Best offseason in the NFC north

[Deleted member 6794]

If a team creates a board based on need, it's a pretty bad board as far as ranking talent.

There are a lot of other factors aside of talent factoring into a team's draft board like position of need, scheme fit, off the field issues, combine results and interviews etc. I can hardly believe anyone woukd think differently about it.

 

[Carl]

There are a lot of other factors aside of talent factoring into a team's draft board like position of need, scheme fit, off the field issues, combine results and interviews etc. I can hardly believe anyone woukd think differently about it.

Those could factor into deciding to take a player who is rated similarly, but using all of those would create a terrible board based on talent. Maybe teams do it, but I can't see good drafting teams doing it that way.

 

[AmishMafia]

There are a lot of other factors aside of talent factoring into a team's draft board like position of need, scheme fit, off the field issues, combine results and interviews etc. I can hardly believe anyone woukd think differently about it.

Players are ranked based on their ability to succeed in the NFL. Talent, scheme fit, attitude, smarts, physical tools, toughness, etc are all apart of it. Current team need is not.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why would they get a much later pick than the 30th pick for two guys who were rated much higher?

Why should any team passing on a guy during the draft give up more in return to trade for that player???

You just said above, "Once again, Rodgers being on the board at #24 is one of only a few examples of a player way more talented than anyone else still on the board being available. In a case like that position of need doesn't factor into the decision."

Winston or Mariota at 30th would have the same. By far the best player on the board.

With Rodgers planning to play another 7-9 years it's pretty obvious none of them would play a meaningful down with the Packers if Rodgers stays healthy. Drafting either of them would have been a wasted pick.

Let me ask you this. Right now would you rather have Andrew Luck or Nick Perry on the Packers?

Nick Perry was a terrible pick by Thompson. Nevertheless he has had more impact than Andrew Luck would have had with the team over the last three years.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Players are ranked based on their ability to succeed in the NFL. Talent, scheme fit, attitude, smarts, physical tools, toughness, etc are all apart of it. Current team need is not.

How do you explain Thompson taking two cornerbacks with the first picks in this year's draft after losing Williams and House??? Clinton-Dix in the first round last year???

You haven't been able to address any of the numerous examples provided by TJV and HRE so far.

 

[Carl]

How do you explain Thompson taking two cornerbacks with the first picks in this year's draft after losing Williams and House??? Clinton-Dix in the first round last year???

You haven't been able to address any of the numerous examples provided by TJV and HRE so far.

Out of similarly or the same rated players, he picks the player of need.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Those could factor into deciding to take a player who is rated similarly, but using all of those would create a terrible board based on talent. Maybe teams do it, but I can't see good drafting teams doing it that way.

La'el Collins is a perfect example of teams considering other things than talent.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Out of similarly or the same rated players, he picks the player of need.

So we agree that position of need factors into a selection???

 

[AmishMafia]

Nick Perry was a terrible pick by Thompson. Nevertheless he has had more impact than Andrew Luck would have had with the team over the last three years.

Unbelievable. Utterly shocked.

Would it.have been nice to have AL step in when Rodgers broke his collarbone in 2013? We went 0-4-1 the next 5 - I suspect AL would have done better and who knows? We lost the first round playoff to SF 23-20. Maybe we could have made some noise that season in the playoffs.

Next season traded luck for 3 first rounders.

But you would rather have a.marginal player at a position of need

 

[Carl]

So we agree that position of need factors into a selection???

Yes. Nobody has said otherwise...

We've just said that value comes first and need should not change where a player is ranked on the board.

 

[AmishMafia]

How do you explain Thompson taking two cornerbacks with the first picks in this year's draft after losing Williams and House??? Clinton-Dix in the first round last year???

You haven't been able to address any of the numerous examples provided by TJV and HRE so far.

Do you understand talent tiers or not? It is really simple.

 

[Carl]

La'el Collins is a perfect example of teams considering other things than talent.

Duh teams take other things into account when making picks, but they should not let need or issues get in the way of evaluating talent.

 

[AmishMafia]

Yes. Nobody has said otherwise...

We've just said that value comes first and need should not change where a player is ranked on the board.

I dont know why my posts are so long. You say it so simply.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Unbelievable. Utterly shocked.

Would it.have been nice to have AL step in when Rodgers broke his collarbone in 2013? We went 0-4-1 the next 5 - I suspect AL would have done better and who knows? We lost the first round playoff to SF 23-20. Maybe we could have made some noise that season in the playoffs.

Next season traded luck for 3 first rounders.

But you would rather have a.marginal player at a position of need

There's no evidence the Packers would have had a better record with Luck replacing Rodgers. Take a look at his stats during his first season, they aren't impressive at all.

BTW do you suggest the Packers should have benched Rodgers for the playoff game vs. the Niners in case Luck was the backup???

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes. Nobody has said otherwise...

We've just said that value comes first and need should not change where a player is ranked on the board.

Amish has posted all along that Thompson always takes the best player available. I agree with that selecting a prospect presenting the biggest value is the way he approaches the draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Duh teams take other things into account when making picks, but they should not let need or issues get in the way of evaluating talent.

Well, either teams evaluate prospects solely on talent or other things factor into a pick. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Carl]

Well, either teams evaluate prospects solely on talent or other things factor into a pick. Can't have it both ways.

All am trying to say is a board, which should be based on talent and ability to play, should not take need into account. Other factors come into play when players are rated similarly. And yes there are players with off the field issues that exceptions.

For example, say we have 10 possible players to pick from:

9 players all rated exactly the same, but not a need position.
1 player rated slightly lower but at a need.

If the board takes need into account, the 1 lower player is jumped to the top of the board. We then end up reaching for a guy over 9 other better guys.

If the board doesn't take need into account, we see taking the player of need would be a reach. If we want him, trading down would be the better option.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Do you really think Thompson would have drafted either Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota if one of them would have still been svailable at #30 over Damarious Randall???

1) If Rodgers were turning 36 years old,
2) had been mumbling about retirement for the past 3 years,
3) doesn't show up for work,
4) and either of those two prospects were as promising as Rodgers (which they are not),

then absolutely!

QB succession should be a multi-year process. If you wait until one is needed right now it's going to be too late unless you dump out to the bottom of the standings and Andrew Luck is on the board. What are the odds of that? More likely you end up having to reach for guys like Winston or Mariota, or even a Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, E.J Manual, or any of the vast majority of drafted QBs who wash out or settle into journeyman mediocrity. And while you wait around a couple of years to see if they'll take the "step up", you suffer through some lost years.

Was Rodgers a need pick? Sure he was, just not for the 2005 season. But that's irrelevant. The position is so important and the preferred tutoring process elongated, you have to strike when the iron is hot in a multi-year range as the franchise QB ages.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

All am trying to say is a board, which should be based on talent and ability to play, should not take need into account. Other factors come into play when players are rated similarly.

For example, say we have 10 possible players to pick from:

9 players all rated exactly the same, but not a need position.
1 player rated slightly lower but at a need.

If the board takes need into account, the 1 lower player is jumped to the top of the board. We then end up reaching for a guy over 9 other better guys.

If the board doesn't take need into account, we see taking the player of need would be a reach. If we want him, trading down would be the better option.

Once again, position of need factors into a pick as long as players are ranked in the same tier. If there is a prospect available who is significantly more talented, therefore being put in a higher tier, Thompson should draft that player (aside of the player playing a position in absolutely no need of an upgrade).

 

[Carl]

Once again, position of need factors into a pick as long as players are ranked in the same tier. If there is a prospect available who is significantly more talented, therefore being put in a higher tier, Thompson should draft that player (aside of the player playing a position in absolutely no need of an upgrade).

I got that. We seem to be on the same page on when need comes into account now, but earlier you need comes into play when making a board. That would make the tiers on the board then inaccurate. That's a point I was held up on.

We can agree to disagree regarding Winston and Mariota.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You read too much into it. How i imagne the scenario went something like this:

Tier 1 - 3 players.
Tier 2 - 7 players
Tier 3 - 10 players
Tier 4 - 18 players.

Tt: we will take any player at 24 in the top 3 tiers. If they are all gone we will trade back. We can still get a tier 4 guy at pock 38. We can go back 12 spots or so and still get the same level of player.

Do you mean to say those tiers, on a Packer draft board, represent all the players available in the draft?

If so, the times when a top 10 player will fall to 24 without some disqualifying black mark or injury (which took him out of the top 10 to start with), are so uncommon as to render this construct moot.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I got that. We seem to be on the same page on when need comes into account now, but earlier you need comes into play when making a board. That would make the tiers on the board then inaccurate. That's a point I was held up on.

You're probably right that position of need doesn't have any influence on the tiers on a team's draft board.

 

[AmishMafia]

There's no evidence the Packers would have had a better record with Luck replacing Rodgers. Take a look at his stats during his first season, they aren't impressive at all.

BTW do you suggest the Packers should have benched Rodgers for the playoff game vs. the Niners in case Luck was the backup???

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.

 

[AmishMafia]

Do you mean to say those tiers, on a Packer draft board, represent all the players available in the draft?

If so, the times when a top 10 player will fall to 24 without some disqualifying black mark or injury (which took him out of the top 10 to start with), are so uncommon as to render this construct moot.

All the players? No, I truncated just to illustrate. Each tier has more and more players.

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. 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. The Cowboys claimed they got 3 players from their top 10 last year or maybe that was 2 years ago.

Not every draft board looks like another teams draft board. What a team looks for in a player and what scheme they use as well as personal opinions way into it making. Getting a top 10 player at pick 24 happens more often than you would think. Personally, I thought Haha was a top 10 pick last year. I think he was a huge steal.

 

[TJV]

Gradatients within a talent tier is a contradiction.

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.

Players are ranked based on their ability to succeed in the NFL. … Current team need is not.

So we’re back to the “incredible coincidences” I listed and HRE expanded upon. Again, a naïve point of view IMO.