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
2013 needs
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="TJV" data-source="post: 476347" data-attributes="member: 4300"><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'">One of the reasons I started the thread I linked to was specifically to debunk the idea of BPA and begin it by saying IMO no GM has ever strictly adhered to it and it would make no sense to do so.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">I didn't avoid the use of the word "need" scrupulously or otherwise. In fact in that thread I quote Thompson in response to a question saying, "It (need) is always going to be a factor, it’s not that it doesn’t factor in…" Where I see need fitting in is as Thompson constructs his draft board. I also agree he doesn't value some positions as highly as others, particularly interior OL. He has used a second and a third rounder on RBs so IMO he's following the trend in the NFL (which emphasizes the passing game over the running game) more than downgrading RBs ala OGs. Or perhaps he downgrades RBs who they view as runners "only" and not threats out of the backfield in the passing game. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">I didn't advance the idea of tiers as unique. As far as I could tell at the time it was new to the draft discussions on this board but not a new idea. I brought it up as an explanation of why Thompson departs from a strictly a BPA strategy. (BTW, I also credit B<strong>V</strong>A to an author whose article I linked to.) </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">Where we disagree is I do see Thompson's draft philosophy as unique. First, I think he uses the tier concept more than <em>almost</em> any other GM. His history of trading down is evidence of that IMO. Although it may sound mundane IMO he's unique in the discipline he shows in adhering to what his draft board is "telling him". From everything I've read and heard, the reason he's patient and disciplined is all the in-fighting among the scouts and coaching staff has already been resolved and then the draft board is finalized. </span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="font-family: 'Tahoma'"><span style="color: #000000">You see the Rodgers pick as a need pick and I don't so from my perspective there is no greater example of Thompson's discipline than his first pick as Packers GM. My guess is nearly every team in that draft had Rodgers and Smith graded as the top two QBs by a long shot. Some perhaps even had Rodgers graded slightly ahead of Smith. In addition my guess is every team views QB as the most important position in the NFL. But look at how many GMs passed on him for someone likely rated significantly lower on their draft boards. I think it's also an example of him taking the long view - again, that should be a big "duh!" regarding GMs but IMO most are as focused on the immediate future as their HCs (and sometimes they're one and the same). </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TJV, post: 476347, member: 4300"] [COLOR=#000000][FONT=Tahoma]One of the reasons I started the thread I linked to was specifically to debunk the idea of BPA and begin it by saying IMO no GM has ever strictly adhered to it and it would make no sense to do so.[/FONT][FONT=Georgia][/FONT][/COLOR] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]I didn't avoid the use of the word "need" scrupulously or otherwise. In fact in that thread I quote Thompson in response to a question saying, "It (need) is always going to be a factor, it’s not that it doesn’t factor in…" Where I see need fitting in is as Thompson constructs his draft board. I also agree he doesn't value some positions as highly as others, particularly interior OL. He has used a second and a third rounder on RBs so IMO he's following the trend in the NFL (which emphasizes the passing game over the running game) more than downgrading RBs ala OGs. Or perhaps he downgrades RBs who they view as runners "only" and not threats out of the backfield in the passing game. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]I didn't advance the idea of tiers as unique. As far as I could tell at the time it was new to the draft discussions on this board but not a new idea. I brought it up as an explanation of why Thompson departs from a strictly a BPA strategy. (BTW, I also credit B[B]V[/B]A to an author whose article I linked to.) [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]Where we disagree is I do see Thompson's draft philosophy as unique. First, I think he uses the tier concept more than [I]almost[/I] any other GM. His history of trading down is evidence of that IMO. Although it may sound mundane IMO he's unique in the discipline he shows in adhering to what his draft board is "telling him". From everything I've read and heard, the reason he's patient and disciplined is all the in-fighting among the scouts and coaching staff has already been resolved and then the draft board is finalized. [/COLOR][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=#000000]You see the Rodgers pick as a need pick and I don't so from my perspective there is no greater example of Thompson's discipline than his first pick as Packers GM. My guess is nearly every team in that draft had Rodgers and Smith graded as the top two QBs by a long shot. Some perhaps even had Rodgers graded slightly ahead of Smith. In addition my guess is every team views QB as the most important position in the NFL. But look at how many GMs passed on him for someone likely rated significantly lower on their draft boards. I think it's also an example of him taking the long view - again, that should be a big "duh!" regarding GMs but IMO most are as focused on the immediate future as their HCs (and sometimes they're one and the same). [/COLOR][/FONT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
DoURant
Latest posts
Transfer portal and NIL Money, how they have changed college sports".
Latest: Voyageur
48 minutes ago
College Sports
2022 Draft Romeo Doubs #132
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Yesterday at 7:55 PM
Draft Talk
NFC North Draft Review (2025)
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 4:57 PM
Draft Talk
Starting 5 - CB
Latest: gopkrs
Yesterday at 1:37 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Mediocre punters from da past and other things....
Latest: Calebs Revenge
Yesterday at 10:39 AM
NFL Discussions
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2013 needs
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
