Would you lose your mind?

[HardRightEdge]

Today TT said "We try to stick to best player available. We feel like the draft is a long-term investment. We don't get too carried away with what our perceived needs are at the moment."

You know what they say. Pay attention to what a man does, not what he says.

 

[ivo610]

You know what they say. Pay attention to what a man does, not what he says.

??? Someone asked for when he said the concept of drafting for not this year but long term.

Regardless, if you have been paying attention you noticed he has done both.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

??? Someone asked for when he said the concept of drafting for not this year but long term.

Regardless, if you have been paying attention you noticed he has done both.

I think what HRE tried to say is that while Thompson has repeatedly told the media that the Packers take the best player available all the time his actions during the draft don´t show that to be true.

 

[ivo610]

I think what HRE tried to say is that while Thompson has repeatedly told the media that the Packers take the best player available all the time his actions during the draft show that to be true.

I'm not going to dig for it but the 2010 draft he had Crabtree rated higher than Raji but took Raji bc of the need.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'm not going to dig for it but the 2010 draft he had Crabtree rated higher than Raji but took Raji bc of the need.

Sorry, I forget to include a ´NOT´ in my previous post. I agree that Thompson doesn´t always take the best player available.

 

[Carl]

What TT does do is make sure every pick matches value, while also taking need into account.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not going to dig for it but the 2010 draft he had Crabtree rated higher than Raji but took Raji bc of the need.

There are quite a few examples. There's the ideal and then there are practical realities. Also, the "best player available" line has the convenient benefit of closing off discussion with the media about who/what he's looking for in the draft.

 

[TJV]

I'm not going to dig for it but the 2010 draft he had Crabtree rated higher than Raji but took Raji bc of the need.

That was the 2009 draft but I remember reading that too. My guess is if they would have had Crabtree rated far above Raji Thompson would have pulled the trigger on Crabtree. Crabtree was probably rated slightly above Raji.

Here’s an interview with Thompson from April 2011: "Obviously if there are what we would perceive as needs, that position might get a little more extra care or we might look at that a little more and maybe re-evaluate things a little bit more," Thompson said. "But at the end of the day, we still believe drafting the best player on the board is the best policy. You don't know what your needs are going to be. You might think you have a need at the end of April, or you may think you have a strong position at the end of April, but you don't know where that's going to be come August 1st, as we found out this season." http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2011/apr/25/packers-still-have-needs-address/#sthash.nJNNB8qT.dpuf

I remember seeing another interview with him in which he mentions the players on the roster also affect how prospects appear on the draft board - another way of saying need plays a part. There’s plenty of evidence need plays a part in Thompson’s drafts just as it does in every GM’s drafts. IMO Thompson is just more disciplined adhering to his board once its set. And he's more willing to trade down for what he perceives as equal value rather than 'falling in love' with a particular player.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The 2006 draft is a prime example. Thompson let Diggs and Lenon go, then turned around and drafted LBs in the 1st. and 3rd. rounds. 2011's defense was a fundamentally unsound crew...so he loaded up on defenders in the next draft including a 1st rounder who clearly did not want to play in 3-4. And to this day, Favre dead enders do not want to acknowledge that Rodgers was a need pick. Taucher/Clifton out...Bulaga/Sherrod in. Driver out...Nelson in.

 

[AmishMafia]

That was the 2009 draft but I remember reading that too. My guess is if they would have had Crabtree rated far above Raji Thompson would have pulled the trigger on Crabtree. Crabtree was probably rated slightly above Raji.

Here’s an interview with Thompson from April 2011: "Obviously if there are what we would perceive as needs, that position might get a little more extra care or we might look at that a little more and maybe re-evaluate things a little bit more," Thompson said. "But at the end of the day, we still believe drafting the best player on the board is the best policy. You don't know what your needs are going to be. You might think you have a need at the end of April, or you may think you have a strong position at the end of April, but you don't know where that's going to be come August 1st, as we found out this season." http://www.gazettextra.com/news/2011/apr/25/packers-still-have-needs-address/#sthash.nJNNB8qT.dpuf

I remember seeing another interview with him in which he mentions the players on the roster also affect how prospects appear on the draft board - another way of saying need plays a part. There’s plenty of evidence need plays a part in Thompson’s drafts just as it does in every GM’s drafts. IMO Thompson is just more disciplined adhering to his board once its set. And he's more willing to trade down for what he perceives as equal value rather than 'falling in love' with a particular player.

My memory on TTs quotes at the time led me to believe that some of the staff was pushing for Raji, some were pushing for Crabtree and that there was a heated debate up to submitting the pick. In my reading between the lines (imagination?) I think they had Crabtree rated as a better player, but they were devaluing him because of his attitude. And that, gave the edge to Raji. I have also heard that Oher was in the mix as well and the Packer braintrust never expected all 3 to be available at their pick. I also recall that CM was also a possibility if those 3 weren't there.

 

[HardRightEdge]

C'mon. We were switching from 4-3 to 3-4 and needed a NT. There was broad consensus in the mocks that Raji would be the pick for this very reason...and there you have it. At the same time, the 4-3 to 3-4 switch also required an edge rushing OLB, ergo Matthews. Need for a "bookend": Perry. Stated desire for more length and a better 5 tech / 3 tech pass rushing threat at DE (a hole not filled since Jenkins departure): Boyd.

 

[Carl]

The 2006 draft is a prime example. Thompson let Diggs and Lenon go, then turned around and drafted LBs in the 1st. and 3rd. rounds. 2011's defense was a fundamentally unsound crew...so he loaded up on defenders in the next draft including a 1st rounder who clearly did not want to play in 3-4. And to this day, Favre dead enders do not want to acknowledge that Rodgers was a need pick. Taucher/Clifton out...Bulaga/Sherrod in. Driver out...Nelson in.

I wouldn't call Rodgers a need pick considering it was years before Favre decided to retire.


Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wouldn't call Rodgers a need pick considering it was years before Favre decided to retire.

Picking Rodgers wasn't about addressing an immediate need, but with Favre hinting at retirement and Rodgers probably being by far the highest rated guy on Thompson's board he was the one representing the best value pick at the time.

 

[Carl]

Picking Rodgers wasn't about addressing an immediate need, but with Favre hinting at retirement and Rodgers probably being by far the highest rated guy on Thompson's board he was the one representing the best value pick at the time.

Yeah. He was great value as he was the possible number one overall guy. TT could have had him rated as a top 5 player.

When a guy rated that high drops that far, gotta take him.


Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

 

[HardRightEdge]

I wouldn't call Rodgers a need pick considering it was years before Favre decided to retire.


Enviado desde mi iPhone con Tapatalk

C'mon. Brett was turning 36 and had already made gestures toward retirement. He presented a risk that the franchise would wake up one day holding it's d*ck. There is likely no worse position to be in than under pressure to find a starting QB in short notice. We see this all the time...teams end up reaching and then start the guy before he's ready...and then flounder for years.

Tom Brady is turning 37 and his contract runs through 2017. He's made no gestures toward retirement. Yet Belichick has brought in QBs projected for the first and second round for meet and greets. Does anybody think that's because he merely thinks those might be "the best available player"?

A team without a franchise QB is like a decade without sunshine.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

C'mon. Brett was turning 36 and had already made gestures toward retirement. He presented a risk that the franchise would wake up one day holding it's d*ck. There is likely no worse position to be in than under pressure to find a starting QB in short notice. We see this all the time...teams end up reaching and then start the guy before he's ready...and then flounder for years.

I expect the Packers to draft Rodgers possible replacements pretty high in 4-5 years. It's not a sure bet Rodgers would have turned out to be the same player he's now if he had started from day 1.

om Brady is turning 37 and his contract runs through 2017. He's made no gestures toward retirement. Yet Belichick has brought in QBs projected for the first and second round for meet and greets. Does anybody think that's because he merely thinks those might be "the best available player"?

A team without a franchise QB is like a decade without sunshine.

It's possible one of the top QBs drop in this year's draft and great teams are prepared on case it happens, even if it doesn't address an immediate need.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Picking Rodgers wasn't about addressing an immediate need, but with Favre hinting at retirement and Rodgers probably being by far the highest rated guy on Thompson's board he was the one representing the best value pick at the time.

"Immediate" is the operative word. I hope we can agree that the most critical needs are not always the most immediate ones.

I have WR and CB high on the current needs list...not because of anything immediate but rather where we will find ourselves in 2015 vis a vis free agents.

Seizing an opportunity to fill a critical need before it becomes acute when a high value pick comes to you is clearly filling a need.

I expect a WR pick in the first 3 rounds...most likely the 2nd. round. It addresses a need, covers a risk, and it's a draft deep in WRs so there should be good value available.

 

[TJV]

I view the Rodgers pick as much more a value pick than a needs based one. Favre began his “retirement dance” in 2002, there was no reason to take it seriously. If Thompson considered Favre’s replacement as a critical need or an immediate need, IMO he would have been trying to trade up as Rodgers’ continued to fall. I don’t remember even a whisper of that. I’ll bet the Packers had Rodgers rated at or near the top of that draft so while Thompson was unwilling to move up for him, no matter what he viewed as immediate or critical needs, he had to take Rodgers because of the huge value he represented. IMO it's one of the best examples of Thompson's sticking to his draft philosophy in a disciplined way.

 

[Carl]

C'mon. Brett was turning 36 and had already made gestures toward retirement. He presented a risk that the franchise would wake up one day holding it's d*ck. There is likely no worse position to be in than under pressure to find a starting QB in short notice. We see this all the time...teams end up reaching and then start the guy before he's ready...and then flounder for years.

Tom Brady is turning 37 and his contract runs through 2017. He's made no gestures toward retirement. Yet Belichick has brought in QBs projected for the first and second round for meet and greets. Does anybody think that's because he merely thinks those might be "the best available player"?

A team without a franchise QB is like a decade without sunshine.

When a player like Rodgers dropped that far, cannot just say that was a need pick. Pick was fantastic value as well.

 

[Carl]

"Immediate" is the operative word. I hope we can agree that the most critical needs are not always the most immediate ones.

I have WR and CB high on the current needs list...not because of anything immediate but rather where we will find ourselves in 2015 vis a vis free agents.

Seizing an opportunity to fill a critical need before it becomes acute when a high value pick comes to you is clearly filling a need.

I expect a WR pick in the first 3 rounds...most likely the 2nd. round. It addresses a need, covers a risk, and it's a draft deep in WRs so there should be good value available.

I'd expect one of a few like DL, LB, safety, TE, WR but not any specific one for sure.

The draft is way too unpredictable for a GM to know going into it he's going to get one specific position at a certain time. It would be pretty hard to match value and need approaching the draft that way. For example, he may really like a certain 2nd round WR, but an even better LB just dropped a whole round. Gotta take the LB then.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I expect the Packers to draft Rodgers possible replacements pretty high in 4-5 years. It's not a sure bet Rodgers would have turned out to be the same player he's now if he had started from day 1.



It's possible one of the top QBs drop in this year's draft and great teams are prepared on case it happens, even if it doesn't address an immediate need.

Yeah, I would expect some close examination in about 5 years, whereby if a guy they really like falls to a spot perceived as high value, they'll take him. If that guy is not available, then rinse and repeat with each successive year. However, the longer one waits the less choosy one can be and the more risky the enterprise becomes.

One overlooked key advantage to bringing a successor in early is if he turns out to be a bust you get another shot in the next draft before the the issue becomes acute. As a thought experiment, consider the consequences if Aaron Rodgers had turned out be Brian Brohm? Bad mistakes are made sometimes. 2006 would have provided a second chance to address the issue before it became acute.

I have a hard time seeing the Packers taking a QB in the first 2 rounds regardless of who he is. That's a lot to spend on a guy who will likely play little, if any, before his 4 year contract is up. There is a backup issue in that Flynn is only on 1 year deal and Tolzien does not exactly inspire confidence.

It's been reported the Packers are entertaining Tom Savage for a pre-draft visit (along with a couple less valued guys). Some have him going as high as the upper second round. If Thompson likes him enough and he falls far enough Thompson might take him considering we might find ourselves without a credible backup in 2015.

 

[HardRightEdge]

When a player like Rodgers dropped that far, cannot just say that was a need pick. Pick was fantastic value as well.

I did not say he was "just" a need pick. The whole point is that the need was not "immediate"; while there's a cushion allowing you to pass if the right guy does not appear, that does not mean the need is not critical. Or as suggested in my previous post, the idea that Rodgers was a great value is only assured in retrospect; I'm sure Thompson thought Brohm was a "good value".

 

[Carl]

I did not say he was "just" a need pick. The whole point is that the need was not "immediate"; there's a cushion to pass if the right guy does not appear. That does not mean the need is not critical.

True, but I wouldn't use Rodgers as an example of need drafting since I think he represented more value than need.

 

[HardRightEdge]

True, but I wouldn't use Rodgers as an example of need drafting since I think he represented more value than need.

Well, suit yourself. If I'm a GM and my soon-to-be 36 year old franchise QB is gesturing retirement, then I'm getting very concerned and searching for Plan B goes toward the top of my priority list.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I view the Rodgers pick as much more a value pick than a needs based one. Favre began his “retirement dance” in 2002, there was no reason to take it seriously. If Thompson considered Favre’s replacement as a critical need or an immediate need, IMO he would have been trying to trade up as Rodgers’ continued to fall. I don’t remember even a whisper of that. I’ll bet the Packers had Rodgers rated at or near the top of that draft so while Thompson was unwilling to move up for him, no matter what he viewed as immediate or critical needs, he had to take Rodgers because of the huge value he represented. IMO it's one of the best examples of Thompson's sticking to his draft philosophy in a disciplined way.

There is an "and" in the equation...he was threatening retirement AND he was turning 36. People like to have multiple reasons for doing things. With each passing year the threat becomes more relevant and then at a certain point entirely irrelevant based on age alone (such as NE looking at high pick QBs).

Value without purpose is meaningless.