Best offseason in the NFC north

[Deleted member 6794]

Did you really expect Brandt to say, "We had 4 talent tiers consisting of 3 in the top, 4 in the 2nd; 3 in the 3rd; and 10 in the 4th; that we considered 1st round worthy, and only Rodgers was left. Or would he say that Rodgers was the only one left they felt was worthy of the pick? Seriously?

Brandt explicitly said the only player left above the first-round line, not the only prospect worthy of the pick. After reading that it should be pretty obvious to everyone that draft eligible players are assigned a round in which the Packers think they should be drafted, making up the initial tiers.

It doesn´t matter if the front office divides these basic tiers into smaller ones or uses some other form of gradation to rank the 30+ players within such a tier, everyone aside of you understands the Packers don´t have 30+ players ranked on a par with each other.

 

[AmishMafia]

Brandt explicitly said the only player left above the first-round line, not the only prospect worthy of the pick. After reading that it should be pretty obvious to everyone that draft eligible players are assigned a round in which the Packers think they should be drafted, making up the initial tiers.

It doesn´t matter if the front office divides these basic tiers into smaller ones or uses some other form of gradation to rank the 30+ players within such a tier, everyone aside of you understands the Packers don´t have 30+ players ranked on a par with each other.

 

[TJV]

.
.
.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

what`s up there ?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, doesn´t make any sense to me talking about it as Peppers returned for another season.

I think you're starting to lose it.

I used Peppers as an example because he's 35, as was Favre at the time of the Rodgers draft, while being an essential player as Favre was at the time of the Rodgers draft. Nobody else on the roster would serve as a hypothetical comparison to make the point about succession planning.

If any player (choose any player on any other team of your choosing) of similar age and professional stature as Peppers with a bench behind him that the Packers currently have, and that player was mumbling about retirement in February and then didn't show up to OTAs, failing to address that vulnerability in the draft process would be a very high risk "whoops". And that "whoops" is doubly or triply acute when talking about the QB position.

That you somehow took my hypothetical as a casting of aspersions on Peppers totally misses the point. It should have obvious this was about Favre and the Rodgers draft, not about Peppers.

The forest overlooked for a tree, once again.

Debate club gamesmanship does not sit well with me. Or to use some recent language from a notable jurist, however disingenuous he might be, your complaints on this score are "applesauce" and "jiggery-pokery".

 

[AmishMafia]

.
.
.

Aweeee, TJV, I cant stay mad at you. Not when you go using those emoticons.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I used Peppers as an example because he's 35, as was Favre at the time of the Rodgers draft, while being an essential player as Favre was at the time of the Rodgers draft. Nobody else on the roster would serve as a hypothetical comparison to make the point about succession planning.

Well, nobody expected Chris Borland to retire after only one season in the NFL, so you never know for sure.

If any player (choose any player on any other team of your choosing) of similar age and professional stature as Peppers with a bench behind him that the Packers currently have, and that player was mumbling about retirement in February and then didn't show up to OTAs, failing to address that vulnerability in the draft process would be a very high risk "whoops". And that "whoops" is doubly or triply acute when talking about the QB position.

That you somehow took my hypothetical as a casting of aspersions on Peppers totally misses the point. It should have obvious this was about Favre and the Rodgers draft, not about Peppers.

While it might have been clear to you that your previous post was about Favre and Rodgers it's sometimes tough for others (especially on an internet forum) to realize such an intention.

Drafting Rodgers was the seldom case of a single best player being available who happened to fill the most important need on a football team three years down the road.

I don't agree with him being pick based on need at that point though.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Well, nobody expected Chris Borland to retire after only one season in the NFL, so you never know for sure.

Here's an example of a lost-forest-for-the-tree response:

Borland retired before the draft. Pat Willis as well. That's not the same scenario I posed.

Now on to the actual response:

The example you were searching for was Justin Smith. He was gesturing retirement before the draft. Teammates were trying to convince him otherwise, which is never a good sign. His decision had not come down by draft day. That's a big red flag that requires close scrutiny. Then he in fact retired after the draft.

Without getting into SFs depth chart, which you're free to do if you like to ascertain the full range of SF's top needs, Justin Smith was 35 years old, soon to be 36, as the draft approached. Even if he came back, the likelihood of another season after that was slim. That's a major hole to fill on a par with Peppers as in the previous example.

Clearly with Willis and Borland fleeing that defense's sinking ship, and several key FAs gone to greener pastures, Smith's possible retirement would not be a singular concern, however his replacement should have been on the list of top needs. What did they do? They drafted Armstead in the first round. Even if Smith came back for one last rodeo, Armstead gets a year in the system to develop, something he needs. Draft and develop is not just for low picks and UDFAs; that should be evident from the Packers first round picks of the last several years.

Which brings me to this, which is not directed specifically at you:

On the one hand, the majority of fans and commentators laud Thompson for his draft-and-develop, stay-young approach. But then when it comes to the draft, the idea of picking a DE as a 2016 replacement for Peppers, as a for instance, is discounted because that replacement is not needed now. If he had been making gestures toward retirement as in my previous example, DE should have been moved right to the top of the list along with ILB and CB.

Need, when it comes to star players with no promising stud on the bench, is a minimum two-year proposition if one's expectations are reasonable.

When replacing a franchise QB, it's 3 years.

For instance, I think we can agree the Patriots know their way around replenishing a winning roster. In the 2014 draft, the Patriots took Garoppolo (henceforth referred to as JG) in the second round. Brady was 36 years old at the time, and he wasn't even making any gestures toward retirement as was Favre. JG, being a rookie out of Eastern Illinois, was a developmental pick, like any QB of the last decade or so except perhaps Luck. There was no need to take him according to the conventional wisdom. They could have used that day one pick elsewhere and signed a journeyman QB for modest money who would have served just as well, probably better, than JG in 2014 if Brady went down.

So, why do it? Two related reasons. First, by the time Gorappolo's rookie deal is up Brady will be 40 years old. Second, and equally important, is that if the Pats don't like his progression as he gets through this season, they get a second shot at finding a successor. Brady's suspension, if it sticks, is somewhat opportune in the respect that it will determine whether that second shot is necessary. If Flynn has to take over to try to save the early season, the Pats will be on the hunt once more. And if that need meets opportunity in the form of a QB they like dropping to their spot in the first round in 2016, you can bet they will take him.

Nothing will convince me otherwise: when the franchise QB hit his mid-30's, and especially if he's mumbling about retirement, succession planning goes to the top of the needs list.

Back in the day, very good QBs got traded with some regularity. Nowadays, you don't even see decent-but-less-than-very-good QBs hit the FA market; they get overpaid for fear of what might happen in trying to replace them. Palmer, Bradford, Foles...up, down, injured...is as close as you get in the market. Oh, Smith to KC...but you must have a defense and good surrounding talent to make that work. He's not going to carry you.

If the Packer performance during Rodgers absence in 2013 didn't prove how absolutely paramount the QB position is in today's game, I guess nothing will. I take that back...how about the Colt's season between Manning and Luck?

Internet or not, I'm not sure how I could make this clearer.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Here's an example of a lost-forest-for-the-tree response:

Borland retired before the draft. Pat Willis as well. That's not the same scenario I posed.

I'm sorry but I'm done discussing hypothetical cases in which you plant the trees the way you like it.

The example you were searching for was Justin Smith. He was gesturing retirement before the draft. Teammates were trying to convince him otherwise, which is never a good sign. His decision had not come down by draft day. That's a big red flag that requires close scrutiny. Then he in fact retired after the draft.

Without getting into SFs depth chart, which you're free to do if you like to ascertain the full range of SF's top needs, Justin Smith was 35 years old, soon to be 36, as the draft approached. Even if he came back, the likelihood of another season after that was slim. That's a major hole to fill on a par with Peppers as in the previous example.

Clearly with Willis and Borland fleeing that defense's sinking ship, and several key FAs gone to greener pastures, Smith's possible retirement would not be a singular concern, however his replacement should have been on the list of top needs. What did they do? They drafted Armstead in the first round. Even if Smith came back for one last rodeo, Armstead gets a year in the system to develop, something he needs. Draft and develop is not just for low picks and UDFAs; that should be evident from the Packers first round picks of the last several years.

Which brings me to this, which is not directed specifically at you:

On the one hand, the majority of fans and commentators laud Thompson for his draft-and-develop, stay-young approach. But then when it comes to the draft, the idea of picking a DE as a 2016 replacement for Peppers, as a for instance, is discounted because that replacement is not needed now. If he had been making gestures toward retirement as in my previous example, DE should have been moved right to the top of the list along with ILB and CB.

Need, when it comes to star players with no promising stud on the bench, is a minimum two-year proposition if one's expectations are reasonable.

When replacing a franchise QB, it's 3 years.

For instance, I think we can agree the Patriots know their way around replenishing a winning roster. In the 2014 draft, the Patriots took Garoppolo (henceforth referred to as JG) in the second round. Brady was 36 years old at the time, and he wasn't even making any gestures toward retirement as was Favre. JG, being a rookie out of Eastern Illinois, was a developmental pick, like any QB of the last decade or so except perhaps Luck. There was no need to take him according to the conventional wisdom. They could have used that day one pick elsewhere and signed a journeyman QB for modest money who would have served just as well, probably better, than JG in 2014 if Brady went down.

So, why do it? Two related reasons. First, by the time Gorappolo's rookie deal is up Brady will be 40 years old. Second, and equally important, is that if the Pats don't like his progression as he gets through this season, they get a second shot at finding a successor. Brady's suspension, if it sticks, is somewhat opportune in the respect that it will determine whether that second shot is necessary. If Flynn has to take over to try to save the early season, the Pats will be on the hunt once more. And if that need meets opportunity in the form of a QB they like dropping to their spot in the first round in 2016, you can bet they will take him.

Nothing will convince me otherwise: when the franchise QB hit his mid-30's, and especially if he's mumbling about retirement, succession planning goes to the top of the needs list.

Back in the day, very good QBs got traded with some regularity. Nowadays, you don't even see decent-but-less-than-very-good QBs hit the FA market; they get overpaid for fear of what might happen in trying to replace them. Palmer, Bradford, Foles...up, down, injured...is as close as you get in the market. Oh, Smith to KC...but you must have a defense and good surrounding talent to make that work. He's not going to carry you.

If the Packer performance during Rodgers absence in 2013 didn't prove how absolutely paramount the QB position is in today's game, I guess nothing will. I take that back...how about the Colt's season between Manning and Luck?

Internet or not, I'm not sure how I could make this clearer.

Wholeheartedly agree with most of that.

Peppers has mostly played outside linebacker with the Packers though and with Matthews continung to play inside as well as Neal and Perry becoming free agents after next season the Packers could be in dire need of an upgrade at the position. I would have liked Thompson to select an OLB during this year's draft as well. Maybe he expects either Elliott or Hubbard to make an impact at the position.

I agree with your suggested approach to replace a franchise QB as well. The reason I don't consider Rodgers as a need pick is that he was by far the best player available on the Packers draft board and therefore the logical pick.

 

[PikeBadger]

Andrew Brandt explicitly said that Rodgers was the only player left above the first-round line at the time the Packers were on the clock during the first round of the 2005 draft. This makes me believe that the team basically has eight different tiers, one for each round and another one for players that should go undrafted. It´s ridiculous to believe there aren´t any gradations within a tier most likely comprising more than 30 players.

A few years ago Thompson said he had about 125 players on his board. There is no way any of the tiers have 30 players in them imo. I like the BVA description and think it applies to Thompson. People need to listen closely to everything Thompson says in his press conferences. I see a number a people interjecting their own beliefs and draft philosophy, plus what it appears to be assumptions about players draft value based on draftnik opinions into these discussions. It's clear to me that Thompson and his scouts assess talent differently than many of the other teams and the Draftniks.

Listen closely to the man. He gives away a few juicy insights about how things are done in every press conference and interview.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A few years ago Thompson said he had about 125 players on his board. There is no way any of the tiers have 30 players in them imo. I like the BVA description and think it applies to Thompson. People need to listen closely to everything Thompson says in his press conferences. I see a number a people interjecting their own beliefs and draft philosophy, plus what it appears to be assumptions about players draft value based on draftnik opinions into these discussions. It's clear to me that Thompson and his scouts assess talent differently than many of the other teams and the Draftniks.

Listen closely to the man. He gives away a few juicy insights about how things are done in every press conference and interview.

It would be great if you could provide a link to a story mentioning the Packers draft board only includes 125 players. BTW AmishMafia I'm still waiting for yours about the 2009 draft.

Taking a look at a photo of the Packers war room in 2010 it looks like they have way more prospects on it.

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

In addition my point would still be legit as there's no way the Packers don't use any form of gradation for 15+ players within a tier.

 

[PikeBadger]

It would be great if you could provide a link to a story mentioning the Packers draft board only includes 125 players. BTW AmishMafia I'm still waiting for yours about the 2009 draft.

Taking a look at a photo of the Packers war room in 2010 it looks like they have way more prospects on it.

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

In addition my point would still be legit as there's no way the Packers don't use any form of gradation for 15+ players within a tier.

I agree with the gradation within tiers.

I don't have a link but I heard Thompson say this in a draft press conference (i think it was the 2013 draft on Packers website, it possibly could have been 2014). He also stated that they keep an overall board (this sounds like a 256 top player board).

My guess is that is possibly smaller than normal because the year in question was considered by draftniks to be a weak draft.

This is why I continue to emphasize that it is important to listen closely to Thompson when he speaks (unless you think he lies and deliberately misleads the public).

It would be nice if talkative Ted would clear all these matters up for us. (Tic)

 

[AmishMafia]

It would be great if you could provide a link to a story mentioning the Packers draft board only includes 125 players. BTW AmishMafia I'm still waiting for yours about the 2009 draft.

Taking a look at a photo of the Packers war room in 2010 it looks like they have way more prospects on it.

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

In addition my point would still be legit as there's no way the Packers don't use any form of gradation for 15+ players within a tier.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/44237962.html

Now don't get hung up on Crabtree being ranked higher. There are enough other quotes saying they were all in the same talent tier.

In my opinion, TT liked Crabtree best - but was too concerned about his attitude. TT was in the minority with more in the room pushing for Raji. Another interesting comment I recall - TT saying that MM did not know the pick until it was made. Apparently the debate was going right up to the actual pick. No - I'm not going to post a link.

Last mention of talent tier - Bill Polian on NFL radio talks about talent tiers. Trading back and getting the same level player. You don't trade up within a talent tier because you aren't adding value. How as a GM he was sitting one time 2 picks behind a talent tier at the end of the 1st, just hoping one would still be there. Anyone of them, it didn't matter. He wanted the higher quality player.

 

[TJV]

At No. 9, Thompson admitted that he paused to collect his thoughts. Not only was Raji there, but somewhat expectedly so was wide receiver Michael Crabtree. Thompson needed a few moments to take it all in. Because Crabtree carried the highest grade of any player on the Packers' entire draft board, the assumption was that Thompson would stay true to the team's rankings and take him. But Thompson came to the conclusion well before the Packers went on the clock that they were well-stocked at wide receiver and adding Crabtree might create a mess in which no wideout was happy with his number of targeted passes.

More evidence of gradation within tiers and of need playing a part. What would the pick have been if Thompson didn't consider the Packers "well-stocked at WR"?

 

[AmishMafia]

More evidence of gradation within tiers and of need playing a part. What would the pick have been if Thompson didn't consider the Packers "well-stocked at WR"?

Only according to McGinn. Not according to TT.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/44237962.html

Now don't get hung up on Crabtree being ranked higher. There are enough other quotes saying they were all in the same talent tier.

In my opinion, TT liked Crabtree best - but was too concerned about his attitude.

Now isn't that funny, in the only article you have been able to come up with for your assertions about the 2009 there is evidence for 1) having some form of gradation within a tier and 2) Thompson not taking the best player available with a pick within the top 10.

Not surprisingly you dispute the validity of McGinn's quotes as soon as they don't fit your BPA approach but take it as the ultimate truth once they support one of your ideas.

Can't have it both ways though.

 

[AmishMafia]

Now isn't that funny, in the only article you have been able to come up with for your assertions about the 2009 there is evidence for 1) having some form of gradation within a tier and 2) Thompson not taking the best player available with a pick within the top 10.

Not surprisingly you dispute the validity of McGinn's quotes as soon as they don't fit your BPA approach but take it as the ultimate truth once they support one of your ideas.

Can't have it both ways though.

And the Brandt article you posted verified BPA theory. So, do believe a Packer decision maker or a beat writer?

McGinn has a history of talking about TTs draft board and being completely wrong. 2 years ago we had no interest in players like Lacy who had an injury history. Ooops. Take TJV and some beat wtiters opinions. I will listen to TT, Brandt, polian and just plain common sense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And the Brandt article you posted verified BPA theory. So, do believe a Packer decision maker or a beat writer?

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Rodgers was a true BPA pick, one of the rare ones. I've stated that several times within this thread.

McGinn has a history of talking about TTs draft board and being completely wrong. 2 years ago we had no interest in players like Lacy who had an injury history. Ooops. Take TJV and some beat wtiters opinions. I will listen to TT, Brandt, polian and just plain common sense.

It was you that posted a link to McGinn's article to support one of your claims. As I've posted above you can't expect me to believe everything you like out of it while ignoring some other stuff you don't agree with.

 

[Raptorman]

It would be great if you could provide a link to a story mentioning the Packers draft board only includes 125 players. BTW AmishMafia I'm still waiting for yours about the 2009 draft.

Taking a look at a photo of the Packers war room in 2010 it looks like they have way more prospects on it.

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

In addition my point would still be legit as there's no way the Packers don't use any form of gradation for 15+ players within a tier.

That's not the Packers draft room. That's the Dominoes call center. Those are pizza orders you see on the wall.