McGinnn ""THOMPSON ROLLS DICE IN DRAFT""

[Bretsky]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/thompson-rolls-the-dice-with-this-years-draft-h2576d8-149452395.html

[Tony Oday]

Real high on Datko it looks like...

[Pugger]

Man, this article makes it sound like TT drafted a bunch of lazy misfits.

[Joemailman]

Man, this article makes it sound like TT drafted a bunch of lazy misfits.

I'd worry more about Perry than Worthy. It's not that uncommon for 300+ lb. guys to coast at times, especially when they're out there every play. Worthy will be part of a rotation here, and should be a force. Perry has all the talent in the world, but doesn't always play like it. Greene is the perfect guy to get 100% out of him. Plus, maybe he'll be affected by that other USC guy who goes 110% every play.

[George Cumby]

Man, this article makes it sound like TT drafted a bunch of lazy misfits.

No kiddin'. I was pretty pumped and then I read that article which made me want to drink a bottle of Jack while listening to the Smiths over and over again.

Strange the switch in model from try hard, love the game, over-achiever, high character guys to, reportedly, super talented underachievers. I assume TT is relying on the Coaching Staff?

[Upnorth]

I think this is the start of Bretsky's curse...

[pbmax]

No kiddin'. I was pretty pumped and then I read that article which made me want to drink a bottle of Jack while listening to the Smiths over and over again.

Strange the switch in model from try hard, love the game, over-achiever, high character guys to, reportedly, super talented underachievers. I assume TT is relying on the Coaching Staff?

Just remember that BJ Raji had the same rap. So saying its either/or is stretching the evidence by McGinn. Players like Matthews are rare in that they go close to 100% for the full play, every play. Even the Packers O tackles don't do that. Players going 100% often have had to overcome other limitations, like Matthews did with his size.

Talent can coast and still rule the roost. The bigger question is will they respond well when challenged? Worthy seemed to. Perry is seems more consistently in 3rd Gear.

[Upnorth]

Just remember that BJ Raji had the same rap. So saying its either/or is stretching the evidence by McGinn. Players like Matthews are rare in that they go close to 100% for the full play, every play. Even the Packers O tackles don't do that. Players going 100% often have had to overcome other limitations, like Matthews did with his size.

Talent can coast and still rule the roost. The bigger question is will they respond well when challenged? Worthy seemed to. Perry is seems more consistently in 3rd Gear.

Players who play 100% every down tend to get more nagging injuries as well. The harder you push teh more resistance you get, somethings give ever now and then. (This is not a criticism of giving 100% just an observation).

[Smeefers]

You also have to remember that he gave number grades and he put both Perry and Worthy with 9's.

[mraynrand]

Man, this article makes it sound like TT drafted a bunch of lazy misfits.

http://www.halfassedproductions.com/articles/120105/4toys.jpg

[ND72]

Strange the switch in model from try hard, love the game, over-achiever, high character guys to, reportedly, super talented underachievers. I assume TT is relying on the Coaching Staff?

What amazes me is before the draft, all these reporters and "experts" were praising Nick Perry as the perfect 3-4 guy, especially the GB 3-4...NOW, it's like the worst pick Thompson ever made. I hope Perry reads this stuff and lights a fire. And to agree with many, Greene and Matthews could be just what he needs as well.

[Tony Oday]

Perry will play all out how could you NOT with CMIII and Greene all over you?

[Joemailman]

If he doesn't have a passion for the game, I'm not sure Greene or anyone else can instill that in him. If he does, and just needs someone to help him focus and bear down, no one fits that bill better than Greene.

[woodbuck27]

You also have to remember that he gave number grades and he put both Perry and Worthy with 9's.Sports Illustrated Grades:

N. Parry @ 3.16 and J. Worthy @ 2.98.


3.99 to 3.10 -- Quality Prospect -- Someone that consistently gives good performances. Occasional Pro Bowl appearances.


3.09 to 2.75 -- First-Year Contributor -- Prospect that has the ability to make plays from the get-go and start early into his rookie season.


According to these grades both Perry and Worthy are picks that are likely to contribute to our 'D' this season.


If both of these prospects arrive in Green Bay pumped to learn the playbook and blend with the System TT's plans for these two men hopefully will determine his decision to draft them. TT has done his job well picking these prospects.


Now it's up to them tp prove that they can demonstrate leadership, a solid work ethic, a high motor and that their coachable and quality Green Bay Packers.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/draft-2012/grading_system/#ixzz1tdaMQtsU


GO PACKERS !

[denverYooper]

Perry will play all out how could you NOT with CMIII and Greene all over you?

The fact that CM3 played with Perry makes me feel pretty good about the pick.

[Lurker64]

The sense in which Thompson "rolled the dice" is that he traded up a lot, not that he took bums. Trading up is always risky, since any prospect, no matter where he's taken has a chance to suck regardless of how much scouts loved him coming out. Having more picks is like having more lottery tickets.

That being said I think the media is guilty of caring too much about "does he fit in [scheme]" which is the wrong way to think about it. Coaches match scheme to the players, not the other way around. Plus, when you really get down to it, football isn't that complicated for most positions; if you can run, hit, and tackle they'll find a place for you on defense.

[Tony Oday]

But for TT trading up was almost required because we didnt have space for 12 new guys

[Lurker64]

But for TT trading up was almost required because we didnt have space for 12 new guys

And yet, one or two of the undrafted guys will probably make the roster.

[mraynrand]

It was a Shermanesque draft, except that the Packers have existing talent on the roster, and the picks make sense.

[Lurker64]

It was a Shermanesque draft, except that the Packers have existing talent on the roster, and the picks make sense.

It's also not that ridiculous for Thompson to have traded up so much considering how cheap it was to trade up.

These are the trades that Thompson made:
Gave up 123 to turn 59 into 51
Gave up 163 to turn 90 into 62
Gave up 224 and 235 to turn 197 into 163.

So Thompson made one pick on day 1, two picks on day 2, and ultimately only lost one of three fourth round picks, his sixth, and two of four seventh round picks.

For some reason, trading up was really cheap this year.

[hoosier]

If the scouting reports that McGinn gathered are to be believed, the two "risks" (Perry and Worthy) have more uncertainty than your average draft pick, who could always turn out to be a Justin Harrell or a Brian Brohm. Rightly or wrongly they both got labeled as lazy lima beans, which means they could get hurt (Harrell), turn out to be overrated (Brohm) OR they could turn out to be Cletidus Hunts. But by the same token, they are clearly more talented (per reports) than Sherman's patented desperation move of trading up to draft a Donnell Washington.

[RashanGary]

It did feel like a Sherman draft.


I think the reason moving up was so cheap is that TT was moving up when there were several players who had similar ratings. Teams will move back if they know they can get a guy they like equally and another pick to boot.

TT wasn't going ape-shit giving up the farm to move up, but he wasn't going to sit back and wait for a WR, TE or FB to fall into his lap. He went up and got the positions he needed and didn't have to pay much for it because most teams aren't as loaded as the Packers and are more willing to move down since they could use any position.

TT shows flexibility.


When TT said he's not his fathers son, but this time he felt it was appropriate, I think he was making a little fun at the people who think they know what he's about. He's about opportunity and adjusts per situation.

[Tony Oday]

And we did not have 12 spots open...

[Patler]

It's also not that ridiculous for Thompson to have traded up so much considering how cheap it was to trade up.

These are the trades that Thompson made:
Gave up 123 to turn 59 into 51
Gave up 163 to turn 90 into 62
Gave up 224 and 235 to turn 197 into 163.

So Thompson made one pick on day 1, two picks on day 2, and ultimately only lost one of three fourth round picks, his sixth, and two of four seventh round picks.

For some reason, trading up was really cheap this year.

Considering that he had #163 to start with, traded it away and then got it back again in another trade; at the end of the draft, the net change from all of his dealings can be summarized as follows:

He gave up #59, #90, #123, #197, #224 and #235,
He received #51 and #62,

[denverYooper]

While the probability of any single one of these players flopping might be higher, the chances that at least one of them improves the pass rush as a whole is very good. They threw a whole pile of guys at the one glaring problem.

My guess is that being on a championship caliber team with a QB in his prime will bring out the best in some of them, too.

[Smidgeon]

Considering that he had #163 to start with, traded it away and then got it back again in another trade; at the end of the draft, the net change from all of his dealings can be summarized as follows:

He gave up #59, #90, #123, #197, #224 and #235,
He received #51 and #62,

So with the trade value chart:

He gave up 310 + 140 + 49 + 12.6 + 2 = 513.6
For 390 + 284 = 674

Which means that he gained 160.4 in trades, a value of the #86 selection--the 22nd selection in Round 3. Sounds like good trading to me.

[Lurker64]

Considering that he had #163 to start with, traded it away and then got it back again in another trade; at the end of the draft, the net change from all of his dealings can be summarized as follows:

He gave up #59, #90, #123, #197, #224 and #235,
He received #51 and #62,

Which, by the chart is 390 + 284 for 310 + 140 + 49 + 13.6 + 3+ 1.9. So 674 for 517.5. TT got the equivalent of the 87th pick in the draft for free. It's highly unusual to come out this far ahead when you trade up three times and never trade down.

Generally the team who initiates the trade ends up with the short end (i.e. we want to trade down/up) so it's possible that the media is overplaying the "Thompson did what he needed to" angle, since it's conceivable that he just picked up the phone and agreed to three lopsided deals in his favor. Though, it seemed consistently that trading down was cheaper than usual this year, I wonder why.

[Patler]

Personally, the "chart" values do not mean a lot to me, but then, again, I refuse to accept that one guy is unsuited for LT and another is fine just because his arms are 1/2" longer, but there are those who make a big deal over it. Basically, TT gave up a bunch of low round picks, who, Driver, Tauscher and Wells not withstanding, are not likely to ever contribute significantly. In return he gained an extra pick at a level where it is much more likely that a player will contribute soon.

A few years ago, it was quite likely that a keen talent evaluator would find some 6th and 7th round picks who were better than the bottom 10-12 guys on the roster. After doing that for 5 or 6 years, it becomes more difficult and less beneficial to try and improve the bottom of the roster. Now, it is necessary to tweak the top of the roster as much as possible; so extra high picks are valuable.

[Lurker64]

Personally, the "chart" values do not mean a lot to me

I'm not trying to convince you to buy into the chart, but historically the value chart was a pretty good indicator of what teams would consider fair value for trades outside of the high first round. It's just interesting that this year, for whatever reason, teams were allowed to trade up for much less value than they could have in previous years.

In the 2010 draft it cost Thompson pick #122 in order to turn the #86 pick into the #71 pick.

In the 2012 draft, it cost Thompson pick #163 in order to turn the #90 pick into the #62 pick.

This is odd. Last friday Thompson was able to start with a worse pick, give up less, and end up with a better pick than he was able to do two years earlier. One might think that in the former case he gave up more because he initiated the trade, and in the latter case he gave up less because New England initiated the trade. But if you look at trades in the 2012 compared to their theoretical value against the chart, the team trading up consistently did better than they theoretically should have been able to do.

So something is going on here. Potentially there's a paradigm shift and other teams are becoming more interested in trading down. Potentially teams perceived the depth in this draft such that trading down was especially valuable. Potentially the new CBA has changed the value of picks and a new chart needs to be divined in order to model this (though that's unlikely since salaries for 2nd and later round picks really haven't changed much.)

[Smidgeon]

Which, by the chart is 390 + 284 for 310 + 140 + 49 + 13.6 + 3+ 1.9. So 674 for 517.5. TT got the equivalent of the 87th pick in the draft for free. It's highly unusual to come out this far ahead when you trade up three times and never trade down.

Generally the team who initiates the trade ends up with the short end (i.e. we want to trade down/up) so it's possible that the media is overplaying the "Thompson did what he needed to" angle, since it's conceivable that he just picked up the phone and agreed to three lopsided deals in his favor. Though, it seemed consistently that trading down was cheaper than usual this year, I wonder why.

Ha! Beat ya to it! :D

[Patler]

I'm not trying to convince you to buy into the chart, but historically the value chart was a pretty good indicator of what teams would consider fair value for trades outside of the high first round. It's just interesting that this year, for whatever reason, teams were allowed to trade up for much less value than they could have in previous years.

In the 2010 draft it cost Thompson pick #122 in order to turn the #86 pick into the #71 pick.

In the 2012 draft, it cost Thompson pick #163 in order to turn the #90 pick into the #62 pick.

This is odd. Last friday Thompson was able to start with a worse pick, give up less, and end up with a better pick than he was able to do two years earlier. One might think that in the former case he gave up more because he initiated the trade, and in the latter case he gave up less because New England initiated the trade. But if you look at trades in the 2012 compared to their theoretical value against the chart, the team trading up consistently did better than they theoretically should have been able to do.

So something is going on here. Potentially there's a paradigm shift and other teams are becoming more interested in trading down. Potentially teams perceived the depth in this draft such that trading down was especially valuable. Potentially the new CBA has changed the value of picks and a new chart needs to be divined in order to model this (though that's unlikely since salaries for 2nd and later round picks really haven't changed much.)

Yes, I realize all that, but a lot depends on who TT was dealing with each year, what he had to offer and what his trade partner was hoping to accomplish as well. Each team's available salary cap also comes into play. One team might be willing to give up a lot of "chart points" for a lot of reasons.

The "change" this year doesn't show the need for a revised chart, if anything it shows that competent GMs don't need artificial values from a chart to tell them whether or not to make a trade. If it makes sense to them for their purposes, they will do it, regardless of what the chart tells them to do.

[Scott Campbell]

Yes, I realize all that, but a lot depends on who TT was dealing with each year, what he had to offer and what his trade partner was hoping to accomplish as well. Each team's available salary cap also comes into play. One team might be willing to give up a lot of "chart points" for a lot of reasons.

The "change" this year doesn't show the need for a revised chart, if anything it shows that competent GMs don't need artificial values from a chart to tell them whether or not to make a trade. If it makes sense to them for their purposes, they will do it, regardless of what the chart tells them to do.



I think the chart serves the purpose of providing a baseline. But nothing is written in stone.

[KYPack]

There is a lot of strength in the Packer scouting organization. Thompson mines the intelligence gathered by his deep scouting talents and then leverages it to create his own:

Board with unique evaluations of the available talent

Value of all players which is re-calculated for each draft.

The guy then maps out a strategy tailored for his team only. When he took over, trading up was the slick strategy. TT started trading down and only trading up in special situations. Other teams seem to follow his lead and he goes back to trading up.

The guy obviously spends massive amounts of time mapping out a strategic plan for each draft. He also adjusts the whole works depending on trends created by the dynamics of the draft.

He's a pretty slick fucker.

[Pugger]

It did feel like a Sherman draft.


I think the reason moving up was so cheap is that TT was moving up when there were several players who had similar ratings. Teams will move back if they know they can get a guy they like equally and another pick to boot.

TT wasn't going ape-shit giving up the farm to move up, but he wasn't going to sit back and wait for a WR, TE or FB to fall into his lap. He went up and got the positions he needed and didn't have to pay much for it because most teams aren't as loaded as the Packers and are more willing to move down since they could use any position.

TT shows flexibility.


When TT said he's not his fathers son, but this time he felt it was appropriate, I think he was making a little fun at the people who think they know what he's about. He's about opportunity and adjusts per situation.

At least TT didn't move up in this draft to pick a punter... :lol:

[Fritz]

There is a lot of strength in the Packer scouting organization. Thompson mines the intelligence gathered by his deep scouting talents and then leverages it to create his own:

Board with unique evaluations of the available talent

Value of all players which is re-calculated for each draft.

The guy then maps out a strategy tailored for his team only. When he took over, trading up was the slick strategy. TT started trading down and only trading up in special situations. Other teams seem to follow his lead and he goes back to trading up.

The guy obviously spends massive amounts of time mapping out a strategic plan for each draft. He also adjusts the whole works depending on trends created by the dynamics of the draft.

He's a pretty slick fucker.

This is why this did not feel like a Sherman draft. I'mn guessing Thompson's draft board looks rather different, once you get to round three or so, than most boards.

I think Patler is correct, too - this is not the same team Thompson took over; the need to upgrade the bottom of the roster with a lot of low-round picks is less because the bottom of the roster is stronger now. And the chances of finding a starter-type guy are better earlier than later.

[Smidgeon]

There is a lot of strength in the Packer scouting organization. Thompson mines the intelligence gathered by his deep scouting talents and then leverages it to create his own:

Board with unique evaluations of the available talent

Value of all players which is re-calculated for each draft.

The guy then maps out a strategy tailored for his team only. When he took over, trading up was the slick strategy. TT started trading down and only trading up in special situations. Other teams seem to follow his lead and he goes back to trading up.

The guy obviously spends massive amounts of time mapping out a strategic plan for each draft. He also adjusts the whole works depending on trends created by the dynamics of the draft.

He's a pretty slick fucker.

Good observation. Glad dude's drafting for Green Bay. Repped.

[Guiness]

It did feel like a Sherman draft.


I think the reason moving up was so cheap is that TT was moving up when there were several players who had similar ratings. Teams will move back if they know they can get a guy they like equally and another pick to boot.

TT wasn't going ape-shit giving up the farm to move up, but he wasn't going to sit back and wait for a WR, TE or FB to fall into his lap. He went up and got the positions he needed and didn't have to pay much for it because most teams aren't as loaded as the Packers and are more willing to move down since they could use any position.

TT shows flexibility.


When TT said he's not his fathers son, but this time he felt it was appropriate, I think he was making a little fun at the people who think they know what he's about. He's about opportunity and adjusts per situation.

Good observation, and that might be what we saw.

TT made no bones about his draft board having multiple players rated on the same level, and he was willing to move to the tail end of that level and pick up any of the players so rated. Maybe his strategy this time around was to move to the head of the level to get the player rated that way, but also the position he wanted. A subtle twist, and maybe not maximizing value, because you're chasing the draft instead of letting it come to you - previously he would've let other GMs pick and if they grabbed players below the level they pushed more to you - and that doesn't happen when you move up. Still, it's hard to fault it, and I think other GMs (Holmgren excepted!) were zigging in the TT fashion, so he zagged.