Packers contract negotiation stories
- Thread starter ivo610
- Start date
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
"The challenge, of course, was not knowing when (or if) that upside would kick in, with the unanswerable question dominating the negotiation: “How long is Brett Favre going to play?”
Does anybody need any further evidence of the "need" component in the Rodgers draft pick?
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Yes, as discussed in at least one other thread.
AmishMafia
Cheesehead
Must have missed that one. Did a search so I could post a link, but nothing.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
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.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
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.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
Imagine my gratification in reading these most recent comments from Brandt in owning up to the obvious realities.
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
Nice try... not really.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
"A first round pick with no plan? Really?" You misinterpreted the nature of my disappointment.
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
"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 by a moderator:
TJV
Lifelong Packers Fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 5,389
- Reaction score
- 954
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”. 
H
HardRightEdge
Guest
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”.
I would have expected no less.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2013
- Messages
- 6,358
- Reaction score
- 1,741
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.
El Guapo
Cheesehead
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.
Similar threads
