Will Free Agency affect our Draft?

[fistfullofbeer]

GM's in both sports that I watch, hockey and football, say that they draft BPA based on their board and not on the basis of need. It makes sense, but if we go hard in FA and acquire a few good players (hopefully), do we still go the BPA route? Or do we change that to need by moving down (or up) in the draft and fill positions that we need?

Just curious about what you guys think about how FA may or may not affect the Draft outcome.

 

[yooperpackfan]

GM's in both sports that I watch, hockey and football, say that they draft BPA based on their board and not on the basis of need. It makes sense, but if we go hard in FA and acquire a few good players (hopefully), do we still go the BPA route? Or do we change that to need by moving down (or up) in the draft and fill positions that we need?

Just curious about what you guys think about how FA may or may not affect the Draft outcome.

IMHO, free agency COULD affect our draft but we as Packers fans have not really had to consider free agency very much under the Ted Thompson regime.
This free agency that you speak about is almost new to us.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Of course who you sign in Free Agency effects your draft board. Without opening the can of worms in Green Bay, will just give you a simple example.

If a team signs a high end FA QB, they aren't going to go into the draft looking for their QB of the future and will probably remove most of the top tier QB's from their board. Now if they are sitting there at #45 and a QB they had ranked in the top 20 picks is there, maybe they consider drafting him or at least getting on the phone and seeing if any teams want to trade for the pick.

While I don't think there is an exact science to how everyone conducts their drafts, value and need are probably the 2 biggest factors in choices made. With need possibly influencing value quite a bit.

I'm guessing Gute prepares for the draft with a long list of players he would like to target at given position and select points in the draft. Each probably in order of highest perceived value and each being set into a group of where he feels their value to Green Bay lies.


Just my theories for what they are worth.

 

[sschind]

GM's in both sports that I watch, hockey and football, say that they draft BPA based on their board and not on the basis of need. It makes sense, but if we go hard in FA and acquire a few good players (hopefully), do we still go the BPA route? Or do we change that to need by moving down (or up) in the draft and fill positions that we need?

Just curious about what you guys think about how FA may or may not affect the Draft outcome.

To expound a bit on Poker's theory, The operative phrase in your question is "based on their board" The "best" player is still going to be the "best" player so if the GM is telling the truth who we acquire in FA will not affect the draft. However, I firmly believe that a GM's board is determined in part by need so if we acquire a strong starter at one or more positions during FA the GM's board may very well change thus the "best" player may change. He will still draft the best player based on his board but that board may be quite different than it would have been had said FAs not been signed.

Look at it this way. If a team is in desperate need of a running back their board might have a RB rated as the 10th best player. If they go into the draft still needing a RB and they are picking #15 and that RB is still there and the 9 above him are gone they may very well take that RB. They will have taken their "best" On the other hand if they sign LeVeon Bell as a FA they may not have that RB as the 10th best player. Maybe an OL jumps ahead of him and during the draft they may very well take that OL instead. Even if the RB is still #10 they may not take him.

Of course this assumes a GMs board is a ranked list of players from 1- 300 or however many and best can be determined simply by looking at the highest rated player available. I don't think Many GMs construct their boards that way. That is how many fans perceive it and its why they get so upset when their GM takes player A over player B when clearly player B is better. First of all they don't stop to think that just because player B is ahead of player A on their ranked list he may not be on someone else's. Second are they looking for the "best" player in terms of overall talent or are they looking for the "best" player for their team. Third, if two players are fairly equal in their mind is it really taking the best player if he is at a position that is the teams strength. Example if the Chiefs are sitting at #32 and the highest rated (ie best) player on their board is a QB would you want them to take him or maybe it would be better to take the RB who is ranked a spot or two below.

I would certainly hope a GM would consider need when drafting players and the way I see most going about it is like this. They identify the top 3-4 positions of need and they identify the top prospects at each position and give them a grade. Then when its their turn to pick they have to decide do we take our top graded OL or our 4th rated Edge rusher. Or they have to decide if the QB they have graded a 95 is really the better choice over a S they have graded a 94.

So, the short answer is yes free agency does affect a teams draft.

 

[sschind]

IMHO, free agency COULD affect our draft but we as Packers fans have not really had to consider free agency very much under the Ted Thompson regime.
This free agency that you speak about is almost new to us.

Signing players is only one half of free agency. If a team loses their top and pretty much only RB it is probably going to affect how they draft regardless of whether or not they sign anyone.

 

[Dantés]

Nobody drafts BPA. When GM's say that, they're either lying because it sounds good to the fans or they mean something quite different from what fans think they mean.

 

[PackAttack12]

In my opinion, free agency does indeed dictate a lot in regards to how teams attack the draft. GM's know ahead of time which positions are deep in certain drafts, and which positions are thin in certain drafts. Depending upon who you can get and for what type of value in free agency, you then use your draft picks on players to round out the rest of your roster.

To Dantés point, teams are always looking at need in drafts. Unless of course to PB's point, you see a guy that's dropped a ton and it makes too much sense not to draft him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Nobody drafts BPA. When GM's say that, they're either lying because it sounds good to the fans or they mean something quite different from what fans think they mean.

Unless that player happens to be named Aaron Rodgers, which is one of those rare times that I have seen the Packers actually probably go "BPA" in the first round. Obviously, if the Packers knew Favre was on his way out quicker than us fans thought, than their was a "need" component in there as well.

 

[Dantés]

Unless that player happens to be named Aaron Rodgers, which is one of those rare times that I have seen the Packers actually probably go "BPA" in the first round. Obviously, if the Packers knew Favre was on his way out quicker than us fans thought, than their was a "need" component in there as well.

Plus he was approach his mid-thirties in an era where it wasn't very common to see QB's playing much past that age.

 

[TomBrownFan40]

The first question is not who do we sign in Free Agency or who do we draft it is who do we keep? These next few months are going to be crucial. Hopefully, the new regime of Murphy, Gute, and Lafleur can get on the same personnel page. Unlike many commentators, I make no pretense of knowing what when on during the McCarthy/Thompson era. However, from my distance it seems they were not always on the same page.

I hope they do some serious film watching (this season that would be mostly painful but, necessary) and find out who goes and who stays. If in the end a position as a huge gaping hole, then FA is probably the place to go. Areas where the team is OK but, could use an upgrade, that is for the draft.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The first question is not who do we sign in Free Agency or who do we draft it is who do we keep? These next few months are going to be crucial. Hopefully, the new regime of Murphy, Gute, and Lafleur can get on the same personnel page. Unlike many commentators, I make no pretense of knowing what when on during the McCarthy/Thompson era. However, from my distance it seems they were not always on the same page.

I hope they do some serious film watching (this season that would be mostly painful but, necessary) and find out who goes and who stays. If in the end a position as a huge gaping hole, then FA is probably the place to go. Areas where the team is OK but, could use an upgrade, that is for the draft.

While I agree with you, your own guys are the first step in the process, I think a lot of our needs already exist and will still be there no matter who we resign or let go. The guys currently not under contract will be decided before Free Agency. Decisions of guys currently under contract, like Bulaga, Graham and maybe a few others, those might be dependent on what we get done in Free Agency and the draft and done post draft.

 

[Poppa San]

I hope they do some serious film watching (this season that would be mostly painful but, necessary) and find out who goes and who stays.

This is one of the advantages of maintaining Pettine. He and the rest of the FO have seen the returning players in his system and has a better idea where the inadequacies are and which pegs are needed to fit which holes.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Nobody drafts BPA. When GM's say that, they're either lying because it sounds good to the fans or they mean something quite different from what fans think they mean.

Or it's just a way to deflect questions. To say otherwise leads to questions and then more questions about peceived needs, this position or that, this prospect or that, this guy or that being replaced.

If a team has enough needs, that statement can be close to true regardless. If half the position groups have a noteable weakness, there's a very good chance a need pick will be close enough to the highest grade not to quibble.

As for the thread title, of course it matters. Otherwise, you have to think about the first question that was skipped over: Should a team sign free agents without reference to need?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I also think as fans, we may not have a complete picture of who coaches feel may be able to step up and fill what we may perceive as a need for the following season. While I can't think of any current backups off the top of my head, that 100% fall into that category, maybe coaches have a few current players in mind.

 

[XPack]

I don't think so. QB aside draft should be aafunction of best player on board vs your need.

 

[Firethorn1001]

The 1st and 2nd round? Probably not. The positions that you would expect the Packers to take in the 1st round - OL, OLB, S, you could probably argue that even with a top end FA pickup at each of those spots, they could use multiples.

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

The all sounds complicated to me.
Can we just get the draft and free agency BS over and start training camp tomorrow.

 

[Arod2gjdd]

Certainly

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

The all sounds complicated to me.
Can we just get the draft and free agency BS over and start training camp tomorrow.

BS? Come on man, Free Agency and the Draft are our best times on the board! We can shovel it higher than you can climb it!

 

[Patriotplayer90]

Teams always draft because of need. The BPA on their boards is undoubtedly influenced by needs.

 

[ExpatPacker]

The first question is not who do we sign in Free Agency or who do we draft it is who do we keep? These next few months are going to be crucial. Hopefully, the new regime of Murphy, Gute, and Lafleur can get on the same personnel page. Unlike many commentators, I make no pretense of knowing what when on during the McCarthy/Thompson era. However, from my distance it seems they were not always on the same page.

I hope they do some serious film watching (this season that would be mostly painful but, necessary) and find out who goes and who stays. If in the end a position as a huge gaping hole, then FA is probably the place to go. Areas where the team is OK but, could use an upgrade, that is for the draft.

On that note, are Cobb and Matthews worth keeping on renegotiated contracts, i.e. a salary cut? Can their contracts be renegotiated at all? This of course assumes that Matthews and/or Cobb would agree to it.

 

[Mondio]

On that note, are Cobb and Matthews worth keeping on renegotiated contracts, i.e. a salary cut? Can their contracts be renegotiated at all? This of course assumes that Matthews and/or Cobb would agree to it.

The only contract they have runs out at the end of this year. There is nothing to negotiate other than a new contract if they'd like to.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I don't think so. QB aside draft should be aafunction of best player on board vs your need.

I tend to agree. Green Bay needs a healthy infusion of talent at virtually every position other than QB......Some needs may be more glaring than others, but I's hate to see the Pack pass up on a better player simply to address another need.

 

[shockerx]

So it looks like as many as 3-4 Edge guys could go before us, and 3-4 DL guys and a OT. It possibly leaves us with the number one ILB on board D. White LSU. its going to boil down to do you want 5th best Edge guy or number one ILB . thats tough...i think i go best value... we need help everywhere.

 

[PackerDNA]

Sure there's a big effect and there should be, hopefully in a positive impact type way. Fill as many holes as you can with quality people in free agency to give you more options in the draft.