"DRAFT ONLY PART OF GB'S SUCCESS

[Bretsky]

http://www.packerupdate.com/packer_update/2008/04/draft-only-a-pa.html

NTERESTING READ; here is the start..........

There’s absolutely no question that GM Ted Thompson believes in building a football team through the draft. That makes his first three years on the job a bit ironic, because truth be told, the Packers haven't been all that great on the last weekend in April. Other than wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

[HarveyWallbangers]

I wouldn't disagree. His drafts have been average to slightly above average. Then again, they'd look a lot better if Rodgers pans out and Terrence Murphy hadn't gotten injured. However, this undrafted rookies and street FAs all point to his great ability to find good, young players. When he has gone the FA route, he's batted about 50% on his top ones. He's also done a great job of retaining the corps of the team and keeping them happy by showing that the Packers will pay their own. It's a great strategy if you are good at digging up these diamonds in the rough.

[Bretsky]

TT also seems to place great value on the late round picks.....unlike Sherman.
He understands he'll hit and miss on some so it's better to have more picks and play the odds. Wolf was often a master of the late rounders; if he'd have did that more he'd probably have had better results as well

[woodbuck27]

http://www.packerupdate.com/packer_update/2008/04/draft-only-a-pa.html

NTERESTING READ; here is the start..........

There’s absolutely no question that GM Ted Thompson believes in building a football team through the draft. That makes his first three years on the job a bit ironic, because truth be told, the Packers haven't been all that great on the last weekend in April. Other than wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

OK come on let's toss Mason Crosby in there, so that's three. :D

Finally someone to reveal "the TRUTH". We feel so vindicated.

Here's to Wizard and Packnut and Retailguy and ME!! :D

:glug: :thank: :thank: :thank: :thank: :glug:

HIP HIP HOOOORAAAAYYY!!

[red]

this is true, when you look at the drafts he has missed on a lot

but unlike sherman, he doesn't trade up and hope the few players he picks pan out

TT goes the other way. throw enough shit against the wall and something might stick

and he does seem to have a knack for the late rounds, but again, it seems to come from the fact that he acquires so many late round picks

one other thing he's also good at is cutting his losses. this might come from him having so many picks and players that he doesn't feel the need to hang on to a guy he just spent a decent pick on and he finds out the guy has no talent. like corey rodgers and clowney

[StPaulPackFan]

I'm not really sure what some people expect from the draft. :?: It seems like there may be an unrealistic expectation that out of the 7 customary picks that a GM produce 3-5 all pros every year??

Through the draft, TT has done a solid job of producing some key starters (Jennings, Spitz, Hawk, Crosby, Grant [our 6th this year]) along with a few average starters (Collins, Poppinga). He also has several players that have a chance to blossom into key starters (Rodgers, Harrell, Jones, Colledge, Barbre, Rouse, Blackmon, Hall, Jolly). Of course, he has had some miss hits (Murphy, Underwood, Hawkins, Corey Rogers, Ingle Martin, Clowney) and some that seem likely to be miss hits (Hodge, Moll, Coston).

So far I like what TT has done. I liked what Wolf did when he was in GB. I also was a Sherman supporter during his time in GB. When Sherman was trading up to get D-linemen and that Punter I thought it might payoff. I thought Lee and Washington could be diamonds in the rough. But I'll admit, I have very limited knowledge (virtually none) when it comes to scouting draft prospects. In hindsight, Sherman's drafts were rather dissappointing, other than Barnett, Walker and Kampan.

I'm looking forward to seeing TT make Mel Kiper scratch his head with several of his draft picks this year. I'm also looking forward to the C/C- draft grade that GB will receive on Monday after the draft. :roll: Last season was a blast with the exception of the ending. If Rodgers is up for the task I don't see any obvious reason why GB shouldn't have more success this year.

[sheepshead]

I'm not really sure what some people expect from the draft. :?: It seems like there may be an unrealistic expectation that out of the 7 customary picks that a GM produce 3-5 all pros every year??

Through the draft, TT has done a solid job of producing some key starters (Jennings, Spitz, Hawk, Crosby, Grant [our 6th this year]) along with a few average starters (Collins, Poppinga). He also has several players that have a chance to blossom into key starters (Rodgers, Harrell, Jones, Colledge, Barbre, Rouse, Blackmon, Hall, Jolly). Of course, he has had some miss hits (Murphy, Underwood, Hawkins, Corey Rogers, Ingle Martin, Clowney) and some that seem likely to be miss hits (Hodge, Moll, Coston).

So far I like what TT has done. I liked what Wolf did when he was in GB. I also was a Sherman supporter during his time in GB. When Sherman was trading up to get D-linemen and that Punter I thought it might payoff. I thought Lee and Washington could be diamonds in the rough. But I'll admit, I have very limited knowledge (virtually none) when it comes to scouting draft prospects. In hindsight, Sherman's drafts were rather dissappointing, other than Barnett, Walker and Kampan.

I'm looking forward to seeing TT make Mel Kiper scratch his head with several of his draft picks this year. I'm also looking forward to the C/C- draft grade that GB will receive on Monday after the draft. :roll: Last season was a blast with the exception of the ending. If Rodgers is up for the task I don't see any obvious reason why GB shouldn't have more success this year.

Boy St. Paul, this is my take exactly. I dont watch enough college football or study scouting reports to question anything our GM's do (well maybe a few moves - see: Sander, B. J.). If you look back on previous years NFL drafts, you'll see names in the first 2 rounds that you have never heard from save that draft day. Go further down then youre looking for anyone you know. Ted and his scouts and staff appear to know their stuff, they obviously are getting respect around the league with a 14-4 record last year. I'm not saying guys shouldnt have fun during the draft, Heck I was in NYC during the draft last year. I didnt go all the way in the venue but hung out for a while bought some hats, the place is mobbed, celebs here and there, looks like it would be a geart weekend.
The NFL knows how to market its product and God bless them. But we as fans need to put the whole process in prospective and recognize we have as-good-as-it-gets steering the ship at 1265.

[The Leaper]

Other than wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

I disagree.

Crosby is a potential stud kicker. Jones probably will develop into a very good starter at WR in 2-3 years. Using a pick to get Ryan Grant provided another guy who probably will be well above average. Harrell is also likely to continue to develop into a very capable starter. Rodgers also has potential...we'll see. It takes more than 2 years for most players to fully develop, so claiming all Thompson has is average players neglects to take into account the future growth of some of these young kids.

Compare TT to Sherman...how many really good prospects did Sherman find through the draft or trading picks in twice the time Thompson has had so far? Barnett. Walker. Kampman. Harris. Sherman got fewer than 1 good player a year. Thompson seem to be well on his way to doubling that rate, which is why the team is rising rather than fading.

[packrat]

One of TT's strengths is his willingness to cut losses in a hurry. No two punters on the roster for him. Makes more room for more prospects who can actually make a difference, and gives religion to the lazy guys like Hunt. No crazy contracts that use up all the cap space and piss off the rest of the team, either. All pieces to the plan that turns out a 14-4 season in his 3rd year.

[Scott Campbell]

Here's to Wizard and Packnut and Retailguy and ME!! :D



Could you possibly be any more self absorbed?

[cheesner]

I'm not really sure what some people expect from the draft. :?: It seems like there may be an unrealistic expectation that out of the 7 customary picks that a GM produce 3-5 all pros every year??

Through the draft, TT has done a solid job of producing some key starters (Jennings, Spitz, Hawk, Crosby, Grant [our 6th this year]) along with a few average starters (Collins, Poppinga). He also has several players that have a chance to blossom into key starters (Rodgers, Harrell, Jones, Colledge, Barbre, Rouse, Blackmon, Hall, Jolly). Of course, he has had some miss hits (Murphy, Underwood, Hawkins, Corey Rogers, Ingle Martin, Clowney) and some that seem likely to be miss hits (Hodge, Moll, Coston).

So far I like what TT has done. I liked what Wolf did when he was in GB. I also was a Sherman supporter during his time in GB. When Sherman was trading up to get D-linemen and that Punter I thought it might payoff. I thought Lee and Washington could be diamonds in the rough. But I'll admit, I have very limited knowledge (virtually none) when it comes to scouting draft prospects. In hindsight, Sherman's drafts were rather dissappointing, other than Barnett, Walker and Kampan.

I'm looking forward to seeing TT make Mel Kiper scratch his head with several of his draft picks this year. I'm also looking forward to the C/C- draft grade that GB will receive on Monday after the draft. :roll: Last season was a blast with the exception of the ending. If Rodgers is up for the task I don't see any obvious reason why GB shouldn't have more success this year.

Boy St. Paul, this is my take exactly. I dont watch enough college football or study scouting reports to question anything our GM's do (well maybe a few moves - see: Sander, B. J.). If you look back on previous years NFL drafts, you'll see names in the first 2 rounds that you have never heard from save that draft day. Go further down then youre looking for anyone you know. Ted and his scouts and staff appear to know their stuff, they obviously are getting respect around the league with a 14-4 record last year. I'm not saying guys shouldnt have fun during the draft, Heck I was in NYC during the draft last year. I didnt go all the way in the venue but hung out for a while bought some hats, the place is mobbed, celebs here and there, looks like it would be a geart weekend.
The NFL knows how to market its product and God bless them. But we as fans need to put the whole process in prospective and recognize we have as-good-as-it-gets steering the ship at 1265.Agreed.

Looking at the drafts of other teams, we appear to definitely be above average.

People keep pointing to 2005 as a poor draft, well it was even worse for other teams. 2005 was the poorest talent level since I have followed the draft (7-8 years). Look at the results - a player here or there, but for the most part, not so good. There is Lofa Tatupa in the 2nd but there is a bunch of Troy Williams' and Cedric Bensons' in this draft.

http://www.drafthistory.com/years/2005.html

[sharpe1027]

wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

This analysis is worthless without some context. Which teams have done better than that over the same span of years?

Let's start with our division:
Vikings:
1 Adrian Peterson Oklahoma
2 Rice Sidney South Carolina
3 McCauley Marcus Fresno State
4 Robison Brian Texas
5 Allison Aundrae East Carolina
6 Alexander Rufus Oklahoma
7 Thigpen Tyler Coastal Carolina
7 Williams Chandler Florida International

2006
Rnd Name College Note
1 Chad Greenway Iowa
2 Cedric Griffin Texas
2 Ryan Cook New Mexico
2 Tarvaris Jackson Alabama State
4 Ray Edwards Purdue
5 Greg Blue Georgia

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso

So, they got 1 superstud in AD and what....3 starters that are O.K.? This on a team that didn't make the playoffs...

Chicago


2007
Rnd Name College Note
1 Greg Olsen Miami (Fla.)
2 Bazuin Dan Central Michigan
3 Wolfe Garrett Northern Illinois
3 Okwo Michael Stanford
4 Beekman Josh Boston College
5 Payne Kevin Louisiana-Monroe
5 Graham Corey New Hampshire
7 McBride Trumaine Mississippi
7 Brant Aaron Iowa State

2006
Rnd Name College Note
2 Danieal Manning Abilene Christian
2 Devin Hester Miami (FL)
3 Dusty Dvoracek Oklahoma
4 Jamar Williams Arizona State
5 Mark Anderson Alabama
6 J.D. Runnels Oklahoma
6 Tyler Reed Penn State

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Cedric Benson Texas
2 Mark Bradley Oklahoma
4 Kyle Orton Purdue
5 Airese Currie Clemson
6 Chris Harris Louisiana-Monroe
7 Rodriques Wilson South Carolina

No superstars (except Hester who is only special teams, but still outstanding)...and 3 or so starters, none that stand out. Again on a team that didn't make the playoffs.

I'm not saying that TT is a draft guru, but I don't think the analysis in that article provides any insight beyond one person's opinion.

I'm too lazy to do the lions, but I don't think we need stats to know how a comparison to their GM comes out.

[run pMc]

The thing that I like is that TT isn't afraid to trade down for extra picks if there are several available players he likes at the same spot. IMO the more picks (and the earlier), the better chance you have of finding some quality starters. I'd rather see the GM for my favorite team trade down a few spots and end up with two players to provide depth than to trade extras picks to move up and draft a punter or a backup Pac-10 DT.

I don't agree with everything he's done, but I think TT has done a good job so far. His drafts stack up well against those of CHI, DET and MIN during the same period.

[Chester Marcol]

It comes down to simple mathmatics. TT's 3 drafts got us 11-12-11 players. Look at the totals just posted for our NFC North mates. Look at what Sherman did, 6-9-6-6. I agree with those who consider the draft a crap shoot. I don't think TT's a draft guru either. He plays the numbers. TT only has to hit on 1 in 4 as compared to our counter parts in the division or what Sherman had to hit on. 25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

[red]

It comes down to simple mathmatics. TT's 3 drafts got us 11-12-11 players. Look at the totals just posted for our NFC North mates. Look at what Sherman did, 6-9-6-6. I agree with those who consider the draft a crap shoot. I don't think TT's a draft guru either. He plays the numbers. TT only has to hit on 1 in 4 as compared to our counter parts in the division or what Sherman had to hit on. 25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

you're dead right

the draft is a crap shoot, which we all know. TT gives himself more chances to find something

his hits per pick might not be any higher then anyone else (i don't know). but with more picks comes more hits

[HarveyWallbangers]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3
:D

[Gunakor]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3
:D


It's the same number but the chances of reaching that number are greater. 3 is the constant. You'd like to get 3 starters or at least major contributors from each draft. Those contributors can come from the bottom of a draft too. So if you can turn 7 picks into 12 you give yourself a much better chance of finding those 3 major contributors. If you turn 7 picks into 6 you actually hurt your chances.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

[Chester Marcol]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3
:D

That did come out wrong didn't it. :doh: I guess the point I failed to make was more I like our odds of hitting 1 in 4 more than 1 in 2.

[Patler]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.


Yeah, Sherman used to place his bets like a roulette player, where as Ted acts more like the Casino and sides with the house odds.

[Patler]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.


Yeah, Sherman used to place his bets like a roulette player, where as Ted acts more like the Casino and sides with the house odds.

Don't get me started on that! How many GMs would trade a future #6 to get a pick just eight spots ahead of the one you already have in Round 7? or trade two picks to move up 8 spots in round 6?

[woodbuck27]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

[sharpe1027]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

Are you suggesting that all players selected in later rounds have been shit? :shock:

First round picks probably do *marginally* better on average, but plenty of later picks are not *shit*, and plenty of 1st round picks are *shit*. The analogy is poor, IMO.

[mngolf19]

wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

This analysis is worthless without some context. Which teams have done better than that over the same span of years?

Let's start with our division:
Vikings:
1 Adrian Peterson Oklahoma
2 Rice Sidney South Carolina
3 McCauley Marcus Fresno State
4 Robison Brian Texas
5 Allison Aundrae East Carolina
6 Alexander Rufus Oklahoma
7 Thigpen Tyler Coastal Carolina
7 Williams Chandler Florida International

2006
Rnd Name College Note
1 Chad Greenway Iowa
2 Cedric Griffin Texas
2 Ryan Cook New Mexico
2 Tarvaris Jackson Alabama State
4 Ray Edwards Purdue
5 Greg Blue Georgia

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso

So, they got 1 superstud in AD and what....3 starters that are O.K.? This on a team that didn't make the playoffs...



The 2005 draft was as bad as possible. But the 2006 and 2007 drafts have produced 7 starters and most of the rest get decent playing time.

[Scott Campbell]

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso


2005 - that had to hurt.

[woodbuck27]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

Are you suggesting that all players selected in later rounds have been shit? :shock:

First round picks probably do *marginally* better on average, but plenty of later picks are not *shit*, and plenty of 1st round picks are *shit*. The analogy is poor, IMO.

No. What I'm getting at is this.

If I was drafting talent for OUR team I'd be looking at it like I would an employer. The best people have the best resume and talent with the right mind set in terms of attitude.

In this football life we talk in terms of upside based in athletic ability. How much will training and drilling upgrade a prospects ability to perform? How many fifth round picks or later Vs first to third round picks go on to make a Pro Bowl?

Patler would likely have that stat at his fingertips.

I believe that 1-3 round talent, exceeds 5-7 round talent in terms of success in the NFL. In other words in the context were dealing with here. I believe that trading down to lower rounds. Specifically to the rounds 5-7 dilutes a GM's opportunity for success. Unless that GM knows something that the other 31 GM's doesn't.

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's. Here he sits today with a whack of money too spend ands he sits on it.

He's a fine accountant. For sure. I want him to guard my money.

I believe that this draft will determine more on TT's ability to draft quality.So why should he dilute the product?

I am pulling (again) for Ted Thompson.

GO TED GO !!

PACKERS FOREVER.

[sharpe1027]

The 2005 draft was as bad as possible. But the 2006 and 2007 drafts have produced 7 starters and most of the rest get decent playing time.

I apologize in advance, my familiarity with the Vikings is mostly limited to what I saw as their listed depth chart. Which 7 do you consider starters?

[Scott Campbell]

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for.


Ummmm, who exactly is "we"? And when were you elected spokesmodel for the group?

[sharpe1027]

No. What I'm getting at is this.

If I was drafting talent for OUR team I'd be looking at it like I would an employer. The best people have the best resume and talent with the right mind set in terms of attitude.

In this football life we talk in terms of upside based in athletic ability. How much will training and drilling upgrade a prospects ability to perform? How many fifth round picks or later Vs first to third round picks go on to make a Pro Bowl?

Patler would likely have that stat at his fingertips.

I believe that 1-3 round talent, exceeds 5-7 round talent in terms of success in the NFL. In other words in the context were dealing with here. I believe that trading down to lower rounds. Specifically to the rounds 5-7 dilutes a GM's opportunity for success. Unless that GM knows something that the other 31 GM's doesn't.

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's. Here he sits today with a whack of money too spend ands he sits on it.

He's a fine accountant. For sure. I want him to guard my money.

I believe that this draft will determine more on TT's ability to draft quality.So why should he dilute the product?

I am pulling (again) for Ted Thompson.

GO TED GO !!

PACKERS FOREVER.

I see your point, but which is better? Taking your job-applicant analogy:

No matter how detailed of resumes you receive, you can never be sure which applicant is going to produce the best. If you had the chance to have 3 of your top applicants come in and work for a couple months at the expense of your top applicant going to another business, I would guess that you would generally end up ahead. Resumes are fine and all, but there is no substitute for putting someone to work and seeing how they do.

Also, I'll take a football player over a first round speedster anyday of the week and especially on Sunday. Anyway way you cut it, very good players come out of every round of the draft.

As for "Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's." Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I've rarely seen anyone make a claim that bold. Maybe you are overstating people's opinion of TT a little? I certainly don't think that he is the GM of all GM's and I've said as much. That being said, I think his drafts have been better than average.

[Patler]

I believe that 1-3 round talent, exceeds 5-7 round talent in terms of success in the NFL. In other words in the context were dealing with here. I believe that trading down to lower rounds. Specifically to the rounds 5-7 dilutes a GM's opportunity for success. Unless that GM knows something that the other 31 GM's doesn't.

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's. Here he sits today with a whack of money too spend ands he sits on it.


I think you have missed a significant aspect of TT's trades in the draft. He has emphasized the accumulation of picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. In just three drafts he has had 17 picks in rounds 1-4, 14 picks in rounds 2-4. He has improved his chances of finding good players by having more picks within the top 130 or so players each draft.

[mngolf19]

The 2005 draft was as bad as possible. But the 2006 and 2007 drafts have produced 7 starters and most of the rest get decent playing time.

I apologize in advance, my familiarity with the Vikings is mostly limited to what I saw as their listed depth chart. Which 7 do you consider starters?

No problem, man. I learn more about the Pack this way too.

Starters-Jackson, Cook, Greenway, Griffin, Peterson, Rice, McCauley

Ray Edwards led them in sacks last year even with suspension. He may start this year. Robison looked very good in his playing time last year. Alexander was injured in preseason so who knows. Thigpen would have been #2 this year if he wasn't stolen off the practice squad by KC. The rest contributed last year, even Blue but for another team. :wink:

[mngolf19]

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso


2005 - that had to hurt.

The only things gained from this draft. A pick for Williamson (6th), James is still on the roster, Johnson is the backup RT, Bollinger for Mosley. ouch!

[Carolina_Packer]

If you are looking at overall success of building a team, staying cap friendly, and not reaching for talent by leaving success to less chances (less players picked), then you can't really argue with the way TT has gone about his business. The Greg Jennings pickup is a perfect example of how he parlayed that slot into more talent. He could have stayed put and chosen a Chad Jackson, but figured he could trade down and still get Jenning, plus another pick. Smart. They aren't all going to work out, but he gives himself a greater chance to succeed with players by getting more. They are only "shit" if they don't make the team, and he has had more hits than misses, so that says something. If he traded down and the players really sucked and didn't make any impact, then he's not good at finding talent, which I believe he is. Not only that, the coaching staff is good at developing the talent they are given.

[StPaulPackFan]

If you are looking at overall success of building a team, staying cap friendly, and not reaching for talent by leaving success to less chances (less players picked), then you can't really argue with the way TT has gone about his business. The Greg Jennings pickup is a perfect example of how he parlayed that slot into more talent. He could have stayed put and chosen a Chad Jackson, but figured he could trade down and still get Jenning, plus another pick. Smart. They aren't all going to work out, but he gives himself a greater chance to succeed with players by getting more. They are only "shit" if they don't make the team, and he has had more hits than misses, so that says something. If he traded down and the players really sucked and didn't make any impact, then he's not good at finding talent, which I believe he is. Not only that, the coaching staff is good at developing the talent they are given.


I don't like bagging on Sherman because I felt he gave everything he had to the Packers. However, if Sherman had been the GM and had fallen in love with Chad Jackson he probably would have traded up to get him to ensure that he didn't lose out on him. If this had happened the Packers would have a pedestrian Chad Jackson and would have likely given up the 67th pick to move up.

Here is what GB would have given up for a pedestrian Chad Jackson:

NE 52nd - Greg Jennings
GB 67th - Abdul Hodge
NE 75th - Jason Spitz

Different GMs, different styles, different results.

[HarveyWallbangers]

NE 52nd - Greg Jennings
GB 67th - Abdul Hodge
NE 75th - Jason Spitz

Who is this Abdul Hodge guy you speak of?

[StPaulPackFan]

NE 52nd - Greg Jennings
GB 67th - Abdul Hodge
NE 75th - Jason Spitz

Who is this Abdul Hodge guy you speak of?

A guy who has had about as much impact as Chad Jackson. :lol:

[Tony Oday]

The only thing I dont like about some of thompsons picks that have worked out it always seems like we could have gotten them a round later...Im not saying he is a bad drafting GM FAR from it.

But what do I know I would send a 3rd for Urlacher and have him start in the iddle for 5 games :)