Can we declare 2013 a Failed Draft Class?

[Pokerbrat2000]

Quoted for reference.

We could do this all day!

wolf as a GM was a complete failure

 

[OldSchool101]

• What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players. We also haven't considered that we are currently standing at 4 comp picks for next year as a direct result of lost personnel. Personally, I would strongly consider trading up this year's draft using a mid round this year and/or another mid round pick next year to acquire at least 1 dynamic Defensive talent IF the opportunity to

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

• What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players. We also haven't considered that we are currently standing at 4 comp picks for next year as a direct result of lost personnel. Personally, I would strongly consider trading up this year's draft using a mid round this year and/or another mid round pick next year to acquire at least 1 dynamic Defensive talent IF the opportunity to

I get your first part "What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players", easy conclusion, since 4 were resigned by other teams. However, its somewhat of a failure when you consider these were guys drafted by Green Bay for the purpose of contributing beyond 4 years and I don't think by letting all 4 go, the Packers even saw the purpose of keeping them around. Hyde, Tretter and I think Jones didn't even get an offer from the Packers. If Lacy did, it wasn't enough. Was Casey Hayward in 2012 a successful draft choice for the Packers? While he ended up being a good player (for the Chargers), I don't think the Packers got nearly the value out him that you would expect for a #2 pick.

While the comp picks are nice and smart of you to point out, IMO they still don't translate/factor much into calling the draft a success in the way of retaining guys. Meaning that instead of having your #1, #2, #4 and #5 picks developed and contributing, you have the potential of 4 mid to late round picks 5 years later (initial draft date). While that might work for teams that use other means more frequently to acquire players other than the draft, for a team that is built on draft and develop, draft and let go doesn't seem like a formula for success.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players.

Unfortunately retaining talented players after their rookie contract has expired should be a huge part of the draft and develop philosophy though.

 

[PackerDNA]

If this trend continues, we'll end up as the unofficial farm team of the NFL.

 

[OldSchool101]

Unfortunately retaining talented players after their rookie contract has expired should be a huge part of the draft and develop philosophy though.

Exactly my point Wimm. So IMO it's not the players or the draft class that necessarily flopped (or the decision to acquire them) but rather more specifically a failed plan of action to retain some very good players.
If that's the definition of a " failed class"
(I truly don't know I'm clearly not a "draft class" expert here) then yes, we failed miserably

 

[OldSchool101]

I get your first part "What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players", easy conclusion, since 4 were resigned by other teams. However, its somewhat of a failure when you consider these were guys drafted by Green Bay for the purpose of contributing beyond 4 years and I don't think by letting all 4 go, the Packers even saw the purpose of keeping them around. Hyde, Tretter and I think Jones didn't even get an offer from the Packers. If Lacy did, it wasn't enough. Was Casey Hayward in 2012 a successful draft choice for the Packers? While he ended up being a good player (for the Chargers), I don't think the Packers got nearly the value out him that you would expect for a #2 pick.

While the comp picks are nice and smart of you to point out, IMO they still don't translate/factor much into calling the draft a success in the way of retaining guys. Meaning that instead of having your #1, #2, #4 and #5 picks developed and contributing, you have the potential of 4 mid to late round picks 5 years later (initial draft date). While that might work for teams that use other means more frequently to acquire players other than the draft, for a team that is built on draft and develop, draft and let go doesn't seem like a formula for success.

I think we both can agree the end result of this draft class has been poor at this juncture, yes. No argument here. But we're also 4 players net shy.
I'm just trying to make a point that the economics of this draft class is not over until we compare the general results of those losses with any players gained this year (and next year) If Martellus puts up 10 TDs and 900 yards and Lacy puts up 6 TDs and 700 yards was it a good call? I'll have a better understanding.
No disrespect Poker I think it's a legitimate argument I just think
The last chapter of 2013 hasn't played out yet is all. Call me an optimist and I understand very clearly all the frustration I could ring TTs neck but everything happens for a reason. I've learned there is NO coincidence.
Maybe this year goes awry and we get a new GM 2018 IDK

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think we both can agree the end result of this draft class has been poor at this juncture, yes. No argument here. But we're also 4 players net shy.
I'm just trying to make a point that the economics of this draft class is not over until we compare the general results of those losses with any players gained this year (and next year) If Martellus puts up 10 TDs and 900 yards and Lacy puts up 6 TDs and 700 yards was it a good call? I'll have a better understanding.
No disrespect Poker I think it's a legitimate argument I just think
The last chapter of 2013 hasn't played out yet is all. Call me an optimist and I understand very clearly all the frustration I could ring TTs neck but everything happens for a reason. I've learned there is NO coincidence.
Maybe this year goes awry and we get a new GM 2018 IDK

I don't think that Bennett nor any of the prospects selected with a compensatory pick next year should be considered when evaluating the 2013 draft.

 

[Pkrjones]

I don't think that Bennett nor any of the prospects selected with a compensatory pick next year should be considered when evaluating the 2013 draft.

I disagree. TT chose not to re-sign these draft picks in lieu of the comp picks and saving cap $. Those comp picks should be factored into the draft's success as they were compensation for letting experienced vets go elsewhere.

Similar idea but off-topic... I always thought TT got the better of the "trade-up for CM3" deal until I stumbled across this NE article. http://nesn.com/2014/11/patriots-wound-up-making-right-choice-in-trading-clay-matthews-draft-pick/

Packers got: CM3 & Jamon Meredith
NE got with those draft picks: Gronkowski (TE), Edelman (WR), Darius Butler (CB), and Brandon Tate (WR)

 

[PikeBadger]

I get your first part "What failed is not the draft class but the ability to retain said players", easy conclusion, since 4 were resigned by other teams. However, its somewhat of a failure when you consider these were guys drafted by Green Bay for the purpose of contributing beyond 4 years and I don't think by letting all 4 go, the Packers even saw the purpose of keeping them around. Hyde, Tretter and I think Jones didn't even get an offer from the Packers. If Lacy did, it wasn't enough. Was Casey Hayward in 2012 a successful draft choice for the Packers? While he ended up being a good player (for the Chargers), I don't think the Packers got nearly the value out him that you would expect for a #2 pick.

While the comp picks are nice and smart of you to point out, IMO they still don't translate/factor much into calling the draft a success in the way of retaining guys. Meaning that instead of having your #1, #2, #4 and #5 picks developed and contributing, you have the potential of 4 mid to late round picks 5 years later (initial draft date). While that might work for teams that use other means more frequently to acquire players other than the draft, for a team that is built on draft and develop, draft and let go doesn't seem like a formula for success.

If you're going to make this argument about retaining all these guys who left this year, perhaps you ought to look at it over a 5 or 10 year stretch and see how many were retained vs. let go to test FA.

Exactly my point Wimm. So IMO it's not the players or the draft class that necessarily flopped (or the decision to acquire them) but rather more specifically a failed plan of action to retain some very good players.
If that's the definition of a " failed class"
(I truly don't know I'm clearly not a "draft class" expert here) then yes, we failed miserably

interesting take on all these "very good players" that we lost to FA. I've been hearing so much that we had such a dearth of talent and that Rodgers was a one man team. It all seems rather confusing. I think I'll stick with what the outsiders were saying, that we were one of the most talented rosters in the league on the eve of the 16 season.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If you're going to make this argument about retaining all these guys who left this year, perhaps you ought to look at it over a 5 or 10 year stretch and see how many were retained vs. let go to test FA.

While I appreciate you giving me that task, I will pass, since I wasn't trying to make a broad generalization about the past. Although, if you look at my original post to start the thread, you will see that I did at least list the players from past drafts that are still with the team. This thread was merely about the 2013 draft and the fact that from a draft group of 11 players, only one player is still on the team after the conclusion of the rookie contract period (4 years). Again, to me that isn't a successful draft for a "draft and develop" team.

 

[Pkrjones]

While I appreciate you giving me that task, I will pass, since I wasn't trying to make a broad generalization about the past. Although, if you look at my original post to start the thread, you will see that I did at least list the players from past drafts that are still with the team. This thread was merely about the 2013 draft and the fact that from a draft group of 11 players, only one player is still on the team after the conclusion of the rookie contract period (4 years). Again, to me that isn't a successful draft for a "draft and develop" team.

Why couldn't this be considered a very successful draft? At least 8 of the 11 are still in the league on their 2nd contract. The Packers got A LOT of games played by most of them over the past 4 years. Between Hyde, Lacy, Tretter & Jones they played in (or were active for) 205 games while a Packer, and started 98 games.

Just because another team chose to over-pay them (in TT's opinion) doesn't mean that the draft was a failure... just that their serviceable time in GB is done.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why couldn't this be considered a very successful draft? At least 8 of the 11 are still in the league on their 2nd contract. The Packers got A LOT of games played by most of them over the past 4 years. Between Hyde, Lacy, Tretter & Jones they played in (or were active for) 205 games while a Packer, and started 98 games.

Just because another team chose to over-pay them (in TT's opinion) doesn't mean that the draft was a failure... just that their serviceable time in GB is done.

Again.....I am not "debating" if Hyde, Lacy, Tretter and Jones" were good picks and played well for 4 years, I think that is a debate all in itself and I would probably say by using hindsight the order which you listed them in (Hyde, Lacy, Tretter & Jones) is the order I would put them in for value based on position picked in draft. You didn't mention Bahk, he was the one player in my mind that prevented the draft year from being almost forgettable.

My point is that the team retained 1 guy out of the 11 they drafted. I am not sure how a person calls that a success for a draft and develop team. I will give you an example of what I would say could be called successful. Bahk is who he is today and in GB. Lacy didn't get injured nor had a weight issue, played his last 2 years like his first 2 and was resigned. Jones actually played up to his first round billing and was resigned. Hyde and Tretter were considered valuable enough to resign. THAT would have been a successful draft moving forward. As it stands now, the Packers have Bahk and possibly 4 compensatory picks to show for the 2013 draft.

Maybe what makes this draft less successful in my mind isn't the players themselves, but the fact that out of the 11 drafted, TT only saw 1 worth keeping around past year 4. Which also was his best move of this draft class, resigning Bahk before the season. I'm not so sure Bahk is even a Packer, had they let him get to Free Agency.

 

[Mondio]

I'd say any time you get 4 years and lots of play out of that many guys in a draft class being as successful as GB has been, it's a successful draft. You can't keep them all and in a year we had to re-sign a franchise LT from that draft and had another guy at a premium position in a contract year, it changes the situation.

Even draft and develop teams have to get play from young cheap players, we did that and we still have most of our core together. We're missing our shut down corner due to injury, but we did not have one from that draft class anyway. If we did, I bet we would have had 3 big contracts signed this year. The bigger mistake would have been to sign those guys to more money than they got elsewhere.

There's always going to be some ebbs and flows to the roster. This happens to appear to be an ebb year. It happens, it has to happen regardless of who the QB is. To not expect it is just unrealistic. It leaves us with a lot of questions heading into the season. But we have a draft and more cuts coming to see what we end up with for a roster. If they hit a homerun pick or 2, a championship is a definite possibility this year.

 

[C-Lee]

If they hit a homerun pick or 2, a championship is a definite possibility this year.

Agreed. Come on, Ted! Prove us wrong!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's always going to be some ebbs and flows to the roster. This happens to appear to be an ebb year.

Well I think you can add the 2011 and 2012 draft years to those "ebbs" as well. The Packers resigned 4 out of 29 picks from the 2011, 2012 and 2013 classes after the rookie contracts were up. (Cobb, Perry, Daniels, Bahk). I guess we will see how that translates moving forward for the next 1-5 years. Bottom line to me, if you aren't replacing those guys with FA vets, you are asking way too much out of a large group of younger players and the small group of core veteran players.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If they hit a homerun pick or 2, a championship is a definite possibility this year.

While I haven't given up on 2017, if the Packers have to rely on hitting a homerun pick or 2 in the draft to win a championship this year, I wouldn't book any Super Bowl plans. I'm hitching my hopes to the arm of AR and the hopeful development wagon of some of the younger players.

 

[Mondio]

anybody booking plans for a superbowl now are just planning a vacation for any team. Odds are against all of them. We're going to be in the mix without a home run pick barring the crazy unforseen, and with one, our chances get that much better.

 

[PikeBadger]

While I appreciate you giving me that task, I will pass, since I wasn't trying to make a broad generalization about the past. Although, if you look at my original post to start the thread, you will see that I did at least list the players from past drafts that are still with the team. This thread was merely about the 2013 draft and the fact that from a draft group of 11 players, only one player is still on the team after the conclusion of the rookie contract period (4 years). Again, to me that isn't a successful draft for a "draft and develop" team.

I'll agree that in retrospect we didn't get as much production in extended years that we'd like or are used to seeing in guys signing second contracts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Why couldn't this be considered a very successful draft? At least 8 of the 11 are still in the league on their 2nd contract. The Packers got A LOT of games played by most of them over the past 4 years. Between Hyde, Lacy, Tretter & Jones they played in (or were active for) 205 games while a Packer, and started 98 games.

Just because another team chose to over-pay them (in TT's opinion) doesn't mean that the draft was a failure... just that their serviceable time in GB is done.

I'd say any time you get 4 years and lots of play out of that many guys in a draft class being as successful as GB has been, it's a successful draft.

It seems both of you mistake the NFL draft for college national signing day. Re-signing players after the rookie contract has expired is essential to fairly evaluate a draft class.

 

[Pkrjones]

It seems both of you mistake the NFL draft for college national signing day. Re-signing players after the rookie contract has expired is essential to fairly evaluate a draft class.

If that's your only criteria then almost every draft class is a bust (less than 33% "hit" rate). I may have missed a player or 2 below:
2005 - (2) players signed a 2nd contract with GB - Rodgers and Collins
2006 - Hawk & Jennings... I believe Blackmon & Jolly brought back on 1 yr. prove-it deals.
2007 - (3) J. Jones, D. Bishop & M. Crosby
2008 - (3) Nelson, Finley & Sitton
2009 - (3) Raji, CM3 & Lang
2010 - (5) Bulaga, Neal, Burnett, Starks, and I believe Quarless on a 1 yr. prove-it deal.
2011 - (1) Cobb
2012 - (2) Perry & Daniels
2013 - (1) Bakhtiari
2014 - Possibly 4; Clinton-Dix, Adams, Linsley and Janis (kidding!!)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If that's your only criteria then almost every draft class is a bust (less than 33% "hit" rate). I may have missed a player or 2 below:
2005 - (2) players signed a 2nd contract with GB - Rodgers and Collins
2006 - Hawk & Jennings... I believe Blackmon & Jolly brought back on 1 yr. prove-it deals.
2007 - (3) J. Jones, D. Bishop & M. Crosby
2008 - (3) Nelson, Finley & Sitton
2009 - (3) Raji, CM3 & Lang
2010 - (5) Bulaga, Neal, Burnett, Starks, and I believe Quarless on a 1 yr. prove-it deal.
2011 - (1) Cobb
2012 - (2) Perry & Daniels
2013 - (1) Bakhtiari
2014 - Possibly 4; Clinton-Dix, Adams, Linsley and Janis (kidding!!)

There were different rules in place before the new CBA was introduced in 2011. Since then only four out of 29 picks (13.8%) of the draft picks have signed a second contract with the Packers. That's for sure not good enough for a team mostly relying on draft and develop.