We NEVER draft for need

[bobblehead]

Ok, its probably not just this simple, but here is my read on our first three picks.

Replaced aging vet Chad Clifton (maybe not this year though).
Replaced aging vet Donald Driver (maybe not this year though).
Replaced BJack and Grant with a younger and cheaper model.

I realize that TT likely had guys at every position ranked similarily in the back of the 2nd and 3rd, and it makes sense to fill the roster in that scenario, but I'm starting to buy the BPA theory is a bit simplified. Oh, and two years ago we filled the OLB and NT of our new 3-4 defense with 2 first round picks....just a coincidence I'm sure. In another fluke we drafted a tackle last year after Clifton and Tauscher had injury issues.

[Tarlam!]

TT makes his own luck. If I think back to all the "Who da fuck?" "What da fuck?" & "Why da fuck?" comments over the years, I strongly believe he picks for value then postion.

How often did we read he was only picking to satisfy his ego or to prove he was smarter than everbody else? It was truly nauseating at times, at least for the TT fan club alumni.

I agree that he'll have guys equally tiered/graded at a varity of positions, but I think a large part of that is the way his scouts are a part of the process. TT's a team player that takes ultimate responsibility publicly (from what I gleaned).

I could not be happier that TT runs the front office. Apart from possibly Hoody, I wouldn't want anybody else.

[Patler]

Ok, its probably not just this simple, but here is my read on our first three picks.

Replaced aging vet Chad Clifton (maybe not this year though).
Replaced aging vet Donald Driver (maybe not this year though).
Replaced BJack and Grant with a younger and cheaper model.

I realize that TT likely had guys at every position ranked similarily in the back of the 2nd and 3rd, and it makes sense to fill the roster in that scenario, but I'm starting to buy the BPA theory is a bit simplified. Oh, and two years ago we filled the OLB and NT of our new 3-4 defense with 2 first round picks....just a coincidence I'm sure. In another fluke we drafted a tackle last year after Clifton and Tauscher had injury issues.

Couldn't you say that for just about any position he would have drafted?

a QB to replace Flynn as backup in a year
a DL to replace Jenkins this year as a starter
a CB to replace Woodson (or Shields as 3rd CB) in a year or so
an OLB to play opposite Matthews this year as a starter
an ILB to be younger and cheaper than Barnett or whoever doesn't start.
a safety to be younger, cheaper and healthier than Bigby

Some would argue the bigger needs right now would be OLB or DE where there appear to be starting positions available, or CB where you need three starters and Woodson could be done at any time. TT has yet to address the defense. Instead, he picked a tackle when the Packers already seem to have some O-line depth with Lang and last years rookies, a WR when they are three deep at least, and an RB who will play on 3rd downs only and might replace a guy who could be a vet-minimum player (Jackson).

[vince]

Thompson has said repeatedly that he believes strongly in not reaching because of need. That's when you make mistakes. His process of evaluation includes tiering, so there are often many players available that are rated equally when it's time to draft or trade. That's when need comes into play.

When one player remains on teh board that they have projected in a higher tier at a position of need (Matthews and Burnett), that's when he tries to go up and get them. When numerous guys are available at the same tier and he can trade down, add a pick and still be guaranteed to have one or more of those guys available, that's when he'll trade down.

Usually, he just sits tight and looks for value, which I think includes analyzing the current roster as well as the rest of the board and the potential availability (or lack thereof) of guys of similar talent at the same position further along in the draft.

[Tarlam!]

Thompson has said repeatedly that he believes strongly in not reaching because of need. That's when you make mistakes.

Vikings taking Ponder?



When one player remains on teh board that they have projected in a higher tier at a position of need (Matthews and Burnett), that's when he tries to go up and get them.(...)Usually, he just sits tight and looks for value,

Aaron Rodgers.

[bobblehead]

Thompson has said repeatedly that he believes strongly in not reaching because of need. That's when you make mistakes. His process of evaluation includes tiering, so there are often many players available that are rated equally when it's time to draft or trade. That's when need comes into play.

When one player remains on teh board that they have projected in a higher tier at a position of need (Matthews and Burnett), that's when he tries to go up and get them. When numerous guys are available at the same tier and he can trade down, add a pick and still be guaranteed to have one or more of those guys available, that's when he'll trade down.

Usually, he just sits tight and looks for value, which I think includes analyzing the current roster as well as the rest of the board and the potential availability (or lack thereof) of guys of similar talent at the same position further along in the draft.

This sums up my feeling on it all. I agree he would never reach to fill a need, but he did trade several picks to get Clay (YAY!!) and it was a need.

As for what Patler said...no, I disagree. RIGHT NOW, CB isn't to shabby. We have two studly Corners....drafting to replace the aging 3rd isn't akin to replacing your LT. OLB? Probably could have been said and I consider the other side a need, but things equal we played great D last year with JAGs at the spot. DL? Again, we were deep and played well without Jenkins. Not a NEED like the return man and LT prospect. How have we fared in recent years when Cliffy went down? Compare that to any position on the roster....and no one would say replacing backup QB with a top 2-3 pick is a need on our team. I wouldn't make such weak arguments, and I don't think you really are either.

[Patler]

As for what Patler said...no, I disagree. RIGHT NOW, CB isn't to shabby. We have two studly Corners....drafting to replace the aging 3rd isn't akin to replacing your LT. OLB? Probably could have been said and I consider the other side a need, but things equal we played great D last year with JAGs at the spot. DL? Again, we were deep and played well without Jenkins. Not a NEED like the return man and LT prospect. How have we fared in recent years when Cliffy went down? Compare that to any position on the roster....and no one would say replacing backup QB with a top 2-3 pick is a need on our team. I wouldn't make such weak arguments, and I don't think you really are either.


I absolutely think OLB and CB are immediate needs at least as urgent as LT, maybe DE too. Starter spots are open at DE and OLB.

I think Bulaga would be fine at LT and maybe Lang too, if Clifton went down. Heck, last year Bulaga was designated the heir apparent to Clifton, just like Sherrod is now. He still might be. In the past they struggled when Colledge played LT, but did OK with Lang there, and I think Bulaga will be better. I also think Lang would be fine at RT if Bulaga went in at LT. Then there are the wildcards of Newhouse at either tackle position (potentially) and Tauscher returning (unlikely). Besides, it's not even certain that Sherrod will be a left tackle. Many say he will have to play on the right, or even at guard. Right now, tackle isn't a need. Right now, tackle isn't too shabby.

Last year many would have thought OLB was the biggest need, he drafted no one and I don't think Zombo is the answer, although I like him on the team. They Packers have used at least 5 starters at OLB other than Matthews the last two years. Right now, a quality starter is needed.

Frankly, I'm as concerned about Woodson as I am about Clifton. He played very poorly the first four games or so last year, with a bunch of penalties to boot. He has a significant injury history as well and is at the age where it could end at any time. A team needs three quality CBs, as much as the third CB plays, and they may have only two. Replacing Woodson is as important as replacing Clifton, and I don't think the roster has as many potential CB options as it does at LT, especially since they already drafted Clifton's replacement last year.

As for QB and other positions? At least as important as replacing Jackson. We are losing a starter at DE. Flynn won't be here in 2012, maybe not even in 2011. Rodgers can miss games, we know that. No position on the Packer offense is as important as QB. Now is the time to be preparing a backup to replace Flynn.

My point was simple. An argument can be made for a need at any position, especially when the need is to replace "aging vet 'X' (maybe not this year though)" or to replace an older expensive player or a veteran backup with "with a younger and cheaper model".

This year, in my opinion, real "need" picks would be starters to replace Jenkins and an every down OLB with good pass-rush ability opposite Matthews.

[digitaldean]

Patler, have to agree. If one of the desperate teams in need of a QB contact GB after lockout, Flynn will be traded. I'd say they'll get what they can for Barnett and look for more help in later rounds today.

I know TT took the BPA with the RB from Hawaii, but I thought the DE and CB would be a more glaring need. Woodson should be playing more S anyway toward the end of his career.

The offense sure has gotten the addl firepower through this draft. No guarantees, but the O looks even more potent plus our return game has been upgraded with the addn of Cobb.

[3irty1]

When you move up to get a player, need is almost always involved. CMIII doesn't really count. We didn't take the draft spot we were given and grab the BPA, we moved up so that the BPA would be a guy who fills a need.

[Tarlam!]

It's nice to see this discussion play out like it is. When our biggest needs aren't gaping holes and being purely subjective, I feel the Packers have a pretty darn good amount of depth.

I worry about Woodson and Driver and Clifton evenly, so I see adding hands at CB, WR and OT as desirable. I think Neal will do a fine job replacing Jenkins. Whether or not Jolly gets suspended again for the same offense remains to be seen, I bet he won't. I could imagine he gets a shot at GB. I'm not disappointed if Tt rocks with the roster he has. RB wasn't a need. Even discounting Jackson, they had 1 good, 1 looking good and 1 developing back. Hardly a need.

It's been suggested CMIII isn't that great in coverage and adding another pass rushing OLB might be detrimental to his game. Interesting thought. But they won a SB with just CMIII and Jenkins. So, OLB is a luxery, IMHO.

[Scott Campbell]

It sure is nice to have a couple extra picks year.

[Deputy Nutz]

Thompson like every GM regards every pick as a way to secure positions on the roster. Every pick is a need pick, but that doesn't mean Thompson is going to reach for a player because they have a hole at cornerback. I assume GMs have players placed on tiers and when that tier starts to deminish, they look at drafting a player out of that tier. Some have the whole draft in tiers, along with positionial tiers. GMs want things simplified and when comparing two players at different positions you have to have the talent to judge which one of them is a better football player which is difficult, but if you have them placed in tiers and you look and see that CB#11 is two tiers below DL#15 you take DL#15. Sure the corner is the 11th rank corner but the defensive linemen is two tiers higher which should provide more value to the franchise. I have stopped listening to the draft reporters, because they are mostly full of nonsense. If I really had to trust any of them I would trust McShay and the Hair, because they have the biggest buget to work with along with the fact that the Hair does it 365 days a year. Regardless I am not going to listen to someone that has a % of the budget and staff as an NFL GM tell me that a team reached with their third round pick it is already to deep in a draft for these guys and their evaluations.

[bobblehead]

Everyone makes good points and I agree with most. I don't think TT would ever draft a guy he ranked as a 3rd rounder in the second just because he needed the position. However, I do think he analyzes his roster and factors his needs into the draft. He may have had, say a WR ranked ever so slightly ahead of Sherrod at 32, but went with a guy he thought could help the team and he would need soon enough. Same with ARod when he was drafted. Maybe TT didn't have ANYONE who he ranked higher and it was dumb luck, or maybe he know old Bert was nearing the end and he needed a legit heir apparent and there was a first round talent staring at him.

I guess the point I'm making is that I don't think for a second he has a big board of EVERY player ranked 1-250 and he simply picks the highest guy on the list when his turn comes. I agree he has them all tiered off and if he has 3 first round talents left at #32 and one is a need position he may take him ahead of the guy he ranked 4 spots higher overall. He knows that he can be wrong by 4 spots, but if he was right on both its best to get the heir to the LT position. I have been harping for a new LT for 3 drafts and was thrilled with Bulaga last year and am very happy with Sherrod. I just don't want ARod to go the way of Chris Miller.

[pbmax]

I think there are always rules and then exceptions, even with this GM. Thompson flat out admitted he went back up to get Burnett because he liked nothing at safety after him. So his safety Tier was thinning and nothing that remained looked like potential starter material in any way except long term potential.

So he went up to get him. Its a pick for need but not a reach. He had the proper grade for the spot selected, but the Packers had to give up picks to get there.

This kind of maneuver is dangerous because it lets other teams influence where you pick and any move up is expensive in terms of picks. You would be hard pressed to optimize your strategy with this kind of move being commonplace because you would have fewer picks, but as the exception, it probably proves no detriment.