest he goes is Seattle at 31.

I'm not saying the Packers will draft Gordon, and there is a good chance he will be gone by the time the Packers pick, but if he is available and clearly the best player on the board, then i take him.

0 points
0
0