Best offseason in the NFC north

[Deleted member 6794]

I don't know how their ratings work, or where there cut off is that players are so similar that need overrides rating, but I'm sure they have one.

Here´s some information from Andrew Brandt, who worked for the Packers front office, about the Packers war room:

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms/

 

[MichiganSportsTalk]

I don't care how often you repeat your point of view, there's no way I'll agree with you. If you want to believe the Lions defense improved by losing Suh and Fairley go ahead with it, I'm done discussing it with you.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are improved, but I would argue that they aren't going to implode like a lot of people are saying. Their losses have been addressed adequately, and that should translate to a defense that still remains in the top 10, probably top 5. But to say definitively that they HAVE improved is folly at this point. It's possible that they perform better, but until we see that, we can't assume that is the case.

The only thing that matters to me is that the Packers are by far the most talented team in the division

Most talented is debatable (from purely a roster standpoint), but their ability to execute as a cohesive unit is unmatched. They are the king of the hill for a reason, and until unseated, they are the team to beat.

and if Rodgers stays healthy there's no way any other team has a chance to win the NFC North.

Speaking in absolutes is generally not a good idea. We don't yet know how any of the 4 teams will do once the regular season starts. We can make projections based on last year, draft class, etc., but who knows what might happen. The Vikings and Lions both, on paper, look like they have legit arguments as to why they might be really good teams this year.

And before anyone gets butthurt and assumes I'm saying the Packers won't win the NFC North, I'm not. I'm just saying it's WAY too early to be handing anyone a first round bye in the playoffs.

 

[AmishMafia]

You may not like what I posted but I and others have posted a lot of evidence Thompson doesn't draft BPA. Here’s a discussion you participated in, in which HRE was arguing Rodgers was a need pick and I was arguing the Rodgers pick was a rare example of BPA:
https://www.packerforum.com/threads/2013-needs.41284/#post-475576
Here's a thread I started on the subject:
https://www.packerforum.com/threads/bpa-bva-and-tiers-of-talent-in-the-draft.35167/

Not a “shred of evidence”? As captainWIMM mentioned, if need at a position is a factor, the GM is no longer picking the BPA. Purely picking BPA would be foolish - over 11 drafts we’d see multiple picks at positions of strength. Of course Thompson wouldn’t be so foolish.

No. Not picking BPA is foolish. If you pick inferior players you have an inferior team. Plain and simple.

When our pick comes up there are usually a few players in the early rounds and dozens of players in later rounds who are equally rated. Say if at our 3rd round pick we have 10 players to choose from all equally rated and all at the top of our board. These players play 5 different positions. If we select one of the players at a position of need - that is not a need pick. Its a player that is the BPA. If you select a player not in that group of 10 because he plays a position you feel is a greater need - that is drafting for need.


Seriously, do you think TT somehow has a scouting process so refined - formed by the individual opinions of 15 scouts, 18 coaches, a medical staff, and of course his own opinion, - can definitively define a score that differentiates between the #122 player (a mauler type OG) and #123 (a finesses 5T)? Mind you they are rating dozens of factors - athleticism, heart, potential, IQ, aggressiveness, coachability, locker room, leadership, dedication, injury history, speed, strength, toughness . . .

You will never convince me that TT does not draft the player from the top talent tier available.

Perhaps you don't believe in talent tiers. Or perhaps you believe that BPA and taking a position of perceived need are mutually exclusive events. Not sure. This has been argued ad nauseam. I have agreed with you on many issues over the past but we probably will never agree on this one.

 

[AmishMafia]

Here´s some information from Andrew Brandt, who worked for the Packers front office, about the Packers war room:

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/05/07/nfl-draft-war-rooms/

Exactly.

"Trust the Board"

 

[TJV]

Perhaps you don't believe in talent tiers.

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/bpa-bva-and-tiers-of-talent-in-the-draft.35167/

Thompson clearly takes his current roster - the talent and depth at each position - into account when evaluating draftees. That is not BPA. But if you are sticking with your blatantly false assertion that I "have never presented a shred of evidence that TT does not draft BPA" there's no use conversing with you.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When our pick comes up there are usually a few players in the early rounds and dozens of players in later rounds who are equally rated. Say if at our 3rd round pick we have 10 players to choose from all equally rated and all at the top of our board. These players play 5 different positions. If we select one of the players at a position of need - that is not a need pick. Its a player that is the BPA. If you select a player not in that group of 10 because he plays a position you feel is a greater need - that is drafting for need.

Once again, you are describing the approach to draft the prospect presenting the best value to a team. Factoring position of need and other things into a pick doesn't fit into the BPA approach.

Rodgers was one of only a few true BPA picks by Thompson as he was the only top-tier prospect available at the time Thompson made the selection.

 

[AmishMafia]

Once again, you are describing the approach to draft the prospect presenting the best value to a team. Factoring position of need and other things into a pick doesn't fit into the BPA approach.

Rodgers was one of only a few true BPA picks by Thompson as he was the only top-tier prospect available at the time Thompson made the selection.

When people say 'draft for need' they are not taking the top player available. They are taking the top player at a particular position.

If a GM takes the player on the top of their board he is taking BPA.

If a GM takes the player on the top of their board and that player happens to play at a position of need, is he still not taking BPA?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I wouldn't go so far as to say they are improved, but I would argue that they aren't going to implode like a lot of people are saying. Their losses have been addressed adequately, and that should translate to a defense that still remains in the top 10, probably top 5. But to say definitively that they HAVE improved is folly at this point. It's possible that they perform better, but until we see that, we can't assume that is the case.

I don't think the Lions defense will implode but I don't see them as a top 5 (or most likely top 10) unit either going into this season.

Speaking in absolutes is generally not a good idea. We don't yet know how any of the 4 teams will do once the regular season starts. We can make projections based on last year, draft class, etc., but who knows what might happen. The Vikings and Lions both, on paper, look like they have legit arguments as to why they might be really good teams this year.

And before anyone gets butthurt and assumes I'm saying the Packers won't win the NFC North, I'm not. I'm just saying it's WAY too early to be handing anyone a first round bye in the playoffs.

I probably went out on a limb there but I'm very confident the Packers are the best team in the division as long as Rodgers stays healthy.

 

[MichiganSportsTalk]

I don't think the Lions defense will implode but I don't see them as a top 5 (or most likely top 10) unit either going into this season.

I went back through all 9 pages of this thread, but only saw one post where you give reasons for believing there will be that big of a drop off. You really only focus on what players Detroit lost from last year, and in my opinion, misjudged the players they will have this year.

If you have time, this is a fairly good summary of why Lions fans are optimistic about the defense this season:
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2015/06/5_reasons_why_the_detroit_lion.html

...I'm very confident the Packers are the best team in the division as long as Rodgers stays healthy.

And even when he's not healthy, like last year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I went back through all 9 pages of this thread, but only saw one post where you give reasons for believing there will be that big of a drop off. You really only focus on what players Detroit lost from last year, and in my opinion, misjudged the players they will have this year.

If you have time, this is a fairly good summary of why Lions fans are optimistic about the defense this season:
http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2015/06/5_reasons_why_the_detroit_lion.html

Valid points, but I still think that losing their best defensive player will hurt the Lions a lot. I was surprised Haloti Ngata wasn´t even mentioned in the article though.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

When people say 'draft for need' they are not taking the top player available. They are taking the top player at a particular position.

If a GM takes the player on the top of their board he is taking BPA.

If a GM takes the player on the top of their board and that player happens to play at a position of need, is he still not taking BPA?

Once again, most of the time there isn´t a single best player available. Once the Packers are on the clock Thompson makes a decision based on the value each player within a tier presents to the current roster. Position of need heavily factors into that equation.

 

[AmishMafia]

Once again, most of the time there isn´t a single best player available. Once the Packers are on the clock Thompson makes a decision based on the value each player within a tier presents to the current roster. Position of need heavily factors into that equation.

Of course.

But the player is still BPA. You cant suddenly say, now he isnt BPA just because the packers have a need at the position.

And unless you have the Packers draft board, you will never have proof they are not taking BPA. To say the only BPA the packers ever drafted was Rodgers is ridiculous.

If we want to complicate and be silly i can prove we never have drafted a single BVA. TT always drafts BVAWIND. Best Value Available Who Is Not Dead. Every player who the packers have drafted has not been dead. Therefore they have never drafted BVA and my stats prove it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But the player is still BPA. You cant suddenly say, now he isnt BPA just because the packers have a need at the position.

You have to get away from the idea that there is a single best player available most of the time. Succesful teams mostly select the players presenting the best value with several things factoring into it. That doesn't mean the drafted prospect was the highest ranked player on a team's board.

And unless you have the Packers draft board, you will never have proof they are not taking BPA. To say the only BPA the packers ever drafted was Rodgers is ridiculous.

Unless you have access to the Packers board you won't have any prove of Thompson drafting BPA either. In Rodgers' case there is evidence that he was the only player left with a first round grade at the time Thompson made his selection. Do you know for sure about any other draftee???

 

[TJV]

If you believe Thompson always drafts BPA without any regard to position, why in 11 drafts haven't there been occasions when 3 or 4 or 5 consecutive picks been made at the same position which wasn't an immediate or even short-term need?

Do you really believe it was just a coincidence that:
After losing Tramon and House, the “BPA” in the first two rounds of this year’s draft just happened to be CBs?
After the cluster schtoop on D in 2011, the first 6 picks of the 2012 draft played defense?
With a glaring need at OT going into the 2011 draft, Sherrod was the first pick of 2011?
After Clifton played 12 games and Tauscher played 8 in 2009, the first pick of the 2010 draft was Bulaga?

I’m sure there are other examples as well. IMO you have to be naïve to believe those were coincidences, and to think the current and short-term needs of the team don’t factor into Thompson’s drafts. He is one of the, if not the most disciplined drafters in the league. But he would be foolish not to factor in his roster and the positions the players he drafts play. Particularly because he uses UFA less than all – or almost all – other GMs to fill positions of need. IMO the Rodgers pick is the most obvious BPA pick he ever made, and although those picks are rare, not the only one. I’m a fan of Thompson’s. I think he’s done a great job and not just with picking Rodgers. Saying he doesn’t pick BPA isn’t a knock on him: Just the opposite is true, if he didn’t consider his roster in evaluating players for the draft and in picking them, that would be a huge knock on him.

 

[AmishMafia]

If you believe Thompson always drafts BPA without any regard to position, why in 11 drafts haven't there been occasions when 3 or 4 or 5 consecutive picks been made at the same position which wasn't an immediate or even short-term need?

Do you really believe it was just a coincidence that:
After losing Tramon and House, the “BPA” in the first two rounds of this year’s draft just happened to be CBs?
After the cluster schtoop on D in 2011, the first 6 picks of the 2012 draft played defense?
With a glaring need at OT going into the 2011 draft, Sherrod was the first pick of 2011?
After Clifton played 12 games and Tauscher played 8 in 2009, the first pick of the 2010 draft was Bulaga?

I’m sure there are other examples as well. IMO you have to be naïve to believe those were coincidences, and to think the current and short-term needs of the team don’t factor into Thompson’s drafts. He is one of the, if not the most disciplined drafters in the league. But he would be foolish not to factor in his roster and the positions the players he drafts play. Particularly because he uses UFA less than all – or almost all – other GMs to fill positions of need. IMO the Rodgers pick is the most obvious BPA pick he ever made, and although those picks are rare, not the only one. I’m a fan of Thompson’s. I think he’s done a great job and not just with picking Rodgers. Saying he doesn’t pick BPA isn’t a knock on him: Just the opposite is true, if he didn’t consider his roster in evaluating players for the draft and in picking them, that would be a huge knock on him.

Do you believe TT passes up higher rated players based on need? I do not. That means he drafts BPA.

 

[AmishMafia]

You have to get away from the idea that there is a single best player available most of the time. Succesful teams mostly select the players presenting the best value with several things factoring into it. That doesn't mean the drafted prospect was the highest ranked player on a team's board.



Unless you have access to the Packers board you won't have any prove of Thompson drafting BPA either. In Rodgers' case there is evidence that he was the only player left with a first round grade at the time Thompson made his selection. Do you know for sure about any other draftee???

As far as i know i was one of the first talking talent tiers to the chagrin of a few.

Let me ask you the same question. Do you think TT picks a player from the highest tier?

Maybe the hangup is the term BPA. Maybe we should use PFTHTA. Or player from the highest tier available.

 

[TJV]

Do you believe TT passes up higher rated players based on need?

Yes, as he should. And I believe he factors in the talent and depth of his roster as well as the schemes the Packers play when setting up his draft board. As he should. Do you believe the examples I listed were all just lucky coincidences?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As far as i know i was one of the first talking talent tiers to the chagrin of a few.

Let me ask you the same question. Do you think TT picks a player from the highest tier?

Maybe the hangup is the term BPA. Maybe we should use PFTHTA. Or player from the highest tier available.

I'm absolutely convinced Thompson picks a player from the highest tier left. I actually like the term best value available for his draft approach best.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I’m sure there are other examples as well.

Of course there are.

2014: M.D. Jennings did not take the "step up" in his second year starting, and he proved to be a glaring weakness, without any promising cover safeties on the roster. At the same time, a FS would allow Burnett to play exclusively at his natural SS position.

Ergo, Clinton-Dix.

2013: Capers wanted more "length", and the 5-tech/3-tech hole in the pass rush that was left with Jenkins departure after 2010 had not been filled. Raji's decline, with zero sacks in 2012, left two holes. Daniels looked promising, but his 2 sack season in 2012 was hardly earth shaking and he did not fit the "length" requirement. Neal, who eventually looked promising as a Jenkins' surrogate in 2012 (led the linemen with 4.5 sacks in only 8 games), was suspended before the draft and was already in shrinking mode to 260ish lb. linebacker size.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, the D-Line totaled 6 sacks in 2011: Raji with 3, Wilson with 3 and that's it. In 2012, the D-line scored 11.5 sacks, however with Neal going to OLB (4.5), the incumbents netted 7 (Wilson with 2.5, Worthy with 2.5 and Daniels with 2).

Ergo, Datone Jones.

And not to put too too fine a point on it, Jones with third day 1 need pick in an attempt to fill the Jenkins hole: Neal in the 2010 2nd. round followed by Worthy in the 2012 2nd. round. If Jones does not make the jump this year, the 2015 draft may see yet a 4th. shot at it. A platoon of Guion at 5-tech and Jones at 3-tech might get the job done, or maybe it doesn't.

2012: The bookend need was glaring. While Walden/Zombo ("The Combo", as I call it) was quite effective in 2010 when they were surrounded by guys having Pro Bowl and career years, the weakness was exposed in 2011. Everybody saw the problem.

Ergo, Nick Perry

And none of this is new.

2009 is easy. With the Capers hiring and the conversion to 3-4, the Packers needed a NT and a 3-4 edge rusher. These were not just needs; they were imperatives.

2006 was a lot like 2015. Thompson "fired" Diggs and Lennon, two starting LBs (one cut, the other let go in FA). So he drafted Hawk at #5 and Hodge at #67 to replace them.

I'm sure there are others between Thompson's taking over and 2012, but those last two jump to mind.

I won't belabor again why Rodgers qualifies as a need pick, however given the importance of the position, the incumbent's age and his mumblings about retiring it would certainly quality as an uncommon opportunity-meets-need situation that does not come around every year. OK, I did belabor it.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I probably went out on a limb there but I'm very confident the Packers are the best team in the division as long as Rodgers stays healthy.

That's a pretty fair bet, at least for 2015.

Stafford and Cutler are chronically and fatally poor decision makers. They've both been around long enough and have been surrounded with enough weapons that expecting a meaningful improvement would be a long-shot bet.

I'd pick Minnesota for the #2 spot. The little I saw of Bridgewater, I'd say he's a promising candidate for a year 2 step-up. The defense looks pretty decent. If AP returns to form and Bridgewater can cut down on the picks, they could do some damage in a Seattle-lite kind of way.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Stafford and Cutler are chronically and fatally poor decision makers. They've both been around long enough and have been surrounded with enough weapons that expecting a meaningful improvement would be a long-shot bet.

I'd pick Minnesota for the #2 spot. The little I saw of Bridgewater, I'd say he's a promising candidate for a year 2 step-up. The defense looks pretty decent. If AP returns to form and Bridgewater can cut down on the picks, they could do some damage in a Seattle-lite kind of way.

I still have the Lions as the second best team in the division. Stafford didn't put up great numbers with a new coaching staff in 2014 but his interceptions declined significantly to 12.

IMO the Vikings will be a .500 team at best.

 

[AmishMafia]

I'm absolutely convinced Thompson picks a player from the highest tier left. I actually like the term best value available for his draft approach best.

TJV does not believe this. He is defining BVA as picking a lower player by factoring need. I dont like the term. The way I see it, if you select a player out of the top tier, you are being true to your board and selecting the BPA.

 

[AmishMafia]

Yes, as he should. And I believe he factors in the talent and depth of his roster as well as the schemes the Packers play when setting up his draft board. As he should. Do you believe the examples I listed were all just lucky coincidences?

No lucky coincidences. When you have 20 or so players to choose from equally rated, the odds are likely at least one of them plays a position that may be weaker than another.

I know you believe that the Packers dont have talent tiers (or have gradations within tiers which essentially means no tiers). We wil never reach a mutual understanding on this matter because of.this.

There seems to me to be many quotes and references to TT being true to his board and not drafting inferior players based on need. I believe he drafts only from the highest talent tier available and the only evidence you wil ever find wil support this - quotes from TT or others. Unless either of us has TTs draft board, it's all we have to go on.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

TJV does not believe this. He is defining BVA as picking a lower player by factoring need. I dont like the term. The way I see it, if you select a player out of the top tier, you are being true to your board and selecting the BPA.

TJV never mentioned anything about drafting players from a lower tier.

You have to realize though that position of need significantly influences the compilation of a team's prospect tiers with some prospects not even making the board based on a team's roster.

While I don't have any evidence for it I'm convinced no QB expected to be drafted during the early rounds has even made it on the Packers board over the last few years.

 

[AmishMafia]

TJV never mentioned anything about drafting players from a lower tier.

Yes he did. His post at . 1058 today states this precisely. You agreed with it.