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!
    Dismiss Notice

Interesting...

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zero2Cool, May 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    Which do you prefer?
    Sherman's reaching for need, or Thompson's taking who he feels is the best player available?
     
  2. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    Another good one.
     
  3. Oannes

    Oannes Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Messages:
    196
    Ratings:
    +0
    Don't fall for TT's lie. He's not taking the BPA. He's taking what he thinks is the BPA at what positions he feels we need.

    Think for a second. Do you honestly think if we had sealed the deal on Randy Moss before the draft TT would've thought James Jones was the BPA?

    or... Do you think if Ahman was given the money and stayed in Green Bay we'd have taken Brandon Jackson because he was the BPA?

    Please, think... The Packers took how many lineman last draft? Daryn Colledge, Jason Spitz and Tony Moll were all the BPA when we selected? Stop it. He drafts for NEED despite what he says.
     
  4. Packnic

    Packnic Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,454
    Ratings:
    +6
    of course TT drafts on what the BPA is in his mind. he doesnt do what most of you haters do and go strictly by what ESPN says. and thank god. BPA in his mind is all that matters.
     
  5. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
  6. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    You're right, if a QB is the BPA at each spot we draft, I doubt we take 7 QBs and call it a draft. :thumbsup:

    You have a set of positions you would like to get players. For TT, I'm guessing this was RB, WR, TE, OT, DT, LB, CB and S. Then, you have a pool of players from those positions. At this point, TT seems to take the BPA on his board. Then, as you grab players, maybe one position falls off the list. Finally, in the later rounds, you expand the list again because you are looking for talents who might make the roster. Which, IMO, is a solid strategy.

    Sherman, on the other hand, would go into the draft badly needing a CB. And, at our first pick, he would take the best CB available (regardless of value). Not a good strategy.

    TT also tends to trade down when he hits a spot with multiple options. So, if he sees 3-4 linemen he likes and 2 WRs, maybe he trades down 7 spots and still grabs one of the linemen. Whereas, if he kept the pick, maybe the BPA would have been a WR. So, by trading down, TT can get to situations where the position he wants happens to be the BPA and get more picks for later. I think he did it with Jackson in this draft and with guys like Jennings and Colledge in 06.
     
  7. Greg C.

    Greg C. Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 31, 2005
    Messages:
    2,856
    Ratings:
    +0
    Good points, Arles. A lot of fans have been dumping on Thompson for trading down so often, but in three drafts, he has yet to trade down in the first round, and although he has traded down in the second round, he has never opted out of the second round completely, as Sherman did for all three of his drafts. By the time you get around midway through the second round, or even near the end of the first round in off years, the differences in talent are not nearly as striking as they are with the upper-echelon players, so trades down are much less likely to amount to major downgrades in talent.

    I think Thompson went BPA with his first round pick and then started filling needs, for the most part.
     
  8. packerfan1245

    packerfan1245 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    721
    Ratings:
    +0
    Why would you take the best player available? In the draft you fill your holes of needs to win a championship.
     
  9. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I think that the point of this whole thread was to point out the downside of drafting to fill holes of needs.


    And to win a championship, depth is always a need. Taking BPA gives you just that, depth.

    When you draft to fill a hole, there is the likelihood of it being a reach. See: Ahmad Carroll.
     
  10. packerfan1245

    packerfan1245 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Messages:
    721
    Ratings:
    +0
    Players like carrol happen. We needed a cornerback and we took 1. Only problem was we took a bad one. I still see no sense at all in taking a player at the position you already have good players at.
     
  11. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    I prefer Sherman's Division Titles and Playoff appearences...... :whippin:
     
  12. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yeah, and what a proud division the NFC North was......
     
  13. Yared-Yam

    Yared-Yam Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,120
    Ratings:
    +0
    I'd prefer the Titles and playoff appearances minus the Sherman
     
  14. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Sherman inherited a better team than Ted did. I wonder how the Packers would have faired if Ted was GM directly after Wolf.
     
  15. Since69

    Since69 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Messages:
    422
    Ratings:
    +1
    You didn't include the sarcasm smiley, so I'll assume you're not kidding.

    Drafting for need is a terrible strategy. You wind up reaching for players you think you have to have and (worse yet, like Sherman often did) sometimes trade up to get him. When that doesn't work, you've screwed your team twice - you wasted a draft pick (or two, or three) and you've still got that hole in your roster.

    The draft is used to build depth and a talent base. Plugging holes is best done with proven players in free agency.
     
  16. Arles

    Arles Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't see these as the only two options. Most teams have multiple needs, so taking the best player at one of those need spots in the early rounds is a much better strategy than just taking the best at the top need position (regardless of talent) or BPA independent of need.
     
  17. cheesey

    cheesey Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,000
    Ratings:
    +3
    Don't muddy the waters with FACTS again Zero!!!
    Pyle would prefer a guy that took a great team with lots of talent, and got them no where in the playoffs. Yeah, they made it there, then he screwed it up each time.
    So now we have to rebuild because of it, and somehow it's TT and MM's faults for not getting it done in 2 seasons.
     
  18. Pack93z

    Pack93z You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,855
    Ratings:
    +22
    Didn't Sherman inherit a team that went 8-8 under Rhodes? Just asking?
     
  19. pack_in_black

    pack_in_black Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,876
    Ratings:
    +0
    The team was built by Wolf. Rhodes was a godawful HC. He couldn't coach a pornstar on prom night into sealing the deal....
     
  20. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
  21. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    hah jus realize we no longer have a super hero on the team. no more batman :(
     
  22. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    I won't judge Sherman against Ted, to me that's like comparing apples and oranges.

    When Sherman took over (like you said zero) the Packers were a LOT closer to a contending team, and so I think his strategy reflected that: picking up players to solve your needs.

    I think when Ted took over, it was apparent that Sherman had tried too many times to get that extra play-maker we so desperately needed. That had left us with too many misses, and hurt our depth.

    So basically, I had no problem (for the most part) with Sherman's approach. At the time he was in charge, I think he drafted in a way that was justified (and certainly he put in a ton of work in his drafts). This point in time, I think Ted is exactly what we need, and prefer his approach.
     
  23. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    I like that Sherman took risks. I just don't like the outcome of them.
     
  24. all about da packers

    all about da packers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    7,033
    Ratings:
    +0
    Was it that surprising though?

    I mean at best, even Ted's approach is that 50% of the guys will make it; and that's with his extra picks.

    Sherman hurt himself when he traded up, reducing his picks. His sample size was going to be a lot smaller (compared to Ted's) so every failure would have a greater impact.

    MS's drafts look like a bit of a mess now with foresight, but at the time I think Sherman had the Lombardi trophy dangling in front of him, and he hoped against hope that certain flaws with players would work themselves out. If I was in that situation, I'd have probably done the same.

    I think ultimately, that exposes Sherman's major flaw: he just didn't know what to do to get over that little hump that held the Packers back. He looked to guys with all the measurables to try and solve that problem. It backfired (for the most part) big time.
     
  25. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    Well, I thought Joe Johnson was going to be good. We had Terry Glenn then traded him away. I'd have liked to have kept him. That's two jus off the top of my head that I was surprised about.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page