TT's Roster - Is It What You Thought? (Link added)

[Patler]

From an article in the GBPG, TT's 53 man roster includes:

31 of his 58 draft picks over his 6 drafts
3 UFAs
2 from trades
2 from waivers
9 "street" free agents
6 holdovers from Sherman's last roster

The article then ranks the 53 players from most important (Rodgers) to least important (McDonald).

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20100908/PKR07/100907083/Mike-Vandermause-column-Ranking-the-players-from-No-1-to-No-53

Sorry, meant to post the link originally.

[sharpe1027]

Not a bad list.

I don't know that I would put Cullen Jenkins at #7. Injuries and inconsistent play would move him down a few notches on my list, but I can understand why he is there.

[hoosier]

It would be interesting, as point of comparison, to look at what one of Wolf's rosters looked like. Let's say, for argument's sake, the 1996 Packers. That was six years after Wolf was hired.

[vince]

I'm not clear on what you're getting at, Patler, with, "Is it what you thought?" Are you asking if, 5 years later, the Packers roster is as strong as expected?

[Brandon494]

I see they put Finley above Claymaker :D

[Patler]

I'm not clear on what you're getting at, Patler, with, "Is it what you thought?" Are you asking if, 5 years later, the Packers roster is as strong as expected?

No, more about the make-up of the roster. Where the players came from. I thought the breakdown was interesting, and different than I would have guessed. We all have preconceptions (misconceptions?) about how TT does business. For example, some comments (paraphrased) people have made about TT:

"He loves his draft picks and is unwilling to let one go except for another of his draft picks."
"He passes up other available players in favor of his draft picks."
"He never signs free agents cut by other teams."
"He relies only on the draft and ignores other sources for players."
"He wants to purge the roster of all of Sherman's players because they aren't 'his'".

Yet, only 31 of his 58 draft picks remain with the team. (53%)
The roster includes 31 players he drafted and 22 he didn't draft. (58% and 42%, respectively).
Even after 6 years, 6 Sherman players remain on the roster (11%).
TT acquired 16 players by means other than the draft (30%).
11 players are "cuts" from other teams (21%).

I think the sources for players who made the roster are probably a lot different than some would have thought. Without thinking too much about it, I would have guessed a much higher percentage were drafted by TT. I would not have guessed that 20% were rejects from other teams.

[Patler]

I see they put Finley above Claymaker :D

Not much of a distinction, #3 vs #4 in terms of "importance" to the team, which is what they rated, not performance. I would dispute that a lot. In terms of importance to this roster, this year, I think Mathews is much more important to the team.

If Finley were lost:
-They would have a competent starter in Lee.
-The passing game would change perhaps, but would have plenty of weapons in Jennings, Driver, Jones, Nelson, Lee and maybe even Quarless later in the year.

If Mathews were lost:
-Poppings/Zombo would start, or maybe even Chiller.
-The pass rush would have no one, absent someone who develops this year.

In short, I don't want to see either one lost, but I think the team could compensate for the loss of Finley much easier than it could for the loss of Mathews.

For the same reasons, I might not put Clifton so high on the list, even though Bulaga is not at all proven by any stretch of the imagination. Pure conjecture, but I think he would step up, much like Clifton did as a rookie.

I would move Tramon Williams higher. If this is supposed to be a list of importance, Williams should move up, at least until Harris resurfaces and proves he can play. If Williams were lost there is no decent replacement at this time.

[vince]

I'm not clear on what you're getting at, Patler, with, "Is it what you thought?" Are you asking if, 5 years later, the Packers roster is as strong as expected?

No, more about the make-up of the roster. Where the players came from. I thought the breakdown was interesting, and different than I would have guessed. We all have preconceptions (misconceptions?) about how TT does business. For example, some comments (paraphrased) people have made about TT:

"He loves his draft picks and is unwilling to let one go except for another of his draft picks."
"He passes up other available players in favor of his draft picks."
"He never signs free agents cut by other teams."
"He relies only on the draft and ignores other sources for players."
"He wants to purge the roster of all of Sherman's players because they aren't 'his'".

Yet, only 31 of his 58 draft picks remain with the team. (53%)
The roster includes 31 players he drafted and 22 he didn't draft. (58% and 42%, respectively).
Even after 6 years, 6 Sherman players remain on the roster (11%).
TT acquired 16 players by means other than the draft (30%).
11 players are "cuts" from other teams (21%).

I think the sources for players who made the roster are probably a lot different than some would have thought. Without thinking too much about it, I would have guessed a much higher percentage were drafted by TT. I would not have guessed that 20% were rejects from other teams.
Gotcha. Thanks. It's interesting to study for sure. I'd say there are more street free agents and waiver guys than I would have expected six years ago. That's a huge tribute to TT and his staff's thoroughness and deliberate system of scouting and evaluation, and leaving no rock unturned to find players. It would be interesting to see how that compares to other teams' rosters. I'd guess there are more than most.

He has certainly taken the tougher path to building a contender by focusing on unproven commodities and projecting talent rather than being more active in the "proven" free agent market. It's tougher to be sure, but it's the way to go if you want to sustain a winner in my opinion.

It looks like this team, which based on personnel, almost everyone expects to contend for a Super Bowl, will be in the running for the youngest team in the league yet again. Those two qualities just aren't supposed to go together - unless you are a master at your craft.

At the same time, you bring up another misnomer about Thompson preferring "his guys" over Sherman's or other teams' draftees, the implication being that he has a huge ego which comes before winning. Almost half of the team fall in that category, and Thompson has had a great (although not perfect) track record of keeping the most productive and valuable of "Sherman's guys."

If you can play and are committed to improving throughout the offseason, there's room for you on this team for a long time - and it doesn't matter how you got here. Thompson values not only the younger guys, but also the leaders who have been instrumental in the Packers success for many, many years. Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Barnett, Woodson, Harris, Wells, etc. are all highly valued leaders of this football team and have been re-signed, in some cases multiple times - because they embody the characteristics that Thompson demands - regardless of age, who drafted them or who Thompson drafted to compete with them. A great many of "his guys" are gone now because they eitehr weren't as good as others or they didn't show the kind of improvement year over year that is demanded.

Thompson has established a highly credible and consistent track record for players to once again want to come to Green Bay. They will have an opportunity to succeed here, based on merit, whether you are an unrestricted free agent, an undrafted free agent, or anywhere in between.

[steve823]

Just curious but if Al Harris was healthy and was on that list where would you put him? I would have to say right after Chad Clifton. Harris has been of the most underrated and physical corners in the NFL for so many years while in GB.

[Fritz]

What jumped out at me was his success in the draft. 53% of his draft picks have "stuck" with the team? I'd love to know how that stacks up against other GM's. The guy's hitting on over 50% of his picks.

I would venture the opinion that, given the team's record last year, not only are many "sticking," they are also producing.

[mraynrand]

It would be interesting, as point of comparison, to look at what one of Wolf's rosters looked like. Let's say, for argument's sake, the 1996 Packers. That was six years after Wolf was hired.

Here it is. Quick look - I count 28 draft picks

C Mike Arthur
WR Don Beebe
FB Edgar Bennett
CB Bucky Brooks
WR Robert Brooks
T/G Gary Brown
DT Gilbert Brown
S LeRoy Butler
TE Mark Chmura
DE Shannon Clavelle
LB Ron Cox
C Jeff Dellenbach
T Earl Dotson
DT Santana Dotson
CB Corey Dowden
CB Doug Evans
QB Brett Favre
WR Antonio Freeman
LB Bernardo Harris
S Chris Hayes
FB William Henderson
P Craig Hentrich
DT Darius Holland
LB Lamont Hollinquest
WR Desmond Howard
K Chris Jacke
TE Keith Jackson
RB Travis Jervey
RB Calvin Jones
DE Sean Jones
G/T Lindsay Knapp
LB George Koonce
DT Bob Kuberski
RB Dorsey Levens
WR Derrick Mayes
C Gene McGuire
DE Keith McKenzie
QB Jim McMahon
T John Michels
WR Terry Mickens
WR Anthony Morgan
CB Roderick Mullen
CB Craig Newsome
QB Doug Pederson
S Mike Prior
WR Andre Rison
S Eugene Robinson
CB Michael Robinson
T Ken Ruettgers
FB Brian Satterfield
LB Wayne Simmons
TE Kevin Smith
G Aaron Taylor
TE Jeff Thomason
G Adam Timmerman
DE Reggie White
T/G Bruce Wilkerson
DE Gabe Wilkins
LB Brian Williams
CB Tyrone Williams
C Frank Winters

[mraynrand]

What jumped out at me was his success in the draft. 53% of his draft picks have "stuck" with the team? I'd love to know how that stacks up against other GM's. The guy's hitting on over 50% of his picks.

I would venture the opinion that, given the team's record last year, not only are many "sticking," they are also producing.

The last time I checked, the league average was around 40-42% - at least that's what Cleft Crusty told me. One thing to consider: are more picks hanging on due to their being better than what TT could obtain in free agency? In other words, is he just better at picking in the draft, or is he just philosophically pick-retentive (or both?).

[woodbuck27]

It would be interesting, as point of comparison, to look at what one of Wolf's rosters looked like. Let's say, for argument's sake, the 1996 Packers. That was six years after Wolf was hired.

Here it is. Quick look - I count 28 draft picks

C Mike Arthur
WR Don Beebe
FB Edgar Bennett
CB Bucky Brooks
WR Robert Brooks
T/G Gary Brown
DT Gilbert Brown
S LeRoy Butler
TE Mark Chmura
DE Shannon Clavelle
LB Ron Cox
C Jeff Dellenbach
T Earl Dotson
DT Santana Dotson
CB Corey Dowden
CB Doug Evans
QB Brett Favre
WR Antonio Freeman
LB Bernardo Harris
S Chris Hayes
FB William Henderson
P Craig Hentrich
DT Darius Holland
LB Lamont Hollinquest
WR Desmond Howard
K Chris Jacke
TE Keith Jackson
RB Travis Jervey
RB Calvin Jones
DE Sean Jones
G/T Lindsay Knapp
LB George Koonce
DT Bob Kuberski
RB Dorsey Levens
WR Derrick Mayes
C Gene McGuire
DE Keith McKenzie
QB Jim McMahon
T John Michels
WR Terry Mickens
WR Anthony Morgan
CB Roderick Mullen
CB Craig Newsome
QB Doug Pederson
S Mike Prior
WR Andre Rison
S Eugene Robinson
CB Michael Robinson
T Ken Ruettgers
FB Brian Satterfield
LB Wayne Simmons
TE Kevin Smith
G Aaron Taylor
TE Jeff Thomason
G Adam Timmerman
DE Reggie White
T/G Bruce Wilkerson
DE Gabe Wilkins
LB Brian Williams
CB Tyrone Williams
C Frank Winters

Jeezz. That's a pretty decent roster. Some of my favourites off that roster:

FB Edgar Bennett
WR Robert Brooks
DT Gilbert Brown
S LeRoy Butler
TE Mark Chmura
T Earl Dotson
DT Santana Dotson
QB Brett Favre
WR Antonio Freeman
LB Bernardo Harris
FB William Henderson
P Craig Hentrich
K Chris Jacke
TE Keith Jackson
RB Travis Jervey
DE Sean Jones
LB George Koonce
RB Dorsey Levens
WR Derrick Mayes
DE Keith McKenzie
CB Craig Newsome
QB Doug Pederson
WR Andre Rison
S Eugene Robinson
CB Michael Robinson
T Ken Ruettgers
LB Wayne Simmons
G Adam Timmerman
DE Reggie White
T/G Bruce Wilkerson
LB Brian Williams
CB Tyrone Williams
C Frank Winters[/quote]

That was a good team. :D We waited a long long time for that roster. YIKES ! Please not that ... no more !! :cry:

[MichiganPackerFan]

...
Yet, only 31 of his 58 draft picks remain with the team. (53%)
The roster includes 31 players he drafted and 22 he didn't draft. (58% and 42%, respectively).
Even after 6 years, 6 Sherman players remain on the roster (11%).
TT acquired 16 players by means other than the draft (30%).
11 players are "cuts" from other teams (21%).

I think the sources for players who made the roster are probably a lot different than some would have thought. Without thinking too much about it, I would have guessed a much higher percentage were drafted by TT. I would not have guessed that 20% were rejects from other teams.

The percentages were a lot more revealing than just looking at the numbers.

[Patler]

...
Yet, only 31 of his 58 draft picks remain with the team. (53%)
The roster includes 31 players he drafted and 22 he didn't draft. (58% and 42%, respectively).
Even after 6 years, 6 Sherman players remain on the roster (11%).
TT acquired 16 players by means other than the draft (30%).
11 players are "cuts" from other teams (21%).

I think the sources for players who made the roster are probably a lot different than some would have thought. Without thinking too much about it, I would have guessed a much higher percentage were drafted by TT. I would not have guessed that 20% were rejects from other teams.

The percentages were a lot more revealing than just looking at the numbers.

I thought percentages might stimulate discussion, so I threw them in. Glad they helped.

When I look at numbers like that the ratios, percentages, etc. are sort of an automatic for me. Not necessarily the exact number, but the proportionality of the relationships. I guess that's why numbers are so revealing to me as a foundation for concepts.

[Joemailman]

Not a bad list.

I don't know that I would put Cullen Jenkins at #7. Injuries and inconsistent play would move him down a few notches on my list, but I can understand why he is there.

Agree about Jenkins. If healthy, he belongs up there, but it's a big if. Brad Jones ahead of Josh Sitton seems strange. Sitton was the Packers best O-Lineman last year. Jones played okay in 7 games.

[Brandon494]

Not much of a distinction, #3 vs #4 in terms of "importance" to the team, which is what they rated, not performance. I would dispute that a lot. In terms of importance to this roster, this year, I think Mathews is much more important to the team.

I agree Clay is more important to the team because we have no depth at his position but I still believe Finley is the more talented player. Anyway who cares they are both Packers :D

[vince]

Here are some more "interesting" facts about the roster from Bob McGinn.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/102503459.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=packers

Twenty-one players on the 53-man roster entered the NFL as “premium” draft choices in the first three rounds.

In 1996, when the Packers won the Super Bowl, their opening-day 53 included 25 draft picks, 12 free agents, six unrestricted free agents, five trade acquisitions, four waivers claims and one “Plan B” free agent.

The three-man crew of undrafted rookies is the most in Green Bay on the opening 53 since 2002 when RB Tony Fisher, T Kevin Barry and LB Marcus Wilkins made the grade.

Before that, you have to go back to 1994 to find a year when three rookie free agents survived the final cut.

The Packers average 25.91 years, making them slightly older than in the past four years but still among the NFL’s youngest teams.

By position, here are the average ages on the 53: Wide receiver, 27.4 years; offensive line, 26.2; linebackers, 26.1; running backs, defensive line and secondary, all 25.8; quarterbacks, 25.5; specialists, 24.7, and tight ends, 24.5.

The offense averages 26.04 years and the defense averages 25.92

[pbmax]

Score another one for Patler.

JSO - Bob McGinn - Packers Decline Leftovers (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/102503189.html)


Using players on 53-man rosters as of Wednesday, STATS computed the average age to years and days, not just years. According to STATS, Green Bay currently ranks sixth youngest, far behind Carolina.

McGinn also mentions the NFL numbers and by inference, seems to suggest that the NFL ignores the months and just calculates based on years.

[Little Whiskey]

quarterbacks, 25.5 years

good thing they got that number down!

[vince]

That was a good article by McGinn.

Thompson at Co. have done a superior job drafting as McGinn demonstrates. While focusing on the draft and comparing that to unrestricted free agent signings and trades, McGinn kind of glossed over the fact that they also have done a very good job finding 11 undrafted free agents and waiver claims that are on the team.

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

[falco]

It is what we thought it was!!!!

http://tvbythenumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/denny-green.jpg

[MichiganPackerFan]

I thought percentages might stimulate discussion, so I threw them in. Glad they helped.

When I look at numbers like that the ratios, percentages, etc. are sort of an automatic for me. Not necessarily the exact number, but the proportionality of the relationships. I guess that's why numbers are so revealing to me as a foundation for concepts.

You know, it should have been easy for me to see that too, especially considering a denominator of about 50. I guess because its tax season, its just bounced off me.

I'd like to see him snag more free agents if 1) they can improve the team AND 2) The contract does not harm the team more in the future than the player helps the team now. The exception is, if you need one player to win EVERYTHING now, go all in and take a shot at the title. Sherman overpaid and overpaid and really crippled the team for a few years. Thompson has built it to a point where it can be annually competitive.

[sharpe1027]

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

They must have really brought in a ton of top players this past year to make that much of a the difference. :roll:

[Joemailman]

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

They must have really brought in a ton of top players this past year to make that much of a the difference. :roll:

Justin Harrell's healthy. :P

[Fritz]

I read Vandermause's most recent "chat" transcript this morning. It was stunning to me how many "questions" centered on Thompson' mulish failure to go out and get a cornerback, a returner, and some outside linebacker help.

The sense is that he's failed, and almost deliberately. There was the usual mush that he doesn't care much about special teams, and that he just doesn't like trying to bring players in to Green Bay either because he doesn't want to spend the money or he loves his own players more, although (it is implied) the current players suck. One person called Thompson's entire offseason a "failure" and wondered why he didn't draft some corners and OLB's and a return man.

Yet every single draft pick Thompson chose had made the team, and one will be a starter. Two others look to contribute heavily. That's failure?

And had Thompson drafted those guys, how many people would be bitching that Ted doesn't ever spend first round picks on offensive linemen, when everyone knows that's how it's done?

By the tone of the questions, it'd seem Green Bay was coming off a 4-12 season with no hope at all.

I'm amazed. Pessimism and antagonism run deep, apparently.

[sharpe1027]

TT is not a good PR man. At least he seems good at finding quality NFL players.

[get louder at lambeau]

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

That would be fun to review a year later. Ya got a link?

[vince]

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

That would be fun to review a year later. Ya got a link?
I looked for it awhile back and couldn't seem to find it. I should go back through threads here, because I'm pretty sure it was linked to. It was back in January or February of last year, early in the offseason as I recall. I seem to remember there being something like "State of the Packers" in the title, but I could be wrong. I distinctly remember the message he was delivering though. I'll look harder this time and see if I can find it. I'd like to review it again too.

[get louder at lambeau]

McGinn's statement about the team being the envy of more than a few GM's is a big contrast from his article last offseason arguing that the state of the team was the worst in 25 years.

That would be fun to review a year later. Ya got a link?
I looked for it awhile back and couldn't seem to find it. I should go back through threads here, because I'm pretty sure it was linked to. It was back in January or February of last year, early in the offseason as I recall. I seem to remember there being something like "State of the Packers" in the title, but I could be wrong. I distinctly remember the message he was delivering though. I'll look harder this time and see if I can find it. I'd like to review it again too.

If you can find it, we should email it to McGinn for him to review as well.