This is why it chaps my a$$ with all of the Packer trade

[SudsMcBucky]

downs by TT. This article makes a quote that echoes statements I've made about this before. Trade downs are a great strategy when you're trying to build a team and have a lot of holes to fill, but not when you're quite deep at a lot of positions. At that point, you should be picking HIGH level talent. The following comment comes from that article:

"The proof will be in the competition, which starts with a rookie camp this weekend. But one sign of where the Packers stand is that all of the rookies, except perhaps those taken in the first three rounds, are going to have to fight hard to make the team." http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744290

If the team is so deep at various positions that it will be very difficult for anyone outside the first 3 rounds to make the team, why would you trade down in those first 3 rounds for extra 4-7 round picks, when, in reality, the odds of them making the team aren't great. If you're now trying to build high-end quality depth or just trying to plug a couple of holes, wouldn't your strategy now switch to maybe trading up and giving up those lower round picks, or at least standing pat?

I dunno, maybe that's why I'm not an NFL GM, though.

[Tarlam!]

Well, I am not TT, but this is EXACTLY what I was thinking going into the draft.

I give TT Kudos for landing a 6th for next year - great move! Let's not forget our starting RB cost us a 6th!

Some of the draftees may only be PS material. We currently have TEN WR's on the roster. 10!!

I still like our draft after it's all said and done. And, I am not TT.

[vince]

We did trade up to get Jeremy Thompson, who Ted clearly liked. The trade down to get Nelson (who's a sure bet to make the team) netted the opportunity to trade up at that spot (to get the coveted DE) without losing out on another chance to add value later on. The trade downs in the fifth were just gaining another opportunity to hit late when - even if we'd have sat tight - the player chosen would not be assured of anything. Better to have two flyers than one at that point.

[SkinBasket]

The other point that's been made about Ted's draft philosophy is the belief that evaluating talent that translates to the NFL is not easy. Just because you pick a guy in round 3 does not mean he's going to be a better player than the player drafted in the 7th. The more picks you have, the better chance of finding NFL talent, not just drafting college talent.

That and it's not like they missed out on a given player by trading down that was any more a sure thing than what they ended up drafting later. For all we know Ted got every player he wanted, but he took them where he could and picked up extra picks instead of taking the same player 10 spots earlier.

[The Leaper]

Thompson played this draft perfectly, Suds.

The top 100 guys were where the very good talent was accumulated this year...which is why Thompson traded down to acquire an additional 4th round pick that allowed him to move back up and grab a 5th guy in the top 102 picks. The chances are extremely high that all 5 of those players make the final roster. Nelson, Brohm, Lee and Finley are all but guaranteed roster spots...and Thompson clearly has an extremely good chance of sticking as well.

We only had 4 picks after that, one of which was a compensatory that we had to take.

I don't see how anyone could make the case that Thompson foolishly stockpiled picks late at the expense of landing good talent. With an extremely low pick in the 1st round as your strongest ammo, it can be very difficult to acquire talent...yet Thompson came up with some very strong players by stockpiling in the 2nd and 4th rounds and targeting that 50-100 region as being where the best value in the draft would assemble.

The best way to build a team is through competition...having other guys there fighting for the same job means it is far more likely that hard working, hard nosed players will be the ones that ultimately come out on top in a position to succeed. The Patriots have been doing that for almost 10 years now...which is why their team has been the strongest over the course of that decade.

[Patler]

Not very many players selected in rounds 4-7 will make much of an impact, let alone have lengthy careers. Picking a good one is sort of luck based as skill. Identify players with potential, and then getting the right one from the group. As long as there are players the team likes and thinks MIGHT have a chance to succeed, picking 6 instead of 4 increases the possibility of finding a Donald Driver, Aaron Kampman, Scott Wells, Mark Tauscher, etc. You just never know when one of those player will turn up. All were considered longshots when drafted.

I think at the end of this draft, we saw TT had not much interest in any remaining players, so he traded a 7th this year for a 6th next year, thinking there might be better longshots next year in the 6th round than this year in the 7th.

[Guiness]

Vince and Skinny have it.

The guys drafted in the first two rounds have been heavily scouted so moving out of that range decreases your chances of a hit. You could even argue that about a 3rd rounder (like our new TE).

But the difference between a 4th and a 7th rounder? I don't believe you're getting less of a player at one end than the other, and might as well bring in more guys to evaluate while playing against NFL caliber talent.

[Merlin]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team. At WR, sure but the talent level severely falls off after the top 4-5 WR's. We lost a DT and we need a good full time DE and more depth at DE. We have nothing to back up our LB's & CB's. Our offensive line is set at tackle but not even close at guard as we don't have anyone on the team who should be starting at guard in the NFL right now. We have Grant and hopefully he isn't a one year wonder. I don't think he is and we really have no one proven behind him accept Herron and he will more then likely be cut in favor of the often injured Wynn and Jackson who did have a strong showing at the end of the season. We have nothing as far as QB goes and we all know that one TE isn't going to cut it. I think Nelson is a little short for TE but he "looks" solid enough to be a blocker, maybe a few more pounds. He definitely has the speed.

All in all I think Thompson finally wised up and did the smarter things in this draft, like not taking a player too high who wasn't deserving of that pick. Like stock piling picks and taking your chances on sheer numbers over that one player's questionable quality. Once you get past the first round, the money looks a lot better too. The Packers got burned by Mandarich years ago and you would have thought that other teams would have learned that lesson. You don't overpay for a lineman because you need five of them to work together to make it work. One lineman alone cannot change a team.

I was surprised at how many Badgers got drafted because they really had no standout players that graduated. Good football players though.

[SkinBasket]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team...

Looks like this off season will be filled with just as much intelligent conversation as last year. Nothing against you personally Merlin, since I know you're a bit sensitive about your opinions and all.

[The Leaper]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

[Merlin]

We don't have depth on our team. Thus the argument for stockpiling picks. It's obvious we aren't going to go sign a bunch of FA's. Come regular season I fully expect us to finally have some depth at positions we don't now. I also expect some of our picks won't be playing the position they were drafted as. It's just a counter argument to the draft mentality this season. I agree with what Thompson did. I may not have traded up but I am not pissed about it. He saw something and leveraged it. Can't argue with that. You can argue on BPA but that BPA is who Thompson believes is BPA on his board. That doesn't mean they are the "real" BPA and I will always have contention with Thompson for not clearly defining his blanket BPA statements.

[The Leaper]

We don't have depth on our team. Thus the argument for stockpiling picks.

We didn't stockpile picks. We only took 9 players...fewest of the Thompson era so far. More than half of those picks were in the first 102. I wonder how many other teams stuck in position #30 have drafted five guys in the top 102 in the last few decades.

[Merlin]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Please name me 10 teams that are younger then ours...

Wait, you can't. End of discussion, now go pick an argument with someone else.

Once again, don't read the entire thread, or hell even what I said in it's entirety. This shit is really old.

[Merlin]

We don't have depth on our team. Thus the argument for stockpiling picks.

We didn't stockpile picks. We only took 9 players...fewest of the Thompson era so far. More than half of those picks were in the first 102.

No shit sherlock. Read what is written and take your blind hatred somewhere else.

[The Leaper]

Please name me 10 teams that are younger then ours...

Has nothing to do with depth, which is why you changed the topic. Young teams can still have strong depth.

If you said we aren't high on experience, I'd agree with you. Claiming we don't have depth is off the mark.

[SudsMcBucky]

I guess I'll just hope you're right about the strategy for THIS year and trust in TT's judgement, since he obviously proved me wrong before. :oops:

[Tarlam!]

No shit sherlock. Read what is written and take your blind hatred somewhere else.

It's this type of post, Merlin, that wins you so many friends around here.

[pbmax]

I second this opinion and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.


The other point that's been made about Ted's draft philosophy is the belief that evaluating talent that translates to the NFL is not easy. Just because you pick a guy in round 3 does not mean he's going to be a better player than the player drafted in the 7th. The more picks you have, the better chance of finding NFL talent, not just drafting college talent.

That and it's not like they missed out on a given player by trading down that was any more a sure thing than what they ended up drafting later. For all we know Ted got every player he wanted, but he took them where he could and picked up extra picks instead of taking the same player 10 spots earlier.

[Fritz]

downs by TT. This article makes a quote that echoes statements I've made about this before. Trade downs are a great strategy when you're trying to build a team and have a lot of holes to fill, but not when you're quite deep at a lot of positions. At that point, you should be picking HIGH level talent. The following comment comes from that article:

"The proof will be in the competition, which starts with a rookie camp this weekend. But one sign of where the Packers stand is that all of the rookies, except perhaps those taken in the first three rounds, are going to have to fight hard to make the team." http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744290

If the team is so deep at various positions that it will be very difficult for anyone outside the first 3 rounds to make the team, why would you trade down in those first 3 rounds for extra 4-7 round picks, when, in reality, the odds of them making the team aren't great. If you're now trying to build high-end quality depth or just trying to plug a couple of holes, wouldn't your strategy now switch to maybe trading up and giving up those lower round picks, or at least standing pat?

I dunno, maybe that's why I'm not an NFL GM, though.

I think the real reason you're not an NFL GM is because your avatar is two women kissing. You are too easily distracted.

[denverYooper]

downs by TT. This article makes a quote that echoes statements I've made about this before. Trade downs are a great strategy when you're trying to build a team and have a lot of holes to fill, but not when you're quite deep at a lot of positions. At that point, you should be picking HIGH level talent. The following comment comes from that article:

"The proof will be in the competition, which starts with a rookie camp this weekend. But one sign of where the Packers stand is that all of the rookies, except perhaps those taken in the first three rounds, are going to have to fight hard to make the team." http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=744290

If the team is so deep at various positions that it will be very difficult for anyone outside the first 3 rounds to make the team, why would you trade down in those first 3 rounds for extra 4-7 round picks, when, in reality, the odds of them making the team aren't great. If you're now trying to build high-end quality depth or just trying to plug a couple of holes, wouldn't your strategy now switch to maybe trading up and giving up those lower round picks, or at least standing pat?

I dunno, maybe that's why I'm not an NFL GM, though.

I think the real reason you're not an NFL GM is because your avatar is two women kissing. You are too easily distracted.

I know I was distracted by his avatar.

[oregonpackfan]

In evaluating the depth level of this team, you have to take into consideration the record of last year's team--13-3 for the regular season. Teams with poor depth rarely reach that level of achievement.

Last year's team was one of the youngest in the NFL. Another year's experience to the young veterans improves the quality of the players, thus increasing the depth level.

[SkinBasket]

This shit is really old.

You are absolutely right. As usual, not in the way you intended, but that rarely matters in your case. Yet you keep signing the same tired old tune. At least give us some new shit to work with.

BTW, I'll call Ted today and tell him to get to work drafting you that memo you're demanding regarding his BPA drafting philosophy and formula. He's obviously been a failure at rebuilding and maintaining winning talent on this team and should be held accountable for his slipshod work by explaining himself to you.

Sometimes you're funnier than a wooden spoon to the balls Merlin.

[Patler]

You can argue on BPA but that BPA is who Thompson believes is BPA on his board. That doesn't mean they are the "real" BPA and I will always have contention with Thompson for not clearly defining his blanket BPA statements.

Why? Would any reasonable person assume it to be anything other than his or the Packers collective opinion? Besides, he does qualify his opinions as just that, opinions:


"Sometimes on the second day you're really scrambling, but we felt today we had guys rated (higher) that weren't going and we were surprised," Thompson said. "Sometimes we're going, 'What does everybody else know that we don't know?' But we felt like we were able to add some good solid players today."


"I hope this works out as well," Thompson said. "I didn't even notice we had three picks there. You know you have two twos going in, but once you get in there and do the trade you never know how it's going to work out.

"Hopefully, this will have an effect, too."


"I think 10 picks are better than six picks," said Thompson. ". . . Because if you have 10 picks, you have a better chance, the odds are better."


"It looks like it was better in '06 and '07 than it was in '05, but that happens with time," Thompson said.

For his part, Thompson doesn't specifically grade the personnel he got in the deals as much as he evaluates the decision-making in executing the trades.

"You look at it to make sure you didn't panic or do something illogical in the process," Thompson said. "Now whether the picks really panned out, you don't really worry about that, it's just, 'Did it make sense at the time based on your board?' You're always doing that."

Sounds to me like a guy who realizes it's only his opinion. But, he has confidence in his process, so he is adamant about following it, believing that mistakes are minimized by doing so.


"I think you just have to stick with your basics, and understand and keep reminding yourself that you're looking for good guys, good football players, and stay true to the work that you've put in," Thompson said of his philosophy. "Our guys, our coaching staff, our personnel staff . . . there are a lot of guys that have put in a lot of work, and continue to. We just work hard, try to do the right thing, and keep reminding ourselves what our goal is."

[hoosier]

You can argue on BPA but that BPA is who Thompson believes is BPA on his board. That doesn't mean they are the "real" BPA and I will always have contention with Thompson for not clearly defining his blanket BPA statements.

Why? Would any reasonable person assume it to be anything other than his or the Packers collective opinion? Besides, he does qualify his opinions as just that, opinions:


"Sometimes on the second day you're really scrambling, but we felt today we had guys rated (higher) that weren't going and we were surprised," Thompson said. "Sometimes we're going, 'What does everybody else know that we don't know?' But we felt like we were able to add some good solid players today."


"I hope this works out as well," Thompson said. "I didn't even notice we had three picks there. You know you have two twos going in, but once you get in there and do the trade you never know how it's going to work out.

"Hopefully, this will have an effect, too."


"I think 10 picks are better than six picks," said Thompson. ". . . Because if you have 10 picks, you have a better chance, the odds are better."


"It looks like it was better in '06 and '07 than it was in '05, but that happens with time," Thompson said.

For his part, Thompson doesn't specifically grade the personnel he got in the deals as much as he evaluates the decision-making in executing the trades.

"You look at it to make sure you didn't panic or do something illogical in the process," Thompson said. "Now whether the picks really panned out, you don't really worry about that, it's just, 'Did it make sense at the time based on your board?' You're always doing that."

Sounds to me like a guy who realizes it's only his opinion. But, he has confidence in his process, so he is adamant about following it, believing that mistakes are minimized by doing so.


"I think you just have to stick with your basics, and understand and keep reminding yourself that you're looking for good guys, good football players, and stay true to the work that you've put in," Thompson said of his philosophy. "Our guys, our coaching staff, our personnel staff . . . there are a lot of guys that have put in a lot of work, and continue to. We just work hard, try to do the right thing, and keep reminding ourselves what our goal is."

You would think that a quick look at the last three years would make this kind of discussion unnecessary. Does TT's staff's history with the last three drafts suggest a better than average ability to evaluate talent? Have previous decisions that many fans failed to understand at the moment (such as trading down with NE when that do-nothing WR from Florida was available and taking Jennings instead) been proven over time to be good ones? If so, how can anyone in their right mind argue that Thompson doesn't know what he's talking about when he says BPA?????

[SkinBasket]

If so, how can anyone in their right mind argue that Thompson doesn't know what he's talking about when he says BPA?????

That's where your inquiry fails in this case. You assume too much.

[Partial]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team. At WR, sure but the talent level severely falls off after the top 4-5 WR's.

I'm not too concerned as teams typically keep 5 WR.


We lost a DT and we need a good full time DE and more depth at DE.
You mean like Kampman and Cullen Jenkins, and then solid relief in KGB and the Thompson kid who 3T clearly thinks highly of as he traded up to get him.


We have nothing to back up our LB's & CB's

You mean like Brandon Chillar or Brady Poppinga? What team has 6 startin caliber LB that isn't running a 3-4?!? What about drafting a solid 3rd corner and having Tramon and Will as the 4th and 5th guys?!?



Our offensive line is set at tackle but not even close at guard as we don't have anyone on the team who should be starting at guard in the NFL right now.

I don't think we're set by any means but to make a statement like that is ignorant. Spitz has shown that he is a good player.


We have nothing as far as QB goes and we all know that one TE isn't going to cut it. I think Nelson is a little short for TE but he "looks" solid enough to be a blocker, maybe a few more pounds. He definitely has the speed.

We have Donald Lee, Troy Humprey and now the rook. I'd say we'll be just fine at TE. The rook looks like a game changing receiver.


I was surprised at how many Badgers got drafted because they really had no standout players that graduated. Good football players though.

What Badgers got drafted beyond Hayden and Ikegwuonu? I didn't see much of the draft.

[Partial]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Please name me 10 teams that are younger then ours...

Wait, you can't. End of discussion, now go pick an argument with someone else.

Once again, don't read the entire thread, or hell even what I said in it's entirety. This shit is really old.

Being a veteran team does not mean you're deep. This doesn't make any sense.

[Tarlam!]

Being a veteran team does not mean you're deep. This doesn't make any sense.

Er, what's a "veteran team" ?

[Lurker64]

Being a veteran team does not mean you're deep. This doesn't make any sense.

Er, what's a "veteran team" ?

A veteran team is a team that has had a lot of experience (particularly "playing together" and "in tight games").

A deep team is a team that has a lot of people with NFL caliber talent at most (if not every) position.

You can be a veteran team that's not deep, or a team that's not a veteran team but is deep. You can be a deep and veteran team, or you can be neither.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think Merlin is giving Thompson more credit where he feel he deserves it. He's adjusting to the fact that TT does things his way and has his way, and it's not necessarily bad but different than what others would do. Or perhaps he's seeing that TT's methods are making a positive difference.

I agree with Merlin that TT is taking the best player available according to his board, but see that as kind of like saying, she's the prettiest girl I see. Who else's eyes do I have to see her? It's actually his player personnel and scouting dept. too. He said he was influenced by Lenny McGill's high praise of Jordy Nelson, and you know he depends on his staff to bring him info, like any GM. BPA is implied to mean "according to the team at the time they were chosen". Do they miss badly? Of course. Do they have some nice surprises? Yep. More hits than misses generally makes you good at what you do and if you have a good HC and staff, it translates on the field.

Anyway, I do see Merlin coming around with TT and his methods.

[Zool]

Being a veteran team does not mean you're deep. This doesn't make any sense.

Er, what's a "veteran team" ?

A veteran team is a team that has had a lot of experience (particularly "playing together" and "in tight games").

A deep team is a team that has a lot of people with NFL caliber talent at most (if not every) position.

You can be a veteran team that's not deep, or a team that's not a veteran team but is deep. You can be a deep and veteran team, or you can be neither.

Doesnt even need to be a team that plays together. I guess i would call a vet a guy who's been in the league 5+ years. You dont have to be good to be a vet (see Bill Schroeder) just able to hang on.

[deake]

In evaluating the depth level of this team, you have to take into consideration the record of last year's team--13-3 for the regular season. Teams with poor depth rarely reach that level of achievement.

Last year's team was one of the youngest in the NFL. Another year's experience to the young veterans improves the quality of the players, thus increasing the depth level.

Wouldn't a better way to evaluate our depth would be to look at how well we did when someone was hurt. For example the Dallas game, we did okay at qb after an injury but not so good at cb.

[packinpatland]

deake! Is this really you??? How you been?

[Lurker64]

Doesnt even need to be a team that plays together. I guess i would call a vet a guy who's been in the league 5+ years. You dont have to be good to be a vet (see Bill Schroeder) just able to hang on.

Well, I'd say you can be a veteran player by being in the league a while, but you can be a veteran team by either having a lot of those guys, or by having guys who have a lot of experience playing together.

[The Leaper]

Veteran team can kind of mean two different things.

1. A group of very experienced players (5+ years NFL experience) who know and understand their role on the team.

2. A group of players who know and understand both the system and those around them within the system because they have played within it for 3+ years and developed a comfort level with the system, as well as the other players and the coaching staff.

So, you could have a team full of 30 year old FAs and be a veteran club...or you could have a bunch of home grown 26-28 year olds who have played together in the same system for 3+ years and also be a veteran club.

Most people assume option 1...although option 2 typically is one that finds the most success in the league. Clearly, Thompson's teams are rapidly heading toward being the veteran group in option 2. After this year, we will have a large number of players with 2-3 years of experience in our system under McCarthy.

We got to the NFCC game last year a year or two early IMO...mostly because of Brett Favre.

[Chester Marcol]

In evaluating the depth level of this team, you have to take into consideration the record of last year's team--13-3 for the regular season. Teams with poor depth rarely reach that level of achievement.

Last year's team was one of the youngest in the NFL. Another year's experience to the young veterans improves the quality of the players, thus increasing the depth level.

Wouldn't a better way to evaluate our depth would be to look at how well we did when someone was hurt. For example the Dallas game, we did okay at qb after an injury but not so good at cb.

Considering you can only evaluate how good a player is only when he gets on the field, that would seem like a perfect example. Just as important are the times when you can give the starters a rest and the drop off in level of play isn't noticable. The fresher our starters can be in the 4th quarter the better.

[deake]

So along this same line, wouldn't there be different positions and different players that are more crucial in there need for quality backups? With Bret playing qb a backup was't so important, but now with out new guy it would seem that it is. Are there stats that will tell us what the likelyhood of a te being injured versus a lb for example. It seems that tt is counting on a few dl getting injured each year and that seems to hold true. It also seems that since his first year when the whole receiving core went down he is also counting on some injuries there. Is this just a crap shoot or is there some logic here?

[cpk1994]

What Badgers got drafted beyond Hayden and Ikegwuonu? I didn't see much of the draft.Mehlhaff and Hubbard were aslo drafted.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Every year, somewhere between May and August, great draft picks become dumb rookies.

Nelson will get into the mix, more likely as a returner. As good as he is, he has to learn the ropes.

Brohm has less pressure than if forced to start for a bad team like Atlanta.
He will be learning and improving without mean criticism.

The same with Lee, youngster Finley, and the rest of the draft picks.

The Packers have no need for rookie starters.
They shouldn't let team talent drop by not drafting any rookies until they do need them.

Call them green, raw, or newbies these rookies need time to get ready and at least one off season program in Green Bay. The Packers will find plays, situations, and formations that maximize their skills.

When the time comes they will more ready than rookies.

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

[Lurker64]

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

[sharpe1027]

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Which raises an interesting chicken or the egg dilemma. Do the bad teams pick that way because their team is bad, or are they consistently bad because they pick that way?

Probably a bit of both, but all things considered, you don't find many teams that win games by relying on rookie players to carry most of the load.

I think it is just as likely that a few of the young players/backups who struggled in the past (hopefully at DB and OG) will surprise us and hit their stride this year as it is likely that the rookies will knock our socks off.

[cheesner]

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Which raises an interesting chicken or the egg dilemma. Do the bad teams pick that way because their team is bad, or are they consistently bad because they pick that way?

Probably a bit of both, but all things considered, you don't find many teams that win games by relying on rookie players to carry most of the load.

I think it is just as likely that a few of the young players/backups who struggled in the past (hopefully at DB and OG) will surprise us and hit their stride this year as it is likely that the rookies will knock our socks off.Personally, I have to believe it is the organization as a whole. Teams like Detroit and Minny can't possibly miss the mark on so many draft picks. It is the combo of getting the right type of player, having the right environment, and providing the right coaching. Any one of those three elements are missing, your team and organization is going to falter.

[Chester Marcol]

Ted drafted future players not current screw ups.

Which is absolutely what the draft should be for every established good team. Teams with serious question marks have to draft guys and hope they make a difference this year. Teams without serious question marks just draft guys and expect them to make a difference in a couple of years when they're ready. Not having to draft guys to be starters this year is a serious advantage to good teams as you often find yourself weighing the alternative of "Good player, ready to play now" versus "Good player, potential to become a great player but not ready to start yet." Bad teams have to pick the former, good teams have the luxury of picking the latter.

Great post. Even the good players ready to play now can benefit from coming to a good team where they’re not expected start right away. How many decent players get drafted to a crappy team, get thrown into the fire, only to have their confidence shattered.

I would just add that the importance of constantly upgrading the lower half of our roster is often overlooked as a part of the team’s success. Not only the ability to have someone come into a game incase of injury or to give the starters rest without a big drop off in quality of play, but also quite a few special teams players come from the second and third strings. This should also help keep the team stocked with younger players. And what's the downside of having too many quality players at one position? We get more draft picks later to keep the process thriving with more opportunities to find these players.

I like TT’s formula and like I've said before, we will have to get use to some veterans being shown the door, especially if they fall into the Bubba category. We have someone else on roster as good and younger still with upside potential, the veteran becomes over priced for a backup role, and the veteran becomes expendable. The process starts all over again.

[woodbuck27]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Our depth to other teams shouldn't be the comparison The Leaper et all. What we need to see developed after the Pre-Season schedule and final roster cuts is positional depth where we are weaker.

I hope that we'll get just there. We need to see added real talent and depth at the following positions:

CB, RDE,TE,RB, Offensive Guard. FS and SS LBer. Did I miss any positions? I assesed more than a few here. We virtually are inexperience @ QB and all that leaves TT and MM and the Packers and the teams fans with a boatload of questions. :D

It's really not enough to be layed back and look at 2008 as primarily an assessment season. One to carefully appraise talent and cut the deadwood. We have to compete with pride and win or be in a lot of games.

I agreed with TT trading down fr. #30 in Round one. That move to #36 in the second and another 4th round pick made perfect sense and was forecastable. It fits TT's MO.

I cannot agree with TT taking a second WR and QB this past weekend, when we had so much need at other positions on OUR team. I haven't had time to see how his draft was graded by those in the know comparitively. That will mean little to many here. Those staunch and totally loyal TT supporters though I applaud you. I'm still not convinced.

I really wish to be. :D

I wanted TT to use this of season to take the heat off MM. To not make OUR season so reliant on MM and our teams coach's and drilling. I'm not seing that to this date. This will be a difficult season I expect and I sincerely hope I'm wrong. A lot of last season was on the capable shoulders of Favre and his Pre- Seaon preperation and workout regieme. His dedication and talent. That's history. The post Brett Favre era upon us.

We'll all feel that.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[Chester Marcol]

I wanted TT to use this of season to take the heat off MM. To not make OUR season so reliant on MM and our teams coach's and drilling. I'm not seing that to this date. This will be a difficult season I expect and I sincerely hope I'm wrong. A lot of last season was on the capable shoulders of Favre and his Pre- Seaon preperation and workout regieme. His dedication and talent. That's history. The post Brett Favre era upon us.


Say what? Makes zero sense. Favre during Sherman's era proves that even good players need coaching.

What are you going to piss and moan about and hang last seasons success on when TT proves that he put together a team that can win with someone other than Favre? To say that more than just a fair share of plays was on the shoulders of Favre is just plane ignorant. Unless I missed Favre playing defense.

It's time to take down your Superman poster and face the fact that Green Bay has a GM that knows how to build a team and not chase pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

[hoosier]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Our depth to other teams shouldn't be the comparison The Leaper et all. What we need to see developed after the Pre-Season schedule and final roster cuts is positional depth where we are weaker.


What should be the basis for comparison then? The 1967 Packers? 1976 Steelers? Your criticisms of TT aren't based in reality. But I guess you knew that, didn't you....

[Fritz]

I think Patler made a good post earlier about the way TT sees his job - as forming what (we hope and he hopes) is an expert opnion.

To me, the quote below demonstrates the way TT goes about his job. It's his azz on the line, so he's going to trust his own views and the views of his scouts. Tough noogies if Mel Kiper or the unnamed pro personnel guy from another team or Matt Millen don't agree. TT's going with what he and his scouts see on film, in interviews, and in workouts. He's not going to get caught up in what other people outside his team have to say.

"As scouts, we think we were right on (Nelson)," Thompson said. "I can't explain what other people might say prior to the draft. I'm not saying it's not interesting reading, but if you're trying to do your job and you get caught up in that and Mel Kiper's mock drafts, then all of a sudden you start drafting based on that. So we decided to stick with the football guy."

To me, TT has decided that it's his ship so if he's going down with it, it's gonna be on his own terms. Screw what the herd thinks of Josh Sitton or Jordy Nelson. If TT and his scouts like a guy and think he's a fourth round talent and the guy's available in the fourth, they'll take him even if everyone else thinks the guy is a fifth round talent. Check out this quote from Ted:

"Sometimes on the second day you're really scrambling, but we felt today we had guys rated (higher) that weren't going and we were surprised."

I'm cool with Ted.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

We don't have a lot of depth on our team.

Please name 10 teams with better depth top to bottom in the league...if ours is so damned horrid.

Our depth to other teams shouldn't be the comparison The Leaper et all. What we need to see developed after the Pre-Season schedule and final roster cuts is positional depth where we are weaker.


What should be the basis for comparison then? The 1967 Packers? 1976 Steelers? Your criticisms of TT aren't based in reality. But I guess you knew that, didn't you....

Merlin and Woodbuck won't be happy till the entire starting lineups are all-pro, backed up at each position by pro bowlers. :roll:

They both live in a fantasy world where a team is strong at each position. They seem to forget that many teams won the superbowl with less than stirling players at each position.