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. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon...

Packers contract negotiation stories

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. ivo610

    ivo610 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    16,033
    Ratings:
    +4,042
  2. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
  3. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,798
    Ratings:
    +2,907
    Yes, as discussed in at least one other thread.
     
  4. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,474
    Ratings:
    +1,777
    Must have missed that one. Did a search so I could post a link, but nothing.
     
  5. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    There have been several debates as to whether Thompson's avowed draft approach ("best available player") is to be taken at face value or whether it is a deflection. Those who argue pro-BPA like to cite Rodgers and Nelson as examples despite the copious evidence that Thompson considers need as much as any other GM.
     
  6. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,798
    Ratings:
    +2,907
    Here’s the thread:http://www.packerforum.com/threads/...ts-future-possible-gm-candidates.51744/page-2

    It included this post by HardRightEdge in post #40 and deals with another link to what Brandt wrote. Suffice it to say IMO there’s a significant difference between what goes on in contract negotiations vs. whether or not the pick of that player was a need pick.
    And just to be clear, I have posted repeatedly that IMO Thompson abides by BVA which does not equal BPA. The pick of Rodgers was one of the instances in which the best value available was also the best player available by a substantial margin.
     
  7. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    Imagine my gratification in reading these most recent comments from Brandt in owning up to the obvious realities.
     
  8. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,798
    Ratings:
    +2,907
    Nice try... not really.
     
  9. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    "A first round pick with no plan? Really?" You misinterpreted the nature of my disappointment.
     
  10. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    "Best value available" is amorphous and requires some considerable unpacking, and I've found your attempts at it to be not entirely satisfying.

    To reiterate, the way I view the Rodgers pick is the need preceded the opportunity. Coming up with a succession plan for a 35 year old franchise QB several years removed from his best seasons, who was noodling about retirement, and who frustrated the planning process should be perceived as the paramount long term need for the organization.

    After that, it is a matter of seizing an opportunity when it arises. The opportunity arose with Rodgers. If he turned out to be flop during the heir-in-waiting development process, the next opportunity would be sought. That Rodgers turned out to be a fabulous success at just the right moment, after 3 years in development, doesn't diminish the need component in that pick.

    I think more of Thompson (less disappointment in him and in being "wrong" about him based on Brandt's earlier comments) after reading these more current comments about the negotiation.

    The idea that Brandt would be thinking one way about the uncertainties in how long Favre would play while Thompson would be blind to the risks strains credulity. The more plausible thinking would be that Thompson does not say what he actually thinks, unless one wants to believe his thinking is confined to the luke warm cliches in his public comments year end and year out.

    Regardless, looking at the most recent drafts (and there are more examples in earlier years) we see high picks going to positions of high need. In fact, they fill consensus perceptions of need among writers and fans alike.

    Sherrod (Clifton successor), Perry (bookend after the Walden/Zombo failed reprieve), Boyd (Capers: "We need more length" and the hole unsatisfactorily filled after the Jenkins departure), Dix (disastrous safety play). Even Adams...#1 and #2 unsigned in their contract years at the time.

    All the evidence points to Thompson viewing need about like everybody else.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    3,798
    Ratings:
    +2,907
    If anyone wants to revisit our discussion on the topic of whether or not Rodgers was a BPA or a need pick, I suggest the link to a thread in post #6 along with a link to Brandt talking about the draft room on the day Rodgers was picked. http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms/ In the link to the thread, and I’m sure in other threads that can be found with a simple search, I explain what I mean by “best value available” and I’m not going to reiterate it here. I’ll just have to somehow find a way to continue to go on living knowing HRE has found my explanation of BVA “not entirely satisfying”. :rolleyes:
     
  12. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    4,874
    Ratings:
    +2,211
    I would have expected no less.
     
  13. PikeBadger

    PikeBadger Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Ratings:
    +207
    BVA vs BPA is difficult to break down and I do think Thompson tries to match value with need and remains true to his board. If a very favorable trade offer been made for the Rodgers draft slot, I think Thompson would have made the trade. I don't believe he was looking to target a QB in the first round of that draft. I guess I essentially agree with both of you. I do think Ted is completely unwilling to jump his board for need though.
     
  14. El Guapo

    El Guapo Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2011
    Messages:
    2,513
    Ratings:
    +1,435
    Trying to put somebody into one box or the other (BPA, BPA, need-based) is pointless. The guy uses all of the tools in his box, and it varies year to year. It seems that more of his first rounders are need-based, with the first half being more prone for value picks based on his board, and the second half of the draft tilted towards BPA. But what does it really matter? In the end it's about whether he consistently procures players that can contribute and bring victories for the Packers. That's how he should be and will be ultimately judged.
     

Share This Page