Best offseason in the NFC north

[Deleted member 6794]

2013 was Lucks second season. He passed for 4700 yrds and 40 tds. He was not as good as Rodgers but much better than any backup we had. Rodgers was rusty and rushed back for the playoffs. he should have not played and he was not nearly the same as the beginning of the season. Luck would have been a better option.

Forst of all Luck threw for 3,800 yards and only 23 TDs in 2013, his second season in the NFL. The stats you posted were from last year.

In addition he wouldn't have played a single snap in 2012 had he been on the Packers roster, so his stats replacing Rodgers would have most likely looked similar to his rookie season.

When Favre came out - Ron Wolf had him rated as the #1 player in the draft. Unfortunately he didn't have a first round pick. He was taken the pick before his first pick in the 2nd round.

I would say it was pretty fortunate for the Packers that Atlanta selected Favre ahead of the Jets. There's no guarantee they would have traded him as well.

When the Packers drafted BJ Raji, they strongly considered Crabtree. If both were gone their selection would have been Clay Matthews. Who they drafted later at 26th.

How do you know that for a fact???? If you were present in the draft room during the 2009 draft you should have taken a close look at how the board was set up.

 

[AmishMafia]

One of the most foolish statements you've ever posted IMO. In your example you say there’s a tier of 18 players in a tier but the Packers would not favor one over the others since there are no gradations of talent among them. Of course there are gradations within tiers and a marked drop off from one tier to the next. So we’re back to the “incredible coincidences” I listed and HRE expanded upon. Again, a naïve point of view IMO.

You are not even trying to understand. And if you did want to understand there are enough quotes out there from Packer Front office to put it together.

 

[AmishMafia]

How do you know that for a fact???? If you were present in the draft room during the 2009 draft you should have taken a close look at how the board was set up.

A quote at the time was that there were 3 players they wanted at 9 and they were sure 1 or 2 would be there for their pick. They were ecstatic they ended up with 2 of them.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A quote at the time was that there were 3 players they wanted at 9 and they were sure 1 or 2 would be there for their pick. They were ecstatic they ended up with 2 of them.

A link would be appreciated.

 

[AmishMafia]

A link would be appreciated.

Based on memory. I will google later.

 

[TJV]

Jason Wilde wrote a story in April titled, “Thompson: Team needs won't be ignored in draft”.

One of the great misconceptions advanced by AmishMafia about Ted Thompson’s approach to the NFL Draft – much like the belief that the wry, close-to-the-vest Green Bay Packers general manager never says anything important or interesting during his annual pre-draft Q&A sessions – is that need doesn’t factor into his decisions. It does.

(I may have added the underlined words. )

The proverbial best player available might be Thompson’s ideal, but need won’t be completely ignored in the Packers’ draft room during next week’s 2015 NFL Draft, which will be Thompson’s 11th as the Packers’ decision-maker. "You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations,” Thompson said during his annual pre-draft news conference Wednesday. “There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need, but I am adamant that that's not the way to draft. The way to draft is to take the best player.”

IMO this is the essence of what I and others have been trying to convey. Of course need factors into draft decisions. As it should. As the evidence shows, but it doesn’t factor into Thompson’s decisions as much as it does for the vast majority of teams.

“If you reach and take something that’s not quite as good, then you may not be getting the same value. I know you don’t believe that, but it’s true. That’s what we do.” That said, Thompson hasn’t been above reaching – or being more influenced by need than he’d care to admit – in the past. Sometimes, it’s worked out. Others, it has not.

During his press briefing before the 2009 draft, Thompson conducted something of a guided tour of the setup of his board – explaining how each position is listed across the top of the grid to create vertical columns, and the seven rounds are listed along the left-hand side of the grid to create horizontal rows.

If he drafted purely BPA, why would players be listed by position? Wilde answers that by writing the obvious, “because he sets his board up that way, need is factored into his decisions”.

When the Packers go on the clock on April 30 for their first-round pick at No. 30, Thompson should have multiple players still left on his board with first-round grades. (If he doesn’t, he and his staff will likely be working the phones, looking to trade back into the second round and accumulate more selections.) If one of those remaining players with a first-round grade happens to play a position of need – say, inside linebacker (or cornerback) – Thompson will be able to factor that in, even though he insisted Wednesday that he feels no added pressure to fill obvious roster holes with draft picks.

(Again, I added the underlined words.)

Wilde goes on to talk about the 2011 and 2012 drafts. Wilde states what I think is obvious about the 2012 draft:

What got Thompson in trouble in 2012, though, was drafting for need – even though he would deny such a charge – because his defense finished the 2011 season ranked dead last in the 32-team NFL…

But as I look over all 11 of Thompson drafts, that draft stands out as the exception rather than the rule. IMO Thompson excels drafting because he’s more disciplined than almost all of the other GMs. Yes he drafts for need, but he also isn’t afraid to grab a highly rated player at an already strong position. Yes I think he reached more than once in the 2012 draft, but that’s the exception, not the rule.

“You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need…” From the horse’s mouth.

http://www.channel3000.com/sports/packers/the-need-for-need/32511624

 

[mradtke66]

Was Rodgers a need pick? Sure he was, just not for the 2005 season.

That statement is probably the biggest complaint I have at both sides of the argument. Next year, the "luxury pick" fills a need. Every pick is a need pick because this is Not-For-Long football.

Picks don't exist in a vacuum--the defensive picks of 2011, the Raji/Matthews picks of 2009. But neither does TT make a habit of reaching for players to fill a need--not taking an ILB in 2014 or until the 4th this year.

You guys seem to presume it has to be one or the other: BPA or Need. And you're communicating poorly because of that. I'd say overall, TT's picks seem to line up in terms of slot--his number 1's look like number 1's (at least at draft-time. It is still a crap shoot.)

To BPA proponents, which is what I most identify as, "drafting for need" means taking a lesser player to fill a need.

I'd say the two corners we selected this year highlight it. We lost two corners, so we drafted two corners (need.) BUT--They don't really line up with our true need at outside corner (BPA.) And then we ignored our (perceived) biggest hole at ILB until the 4th round (need doesn't equal value, so...BPA? Maybe?)

Talk about a rambling reply. . .

 

[AmishMafia]

Jason Wilde wrote a story in April titled, “Thompson: Team needs won't be ignored in draft”. (I may have added the underlined words. ) IMO this is the essence of what I and others have been trying to convey. Of course need factors into draft decisions. As it should. As the evidence shows, but it doesn’t factor into Thompson’s decisions as much as it does for the vast majority of teams. If he drafted purely BPA, why would players be listed by position? Wilde answers that by writing the obvious, “because he sets his board up that way, need is factored into his decisions”. (Again, I added the underlined words.)

Wilde goes on to talk about the 2011 and 2012 drafts. Wilde states what I think is obvious about the 2012 draft: But as I look over all 11 of Thompson drafts, that draft stands out as the exception rather than the rule. IMO Thompson excels drafting because he’s more disciplined than almost all of the other GMs. Yes he drafts for need, but he also isn’t afraid to grab a highly rated player at an already strong position. Yes I think he reached more than once in the 2012 draft, but that’s the exception, not the rule.

“You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need…” From the horse’s mouth.

http://www.channel3000.com/sports/packers/the-need-for-need/32511624

Thats funny. I read the same article and am completely confident in my stance.

You truncate TTs quote. You add quotes. And you leave out 3 quotes where TT refutes your entire theory. Whats funny, is Wilde is as confused as you. He uses your same evidence to support his theory. TT even lets Wilde know he doesnt understand. "I know you wont believe it, but it's true. Thats what we do." (Don't draft for need)

TT: "Theres a certain amount of weighting in terms of need, but I am adamant that is not the way we do things around here."

The quote you used out of context sounds different when taken as a whole.

TT also states "The way to draft is to take the best player"

So who do you think knows the Packers draft philosophy - TT or Wilde?

Wilde's problem is your problem. You dont believe in multiple players with the same grade.

As far as the "big Board" goes, that is how they track players by position. They also have big boards for every team. They have their rosters and each pick gets added. This is comprised of, but not thee listing, which ranks all of pontential draftees. It is good to know when you get into the later rounds how many WRs are still in the top tier available. Can we trade back and still get one? Glance at the next few drafting team rosters, are they lilely to take one? Etc.

Try this. Believe in talent tiers for a few minutes and re-read the article. If you open your mind you may understand the article entirely differenty and all of TTs comments will make sense.

 

[HardRightEdge]

That statement is probably the biggest complaint I have at both sides of the argument. Next year, the "luxury pick" fills a need. Every pick is a need pick because this is Not-For-Long football.

The QB position is special, as if that needs to be repeated.

Even so, if Peppers was mumbling about retirement after the season and then didn't show for OTAs, you'd be regretting that OLB was not addressed in the upper rounds. And he's not even a QB.

 

[TJV]

Amish, I did a search and from what I can tell I posted about tiers before you did. I started a thread on the subject. I believe in tiers but of course that doesn't mean every player in a tier is equally graded or valued: Think top tier, middle tier, lower tier.

Your strained reading of Thompson's quote is either sad or humorous. "You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations." Doesn't carry AS MUCH weight - that means it carries some, doesn't it? And of course he's talking about his process when he says, "There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need..." A certain amount but not as much as others.

The common sense reading of Thompson's quotes is need does factor into his draft decisions, just not as much as it might in other organizations. These quotes prove you're wrong about need not being a factor. Honestly I'm surprised you can't own up to that.

 

[yooperpackfan]

This whole thread has brought me to tiers, er, tears.

 

[AmishMafia]

Amish, I did a search and from what I can tell I posted about tiers before you did. I started a thread on the subject. I believe in tiers but of course that doesn't mean every player in a tier is equally graded or valued: Think top tier, middle tier, lower tier.

Your strained reading of Thompson's quote is either sad or humorous. "You factor everything in. But [need] doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations." Doesn't carry AS MUCH weight - that means it carries some, doesn't it? And of course he's talking about his process when he says, "There's a certain amount of weighting in terms of need..." A certain amount but not as much as others.

The common sense reading of Thompson's quotes is need does factor into his draft decisions, just not as much as it might in other organizations. These quotes prove you're wrong about need not being a factor. Honestly I'm surprised you can't own up to that.

I have said all along need plays a role, but not when it means dropping a talent tier, you dont sacrafice that. That is exactly what TT is saying in the quote.

Does TT draft for need? "I am adamant that is not the way we do things around here."

Adamant. Not "try to do." Not "sometimes". adamant. I have not heard a more definitive statement on the matter, as you say, "from the horses mouth"

At this point I really dont care anymore to discuss further. I think for some reason you have a vested interest in BVA theory. Maybe you were writing a book or something. Further discussion is pointless.

 

[mradtke66]

Even so, if Peppers was mumbling about retirement after the season and then didn't show for OTAs, you'd be regretting that OLB was not addressed in the upper rounds. And he's not even a QB.

Not entirely correct.

Would I be worried about OLB? Sure. When the day comes that Peppers is done, I'll worry about OLB. I will not, however, stress that we didn't draft one high. There might be terrible selection at OLB that we can draft. Just drafting one high "because" is dumb if they aren't worth the pick.

Best analogy is if I go to the butcher shop wanting a steak, but the whole town got there first, I'm not paying $15 a pound for something that is barely good enough to stew. I'll buy the salmon in the next case over and make do for the weekend.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Not entirely correct.

Would I be worried about OLB? Sure. When the day comes that Peppers is done, I'll worry about OLB.

Suit yourself.

 

[TJV]

I have said all along need plays a role…

No, I’ve said all along need plays a role. You have been disputing that:

“Players are ranked based on … talent, scheme fit, attitude … are all apart of it. Current team need is not.”

Only after I linked the article do you now have to admit it.

You continue to allege I don’t believe in tiers when I either wrote about them on this board before you did or certainly more extensively than you did. You write I believe Thompson picks players from a lower tier. You posted if Thompson thought like captainWIMM and I Rodgers wouldn’t be on the roster. That’s some disingenuous **** surprisingly coming from you. You either don't know what BPA means or think it means, "any player Thompson picks".

 

[ivo610]

Curious, how do you guys see the end of season rankings for the division ending up?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That statement is probably the biggest complaint I have at both sides of the argument. Next year, the "luxury pick" fills a need. Every pick is a need pick because this is Not-For-Long football.

Picks don't exist in a vacuum--the defensive picks of 2011, the Raji/Matthews picks of 2009. But neither does TT make a habit of reaching for players to fill a need--not taking an ILB in 2014 or until the 4th this year.

You guys seem to presume it has to be one or the other: BPA or Need. And you're communicating poorly because of that. I'd say overall, TT's picks seem to line up in terms of slot--his number 1's look like number 1's (at least at draft-time. It is still a crap shoot.)

To BPA proponents, which is what I most identify as, "drafting for need" means taking a lesser player to fill a need.

I'd say the two corners we selected this year highlight it. We lost two corners, so we drafted two corners (need.) BUT--They don't really line up with our true need at outside corner (BPA.) And then we ignored our (perceived) biggest hole at ILB until the 4th round (need doesn't equal value, so...BPA? Maybe?)

Talk about a rambling reply. . .

That´s why I like to talk about value when it comes to draft picks.

Sometimes the best player available is rated in a tier above everyone else left on the board so that he presents the best value to a team, regardless of need. Other times there are players ranked slightly behind the best player available in the same tier but because of position of need present a better value.

Even so, if Peppers was mumbling about retirement after the season and then didn't show for OTAs, you'd be regretting that OLB was not addressed in the upper rounds. And he's not even a QB.

Peppers has been an consummate professional since arriving last offseason though so there was no reason to worry about him not showing up for OTAs or thinking about retiring. I expect his play to decline at some point and the Packers will be a need of an outside linebacker once that happens but there´s optimism that he will be an impact player in 2015 again.

 

[AmishMafia]

No, I’ve said all along need plays a role. You have been disputing that: Only after I linked the article do you now have to admit it.

You continue to allege I don’t believe in tiers when I either wrote about them on this board before you did or certainly more extensively than you did. You write I believe Thompson picks players from a lower tier. You posted if Thompson thought like captainWIMM and I Rodgers wouldn’t be on the roster. That’s some disingenuous **** surprisingly coming from you. You either don't know what BPA means or think it means, "any player Thompson picks".

I dont think you have read any of my posts or the whole issue is over your head. Even reading back through some of the old threads my opinion has been consistent.

To date you have posted nothing that disproves BPA.

I think the definition of talent tier is a group of players evenly ranked. Strata within a tier is a contradiction. Consider for a minute 30 very smart football professionals with combined 900 years experience. You think they are going to definitevly agree and evaluare 300 kids and rank them the same? A wr, a og, a te and a 5t? They are going to create a 1-300 list? first of all, it would take months of arguing. It seems much more probable they will clump players together with various opinions Pulling for this guy or that to be elevated or booted from a tier.

Do some scouts and especially coaches bias their objectivity based on need? Yep. Its a big impact on their job to get high picks at their positions. Does TT? No, he is very clear on that. I think that is why he used the word adamant which conveys repetitive sternness, at least to me it does. He listens to his staff, filters bias, and selects BPA.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I dont think you have read any of my posts or the whole issue is over your head. Even reading back through some of the old threads my opinion has been consistent.

To date you have posted nothing that disproves BPA.

I think the definition of talent tier is a group of players evenly ranked. Strata within a tier is a contradiction. Consider for a minute 30 very smart football professionals with combined 900 years experience. You think they are going to definitevly agree and evaluare 300 kids and rank them the same? A wr, a og, a te and a 5t? They are going to create a 1-300 list? first of all, it would take months of arguing. It seems much more probable they will clump players together with various opinions Pulling for this guy or that to be elevated or booted from a tier.

Do some scouts and especially coaches bias their objectivity based on need? Yep. Its a big impact on their job to get high picks at their positions. Does TT? No, he is very clear on that. I think that is why he used the word adamant which conveys repetitive sternness, at least to me it does. He listens to his staff, filters bias, and selects BPA.

Andrew Brandt explicitly said that Rodgers was the only player left above the first-round line at the time the Packers were on the clock during the first round of the 2005 draft. This makes me believe that the team basically has eight different tiers, one for each round and another one for players that should go undrafted. It´s ridiculous to believe there aren´t any gradations within a tier most likely comprising more than 30 players.

 

[AmishMafia]

Andrew Brandt explicitly said that Rodgers was the only player left above the first-round line at the time the Packers were on the clock during the first round of the 2005 draft. This makes me believe that the team basically has eight different tiers, one for each round and another one for players that should go undrafted. It´s ridiculous to believe there aren´t any gradations within a tier most likely comprising more than 30 players.

They cant have 5 tiers they consider 1st round worthy?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They cant have 5 tiers they consider 1st round worthy?

Once again, Brandt said Rodgers was the only player left above THE (not one of the) first-round line, to me this indicates they only have one tier for first-round talent.

And even if they have more than one tier consisting of players worthy of a first-round pick wouldn´t that be a gradation of a superior tier which you repeatedly claimed doesn´t exist???

 

[HardRightEdge]

Peppers has been an consummate professional since arriving last offseason though so there was no reason to worry about him not showing up for OTAs or thinking about retiring. I expect his play to decline at some point and the Packers will be a need of an outside linebacker once that happens but there´s optimism that he will be an impact player in 2015 again.

You missed the point. It's called a hypothetical.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You missed the point. It's called a hypothetical.

Well, doesn´t make any sense to me talking about it as Peppers returned for another season.

 

[TJV]

...

I, captainWIMM, HRE, and Jason Wilde have posted/presented evidence which disproves Thompson’s exclusive use of BPA, unless you define it as ‘any player Thompson picks’ which appears to be what you are doing. You think this issue is above all of our heads? That’s laughable. You seem to struggle being objective when looking at the evidence presented and believe in coincidence after coincidence: Pick after pick which just happen to coincide with the team’s needs.

Of course teams evaluate players differently. That misses the point entirely. We’re talking about the Packers and after all the input of scouts, coaches, and personnel people Thompson has the final say. After denying need plays a part in how he drafts, you have to concede it does because Thompson said it does.

Strata within a tier is not a contradiction. Thinking it is means when they determine there are x number of players worthy of first round grades, they have no preference which one of those players they’d pick if they had a choice of all of them.

 

[AmishMafia]

Once again, Brandt said Rodgers was the only player left above THE (not one of the) first-round line, to me this indicates they only have one tier for first-round talent.

And even if they have more than one tier consisting of players worthy of a first-round pick wouldn´t that be a gradation of a superior tier which you repeatedly claimed doesn´t exist???

Come on man!

It really doesn't have to be this difficult!


Did you really expect Brandt to say, "We had 4 talent tiers consisting of 3 in the top, 4 in the 2nd; 3 in the 3rd; and 10 in the 4th; that we considered 1st round worthy, and only Rodgers was left. Or would he say that Rodgers was the only one left they felt was worthy of the pick? Seriously?

When you approach something you are trying to understand, you need to approach with an open mind and rid yourself of biases. You and TJV are looking for evidence to support your opinion and you will interpret everything to bend to your belief. I am pretty sure this is what Wilde was doing in his article. You can tell from the line of questioning he is trying to get TT to admit to something. You can tell from TT's response - "you won't believe this but . ." that he understands this as well.