1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

BPA, BVA, and Tiers of Talent in the Draft

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ThxJackVainisi, Feb 26, 2012.

  1. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,936
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    I think there is a misunderstanding among some fans about the best player available philosophy because IMO no GM drafts strictly using this philosophy. Not even Ted Thompson. While I do believe Thompson adheres to his draft board more than nearly every other GM, it does not mean at every pick Thompson and his staff look at every player available at every pick in a vacuum. If any team did so, we would have seen evidence of it by now. For example we would have seen a team with desperate needs at one or several positions not address any of those needs. We would have seen a team draft multiple players at a single position at which they were already strong because at each pick a player playing that position edged out others playing other positions. And it’s just common sense that teams draft for the systems they utilize. So for example, it would make no sense for a team which runs the 4-3 defense to take the best OLB prospect in a 3-4 even though he “objectively” has the highest grade and is therefore the “BPA”. Another point is made in an article I link below: If a GM is purely adhering to BPA, why would he ever trade down? By doing so, he’s bypassing the BPA for inferior players.

    So if he’s not adhering purely or blindly to BPA how does Thompson conduct the draft? IMO it boils down to two departures from BPA. The first is how he and his staff construct their draft board, the listing of all the players available in the draft that they are willing to draft. First, of course they take into account the systems they run. Drafting players for the 4-3 defense makes absolutely no sense and drafting OLBs prospects in Capers’ defense makes all kinds of sense, so I’ll bet that is reflected in the draft ratings. That doesn’t mean a player ideally suited to the 4-3 doesn’t appear on their board, just that his rating isn’t as high as it would be for a 4-3 team.

    The other departure IMO explains why Thompson trades up and mostly down in drafts as much or more than other GMs. The concept is talent tiers in the draft. We frequently read before drafts where the drop off of talent occurs, particularly early in the draft. It may be the top 10, 12, 15 or even 20 players are viewed as being clearly better prospects than the rest of the draftees. I remember reading that Ron Wolf did a study of drafts (or had one done) that determined the average top talent tier in the draft ended at about pick 17. These perceived tiers go beyond just the top tier of talent and IMO the reason Thompson trades so frequently is because if he can stay in the same tier (as determined by him and his staff of course), he’s willing to trade down to acquire more picks. The “Jordy” trade down is an obvious example. I’ll bet they had Jordy and a couple of other players in the same tier and rather than just grab Jordy with pick #30 in the first round as the BPA, Thompson traded down and still got one of the players he would have picked at #30 with pick #36 and picked up an extra fourth rounder.

    And when a player is available from an “upper tier”, he grabs him. Aaron Rodgers is the most obvious example. I’ll bet a lot of teams, including the Packers, had him in the top talent tier of the 2005 draft and when Thompson had the chance to grab him at pick 24 instead of another player probably in the second tier, he didn’t hesitate to take him. I also think the trade up for Matthews occurred because Thompson saw a top tier talent fall into the second tier. And in that instance because Thompson had the extra ammunition (from the Favre trade) to do the trade up without eviscerating the rest of that draft. (I also think that draft of Raji and Matthews reinforces my point about the system affecting players’ rankings on the Packers’ board.) With regard to these tiers, I think Thompson attempts to maximize picks within them and that accounts particularly for his trading down so often.

    IMO the idea of talent tiers accounts for another aspect of drafting and that is a recognition that drafting is more an art than a science. By that I mean when GMs say, “best player available” that does not mean they plan to take a player with a rating 0.002 higher (for example) than the next player on their board even though the “best” (highest rated by a sliver) player plays a position that is low on the priority list of their team.

    The article I referenced above is LINKED here. The author advances the idea that what Thompson actually is doing during a draft is drafting the best value available, BVA not BPA. IMO the evidence supports that view. No matter whether you buy the argument made in that article or the argument I advance here, I believe we all agree Thompson is at the opposite end of purely drafting for need. And that’s not a good thing. That’s a great thing.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Dan115

    Dan115 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,797
    Ratings:
    +483
    Thank you for the link.
     
  3. NelsonsLongCatch

    NelsonsLongCatch Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    Messages:
    2,216
    Ratings:
    +626
    This article is so true. The idea of best player available gets taken a little too directly by people (especially on this forum). A team doesn't rate players 1 through 500 on a giant list. Player A might grade out as 89.21 and Player B might grade out as 89.13. Does that extra .07 rating make Player A "better". Is a fraction of a percent or even one whole percent difference even measurable? I would say that no talent evaluator is good enough to distinguish between fractions of a percent.

    People forget that players are ranked in tiers. A GM, such as TT, will trade back six spots if there are eight players with a similar grade still on the board. The reason TT drafted Aaron Rodger is because he was such an extraordinarly value. This is also why common sense should used when arguing "I'd be alright if the Packers draft a quarterback in the first round". No QB on the board will hold enough value to justify the pick.
     
  4. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    Unless we see a repeat of 2005 and someone like RGIII or Andrew Luck slide.

    All in all I agree with the drafting philosophy, though I'll admit the idea of putting players in tiers hadn't occurred to me. It makes sense though, to lump the players into tiers rather than flat out grades. I also agree it's great you don't just draft a player based strictly on need. Go for value. The rest will, more or less, take care of itself.
     
  5. Bagadeez04

    Bagadeez04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    381
    Ratings:
    +133
    Very good thread here...and I agree 100%. The way TT drafts takes BPA more into account than most other GM's for sure...but it's not the only variable that he factors in (need, character being a couple others).

    On a side note, I saw a mock from Fox or something that had the Packers taking Weeden...good example of taking BPA way too literally.
     
  6. fettpett

    fettpett Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    928
    Ratings:
    +217
    He doesn't always stick to that...just remember Justin Harrell....just thinking we could have had 2 picks in 2008 and gotten both Mendenhall and Nelson
     
  7. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,533
    Ratings:
    +1,839
    I don't like the article. I think the basic premise is flawed.

    The author is making the assumption that the players are identified not in tiers as suggested by the title, but in a list from 1 to whatever.

    The fact is, once you get past the top ten, the next best player is starting to get murky. When you get to 50, there is little difference between the next few picks. Therefore, if you are picking at 50, you can select between 5 or 6 players, and at that point, why not select one in a deficient area.

    Trading down has everything to do with BPA and not evidence against it. If you are at 50 and there are 10 players ranked the same, why not trade back and pick up some more draft picks and still get the same value player?
     
  8. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    Targeting and BPA are not mutually exclusive. Trading up and down the draft to find the player the fits both the best player on the board and area of need is BAP. If you can pick up picks and still get the player your are targeting all the better. Value is the key, the player has to match the pick he is being selected at, Ted is a master of the draft.
     
  9. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,936
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    AmishMafia, just to be clear I wasn't presenting a summary of that article. The idea of tiers is not new so I'm certainly not taking credit for it, but that article didn't address it; I did. I linked the article because I like a couple of the points it made which refute the idea that Thompson is strictly a BPA drafter and because I like the term BVA, which I think much better describes how Thompson conducts a draft rather than BPA. I should have been more clear, sorry if that caused confusion.

    realcaliforniacheese and AmishMafia, after the top ten picks, the next best players may be "murky" to us amateurs, but I don’t that that's true of NFL teams, particularly those good at drafting like Thompson and his staff. As far as I know - and I believe those more knowledgeable about it than I agree - each team assigns a specific numerical value to each player they will consider drafting. So IMO trading up can fit the BPA model but I don't believe trading down does. For example, look at the 2007 draft. In hindsight it's clear Thompson made a mistake selecting Harrell at #16 but I believe he did so because he believed Harrell was in the top talent tier - and he may have been if he would have ever gotten, and stayed healthy. Even better evidence IMO was Thompson trading the Packers second round pick, #47 for picks #63, #89, and #191 to the Jets (he also traded his 7th rounder #235). We both agree at the time of that trade there was one player on top of the Packers board don't we, even if he was graded ever so slightly ahead of the next player? Can we further agree that the chances of that player still being available 16 picks later weren't great? Certainly no one - no matter how knowledgeable - could guarantee he would be available later in that round. How can that trade-down be characterized as using the BPA philosophy? In order to do so wouldn't you have to argue the next 16 players - or more - on the Packers board all had the exact same grade, that they ALL were the "best (single) player available"?

    IMO that draft is a clear indication of Thompson looking at talent tiers in the draft. Neither of us - nor anyone else who wasn't in the Packers draft room at the time can know for certain but I believe the evidence points to Thompson believing the players available at #47 were on the same tier as those who would be available at #63 (where he picked Brandon Jackson). He then exercised picks #78 (James Jones) and #89 (Aaron Rouse), perhaps all on the same tier. Then he traded down out of pick #112 to pick #119 and didn't trade a pick thereafter. That looks like another talent tier trade to me: The players available at #112 were similar to those available at #119, so why not get one of those players and acquire other picks, hoping to get "lucky" later in the draft? BTW, by trading out of pick #112, in addition to receiving #119, Thompson acquired pick #192 and he did indeed "get lucky" by choosing Desmond Bishop at that spot. ("Lucky" is in quotes because I don't think it's luck.)

    fettpett, I think Justin Harrell was the best value on their board, they just didn't reduce his grade/value enough due to injuries. Thompson has said more than once that God only makes so many talented big men and that's what Harrell was, he just couldn't get and stay healthy. I do agree with you about that trade, though. When I heard what was likely offered to the Packers I really wished Thompson would have pulled the trigger on it. From what he's said over the years I don't think we will ever see Thompson trade significant picks in one draft for a future draft. I think he thinks it's important to have the teams' significant picks intact going into every draft. For example, he spent a lot of value in picks to trade up for Matthews but he didn't affect the next years' draft at all.

    The question I have for anyone/everyone is this: Does anyone believe Thompson is strictly a best player available drafter?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. gbpowner

    gbpowner Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    211
    Ratings:
    +98
    Of course, it would be daft to think that TT operates on a strictly BPA philosophy. This is not fantasy fb and I'm quite certain that Ted and his staff don't eat nachos and drink beer after activating the auto-draft button on their draft board on draft day!

    Need (Raji vs Crabtree), BPA (Rodgers--but we have a QB?) and BVA (Jordy--how many receivers do we need?) all factor into choices made. The draft is not an exact science using one or all 3 (and possibly more) of these philosophies to obtain any one player. Occasionally nothing works because otherwise how do you explain Justin Harrell?? :laugh: Sometimes it is just plain stupid luck whether a player works out or not!
     
  11. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Things get murky after 10 for the teams that are constantly at the bottom of the ocean.
     
  12. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    MM and TT eating Nacho's and Drinking beer in the war room, gettin a beer buzz and pickin players. Now there's an image. "Hey Mikey, wadda ya think about that longhair Matthews?" "Well he kinda looks like Thor" "Yeah, we could really screw with the Vikings with a guy like that", "You gonna move up and take him" "Hell yes, screw those Viqueens", "Cool".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,533
    Ratings:
    +1,839
    Please now. Lets be rational.

    How do you judge a very good OG and a very good CB? How do you truly measure these two against each other? Is the CB faster? Hopefully, but that isn't as important for a guard. Who has the better power? Not important for a CB. What about the OG having more experience, however he is injury prone? Who has more 'heart' and how exactly short of a CAT scan, do you figure out?

    The comment in the article that "that does not mean they plan to take a player with a rating 0.002 higher" is ridiculous and suggests to me that the author has little idea into rating football players. He not only believes you rank players 1 to 300 and thats your board, he also believes that it is a very precise science. One where you can accurately rate a player in the most minute of detail. Does he think there is a formula you input all the measurables then add in all the stats to generate his 'score'?

    As Jack pointed out, none of us has seen the Packers draft board so it will always be speculative if this player or that was BPA or not. Was Raji rated higher than Crabtree? I believe he was.


     
  14. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,936
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    AmishMafia,

    Again, I am the author of the first post on this thread. I am the author of the 9th post on this thread. I wrote every word of both. I referenced the linked article because I wanted to credit that author for using the term "best value available" and because, as I posted above, I liked a couple of the points that author used to refute the idea Thompson uses BPA when drafting.

    I wrote, "that does not mean they plan to take a player with a rating 0.002 higher" and in doing so used hyperbole (exaggeration) to make a point. If you think I don't know anything about football, the draft, the Packers or anything else that's fine. But I was the one that made the point that drafting is more art than science. Even so, I can assure you teams list potential draftees in order of preference and they assign a grade to them. No, I have never been in an NFL draft room but I have been closely following the NFL for more than 50 years and everything I've ever read, seen, or heard about the NFL draft confirms that. The day before this upcoming draft, Ted Thompson could tell you how every player they are willing to draft compares to every other such player. CBs compared to OGs compared to RBs compared to OLBs. He won't of course, but he could. And every one of those players is assigned a grade.

    You believe Raji was rated higher than Crabtree. You're entitled to that opinion but I and others who disagree have evidence to support our position. McGinn wrote this after that draft:
    "General manager Ted Thompson has made some hard decisions in his four seasons atop the Green Bay Packers' football hierarchy (read Brett Favre), but never two in one afternoon as he did Saturday in the National Football League draft. First, he passed up wide receiver Michael Crabtree, possibly the most dynamic player in the draft and someone whom a friend of Thompson's said the Packers "had a love affair with," in order to draft a nose tackle, B.J. Raji, of Boston College…. Crabtree, said Thompson, is "a remarkably gifted player" who reminded him "a little bit" of Sterling Sharpe by his dominating presence in the short-to-intermediate zones… "All things being equal, you know how much we value big people," he said. "That's what it came down to. If you look at our board we have receivers and we don't have any of these (big) guys." … Thompson said Raji and Crabtree had the same grade on the Packers' board. That's probably a matter of semantics, but people with knowledge of the Packers' thinking said Crabtree stood far and away as their pre-eminent player." LINK I added the underline.

    Pete Dougherty wrote this after that draft: “(Need) is always going to be a factor, it’s not that it doesn’t factor in,” Thompson said. “But you don’t take a lesser (player) in your opinion – these players were rated about the same, (Crabtree) and a couple other guys. So that’s the way we balanced it.” LINK

    I don't think you have to read between the lines much to understand what Thompson was really saying when he said the two players were rated "about the same". Particularly when you add what McGinn told us his sources told him about how they rated Crabtree and Thompson's words about need always being a factor.

    You post as if you believe Thompson is a pure BPA drafter and of course you're entitled to that opinion. I've presented evidence to the contrary, for example how Thompson conducted the 2007 draft. I have yet to see you refute that, or any other substantive point I made in either post.

    (Just so you know, I didn't write the words in quotes - I put them in italics for clarity - that I attribute to McGinn and Dougherty but I wrote the rest of this post.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. SEWICHEESE

    SEWICHEESE Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    112
    Ratings:
    +19
    Excellent topic, article and comments to all.

    I would think in picking a player BVA would have something to do with how difficult it is to find a good player at a particular position. Such as, its regarded to be harder to find good players at DT, QB, LT and CB and easier to find good players at RB, WR, ILB, K,P. This is because "GOD" makes fewer of the former and more of the later so we value the former more, thereby choosing them over the later. This is probably why TT went with Raji over Crabtree, because unless Crabtree is gonna be the next J.Rice, Raji is the rarer, more valuable asset.

    How does this BVA apply to Rd 1 selection of Sherrod last year? The B. McGinn's of the world had it coming down(more or less) btwn Derrick Sherrod and Brooks Reed being the pick, both were available, both were at positions of need and both positions are about equally difficult to fill(maybe LT is a bit harder to fill though). Any thoughts?
     
  16. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    you say irrational, I say anecdote. Thompson has proven there are players available after the first ten and has built a team on that basis. No need to go into the # of players he has picked after ten. Teams that have no drafting ability get lost after the list of top picks everyone can follow expires. What is insidious and lacking basis is making a statement that things get murky after ten.

    btw, you argued a point in your post that I didn't address. My name isn't Jack.;)
     
  17. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,533
    Ratings:
    +1,839
    Yes, I was confused as to what you wrote. We have agreed closely on nearly every thread I can recall and I enjoy reading your posts and thoughts. You're one of the posters in a long thread I head to first, if all I have time for is one post. I hope I didn't insult you.

    Not sure I understand the example of the 2007 draft. If we knew what the draft board was exactly, I could tell you. I was always a Justin Harrell fan and thought it was a steal at the time. I think if he didn't get injured in school he was a top ten pick. The fact that he is the only player in TEN after Reggie to wear #92 says something.

    As far as providing evidence from McGinn, not sure he is a fan of Thompson and his impartiality leads me to not really trust him much.

    I'm not surprised - see above, I'm confused.
     
  18. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,570
    Ratings:
    +1,457
    Over the past 30 years, the Packers have had better success drafting in the second half of the first round than the top tier if you consider that line to be the 17th pick.

    Top Tier Busts:
    #2 Mandarich 1989
    #4 Brent Fullwood 1987
    #5 Terrell Buckley 1992
    #6 Rich Campbell 1981
    #10 Jamal Reynolds 2001
    #12 Alphonso Carreker 1984
    #14 Mossy Cade 1986
    #16 Justin Harrell 2007

    Lower Tier Busts:
    #19 Darrell Thompson 1990
    #19 Vinnie Clark 1991
    #25 Antoine Edwards 1999
    #25 Ahmad Carroll 2004
    #27 John Michels 1996

    They had nine players pan out in the top tier and twelve in the lower tier of the first round (leaving Derek Sharrod out since it's too soon to assess). So we've got 9 of 17 in the top tier and 12 of 17 in the lower tier since 1980. Coincidentally or not, the average draft position for the Packers since 1980 is the 17th pick (17.3 to be exact).

    More geeky stat data based on my analysis:
    83% Ted Thomson's 1st Round Success Rate (2005-current)
    67% Mike Sherman's 1st Round Success Rate (2002-2004)
    64% Ron Wolf's 1st Round Success Rate (1992-2001)
    43% Pre-Ron Wolf combined (Starr/Gregg/Braatz) 1st Round Success Rate (1980-1991)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,936
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    AmishMafia,

    No offense taken, I was just frustrated not being able to get the point across that I wrote those posts and only referred to that article to give credit to its author for BVA. Hey, I certainly don't want to piss off any member of the mafia. While the Amish mafia may not strike fear in hearts and minds like better known mafia groups, you could retaliate by selling me defective furniture! :D

    I think the Thompson trade down in the second round of the 2007 is very good evidence of Thompson using talent tiers and not drafting the BPA. Even without seeing the Packers draft board at the time I think reasonable people can agree there was a player or two or three or four at the top of their board when pick #47 approached. Instead of taking one of the players at the top of his board, Thompson traded down 16 picks. It's one thing to trade down 5 or 6 spots (like the "Jordy trade"), but by going down 16, I don't know how anyone can deny he passed up the BPA on the board at #47. Why did he do that? IMO because he identified a tier of talent that was relatively deep at that point in the draft and got better value by staying in that tier while acquiring more picks. Trading down and acquiring more picks has been a big part of Thompson's draft MO. By my count in 7 drafts he's traded down 14 times. For example, in '05 he traded #89 for #115 and #126. In '06 he traded #36 for #52 and #75; and in that same draft he traded #37 for #47, #93, and #148. In '07 he traded #47 for #63, #89 and #191. In '08 he traded #30 for #36 and #113. In '09 and '10 he traded up. In the last draft he traded #129 for #141 and #186. (That's only 6 of the 14.) The farther down in the draft the picks he receives, the more evidence of tiers and the more evidence against BPA IMO. For another example, look at the '06 draft: The Packers had pick #36 and received pick #37 from Denver for Javon Walker. Thompson traded down 11 spots with one and 16 spots with the other.

    I hope it's obvious that I am a big fan of Thompson. I was excited at his hiring because I wanted the GM and HC jobs split and because he'd spent more than a decade training for a GM job and had an excellent mentor. I don't think any GM in the league is strictly a BPA drafter and I'm glad Thompson is not. I think some GMs (and owners) primarily draft for need and IMO it's obvious Thompson is at the other end of that spectrum. Perhaps because he is at the other end of that spectrum leads to the misconception that he's a purely BPA drafter.
    A journalists' impartiality leads me to trust them more. I don't want a journalist to be a fan, I want them to convey information as objectively as they can and IMO McGinn is one of the best at doing that. The publication "Packer Report" was brought up on this board recently. Way back when I subscribed to it. But as soon as Packer Plus came out I switched because I thought Packer Report was not at all objective - it may as well have been published by the Packers' organization itself. I don't believe that's true anymore and IMO that makes it a much more valuable source of information.



    El Guapo, good post. BTW, how are you defining "success" in your "geeky stat data"?
     
  20. Croak

    Croak Terminally twisted.

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,780
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    Interesting article, but my question is; was the draft staffer who claimed on the official Packers site that they live and die by the best available player rule lying through his teeth? Maybe he was. Maybe he was trying to mislead other teams.

    There is an answer to the question regarding why would a team ever draft up or down. The article raises a false dichotomy. It's either best skilled or not. What it doesn't take into account is best available player includes non-skills related criteria. When the Green Bay staff look at a player, they want to determine if he can be a good player "in Green Bay". Some guys just won't fit in to the small town Wisconsin arena as well as they would fit in to New York City. The staff consider a number of intangible variables that would make a player for another team a poor choice as best available player at Green Bay. They want guys who can buy into MM, TT, and Murph's philosophies regarding how an organization should be run.

    Remember, some coaches threaten their players by telling them they are going to trade them to the "tundra".

    It looks like the very fortunate thing about this draft is that TT will probably be able to choose best available player and need at the same time. It is projected that d-lineman are going to be the best available players near the bottom of the first round of this years draft and into the second and third rounds.
     
  21. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,533
    Ratings:
    +1,839
    Impartial was a typo - I meant he was biased.

    I think our differing view is symantically based. I don't see trading down within a tier as not being BPA.

    I don't see trading down within or out of a tier as violating BPA. BPA only means when u draft u take a guy from the highest tier available. Every player has a talent level and a success likelihood factor. There will be players with talent greater than first rounders who will be drafted in the 7th. They will be bypassed due to concerns of injury, head cases, drugs, etc. Each of those players has a chance to be an impact player. Gauging that likelihood is a difficult task. That's why guys like shields go undrafted who only played cb for a year,, yet he had great talent. So trading back can be a gamble. Drafting one guy with an 75%,chance to realize his talent is not worth 3 chances at 3 guys with a 45% chance of being just as good.
     
  22. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,936
    Ratings:
    +3,031
    Croak,

    The criteria you are talking about is taken into account before the players are ranked on the Packers' draft board. My contention is that after their board is determined, after the players are listed in order according to a grade, the Packers (like every other team in the league) don't blindly pick the player who appears on the top of their board. BTW, some players who are drafted don't appear on the Packers board because they've been disqualified, either for reasons you mention or for injuries or off-field conduct like failing drug tests, being bad teammates, or being un-coachable.

    Here's how I define best player available: Selecting the player a team determines is the best player regardless of the position he plays. That is inconsistent with selecting for need. IMO that is inconsistent with trading down for a pick 10 or more picks after the traded pick because by doing so a team is not likely to be able to select the player at the top of their draft board at the time the pick is traded.

    I don't think Thompson's comment, “(Need) is always going to be a factor, it’s not that it doesn’t factor in…” can be reconciled with a GM who is strictly abiding by BPA. But more important than what is said, either by the GM or a staffer, is what is done. And as I've outlined above, I believe there is ample evidence Thompson's MO in the draft is much better referred to as best value available, which is not always selecting the player with the highest grade, such bypassing Crabtree in the '09 draft.
     
  23. Croak

    Croak Terminally twisted.

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,780
    Ratings:
    +1,224
    I understand your view. It may just be the case. I can see passing on Crabtree, though. He wasn't a "character" type proposition. In fact his holdout, proved those who didn't pick him to be justified in the short term.
     
  24. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,570
    Ratings:
    +1,457
    That's a subjective point, but generally it's someone that turned into a productive starter in the league. It also disregards draft position or salary because at the end of the day, every team spends $xxx each draft year so the real measurement is how many productive players you got out of that draft. You can always argue specific merits based draft position and salary to judge a player, but to judge a GM it's about how many productive players he put on the roster.
     
  25. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    no problem. :D
     

Share This Page