Rajion Neal

[HardRightEdge]

Got it. You prefer a player of AJ Hawk's caliber to a better player of Marshawn Lynch's caliber.

I don't use 20/20 hindsight. Again...don't associate your thinking with Thompson. He had the opportunity to get Lynch...twice. Instead of drafting Lynch he chose to replace the two starting LBs he fired (Diggs, Lennon) with 1st. and 3rd. round picks. Go figure.

Why do i bother?

There are some questions I can answer, but that's not one of the.

When we get to the #30 pick, point out the player or players who are top tier that the Packers should have picked. Good luck with that.

 

[AmishMafia]

Lacy got 2/3 of the Packers' carries last season while turning into a reliable receiving threat in second half of the season, there's no reason to spend a first round pick on a backup while having more pressing needs on defense.

While calling me silly you haven't come up with a reasonable idea how to use Gordon at all. Great way to advocate for spending a first round pick on him.

Wait, i thought you said if we take Gordon he would sit on the bench for 4 years. You mean Lacy doesnt run the ball 100% of the time?

 

[TJV]

As I’ve posted many times I don’t believe any GM picks purely the BPA – without some modification it would result in some bizarre results. While we see bad picks every draft, we don’t see bizarre picks with regard to positions that we’d see with a purely BPA draft.

But I do believe the Aaron Rodgers pick was a rare example of BPA. With no hindsight whatever, he was the BPA by far. We’ve discussed this a lot. I have posted what Andrew Brandt has said of the pick and he was in the room and he says it was BPA pick. And here’s a quote from the horse’s mouth:

“Three or four days before the [2005] draft,” Thompson says, “we’re doing our research, going down the board, and I’m looking, and I think, ‘None of these teams are taking a quarterback.’ I couldn’t find one, after San Francisco. We hadn’t really paid attention to Rodgers because we just figured he’d be gone. Plus, we didn’t have that big a need there, obviously. So I just buried myself and went to look at all the Rodgers tape-from games, from the combine, from his pro day. After a couple of days I just felt he was too good to pass. So I said, ‘If he falls to us, we’re taking him.’”

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/09/03/green-bay-packers-ted-thompson/

You may believe that was just self-serving on Thompson’s part but because we’ve been able to watch him all these years, I believe he’s telling the truth. And when Brandt corroborated that, he was no longer working for the Packers. He wrote that the Packers had 20 players with a first round grade and there was only one name left at pick #24. BTW, Favre started his retirement talk long before Thompson arrived as GM.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Wait, i thought you said if we take Gordon he would sit on the bench for 4 years. You mean Lacy doesnt run the ball 100% of the time?

Don't put words in my mouth. Let me know about the important role Gordon would play for the Packers within the next four years Lacy won't be able to provide.

Maybe you'll answer it this time!!!

 

[HardRightEdge]

As I’ve posted many times I don’t believe any GM picks purely the BPA – without some modification it would result in some bizarre results. While we see bad picks every draft, we don’t see bizarre picks with regard to positions that we’d see with a purely BPA draft.

But I do believe the Aaron Rodgers pick was a rare example of BPA. With no hindsight whatever, he was the BPA by far. We’ve discussed this a lot. I have posted what Andrew Brandt has said of the pick and he was in the room and he says it was BPA pick. And here’s a quote from the horse’s mouth: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/09/03/green-bay-packers-ted-thompson/

You may believe that was just self-serving on Thompson’s part but because we’ve been able to watch him all these years, I believe he’s telling the truth. And when Brandt corroborated that, he was no longer working for the Packers. He wrote that the Packers had 20 players with a first round grade and there was only one name left at pick #24. BTW, Favre started his retirement talk long before Thompson arrived as GM.

Yeah, but wasn't it Brandt that said Thompson tried to trade out of the #24 spot? If Rodgers was the best player available regardless of need, and Thompson tried to trade out of it, then clearly he would have preferred filling needs further down to having the best player.

Despite these varying and conflicting reports, I maintain it was a case of a guy with successor potential falling in his lap with serial retirement threats weighing heavier every year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, but wasn't it Brandt that said Thompson tried to trade out of the #24 spot?

It's a fact Thompson tried to trade out of the #24 spot in the 2005 draft before selecting Rodgers (at least if we believe Brandt who was in the draft room at that time).

 

[HardRightEdge]

It's a fact Thompson tried to trade out of the #24 spot in the 2005 draft before selecting Rodgers (at least if we believe Brandt who was in the draft room at that time).

It seems Mr. Brand needs to make up his mind. Or maybe he just finds Thompson inscrutable.

I would note Brandt used the term "big need". He didn't say "no need". Insurance against the inscrutable Mr. Favre was certainly a need. And if you expect to contend with Mr. Favre for a couple of years, when exactly do you expect to get a shot at a potential successor if you expect to be drafting in the bottom 1/3 every year?

It was a confluence of need and opportunity.

 

[AmishMafia]

I don't use 20/20 hindsight. Again...don't associate your thinking with Thompson. He had the opportunity to get Lynch...twice. Instead of drafting Lynch he chose to replace the two starting LBs he fired (Diggs, Lennon) with 1st. and 3rd. round picks. Go figure.

There are some questions I can answer, but that's not one of the.

When we get to the #30 pick, point out the player or players who are top tier that the Packers should have picked. Good luck with that.

When a hyporhetical premise is proposed it is meant to stimulate intelligent discussions on the subject. So if someone says ' suppose you are at burger king and TT walks in, would you try and talk football with him?" A good response would Not be, "i don't like burger king". Sort of completely misses the point.

Just because you and the Cpt hit like on each others posts and that provably is very comforting. As said in another thread, you put 50 downs kids in one room, there a lot of hugging.

If you first thought for a reply is, AM is totally wrong, i like Burger King, well, although that was not a premise, ot was an illustration and not meant to be taken as a statement of fact.

 

[HardRightEdge]

When a hyporhetical premise is proposed it is meant to stimulate intelligent discussions on the subject. So if someone says ' suppose you are at burger king and TT walks in, would you try and talk football with him?" A good response would Not be, "i don't like burger king". Sort of completely misses the point.

Just because you and the Cpt hit like on each others posts and that provably is very comforting. As said in another thread, you put 50 downs kids in one room, there a lot of hugging.

If you first thought for a reply is, AM is totally wrong, i like Burger King, well, although that was not a premise, ot was an illustration and not meant to be taken as a statement of fact.

If pigs had wings, could they fly? It doesn't matter because the farmers won't let them out of their pens.

Put me on the record as thinking I don't care much for pigs on the hoof or wing, but I like some of their their parts in a frying pan.

I just missed Wolf and the Tuna having lunch in a Jupiter restaurant a couple of years ago. Were they having BLT's? Does the Tuna eat tuna? I cannot answer these questions.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just because you and the Cpt hit like on each others posts and that provably is very comforting. As said in another thread, you put 50 downs kids in one room, there a lot of hugging.

Amish, it's not that difficult, explain the beneficary purpose of drafting Gordon to me and I'm on board (highly doubt you're or anyone is capable of it though).

BTW name calling or any negative comment about mongolism doesn't make any of your ideas more reasonable.

 

[TJV]

Brandt wrote this last May: http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms/

A true trust The Board moment came in the drafting of Aaron Rodgers.
In 2005, we had approximately 20 players rated above the first-round line. When we arrived at our pick, at No. 24, the only name left above that line was Rodgers, who played the same position as one of the most durable players in NFL history: Brett Favre. (I always had a hard time signing a backup quarterback, as they wanted to have at least the possibility of playing.)

As we stared at Rodgers’ name, there were murmurs in the room from those concerned with the short-term, realizing we may well use our first-round pick on a player who would probably not get in a game that year (or perhaps the next, or even the year after that … or possibly never in a Packers uniform).

That flies in the face of a need pick.

… Ted wanted to see if an offer for extra picks would come while we were on the clock. The room and the phone lines were eerily silent—with all eyes on Ted and on me holding the phone—as everyone waited for the decision. Finally, after 10 minutes that seemed like 10 hours, Ted gave the go-ahead: We were taking Aaron.

Brandt's account indicates the Packers didn't call anyone to offer the pick for trade. They waited to see if a team called with a trade offer. They were doing their due diligence since it was possible a team actually in need of a QB would call with an offer too good to refuse. Just because Rodgers was clearly the BPA doesn't mean another team couldn't offer them enough in compensation to trade the pick.

 

[PikeBadger]

Melvin Gordon is FAR from great, he's a complete unknown. Come on.

Far from great and complete unknown are poor descriptions for Melvin Gordon. He has shown that he has significant skills and abilities. The kid is no joke.

 

[HardRightEdge]

They were doing their due diligence since it was possible a team actually in need of a QB would call with an offer too good to refuse.

I see now. Rodgers was a pure "best available player" pick, but only reluctantly. Thompson would have preferred some package of picks for lesser players, or one's of indeterminate value in the subsequent draft. To do what exactly, one surmises. Perhaps to fill more obvious needs? Or, as is Thompson's want, play the odds with more picks?

So, it's clear to me now. The Rodgers pick was a confluence of need and opportunity once nobody called.

 

[TJV]

I see now. Rodgers was a pure "best available player" pick, but only reluctantly. Thompson would have preferred some package of picks for lesser players, or one's of indeterminate value in the subsequent draft. To do what exactly, one surmises. Perhaps to fill more obvious needs? Or, as is Thompson's want, play the odds with more picks?

So, it's clear to me now. The Rodgers pick was a confluence of need and opportunity once nobody called.

C'mon HRE, that's not even a good try. Thompson has demonstrated - as much as any and more than most GMs - his belief that in the end the draft is still a crap shoot. "Sure fire" "can't miss" top ten picks fail and late round picks absent of any notoriety on draft day have HOF careers. They could have graded Rodgers as a top 5 pick and greatly valued pick #24 for that reason and still should have listened to offers of trade.

Argue to your hearts content, the evidence that the Rodgers pick, from two men in the draft room (one of whom was in charge) clearly goes against your theory.

 

[HardRightEdge]

C'mon HRE, that's not even a good try. Thompson has demonstrated - as much as any and more than most GMs - his belief that in the end the draft is still a crap shoot. "Sure fire" "can't miss" top ten picks fail and late round picks absent of any notoriety on draft day have HOF careers. They could have graded Rodgers as a top 5 pick and greatly valued pick #24 for that reason and still should have listened to offers of trade.

Argue to your hearts content, the evidence that the Rodgers pick, from two men in the draft room (one of whom was in charge) clearly goes against your theory.

What you just said is not inconsistent with my theory.

 

[PFanCan]

I am wondering if all of you are, in actuality, a bunch of bored little old ladies?

 

[TJV]

I am wondering if all of you are, in actuality, a bunch of bored little old ladies?

You meant to include yourself too, right? Or do you regularly hang out with a bunch of bored little old ladies?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Touche !! New balls please

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This little old Lady, who by the way has a #25 Badger Jersey, says Melvin Gordon isn't around at 30 when the Packers pick and even if he is and is the "BPA" TT trades back or takes the BPA closest to a position of need. Melvin will be a good player, no doubt, but so is Lacy. This idea of drafting Melvin to be used as a Kick returner, really? Have you watched Melvin play? I pity any team who thinks Melvin will be a successful kick returner.

I'm done commenting on one of my favorite Badger Players of all time, being taken #30......by The Packers.

 

[Einstein McFly]

I think people draw unreasonable situations when they think of the "best player available" method. I suspect that it's pretty rare to have one guy on the board that is rated way above everyone else outside of the top one or two picks every few years. By the time the packers are picking, I'd bet that there are a dozen guys with basically the same grade, so you pick the guy that would fit in best on your team either right away or in the near future.

If, say, TT thinks that Gordon is the next Barry Sanders and his grade is way higher than anyone else's on his board and he's shockingly available at 30, then yeah, TT should take him and trade Lacy for whatever he can get. Who wouldn't want Barry Sanders over Eddie Lacy? Of course, this is a ridiculous scenario. The odds are next to nothing that only TT will see the next Barry Sanders while 29 other GMs pass on him.

So yeah, I believe that TT picks the BPA from a group of guys with the same or basically the same grades and picks the one that has the best chance of fitting into the team. Where there's a guy that's rated way above whoever is left, TT will take him whether we need him right now or not. See Rodgers and Nelson.

 

[Ace]

His NFL ability may be completely unknown but then again so is every single player in the draft.

This is what I meant and should have said and completely agree with this entire statement. So why should we take a player at a position of no need who's NFL ability is completely unknown over a guy at a position of dire need who's NFL ability is also a complete unknown?

Again, the Packers don't need a RB AT ALL. They have 2 who for sure can play and they already know that, and another who is also an unknown to a certain extent but has NFL experience.

 

[Ace]

Sorry for the horrendous formatting above

 

[TJV]

Where there's a guy that's rated way above whoever is left, TT will take him whether we need him right now or not. See Rodgers and Nelson.

I disagree with your post generally but wanted to point out while there is a lot of evidence that Rodgers was an example of a player rated way above other potential draftees, I don’t think the same can be said for Nelson. If Nelson were also rated way above others, why didn’t Thompson pick him at #30 of the 2008 draft? Instead, he traded down with the Jets for their picks #36 and #113. Common sense tells me Nelson was on a talent tier with at least 7 other players or Thompson wouldn’t have risked trading down.

 

[AmishMafia]

I think people draw unreasonable situations when they think of the "best player available" method. I suspect that it's pretty rare to have one guy on the board that is rated way above everyone else outside of the top one or two picks every few years. By the time the packers are picking, I'd bet that there are a dozen guys with basically the same grade, so you pick the guy that would fit in best on your team either right away or in the near future.

If, say, TT thinks that Gordon is the next Barry Sanders and his grade is way higher than anyone else's on his board and he's shockingly available at 30, then yeah, TT should take him and trade Lacy for whatever he can get. Who wouldn't want Barry Sanders over Eddie Lacy? Of course, this is a ridiculous scenario. The odds are next to nothing that only TT will see the next Barry Sanders while 29 other GMs pass on him.

So yeah, I believe that TT picks the BPA from a group of guys with the same or basically the same grades and picks the one that has the best chance of fitting into the team. Where there's a guy that's rated way above whoever is left, TT will take him whether we need him right now or not. See Rodgers and Nelson.

Perfect! But why when I say the same thing I only get arguments?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Perfect! But why when I say the same thing I only get arguments?

No you don`t