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!
    Dismiss Notice

TT Drafting For Need: Good Thing?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Bagadeez04, Apr 27, 2012.

  1. Bagadeez04

    Bagadeez04 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Ratings:
    +147
    Clearly Ted has made a statement in the first couple rounds that he wants the problems on defense fixed...and he seems to have made some very good moves to accomplish that.

    My question: For a guy who is typically a "Best Value Available" GM, does it worry anyone that he appears to be drafting purely for need this year, like so many GM's around the league do? Is he regressing into a typical GM that merely sees this year's particular needs, and ignores the long term approach?
     
  2. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    835
    Ratings:
    +417
    You have to adjust for the fact that he's changing draft position to grab some of these guys.

    Hard to have a sober conversation along these lines without seeing how these additions affect the team. Based on track record, I don't think there's any reason to panic.

    I like the Worthy pick quite a bit: a good player obtained at a great value. I'm more ambivalent about the Hayward move: there are scouting reports suggesting that he's better than widely regarded going into the draft, but if that's the case you shouldn't have to trade up quite so far in order to grab him. I'm not questioning Hayward as much as I'm questioning the value of him at 62 overall. I would've loved to see us hold onto our third-rounder somehow.

    Again, based on track record, I think we'll be fine. Since TT didn't mortgage any future draft picks in order to make his moves, I think he was pretty successful in turning several draft picks into a fewer number of high impact additions so far. Tomorrow he can look for a backup QB, OL developmental prospects and RBs- in addition to promising defensive prospects as well.
     
  3. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    The only possible question with BPA can be with Perry. He has top 10 athleticism, only question was about his toughness - it is very possible that he was BPA. Trading up to get players has to be BPA or else you wouldn't have to trade up to get them. Obviously. Therefore, I disagree with your presumption that TT has done anything other than BPA.

    We knew going into this draft that the strength was DE and OLB. It does not surprise me an iota that those were our first picks.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. jaybadger82

    jaybadger82 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2012
    Messages:
    835
    Ratings:
    +417
    In Ted I trust.

    But he's got to recognize when his valuation of a player is far higher than that of other teams and play it out accordingly. There's every indication that we could have traded up into the low seventies instead of the low sixties and still gotten our man in Hayward. We might still have our third rounder or we might have picked up another later round pick as part of the exchange...

    Ted's managed this franchise better that I possibly could. Just doing some armchair quarterbacking...

    Edit: Not Packer related but I can't resist: When the Jags drafted a punter in the third round, I immediately thought of the movie Major League, where the ownership of the Cleveland Indians does everything possible to intentionally ruin the franchise in order to relocate to a better market. Cheer up, Viking fans, the LA Jaguars are coming soon!
     
  5. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Considering the VALUE of the players we got, where we got them? Ted probably had them slotted either above or near the spot we snagged them. And he picked them because value and need met. That's what the BVA does, it picks the best value that fits a need unless there is a ridiculous player sitting at the slot demanding to be drafted. Plus Ted has always been a bit eccentric with his picks IMO

    Reminded me of a Kiper quote "they just don't understand how the draft works" then I remembered "Mail it in for Matt"/"Bad for Barkley" and the state of the QB position at JAX (JAX to LAX, made me chuckle) and it all made sense
     
  6. MiamiBeachPacker

    MiamiBeachPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    701
    Ratings:
    +282

    You have to remember that 2 other CBs went off the board just after we picked up Hayward. The Rams took Trumaine Johnson at 65 and the Vikings took Josh Robinson at 66. So there is definitely no guarantee that Hayward would've been there in the low seventies.
     
  7. weeds

    weeds Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    Messages:
    2,379
    Ratings:
    +1,230
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Good opening question. I am not worried about Thompson drafting for need in this draft. McGinn recently wrote an article I referred to in another thread in which he pointed out that Thompson’s drafts have emphasized offense so far so the top of this draft is bringing his drafts into overall balance.

    I agree trading up represents BVA unless way, way too much is given up to trade up. IMO that would mean the team sees the target as the BPA but gave up too much value. But that didn’t happen yesterday so I agree with AmishMafia, Perry is the only possible “violation” of BVA. Gil Brandt, who I have a lot of respect for listed Perry as the 21st best player in the draft (and Worthy as the 23rd). Of course that isn’t definitive but I don’t doubt Thompson and staff had the physical specimen that is Nick Perry rated above where he was selected in this draft. As we’ve talked about, BVA includes a team’s depth chart so for the Packers if a WR and OLB were closely rated it would matter that the OLB would be slotted as the starter (subject to change of course) and the WR would vie for the #3 or #4 WR spot. That’s an extreme example, of course.

    As to jaybadger82’s charge about Thompson paying too much to trade up to get Hayward, there’s a jsonline column that refutes that strongly titled, “Thompson wins swap with Belichick”. Luckily for the Packers Belichick was apparently desperate and Thompson took advantage of him. According to the trade value chart Silverstein uses in the article (available here http://walterfootball.com/draftchart.php and elsewhere), pick #62 was worth 284 points; the Packers pick #90 was worth 140 pts and #163 was worth 29.8 pts, that’s a “gain” of 114.2 for the Packers. So from the Packers point of view, they didn’t give up as much value in the trade as the difference in picks represents. IOW, it didn’t matter if they got Hayward at #62, #72, or #84 – they didn’t pay that much to move up to get him. In fact according to the trade value chart, Thompson “paid for” pick #84 which is valued at 170 (140 + 29.8). Back to Brandt’s rankings, he lists Hayward at #82 so according to Brandt, Thompson again got value. And there was no way for Thompson to move up from pick #90 without giving up that pick unless he used a 2013 pick and that would have been mortgaging the future and reason for concern. BTW, I liked this quote from Mayock on Hayward: "He's one of the most instinctive corners in this draft. After Morris Claiborne, Hayward has the best ball skills of any of the corners in this draft. I love this pick for the Packers."

    Regarding the trade up for Worthy: Again according to the draft pick value chart, the Packers gave up 359 “value points” (310 + 49) to move up to pick #51 which is valued at 390 points.

    The Packers have exercised three picks in the first three rounds of the draft and IMO got incredible value. Gil Brandt doesn’t have “a dog in this fight” – by that I mean he attempts to be objective in his player rankings. Although still subjective, by his standard the Packers got incredible value with their first two picks and fair value for their third. The trade value chart is another subjective measure but again by that standard, Thompson barely “won” the first trade up and hit a grand slam on the second.

    The Packers have seven picks left. While they don’t have a pick in the 5th round, they have two fourth rounders so even after the trades they have more than a full compliment of picks. Of the seven Thompson has left, he has to exercise four so even if he can trade the remaining three for one, they’ll still pick 8 players.

    So far here’s my only problem with this draft: Knowing no NFL championship has ever been won in April, I’m struggling to contain my enthusiasm. Giddy doesn’t look good on an old man!
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. PackFanNChiTown

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    749
    Ratings:
    +368
    BPA is a strong philosophy when you're rebuilding a team, when the key positions are strong and there's adequate depth you draft for need, it is a luxury.

    Consider the alternative, if Ted was drafting strictly BPA he could have taken a WR in one of the first three rounds. Could we use another WR? I guess. Would that have been the best choice? Probably not.
     
  10. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030

    Belichek got a laugh in at the end anyway
     
  11. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    5,389
    Ratings:
    +4,176
    Really? Of course no one gets the last laugh regarding a draft until the NFL careers of the players selected can be evaluated. But just with regard to maneuvering within a draft, I disagree. As I posted above originally the Packers “gained” 114.2 points by trading picks #90 and #163 for #62. By trading pick #163 back to the Packers, the trade up for #62 (264 points) cost the Packers #90 (140 points), #197 (12.6 points), #224 (2 points) and #235 (no points). That means instead of having a 114.2 point advantage, the Packers have a 154.6 point advantage.

    I understand you’re disappointed no OL, RB and perhaps QB was selected with the picks traded for #163 but keep in mind it could very well be the case that Thompson and staff either believed Manning was worth that “loss” or they didn’t see a huge difference between the prospects available at #197 and toward the end of the seventh round and the players available with their remaining comp picks and UFDAs.
     
  12. KNIGHTTIME

    KNIGHTTIME Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    He exclusively drafts defense...and the defense still has problems every year. Refuses to address runningback or receiver.

    You can tell Rodgers gets pissed after so many dropped passes that are perfect spirals right on the money.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
  13. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Exactly what I've felt. I have reservations about the guy. Glad there is someone who agrees with me. ;)
     
  14. claybillings

    claybillings Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4
    I would imagine there is quite a few of us with reservations about him. But the thing I think about it is this. Nick Perry is the 2nd most talented OLB that Dom Capers has had available to him since his time here. I've come away very impressed with what he was able to do with the top talented player he received, so I'm going to wait to pass judgement on this guy until after Dom and Greene have had their opportunity to coach him, even if I have reservations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Reservations now judgement later. We agree.
     
  16. wholovesbevers

    wholovesbevers Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    Ratings:
    +11
    A lot of good reading in this thread. However, I'm still astonished that people are suggesting TT would divert from his philosophy all of a sudden.
     
  17. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    I was only referring to Perry in the context of being BPA or not. There should be no question that the trade up guys were BPA. I think Perry was BPA - there was 6 or 7 guys who could have been lumped together at that point in the draft who where on the same talent tier.

    As far as Perry goes as a player, I am not entirely sold on him. He has all the athleticism as you want but I do hold these concerns. How will he adapt to dropping into coverage? And is he tough enough for what I would like to see out of a OLB? He may very well answer these questions - I just don't know enough about him. I do have faith in TT that he wouldn't take somebody unless he answered those questions in his own mind.
     
  18. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I understand you were referring to him in that context. I totally agree with you in your assessment of Perry. I'd add, that can he move from a three point stance to OLB? Does he have the lateral quickness to make the move? Does he have the toughness and consistency you want? I don't know, hence I have reservations.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. KNIGHTTIME

    KNIGHTTIME Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    The Vikings/Bearers forums are all VERY happy with TT's job as well.

    The overriding theme, "Rodgers didn't get any new weapons".

    Yes, TT's picks are PANDERING to the rivals.
     
  20. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    I'm sure the Vikings/Bearers are happy. Anymore weapons on offense for the Pack and things would have been nuclear for them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. MiamiBeachPacker

    MiamiBeachPacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Messages:
    701
    Ratings:
    +282
    Good for them
     
  22. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    Green Peace is also pissed he wasn't fired. How many more whales must die? And for Gods sake, what about the children?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  23. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,975
    Ratings:
    +2,226
    In all picks there is risk/reward. The risk is higher with Perry but then again, if he gets it going, the sky is the limit and our defense would be amazing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Ok, I'll give you that one.

    I think they figured Manning was the only one that could bring real competition left. I didn't really want a RB or QB though I figured they'd sign a QB for competition sake. I can't even be upset because of the 3 OL I REALLY wanted we signed Datko and the other nameless two (a Center and a Guard) are UDFA. If we don't sign them at this point they wanted to go elsewhere or they weren't worth signing. Genus and (God forbid) EDS can step in if Saturday gets hurt, and we have plenty of Tackles to play Guard. Heck, at this point I'm ready to try Sherrod at Center just for fun.
     
  25. Jules

    Jules The Colts Fan

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    2,769
    Ratings:
    +754
    They sound pretty stupid.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page