Packers trade Worthy to Pats

[FrankRizzo]

Did you miss the Super Bowl?

Super Bowl was bad.... but this looks like a high school mismatch.
It made my turkey and potatoes taste so bad.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[TJV]

I find the injury issue to be a matter of assumption and not demonstration.

Football Outsiders adjusted games lost isn’t an assumption even if you want to nitpick the effectiveness of those starters. And of course an injury to a starter has a cascading effect on the rest of the roster and particularly on STs.

By the way, to whatever extent Flynn or Tolzien might be judged above the league average at some future date correlated with a commensurate record above 0.500 record in relief, then this would simply reinforce the notion that the roster outside the QB position is not particularly strong.

No, it’s that the team needs adequate play from the QB spot and with both in camp all off season they’ll get it this season. Also, for some reason the D went from playing well for the first 6-7 games of the season and then went completely in the tank. While everything on the field is ultimately Thompson’s responsibility, I wouldn’t blame his talent acquisition for the fall off as the talent he acquired began the year doing well.

You’re not a fan of Thompson and I am so we’ll never agree about this. I give him credit beyond just the Rodgers pick and cap management and you don’t. IMO his W-L record since hiring his guy as HC supports my view.

 

[Oski]

Thompson has had more draftees make the team than any other GM in the last 10 years... and we're a contending football team. So, you know... there's that.

He's brilliant at drafting skill talent. Not so sure about the rest though.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

It's too bad we don't have a big tough man like you running the show. We'd win a lot more than we have recently without TT stinking it up. He clearly doesn't know what he's doing, whereas guys who make trades all the time win everything.

they missed your sarcasm

 

[HardRightEdge]

Football Outsiders adjusted games lost isn’t an assumption even if you want to nitpick the effectiveness of those starters.

So, here's the link to Football Outsider's study:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2014/2013-adjusted-games-lost

One noticeable absence is the definition of "starter", however there are a few clues. First, "This data is only for the regular season." Second, the impact player examples in the opening paragraph were all starters at some time in 2013. I would conclude that players lost before the regular season opening day are not considered because they were never "regular season starters". As evidence, one example that comes to mind is Kevin Kolb. Buffalo signed him as a free agent, and he resided at the top of their depth chart until he fell down and go boom in training camp, evidently ending his career. He never played in 2013; he did not get counted as a lost starter in this study.

There are a lot of those guys around the league every year. Bulaga would have added 16 starter games to the Packer list; other teams would have had multiples.

Another seeming flaw in the methodology is illustrated in the Packer QB situation specifically cited in the article. In counting Packer QB AGL they cite the use of 4 QBs in the month of November. Really? I count at most two injuries for a total AGL of at most 8.x. Rodgers missed 7.x games and Wallace missed 0.x. Wallace was not coming back as a starter after that "injury" regardless. This data would seem to suggest some bunch of missed starter games accrued to Wallace as the backup that would have been called into service. That highlights the severe limitations of an "empirical" approach to something that requires a heavy dose of subjective adjustment based on detailed knowledge and insight deep into the roster of each team. There may not be a single human being on earth competent to perform that task, but that does not mean that's not where the real "intelligence" rests.

A second notable flaw in this methodology is the use of pre-game injury lists to quantify a player effectiveness adjustment. There is no consistency across the league in construction of these lists. Some teams like to load up the list with seemingly every hangnail to keep opponents guessing about who's playing and who isn't; other teams like to keep guys off the list if they're dinged up but expected to play so as not to expose vulnerabilities.

Those are just some of the critical flaws based on a few paragraphs of explanation and a few examples off the top of my head. Who knows what other faulty adjustments and assumptions lie beneath if anybody cared to pick through the numbers and compare them to the reality.

Football Outsiders adjusted games lost isn’t an assumption even if you want to nitpick the effectiveness of those starters.

It's ironic you should mention that judgements about the quality of the starters is "nitpicking" since Football Outsides led with examples of guys THEY deem to be of note. That bit of snarkiness aside, of import is the notion that just because the quality of the lost players defies an "empirical" methodology that boils impact down to one number doesn't mean that the quality of the lost players is not immensely important in drawing conclusions. It's not nitpicking; it just defies these simple measurement techniques.

In short, taking the measure of any complex factor within a complex system by boiling it down to a single number based on things that can be measured to the exclusion of things that can't is at least inherently questionable and at worst deeply flawed.

The fact is I cannot conclude from this study if the Packers won/loss record was more inversely impacted by injury (other than Rodgers') than the average team around the league, and neither should anybody else. Studies such as FO's have the veneer of authority when in fact there are some obvious holes (as illustrated above) and who know how many others that are not so obvious.

"...it’s that the team needs adequate play from the QB spot and with both in camp all off season they’ll get it this season.

I read that, I understand that, I agree with that (hoping we won't get ANY backup play this season). It just isn't inconsistent with my point.

Also, for some reason the D went from playing well for the first 6-7 games of the season and then went completely in the tank. While everything on the field is ultimately Thompson’s responsibility, I wouldn’t blame his talent acquisition for the fall off as the talent he acquired began the year doing well.

There were some things that were observable in the defensive fall off as soon as Rodgers went down without any defensive injuries of import in the immediate aftermath. For instance, the run defense went in the tank immediately. There are plausible explanations how these things are tied together, but that would be a matter for another thread.

You’re not a fan of Thompson and I am so we’ll never agree about this. I give him credit beyond just the Rodgers pick and cap management and you don’t. IMO his W-L record since hiring his guy as HC supports my view.

Omitting the hiring of McCarthy was neglectful on my part. I like the way he runs things. He's still got some play calling issues but he's gotten better with the passing years and those glaring clock management gaffes have not been evident recently. In matters unrelated to the 3.5 hours between the coin flip and the gun, I have nothing but admiration for how he runs things. We're certainly fortunate to have him.

So, Thompson's signature achievements should be amended to (1) securing Rodgers, (2) hiring McCarthy and (3) conservative cap management. I would note that (1) and (2) were early in the regime (and were risky and controversial moves one might add). Leaders feel they can take some big chances when first installed...they'll have time to recover if they're wrong.

Thompson's grown to be quite risk averse until something blows up, then he jumps to a fix...the 2012 "all defense" draft (which included "reaches" whether anybody wants to admit it or not); the signing of Peppers (a classic "works on paper" free agent signing, the kind Thompson was previously credited with avoiding); drafting high picks indisputably for need in recent years, protestations to the contrary; the backup QB fiasco of last season after coming very late to the conclusion the guys were not on a sufficient development curve. Vince Young? Really?

As for the cap management, it's not clear to what degree that is steered by Thompson or whether Murphy and Ball deserve a large dose of credit. I seem to recall Thompson saying that Murphy gave him the go ahead player-budget-wise to extend Rodgers and Matthews when he did. It strikes me as a collective effort and an organizational philosophy not attributable any one person.

Right, I'm not a fan of Thompson; I'm not a hater either. While one can make a career out of a couple of home run decisions early on, I just don't see where he deserves the reputation as a "top 5" or "top 10" GM many choose to ascribe to him given the last few years worth of personnel decisions...less than stellar drafts and lack of value-plumbing in the free agent market.

 

[TeamTundra]

Read on JSOnline that the Packers really like Letroy Guion and even though he
Is on PUP with a hamstring injury he has a very good chance to make the team.

 

[TJV]

Right, I'm not a fan of Thompson; I'm not a hater either. While one can make a career out of a couple of home run decisions early on, I just don't see where he deserves the reputation as a "top 5" or "top 10" GM many choose to ascribe to him given the last few years worth of personnel decisions...less than stellar drafts and lack of value-plumbing in the free agent market.

You write you’re not a hater but you’re at least close to that description: You insist the pick of Rodgers was needs based – contradicting Brandt who was in the organization and in the draft room while the pick was made. You admit you neglected to credit him with the McCarthy selection – certainly an out of the box decision at the time. You neglect to mention one of his biggest gambles – the expensive trade up for Matthews. You downplay the impact of injuries although it’s pretty well established (by nearly everyone but you) the Packers have been one of the hardest hit teams in the league over the past few years. And how about the 2010 team, ending the season with 15 players on IR and the Lombardi trophy in hand? Or doesn’t that count because it was “early” in his tenure? You even attempt to undermine his management of the cap. (Yes, Murphy has to rubber stamp huge contracts but there’s no evidence to suggest Thompson is not fully at the helm.)

How does the national media rate Thompson as a GM? See if you can find one that has him out of the top 10. And how about his peers? SI did a poll of 12 GMs in September of 2013 and 9 of them pick Newsome as the best (of course the Ravens won the title the previous year). “The only other GM getting votes was Thompson. One of the three GMs who voted for Thompson cited his "core principle beliefs and patience. He never wavers. He'll stay true to his plan.” http://www.si.com/nfl/2013/09/04/nfl-gm-poll-belichick-newsome

Since you allege he’s not in the top 10 GMs, which 10 would you rate ahead of Thompson? And to be fair, be sure to selectively evaluate the job their doing. For example, If they did something well “too long ago” be sure to discount it. If they have a pretty well agreed upon strength, be sure to downplay it by attributing it to someone else in their organization.

Of course he's made mistakes but I'm glad the Packers have him and I'm glad they extended his contract.

 

[OCBP]

Thompson has had more draftees make the team than any other GM in the last 10 years... and we're a contending football team. So, you know... there's that.

If draftees make the team does that validate that they positively contribute?

Just askin'

 

[OCBP]

Well, having only three players of an entire draft class on the roster only two years later isn´t satisfying, especially when being a draft and develop team.

I would suggest stopping with the logic. You will continue to get a beat down.

 

[HardRightEdge]

You write you’re not a hater but you’re at least close to that description: You insist the pick of Rodgers was needs based – contradicting Brandt who was in the organization and in the draft room while the pick was made. You admit you neglected to credit him with the McCarthy selection – certainly an out of the box decision at the time. You neglect to mention one of his biggest gambles – the expensive trade up for Matthews. You downplay the impact of injuries although it’s pretty well established (by nearly everyone but you) the Packers have been one of the hardest hit teams in the league over the past few years. And how about the 2010 team, ending the season with 15 players on IR and the Lombardi trophy in hand? Or doesn’t that count because it was “early” in his tenure? You even attempt to undermine his management of the cap. (Yes, Murphy has to rubber stamp huge contracts but there’s no evidence to suggest Thompson is not fully at the helm.)

How does the national media rate Thompson as a GM? See if you can find one that has him out of the top 10. And how about his peers? SI did a poll of 12 GMs in September of 2013 and 9 of them pick Newsome as the best (of course the Ravens won the title the previous year). “The only other GM getting votes was Thompson. One of the three GMs who voted for Thompson cited his "core principle beliefs and patience. He never wavers. He'll stay true to his plan.” http://www.si.com/nfl/2013/09/04/nfl-gm-poll-belichick-newsome

Since you allege he’s not in the top 10 GMs, which 10 would you rate ahead of Thompson? And to be fair, be sure to selectively evaluate the job their doing. For example, If they did something well “too long ago” be sure to discount it. If they have a pretty well agreed upon strength, be sure to downplay it by attributing it to someone else in their organization.

Of course he's made mistakes but I'm glad the Packers have him and I'm glad they extended his contract.

I don't expend the emotion of hating on "average". I'm sensible enough to know the situation could be worse. Who are ALL of the better ones? I could not say...but what I see is an average roster outside the QB position and that should be sufficient.

Speaking of self-contradictions you and Brandt have something in common. In your case it was the matter of being done with that bit of discussion about need vs. value while directing interested parties to another thread to continue that self-same discussion. Why not take your own advice? On the more current matter at hand, you said we won't agree. On that we do agree.

On second thought, Brandt may not have been self-contradicting; it might have been a case of being wiser than Thompson which then makes Thompson's decision a matter of luck that nobody made that phone call. Thompson could have turned his practice of accumulating a little edge here and a little edge there in trying to get an extra pick into a missed opportunity with decade-long consequences. He gets credit for having QB on the needs list in any case while seeing a first round value, but not enough value evidently to not have traded it away.

Do we really want to go with the "national media" argument or polls? Newsome wouldn't get anywhere near those #1 votes today because the team got old, the D got dismantled, and they're just not very good in the wake. Winning the SB forced his owner to give the QB the kind of franchise contract he probably does not deserve. That's not to say Newsome isn't one of the top guys, just that the people who vote on this stuff are not necessarily well informed and are fickle in their opinions. Others might not want to waste the time to think about the matter when asked and vote the most recent winner and fill out the card with the guys he usually votes for.

It's delusional to think any GM has a studied assessment of every other in the league.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Super Bowl was bad.... but this looks like a high school mismatch.
It made my turkey and potatoes taste so bad.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Can anyone explain this?
I think we had Lacy, maybe had Matthews still......

 

[GoPGo]

If draftees make the team does that validate that they positively contribute?

Just askin'

The vast majority of players on our team have never played for anyone but the Packers, so CLEARLY they positively contribute.

 

[cara murphy]

Does this present a savings to the cap?

Good question!!

 

[Green and Gold]

Sweet! we just got something for nothing, He was a second round pick with numerous injury problems... No way it's a 3rd/4th. When he was on the shelf other guys stepped up, I'm not worried - I always trust TT.

 

[PikeBadger]

I'm not at all convinced that Newsome is the top GM in the league. I think even the best ones have their up and downs. I do agree that GM's probably don't do studied assessments of their peers, but they do have insight that us outsiders do not. I think it is very telling that others think Thompson is very patient and unwilling to waver from his plan. I see that as a huge positive attribute of Thompson. Others, obviously don't, or just don't agree with his plan. I think it is practically irrefutable that his cap management people and decisions have been very good. We seldom get stuck with bad contracts like most of the other GM's.

 

[Forget Favre]

I guess he was Worthyless to the Packers.
I hope this deal becomes Worthy to the Packers.

 

[TJV]

Speaking of self-contradictions you and Brandt have something in common. In your case it was the matter of being done with that bit of discussion about need vs. value while directing interested parties to another thread to continue that self-same discussion.

So my “self” contradiction is directing others to another thread if they wanted to read a discussion of a subject rather than re-hash the subject? And it’s a contradiction because I wrote I was done with that discussion on the thread to which they were directed? That’s laughable. I understand your sensitivity about being confronted with direct evidence from Brandt that contradicts your opinion of the Rodgers’ pick but that’s really stretching it. And BTW, I didn’t give up my ability to comment on that pick ever again; it was pointless going 'round and 'round as you attempted to recover from what Brandt plainly said. But speaking of contradictions:

I just don't see where he deserves the reputation as a "top 5" or "top 10" GM many choose to ascribe to him ...

Who are ALL of the better ones? I could not say....

So you’re certain Thompson isn’t a top 5 or top 10 GM but you have no idea who is in the top 5 or top 10 GMs?

 

[Oski]

You write you’re not a hater but you’re at least close to that description: You insist the pick of Rodgers was needs based – contradicting Brandt who was in the organization and in the draft room while the pick was made. You admit you neglected to credit him with the McCarthy selection – certainly an out of the box decision at the time. You neglect to mention one of his biggest gambles – the expensive trade up for Matthews. You downplay the impact of injuries although it’s pretty well established (by nearly everyone but you) the Packers have been one of the hardest hit teams in the league over the past few years. And how about the 2010 team, ending the season with 15 players on IR and the Lombardi trophy in hand? Or doesn’t that count because it was “early” in his tenure? You even attempt to undermine his management of the cap. (Yes, Murphy has to rubber stamp huge contracts but there’s no evidence to suggest Thompson is not fully at the helm.)

How does the national media rate Thompson as a GM? See if you can find one that has him out of the top 10. And how about his peers? SI did a poll of 12 GMs in September of 2013 and 9 of them pick Newsome as the best (of course the Ravens won the title the previous year). “The only other GM getting votes was Thompson. One of the three GMs who voted for Thompson cited his "core principle beliefs and patience. He never wavers. He'll stay true to his plan.” http://www.si.com/nfl/2013/09/04/nfl-gm-poll-belichick-newsome

Since you allege he’s not in the top 10 GMs, which 10 would you rate ahead of Thompson? And to be fair, be sure to selectively evaluate the job their doing. For example, If they did something well “too long ago” be sure to discount it. If they have a pretty well agreed upon strength, be sure to downplay it by attributing it to someone else in their organization.

Of course he's made mistakes but I'm glad the Packers have him and I'm glad they extended his contract.

In reality, it didn't make a lot of sense to draft a qb when you have another qb with multiple years left. surely it wasn't needs based.

 

[Oski]

The vast majority of players on our team have never played for anyone but the Packers, so CLEARLY they positively contribute.

I guess the question is how do you factor in a guy like Hawk who is a solid, but not spectacular starter, but was the #5 overall pick in the draft. He seems to rarely draft complete failures (I guess except 2011 and 2012), but outside of the skill positions, doesn't necessarily draft guys who outperform or even perform to their drafted level.

 

[Oshkoshpackfan]

In reality, it didn't make a lot of sense to draft a qb when you have another qb with multiple years left. surely it wasn't needs based.

I have to say it was partially needs based. Having someone be groomed to take over one day instead of being thrown to the wolves has much better results...... as we have clearly seen. A trial by fire for a rookie QB rarely works out. I would say Andrew Luck has been the best in a while.

 

[Greenbayphil]

So apparently he passed the physical.

 

[Oski]

I have to say it was partially needs based. Having someone be groomed to take over one day instead of being thrown to the wolves has much better results...... as we have clearly seen. A trial by fire for a rookie QB rarely works out. I would say Andrew Luck has been the best in a while.

I completely agree that it is ideal to have him ride the bench, but using a first round draft pick on a guy who wont start for 3 years just doesn't work in today's nfl. In particular, when you are talking about a team that could have been one good/great player away from legitimately competing for a championship.

 

[OCBP]

The vast majority of players on our team have never played for anyone but the Packers, so CLEARLY they positively contribute.

How do you know they are good enough to play for someone else?

 

[GoPGo]

How do you know they are good enough to play for someone else?

Because we own our division, we're a perennial playoff team, and this year we will be a legitimate SB contender. That's how. Combine that with the fact that our castoffs routinely find their way onto other team's rosters and it's really not that difficult.

 

[HardRightEdge]

So my “self” contradiction is directing others to another thread if they wanted to read a discussion of a subject rather than re-hash the subject? And it’s a contradiction because I wrote I was done with that discussion on the thread to which they were directed? That’s laughable.

It certainly is.