Green Bay Packers’s GM Ted Thompson’s Draft Methodology

[Arrigo]

Packers GM Ted Thompson is known as a “draft genius”. He and his personnel department are at or near the top when it comes to scouting college players that are entered in that years NFL Draft. But there is a myth I would like to dispel when it comes to Thompson’s methodology, he doesn’t take the “Best Player Available” -or BPA- when it is his turn to select the Packers newest player.



I went back and looked at all of Thompson’s drafts as the Packers GM, and it shows he doesn’t take the BPA, but in-fact he takes the BPA based on his teams needs (according to HIS draft board). Let’s take a look back at Thompson’s first three draft picks in each of his drafts and what the Packers perceived “need” was that year.



Read the rest at The Average Joe Show blog

 

[SpartaChris]

Read the rest at The Average Joe Show blog

I might be alone here, but I hate posts like these. I get you're looking for hits for your blog, but I think it's flat rude to engage in a conversation here and then try and steer traffic elsewhere for the rest of the conversation. You're essentially spamming the forum for your own personal gain.

If you want to passively promote your website by including the address in your signature, cool. Or even chime in on a conversation with something along the lines of, "I wrote about this on my website, <Insert link there>, and basically, I found it goes like this..." and then say what you wrote about. But to offer a paragraph or two and then say "Go to my website for the rest" is basically spam. The forum is a place to discuss Packer football, not to serve as a promotional tool for your own personal website.

 

[Arrigo]

This article (and ALL of my article I put on here) ARE about Packers football. But I also write for MY OWN site and was asked to come post my stuff here. I think it is only fair to me to have my post read on my site. I think it is rude to not reply about the subject of the post, but instead talking about this.

 

[HyponGrey]

I think it may be more accurate to say that if Ted finds a player within a certain point range of his pick at his pick that meets a need, Ted will draft him to meet the perceived need.

 

[TJV]

I appreciate Arrigo's contributions regarding his OTA threads dealing with Packers rumors (in which he actually posts rumors - what a concept huh? ) and IMO he's posted some very good material regarding draftees. While I understand the objection to his posting part of his discussion on a topic and directing posters to his site for the rest, I wonder if that was part of the invitation to join this site that was extended to him?

With regard to the topic at hand Joe, I didn't see you relate Thompson's draft methodology except to say it isn't BPA. Here's a thread I started on this subject titled "BPA, BVA, and Tiers of Talent in the Draft" in which I take a stab at defining his draft methodology: http://www.packerforum.com/threads/bpa-bva-and-tiers-of-talent-in-the-draft.35167/

 

[DevilDon]

I think it works like this... there is an added value to a "need" position. So if you had a player rated at a given value, add the need factor on the board and he becomes BPA. I don't think this is contradictory at all. Needs certainly have something to do with perceived value. So if you're stocked at WR but a FS are close in value, the "need" value pushes the FS over the WR. Consider, if Matt Kalil were available to the Packers wouldn't they be foolish to pass on him? If that kind of talent were to present itself I don't think TT would hesitate to grab that kind of value.

 

[DevilDon]

I appreciate Arrigo's contributions regarding his OTA threads dealing with Packers rumors (in which he actually posts rumors - what a concept huh? ) and IMO he's posted some very good material regarding draftees. While I understand the objection to his posting part of his discussion on a topic and directing posters to his site for the rest, I wonder if that was part of the invitation to join this site that was extended to him?

With regard to the topic at hand Joe, I didn't see you relate Thompson's draft methodology except to say it isn't BPA. Here's a thread I started on this subject titled "BPA, BVA, and Tiers of Talent in the Draft" in which I take a stab at defining his draft methodology: http://www.packerforum.com/threads/bpa-bva-and-tiers-of-talent-in-the-draft.35167/

LOL Jack, thanks for posting just before me what I meant to say. Each team has it's own board BTW, so one team's board as BPA is very different from anothers'. That's why mocking the draft is so difficult, each team has it's own method of rating players.

 

[jaybadger82]

I don't understand what "myth" Arrigo is dispelling. Does anyone really think TT drafts the best player available in a vacuum?

...In fact, I don't understand how one accurately compares players at different positions without accounting for team need, scarcity of talent at each position and coaching philosophy (i.e. game plan). Unless the disparity in talent between players at different positions is obvious (think WR Calvin Johnson v. someone like S Reggie Nelson), I don't know how anyone can claim to be able to assign some objective value to players that permits us to compare them regardless of position. [The college season doesn't provide a large enough sample set to generate reliable advanced statistics. And even with an expanded sample, you have schedule disparities that are nearly impossible to control for.] Finally, looking at these things in hindsight, with knowledge of how each draft prospect turned out casts serious doubt on the science behind any such analysis. Hindsight is 20/20 and front offices must draft prospectively without perfect information.

Despite my criticism of his analysis here, I enjoy many of Arrigo's contributions and I don't fault him for linking to his blog. I come here to be entertained and exchange news/thoughts with fellow Packer backers; Arrigo is volunteering content. If you don't like it, ignore it.

 

[ivo610]

It's not that he links to his blog it's that he puts partial posts in order to draw traffic to his site.

 

[60six]

All I ask is no trade backs at #28, we dont need more picks.

It becomes counter-productive when your drafting players that are not as good as what you already have.

 

[jaybadger82]

It's not that he links to his blog it's that he puts partial posts in order to draw traffic to his site.

Sure. If you don't like his posts, then ignore them. Or complain to a moderator.

I mean, at some level you can recognize the absurdity of griping about someone networking on the internet, right?

 

[ivo610]

Sure. If you don't like his posts, then ignore them. Or complain to a moderator.

I mean, at some level you can recognize the absurdity of griping about someone networking on the internet, right?

I don't think it's absurd at all. And judging by the response on spartas post neither do other people.

I don't report anything but pure spam, I am not the type to cry about something, I just confront the poster instead.

But hey thanks for the great advice.

 

[ivo610]

Some of the posters that have been around awhile or frequent the site really seem to be protective of our little packer fan community. And that's a good thing. We want people here who post and contribute. And in turn if you have something you want to share, like a link in your signature most of us will give it a look reguardless of if it has to do with the packers or not, purely off of our support for fellow packer fans. But trying to redirect traffic away from this forum to your website is unacceptable.

Woodchipper I think it was had a film website he linked, I gave it a look just off him posting here.

 

[neilfii]

Yeah, I don't have a problem posting a link in a post responding to an existing thread (like post #7 above by ThxJack), but I have a problem with creating an entire thread to drive traffic to another site.

 

[Bagadeez04]

I appreciate Arrigo's contributions regarding his OTA threads dealing with Packers rumors (in which he actually posts rumors - what a concept huh? ) and IMO he's posted some very good material regarding draftees. While I understand the objection to his posting part of his discussion on a topic and directing posters to his site for the rest, I wonder if that was part of the invitation to join this site that was extended to him?

With regard to the topic at hand Joe, I didn't see you relate Thompson's draft methodology except to say it isn't BPA. Here's a thread I started on this subject titled "BPA, BVA, and Tiers of Talent in the Draft" in which I take a stab at defining his draft methodology: http://www.packerforum.com/threads/bpa-bva-and-tiers-of-talent-in-the-draft.35167/

Yes this subject has been discussed...I think we or someone came up with the term 'Best Value Available" which incorporates BPA, need, character etc...

I DO THINK that Ted incorporates BPA into his overall BVA more than probably any other GM in the league though. But I don't think anyone ever said (or really meant) that when Thompson makes a choice it's purely who the top guy is on his board. Obviously need is a factor.

 

[Arrigo]

I didn't create the thread to drive traffic to my site to have the conversation there. I PREFER to have the conversation be had on which ever site I post the thread to. I post (normally) on my site, PC, and 3 other Packers sites, all of which have the same thing as I put here (other then PC because I am loyal to LMG & Co. and that is where I started).

I already placed a PM out that asks if this is a problem. What ever the response is I'll go with, but again, since it is original material that I wrote, I think it is only fair I be able to post a link to my site for the complete article. There is no harm in that, I am not trying to take people away from any site. If that was the case I would have a Packers only site, which I don't have, and compete with other Packers sites.

 

[jaybadger82]

I don't think it's absurd at all. And judging by the response on spartas post neither do other people.

I don't report anything but pure spam, I am not the type to cry about something, I just confront the poster instead.

But hey thanks for the great advice.

Seems like a private message would have been the better route. If you comment in a public thread, you invite criticism from third parties.

 

[longtimefan]

It has been discussed with Rob and myself..

And since Rob is the owner his say is final...Since you still see his blog link, that should tell you what we came up with..

Any future issues can be directed to myself or robdog. Ari or any other posters has no real authority to say if it is spam or not. You can also come to us and ex plain your side as to why you think it shouldnt be allowed

 

[jaybadger82]

It has been discussed with Rob and myself..

And since Rob is the owner his say is final...Since you still see his blog link, that should tell you what we came up with..

Any future issues can be directed to myself or robdog. Ari or any other posters has no real authority to say if it is spam or not. You can also come to us and ex plain your side as to why you think it shouldnt be allowed

Thank you, sir!

 

[Croak]

Spamming argument aside. As longtime would point out there are already several threads regarding the debate about Thompson's philosophy. It's kind of a worn out topic.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[longtimefan]

Are we STILL debating this?

Since we are, I am deleting starting now..

Next step is locking..

Then warnings