Middle of the D

[HardRightEdge]

Considering the Ravens have been very good at personnel moves in recent years while the Bears have been really bad, I wouldn't bet on McPhee being that good.

It's worth noting the Ravens have only $7.1 mil in cap space at this time. McPhee's 2015 cap number with the Bears is $6.7 mil which they could not match and still sign draftees. Something had to give.

It was the same issue with Ngata; evidently he was going to be a $16 mil cap hit for the Ravens in 2015. Detroit is paying his $8.5 mil base salary while Baltimore is absorbing $7.5 mil in dead cap from prorated signing bonus and what looks like an option bonus.

You can figure Baltimore's spend on draft picks/52+53/practice squad at the #26 spot is similar to the approximately $3.5 mil for the Packers estimated above. Also, as noted above, you can expect some guys will end up on IR that will require replacements counting against the cap; $3.5 mil in cap would be a prudent minimum amount for replacements.

You can figure a team entering the draft with less than $7 mil in cap space (or more if they are drafting at the top of the first round) either:

(1) has a player or player that will yield some meaningful cap savings if they find a replacement or replacements in the draft, or

(2) they have some guy or guys who are not vested but have a meaningful cap hit and no guarantees that they would have no problem releasing in-season to open cap space in the event of vested players going to IR, a hard thing to find and/or manage, or

(3) they are inveterate gamblers, or

(4) they are bad at math.

So, an unattractive, if not unaffordable, value proposition in matching McPhee's Bears contract or in retaining Ngata's $16 mil cap hit does not necessarily make them lesser players. In fact, the Ravens might have preferred paying McPhee or Ngata vs. cutting some other high priced player on the roster, but if that other player had a large dead cap number then the needed savings would not have been gained.

A cap squeeze can make teams do things they'd rather not do.

 

[HardRightEdge]

McPhee looks like he'll play a role similar to Peppers in the Bears new 3-4 under Fangio.

OLB, drop the hand in the dirt from time-to-time, move inside in nickel from time-to-time, while not being called upon to do much in coverage beyond dropping in zone from time-to-time...in other words, an elephant type.

One supposes he could he could play some ILB in run downs, but that's not primarily why they're paying him $8 mil per year.

 

[HardRightEdge]

If we assume $7 mil is a prudent amount to carry into the draft for a team picking at the bottom of the first round, or about $10.5 mil for a team with the #1 pick (compare Clowny's $5.1 mil 2014 cap hit at #1 to Bridgewater's $1.6 mil at #32), there are only a few teams not well positioned at this point based on those numbers.

http://overthecap.com/salary-cap-space

There might be a few additional teams with a heavy load of core players becoming free agents after 2015 (as will be the case with the Packers in 2016), that would like to keep more than the prudent minimum in order to have cap $ to carry over.

Still, the majority of teams are well positioned. That said, there will be some cap casualties after the draft; whether they would fit the Packers ILB or CB needs remains to be seen. And you simply can't count on such an eventuality. If you skip over those needs in the draft the odds are you'll be left holding your d*ck. And if you address those needs in the draft then you're not going to need the released players.

Getting a player of quality to fill a need after the draft would be a happy coincidence, not something to plan for.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

One supposes he could he could play some ILB in run downs, but that's not primarily why they're paying him $8 mil per year.

I really don't think it makes any sense to line up McPhee at ILB. While the Bears are known for making strange decisions that would even be over-the-top for them. The Ravens never used him there either.

 

[sschind]

Worse, Zierlein projected that tackle as a road grading guard for the Packers, seemingly unaware of the quality of the players currently manning those positions, the fact that they're both signed through 2016, that there is significant investment in the position, or that the Packer line scheme does not call for road graders.

Perhaps his approach as a mocker is to ignore need and rank players by their talent. There's nothing wrong with ranking players by talent, but putting out a mock draft on that basis is simply lazy.

You mean he is basing his mock draft on BPA which is what so many people claim Ted does and so many others claim this is the best way to approach a draft. Seems to me this would be the more accurate way of producing a mock if BPA was indeed the way to go.

Either way its subjective. Is this guy more talented that that guy? Is the teams biggest need ILB or CB?

 

[HardRightEdge]

You mean he is basing his mock draft on BPA which is what so many people claim Ted does and so many others claim this is the best way to approach a draft.

Nobody does that unless they finished 2-14 with holes everywhere. There has not been an expansion team since 2002. Even then, those teams are looking first at QBs.

 

[sschind]

Nobody does that unless they finished 2-14 with holes everywhere. There has not been an expansion team since 2002. Even then, those teams are looking first at QBs.

Nobody does what? Draft BPA. Then why are so many people so adamant that this is what Ted does and it is the way to go. I agree with you, need plays a bigger factor in the draft than a lot of people want to admit. They think that a GM who takes a lesser talented player at a position of need is a poor GM an they don't want to admit that Ted has some poor GM characteristics.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Nobody does what? Draft BPA. Then why are so many people so adamant that this is what Ted does and it is the way to go.

That's right. BPA does not exist except in those few limited cases I noted. Ted asserted a "best player available" approach a few years ago to avoid answering draft questions and some people still take that at face value despite abundant evidence to the contrary. He's found a better way to avoid those questions...he doesn't talk to reporters, at least not on the record, on matters relating to the draft.

So, the "experts" who put together mock drafts who peg the Packers filling a need, which is the majority of them, are not the uninformed or lazy ones. It's the Zierlein's of the world who are too lazy to dig in on all 32 teams to figure out what works.

 

[sschind]

That's right. BPA does not exist except in those few limited cases I noted. Ted asserted a "best player available" approach a few years ago to avoid answering draft questions and some people still take that at face value despite abundant evidence to the contrary. He's found a better way to avoid those questions...he doesn't talk to reporters, at least not on the record, on matters relating to the draft.

\
Hey, I agree with you. Just playing devils advocate for those who still believe BPA is the best way to approach the draft and that is the way Ted approaches it. In fact I've always felt that most teams draft for need as long as the difference in talent level is not significant.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Hey, I agree with you. Just playing devils advocate....

That was not initially evident, but I eventually got your gist.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Update: Zierlein got off his a*s and did some work. He now has Jalen Collins at #30.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Anybody catch the tweet by Rob Demovsky during the TT presser:

Thompson on drafting for need vs. best player: "I am adamant that's not the way to draft. You don't know what you're going to need."

Interesting....

 

[TJV]

Anybody catch the tweet by Rob Demovsky during the TT presser: Thompson on drafting for need vs. best player: "I am adamant that's not the way to draft. You don't know what you're going to need." Interesting....

That was almost a good try but you left a little something out:

On how Thompson considers roster needs in the draft:
You factor everything in, but that doesn't carry as much weight as it might with other organizations because they go about weighting those things differently than we do. There's a certainly amount of weighting in terms of need, but I am adamant that's not the way of the draft.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...alue-trumps-everything-in-nfl-draft/26176243/

 

[HardRightEdge]

That was almost a good try but you left a little something out:
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...alue-trumps-everything-in-nfl-draft/26176243/

Nothing new here.

What this tells me is that Thompson will not draft an "ILB no matter what." Who could argue with that? But the odds he'll get a good ILB, CB, DL or OLB at #30 are very high. I think he knows that.

Further:

"The way of the draft is to take your best player because you don't know what you're going to need. You may think you need something, but this isn't play time or something like that. This is real life. Injuries happen, life happens."

True enough, I suppose. But it's as likely that "injuries happen" or "life happens" at a position that is undermanned or thin depth-wise as it is at a position of strength or depth.

To best deal with "life", one supposes, would be to shore up the areas that are already weak since you don't know where misfortune will hit you.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

That was almost a good try but you left a little something out:
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...alue-trumps-everything-in-nfl-draft/26176243/

I didn't leave it out, the tweet left it out. All I did was directly quote a tweet sent by somebody else. Rob continued his thoughts with this "article" regarding Tod McShay's latest mock draft: http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/20143/mcshay-might-be-reaching-on-packers-pick

 

[HardRightEdge]

I didn't leave it out, the tweet left it out. All I did was directly quote a tweet sent by somebody else.

Another illustration of the pitfalls of 140 bytes.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Another illustration of the pitfalls of 140 bytes.

140 characters is all people will read nowadays.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I didn't leave it out, the tweet left it out. All I did was directly quote a tweet sent by somebody else. Rob continued his thoughts with this "article" regarding Tod McShay's latest mock draft: http://espn.go.com/blog/green-bay-packers/post/_/id/20143/mcshay-might-be-reaching-on-packers-pick

I didn't see where Thompson said Kendricks, or anybody else for that matter, is not a "good solid player".

A "good solid player" player is what I expect at #30 to fill a defensive need.

 

[HardRightEdge]

140 characters is all people will read nowadays.

Some people.

 

[NelsonsLongCatch]

Some people.

You could use ESPN.com's "relaunch" as a good example. The website went with a blog-style format and most of the articles can be read in less than a minute.

I'm more of an old school, newspaper guy, but even those have shorter articles.

 

[Carl]

That was almost a good try but you left a little something out:
http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...alue-trumps-everything-in-nfl-draft/26176243/

Exactly how he should be drafting. Value comes first with need another factor.

 

[easyk83]

No, that is not what you posted: Thompson “has never drafted for need” is as unambiguous as it gets and there’s no language qualifying that absolute statement. There’s nothing to ‘read into’. It’s not a big deal but you directly contradicted yourself with these two posts.

Regarding McPhee, I think it’s likely the Bears will start him at OLB and will rush him from inside on sub packages, IMO even if he were affordable, it’s extremely unlikely the Packers would have acquired him to start at ILB (for example, how are his coverage skills?). With regard to affordability, according to rotoworld, here’s the deal he signed with the Bears:

http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/6671/pernell-mcphee
The Packers could have fit him into this year’s cap (a $6.5M cap hit), but how would those numbers have affected the cap going forward? BTW, McPhee received more guaranteed money than Nelson, Shields, or Bulaga; and just $1.5M less than Cobb.

I guess the gentlemen you were responding to has forgotten the selections of BJ Raji Derrek Sherrod, Bryan Bulaga and Nick Perry as well as Ha Ha Clinton Dix.

 

[TJV]

More on the subject of how need factors into the draft, IMO Jason Wilde has a good story on the espnwisconsin site titled, “The need for … need” It begins:

One of the great misconceptions 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. 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.

He then goes on to quote Thompson in the news conference as I did above as he says ‘need doesn't carry as much weight in Green Bay as it might with other organizations’. More evidence of that need plays a factor:

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 … because he sets his board up that way, need is factored into his decisions.

The subheading of the story is:

Ted Thompson doesn’t ignore need, but he insists it carries less weight with him than with other teams. After back-to-back terrific drafts, it’s worthwhile to recall the rare times when he may have let need influence him too much.

Wilde points to the 2011 and 2012 drafts as being too need-based. I don’t agree with Wilde’s take entirely but I give him kudos for writing columns like this one and for the questions he asks Thompson at pressers. And his interaction with Rodgers on his weekly shows.
http://www.espnwisconsin.com/common/page.php?feed=2&id=20111&is_corp=1

 

[TJV]

Pete Dougherty posted a story yesterday headlined Dispelling the Ted Thompson 1st-pick myth. He begins:

The myth is that the Green Bay Packers' general manager almost always drafts the best player available, especially in the first round. He won that reputation because he seems less inclined than most GMs to force-feed picks for his most immediate needs. Last year, for instance, he didn't draft an inside linebacker at all even though it was high on the Packers' priority list. Same for safety in 2013.

He then presents the case for need based picks:

Some years it was for the here and now. A.J. Hawk ('06), B.J. Raji ('09), Nick Perry ('12), Datone Jones ('13) and Ha Ha Clinton-Dix ('14) all either started from Day 1 or were picked because of desperate needs on the defensive side of the ball.

IMO Dougherty strikes the right balance: Of course Thompson doesn’t pick purely the BPA – no GM does. But he doesn’t factor in need as much as most GMs. He also mentions Thompson is much more likely to trade down than up, recognizing even with all the hours, work and money spent on evaluation, at the end of the day, it’s a crap shoot.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com.../dispelling-thompson-1st-round-myth/26369031/

Of course just because a journalist or two or more have the opinion Thompson isn’t a BPA GM doesn’t make their opinion true. But more and more, as they present evidence to back up their opinion, or have a different take on the same evidence, those who believe Thompson’s draft philosophy is BPA without regard to need have more and more questions to answer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Pete Dougherty posted a story yesterday headlined Dispelling the Ted Thompson 1st-pick myth. He begins: He then presents the case for need based picks: IMO Dougherty strikes the right balance: Of course Thompson doesn’t pick purely the BPA – no GM does. But he doesn’t factor in need as much as most GMs. He also mentions Thompson is much more likely to trade down than up, recognizing even with all the hours, work and money spent on evaluation, at the end of the day, it’s a crap shoot.
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com.../dispelling-thompson-1st-round-myth/26369031/

Of course just because a journalist or two or more have the opinion Thompson isn’t a BPA GM doesn’t make their opinion true. But more and more, as they present evidence to back up their opinion, or have a different take on the same evidence, those who believe Thompson’s draft philosophy is BPA without regard to need have more and more questions to answer.

You excised a couple of other notables Dougherty mentioned, and there are a couple of others he didn't.

Dougherty states, "In '10 and '11, neither of Thompson's first-round tackles, Bryan Bulaga and Derek Sherrod, was drafted to play as a rookie. But Mark Tauscher and Chad Clifton were nearing the end of the line. Tauscher, in fact, didn't even make it through the '10 season; Clifton broke down the next year."

Need is not just about filling an immediate hole (though it certainly could be); it is also about mitigating immediate risk, be it injury risk or impending free agency.

At the time of the 2010 draft, Clifton had finished his 10th season where he missed 4 games, while his knees were an ongoing question mark. At the same time, Taucher was also a 10 year vet who missed 8 games in 2009, while his contract ran through the 2011 season. Losing 12 OT starts from two 10 year vets with injury concerns should be stamped "big red flag", particularly when talking about the OT position. And that's the way it worked out, with Taucher playing 4 games in 2010 then retiring, with Bulaga jumping in.

Skip ahead a year and Tauscher is gone with Clifton a year older on still gimpy knees. McCarthy at the time was not fond of the idea of switching Bulaga to the left side, or switching sides with any lineman since they'd have to learn mirror image technique. Sherrod was an immediate risk mitigation at LT, and worked at guard in training camp for his apprenticeship. Like Tauscher, Clifton broke down after 6 games in 2011. That Sherrod did not work out is beside the point. It's also worth noting that many of the mock drafts, which nearly always resolve themselves into needs-based projections, had Sherrod pegged for the Packers.

There's one other 1st. round pick out of the last 7 that is so far unaccounted for: Matthews. While he was not the Packers first pick in the 2009 draft, he was a first round pick. There was a clear need for an edge rusher who fit the 3-4 scheme being implemented that season.

Applying the risk mitigation concept to the current draft, we should ask the question, "what are the chief vulnerabilities now or in the projected 2016 roster?" The entire offense is signed through 2016, they're young or in their primes, nobody is coming off any career-threatening injury. On the defensive side of the ball, Daniels, Raji and Guion (the likely starting base group) present free agent risks, with performance question marks with Raji and the other DL names on the roster. DL is already fairly high (or should be) on everybody's need list, right behind ILB and cover corner (pick your order), because the event horizon is one year away.

But the elephant in the corner (literally and figuratively) is Peppers. He could hit the wall at any time at 35 years of age. His contract calls for a 2016 cap hit of $10.5 mil and a cap savings of $8 mil if he's released, not to mention the fact that a 2015 Super Bowl might spell retirement. While many might view an OLB in the first round as proof of eschewing need for talent, I do not. If the obvious best player on the board is an edge rushing talent, Thompson should take him, and he won't go to waste in the interim. He can play when Matthews moves to the middle, and he would afford the opportunity to give Peppers more snaps at DT. Some nickel packages with rookie "X" and Matthews on the edge and Peppers inside would be particularly threatening.

It's been reported that Thompson held a post-Combine private interview with Randy Gregory, a 4-3 DE/3-4 OLB prospect with an early first round grade until he tested positive for THC at the Combine. After seeing Gregory's admission/apology/explanation, I can understand why Thompson would want to probe further. If Thompson is satisfied with Gregory's story, and he falls to #30 (or even a trade up 5 spots), Thompson should absolutely pick him.

If that were to transpire, I would surmise many would cite it as a BPA pick. Not in my book. Need-picking is not isolated to just the immediate 2 inches in front of your face. With one exception, nobody says, "I need to fill one particular position and I'm going to take the best player available at that position in the 1st. round no matter what." The exception appears to be cellar dwellers without a QB have a tendency to reach, which is somewhat understandable.

In my book, the needs, in approximate order, are ILB, cover corner, D-Line, OLB. I'm fairly certain Thompson will be picking for one of those positions in the first round because there will be several "good, solid players" or whatever the exact term was that he used, at one or the other of those positions.

This approach extends into day 2 of the draft.

Hawk was mentioned as a need pick in 2006. Thompson "fired" two of the three staring LBs in what was then a 4-3 defense. He took Abdul Hodge with the #67 pick to pair with Hawk.

Jump ahead to 2014. Adams was taken with the #53 pick. Cobb was entering free agency and Boykin, while serviceable, showed no signs of being a bona fide #2. Then there was Rodgers in the 3rd. round at #98, an attempt to bring back some of the dynamic lost with Finley's departure. I could itemize more day 2 example in the interim...wait...Alex Green (strike out), Lacy (home run)...but going in depth for the very few who would have read this far reaches the point of diminishing returns, if I haven't already carried enough coal to Newcastle.