Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Would you lose your mind?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 552737"><p>Of course, this was never an argument of value OR need; rather a question of "skew" as you noted. I see we agree that Raji and Matthews skew toward need picks. Good, on both points. The reason we're talking about this for the umpteenth time is because Thompson dragged out the unvarnished and unqualified "best player available" rationale in his recent press conference.</p><p></p><p>In your link, Silverstein did not ask the elephant-in-the-corner question: "Can you explain your thinking in spending a first round pick on a player that may not see the field for many years? At 35, one would think Favre still has several good years in front of him." The non-controversial answer would have been to repeat "best player available, terrific value". That answer would not have been any more satisfying with the repetition, but the question would have put the unsatisfying nature of the answer front and center.</p><p></p><p>That the annual Favre retirement dance was frustrating the planning process or that the annual ring kissing ceremony had grown tiresome is not something that could be stated. Or Thompson could have stated in this case that Ron Wolf taught him you can't have enough good QBs because even if you can't play them you can trade them, but that's getting off on entirely the wrong foot with your first round heir apparent. Once again, the "best player available" explanation closes off discussion.</p><p></p><p>And in keeping with the notion that people prefer multiple reasons for what they do, with Favre at 35 going on 36, the likelihood of getting Rodgers on the field before his rookie contract was up, regardless of Favre's near term disposition, would be a compelling reason to consider filling the heir apparent position at that time as opposed to three years earlier.</p><p></p><p>"Need" does not mean you see a critical issue on the visible horizon, and elevate that need over all others for immediate action. However, once the critical, if non-immediate, need is acknowledged, one begins elevating the search for opportunity. Rodgers presented that opportunity, while the likelihood of a similar opportunity presenting itself in subsequent drafts, as the need grows more acute, is highly uncertain and leaves one prone to a reach.</p><p></p><p>I think we can agree we can thank our lucky starts it wasn't Jason Campbell, a guy Thompson "loved", a term rarely seen in his public vocabulary. The love of Campbell also goes to the point of 20/20 hindsight...had the pick been Campbell because Rodgers was taken, perhaps the "need" aspect of the pick would be more evident to some, and it might be more readily seen as a Favre succession strategy (or as I would put it, less charitably, a Favre exit strategy) as oppose to the evasive "best player available" rationnale.</p><p></p><p>Or, writ smaller, the Perry pick provides a similar 20/20 hindsight proposition. Had he been Matthews redux, some would be inclined to think he was the best available player. Since he isn't the view skews to the obvious need...a reach for need, in fact, given all the red flags this was not 3-4 player.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="HardRightEdge, post: 552737"] Of course, this was never an argument of value OR need; rather a question of "skew" as you noted. I see we agree that Raji and Matthews skew toward need picks. Good, on both points. The reason we're talking about this for the umpteenth time is because Thompson dragged out the unvarnished and unqualified "best player available" rationale in his recent press conference. In your link, Silverstein did not ask the elephant-in-the-corner question: "Can you explain your thinking in spending a first round pick on a player that may not see the field for many years? At 35, one would think Favre still has several good years in front of him." The non-controversial answer would have been to repeat "best player available, terrific value". That answer would not have been any more satisfying with the repetition, but the question would have put the unsatisfying nature of the answer front and center. That the annual Favre retirement dance was frustrating the planning process or that the annual ring kissing ceremony had grown tiresome is not something that could be stated. Or Thompson could have stated in this case that Ron Wolf taught him you can't have enough good QBs because even if you can't play them you can trade them, but that's getting off on entirely the wrong foot with your first round heir apparent. Once again, the "best player available" explanation closes off discussion. And in keeping with the notion that people prefer multiple reasons for what they do, with Favre at 35 going on 36, the likelihood of getting Rodgers on the field before his rookie contract was up, regardless of Favre's near term disposition, would be a compelling reason to consider filling the heir apparent position at that time as opposed to three years earlier. "Need" does not mean you see a critical issue on the visible horizon, and elevate that need over all others for immediate action. However, once the critical, if non-immediate, need is acknowledged, one begins elevating the search for opportunity. Rodgers presented that opportunity, while the likelihood of a similar opportunity presenting itself in subsequent drafts, as the need grows more acute, is highly uncertain and leaves one prone to a reach. I think we can agree we can thank our lucky starts it wasn't Jason Campbell, a guy Thompson "loved", a term rarely seen in his public vocabulary. The love of Campbell also goes to the point of 20/20 hindsight...had the pick been Campbell because Rodgers was taken, perhaps the "need" aspect of the pick would be more evident to some, and it might be more readily seen as a Favre succession strategy (or as I would put it, less charitably, a Favre exit strategy) as oppose to the evasive "best player available" rationnale. Or, writ smaller, the Perry pick provides a similar 20/20 hindsight proposition. Had he been Matthews redux, some would be inclined to think he was the best available player. Since he isn't the view skews to the obvious need...a reach for need, in fact, given all the red flags this was not 3-4 player. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Schultz
Latest posts
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 12:58 AM
Draft Talk
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 10:55 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 3rd round #88 MarShawn Lloyd RB
Latest: Poppa San
Yesterday at 10:38 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
R
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: RicFlairoftheNFL
Yesterday at 10:05 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Yesterday at 10:04 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Would you lose your mind?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top