Fire Capers

[Poppa San]

And the thing is, it's really freaking hard to consistently hit when you're always picking at the back of round 1, much less to find game breakers.

Time to call bull on that statement: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news...FL-draft/a739c152-b49f-472c-a2c8-6e941a194d38

Using rosters from the last three Pro Bowls (2012-2014) There have been 172 players selected for the prestigious game.
A whopping 37 percent of 2014 Pro Bowlers were selected in the third round or later.
Round # of players Percentage

1st Round 88 51%
2nd Round 21 12%
3rd Round 20 11%
4th Round 11 5.5%
5th Round 8 4%
6th Round 8 4%
7th Round 3 .5%
Undrafted 21 12%

HEY TED!!More undrafted than from rounds 5-7 combined. Suck up those late round comp picks.
And from later in same article (recall this is from 2014):

But rounds three-seven can alter the direction of a franchise, especially from a skill-player standpoint. Once certain players immediately become stars, people tend to forget where they came from. Jimmy Graham, Jamaal Charles, Jason Witten, Frank Gore, Steve Smith and Lance Briggs were all third-rounders. Robert Mathis, a fifth rounder, led the NFL in sacks in 2013. Steelers receiver Antonio Brown gives AFC north opponents fits. He was a sixth-round pick.

May be harder but it is quite doable.

 

[Dantés]

Time to call bull on that statement: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news...FL-draft/a739c152-b49f-472c-a2c8-6e941a194d38
HEY TED!!More undrafted than from rounds 5-7 combined. Suck up those late round comp picks.
And from later in same article (recall this is from 2014):


May be harder but it is quite doable.

What about any that contradicts anything I said?

Also, the reason why the % of UDFA's is higher than late round picks is become the pool is so much bigger. Every year, a team has somewhere around 4 picks in those late rounds and about 20 shots on undrafted guys. On a per pick basis, the success rate is wayyyy higher in the later rounds.

 

[Poppa San]

By no means am I saying that the probowl is the only measure of a players skill. That disclaimer said:
The point is, the available talent pool is just as productive at the end of the first round as it is for the first round. Thus always stating that picking at the end of the round is a reason to not get probowl caliber players is untrue. Hadn't thought of the shear number of UDFAs as a reason for more probowlers though it shows teams missed on their late round picks in those instances.

 

[Dantés]

By no means am I saying that the probowl is the only measure of a players skill. That disclaimer said:
The point is, the available talent pool is just as productive at the end of the first round as it is for the first round. Thus always stating that picking at the end of the round is a reason to not get probowl caliber players is untrue. Hadn't thought of the shear number of UDFAs as a reason for more probowlers though it shows teams missed on their late round picks in those instances.

Where in that article does it say that the end of round 1 yields as many pro bowlers as the beginning? Did I miss something?

 

[swhitset]

Time to call bull on that statement: http://www.clevelandbrowns.com/news...FL-draft/a739c152-b49f-472c-a2c8-6e941a194d38
HEY TED!!More undrafted than from rounds 5-7 combined. Suck up those late round comp picks.
And from later in same article (recall this is from 2014):


May be harder but it is quite doable.

I would say that that article did nothing but strengthen the statement you are trying to disprove. Sure, there are pro bowl players outside of the first round. However the stats in that article definitively prove that the chances of hitting it big are greater by almost 2:1 in the first 2 rounds than in round 3 or later (only 37 percent of Pro Bowl Players are in round 3 or later). Therefore I would submit that consistently drafting at the END of the 1st round, as would seem obvious, definitely reduces your chances of hitting it big.
Here is a quote from that article...
"The idea here isn't to downplay the importance of first-round picks, because clearly, they make up the overwhelming majority of the Pro Bowl".

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Where in that article does it say that the end of round 1 yields as many pro bowlers as the beginning? Did I miss something?

It doesn't but it proves there are impact players available at the end of the first round as 49% of the Pro Bowlers are drafted after the first 32 picks.

 

[Poppa San]

I would say that that article did nothing but strengthen the statement you are trying to disprove. Sure, there are pro bowl players outside of the first round. However the stats in that article definitively prove that the chances of hitting it big are greater by almost 2:1 in the first 2 rounds than in round 3 or later (only 37 percent of Pro Bowl Players are in round 3 or later). Therefore I would submit that consistently drafting at the END of the 1st round, as would seem obvious, definitely reduces your chances of hitting it big.
Here is a quote from that article...
"The idea here isn't to downplay the importance of first-round picks, because clearly, they make up the overwhelming majority of the Pro Bowl".

Yeah what Wimm says:

It doesn't but it proves there are impact players available at the end of the first round as 49% of the Pro Bowlers are drafted after the first 32 picks.

For a draft guru like Ted, mid to late 20's should not be a hindrance. I did not look at the actual players those years but it looks like you could fill a team with probowlers without ever having a 1st round pick.

 

[Dantés]

It doesn't but it proves there are impact players available at the end of the first round as 49% of the Pro Bowlers are drafted after the first 32 picks.

Yeah, I figured that reality is self evident. But they're just really hard to find. And I'd add that "pro bowl" isn't the designation that I would use as a measurement.

But even if you do, you're talking about 51% of them coming out of the first 32 picks and then 49% coming out of the next ~220, plus ~20 UDFA shots per team. So a pool of 32 players and a pool of around 860. Clearly the likelihood of finding an impact player decreases dramatically. And it doesn't go from 51% to 12% magically at pick 33. There's a steady decline.

In any case, my original point (which I never imagined could be controversial) was that it's hard to find blue chip players late in round one. It was actually a criticism of TT that he hasn't used FA more to supplement.

 

[Dantés]

Yeah what Wimm says:

For a draft guru like Ted, mid to late 20's should not be a hindrance. I did not look at the actual players those years but it looks like you could fill a team with probowlers without ever having a 1st round pick.

I think this is a grossly unrealistic standard. If it's that easy, why doesn't everyone do it?

 

[Poppa San]

I think this is a grossly unrealistic standard. If it's that easy, why doesn't everyone do it?

True it's unrealistic but it does prove the point that drafting near the end of the first round does not give validation to the opinion of no impact players available. That was the point I was trying to make. They are there but you have to be right in your scouting to find them.

 

[Dantés]

True it's unrealistic but it does prove the point that drafting near the end of the first round does not give validation to the opinion of no impact players available. That was the point I was trying to make. They are there but you have to be right in your scouting to find them.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that it's impossible.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, I figured that reality is self evident. But they're just really hard to find. And I'd add that "pro bowl" isn't the designation that I would use as a measurement.

But even if you do, you're talking about 51% of them coming out of the first 32 picks and then 49% coming out of the next ~220, plus ~20 UDFA shots per team. So a pool of 32 players and a pool of around 860. Clearly the likelihood of finding an impact player decreases dramatically. And it doesn't go from 51% to 12% magically at pick 33. There's a steady decline.

In any case, my original point (which I never imagined could be controversial) was that it's hard to find blue chip players late in round one. It was actually a criticism of TT that he hasn't used FA more to supplement.

There's absolutely no doubt the chances of drafting an impact player are higher in the first round and significantly increase by selecting early within the first 32 picks.

There's a possibility to add elite players later in the draft though as well and a team solely relying on it has to do better than the Packers have over the past few years.

 

[Half Empty]

For the sake of argument, let's say picking higher nets better players. Not considering previous trades, which are pretty minimal at the upper level anyway, let's say the team picking higher are progressively worse and in more need of help.

OK, then let's give the Browns, the Bears, and the like a free really good player in the draft to start. After all the lesser teams have their one 'bonus' guy, the real draft starts at #29, with the Pack picking ahead of everyone else for the remainder of the draft.

How likely is it for that one guy to lead the lowly teams into the promised land (yes, there is always a chance for an AR, but I said 'likely')? So, next year, perhaps the real stinkers move into the middle of the pack, some of the middlin' teams fall off, get the bonus pick, and the whole process starts again in the 2018 draft.

All things being equal, is anybody going to argue against a higher pick being a better pick? No. But it's really a broken record to attribute team assembly problems to that. I think it was elsewhere in this forum that I listed TT's picks from #23 down, and there has been a lot of talent gleaned there.

 

[Dantés]

There's absolutely no doubt the chances of drafting an impact player are higher in the first round and significantly increase by selecting early within the first 32 picks.

There's a possibility to add elite players later in the draft though as well and a team solely relying on it has to do better than the Packers have over the past few years.

Yes, I agree that if they're going to rely 100% on the draft then they must do better. Which is why I have posited on many occasions (like yourself, I believe) that they need to open things up more in FA, because it's unrealistic that they will be as perfect as they would need to be in the draft to make things work.

What I will say is that I don't think Thompson gets enough credit from some fans (to be fair, he probably gets too much credit from others) for finding really good players after the first round. He's found Bakhtiari, Nelson, Daniels, Lang, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, Linsley, and Montgomery (among others) all after the first round. That, I would argue, is well above the league average performance.

 

[PackerDNA]

Yes, I agree that if they're going to rely 100% on the draft then they must do better. Which is why I have posited on many occasions (like yourself, I believe) that they need to open things up more in FA, because it's unrealistic that they will be as perfect as they would need to be in the draft to make things work.

What I will say is that I don't think Thompson gets enough credit from some fans (to be fair, he probably gets too much credit from others) for finding really good players after the first round. He's found Bakhtiari, Nelson, Daniels, Lang, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, Linsley, and Montgomery (among others) all after the first round. That, I would argue, is well above the league average performance.

You're talking- in your example- about a dozen guys in a dozen drafts. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't that sound like a low success rate for all those picks (rd2 thru 7, plus comp picks) over a dozen drafts?

 

[PackerDNA]

It doesn't but it proves there are impact players available at the end of the first round as 49% of the Pro Bowlers are drafted after the first 32 picks.

There are also one hell of a lot more picks after the 1st round.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I would say that that article did nothing but strengthen the statement you are trying to disprove. Sure, there are pro bowl players outside of the first round. However the stats in that article definitively prove that the chances of hitting it big are greater by almost 2:1 in the first 2 rounds than in round 3 or later (only 37 percent of Pro Bowl Players are in round 3 or later). Therefore I would submit that consistently drafting at the END of the 1st round, as would seem obvious, definitely reduces your chances of hitting it big.
Here is a quote from that article...
"The idea here isn't to downplay the importance of first-round picks, because clearly, they make up the overwhelming majority of the Pro Bowl".

I think people are missing a little of the point; the issue isn't that the Packers haven't been "hitting it big" with their first rounders, it's that they've been whiffing. The Packers could succeed with just really good players in the first round, they don't need elite. However, in the last six drafts, the Packers have drafted a grand total of ONE positive contributor in the first round (HaHa). Yes, Perry finally had a good year this year but with the way Thompson builds teams, waiting five years for a player to get good counts as a miss because the Packers are going to miss out on the cheap production that drafted players give.

 

[swhitset]

I think people are missing a little of the point; the issue isn't that the Packers haven't been "hitting it big" with their first rounders, it's that they've been whiffing. The Packers could succeed with just really good players in the first round, they don't need elite. However, in the last six drafts, the Packers have drafted a grand total of ONE positive contributor in the first round (HaHa). Yes, Perry finally had a good year this year but with the way Thompson builds teams, waiting five years for a player to get good counts as a miss because the Packers are going to miss out on the cheap production that drafted players give.

I don't disagree with this at all... I would only say that the chances of "whiffing should go down somewhat the earlier you draft in the first round. Of course, this also brings with it a higher risk of whiffing big having to pay a higher rookie salary etc...

 

[Dantés]

You're talking- in your example- about a dozen guys in a dozen drafts. I don't know the numbers, but doesn't that sound like a low success rate for all those picks (rd2 thru 7, plus comp picks) over a dozen drafts?

If I had more time, I'd quantify it. It helps to compare performance to other teams. That gives you a picture of how a team is doing compared to what's normal. I have time to compile a small example, but beyond that I would just encourage you to look at the bigger picture when you have time.

Let's take a 5 year sample from the division. If we can agree that it's too soon to know what the final outcome of 2015 and 2016 will be, then we can look at 2010-2014. Here is a comparison of the hauls of players by team, considering only starters or significant contributors:

Packers: Morgan Burnett, Randall Cobb, Casey Hayward, Mike Daniels, David Bakhtiari, Eddie Lacy, J.C. Tretter, Micah Hyde, Davante Adams, Corey Linsley, Lane Taylor

Vikings: Jerrick McKinnon, Shamar Stephen, Jeff Locke, Rhett Ellison, Kyle Rudolph, Brandon Fusco, Everson Griffen, Adam Thielen

Lions: Willie Young, Tahir Whitehead, Darius Slay, Larry Warford, Theo Rid****

Bears: Charles Leno, Alshon Jeffery, Stephen Paea, Chris Conte, Major Wright

Now I see in those lists a clear difference between the Packers and the rest of the division in both quantity and quality of helpful players found after the first round.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yes, I agree that if they're going to rely 100% on the draft then they must do better. Which is why I have posited on many occasions (like yourself, I believe) that they need to open things up more in FA, because it's unrealistic that they will be as perfect as they would need to be in the draft to make things work.

What I will say is that I don't think Thompson gets enough credit from some fans (to be fair, he probably gets too much credit from others) for finding really good players after the first round. He's found Bakhtiari, Nelson, Daniels, Lang, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, Linsley, and Montgomery (among others) all after the first round. That, I would argue, is well above the league average performance.

Yeah, I have been advocating for the Packers to selectively use free agency more often to address positions of need for quite some time.

Overall Thompson has been very successful in the draft during his tenure.

I posted some numbers about it here several months ago:

https://www.packerforum.com/threads/ttmm-connection.70204/page-3#post-689063

With that being said his reluctance to upgrade the roster through free agency has most likely cost the teama shot at another title.

There are also one hell of a lot more picks after the 1st round.

True, that has already been discussed in this thread. It doesn't change the fact it's possible to select impact players later in the draft as well though.

 

[PikeBadger]

What about any that contradicts anything I said?

Also, the reason why the % of UDFA's is higher than late round picks is become the pool is so much bigger. Every year, a team has somewhere around 4 picks in those late rounds and about 20 shots on undrafted guys. On a per pick basis, the success rate is wayyyy higher in the later rounds.

Imo, after the top 100-150 in most drafts, there is not that much difference in athletic talent and ability the rest of the way through. You're hunting for hidden gems with great intangibles and guys you think can play specific supporting roles.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

If I had more time, I'd quantify it. It helps to compare performance to other teams. That gives you a picture of how a team is doing compared to what's normal. I have time to compile a small example, but beyond that I would just encourage you to look at the bigger picture when you have time.

Let's take a 5 year sample from the division. If we can agree that it's too soon to know what the final outcome of 2015 and 2016 will be, then we can look at 2010-2014. Here is a comparison of the hauls of players by team, considering only starters or significant contributors:

Packers: Morgan Burnett, Randall Cobb, Casey Hayward, Mike Daniels, David Bakhtiari, Eddie Lacy, J.C. Tretter, Micah Hyde, Davante Adams, Corey Linsley, Lane Taylor

Vikings: Jerrick McKinnon, Shamar Stephen, Jeff Locke, Rhett Ellison, Kyle Rudolph, Brandon Fusco, Everson Griffen, Adam Thielen

Lions: Willie Young, Tahir Whitehead, Darius Slay, Larry Warford, Theo Rid****

Bears: Charles Leno, Alshon Jeffery, Stephen Paea, Chris Conte, Major Wright

Now I see in those lists a clear difference between the Packers and the rest of the division in both quantity and quality of helpful players found after the first round.

You just compared the Packers against some teams that have been kinda bad over that timeframe, outside of the Packers there has not been a consistent winner over that time frame in the NFC North. So, yes, the Packers have been better than those, for the most part, bad teams.

I could see someone saying the Vikings have been decent and in looking at their history vs the Packers over that timeframe, the Packers aren't much better. You left Bridgewater out of your list (he should be considered since the Vikes gave up a second and fourth for him) and he looked to be an improving player prior to his injury (he was obviously a starter). I'd add Hodges to your list for the Vikes as well as Toby Gerhart. Add those three to the Vikings and they have the same number as the Packers...does anyone consider the Vikings to be expert drafters?

 

[Dantés]

You just compared the Packers against some teams that have been kinda bad over that timeframe, outside of the Packers there has not been a consistent winner over that time frame in the NFC North. So, yes, the Packers have been better than those, for the most part, bad teams.

I could see someone saying the Vikings have been decent and in looking at their history vs the Packers over that timeframe, the Packers aren't much better. You left Bridgewater out of your list (he should be considered since the Vikes gave up a second and fourth for him) and he looked to be an improving player prior to his injury (he was obviously a starter). I'd add Hodges to your list for the Vikes as well as Toby Gerhart. Add those three to the Vikings and they have the same number as the Packers...does anyone consider the Vikings to be expert drafters?

I left Bridgewater off the list because he was a 1st round pick and that wasn't the discussion.

If you want to include Gerhart and Hodges, that's fine. I didn't consider their contributions to be worth mentioning.

Even if you do add those guys, there is a huge gulf between the quality of players on that list of Packers and the one for the Vikings. It isn't just about numbers.

But as I said in the first place, I don't have time to compare TT to the entire league. Anyone is free to look up the comparisons for themselves. But the reality is that, despite other faults, Thompson has been one of the best drafting GM's in the game during his tenure.

 

[bigbubbatd]

You just compared the Packers against some teams that have been kinda bad over that timeframe, outside of the Packers there has not been a consistent winner over that time frame in the NFC North. So, yes, the Packers have been better than those, for the most part, bad teams.

I could see someone saying the Vikings have been decent and in looking at their history vs the Packers over that timeframe, the Packers aren't much better. You left Bridgewater out of your list (he should be considered since the Vikes gave up a second and fourth for him) and he looked to be an improving player prior to his injury (he was obviously a starter). I'd add Hodges to your list for the Vikes as well as Toby Gerhart. Add those three to the Vikings and they have the same number as the Packers...does anyone consider the Vikings to be expert drafters?

It isn't just number it is quality. Only Griffen and Rudolph and I guess thielen have been good. That isn't even close to Bahk, Burnett, Heyward, Daniels, Adams, Cobb, Linsley.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

But as I said in the first place, I don't have time to compare TT to the entire league. Anyone is free to look up the comparisons for themselves. But the reality is that, despite other faults, Thompson has been one of the best drafting GM's in the game during his tenure.

Thompson has been one of the best drafting general managers in the league during his tenure but hasn´t been as successful over the last six years though.