Would you lose your mind? | Page 3 | Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community
No. I should have said, "if you don't want the by far highest player on your board, you trade down to get more value for the pick."
If the RB is by far the highest, he'll try to trade down.
If the C is by far the highest rated guy on the board, TT will pick him. Hell, TT might take the RB that's by far the highest guy on the board if he can't trade down. I'm just saying that there's nobody like that in this draft. If Richburg is sitting there at pick 53, I'll be the first guy screaming to pull the trigger unless there's an even higher rated guy also sitting there. The only thing that might keep Richburg off our board (because teams do take guys off their boards for various reasons) is that 7.93 cone time (and being from the Al Davis tree, we REALLY value measurables)
HyponGrey, Apr 23, 2014
It also means you leave your competition with a much better player. Should we have not picked Cobb or Jordy even though they weren't needs? A few years later, those guys are now very meaningful to the team.
It's also a risky picking a guy higher than needed without getting value for it. The whole draft is a risk and the more picks you can get, the better. There's no guarantee the safety will end up good, but if you trade down and get a couple more picks, there's a better chance one of the players from those picks will be good.
Carl, Apr 23, 2014
"If the C is by far the highest rated guy on the board, TT will pick him. Hell, TT might take the RB that's by far the highest guy on the board if he can't trade down."
That's all I've been trying to say this whole time. Take the highest rated guy by far or trade down if you don't want him.
I'll agree there's nobody like that at center and RB in this draft early on.
Everyone fits value to need. TT admitted to targeting Perry, and moved up twice for players to draft them where they fit.
Eddie Lacy pick last year was brilliance. Two guys on the board, trade back and let somebody else make the pick for you. Trading back and still getting the guy you want should be a credit card commercial: priceless
Yes, they all run to get to the front of the line in order be the first to trade....
Of course not, but other teams have certain targets they'd like to get and have to move up for. I'm pretty sure TT didn't trade up to get Matthews just so he could give the other teams a chance to draft their BPA.
There´s no way TT should draft Richburg at #53, if he´s there in the third round I´d be in favour of it.
captainWIMM, Apr 23, 2014
Exactly. Making value and need fit is how a good GM should approach the draft.
That involves not reaching on guy over a better player because the better player isn't at a need position. That would be filling need, but not getting value.
A slightly lower rated player presents way more value to a team at a position of need compared to a guy rated a bit higer at a position a team doesn´t need immediate help.
I would be totally shaken if the Packers draft a QB and a RB in the first two rounds just because the guys were the highest rated players on the board.
When I look at value, I'm referring to picking a guy where he is rated or trading down and getting more picks worth more than the current pick. Value and need are separate things to me. If they reach a lot for guy, it doesn't give the pick value just because he's at a need position.
A slightly lower rated player at a need position could give the team a good match of value and need.
If you pass on a much better player for a need position, you only get need, but do not get value.
I think that after the top picks in a draft players are only separated by a small margin on a team´s board, meaning that position of need plays a huge role in deciding the value of a player to a specific team.
Not sure a center will be the best player available if only because positional value comes into consideration when considering BPA. Centers aren't nearly as valuable as say, dlinemen or corners. If a center is the BPA for the Packers in the first round, then either that center will be a Pro-Bowler in year one or this is the worst first round in years.
Sunshinepacker, Apr 23, 2014
As I said, I foresee teams reaching for C, which means they won't fall. Likeliest scenario is we pick up a guy in the mid rounds where everything is one giant ratings cluster.
I have a feeling we're saying the same thing, but you're taking it too far.
I have a mid second on him, though as I said, he may not even be on our board with that cone.
We havnt had a defensive player really make an impact on defense since Clay Matthews. We need another rookie to at least have some impact if it's on defense. 1st rd players should be able to do more than Our previous picks have done. I don't believe in drafting a player in the 1st rd and not giving him OJT. There's a snowballs chance in hell tho it'll be a center.
rodell330, Apr 23, 2014
We havnt had a defensive player really make an impact on defense since Clay Matthews. We need another rookie to at least have some impact if it's on defense. 1st rd players should be able to do more than Our previous picks have done.
Daniels and Hayward have made an impact, if you count undrafted guys as well Shields has improved the secondary significantly.
I think the concern is, outside of Matthews, our first round rookie defensive selection haven't had a great track record in making first year impacts (or even really overall impacts). I stand by the belief that asking a rookie to make an impact in year one is foolish but I can understand the thought that our defensive selections over the past few seasons have been lackluster (you pretty much mentioned all the impact defensive players drafted in recent years).
Sunshinepacker, Apr 24, 2014
The official website does a good run down on his drafting history. It appears the Packers believe he goes for the best available player.
"Although Thompson prefers to shift the spotlight in another direction, his fingerprints were also all over the Seahawks’ road to Super Bowl XL during the 2005 season. NFL MVP Shaun Alexander, Thompson’s first draft pick in Seattle, in 2000, captured the 2005 league rushing title and established a then-single-season NFL record with 28 touchdowns. Nine of Seattle’s Super Bowl starters, as well as K Josh Brown, were drafted by Thompson. That list included G Steve Hutchinson, a Pro Bowler in seven of his 12 NFL seasons.
Seattle could’ve gone in another direction in the 2000 draft. With perennial 1,000-yard rusher Ricky Watters on the roster, the club didn’t need a running back in the first round. But with the Seahawks on the clock holding the 19th overall choice, Alexander was the best player available. One year later, in the 2001 draft, Thompson wanted Hutchinson in a similar situation."
http://www.packers.com/team/staff/ted-thompson/7d1caee3-e8f2-4e20-b304-98064f608dbb
Croak, Apr 24, 2014
Funny thing is.... (And I am NOT endorsing in any shape for form taking a C 21 overall), but when I first heard that we were playing SEA in SEA (Coming off of a SB win for them) to open the NFL season on a nationally televised game, I felt so very sorry for Tretter and Rodgers... Ppl thought that place was loud before...
Good luck rookie. Rodgers... start your wind sprints early this year.
98Redbird, Apr 25, 2014
And I fully endorse this approach. But I cannot see a scenario this year at all where BPA will be a Center in the 1st or even 2nd rounds.
Ted Thompson is drafting next week to fill his perceived roster needs for the 2015 season, not the 2014 season. He has stated this before, and yet so many fans project what they perceive as immediate needs into Thompson's draft strategy.
Imo, if we look at the positions where players contracts are expiring after the 2014 season, that is likely to be a position where we will see players drafted if that is going to create a roster hole.
PikeBadger, Apr 25, 2014
First of all I have never heard TT talk about his draft strategy at all.
He will for sure try to draft players who could have an impact in 2014. This team needs immediate help at S, ILB and TE and I expect him to provide some. It would be smart to add some talent at WR and CB because of the impending free agents in 2015 as well, but I totally disagree with your statement that his plan for this year´s draft should be to fill roster holes for 2015.
captainWIMM, Apr 26, 2014
Well disagree with him all you want. But he has stated that he's drafting for two years out. That doesnt mean he doesn't expect first year contributions.
PikeBadger, Apr 27, 2014
Got a link to a story in which he mentioned something like that???
Today TT said "We try to stick to best player available. We feel like the draft is a long-term investment. We don't get too carried away with what our perceived needs are at the moment."
ivo610, May 1, 2014
Saw that as well, he didn´t mention anything about drafting to fill needs for 2015 though.
Would you lose your mind? | Page 3 | Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community
No. I should have said, "if you don't want the by far highest player on your board, you trade down to get more value for the pick."
If the RB is by far the highest, he'll try to trade down.
If the C is by far the highest rated guy on the board, TT will pick him. Hell, TT might take the RB that's by far the highest guy on the board if he can't trade down. I'm just saying that there's nobody like that in this draft. If Richburg is sitting there at pick 53, I'll be the first guy screaming to pull the trigger unless there's an even higher rated guy also sitting there. The only thing that might keep Richburg off our board (because teams do take guys off their boards for various reasons) is that 7.93 cone time (and being from the Al Davis tree, we REALLY value measurables)
HyponGrey, Apr 23, 2014
It also means you leave your competition with a much better player. Should we have not picked Cobb or Jordy even though they weren't needs? A few years later, those guys are now very meaningful to the team.
It's also a risky picking a guy higher than needed without getting value for it. The whole draft is a risk and the more picks you can get, the better. There's no guarantee the safety will end up good, but if you trade down and get a couple more picks, there's a better chance one of the players from those picks will be good.
Carl, Apr 23, 2014
"If the C is by far the highest rated guy on the board, TT will pick him. Hell, TT might take the RB that's by far the highest guy on the board if he can't trade down."
That's all I've been trying to say this whole time. Take the highest rated guy by far or trade down if you don't want him.
I'll agree there's nobody like that at center and RB in this draft early on.
Everyone fits value to need. TT admitted to targeting Perry, and moved up twice for players to draft them where they fit.
Eddie Lacy pick last year was brilliance. Two guys on the board, trade back and let somebody else make the pick for you. Trading back and still getting the guy you want should be a credit card commercial: priceless
Yes, they all run to get to the front of the line in order be the first to trade....
Of course not, but other teams have certain targets they'd like to get and have to move up for. I'm pretty sure TT didn't trade up to get Matthews just so he could give the other teams a chance to draft their BPA.
There´s no way TT should draft Richburg at #53, if he´s there in the third round I´d be in favour of it.
captainWIMM, Apr 23, 2014
Exactly. Making value and need fit is how a good GM should approach the draft.
That involves not reaching on guy over a better player because the better player isn't at a need position. That would be filling need, but not getting value.
A slightly lower rated player presents way more value to a team at a position of need compared to a guy rated a bit higer at a position a team doesn´t need immediate help.
I would be totally shaken if the Packers draft a QB and a RB in the first two rounds just because the guys were the highest rated players on the board.
When I look at value, I'm referring to picking a guy where he is rated or trading down and getting more picks worth more than the current pick. Value and need are separate things to me. If they reach a lot for guy, it doesn't give the pick value just because he's at a need position.
A slightly lower rated player at a need position could give the team a good match of value and need.
If you pass on a much better player for a need position, you only get need, but do not get value.
I think that after the top picks in a draft players are only separated by a small margin on a team´s board, meaning that position of need plays a huge role in deciding the value of a player to a specific team.
Not sure a center will be the best player available if only because positional value comes into consideration when considering BPA. Centers aren't nearly as valuable as say, dlinemen or corners. If a center is the BPA for the Packers in the first round, then either that center will be a Pro-Bowler in year one or this is the worst first round in years.
Sunshinepacker, Apr 23, 2014
As I said, I foresee teams reaching for C, which means they won't fall. Likeliest scenario is we pick up a guy in the mid rounds where everything is one giant ratings cluster.
I have a feeling we're saying the same thing, but you're taking it too far.
I have a mid second on him
, though as I said, he may not even be on our board with that cone.
We havnt had a defensive player really make an impact on defense since Clay Matthews. We need another rookie to at least have some impact if it's on defense. 1st rd players should be able to do more than Our previous picks have done. I don't believe in drafting a player in the 1st rd and not giving him OJT. There's a snowballs chance in hell tho it'll be a center.
rodell330, Apr 23, 2014
We havnt had a defensive player really make an impact on defense since Clay Matthews. We need another rookie to at least have some impact if it's on defense. 1st rd players should be able to do more than Our previous picks have done.
Daniels and Hayward have made an impact, if you count undrafted guys as well Shields has improved the secondary significantly.
I think the concern is, outside of Matthews, our first round rookie defensive selection haven't had a great track record in making first year impacts (or even really overall impacts). I stand by the belief that asking a rookie to make an impact in year one is foolish but I can understand the thought that our defensive selections over the past few seasons have been lackluster (you pretty much mentioned all the impact defensive players drafted in recent years).
Sunshinepacker, Apr 24, 2014
The official website does a good run down on his drafting history. It appears the Packers believe he goes for the best available player.
"Although Thompson prefers to shift the spotlight in another direction, his fingerprints were also all over the Seahawks’ road to Super Bowl XL during the 2005 season. NFL MVP Shaun Alexander, Thompson’s first draft pick in Seattle, in 2000, captured the 2005 league rushing title and established a then-single-season NFL record with 28 touchdowns. Nine of Seattle’s Super Bowl starters, as well as K Josh Brown, were drafted by Thompson. That list included G Steve Hutchinson, a Pro Bowler in seven of his 12 NFL seasons.
Seattle could’ve gone in another direction in the 2000 draft. With perennial 1,000-yard rusher Ricky Watters on the roster, the club didn’t need a running back in the first round. But with the Seahawks on the clock holding the 19th overall choice, Alexander was the best player available. One year later, in the 2001 draft, Thompson wanted Hutchinson in a similar situation."
http://www.packers.com/team/staff/ted-thompson/7d1caee3-e8f2-4e20-b304-98064f608dbb
Croak, Apr 24, 2014
Funny thing is.... (And I am NOT endorsing in any shape for form taking a C 21 overall), but when I first heard that we were playing SEA in SEA (Coming off of a SB win for them) to open the NFL season on a nationally televised game, I felt so very sorry for Tretter and Rodgers... Ppl thought that place was loud before...
Good luck rookie. Rodgers... start your wind sprints early this year.
98Redbird, Apr 25, 2014
And I fully endorse this approach. But I cannot see a scenario this year at all where BPA will be a Center in the 1st or even 2nd rounds.
Ted Thompson is drafting next week to fill his perceived roster needs for the 2015 season, not the 2014 season. He has stated this before, and yet so many fans project what they perceive as immediate needs into Thompson's draft strategy.
Imo, if we look at the positions where players contracts are expiring after the 2014 season, that is likely to be a position where we will see players drafted if that is going to create a roster hole.
PikeBadger, Apr 25, 2014
First of all I have never heard TT talk about his draft strategy at all.
He will for sure try to draft players who could have an impact in 2014. This team needs immediate help at S, ILB and TE and I expect him to provide some. It would be smart to add some talent at WR and CB because of the impending free agents in 2015 as well, but I totally disagree with your statement that his plan for this year´s draft should be to fill roster holes for 2015.
captainWIMM, Apr 26, 2014
Well disagree with him all you want. But he has stated that he's drafting for two years out. That doesnt mean he doesn't expect first year contributions.
PikeBadger, Apr 27, 2014
Got a link to a story in which he mentioned something like that???
Today TT said "We try to stick to best player available. We feel like the draft is a long-term investment. We don't get too carried away with what our perceived needs are at the moment."
ivo610, May 1, 2014
Saw that as well, he didn´t mention anything about drafting to fill needs for 2015 though.