Have we improved?

[PikeBadger]

I agree Thompson uses "talent tiers". My point was and is no GM drafts purely BPA and your post agrees with that: When you include "positions of need" in the evaluation of prospects you are no longer using BPA.

I don't think he places guys higher on his board based on perception of position need. That would result in a false board of talent value. I think he drafts guys where their talent level fits on the board so that they are not be drafted too high. Why didn't he draft Lacy at 54? He needed a RB.

 

[adambr2]

I don't think he places guys higher on his board based on perception of position need. That would result in a false board of talent value. I think he drafts guys where their talent level fits on the board so that they are not be drafted too high. Why didn't he draft Lacy at 54? He needed a RB.

I've asked myself the same, to be honest. I would guess one of the 2 possibilities:

1) He had Lacy and Ball on the same tier and was counting on one of the two still being available at #61.

2) He was actually not particularly enamored with Lacy but when he continued to fall to #61 he did not think he could pass up the value.

 

[PikeBadger]

I've asked myself the same, to be honest. I would guess one of the 2 possibilities:

1) He had Lacy and Ball on the same tier and was counting on one of the two still being available at #61.

2) He was actually not particularly enamored with Lacy but when he continued to fall to #61 he did not think he could pass up the value.

Or maybe at 54 there was a guy/s that were valued higher but perhaps were DL, OLB or QB and he had already picked Datone Jones and didn't want a QB or OLB that early. Maybe it's where value meets need meets opportunity and availability.

 

[TJV]

I don't think he places guys higher on his board based on perception of position need. That would result in a false board of talent value. I think he drafts guys where their talent level fits on the board so that they are not be drafted too high. Why didn't he draft Lacy at 54? He needed a RB.

That's where we disagree: I do think he places players at positions of need higher on his board and he's hinted as much. And I think adambr2 is correct: He traded down because he calculated that either Ball or Lacy would be there at #61, but IMO he was after a RB at that spot. BTW, he traded the extra pick he got by trading down to #61 to trade up into the fourth round for another RB, Johnathan Franklin.

When you post Thompson "didn't want a QB or OLB that early", or similar statements regarding positions IMO you make the point he is not picking the BPA, because if he were, position wouldn't matter.

 

[Carl]

That's where we disagree: I do think he places players at positions of need higher on his board and he's hinted as much. And I think adambr2 is correct: He traded down because he calculated that either Ball or Lacy would be there at #61, but IMO he was after a RB at that spot. BTW, he traded the extra pick he got by trading down to #61 to trade up into the fourth round for another RB, Johnathan Franklin.

When you post Thompson "didn't want a QB or OLB that early", or similar statements regarding positions IMO you make the point he is not picking the BPA, because if he were, position wouldn't matter.

As a GM, it don't think it would sense to place players higher on a board based on need. Having a need doesn't make players at that position automically better. The point of a board is to compare players regardless of position. Shooting guys up the board based on need could really mess with getting good value at picks.

That being said, it doesn't mean TT throws need out the window. If pick #30 rolls around and he's got a RB rated at 1 and an ILB a very close 2, he'll take the ILB to make need match value.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I still think an ILB needs to be a VERY good prospect to deserve a first round pick, something I'm not sure exists in this draft. I read an ESPN article that talked about what players should be available at pick 30 and it listed the last few years' 30th overall picks. Two players caught my attention; in 2011 the Jets drafted Muhammad Wilkerson and in 2013 the Rams drafted Alec Ogletree (a player that I would say is probably better than any of the ILBs being discussed for the Packers this year). Not sure about others but I would think that a player like Wilkerson, even considering the Packers' needs at ILB, would be far and away the more impactful player for the Packer's defense; dline is just a more important position overall than any other position on defense, which is why I really wouldn't mind if a GM just flat out said that they would take a dlineman in the first round every year (so long as the QB situation is settled). I don't think there's a bigger drop-off at any defensive position than the one from first round dline to second-round-or-later dline.

That's why I've never believed in "best player available", because a player's position is pretty important too. You could have two guys closely rated but if one is a guard who has a marginally higher grade and the other is a DT, then I'm pretty sure the DT gets drafted pretty much every time (or should get drafted anyway).

 

[TJV]

As a GM, it don't think it would sense to place players higher on a board based on need. ... That being said, it doesn't mean TT throws need out the window. If pick #30 rolls around and he's got a RB rated at 1 and an ILB a very close 2, he'll take the ILB to make need match value.

You say it doesn't make sense to place players higher on the board based on need and then give an example of doing exactly that.

When I post Thompson doesn't use BPA in the draft it is not a criticism. IMO no GM does because it would be foolish and lead to strange results. Thompson certainly uses draft picks to build his teams as much or more than any other GM. He is very disciplined in not reaching in the draft as some other GMs do. But I think it's obvious need factors into his board and picks.

 

[sschind]

And too early for too much middle-of-the-road thinking too !

So we have to be thinking slightly to the left or the right of middle of the road then. Got it.

 

[Half Empty]

Next question is extent of earliness. Wait until the draft? Free agency post-draft? Training camp? Opening day? It's all so confusing.

 

[Carl]

You say it doesn't make sense to place players higher on the board based on need and then give an example of doing exactly that.

When I post Thompson doesn't use BPA in the draft it is not a criticism. IMO no GM does because it would be foolish and lead to strange results. Thompson certainly uses draft picks to build his teams as much or more than any other GM. He is very disciplined in not reaching in the draft as some other GMs do. But I think it's obvious need factors into his board and picks.

The example said the RB was rated 1 and the ILB rated 2. There were no changes on the board based on need. Just because the ILB was picked, doesn't mean he was at the top of the board.

Rearranging a board based on need would result inaccurate comparison of talent levels.

 

[TJV]

The example said the RB was rated 1 and the ILB rated 2. There were no changes on the board based on need. Just because the ILB was picked, doesn't mean he was at the top of the board.

Rearranging a board based on need would result inaccurate comparison of talent levels.

What you are describing is a difference without a distinction: What’s the difference between adjusting the board before the draft putting that RB just behind that ILB vs. rating the RB higher but still picking the ILB?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

I still think an ILB needs to be a VERY good prospect to deserve a first round pick, something I'm not sure exists in this draft. I read an ESPN article that talked about what players should be available at pick 30 and it listed the last few years' 30th overall picks. Two players caught my attention; in 2011 the Jets drafted Muhammad Wilkerson and in 2013 the Rams drafted Alec Ogletree (a player that I would say is probably better than any of the ILBs being discussed for the Packers this year). Not sure about others but I would think that a player like Wilkerson, even considering the Packers' needs at ILB, would be far and away the more impactful player for the Packer's defense; dline is just a more important position overall than any other position on defense, which is why I really wouldn't mind if a GM just flat out said that they would take a dlineman in the first round every year (so long as the QB situation is settled). I don't think there's a bigger drop-off at any defensive position than the one from first round dline to second-round-or-later dline.

That's why I've never believed in "best player available", because a player's position is pretty important too. You could have two guys closely rated but if one is a guard who has a marginally higher grade and the other is a DT, then I'm pretty sure the DT gets drafted pretty much every time (or should get drafted anyway).

Dline and O-line. every year. Unless you need a QB. The big boys rule the NFL.

 

[Carl]

What you are describing is a difference without a distinction: What’s the difference between adjusting the board before the draft putting that RB just behind that ILB vs. rating the RB higher but still picking the ILB?

Not a big deal when comparing only two players, but certainly makes a difference when there are more than two.

Say at a pick the Packers have 10 possible players to pick - nine non ILBs with grades of 5.0 and then an ILB with a grade of 4.9 (Just making numbers up).

If they decide to bump that ILB to the top based on need, they then pick a guy possibly 10 picks earlier than needed instead of trading down to make value match also.

 

[PFanCan]

Next question is extent of earliness. Wait until the draft? Free agency post-draft? Training camp? Opening day? It's all so confusing.

No guessing, hypothesizing, or postulating allowed on this forum. Wait until we win the next Super Bowl. Then, discuss all you want!

 

[Half Empty]

We don't even have to do that. Just finishing ahead of a lot of deadbeat teams every year is enough.

 

[RRyder]

We don't even have to do that. Just finishing ahead of a lot of deadbeat teams every year is enough.

Guess every team that didnt make their conference championship game are deadbeats.

 

[Half Empty]

Now we're starting to understand each other. However, a little on the serious side, how often has the Pack reached that level of late? The rest of the time, the only teams they are clearly better than are the deadbeats in the NFC North.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Dline and O-line. every year. Unless you need a QB. The big boys rule the NFL.

Then why do you keep pitching a TE and a RB for the first round?

 

[RRyder]

Now we're starting to understand each other. However, a little on the serious side, how often has the Pack reached that level of late? The rest of the time, the only teams they are clearly better than are the deadbeats in the NFC North.

Lets look at the last 5 years.

Well two times in the last 5 years we played in the NFCG n lost once, a year were we lost our MVP pretty much all year and the other two seasons lost to the team that represented the NFC in the SB. (One of which was a 15-1 team that lost to the team that won the SB)

So putting aside the year we lost Rodgers you can only defentivly say we werent good enough to knock out a team that NO ONE else in the NFC was able to beat and one year we won it all.

Theres recent history for ya. 5 year stretch and in it we have 1 SB, 1 year we lost our most important player and 3 years were the team we lost to was the NFC representative, one of which won the SB.

Yep defenatly only better then the bottom feeders

 

[adambr2]

Dline and O-line. every year. Unless you need a QB. The big boys rule the NFL.

While I'd not be thrilled with taking DL in the 1st this year, I'd understand it.

Taking OL in the first would be strictly a luxury and depth pick. You had better plan on getting a guy who is a huge steal at #30 and plan on him being a cornerstone on your line eventually if you're going that route.

 

[Half Empty]

Lets look at the last 5 years.

Well two times in the last 5 years we played in the NFCG n lost once, a year were we lost our MVP pretty much all year and the other two seasons lost to the team that represented the NFC in the SB. (One of which was a 15-1 team that lost to the team that won the SB)

So putting aside the year we lost Rodgers you can only defentivly say we werent good enough to knock out a team that NO ONE else in the NFC was able to beat and one year we won it all.

Theres recent history for ya. 5 year stretch and in it we have 1 SB, 1 year we lost our most important player and 3 years were the team we lost to was the NFC representative, one of which won the SB.

Yep defenatly only better then the bottom feeders

Hey, as always, this stuff is personal opinion. Obviously, the 'bottom feeders' comment rubs you the wrong way, but that was intended as shorthand for regularly winning a lot of regular season games, making the playoffs, and losing there to a good team - didn't mean to imply that the teams in the playoffs are 'bottom feeders'.

Since Rodgers took over, the Pack has lost their first playoff game to the Cardinals, had the storybook run in 2010, which helps to salve the pain of the other years, lost to the Giants in the NFCC game, lost their second playoff game to the '49ers after beating the Joe Webb-led Vikings, lost their first playoff game to the '49ers, and I'm sure there was something about last year, but I've blotted it out.

When the team is good enough to almost automatically qualify for the playoffs each year, I (personally) find no solace in a quick exit therefrom. I have no problem with those who are satisfied with what's transpired over the last (fill in the blank) years, it's just that my ultimate evaluation begins with expectations.

 

[Mondio]

I wouldn't say i'm "satisfied", but am understanding of the situations. Yeah, they lost to the 9er's after beating the vikings. and they were a rookie interception away from winning that game. Had Hyde caught that ball I'm very confident we drive, score, and win. But he didn't. Besides that, with the players we had available to even put a defense on the field I'm very surprised we were even in that game. I'd love to see a Seattle team or Patriot team (well bill can probably get it done) or Broncos or 49er team or any of the others play a regular season game, let alone a play off game with the players or comparable talent on defense.

and last year was last year. Not sure there's any good way to explain that other than everybody failed and collapsed in a 5 minute span and it was enough to undo 55+ minutes of beat down.

 

[Half Empty]

I wouldn't say i'm "satisfied", but am understanding of the situations. Yeah, they lost to the 9er's after beating the vikings. and they were a rookie interception away from winning that game. Had Hyde caught that ball I'm very confident we drive, score, and win. But he didn't. Besides that, with the players we had available to even put a defense on the field I'm very surprised we were even in that game. I'd love to see a Seattle team or Patriot team (well bill can probably get it done) or Broncos or 49er team or any of the others play a regular season game, let alone a play off game with the players or comparable talent on defense.

and last year was last year. Not sure there's any good way to explain that other than everybody failed and collapsed in a 5 minute span and it was enough to undo 55+ minutes of beat down.

Reasoned, measured response, so let me try to do the same. As always, just mentally preface every following comment with "in my opinion".

In the context of this thread (and the similar, "do we need to", thread), I'd have to assume that you are 'satisfied', or you'd be calling for improvement. With (always) the notable exception of the 2010 season, the RESULTS have been one-and-done or a shaky two-and-out. And, there needs to be an agreement as to the extent that "yes, but" can be factored in. If we're going to go with the Hyde scenario, I think it's only fair to look at the Dallas game last year and figure that we never should have gotten to the Seattle debacle.

The same thing holds for the injury situation. As you allude to, the Pats probably could have gotten it done, especially since conventional wisdom has is that their D isn't all the great, anyhow. And, for the other three teams, you're taking away their bread-and-butter; a better comparison would be the Pats without Brady or the Pack without AR.

Throughout these types of threads, my contention continues to be simply that recent Packer teams should have been more successful in the postseason. I understand the feelings on the other side, I just don't share them.