First Round swings and misses.

[El Guapo]

When one actually analyzes the Packers' draft history in the first round, you'll find that the higher the pick the worse we've done. Over the last 30+ years, AJ Hawk has been our highest successful draft pick. Our highest draft picks have been:

#2 Tony Mandarich (failure)
#4 Brent Fullwood (failure)
#4 Bruce Clark (failure)
#5 Terrell Buckley (failure)
#5 A.J. Hawk (success)
#6 Rich Campbell (failure)
#7 Ken Ruttgers (success)
#7 Sterling Sharpe (success)
#9 BJ Raji (success)
#10 Jamal Reynolds (failure)

One could say that we should be drafting studs with our top ten picks, but based on Packers history, Thompson is doing better than anyone else.

 

[Carl]

Let me address some of the responses to the thread. First, it is not a bash against Ted Thompson. I went back ten years to the year before TT arrived as GM so that should have been clear. The Packers actually have a long history, going as far back as Lombardi, of disappointing first rounders. Anybody remember Don Horn, Vince's pick to be Bart Starr's successor.

Drafting late in the first round isn't really an excuse. I cited a number of players who were still on the board for the Packers when they selected Harrell, Carroll, Sherrod, Perry and Jones, who have proven out with other teams elsewhere in the league.

The fact is that in the last ten years, the life of the current club, the Packers have gotten commensurate results of a first round pick on only Aaron Rodgers and Jordy Nelson. B.J. Raji and A.J. Hawk, Brian Bulaga would look good if they were second, third or fourth round picks. Will Derek Sherrod ever play or where? Right tackle, left tackle or guard; they've tried him at all when he can get on the field. Is Nick Perry a good first rounder for the one-third or half season he can play? Datone Jones has time to develop but as of now fourth rounder Mike Daniels does more for the team.

The motto at 1265 Lombardi Ave. is Build Thru the Draft. Fine. Let's start with the first round then. The club that passed on Barry Sanders and Randy Moss for Tony Mandarich and Vonnie Holliday in its history should have learned something by now.

Drafting late doesn't make it more difficult to select better players? Here's the percents of bust by pick.

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

All you're doing is using hindsight to say who they should have picked instead. I could say that about all other 31 teams that didn't take Sherman before the 5th round or didn't take Brady before the 6th.

With comparing Daniels and Jones, Jones was 1st round and Daniels was a 4th and right now Daniel is better. I don't see how it matters that Daniels was picked later. If you look at such a small sample size of two picks and 50% work out, that's actually well above the draft pick success rate and not an argument in your favor.

Raji and Hawk have been solid contributors, not great, but solid and certainly not busts. Plus, the were picked right where they were rated to go. It's not like the Packers ignored their board and reached on guys. They could have also picked much worse players like Ernie Sims in 2006 and Aaron Maybin in 2009.

The expectation you have that most first round picks have to be very good players is extremely unrealistic. That's not the norm by any means.

 

[Ace]

Drafting late doesn't make it more difficult to select better players? Here's the percents of bust by pick.

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

All you're doing is using hindsight to say who they should have picked instead. I could say that about all other 31 teams that didn't take Sherman before the 5th round or didn't take Brady before the 6th.

With comparing Daniels and Jones, Jones was 1st round and Daniels was a 4th and right now Daniel is better. I don't see how it matters that Daniels was picked later. If you look at such a small sample size of two picks and 50% work out, that's actually well above the draft pick success rate and not an argument in your favor.

Raji and Hawk have been solid contributors, not great, but solid and certainly not busts. Plus, the were picked right where they were rated to go. It's not like the Packers ignored their board and reached on guys. They could have also picked much worse players like Ernie Sims in 2006 and Aaron Maybin in 2009.

The expectation you have that most first round picks have to be very good players is extremely unrealistic. That's not the norm by any means.

Spot on!

 

[rodell330]

Word to the wise..dont say anything negative about Teddy haha.

 

[NOMOFO]

Word to the wise..dont say anything negative about Teddy haha.

word to the "wise"...that's pretty funny.

 

[rodell330]

Yes, yes it is.

 

[El Guapo]

Word to the wise..dont say anything negative about Teddy haha.

Actually, the moral of this thread is that backing up your statements with sound data makes the difference between a successful argument and a non-successful one

 

[Carl]

Actually, the moral of this thread is that backing up your statements with sound data makes the difference between a successful argument and a non-successful one

Was thinking the same thing.

 

[Ace]

Actually, the moral of this thread is that backing up your statements with sound data makes the difference between a successful argument and a non-successful one

This is my problem with a majority of Packers fans, at least the ones I listen to on the radio.

 

[NOMOFO]

This is my problem with a majority of Packers fans, at least the ones I listen to on the radio.

The biggest problem like many have very accurately pointed out many times, is that for some people their "data" goes back a few years or less. Packers suck because it's been three years since they won it all. What the H' is Ted doing?!!

 

[AmishMafia]

This is my problem with a majority of Packers fans, at least the ones I listen to on the radio.

It isn't a majority, its a minority, but they are extremely vocal or 'type a lot' (?). I suppose you are talking local radio, out of the market I hear only NFL radio. Occasionally an anti-TT caller will get on the air and start with many of the arguments presented here. They are pretty much ridiculed or put in their place by the host. Its actually kind of embarrassing.

 

[Ace]

It isn't a majority, its a minority, but they are extremely vocal or 'type a lot' (?). I suppose you are talking local radio, out of the market I hear only NFL radio. Occasionally an anti-TT caller will get on the air and start with many of the arguments presented here. They are pretty much ridiculed or put in their place by the host. Its actually kind of embarrassing.

Yes, and I probably should have stated that. The majority in the Milwaukee area are really clueless to be perfectly honest and not just when it comes to the Packers and TT but all Wisconsin sports. Their thoughts are usually very uneducated and offer no value to the conversation more often then not.

 

[Carl]

Yes, and I probably should have stated that. The majority in the Milwaukee area are really clueless to be perfectly honest and not just when it comes to the Packers and TT but all Wisconsin sports. Their thoughts are usually very uneducated and offer no value to the conversation more often then not.

Like the crazies I found today complaining about the Packers signing a no-name TE and not a better free agent like Byrd or Graham, even though free agents from other teams aren't available for weeks yet.

Some people cannot be argued with.

 

[Pack-12]

Word to the wise..dont use a terrible argument without accurate supporting facts to say anything negative about Teddy haha.

this

 

[TJV]

Better yet:

Word to the wise..dont use a terrible argument without accurate supporting facts to say anything.