TT's Pre-Draft Press Conference

[Joemailman]

http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2010/04/16/3/
http://www.packers.com/multimedia/videos/2010_non_game/video_20100416__5ebd3019a09a__9707f19ed2a6/

He pretty much told the reporters which guys he was planning to draft. :lol:

Not sure if he was playing to the home crowd a bit, but he had some very positive words for O'Brien Schofield.

[MadScientist]

Well it's better than having reports like those coming out of Philly saying that they are looking to trade up for a safety.

I did like this bit:

(Do you like the idea of doing one round one night, two rounds the next night ...?)
Yes. The commissioner changed it that way, so I love it. It's perfect.

[Tarlam!]

(What do you think of this draft class as a whole?)
It's a good draft class. That's what the commissioner told me to say, right?

Two, count 'em, two references (or backhanded comliments) to Goodell!

I wonder if TT takes him seriously. If Goodell scews up the CBA, he might be gone.

Anyway, I, for one, always get a kick out of TT's pressers.

[Patler]

I wish they would ask some different questions like:

What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others? Which?
You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise? Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen? Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced? Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?

[Fred's Slacks]

I wish they would ask some different questions like:

What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others? Which?
You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise? Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen? Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced? Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?

Someone needs to kidnap Bedard the next time he has an interview scheduled with TT and we can replace him with Patler. I'd love to hear this interview.

[Fritz]

I second that, Slacks. Thompson could answer these questions without any danger of tipping his hand at all. He might then actually be inclined to share at least a little about these issues, which I would like to read.

Great questions. I'm curious about all of them.

[pbmax]

I second that, Slacks. Thompson could answer these questions without any danger of tipping his hand at all. He might then actually be inclined to share at least a little about these issues, which I would like to read.

Great questions. I'm curious about all of them.
It would be interesting just to see which of those he would choose to answer.

[RashanGary]

Their questions are horrible but I think there is a reason for it. They ask these loaded questions now, knowing Ted will sand by his guys and then 8 months from now, if the OL has struggles, they can site this response from Ted, indicating incompetence. It kind of works for them.

The problem with their constant negative energy is that at some point, when the things they complain about go right (and it seems the inevitably do), they just switch subjects like they never banged that drum.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for that paper. Outside of the McGinn draft series, which I love, it really lacks integrity.

[Fritz]

Agree with you, JH. And PB, that's a good question. I suppose if he even gave up a tidbit like "I look more carefully at Factor X than I used to," he might feel he was tipping his hand regarding players he might like who have that great Factor X.


It would be a good interview, I think.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Patler: What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
TT: That I have plenty of both.

Patler: How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
TT: I've gotten older.

Patler: Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
TT: No.

Patler: Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others?
TT: No.

Patler: Which?
TT: None.

Patler: You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
TT: No, no thoughts. Just luck I guess.

Patler: Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise?
TT: Yes, of course.

Patler: Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
TT: It depends on the individual circumstance.

Patler: You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen?
TT: We are constantly self-scouting.

Patler: Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced?
TT: We are constantly re-evaluating our drafting technique.

Patler: Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?
TT: Oh, yeah. All the time.

(Apologies to Patler :) )

[Tarlam!]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

[Fritz]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

Someone who knows his German chancellors. I love this board!

I say the Packers draft Helmut Kohl and turn him into a linebacker.

[Maxie the Taxi]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

I hear ya. :)

TT uses 100 words to say "No."

[MJZiggy]

I'll take a stab at this. Seems like an interesting exercise. Now all we need is for someone to be bright enough to actually ask TT these questions so we can compare. Maybe we should send them to him.


Patler: What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
TT: I think anyone in any profession has strengths and weaknesses. It's more a challenge of learning what they are so you can work with them.

Patler: How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
TT: As you get older and get more experience you learn from your mistakes. You get a better feel for what you're looking for in a player and how they fit into the team you have.

Patler: Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
TT: No.

Patler: Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others?
TT: I'm not sure. I guess everyone has positions that they tend to do well with.

Patler: Which?
TT: I don't know that I could say that. I mean we all like to think we can evaluate them all equally, but you do the best you can with the players that are available.

Patler: You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
TT: We like to look at guys that have a good speed and good hands. We scout these guys very well and I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.

Patler: Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise?
TT: All of our scouts are talented guys, that said, I suppose you could say that some of them are pretty good at evaluating certain positions.

Patler: Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
TT: It depends on who is scouting where and what they find. The guys look at a lot of film. I do trust the team we have here. They're a great bunch of guys.

Patler: You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen?
TT: We are constantly self-scouting. I like the line that we've put together. They've been nicked up a lot, but I think we've put together a good group of players and you'd see it more if they had the chance to play more together without the injuries.

Patler: Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced?
TT: Not necessarily. You have to evaluate your players based on your criteria and the criteria for a good football player is relatively constant. You do scout your own team as well as other teams in the league.

Patler: Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?
TT: No, not really. The goal has always been to draft good football players and I think we've done that. And we're gonna try our best to continue to do that.

(Apologies to Patler :) )

Fun exercise.

[pbmax]

Their questions are horrible but I think there is a reason for it. They ask these loaded questions now, knowing Ted will sand by his guys and then 8 months from now, if the OL has struggles, they can site this response from Ted, indicating incompetence. It kind of works for them.

The problem with their constant negative energy is that at some point, when the things they complain about go right (and it seems the inevitably do), they just switch subjects like they never banged that drum.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for that paper. Outside of the McGinn draft series, which I love, it really lacks integrity.
There were other media (TV and newspaper) in the room, not just JSO for that press conference.

They aren't loaded questions (although Packer beat guys do ask those, especially Bedard) in that only one answer satisfies the terms of the question. Patler's are more imaginative, but this isn't a magazine style interview where there is significant time for questions and then they will get to write a lengthy piece and give detail and background to his answers. I would love to read that piece, but few have written about T2 in that form that I am aware. There was one background piece that spoke to Reinfeldt and the 49ers former GM that gave some context to his approach. I think it was in the pre-season in the last two years.

In a fixed time press conference meant for newspaper and TV coverage about an event in less than a week, I would expect reporters to get him on the record about his own players, roster and needs. When Thompson refuses to give specifics or reveal his thinking beyond its principals, all that is left to evaluate are the results.

And I think its a fair area of inquiry, his draft record has had some specific holes and prior to Matthews/Raji/Lang/Jones, his record in the draft was above average but not above reproach. I do think Patler's question about altering his evaluation over time might help shed light on the O line struggles.

[Bretsky]

For those who always bag on JS and bash the Packer Insider, Bob McGinn does a wonderful job each year on his draft analysis and getting comments from scouts on each player.

On another note, if you listen to interviews from the JS guys, the Packer Report guys, the WSJ guys....none of these guys enjoy intervieiwing TT and they think he doesn't give them anything for a story...and they are trying to look good in order to see papers. That's why the interviews are going to be consistently brash.

I understand both sides

[Patler]

But you all ignore the follow-up questions that have to be asked immediately following an answer, The first questions I listed were just set-ups. For example:


I'll take a stab at this. Seems like an interesting exercise. Now all we need is for someone to be bright enough to actually ask TT these questions so we can compare. Maybe we should send them to him.


Patler: What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
TT: I think anyone in any profession has strengths and weaknesses. It's more a challenge of learning what they are so you can work with them.

Patler:Agreed. What have you learned about yourself? What are Ted Thompson's strengths as a talent evaluator? His weaknesses? Give me just one strength and one weakness that you have discovered about yourself.



Patler: How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
TT: As you get older and get more experience you learn from your mistakes. You get a better feel for what you're looking for in a player and how they fit into the team you have.

Patler: You mentioned mistakes. What mistakes have you recognized from your early drafts? Not people, but in your approach to evaluating them?



Patler: Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
TT: No.

Patler: None? So you've learned nothing from the experiences of the last 10 years in Seattle and GB that has caused you to change the way you evaluate players? Isn't that inconsistent with your earlier answers?



Patler: Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others?
TT: I'm not sure. I guess everyone has positions that they tend to do well with.

Patler: Which do you think you "tend to do well with"? Which do you not do so well with? How do you improve that? Shouldn't that tend to make you change how you evaluate a position, if you tend not to do well with it?



Patler: You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
TT: We like to look at guys that have a good speed and good hands. We scout these guys very well and I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.

Patler: But every draft has guys with speed and good hands. What impressed you the most about Greg Jennings that caused you to pick him over some others? Had you interviewed him personally before drafting him, or did you rely on others?

Patler: Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise?
TT: All of our scouts are talented guys, that said, I suppose you could say that some of them are pretty good at evaluating certain positions.

Patler: Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
TT: It depends on who is scouting where and what they find. The guys look at a lot of film. I do trust the team we have here. They're a great bunch of guys.

Patler: But it all comes together as you set your draft board, and your team of scouts goes over everyone's work from the different regions. You all look at tape on players that others have scouted and you discuss the players. Scouts offer their opinions on players from other regions, players they did not scout initially. At that time, do you tend to say to yourself, "Well, John really likes this kid, and John seems to know his linebackers?" Here's a chance for you to give some of the guys behind the scenes some credit. Is there one player you can think of who you drafted because of one scout's very enthusiastic endorsement? Who was the player and who was the scout?



Patler: You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen?
TT: We are constantly self-scouting. I like the line that we've put together. They've been nicked up a lot, but I think we've put together a good group of players and you'd see it more if they had the chance to play more together without the injuries.

Patler: Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced?
TT: Not necessarily. You have to evaluate your players based on your criteria and the criteria for a good football player is relatively constant. You do scout your own team as well as other teams in the league.

Patler: Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?
TT: No, not really. The goal has always been to draft good football players and I think we've done that. And we're gonna try our best to continue to do that.

Patler: If you do continually "self-scout" your own procedures as you have admitted, if you "self-scout" how you evaluate players, has it not caused you to make any changes in what you look at among college O-linemen? Is there nothing that you now think is more important or less important than you did in your first draft?

Patler:How do you make sure that scouts in different parts of the country evaluate players on a similar basis? Do you get your scouts together for training sessions, where you sit down in a room and say, "This is what we (the Packers) think is important?" Do you sit down as a group in a formal or structured setting to discuss what mistakes you made either in selecting a player who did not make it, or in passing on a player you should have selected? Does your "self-scouting" that you mentioned have a structured format of some sort?

[MJZiggy]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

[Patler]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

That's where questioning gets to be fun, using the interviewee's own answers to "encourage" a more honest answer! :lol:

[MJZiggy]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

That's where questioning gets to be fun, using the interviewee's own answers to "encourage" a more honest answer! :lol:

That's why I don't interview. I have to digest the first response before the follow up question comes to me.

[Patler]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

That's where questioning gets to be fun, using the interviewee's own answers to "encourage" a more honest answer! :lol:

That's why I don't interview. I have to digest the first response before the follow up question comes to me.

I have long subscribed to the philosophy of never asking a question that I don't know the answer to, or at least suspect I know the answer to. If the answer I expect is not forthcoming, the answer I get really asks the followup question for me. From those questions and expected answers you can build toward subject matter you didn't understand before the initial questions, because most interviewees offer information superfluous to the question asked. Asking the right questions and followups builds your information base for other areas. Only occasionally do you have to take a shot in the dark.

[pbmax]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

That's where questioning gets to be fun, using the interviewee's own answers to "encourage" a more honest answer! :lol:

That's why I don't interview. I have to digest the first response before the follow up question comes to me.

I have long subscribed to the philosophy of never asking a question that I don't know the answer to, or at least suspect I know the answer to. If the answer I expect is not forthcoming, the answer I get really asks the followup question for me.
I think the reporters already ask questions they suspect they know the answers to. And Thompson knows they are coming. Your follow ups are great, but much easier to get to when its a one on one interview. They might would work well in McGinn's or Wilde's season opening interviews. But only someone who is inexperienced with interviews feels awkward not answering a legitimate, well meaning question. Thompson knows this is a fool's errand for someone in the position of authority.

In a press conference, there is much less coordination and a PR flack to end followups or call for the last question. Plus Thompson can beg off those questions that get too pointed or narrow or simply reiterate himself. Since you, as the interviewer, are not in a position of authority, it is hard to expect or demand an answer on point from someone who is granting you access and not the other way around. And there are the traditional standbys: use any question to give the answer you want to or McCarthy's favorite, reject the premise.

[Tarlam!]

This thread, in Particular PB's post reacting to Patler really have me very curious about TT. Excellent discussion, guys.

TT's very private for a public figure, which I completely respect. He is highly thought of by his peers; one doesn't get voted Exec of the Year for being like Al Davis, right?

I would love for McGinn or even Shirley Temple to interview TT with Patleresque questions.

[Fritz]

The best example of the worst and most obvious way to not answer questions is to watch the presidential debates from the last two elections.

Question: Well, so and so, can you tell us why you've settled out of court on this civil case in which you were accused to sexually abusing little children?

Politician: I'm glad you asked. As you know, child welfare has been an issue near and dear to my heart, which is why I sponsored the "School Lunch Initative" in 2003. It provided for free ketchup for all children, and ensured no child would go to school ketchupless.

[Patler]

I knew there would be follow ups--just didn't want to put questions in your mouth.

That's where questioning gets to be fun, using the interviewee's own answers to "encourage" a more honest answer! :lol:

That's why I don't interview. I have to digest the first response before the follow up question comes to me.

I have long subscribed to the philosophy of never asking a question that I don't know the answer to, or at least suspect I know the answer to. If the answer I expect is not forthcoming, the answer I get really asks the followup question for me.
I think the reporters already ask questions they suspect they know the answers to. And Thompson knows they are coming. Your follow ups are great, but much easier to get to when its a one on one interview. They might would work well in McGinn's or Wilde's season opening interviews. But only someone who is inexperienced with interviews feels awkward not answering a legitimate, well meaning question. Thompson knows this is a fool's errand for someone in the position of authority.

In a press conference, there is much less coordination and a PR flack to end followups or call for the last question. Plus Thompson can beg off those questions that get too pointed or narrow or simply reiterate himself. Since you, as the interviewer, are not in a position of authority, it is hard to expect or demand an answer on point from someone who is granting you access and not the other way around. And there are the traditional standbys: use any question to give the answer you want to or McCarthy's favorite, reject the premise.

I agree complete. Almost mentioned time as a real issue that writers are faced with, because TT and other GMs can simply walk away from a press conference whenever they want, and at most any one questioner will only get a few questions. No one could ask all of the questions in a press conference setting, but could ask one initial and a few follow-ups. I have seen press conferences where the questioners grab the reins from someone else' questions and continue along the same line, though I doubt that would ever happen in this situation.

I think the key to dealing with TT in any situation is to be probing without being confrontational so that he has no reason to feel uncomfortable. Approach it as letting the fans get to know the process and understand the individuals. I don't TT is threatened by that for the most part and does not run from those types of questions.