This notion that Ted is different from other GM's when it comes to the draft.

I hear fans on the internet, and a lot of them here talking about how Ted Thompson drafts, 'The BPA, regardless of position.' And honestly I don't even know what that means. General managers and coaches who make draft picks do all the same things. They grade the players, they rank them, and then they determine who's a fit, and go off that list.

Ted Thompson doesn't really do anything differently than any other decision maker in football, well he tends to make better decisions, but fundamentally he's no different.

This notion that Ted Thompson drafts 'BPA' and that it's somehow unique, or a certain draft style is absurd. Everyone drafts their own 'BPA'. Just because a team takes a player 18th in the draft and Mel Kiper has him ranked 45th, it doesn't mean a team reached a need, all these teams have players ranked differently...

You can look through EVERY draft pick in a draft and say, 'That pick fit a need for them'. There's not a pick in the draft that isn't a need in some fashion.

Ted Thompson has NEVER made a selection that didn't correct some need on our roster.

I just don't understand some of this language when it comes to the draft, just wanted to discuss it.

Aaron Rodgers
Justin Harrell
Jordy Nelson

Players drafted in the 1st or 2nd round when most agreed the Packers had much bigger needs elsewhere. Those are the obvious ones, and there are others less obvious ones.

You can argue that every position is just one injury away from being a team weakness.

Just look at the draft. Most of the mockers out there are guessing, team X has a poor OL. Look for them to draft player Y. Well, some mockers do pretty well. I would say most GMs actually weigh the 'need' component significantly heavier than TT. Sure TT is not going to draft 3 QBs with his first 3 picks because they are BPA, so he does have some small BPA compenent to his draft selection process. But of all the GMs out there? I think TT is the purest BPA guy out there.

All of those were needs.

We needed a QB to groom, we needed depth at DT, and we needed depth at WR because of where our offensive identity was leaning.

I get what you're saying, there's just really no difference between what Thompson does and what 90% of decision makers do.

I hear what you're saying, but a lot of GMs fool themselves by ranking players ahead of others based on position of need, and say that they're drafting PBA, when it's not true.

If TT thinks a WR is better at being a WR than a HB is at being a HB, he grades him higher, regardless if we need a WR or a RB.

He also stays "truer" (is that a word? To lazy to look up) to his evaluation than most when deciding between close players. A lot of GMs tend to decide between similar players by choosing the one that play a position of need. But they tend to diminish the gap between such players, believing that they're similar when in reality they're not. TT identifies the "gap" better.

There is one distinctive difference between TT and most of the GMs, and that is that when he needs to make a decision based on need, he looks for future needs, not current ones. Kolbert from the Steelers has the same MO, Newsome from the Ravens to a lesser extent...

But you're right, the great distinction between TT and the rest isn't on philosophy. It's on talent, capacity of properly evaluating players and finding good scouts...

Those were needs, but future needs.

We didn't need a QB to groom, not at that point, considering Favre's durability. But we would later.

We didn't need DT depth, we had Pickett, Williams, Jenkins and Jolly. But we would in later, with Williams' trade.

We didn't need WR depth. We had Driver still playing great, and both Jennins and Jones as potential stars. 3 very good to great receivers is what most teams have, and we had that. We had some quality with Ferguson as well.

And, most of all, those were far from the greatest needs. We had much pressing ones during that time, and we didn't SEEM to adress them at the draft.

2005 we had seemingly every need possible, but IIRC, replacing the guards was the biggest.
2007 we needed a WR, S, DL, OL and RB
2008 we needed DL, S, and OL badly

truercomparative of true

Adjective: In accordance with fact or reality: "a true story"; "of course it's true".
Adverb: Truly: "he spoke truer than he knew"
:Talkative:

I've always said that I think he takes the best player available at a position of need. What I think he does, and this is strictly guesswork, is lays out beforehand which positions could use some bodies, and then takes the best player available on his board at one of those positions.

Because let's be honest, if Blaine Gabbert falls to us, Ted's not taking him, despite him being probably the best player available.

I also think that, but that's not because he doesn't do BPA.

That's just a position that the Packers are set and for the foreseeable future.

We're set at WR, per example, but due to DD's age, it's not a position of need but it's a position that could be a need in the future.

QB and TE are the only positions which I don't see that. We have a young starter and quality, young depth at those.

^^Yep, two of the few positions where there is quality youth and depth. Can you honestly say you'd be surprised if we were to pick someone at any other position? Well, probably not ILB, RB or safety either. But you'd have to say any other position on the team is a potential future need pick.
I just contradicted myself, you know....
this is a pretty darned good football club.

Well, ILB just because I don't see any big player in there, but if there was a 1st round talent, I wouldn't be surprised if they took him, a guy like Mayo, for example.

At RB, they could take a 3rd round back, a guy with good blocking and that was a receiving threat. if they decide not to re-sign Jackson. Or if there's a great talent available, like Mark Ingram. But otherwise, I don't see it.

And at S, there're still questions about Burnett, Peprah, and they need a backup for Collins, so I could definitely see them taking a S later on.