Kiper - Packers quiet plan

[CaptainD]

From ESPN Insider

Want a total misconception about the current success of the Green Bay Packers? Start with Aaron Rodgers.

One narrative you've heard is about how Rodgers fell down the draft board, and the team, despite its then-health at the quarterback position, drafted him and had to let him hold the clipboard until he was ready. He was talented and ready to start somewhere else, but, blocked by Brett Favre, Rodgers waited. The team would face the annual conundrum of what to do -- maintain the current success, or dive into the future? It waited. So now the current Packers are Super Bowl champions, and, because of the great patience Green Bay showed, they were rewarded.

And this is nice, if only it were 100 percent true.

What it does is overlook the fact that the Packers didn't just draft Rodgers and stow him away like some good wine that would become great if opened later. They worked with him incessantly and had a quarterback expert re-engineer his release, which was a weakness out of Cal. Rodgers was a good prospect and had a chance to be a good player, but the Packers had to diligently refine him and build him into a great quarterback. He didn't just hold a clipboard and wait his turn. They didn't wait patiently; they worked a quarterback who -- regardless of what he claims about the joys of offseason work -- is much better for all the time he has put in and the thousands of throws nobody will ever see.

It's important to point this out because it's far more indicative of the state of this current roster than people realize. The Packers survived a mountain of injuries last year not just because they had enough depth to fill holes but because they had enough effective depth, guys they had chosen over others because they created a culture of competition just to crack the roster.

I said it weeks ago: I think this team has a real shot to go undefeated if that's really its goal. Visits to San Diego and Detroit might be the biggest hurdles, or even the trip to face what could be a desperate Giants team. But Green Bay will be favored in each and, when firing on all cylinders, is clearly the league's best team.

But the potential dynasty is less important to me than how it got to this point, and I wanted to point out some observations about why the Packers are in these types of discussions.

Start with sheer volume. Over the past seven drafts, the Packers have drafted a whopping 68 players. Sure, not all of them will stick, but when you are piling up so many picks, and bringing in a lot of undrafted free agents, you're giving yourself a chance to pick from a vast pool of talent. He doesn't like to hear it, but they have one of the best directors of college scouting you can find in John Dorsey, and he's been there for this whole building process. And Dorsey and staff don't just see overlooked talent, they see flaws that can be corrected.

When the Packers have called on talent to step up and fill in for injured players and not experienced a huge drop-off, it's also a product of bringing in so many guys and seeing who could emerge from that group just to get a roster spot. This team can see a great talent such as Rodgers or Clay Matthews, but it doesn't use a star system. From a mountain of picks to the many undrafted free agents the Packers have signed, they create competition. Make it and you've earned it.

Then there's development. You look at Green Bay's recent drafts and you're not seeing a bunch of players who showed obvious talent as a rookie only to break through. In fact, a number of key players on the current roster did very little to signal they'd be good players. Jermichael Finley caught a whopping six passes as a rookie after the Packers were high on him as a third-round value out of Texas in 2008. Jordy Nelson should crack 1,000 yards receiving this season, but he has been merely a good complementary player for his first three seasons and looked expendable to many. The Packers didn't agree. B.J. Raji was being called a bust toward the end of his rookie season, but the Packers didn't really expect a ton out of him even though he was drafted 17 spots ahead of Matthews. Raji was making a position switch, and their willingness to not write him off and to stick with the developmental process has yielded results. Josh Sitton was drafted as a tackle in the fourth round in 2008 and now is among the league's best guards.

These aren't unique cases of development -- you can point to developmental stories on any team -- but they are numerous in Green Bay. The team gets a player in and works him from top to bottom. Maybe this sounds controversial, but I don't think you get a case like Aaron Maybin with the current Packers. I'm not saying it's all on the Bills that he didn't dignify his draft status in Buffalo. But with the current Packers, I don't think he'd arrive to camp way underweight and seemingly out of any sense of a program.

What the Packers have done is fostered a culture of talent but also one of resourcefulness and development. They have a chance to be something of a dynasty not because they are hitting draft home runs but because they're hitting a lot of singles and manufacturing a ton of runs out of those singles. After all, it was years before Rodgers even got to the plate.

The key with Green Bay for me is that when a player is not contributing, the team makes it clear that it's not a time to sulk. It's a time to work

I thought it was a great read ? Thoughts ?

[vince]

Yep. Thanks for posting that CaptainD.

"They have a chance to be something of a dynasty not because they are hitting draft home runs but because they're hitting a lot of singles and manufacturing a ton of runs out of those singles."

That says a lot, but Thompson has his share of home runs to go along with all those RBI hits.

[King Friday]

Players are like chess pieces...when used properly, even the least powerful pieces can produce dramatic results. The Packers have been built to win from top to bottom using the mold devised by Ron Wolf. Wolf did it on his own in the 90s...and now it is being replicated by his disciple Thompson.

This team has a chance to be very dominant for a long time.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Great article. Helmet-hair hit the nail on the head.

[NewsBruin]

Thbbbbpt. What does a "so-called" expert like Kiper know? All he does is bring up players that everyone talks about. How many of his Best Available turn out to be busts? When has he ever run a front office? I bet he can't draft a thank-you note.

Oh, he said something good about us? I always liked the guy.

Just kidding. That was a good article. While Rogers was being not tutored by Bert, MM made him give the cornerback report during the weekly QB meetings, then made him mentally diagram every offensive play during the games. In every level of football, development is the key to a winning roster. It seems it's more possible to screw up good players than it is to improve middling players, yet somehow TT and our coaching staff pull it off.

[bobblehead]

I am with bruin. I am not a kiper fan, but this pretty much nailed it.

[sheepshead]

I am in a small group of people that have never really criticized TT over the years. Not because I was so smart. Quite the opposite. The only thing I did know is that those guys have far far more information then we can ever hope to have. This inside look also says they are ready to develop guys and the lesson for us is the college game is no indication of success at the pro level necessarily. I'm reminded of the movie 'Moneyball' reading this. Good find.

[Upnorth]

Great article post Capt. Good read, but I hate listening to kiper normally.

[Spaulding]

TT has obviously done a remarkable job (as did Wolf in the 90's) but you also have to give credit to Harlan and the fact that we're not privately owned. Harlan gets props for allowing TT to do things his way (slow and with purpose) and not being privately owned prevents the knee jerk reaction of one individual.

It's a damn good time to be a Packer fan. Wait, it's always a damn good time to be a Packer fan but now it's with the realistic possibility of more super bowl appearances annually on the horizon.

Oh, and great post CaptainD - one of the few times I agree with helmet head.

[woodbuck27]

I am in a small group of people that have never really criticized TT over the years. Not because I was so smart. Quite the opposite. The only thing I did know is that those guys have far far more information then we can ever hope to have. This inside look also says they are ready to develop guys and the lesson for us is the college game is no indication of success at the pro level necessarily. I'm reminded of the movie 'Moneyball' reading this. Good find.

Great post sheepshead.

The key with Green Bay for me is that when a player is not contributing, the team makes it clear that it's not a time to sulk. It's a time to work .... Kiper

We all can learn something from this quote above and store it in OUR grey mater for success in OUR lives overall. (-:

PACKERS FOREVER!

[Scott Campbell]

We all can learn something from this quote above and store it in OUR grey mater for success in OUR lives overall. (-:


Thank you for that inspiring message.

[woodbuck27]

IMO Kiper nails it down here very well. The thing I've seen is the way our teams coach's have worked so hard in their developmentle program. The past season workouts and consistent week in week out consistency in sticking with 'the PROGRAM' and the Packer players buying into that, even shows up this season given the prolonged lock out. Also we hve some solid eadership among the Packer players.

I can well magine that locker room and the respect players like Donald Driver, Charles woodson and Chad Clifton must garner. Even though two of these key Packer players are nearing the end of their playing dys in Green Bay. They most deservedly have a huge influence in what can 'only' be deemed an outstanding success for TT and his Coach's and the Green Bay Packers.

Today we can all, and through it all , celebrate !

As Packer fans we can also celebrate PackerRats. The success of this forum and the huge part that PackerRats means to OUR lives.

I hope all here will agree with me. That we can all make a more concerted effort to do better as Packer fans and act together as 'the TEAM' we deserve to be. I love this forum. I respect it as a privalege that enhances my life. I am forever indebted to those here tht make PackerRats possible.

Not just OUR owner (s) but every PackerRat.

I see a fellow Canuck like Upnorth come onto our forum and enjoy seeing his efforts to contribute positively. and enjoy his new Packer HOME. That's my primary goal as a member here. To promote good will at Packerrats. For us to try better to get along; to respect a common fact:

We're all very fortunate Packer fans. PLEASE. Let's ALL respect and demonstate that to one another.

PackerRats ! and 'the Green Bay Packers'.

GO PACKERS !!

[Smidgeon]

I think Kiper had some conclusions and needed to come up with a story.

What he did know was that the Packers were the Super Bowl champions and they rarely made free agency moves. Which meant that their strength really was draft and develop. Then he looked at the Packers draft record and noticed they drafted a lot of players and usually had a couple undrafted free agents make the team.

So Kiper asks himself, "How could this be? Especially Aaron Rodgers who had this horrible delivery I railed on six years ago? Ah ha! Green Bay must've brought a 'quarterback expert' in to teach him! I'll write that!" Except, that's not what happened.

If Kiper did any research at all, he would have found out that McCarthy said they would not focus on Rodgers' mechanics, that they'd let it come down naturally. And only recently Rodgers said that he went and worked on it like crazy on his own. Let me repeat that: on his own. Somehow, "on his own" became "the Green Bay Packers brought in a quarterback expert to reengineer his mechanics." I don't get that logic jump.

So while Kiper hits his points that the Packers are really good at drafting and developing, he's swinging blindly. I don't think it's a good article at all. Just fluff with some good conclusions.

[sheepshead]

You're kind of splitting hairs there smidge. Naturally it takes a work ethic, heart, determination and talent to get to that level. All multi million dollar jobs do. All the kings horses and all the kings men couldnt fix guys like Lawrence Phillips, Ryan Leaf, Todd Marinovich et al for instance. Seems the packers create the right environment, instruction, locker room etc for these guys to reach that potential.

[vince]

If you're saying that McCarthy and Clements have not been instrumental in developing Rodgers into the player he's become, I disagree wholeheartedly Smidgeon. Obviously it had to come from within him as well, but McCarthy and Clements are the best in the business at training and developing QB's. The Packers organization has openly identified itself as a draft and develop team and they have the results that prove out their pretty unique ability to do just that.

You have to remember that most of the readers of this national piece don't have much perspective on the Packers. There's nothing wrong whatsoever at looking at results and analyzing how and why they came about. Kiper did a find job of that here IMO.

[woodbuck27]

I think Kiper had some conclusions and needed to come up with a story.

What he did know was that the Packers were the Super Bowl champions and they rarely made free agency moves. Which meant that their strength really was draft and develop. Then he looked at the Packers draft record and noticed they drafted a lot of players and usually had a couple undrafted free agents make the team.

So Kiper asks himself, "How could this be? Especially Aaron Rodgers who had this horrible delivery I railed on six years ago? Ah ha! Green Bay must've brought a 'quarterback expert' in to teach him! I'll write that!" Except, that's not what happened.

If Kiper did any research at all, he would have found out that McCarthy said they would not focus on Rodgers' mechanics, that they'd let it come down naturally. And only recently Rodgers said that he went and worked on it like crazy on his own. Let me repeat that: on his own. Somehow, "on his own" became "the Green Bay Packers brought in a quarterback expert to reengineer his mechanics." I don't get that logic jump.

So while Kiper hits his points that the Packers are really good at drafting and developing, he's swinging blindly. I don't think it's a good article at all. Just fluff with some good conclusions.

Can you support that conclusion of yours Smidgeon?

I'm interested as I was under the same impression. That MM and his original QB coach ...**Tom Clements were interested in changing ARod's mechanics. To assure his better success when he became our starting QB. I do not deny that Aaron Rodgers likely did much of the work on his own Smidgeon.

For those PackerRats that may be interested.

Some dit's on Tom Clements:

I was a Ottawa Rough Riders fan from the time I was a pre teen.

Back then it was 'the Green Bay Packers and the Vince Lombardi Era' (always my first team), the Ottawa Rough Riders, the Milwaukee Braves and the Boston Celtics, that I supported as a fan. I became familiar with Tom Clements and followed his career with interest.

A Bio on this former CFL star QB:

** Thomas Albert Clements (born June 18, 1953) attended Canevin Catholic High School, (now Bishop Canevin High School). He was a four year letterman in both football and basketball. He was also offered to play basketball at North Carolina, but decided to play football instead. He is the only athlete in Canevin history to have his jersey retired.

Tom Clements was the starting quarterback for the Notre Dame football team from 1972 to 1974 and led the team to a national championship in 1973. In the Dec 31, 1973 Sugar Bowl matchup against Alabama, Clements had a 3rd-and-9 Hail Mary completion from his own end zone with 2:00 left to secure a 24-23 victory. In 1974, Clements finished fourth in the voting for the Heisman Trophy and was voted a first-team All-American.

After graduation, Clements began a career in the Canadian Football League, quarterbacking the Ottawa Rough Riders for four seasons and winning the league’s Rookie-of-the-Year award in his inaugural campaign. The next seasonhe helped to lead the Ottawa Rough Riders to what became the teams last Grey Cup victory.

During his time with Ottawa Clements shared the passing duties with Condredge Holloway, from 1975 to 1977 as the quarterback getting the most playing time. In 1978 their stats were comparable, except for Holloway throwing only two interceptions to 12 by Clements.

Clements also QB'd the Sasketchewan Roughriders (1979). However a trade to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats quickly rejuvenated Clements and he led the CFL in passing yards with 2,803, the last to do so with less than 3,000 yards.[citation needed] I

n 1980, Clements was briefly on the roster of the NFL’s Kansas City Chiefs, coached by former Montreal Alouette head coach Marv Levy, but was the third string quarterback for a team that stressed the running game.

In 1981 Clements returned to the Tiger-Cats and threw for 4,536 yards.

He bested his numbers the next season with 4,706 yards.

In 1983 Clements was traded from Hamilton to the Winnipeg Blue Bombers for long-time Blue Bomber quarterback Dieter Brock. The next year those two teams, Hamilton and Winnipeg, faced each other in the Grey Cup. Clements led the Bombers to their first Grey Cup victory since 1962.

In 1986 he set a new completion percentage record with 67.5, 173 out of 256.

Clements finished his playing career with Winnipeg in 1987 and was also named the league's Most Outstanding Player.

In 2005, for the 75th anniversary of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers, Clements was selected one of the Bombers 20 all-time great players.

In addition, in November, 2006, he was voted one of the CFL's Top 50 players (#47) of the league's modern era by Canadian sports network TSN.

Currently, he is the quarterbacks coach of the National Football League’s Green Bay Packers.

The Green Bay Packers Super Bowl XLV Champions

[denverYooper]

Makes me wonder how long the Packers will be able to hold on to Clements.

[woodbuck27]

Makes me wonder how long the Packers will be able to hold on to Clements.

Yes this is a winner. He understands adversity and having guts and determination too. He's worked with the likes of the great Marv Levy (Marv Levy an CFL Great HC with the Montreal Alouettes and the Buffalo Bills and KC Chiefs for a spell and back to the Bills) and how many other wonderful coach that help hone his skills as a former star QB that continues to impress as a winner after his playing days ended.

PACKERS FOREVER!

[Upnorth]

Makes me wonder how long the Packers will be able to hold on to Clements.

Another CFL coach who will be a great Off Coordinator in the NFL is Kent Austin. Currently head coach at Cornell, he has developed a fair amount of qb talent and is great at designing to a players strenghts. Love to see him as a coach at some level for teh Pack

[mraynrand]

The Packers organization has openly identified itself as a draft and develop team and they have the results that prove out their pretty unique ability to do just that.

So much for the 'quiet' plan

[Fritz]

I more agree with Smidge in that I don't think Kiper says a damn thing in that article. He tries to make it seem like he's about to reveal the "real" secret behind the Packers' success. But what does the article say?

1. Ted Thompson believes in quantity.

2. Because there are so many guys, and because the coaching staff fosters it, there is a sense of competition.

3. The coaching staff does a good job coaching 'em up.

Not much original and sharp thinking there, in my opinion.

[Smidgeon]

If you're saying that McCarthy and Clements have not been instrumental in developing Rodgers into the player he's become, I disagree wholeheartedly Smidgeon. Obviously it had to come from within him as well, but McCarthy and Clements are the best in the business at training and developing QB's. The Packers organization has openly identified itself as a draft and develop team and they have the results that prove out their pretty unique ability to do just that.

You have to remember that most of the readers of this national piece don't have much perspective on the Packers. There's nothing wrong whatsoever at looking at results and analyzing how and why they came about. Kiper did a find job of that here IMO.

I didn't say that. I was taking issue with the point that Kiper underlined, that the Packers worked specifically to re-engineer his mechanics. That's the part I'm taking issue with. Of course they worked hard with him to train him up, but the mechanics thing--as far as has been reported--wasn't one of the areas they worked, yet it was Kiper's headline example.

[Zool]

I can't find an article in the 10 seconds I looked, but I recall specifically McCarthy talking about teaching Rodgers to hold the ball lower on his drop back.

[mraynrand]

I more agree with Smidge in that I don't think Kiper says a damn thing in that article. He tries to make it seem like he's about to reveal the "real" secret behind the Packers' success. But what does the article say?

1. Ted Thompson believes in quantity.

2. Because there are so many guys, and because the coaching staff fosters it, there is a sense of competition.

3. The coaching staff does a good job coaching 'em up.

Not much original and sharp thinking there, in my opinion.


I think the title of the thread should have been: "Kiper-Not much original and sharp thinking there"

[mraynrand]

I can't find an article in the 10 seconds I looked, but I recall specifically McCarthy talking about teaching Rodgers to hold the ball lower on his drop back.

You would think the subject came up, at least during scones and tea.

[Smidgeon]

I can't find an article in the 10 seconds I looked, but I recall specifically McCarthy talking about teaching Rodgers to hold the ball lower on his drop back.

Well, I don't have a eidetic memory, so it's possible that I'm misremembering whether or not McCarthy and Clements worked on it. I remember McCarthy saying they'd leave it alone and it'd go down on its own since it was a taught thing to hold it high.

But even if they did work on it, it's still a different thing than "bringing in a quarterback expert to re-engineer his throwing mechanics".

[Zool]

Well, I don't have a eidetic memory, so it's possible that I'm misremembering whether or not McCarthy and Clements worked on it. I remember McCarthy saying they'd leave it alone and it'd go down on its own since it was a taught thing to hold it high.

But even if they did work on it, it's still a different thing than "bringing in a quarterback expert to re-engineer his throwing mechanics".

Agreed, they said nothing about his throwing motion, just his ball height.

[Joemailman]

I more agree with Smidge in that I don't think Kiper says a damn thing in that article. He tries to make it seem like he's about to reveal the "real" secret behind the Packers' success. But what does the article say?

1. Ted Thompson believes in quantity.

2. Because there are so many guys, and because the coaching staff fosters it, there is a sense of competition.

3. The coaching staff does a good job coaching 'em up.

Not much original and sharp thinking there, in my opinion.

The article wasn't targeted to well informed, level headed fans like us. It was intended for the people who still think the Packers run the screen pass as well as anyone. For them, there's a wealth of knowledge in there.

[pbmax]

Agreed, they said nothing about his throwing motion, just his ball height.

Correct. And McCarthy/Clements big re-engineering job? How would they go about it?

"We just ignored it and it came down naturally." And while Google and JSOnline are resisting, I will find this link.

Kiper is right in general, McCarthy and Clements QB school helped him immensely. But his detail is wrong. And he ignores the fact that the team, according to Andrew Brandt, knew in his first year he was going to be very, very good.

[hoosier]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-9325.html

Something similar to what you're remembering in Dan Pompei's NFP column from September:


McCarthy and Clements did not have to mess with Rodgers’ throwing motion at all. Rodgers takes exception to the notion that he throws differently now. “To set the record straight, the book that was written about myself after the Super Bowl [Aaron Rodgers: Leader of the Pack], it was 100 percent incorrect when he said that any coaching staff ever said anything to me about my throwing style. There was never anything once mentioned about me needed to make changes.”

What was changed was Rodgers’ ball carriage. Like all Jeff Tedford quarterbacks, Rodgers had been schooled to hold the ball above his shoulders, at ear-height. The Packers brought the ball down to shoulder height.

“Mechanically, he had very good throwing fundamentals before I got here,” McCarthy said. We just took the ball carriage and made it more natural. I want my guy to play in controlled rhythm. When he transitions in and out of the pocket, it’s all part of the motion. That has gotten him to play more naturally. If your arms are up like this, it’s different. That’s a locked position.”

[Fritz]

"What was changed was Rodgers’ ball carriage."

Ball carriage? I'd feel slightly insulted if someone told me my ball carriage wasn't quite good enough. I believe my ball carriage is rather proud and quite appropriate, thank you.

[Bossman641]

The funny thing is that "experts" like Kiper always overlook TT's drafts because they are boring, he goes for quantity over flashy players, and rarely trades up.

For the record, here is how Kiper has graded TT's drafts at the time.

2005 - C
2006 - B
2007 - C+
2008 - B-
2009 - A
2010 - B-
2011 - B+

[MJZiggy]

"What was changed was Rodgers’ ball carriage."

Ball carriage? I'd feel slightly insulted if someone told me my ball carriage wasn't quite good enough. I believe my ball carriage is rather proud and quite appropriate, thank you.

I volunteer to verify.

[Fritz]

I approve. You're the official verifier.

[Partial]

For the record, here is how Kiper has graded TT's drafts at the time.

2005 - C
2006 - B
2007 - C+
2008 - B-
2009 - A
2010 - B-
2011 - B+

Not a rationalization here, but nobody is gonna get all A's. Using a standard school grading scale, he's average 2.86, which is between a B- and a B. That technically is above average.

Shrug shoulders.

[Joemailman]

Overall I think those grades are fair. Where we may have really missed is the 2010 draft, which could be a lot better than B-.

SEL # PLAYER POSITION SCHOOL
1 23 Bryan Bulaga T Iowa
2 56 Mike Neal DE Purdue
3 71 Morgan Burnett SS Georgia Tech
5 154 Andrew Quarless TE Penn State
5 169 Marshall Newhouse T Texas Christian
6 193 James Starks RB Buffalo
7 230 C.J. Wilson DE East Carolina

[Bossman641]

Not a rationalization here, but nobody is gonna get all A's. Using a standard school grading scale, he's average 2.86, which is between a B- and a B. That technically is above average.

Shrug shoulders.

I wasn't trying to make much of a point, just thought it was interesting to see what he thought of the drafts at the time. The whole matter of grading a draft the day after is pointless anyways. I wish the draft experts would do more analysis years down the road like Kiper did this January when he did a 2005 re-draft and had Rodgers going 1 and Collins 11.

[Fritz]

The majority of the time the media preface their post-draft grades with "this is ridiculous and pointless and you really can't grade a draft right away, but...." as if they feel obligated. What if a writer or talking head just said the hell with it, I ain't grading the draft right after it happened. That's a stupid thing to do!

[vince]

Those grades are probably a bit low, but it does reinforce Kiper's main point of the article. The Packers have developed their guys better than every other team in the league. It's a lot more sexy and attention-getting to sign big name free agents, but the Packers' success is the result of boring hard work and daily grinding from the scouting department all the way through the coaching staff and players' daily workout regimens and offseason preparation programs. It's a macrocosm of Ted Thompson himself - boring, understated, and very effective. I'm not gonna hate on Kiper because he exaggerated a point a bit to make it a bit more interesting for a non-captive national audience.

[hoosier]

"What was changed was Rodgers’ ball carriage."

Ball carriage? I'd feel slightly insulted if someone told me my ball carriage wasn't quite good enough. I believe my ball carriage is rather proud and quite appropriate, thank you.

Fritz, your ball carriage is unnatural.

[Spaulding]

The funny thing is that "experts" like Kiper always overlook TT's drafts because they are boring, he goes for quantity over flashy players, and rarely trades up.

For the record, here is how Kiper has graded TT's drafts at the time.

2005 - C
2006 - B
2007 - C+
2008 - B-
2009 - A
2010 - B-
2011 - B+

I know it's all a crap shoot when it comes to rating a draft immediately but one would think given that Kiper and McShay are wrong far more than they are right that at some point ESPN would find somebody (thinking maybe Pat Kirwan) else to see if they could do any better. Heck, TT would obviously is better at evaluating talent then Thing 1 and Thing 2.

In hindsight, the above drafts brought the following:

2005 - Rodgers and Collins (any draft with Rodgers in it get's an "A")
2006 - Hawk, Colledge, Jennings (one solid starter and one star - "B" sounds about right)
2007 - Harrell, Jackson, Jones, Hall, Bishop, Crosby (if it wasn't for the two 6th rounders this draft would be grim)
2008 - Nelson, Lee, Finley, Sitton, Flynn (pretty good draft, at least a B+ and more likely an A- or A)
2009 - Raji, Matthews, Lang, Wynn, Brad Jones (doesn't get much better than this - easily an A)
2010 - Bulaga, Neal, Burnett, Quarless, Newhouse, Starks, Wilson (if Neal and Newhouse pan out, could be TT"s best draft and although too early to tell, definitely the makings of an A)

I didn't mention the 2011 draft as without the OTA's and less than half a season to rate, way too early to speculate on a rating.

Simply amazing when I compare TT's drafts with other teams in the NFC North (have to chuckle when I look at Angelo's drafts).

The rich keep getting richer it seems. Guess that puts the Packers in the 1%

[pbmax]

The funny thing is that "experts" like Kiper always overlook TT's drafts because they are boring, he goes for quantity over flashy players, and rarely trades up.

For the record, here is how Kiper has graded TT's drafts at the time.

2005 - C
2006 - B
2007 - C+
2008 - B-
2009 - A
2010 - B-
2011 - B+

Funny how that draft grading seems to correlate with winning and not so much the actual draft class.

[mraynrand]

Funny how that draft grading seems to correlate with winning and not so much the actual draft class.


I was thinking it's an inverted relationship. Usually - unless Matt Millen is involved - the worst team gets high picks, selects some of the better college players, so they tend to get a better draft grade. (Even with Millen involved, I'd be willing to bet Detroit has gotten great draft grades over the past decade)

[woodbuck27]

Another CFL coach who will be a great Off Coordinator in the NFL is Kent Austin. Currently head coach at Cornell, he has developed a fair amount of qb talent and is great at designing to a players strenghts. Love to see him as a coach at some level for teh Pack

We've got 'the Man' IMO, here in Montreal. He's 'just' awesome. Such respect from the Montreal Alouette HC and he will return one day to the NFL and excell.

Anyone know his name?

P A C K E R S !

[woodbuck27]

The funny thing is that "experts" like Kiper always overlook TT's drafts because they are boring, he goes for quantity over flashy players, and rarely trades up.

For the record, here is how Kiper has graded TT's drafts at the time.

2005 - C
2006 - B
2007 - C+
2008 - B-
2009 - A
2010 - B-
2011 - B+

If we award an 'A' as 9.5; 'B' as 8.5; 'C' as 7.5.

2005 - C = 7.5
2006 - B = 8.5
2007 - C+ = 7.75
2008 - B- = 8.25
2009 - A = 9.5
2010 - B- = 8.25
2011 - B+ + 8.75

That is 58.5 devided by 6.5 seasons = 9 or ... an A Minus ( an excellent average )

58.5 devided by 7 = 8.35 or a B. (a very solid Average)

P A C K E R S !!