Ranking Thompson's Drafts

[Pokerbrat2000]

An excerpt from a year old article referenced below. Does this say TT has been successful with UDFA's? Not too sure, but given where the Packers finish every year, with that many snaps played by UDFA's, I think it says something?

"The Packers commissioned a study of snaps played since 2005 by undrafted rookies (UDFAs) and they had 77,079, or 42.5 percent more than the next team on the list (54,105)."


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...he-land-of-opportunity-for-undrafted-rookies/

 

[Deleted member 6794]

An excerpt from a year old article referenced below. Does this say TT has been successful with UDFA's? Not too sure, but given where the Packers finish every year, with that many snaps played by UDFA's, I think it says something?

"The Packers commissioned a study of snaps played since 2005 by undrafted rookies (UDFAs) and they had 77,079, or 42.5 percent more than the next team on the list (54,105)."


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...he-land-of-opportunity-for-undrafted-rookies/

Unfortunately the number of snaps doesn't indicate anything about the quality of play and is most likely that high because Thompson doesn't use free agency to address positions of need.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Unfortunately the number of snaps doesn't indicate anything about the quality of play and is most likely that high because Thompson doesn't use free agency to address positions of need.

Agreed on the snaps not being a direct correlation to quality, but does indicate something. LOL...somehow I knew you would sneak that last part in.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Q. Why will Ted Thompson never get married?

A. Since he rarely checks out free agents nor does he want to put them in a position of need

 

[Poppa San]

Unfortunately the number of snaps doesn't indicate anything about the quality of play and is most likely that high because Thompson doesn't use free agency to address positions of need.

This ain't friggin Jacksonville or Cleveland!!! These UDFAs are playing on a team almost always in the playoffs, usually SB contending. Getting a lot of snaps means they beat out other decent players to help the team get there. Your tunnel vision about the only way TT can be considered a successful GM is if he signs UFAs that aren't street agents (those don't count for some reason to some posters) is growing quite tedious. I applaud your ability and patience to dig up arcane stats. I agree with some of your views of the team needs. Your insistence on your way as the only true way though is .. is .. [let me censor myself before another mod has to]

 

[Half Empty]

This ain't friggin Jacksonville or Cleveland!!! These UDFAs are playing on a team almost always in the playoffs, usually SB contending. Getting a lot of snaps means they beat out other decent players to help the team get there. Your tunnel vision about the only way TT can be considered a successful GM is if he signs UFAs that aren't street agents (those don't count for some reason to some posters) is growing quite tedious. I applaud your ability and patience to dig up arcane stats. I agree with some of your views of the team needs. Your insistence on your way as the only true way though is .. is .. [let me censor myself before another mod has to]

Or, perhaps, they beat out someone from last year's crop of UDFAs, just churning the bottom of the barrel. The Pack normally has a large number of UDFAs from the previous year, but way less from any time before that.

 

[Poppa San]

Or, perhaps, they beat out someone from last year's crop of UDFAs, just churning the bottom of the barrel. The Pack normally has a large number of UDFAs from the previous year, but way less from any time before that.

So this year's UDFA beat out last season's UDFA. Snap count is the same. These players are good enough to make the playoffs with and get close to the SB including one win. Other teams with fewer UDFA snaps and most likely more UFA snaps ain't doing any better.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This ain't friggin Jacksonville or Cleveland!!! These UDFAs are playing on a team almost always in the playoffs, usually SB contending. Getting a lot of snaps means they beat out other decent players to help the team get there. Your tunnel vision about the only way TT can be considered a successful GM is if he signs UFAs that aren't street agents (those don't count for some reason to some posters) is growing quite tedious. I applaud your ability and patience to dig up arcane stats. I agree with some of your views of the team needs. Your insistence on your way as the only true way though is .. is .. [let me censor myself before another mod has to]

If you're satisfied about leading the league in snaps played by undrafted free agents, kudos to you. Aside of Sam Shields there hasn't been a bona fide starter amongst them though. I'm not excited about the Joe Thomases of the the football universe racking up snaps at a position Thompson didn't adequately address in the offseason and struggling mightily while doing so.

It's true there have been posters complaining about Thompson signing street free agents, I wasn't one of them though. Actually I'm applauding him for moves like that because compared to signing an UFA as it doesn't factor into the compensatory picks.

I fully understand the Thompson Can Do No Wrong crowd on the forum doesn't appreciate other posters not agreeing with every single move and even daring to criticize their idol.

On the other hand I'm tired of hearing that every single free agent will turn into a bust, become a cancer in the locker room, destroy the cap structure and diminish the team's chances to stay competitive over the long haul.

Once again, let me be clear about this. Overall Thompson has done a pretty good job over his tenure as the Packers general manager. His biggest flaw has been not selectively using free agency to address obvious positions of need.

With that being said, compared to you I'm more than capable of analzying Thompson's work in an objective way and his UDFA success over the last 11 years isn't anything to get excited about.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I thought for sure this was going to be the year Pennel really became a solid and consistent contributor on that line. Then he gets himself suspended for the first 4 games. so, I guess I'll go into wait and see mode again.

Players coming off suspension tend to look sluggish the first 2 or 3 games back. I'm looking for Pennel to kick it in down the stretch.

 

[Croak]

Just read this article from ESPN.com which basically says drafting is a crap shoot and the more players you can draft, the safer you will be. It also says no one has a good handle on knowing who will be good and who will be a bust. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/story/_/id/15159462/successful-drafting-all-volume-nfl

 

[El Guapo]

Was it written by Mel Kiper?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Just read this article from ESPN.com which basically says drafting is a crap shoot and the more players you can draft, the safer you will be. It also says no one has a good handle on knowing who will be good and who will be a bust. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/story/_/id/15159462/successful-drafting-all-volume-nfl

I think it's kind of strange that Barnwell doesn't even supply any proof to support his claim.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think it's kind of strange that Barnwell doesn't even supply any proof to support his claim.

Sure he does LOL

"All the empirical evidence we can find suggests that nobody in the league is actually any good at picking players...........You don't need some expansive study either."

Come on, what more do you want from the media?

He does refer to a few "studies" and references a few things, but you are right. All in all it just seems to be a media guy offering up his subjective opinion and not someone who just discovered the holy grail.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think it's kind of strange that Barnwell doesn't even supply any proof to support his claim.

I think you'd enjoy this:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/21/the-internet-of-us-and-the-end-of-facts

You can skip the politics and go to the second section that starts with large font "M". I've added Lynch's book to my reading list.

 

[HardRightEdge]

According to Jimmy Johnson's draft pick value chart, the #27 pick is equivalent to the first 33 picks of the 6th. round.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

 

[Croak]

I think it's kind of strange that Barnwell doesn't even supply any proof to support his claim.

It would have been better if he had given links to these; "Several studies, notably recent analyses by Chase Stuart of FootballPerspective.com and Neil Paine of FiveThirtyEight, suggest that no NFL team exhibits any sort of year-to-year consistency in acing the draft."

The article as is, is thought provoking. I also understand why he didn't load it down with statistics which make for terribly boring articles, and folks often feel a writer is just using statistics however they want to buttress their presupposition.

 

[AmishMafia]

Just read this article from ESPN.com which basically says drafting is a crap shoot and the more players you can draft, the safer you will be. It also says no one has a good handle on knowing who will be good and who will be a bust. http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2016/story/_/id/15159462/successful-drafting-all-volume-nfl

Oh. I guess the NFL teams can save money by cutting their scouting staffs and randomly assigning college players to nfl teams. I mean if nobody has a clue if they will suceed or not then you might as well.

 

[Croak]

Oh. I guess the NFL teams can save money by cutting their scouting staffs and randomly assigning college players to nfl teams. I mean if nobody has a clue if they will suceed or not then you might as well.

What I took from the article was the idea that the draft is dealing with human beings. He even stated in the article that the staffs and statistics were helpful. But when push comes to shove, they are drafting humans, not automatons. So there is a huge space for error and speculation. Not everything about a human is quantifiable, which leaves a lot of variables slide into the mix. In the end, they make the best educated guess they can as to how a player will perform, but historically the players have often proved them wrong. This helps me understand why when we fans were sure someone was going to be a star they ended up a flop, or vice versa. The human factor is huge.

 

[AmishMafia]

If you're satisfied about leading the league in snaps played by undrafted free agents, kudos to you. Aside of Sam Shields there hasn't been a bona fide starter amongst them though.

. . .

With that being said, compared to you I'm more than capable of analzying Thompson's work in an objective way and his UDFA success over the last 11 years isn't anything to get excited about.

No, UDFA snap counts aren't anything to be satsfied with. Having one of the most talented NFL teams, the most successful, and that has won a SB and contends every season is a source of satisfaction. And the reason for that success is the TT method of team building. Whether you agree or disagree with it.

The fact that you are so certain you know how TT could improve at his profession is a bit out there. As Poppa points out, you have lots of stats, but there is a disconnect when it comes to really understanding or appreciating the job of an NFL GM. No perspective with reality.

And your continual assertion that there is a "TT can do no wrong crowd" is old and condescending. I see packer fans who appreciate his work. It would be like someone complaining about ARs faults an demand he be upgraded after any offensive play that doesnt result in a TD. Any contradiction would be from people who must think AR can do no wrong. Followed by, well i'm more objective than you.

 

[AmishMafia]

What I took from the article was the idea that the draft is dealing with human beings. He even stated in the article that the staffs and statistics were helpful. But when push comes to shove, they are drafting humans, not automatons. So there is a huge space for error and speculation. Not everything about a human is quantifiable, which leaves a lot of variables slide into the mix. In the end, they make the best educated guess they can as to how a player will perform, but historically the players have often proved them wrong. This helps me understand why when we fans were sure someone was going to be a star they ended up a flop, or vice versa. The human factor is huge.

Yes, I do get that and understand the human element. If I was a GM I would only draft players who had a real passion for the game and were mature. There is so much risk involved with a kid looking for the good life after living dirt poor all his life. Its human nature to not work as hard if you dont have to. Football is a very physical game that takes its toll on the body. I can see why the option of living in a mansion with a pool and friends would alter your apprpach to football.

But people take the "you can't tell" thing too far. You only need to look at the likelihood of a pick being a pro bowler to see the correlation with draft position. Better players are taken more often before bad players. You can never tell for sure, but you have a pretty good idea and assess the risk with each pick. Mistakes are made, but most of the time the GM understood the risk and it just didnt pan out.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What I took from the article was the idea that the draft is dealing with human beings. He even stated in the article that the staffs and statistics were helpful. But when push comes to shove, they are drafting humans, not automatons. So there is a huge space for error and speculation.

I totally agree with this part. Even a great like Bill Belichick messes up when it comes to evaluating guys. The Patriots just cut their #1 pick from 2014, Dominique Easley. From the article below, you get the sense that the Patriots had no clue who this guy was off the field before investing their #1 pick in him. He was even hurt (bites from a Pitbull) at the time of the draft!

While Easley's injuries may not have been uncovered in time to avoid drafting him, you would think that some of his other poor qualities would have been know by Patriot scouts. Unless of course, his poor attitude came as a result of the money?

In this day and age of almost unlimited information, you would have to think Scouts are digging up any and all information pertaining to a player that their team may be investing a lot of time and money into. However, this will never prevent a guy from becoming someone you couldn't have predicted he would become.

http://www.patspulpit.com/2016/4/13...ormer-patriots-dt-dominique-easley-hes-a-turd

 

[AmishMafia]

In this day and age of almost unlimited information, you would have to think Scouts are digging up any and all information pertaining to a player that their team may be investing a lot of time and money into. However, this will never prevent a guy from becoming someone you couldn't have predicted he would become.

Almost no player is 100% squeeky clean. People age and mature at different rates. You are almost always trying to gauge the person he may become. There is risk in every player.

Its like poker. Every hand you gauge your risk and bet accordingly. Just because you lose a hand doesnt mean you played poorly. But if you keep the odds in your favor, in the long run you will be successful.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Its like poker. Every hand you gauge your risk and bet accordingly. Just because you lose a hand doesnt mean you played poorly. But if you keep the odds in your favor, in the long run you will be successful.

True, but. When I play poker, I know the cards I am holding on a any particular hand won't ever change. So I can hedge my bets on those cards and the odds of getting cards that will improve my hand. The biggest variable you have in poker are the opponents cards that you can't see and can only make educated guesses on. In the NFL, you may think you are drafting the Ace of Spades, but when you hold it long enough it turns into a Joker (not wild in this example).

Now if you could hold more cards, even if you don't know what they are right away, that could give you a huge advantage over your opponents. So as we know, TT likes to hold as many cards (draft picks) as possible, not wanting to give any of them up, unless of course, he sees that one card he really wants.

Not a lot of bluffing in the draft, just a lot of guessing on what other teams are going to do and of course, the major guessing time....what guy to take when its your turn.

 

[PikeBadger]

I totally agree with this part. Even a great like Bill Belichick messes up when it comes to evaluating guys. The Patriots just cut their #1 pick from 2014, Dominique Easley. From the article below, you get the sense that the Patriots had no clue who this guy was off the field before investing their #1 pick in him. He was even hurt (bites from a Pitbull) at the time of the draft!

While Easley's injuries may not have been uncovered in time to avoid drafting him, you would think that some of his other poor qualities would have been know by Patriot scouts. Unless of course, his poor attitude came as a result of the money?

In this day and age of almost unlimited information, you would have to think Scouts are digging up any and all information pertaining to a player that their team may be investing a lot of time and money into. However, this will never prevent a guy from becoming someone you couldn't have predicted he would become.

http://www.patspulpit.com/2016/4/13...ormer-patriots-dt-dominique-easley-hes-a-turd

I don't think Belichicks overall drafting track record has ever been better than average other than his obvious huge hit with pick 199. He does an extremely good job of maneuvering with picks to accumulate large numbers of picks. Absolutely amazing how he does that.

 

[PikeBadger]

"Guessing what other teams are going to do"

My gut feeling is that Thompson misreads this generally. I don't think others assess and rank players very similar to him. I would think the Packers draft board is out on the far edge compared to other teams. It is why I wish he would trade back far more often than he does and accumulate "legacy" picks in future years in order to one day get a few shots at those top 5 picks. I think he could trade back and still get his target in most cases.