2013 needs

[13 Times Champs]

I thought I didn't have us taking a CB... Hayward, House, Tramon all pretty young, Shields very young....

My bad Frank, Posted by hypongrey.

"4. Young Talent

McMillian
Perry
Moses
Worthy
Daniels
Hayward
*Coleman"

 

[HyponGrey]

We're down to 4--Tramon, Sheilds, Hayward, and House. Woodson is done as a corner and might not make the roster next year.

Bush is *technically* a corner

 

[HyponGrey]

My bad Frank, Posted by hypongrey.

"4. Young Talent

McMillian
Perry
Moses
Worthy
Daniels
Hayward
*Coleman"

I did forget House didn't I?

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

TT drafted all defense last time, this time will be all O line to protect Arod...lol...joking

 

[FrankRizzo]

Teams usually dress 8 OL for a game, and I have seen 7 many times this season.
So with Bulaga, Sitton, Lang, Newhouse, and hopefully Sherrod coming back next year, that's 5 already there plus whoever is center. Either old Saturday or a new guy, so that's 6. And Barclay looked promising yesterday first time out there.

With the way guys get hurt, we really need depth on the OL all the way thru the practice squad.

Why doesn't the damn NFL let teams dress more than 47? College dresses like 80, 90, 100 on gamedays and the NFL is way more physical.... like train collisions every play, with people flying low all the time at ACL's.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

^ I doubt they could pay the salaries of 80+ starters

 

[HyponGrey]

^ I doubt they could pay the salaries of 80+ starters

We pay to have 53 on the roster, why can't we play 53 is what Rizzo is saying. The answer? To protect injured players. If you can't play X number of players anyway, that's X number of injured players who don't have to worry about teams cutting them to bring in somebody who can play that sunday.

 

[adambr2]

I don't think we need a corner at all. Tramon, Shields, Hayward, House, and Bush will all be back, there's barely room for another. If they want to draft a late round "project" CB, fine by me.

Wouldn't hurt to draft a safety. Hard to say how long Woodson will be around and between Burnett, McMillian, and Jennings, I'm not supremely confident in our safety play.

OLB shouldn't be a need, Perry will return and Moses will provide some nice depth. Inside they will be very deep, with Bishop, DJ Smith, and I assume still Hawk.

They could use some help on the D-line, Pickett will be gone soon and Raji may not be re-signed. That's really the only need on D. Other than that, same old story -- get healthy again.

On offense, I'd like to see what we get out of Barclay before saying how big our needs are on the O-line. We will presumably have Bulaga and Sherrod both back. We do need a center, though. Saturday isn't cutting it and may not even be back.

If there's a game-changing RB in the 1st round at our spot, it would be hard to pass up. If Jennings isn't back, we will probably want a WR in the early rounds.

 

[ExpatPacker]

I think Center is a position that we absolutely must fill. Of the Centers in the draft I'd take the following if they are available when we pick:

Round 1: Barrett Jones, Ala
Round 2: Jonathan Cooper, UNC.
Round 3 or 4: Braden Hansen, BYU
Round 4-5: Braxton Cave, ND

 

[AmishMafia]

At least last year's draft finally put TT's "best player available" charade to be bed. It has been, and will likely continue to be, "best player available at positions of need" taking into account front line guys who might be gone after 2013.

What you are saying, then, is that Thompson traded up to get a player that he knew he could still get later in the draft.

More likely, is that TT felt the player would not be available later so he had to trade up to get him. Therefore, he was likely the BPA when TT selected him. I have yet to see any evidence of TT drafting anything other than BPA.

 

[HardRightEdge]

What you are saying, then, is that Thompson traded up to get a player that he knew he could still get later in the draft.

More likely, is that TT felt the player would not be available later so he had to trade up to get him. Therefore, he was likely the BPA when TT selected him. I have yet to see any evidence of TT drafting anything other than BPA.

Your first comment makes no sense. If you see a need, and you do not expect the players best suited to fill that need to be left on the board, it would make sense to trade up to fill that need. If anything, trading up supports the "need" argument. A habit of trading down would better support a BPA argument...nobody on the board represents good value for that pick, regardless of need, so you stockpile picks where there is likely to better value per pick regardless of need.

BPA means you never take a guy who isn't the highest graded player on your board, regardless of position or need. It also means that if you trade up, it is not because you're considering need; it is because you see a player that represents remarkable value regardless of position. If you define it another way, then it is not "best player available" and you should not use that term. I don't see where any of our high picks other than Nelson would have represented a significant market inefficiency being exploited.

It confounds me when people don't see the "need" elements in TT's drafts, starting with Aaron Rodgers, continuing through Hawk/Hodge, on to Raji, and through Bulaga, Sherrod and Perry.

And I will reiterate...I did not like the Perry pick at the time it was made, I've found no reason to change my mind, and from a BPA standpoint it was a reach given the risks in converting a guy who is a 4-3 DE and who clearly indicated he wanted to play 4-3 DE. He even added weight for the Combine to make his point. But heck, we NEEDED a guy.

 

[mradtke66]

Your first comment makes no sense. If you see a need, and you do not expect the players best suited to fill that need to be left on the board, it would make sense to trade up to fill that need. If anything, trading up supports the "need" argument.

BPA means you never take a guy who isn't the highest graded player on your board, regardless of position or need. It also means that if you trade up, it is not because you're considering need; it is because you see a player that represents remarkable regardless of position. If you define it another way, then it is "not best player available" and you should not use that term.

It confounds me when people don't see the "need" elements in TT's drafts, starting with Aaron Rodgers, continuing through Hawk/Hodge, on to Raji, and through Bulaga, Sherrod and Perry.

I don't see it supporting the "draft for need" argument. I think part of "drafting for need" is being thrown around too much.

When you have the 15th pick and you draft a tight end that your board says is the best tight end but is only the 72nd best player in the draft, because you need a tight end, you have drafted for need and screwed yourself. If you're drafting 15th, need a corner, and you have 3 choices you'd be happy making at 15 and one of them is a corner, you haven't drafted for need (by my definition). Minor nit, but important IMHO.

Now, I argue that drafting up isn't necessarily 'drafting for need.' Consider the Heyward pick (pretty sure we traded up for him.) We got him at #62. If Thompson put a grade on him of 30th best player, he's crapping his pants because, OMG, he's still there. Trading up is getting great value for the pick, not necessarily picking to fill a need.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Your first comment makes no sense. If you see a need, and you do not expect the players best suited to fill that need to be left on the board, it would make sense to trade up to fill that need. If anything, trading up supports the "need" argument. A habit of trading down would better support a BPA argument...nobody on the board represents good value for that pick, regardless of need, so you stockpile picks where there is likely to better value per pick regardless of need.

BPA means you never take a guy who isn't the highest graded player on your board, regardless of position or need. It also means that if you trade up, it is not because you're considering need; it is because you see a player that represents remarkable value regardless of position. If you define it another way, then it is not "best player available" and you should not use that term. I don't see where any of our high picks other than Nelson would have represented a significant market inefficiency being exploited.

It confounds me when people don't see the "need" elements in TT's drafts, starting with Aaron Rodgers, continuing through Hawk/Hodge, on to Raji, and through Bulaga, Sherrod and Perry.

And I will reiterate...I did not like the Perry pick at the time it was made, I've found no reason to change my mind, and from a BPA standpoint it was a reach given the risks in converting a guy who is a 4-3 DE and who clearly indicated he wanted to play 4-3 DE. He even added weight for the Combine to make his point. But heck, we NEEDED a guy.

I didn't like the Perry pick either and somewhere in these archives LTF could if necessary pull up my disappointment.

 

[HardRightEdge]

When you have the 15th pick and you draft a tight end that your board says is the best tight end but is only the 72nd best player in the draft, because you need a tight end, you have drafted for need and screwed yourself.

No argument there, but that does not support the BPA argument. How about if that TE was graded #25, the difference between #25 and #15 was not substantial (which is usually the case), TE is a big need for you, and the guys you have graded #15 - #24 are not positions of need. TE might be the wise choice.

BPA is thrown around too much. The only instances where you might see evidence that the practice is used in any meaningful way is with bad teams undergoing management and coaching changes with holes and clubhouse problems all over the place.

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say we had Von Miller together with Matthews going into that last draft. Would TT have reached for Perry at that draft position? No way. That puts a dent in the BPA argument.

Let's look at Heyward. We play 70% nickel. Woodson needed to move to safety. There was no one else on the roster to fill that need. Look in the dictionary under nickel corner and there's Heyward's picture. Better trade up else you find yourself holding your d*ck.

I would have thought those 6 defense picks would have finally put this argument to bed. I cannot think of any reason why it hasn't except that fans can't believe TT was "deceiving" them , even if he has abundant reasons to dish the BPA story even if it wasn't true.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I didn't like the Perry pick either and somewhere in these archives LTF could if necessary pull up my disappointment.

My pre-draft comments are on the Press Gazette forum, where I used to hang out before they required a Facebook account. It was my considered opinion at the time that Perry screamed 4-3 DE. That's where he played in college with his hand in the dirt, that's where he said he wanted to play in the pros, and then he put an exclamation point on it by beefing up to 270 lbs. for the Combine. He looked like a DE, he wants to be a DE, and so far he's looked like a DE playing OLB.

I may have some comments here from training camp reiterating those opinions. You certainly won't find any enthusiasm for his prospects coming from me, other than a fan's note that I hope he proves me wrong. To me his upside is probably as an OK starter, 6 sacks, OK against the run, suspect in coverage...about what we got out of the "Combo" (Walden/Zombo) in 2010.

It was my pre-draft opinion that if we were going to take this kind of conversion risk, I would have rather seen us take Vinny Curry, who as it turns out could have been had in a trade down. Now, Curry will be taking some of Babin's snaps. We won't know how Curry might have been at OLB unless the Philly overhaul includes a conversion to 3-4, but the guy is strong and has a serious motor. TT liked the USC pedigree.

 

[12theTruth]

Center
Tackle
Placekicker for competition and possible replacement
Stud DE- maybe trade up if circumstances are right
DT- draft for depth and succesor to Pickett
RB - Not sure how high. If Campen still here, why bother.
QB - competitioin for Graham Harrell as #2

Definitely a new strength and conditioning coach. Hopefully a new offensive line coach.

 

[adambr2]

TT is one of the most patient GMs you will ever find. He certainly isnt one to panic and grab a player to try to fill a need. I am certain that his scouts felt Perry was worthy of the pick there and could make the transition.

Matthews also played a DE on USCs defensive front and has become an elite OLB. Not saying Perry will be that same guy, just saying that just because a guy played with his hand down in college doesnt mean he cant transition to a 3-4 OLB.

Obviously, the scouts feel he can, so lets give him more than 5 or 6 games in his rookie year before we define his upside. Im not promising he will be a great 3-4 OLB, but he certainly has the athleticism to make that transition.

 

[mradtke66]

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say we had Von Miller together with Matthews going into that last draft. Would TT have reached for Perry at that draft position? No way. That puts a dent in the BPA argument.

Yes, if we had Von Miller, a lot of things would be different. However, one big flaw--you presume Perry was a reach. For all you know, Thompson had him listed as the 18th best player on his board and was baffled that he was there when our number came up.

 

[mradtke66]

Let's look at Heyward. We play 70% nickel. Woodson needed to move to safety. There was no one else on the roster to fill that need. Look in the dictionary under nickel corner and there's Heyward's picture. Better trade up else you find yourself holding your d*ck.

Trading up is different. That identifying a player you like and getting him because you can. It fills a need but that isn't the same as "drafting for need."

As far as "no one else on the roster," I disagree. We would have been hurting now with injuries, but we would have survived just fine with Shields, House, and Tramon as our three corners in nickel.

I would have thought those 6 defense picks would have finally put this argument to bed. I cannot think of any reason why it hasn't except that fans can't believe TT was "deceiving" them , even if he has abundant reasons to dish the BPA story even if it wasn't true.

And then there's Jordy Nelson and Aaron Rodgers. Two picks we didn't need at the time.

I'm not going to say that need doesn't factor into his picks, but it isn't the main driver. He takes players in roughly the right place according to draft experts and others. For example, as much as the Neal pick drove people nuts at the time as a 'reach,' the NFL Network (correct network?) snafu that showed the Cowboy's draft board showed that at worst Green Bay picked him at the correct spot. At best, the Cowboys were ready to draft him with their up coming pick.

 

[AmishMafia]

No argument there, but that does not support the BPA argument. How about if that TE was graded #25, the difference between #25 and #15 was not substantial (which is usually the case), TE is a big need for you, and the guys you have graded #15 - #24 are not positions of need. TE might be the wise choice.

BPA is thrown around too much. The only instances where you might see evidence that the practice is used in any meaningful way is with bad teams undergoing management and coaching changes with holes and clubhouse problems all over the place.

Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say we had Von Miller together with Matthews going into that last draft. Would TT have reached for Perry at that draft position? No way. That puts a dent in the BPA argument.

Let's look at Heyward. We play 70% nickel. Woodson needed to move to safety. There was no one else on the roster to fill that need. Look in the dictionary under nickel corner and there's Heyward's picture. Better trade up else you find yourself holding your d*ck.

I would have thought those 6 defense picks would have finally put this argument to bed. I cannot think of any reason why it hasn't except that fans can't believe TT was "deceiving" them , even if he has abundant reasons to dish the BPA story even if it wasn't true.

Here's some issues with your theories:

Drafting for need: Most people use this term to describe a draft pick that was a major reach. You need a TE and you take a player a tier below because he is the highest graded TE. If you are at 25 and the only players left are in the same tier, one is a TE and you pick him, that is still BPA.

Tiers: There are enough quotes out there from TT to realize the the Packers use a tier system to grade players. Although they list them in order - it is understood that their are talent tiers. That is to say, the first tier may have 6 players, the 2nd has 12 players and the 3rd tier may be 18 players starting. If you are drafting 15, you should have your pick of at least 3 - 2nd tier guys. You, obviously, pick the one that is your teams greatest need. But that is still BPA.

As far as your Miller/Matthews argument; again, there may have been a TE or OT that the Packers had rated in the same tier as Perry. If not - you still take Perry.

Trading up for Heyward. Again, how on earth can that not be BPA? TT is sitting in the 3rd round at pick 90ish. He sees a player that is rumored to have a Packer 1st round grade. TT decides that it is very unlikely that Heyward will last to 90ish. So he pulls the trigger and moves up to take him. BPA. Lets suppose Heyward is rated in the tier starting at the 100th best player. Why would TT trade up to do a reach? It makes zero sense.


Trading down: Again this can be supported by BPA. If you are picking 40th, and when your pick comes, there are 12 players in your tier, and a team 10 picks back is offering to trade up, why not? You are bringing the same amount of talent to your team, and you are adding another player later. The cost, of course, is that you have less positional choices. When TT started and the roster was bare, that strategy made a lot of sense.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm not going to say that need doesn't factor into his picks, but it isn't the main driver. He takes players in roughly the right place according to draft experts and others. For example, as much as the Neal pick drove people nuts at the time as a 'reach,' the NFL Network (correct network?) snafu that showed the Cowboy's draft board showed that at worst Green Bay picked him at the correct spot. At best, the Cowboys were ready to draft him with their up coming pick.

Having a draft board similar to Jerry Jones's doesn't fill me with any confidence.

 

[HardRightEdge]

TT is one of the most patient GMs you will ever find. He certainly isnt one to panic and grab a player to try to fill a need. I am certain that his scouts felt Perry was worthy of the pick there and could make the transition.

Saying that need is component of the draft decision process in no way implies "panic".

 

[HardRightEdge]

Yes, if we had Von Miller, a lot of things would be different. However, one big flaw--you presume Perry was a reach. For all you know, Thompson had him listed as the 18th best player on his board and was baffled that he was there when our number came up.

Simply put, if you acknowledge that we would have passed on Perry if we had Matthews/Miller, then need enters into the equation. If you think we would have taken Perry regardless, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And like I said, I hope to be proven wrong.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Trading up is different. That identifying a player you like and getting him because you can. It fills a need but that isn't the same as "drafting for need."

So long it is acknowledged that need is a component of the decision process, then the term "best player available" is rendered meaningless.

As far as "no one else on the roster," I disagree. We would have been hurting now with injuries, but we would have survived just fine with Shields, House, and Tramon as our three corners in nickel.

That's a bit of revisionist history. At the time of the draft, Shields was so deep in the dog house they started camp with Bush at the top of the depth chart. You have to believe they were aware of Bush's limitations, which gives some indication of how p*ssed they were with Shields' 2011 play. House was injured almost from the start of camp in 2011. They went into the draft with Tramon and a bunch of question marks. Woodson going to safety exacerbated the problem. They needed a quality guy who had a chance of coming in and producing as a rookie to offset those risks.

And then there's Jordy Nelson and Aaron Rodgers. Two picks we didn't need at the time.

Nelson is really the only high pick example I can thing of that fits BPA, with many examples that don't. Arguing that Rodgers pick did not have a need component is naive. Favre was turning 36 in the year Rodgers was drafted. Proper planning would have a rookie QB should sit on the bench for the first two years. Notice I did not even mention Favre's pain-in-the-*** tendencies.

Ask youself this...had Favre been 25 years old when the chance to pick Rodgers had come along, would they have picked him? The answer has to be "unlikely", for the same reasons we have Harrell and Coleman sitting on our bench. In that case Rodgers might have been the best player available, but that would have been a lot of money (pre-rookie salary structure) for a guy who would not see the field in a Packer uni, and that's a need consideration.

I'm not going to say that need doesn't factor into his picks, but it isn't the main driver.

You'll get no argument from me. But that's not the same thing as "best player available" and that does not preclude reaching some to fill a need.

 

[HyponGrey]

I know TT specifically targeted Perry in the first, now whether that means he would have passed on a better option or traded back up to get him I cannot say. I can however say that TT drafts the best value available. BVA takes need into account, and "trader Ted" will use trades to draft the BPA that fits one of our needs. I also know Ted has certain players that for some unknown reason he just has to have (Terrell Manning)