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

Would you lose your mind?

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by ivo610, Apr 20, 2014.

  1. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,277
    Ratings:
    +3,320
    We have disagreed about this before and we will never know exactly what was going on in Thompson's mind. IMO if the Rodgers' pick was more need (no matter how modified) than value, we would have seen a trade up - or an attempt - like the one for Matthews who looked like both an immediate/critical need for the new D scheme and what they viewed as very good value where they took him. OTOH, they sat and waited to exercise their pick at 24.
     
  2. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    I agree that the Packers will think about drafting a potential backup QB in this year´s draft if a guy rated high on Thompson´s board slips to the late rounds cause while the situation seems to be decent right now neither Flynn or Tolzien are under contract for 2015.

    It doesn´t make sense to draft a QB with an early pick as this guy hopefully won´t play any meaningful downs before his rookie contract ends.
     
  3. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    I find it ironic that the some of the very people who argue that Thompson drafts for value over need are the same guys who put safety and ILB at the top of their "mock" boards".
     
  4. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    There's some 20/20 hindsight skewing that logic. Thompson surely could not know Rodgers would be Rodgers or Mathews would be Matthews. He was surely cognizant that either player (or any player for that matter) could turn out to be something less than elite if not a bust. Avoiding a reach is not inconsistent with drafting to fill a need. And that's not even considering that many observers considered Matthews a reach at the time.
     
  5. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,277
    Ratings:
    +3,320
    Of course Thompson doesn't possess psychic powers, I would never argue Thompson knew how any player's career would pan out and he makes that point repeatedly. What I thought we were - and certainly what I was - talking about is value verses need at the time they were drafted, and specifically regarding Matthews and Rodgers their value vs. need at the time they were drafted. The outcome of their careers is moot for this discussion. And of course examining evidence requires hindsight: The logic in the "proof" of how highly Thompson and staff rated Matthews is how much they paid to acquire the pick to draft him. It would strain logic to argue otherwise. I think we both agree Matthews was a pick that skewed more toward need (as was Raji) because of the change Capers was bringing to the D. I used the Matthews example as evidence that Thompson and company did not view Rodgers as as much of a need pick because they didn't trade up for Rodgers as he fell down in the first round. IMO if the Packers viewed backup QB as a need pick, as you do, they would have at least inquired about a trade up, because just as some considered Matthews a reach, the consensus of nearly all "experts" had Rodgers going very early – some even had him #1 in that draft.

    Here’s an article that repeats what Thompson said after drafting Rodgers: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/204186911.html
    Thompson plays his cards very close to the vest before the draft but IMO there would be no reason for him to lie or mislead about this. I believe the Packers had Rodgers rated in the first tier of players in that draft and I believe they didn’t think he’d be there at 24 until the “last week or so”.

    So again, Matthews was a player the Packers had rated high – they certainly viewed him as a value at #26 - at a position of need so they traded up to get him. Rodgers was a player the Packers had rated much higher than #24 but not at a position of need so they stayed put and he fell to them.
     
  6. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    Of course, this was never an argument of value OR need; rather a question of "skew" as you noted. I see we agree that Raji and Matthews skew toward need picks. Good, on both points. The reason we're talking about this for the umpteenth time is because Thompson dragged out the unvarnished and unqualified "best player available" rationale in his recent press conference.

    In your link, Silverstein did not ask the elephant-in-the-corner question: "Can you explain your thinking in spending a first round pick on a player that may not see the field for many years? At 35, one would think Favre still has several good years in front of him." The non-controversial answer would have been to repeat "best player available, terrific value". That answer would not have been any more satisfying with the repetition, but the question would have put the unsatisfying nature of the answer front and center.

    That the annual Favre retirement dance was frustrating the planning process or that the annual ring kissing ceremony had grown tiresome is not something that could be stated. Or Thompson could have stated in this case that Ron Wolf taught him you can't have enough good QBs because even if you can't play them you can trade them, but that's getting off on entirely the wrong foot with your first round heir apparent. Once again, the "best player available" explanation closes off discussion.

    And in keeping with the notion that people prefer multiple reasons for what they do, with Favre at 35 going on 36, the likelihood of getting Rodgers on the field before his rookie contract was up, regardless of Favre's near term disposition, would be a compelling reason to consider filling the heir apparent position at that time as opposed to three years earlier.

    "Need" does not mean you see a critical issue on the visible horizon, and elevate that need over all others for immediate action. However, once the critical, if non-immediate, need is acknowledged, one begins elevating the search for opportunity. Rodgers presented that opportunity, while the likelihood of a similar opportunity presenting itself in subsequent drafts, as the need grows more acute, is highly uncertain and leaves one prone to a reach.

    I think we can agree we can thank our lucky starts it wasn't Jason Campbell, a guy Thompson "loved", a term rarely seen in his public vocabulary. The love of Campbell also goes to the point of 20/20 hindsight...had the pick been Campbell because Rodgers was taken, perhaps the "need" aspect of the pick would be more evident to some, and it might be more readily seen as a Favre succession strategy (or as I would put it, less charitably, a Favre exit strategy) as oppose to the evasive "best player available" rationnale.

    Or, writ smaller, the Perry pick provides a similar 20/20 hindsight proposition. Had he been Matthews redux, some would be inclined to think he was the best available player. Since he isn't the view skews to the obvious need...a reach for need, in fact, given all the red flags this was not 3-4 player.
     
  7. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,277
    Ratings:
    +3,320
    We are in agreement about this topic much more than in disagreement. For example, I believe I introduced the term “best value available” to this board (although I didn’t invent it) in refuting the idea that Thompson uses BPA. Thomson has blatantly said need is a factor in the draft and I remember reading an interview with Thompson in which he said something like part of the evaluation process for potential draftees is where they fit with players at their positions already on the roster, a more specific admission that need plays a part. (Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find the article with that specific quote.) That reinforced the idea that Thompson builds need into his draft board, like other GMs, but I think he is more disciplined in sticking to it than most GMs. So after factoring in need, if a player at a position of strength is available he has the discipline to pick that player. That’s what I believe happened with Rodgers. The 2012 draft was certainly one that skewed toward need more than perhaps any other Thompson draft. IMO the trade up for Worthy is more evidence of that than the Perry pick because, once again, Thompson watched players coming off his board and just exercised the Packers pick at #28. So I have no problem believing the needs on defense elevated Perry to BVA at #28, whereas with Worthy he spent their fourth round pick to move up 8 spots in the second round.
     
  8. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    We are more in a agreement than disagreement.

    However, I don't think you can judge whether a pick skewed to need or best player available based on trade-up vs. stand pat.

    First, one does not know if Thompson tried to trade up in a particular circumstance but couldn't get a deal done.

    Second, I don't think a trade up on it's face necessarily skews to a "need" objective being filled whereas sitting tight skews to a BPA pick.

    In the case of Perry, we should recall that the need list was long, as evidenced by the nascent defensive rebuilding evidenced in that draft even if subsequent injuries and non-performance clouds that fact. I think we can agree that all-defense draft did not arise from Thompson, as he put it, losing his mind.

    At the 18th. pick, Ingram, McClellin, Hightower, Mercilus and Perry were still on the board. These guys represent a mix of 3-4 OLB and ILB projections. Walden and Hawk had stunk up the ball yard in 2011. We can imagine a scenario whereby Thompson valued two or more or these players more or less equally on both the need and value scale. So long as that is the case and multiple options are still on the board, there's no urgency to trade up.

    In fact, Hightower, Mercilus and Perry were all still on the board at Pick 25.

    So, it is not hard to envision a scenario whereby (1) Thompson had OLB and ILB high on the needs list, (2) saw a bunch of satisfactory options that represented adequate value, and (3) saw no need to trade up since those multiple satisfactory options "came to him", to use Thompson's phraseology.

    Or for all we know, between Perry and Mercilus, the latter (taken immediaetly before our pick) may have been Thompson's better value by some margin.

    Conversely, in the case of Worthy, one can envision a scenario where Thompson considered him the best value on the board at pick 40, saw increasing value as he dropped, and was able to secure, in his mind, uncommon value at 51. It's that 20/20 hindsight thing again...many would like to think Thompson would not have strained himself to secure Worthy as a need-skewed pick as opposed to an uncommon value. But there is no reason to believe that was not case.

    Whether you brought "best player available" terminology to this board I could not say (that would have predated my time here), however that phraseology has long been in the Thompson lexicon, repeated once again this past week, again without varnish or qualification.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
  9. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,602
    Ratings:
    +1,871
    I find it amusing that you apparently believe that TT is able to differentiate between a WR as the #73rd player and a CB as the #74 player.

    I believe that there will be 4 or 5 players sitting at #21 that the scouts, coaches, and TT are all split on. It would only make sense that if one of those happens to be at a position where you current have little depth, that is where 'need' comes into play. If by chance, you have a CB (one of our deepest positions) that rated as #5 and the next best is #22 safety, you go with the WR even though safety is a much weaker.
     
  10. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    Agreed. Most of the time several players are rated close to each other at the time the Packers pick in the draft. In that case position of need has to be factored into the pick. The only way that should not be the case is if a players is head and shoulders above the rest of the guys still on the board.
     
  11. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    First of all, I have no idea what you're trying to say in the first paragraph.

    Second, I struggle to find the meaning in the next sentence as well.

    Up through that point you've presented circumstances where the need skew would be elevated. I guess?!

    Third, I'd put cover corner on a par with safety as a need, and would not spend a 1st. rounder on any of these safeties. So if Thompson goes for a cornerback at 21, don't assume that was not a value-skewed pick. In any case, he would not take a QB or RB if those happened to be the #5 guys on his board.

    Maybe part of the problem here is there's a general misapprehension of what Thompson sees as his biggest needs.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
  12. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
  13. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    I think safety, ILB and TE should be considered the most immediate needs. Taking a look at the potential free agents in 2015 I expect Thompson to address the WR and CB position as well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    That's right. We could be adding NT to the list by the time of free agency next year. The thing about NT is it's one of the least complicated positions on the field with a shallow learning curve. When the need arises, Thompson can go get one even if it's a vet free agent.

    Few see it the way you presented it because they don't look past the current season. If Thompson takes a WR or a cover corner over any of those other positions some will see those picks as best player available; I would see a need skew.

    This team cannot win without quality wide receivers and cover corners. By the same token, this team won a Super Bowl with the Quarless at TE, Charlie Peprah at safety and A. J. Hawk at ILB.
     
  15. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    Agreed about the need for a NT as well, as I don´t think the Packers will sign Raji to a long-term deal no matter how he ends up playing in 2014.

    I think need almost always factors into a draft choice. The only exception to the rule would be if a guy rated head and shoulders above eyeryone else on a draft board drops during the draft. IMO that rule doesn´t apply though if a QB drops and your team is set at the position for years to come (as the Packers are) cause that guy will hopefully never play a meaningful down of football.

    Well, our receiving corps was way better back in 2010 and we still had Nick Collins playing the other safety spot.
     
  16. HardRightEdge

    HardRightEdge Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,853
    Ratings:
    +2,682
    I get the Collins thing. We also had Bishop.

    The thing is we're paying Burnett like he's Collins so he's going play. He'll get a full second hearing to prove his worth. I have full confidence Hyde would be a better safety day 1 than Peprah ever was. So, going for a safety when there are other serious needs seems to me like a non-starter, particularly since there are no Ronnie Lotts in this draft.

    Even when Finley was healthy, Rodgers used his TEs primarily as a decoys. Unless Thompson allows his receiving corp to deplete, I have a very hard time seeing TE becoming central to the passing game as in NO or NE. We're going 3 wide and looking down field, like always. Besides, Quarless looked pretty good when he had a QB that liked going to his TE. Quarless' problem is he's not a good blocker...just like the top TEs in this draft.

    In terms of "immediate" 2013 production, we'd get more out of Quarless in 2013 than any of these rookie TEs who need to go through the leaning curve.

    Among the 3 immediate needs you listed, I'd put the yet-to-be-found Bishop replacement at the top of the list. I never got PFF's 2012 rating on Jones (really, PFF?!). I would not call him "terrible"; just not good enough to be playing next to the mediocre Hawk. He needs to go to the bench and work off his dead cap money there. I think we need to go with Moseley if he's still on the board and look for a WR and a cover corner in the second and third. We could certainly use a S for depth and to handle the circumstance of Burnett blowing up for good in 2014.
     
  17. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    Burnett´s contract extension last offseason looks terrible right now and because of it we´re stuck with him as a starter. I think though he could be a solid SS as long as we find someone capable of providing some impact at FS and making the calls in the secondary. IMO Hyde is a better fit at SS as well, so there´s a tremendous need for a free safety. Clinton-Dix could turn into a solid FS, wouldn´t mind getting Brooks in the second either.

    Rodgers and Quarless don´t seem to be on the same page, and I think a rookie could have a bigger impact than Q in 2014. Ebron will probably be gone at #21, but Thompson should consider a TE either in the second or third round.

    If Mosley is there at #21 I would be excited to draft him. But there´s no other ILB deserving of a first round pick and I don´t see a great fit in the second or third round either. In that case I would like the Packers to take a gamble on Yamin Smallwood.

    IMO FS is the biggest need on the team and while I woulnd´t mind taking a corner or WR in the first round safety and TE has to be addressed in the first three rounds.
     
  18. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,602
    Ratings:
    +1,871
    What I mean to say is that there is seldom a single BPA but several players who are ranked about the same when the Packers pick. So it should not be 'ironic' for you to see people who are advocates of BPA selecting a player at a position of need.
     
  19. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    That is drafting the best value available though as position of need is factored into the pick.
     
  20. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,277
    Ratings:
    +3,320
    In both cases IMO it provides evidence and that’s how I presented it; of course not as proof, but as evidence. And because Thompson so cherishes draft picks, IMO when he trades up it is almost always need-based.

    Something that provides more evidence is how Thompson values positions. Like many of you – and some of the “experts” I view safety as the number one need on the team. But that does not mean I expect Thompson to use a first round pick on one. For example, I think it’s pretty clear Thompson views DL and CB as much more valuable than safety. That’s why I hope Thompson spends a pick on a safety within the first three rounds. With regard to the Rodgers pick being more value or more need based, the fact that QB is the most valuable position on any team is more evidence that it wasn’t a need based pick. (Evidence, not proof.) IMO we would have likely heard, either from Thompson or the teams whose pick he was trying to move up to, if he had been trying to trade up to take Rodgers.
    I certainly DID NOT introduce the phrase "best player available". I believe I introduced the phrase best VALUE available to this board, to refute the idea of BPA. I don’t claim to have invented it as I attributed it to someone else.
     
  21. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    It´s true Thompson seems to value DL more than safety, but not sure about CB though. During his tenure he has drafted seven CBs (none in the first round and two in the first three) while drafting six safeties (none in the first, four in the first three rounds). The two best corners he brought in so far have been unrestricted free agents.

    Normally suggested trades that don´t happen during draft day aren´t publicized.
     
  22. AmishMafia

    AmishMafia Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    2,602
    Ratings:
    +1,871
    Symantics, I suppose. If you are taking a player rated 93, and there are 4 other players tied at 93, nobody has a higher value, then you are taking BPA. If it happens to be a position of perceived need, it does not change the fact that he is BPA.

    The guy who came up with BVA (at least the first I read it) contended that 'the BPA may not fit the Packers system.' Therefore the Packers should pass and get the next best player who fits the system. My question to him was, 'How would a player that doesn't fit the Packers system get rated higher than someone who does?' He did not respond. Based on other writings of his, I think he was under the impression there was one definitive list of player rankings that all teams pretty much accepted. Establishing who was #134 and that he was measurably better than player #135. As this is my introduction to the term, BVA, I have found it unnecessary and unfounded.
     
  23. captainWIMM

    captainWIMM Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Messages:
    6,444
    Ratings:
    +2,852
    If several players are rated close to each other on a team´s board position of need is factored into the process of finding the best value for the team. This happens a lot as there aren´t any players rated head and shoulders above everyone else most of the time during the draft. It is highly likely that a guy playing at a different position was rated slightly more talented than the player actually drafted.

    Players that don´t fit the Packers system as well as guys with too many character issues won´t even make the Packers board.
     
  24. TJV

    TJV Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,277
    Ratings:
    +3,320
    Who are you talking about? And do you think Thompson drafts the BPA?
     
  25. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Barclay
    Boykin
    Bulaga
    Bush
    Cobb
    Fynn
    Guion
    Harris
    House
    Kuhn
    Lattimore
    Nelson
    Raji
    Richardson
    Sherrod
    R. Taylor
    T. Williams
     

Share This Page