Summary of Packer Trades

[Patler]

My apologies if someone has already done this in another thread.
I like to look at the combined effect of the trades.
First, the individual trades:

#55 for #61 & #173
#88 for #93 & #216
#93 for #109, #146 & #224
#146 & #173 for #125.

If you sum it up, cancelling out the picks that were acquired and subsequently traded, this is what the Packers did during the draft:

#55 & #88 were traded for #61, #109, #125, #216 and #224.

[Guiness]

Only one that really bothered me was the first one, #55 for #61 & #173. Moving back 6 spots in the second should've netted them more than a 6th round pick. One pick later, the Seahawks made an almost identical trade, moved back 6 picks and picked up a 5th and 6th round pick!

I know, these things don't happen in a bubble, you talk to whoever calls, and it was Jim on the line, not John!

[Old School]

I don't put 100% stock in the point system. We should consider that TT didn't trade for points or green stamps. I don't think he thought twice about whether or not he was helping SF. I think his only concern, and it had sure better be, that the moves in the end would benefit the Packer roster.

Nobody here knows the abilities and personalities of the players in the draft TT does; let alone the intimate knowledge of the players on the Packer roster.

[Patler]

That's why I did not attached any point values to the trades, or even identify what round the picks were in, just identified the draft position #s.
It doesn't matter if it is a "4th" round, "5th" round, or whatever.

That said, I agree with Guiness, the first trade looks light; but for that matter, the second one does, too. The extra pick acquired, #216, is essentially a throw-away pick, with value coming as much from shear numbers, as anything.

[Bretsky]

TT gave away the 2nd for a low end JAG because he really didn't care if he ended up with Lacy or Ball. But he still gave it away and the team right behind him got nice value

[Freak Out]

If the Niners really wanted that ILB you would think he could have got more than what he did from them.....

[Smeefers]

If TT had a 6+ guys all rated the same with several avenues he could persue, which would all still make him happy, getting anything extra and still being able to "get your guy" is a plus.

[Carolina_Packer]

I think TT addressed this concern about not getting enough value back for moving back in the 2nd round. Theoretically, if he wanted to sell the pick to move back because he liked enough players to know he was going to get someone he was targeting, so why not get SOMETHING for moving back. It's not like you have hours and unlimited trade partners. Yes, I guess you could call the war rooms of the next several teams that would be picking and ask if they want to move up and how much are you willing to give me. San Fran was the trading partner, I'm sure they said here's what we're offering for the pick, take it or leave it. I'm guessing he didn't have a lot of choices at the time. He could say no thanks to San Fran and take his chances on another team wanting to move up and calling him, but then if he overplays his hand, he's "stuck" with the #55 pick and loses out on moving back and getting an extra pick. We know he's OK with moving back at that point, so the question is just how much can/will he get for it. Yes, as it turns out, it's too bad we didn't know Ozzie was looking to move up and was being more generous, but that could have bit us in the behind if we have to wait one more spot for pick #62 (Baltimore's original spot) because the Seahawks may have just decided to pick Eddie Lacy at #56. You just never know.

[wist43]

I was listening to 1250am, and they were talking about Ted's comments - saying in effect, that TT made these trades on a spur of the moment and didn't really haggle are bother to check value.

TT can take all those trades and shove 'em up his ass - the 2 trade downs from the 3rd round are what really pissed me off. It was at that point that TT passed on a lot of good football players that really could have improved our team.

cbssportsline has a column talking about picks made after the first round that will provide immediate impact for their teams.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/blog/rob-rang/22170351/nfl-draft-12-nonfirst-round-rookies-who-will-make-an-instant-impact

Lot of good players on that list - that many Packerrats had their eye on for improving our team; of course TT would rather throw spitballs at bartenders.

Cyprien, Alonso, Le'Veon Bell, Jamar Taylor, Arthur Brown, Brian Winters, Quintin Patton...

This draft was bizaare, and I don't think - overall - this draft is going to help us much. If Johnson turns out I'll feel better about it, but I don't like the muslim guy; don't think Boyd or either of the LB'ers will make the team - and that's saying something b/c our front seven sucks.

This was not a good draft - even if Jones and Lacy turn out to be players.

[sharpe1027]

The reality is that if you call to initiate a trade you have less leverage than if someone calls you. Can't know all the details but I have to figure the packers might have been the ones actively seeking trading partners on most or all these moves.

It really comes down to trusting your player evaluations. If you can't separate multiple players, then who gives a rip about "points," talking heads, or fans posting on internet forums. If you get anything and still get one of your guys it is a net plus.

[3irty1]

I was listening to 1250am, and they were talking about Ted's comments - saying in effect, that TT made these trades on a spur of the moment and didn't really haggle are bother to check value.

TT can take all those trades and shove 'em up his ass - the 2 trade downs from the 3rd round are what really pissed me off. It was at that point that TT passed on a lot of good football players that really could have improved our team.

cbssportsline has a column talking about picks made after the first round that will provide immediate impact for their teams.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/blog/rob-rang/22170351/nfl-draft-12-nonfirst-round-rookies-who-will-make-an-instant-impact

Lot of good players on that list - that many Packerrats had their eye on for improving our team; of course TT would rather throw spitballs at bartenders.

Cyprien, Alonso, Le'Veon Bell, Jamar Taylor, Arthur Brown, Brian Winters, Quintin Patton...

This draft was bizaare, and I don't think - overall - this draft is going to help us much. If Johnson turns out I'll feel better about it, but I don't like the muslim guy; don't think Boyd or either of the LB'ers will make the team - and that's saying something b/c our front seven sucks.

This was not a good draft - even if Jones and Lacy turn out to be players.

When was the last time a 5th round draft pick didn't make the team in the same year he was drafted? Jamon Meredith? I think you got your blood up, said something stupid that you really didn't mean a day or two ago and now feel like you have to stick to it even now. If that's not the case then nevermind but just so you know it doesn't have to be like that. Everyone knows and loves your internet persona, especially me, and nobody is going to go all ad hominem on you if you walk this statement back from beyond the seven circles of Skip Bayless. I think you're a damn fine poster and a funny guy and I'd like to think we have enough of a relationship that I could do the same with you for the sake of rational argument.

[woodbuck27]

Hi Patler:

Here's something for you to chew on:

Ted Thompson's constant failure to make Draft Trade Transactions and fail to get decent value back for 'the Green Bay Packers'.

Here is one of the biggest reasons that Ted Thompson let me down in this draft. I watched it happen once and was shocked. To watch it happen 2-3-4 times was ridiculous... not acceptable.

Here are the details. Is this really OK?

NFL DRAFT - TRADE VALUE CHART:

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

All Transactions in the 2013 NFL DRAFT:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/0ap10...-all-the-moves

Packers Transactions - 2013 NFL DRAFT:

#4 Transaction Sat. April 27, 2013

Johnathan Franklin drafted by Packers after trade with Broncos

The Packers receive: 2013 fourth-round pick...No. 125: RB Johnathan Franklin

Broncos receive:

2013 fifth-round pick... No. 146 Was Fr. Dolphins: DE Quanterus Smith

and ... 2013 sixth-round pick ... No. 173: Was Fr. 49ers ... OT Vinston Painter

Transaction ... Packers owe Broncos 14 Pts

Surely TT will make this work OK for the Green Bay Packers...NO WAY !

Ted Thompson gives back to the Broncos Rd. 6 Pick #173 or 22.2 Pts.

That's 'a loss' to the Green Bay Packers of 8.2 Pts; or a mid 7th rd. pick value value... gone !

Add it all up and see for yourself what Ted Thompson; 'just' gave away to the 49ers,Dolphins and finally Broncos.

Why did Ted Thompson allow this to happen.

It all adds up to 78 Trade Value Points or Equivalent to a Mid 4th round Pick.

Was that insignificant to Ted Thompson? Just a little spilled milk?

Analysis: The Packers traded up to select another high-profile running back, taking UCLA's Johnathan Franklin. The Packers drafted Alabama running back Eddie Lacy at No. 61 overall Friday.

NFL Network analyst Charles Davis liked the move by the Packers:

"I think this is a big-time value pick. Johnathan Franklin plays bigger than what you think. He's compact, but he'll run inside the tackles. His problem in the past: Putting the ball on the ground." Charles Davis

**********************************************

#3 Transaction: Friday, April 26

Dolphins trade for another third-round pick

Dolphins receive: 2013 third-round pick No. 93: Was Fr. 49ers ... CB Will Davis

The Packers receive:

2013 fourth-round pick No. 109: OT David Bakhtiari

2013 fifth-round pick No. 146: Traded to Broncos

2013 seventh-round pick... No. 224: WR Kevin Dorsey

This trade is worth 52 Pts back to the Packers. We 'only' got 33 + 2 = 35 Pts back.

The -ve differential >>> Dolphins = 17 Pts or on the Trade Value Chart = Rd. 6 (26) Pick # 126 overall.

TT's taken again !

Analysis: The Dolphins continued to make moves in the third round of the 2013 NFL Draft, sending three picks to the Packers in order to select Utah State cornerback Will Davis at No. 93 overall.

NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock didn't see Davis going in the third round: "I had a fifth-round grade on Davis. But he's a man corner with good ball skills. He'll be physical."

**********************************************

#2 Transaction:Friday April 26, 2013

San Fran 49ers make deal with Packers to draft DE Corey Lemonier

49ers receive:2013 third-round pick ...No. 88: DE Corey Lemonier

Packers receive: 2013 third-round pick...No. 93: (Traded to Dolphins)

2013 seventh-round pick ... No. 216: WR Charles Johnson

Trade Value to Packers Fr. San Fran 49ers = 22 Pts

7th Rd. #216 = 5 Pts

SO ... The San Fran 49ers now take Ted Thompson and the Green Bay Packers down for:

17 Pts + 35.8 Pts = Total of 52.8 Pts or equiv. to a 4th Round Pick (25) # 121 overall.

Why did Ted Thompson let this slide by him 'not just one but two times'?

Take or 'Fool' me once 'shame on you'...Take or (fool) me twice, 'shame on me'.

AND It doesn't end there.... See Ted Thompson's 3rd and 4th Transactions in his 2013 DRAFT. He gets take down two (2) more times. In total in this draft; Ted Thompson is used like a doormat four times. TT gets 'taken downtown' in all four (4) transactions in this draft.

Why... Packer fans?

Analysis: The 49ers went after a pass rusher in the third round, drafting Auburn defensive end Corey Lemonier at No. 88 after trading two picks to the Packers.

NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock likes what Lemonier could provide the Niners: "Fits what they do. Kind of a somewhat conflicted pick in the sense that his talent would be a late-first to late-second round."

************************************************

#1 Transaction: Friday April 26, 2013

San Fran 49ers move up in second round

49ers receive: 2013 second-round pick ...No. 55: TE Vance McDonald

Packers receive:

2013 second-round pick ...No. 61: RB Eddie Lacy

2013 sixth-round pick...No. 173: (Traded to the Broncos)

Trade up Fr. #61 >>> #55 San Fran owes Packers 58 Pts. Trade Value

Note #173 = 22.2 Pts

San Fran 49ers took Ted Thompson down for 35.8 Pts in this transaction. That's worth a value equivalent to a mid 5th Rd. pick. They won't get away with that 'trick' again.... or will they?

See Transaction #2 with San Fran 49ers where Packers GM Ted Thompson gets taken again, by The San Fran 49ers.

Analysis: The 49ers moved up six picks in the second round by shipping two 2013 selections to the Packers.

Rice's Vance McDonald is considered one of the top tight ends available in the draft.

[Fritz]

I was listening to 1250am, and they were talking about Ted's comments - saying in effect, that TT made these trades on a spur of the moment and didn't really haggle are bother to check value.

TT can take all those trades and shove 'em up his ass - the 2 trade downs from the 3rd round are what really pissed me off. It was at that point that TT passed on a lot of good football players that really could have improved our team.

cbssportsline has a column talking about picks made after the first round that will provide immediate impact for their teams.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/blog/rob-rang/22170351/nfl-draft-12-nonfirst-round-rookies-who-will-make-an-instant-impact

Lot of good players on that list - that many Packerrats had their eye on for improving our team; of course TT would rather throw spitballs at bartenders.

Cyprien, Alonso, Le'Veon Bell, Jamar Taylor, Arthur Brown, Brian Winters, Quintin Patton...

This draft was bizaare, and I don't think - overall - this draft is going to help us much. If Johnson turns out I'll feel better about it, but I don't like the muslim guy; don't think Boyd or either of the LB'ers will make the team - and that's saying something b/c our front seven sucks.

This was not a good draft - even if Jones and Lacy turn out to be players.

I just don't know. It seems wrong that TT didn't get as much in return for trading back as Seattle did, but as others have noted, the situation is fluid and who knows what went down, exactly?

The answer to whether this was all TT getting ripped off or not lies in the future. It will all depend on how this turns out. The year TT traded down or traded Favre (I don't remember) which) and picked up an extra second, I and a few other Packerrats were crowing about the genius of TT, getting that important second rounder. Then he picked Brian Brohm, and I read the scouts' reports, and he seemed like the perfect fit for GB - a guy they could develop over time.

And we all know how that turned out.

I was also incensed the year TT got hosed by The Hoody Genius - Thompson gave up a second and two thirds, or something insanely crazy, to move up into the #26 spot in the first round, I think. He took some pretty lowly rated linebacker there, and I thought TT was stoopid.

That was, of course, Clay Matthews.

So it all depends on how these guys turn out.

[Gunakor]

Can't believe people sweat PICK values this much. PICKS don't win football games, PLAYERS do.

Take Woody's first example for instance. Yes, we lost out on trade value re: the picks themselves, but we got Jonathan Franklin. Jonathan Franklin is probably comes with the most value of all the players selected with the picks traded in that deal for either team. In fact, it's probably not even gonna be close. While we lost a bit in terms of value of the pick, we won big time in terms of value of the player. Which do you think is more important come September?

[Fritz]

Can't believe people sweat PICK values this much. PICKS don't win football games, PLAYERS do.

Take Woody's first example for instance. Yes, we lost out on trade value re: the picks themselves, but we got Jonathan Franklin. Jonathan Franklin is probably comes with the most value of all the players selected with the picks traded in that deal for either team. In fact, it's probably not even gonna be close. While we lost a bit in terms of value of the pick, we won big time in terms of value of the player. Which do you think is more important come September?

I was just reading McCarthy's responses in what I think was his post-draft press conference, and I found something he said to be very revealing. He said "I really like the way Ted was able to space out the picks because we felt we were able to grab a player 26, 27, was the farthest gap we had between picks. That really helped us today."

To me, this suggests that the Packers had tiers of players, maybe twenty-five or thirty players per tier, and so the idea was to trade back as long as you could stay in the same tier by doing so. The Franklin trade-up may have come because they liked the kid - maybe he was in a tier above - so they decided he was worth giving up one of those picks. But MM's emphasis on the spacing - every 26 or 27 picks - suggests that he liked the way this fell with the Packers' board and the tiers they developed. He seemed pretty pleased, at least as the words looked on the page.

[sharpe1027]

Theoretically, they traded down and selected one of the same players that they would have taken anyway. That allowed them to trade back up later to get a player that they otherwise not have gotten. Unless all their same tier players were selected between their original pick and their actual pick it is a net gain.

People that say they missed out on players are probably wrong because the packers probably didn't rate these supposedly missed players higher. Thus they are just as likely to have drafted the exact same player several spots earlier.

[sharpe1027]

double post

[Gunakor]

#1 Transaction: Friday April 26, 2013

San Fran 49ers move up in second round

49ers receive: 2013 second-round pick ...No. 55: TE Vance McDonald

Packers receive:

2013 second-round pick ...No. 61: RB Eddie Lacy

2013 sixth-round pick...No. 173: (Traded to the Broncos)

Trade up Fr. #61 >>> #55 San Fran owes Packers 58 Pts. Trade Value

Note #173 = 22.2 Pts

San Fran 49ers took Ted Thompson down for 35.8 Pts in this transaction. That's worth a value equivalent to a mid 5th Rd. pick. They won't get away with that 'trick' again.... or will they?

See Transaction #2 with San Fran 49ers where Packers GM Ted Thompson gets taken again, by The San Fran 49ers.

Analysis: The 49ers moved up six picks in the second round by shipping two 2013 selections to the Packers.

Rice's Vance McDonald is considered one of the top tight ends available in the draft.

Eddie Lacey is considered THE top RB in the draft. And a top tier RB is much more valuable than a top tier TE. Sure, you could make the case that we could have just drafted Lacy at #55, but what would that accomplish? GB doesn't have the pick used to trade up for Franklin, and SF doesn't have McDonald. Would this scenario be any better for Green Bay once they buckle their chinstraps and play the game?

This is another example of another team winning on pick value, yet Green Bay gets the more ACTUAL value. Winner: Ted Thompson, as usual.

[Patler]

Can't believe people sweat PICK values this much. PICKS don't win football games, PLAYERS do.

Take Woody's first example for instance. Yes, we lost out on trade value re: the picks themselves, but we got Jonathan Franklin. Jonathan Franklin is probably comes with the most value of all the players selected with the picks traded in that deal for either team. In fact, it's probably not even gonna be close. While we lost a bit in terms of value of the pick, we won big time in terms of value of the player. Which do you think is more important come September?

That's exactly the point. TT traded up not to get the #125 pick, but to get a player that he apparently valued much higher than the #125 slot. The earlier trades accumulating picks allowed him to do that.

That's why I think the intermediate transactions are irrelevant, its the accumulated effect that matters. In effect, he traded #55 & #88 for #61, #109, #125, #216 and #224.

The only opportunities he lost were to draft the players selected from #55 to #60, who would have been available had he stayed at #55 but were gone when he picked at #61, and the players selected from #88 through #108, who would have been available had he stayed at #88, but were gone when he picked at #109. For that, he received #125, #216 and #224. Let's break that into the details:

In the first instance, rather than drafting Eddie Lacy, he could have drafted:
- Vance McDonald
- Arthur Brown
- D.J Swearinger
- Montee Ball
- Aaron Dobson
- Robert Alford
Who from that group would have been a better pick for the Packers? I'm not suggesting that no one was, because I don't know. But that is all that matters, because anyone else could have been drafted when Lacy was. The trades took away the opportunity of drafting those 6, and nothing more, at that point.

In the second instance, the opportunity lost was to draft any of the following:
- Corey Lemonier
- Brennan Williams
- Keyvon Webster
- Duron Harmon
- Stedman Bailey
- Will Davis
- Brandon Williams
- Sam Montgomery
- Knile Davis
- Zaviar Gooden
- Matt Barkley
- Nico Johnson
- Akeem Spence
- Ace Sanders
- Josh Boyce
- Alex Okafor
- Jelani Jenkins
- Duke Williams
- Dion Sims
- Brian Schwenke
- Edmund Kugbilla
Instead, the Packers got David Bakhtiari, who I have little feeling for one way or another.

In return for all of that, the Packers were able to assure themselves of getting Franklin at #125, and then everyone who followed. We can't say for sure that it allowed them to get Franklin, because maybe he would have continued to fall and would have been available anyway; but the trades assured them of getting him.

So, was the surety of getting Franklin, and the benefit of a couple added picks that turned into Johnson and Dorsey worth the missed opportunities on the above 27 players? That is what it comes down to.

I will leave it up to those of you who study the draft a lot more than I do to debate that,

[smuggler]

Excellent post, Patler.

[pbmax]

Why do I get the feeling that every Rat worried about trade values being a match or a win has never bought anything below retail price?

Its all about leverage and motivation, there is no single list that can accommodate the relative value for each team in each transaction.

I bet, but do not know, that the Packers really wanted to go down near the 49ers pick and did not find many takers. The Seahawks had an offer from a team that really wanted to trade up and did not have better options.

[3irty1]

Why do I get the feeling that every Rat worried about trade values being a match or a win has never bought anything below retail price?

Its all about leverage and motivation, there is no single list that can accommodate the relative value for each team in each transaction.

I bet, but do not know, that the Packers really wanted to go down near the 49ers pick and did not find many takers. The Seahawks had an offer from a team that really wanted to trade up and did not have better options.

This. Any discrepancy in value between trades could easily be explained by the negotiating leverage of being called vs being the one to call. I'd expect GM's receiving offers on the phone to be in a more powerful position whether trading up or down.

[rbaloha1]

The draft chart is only a guide not the holy grail.

On the other hand, the 2 point chart is an ancient proven chart that is continually used without thought.

[wist43]

When was the last time a 5th round draft pick didn't make the team in the same year he was drafted? Jamon Meredith? I think you got your blood up, said something stupid that you really didn't mean a day or two ago and now feel like you have to stick to it even now. If that's not the case then nevermind but just so you know it doesn't have to be like that. Everyone knows and loves your internet persona, especially me, and nobody is going to go all ad hominem on you if you walk this statement back from beyond the seven circles of Skip Bayless. I think you're a damn fine poster and a funny guy and I'd like to think we have enough of a relationship that I could do the same with you for the sake of rational argument.

Yeah, my bloods up... but I'm not happy about the draft. I wouldn't stick with an argument if I didn't think it had merit. I'm very, very frustrated with TT. I hate their philosophy for offensive linemen and how our running game is designed. I was hoping that MM would admit defeat and incorporate some power into the playbook and pick some tougher players.

I'm sick and tired of "versatile" lineman and musical chairs on the OL. There's been less of that b/c Sitton and Lang have stayed healthy; but the Packers prefer a certain type of OL, and that hasn't changed. The muslim guy was the smallest OT available in the draft - just more of the same. 8 years of this shit!!!

And on defense... I'm thinking TT and MM couldn't bring themselves to watch the debacle in SF. I've warmed up to Jones, have my doubts about whether he can hold up as a full time player, but I do like Jones. That said, we still don't have 2-gap NT outside of Pickett. I guess when you only play 2 defensive linemen at a time, you don't need a fat guy to stop the run??

No, my frustration has boiled over with TT... this is just more of the same. I really do see our SB win as a fart in the wind; Howard Green, Jarret Bush, and Frank Zombo all made big plays in the SB - none of those guys is really a player though, except Green, he was just old - and everyone else played at an insane level, from which they've since returned to earth. It was just one of those cosmic things... everythng aligned, and we brought a Lombardi Trophy home.

Had we not gone on that run, and had Rodgers not turned out?? We'd be screaming for TT's head, b/c the rest of the team is pretty shaky without Rodgers covering for them.

[woodbuck27]

Can't believe people sweat PICK values this much. PICKS don't win football games, PLAYERS do.

Take Woody's first example for instance. Yes, we lost out on trade value re: the picks themselves, but we got Jonathan Franklin. Jonathan Franklin is probably comes with the most value of all the players selected with the picks traded in that deal for either team. In fact, it's probably not even gonna be close. While we lost a bit in terms of value of the pick, we won big time in terms of value of the player. Which do you think is more important come September?

I agree on that basis:

Jonathan Franklin was a sweet pick for TT and by far in terms of 'just the draft performance'. That was Ted Thompson's crowning move in this draft.

He traded up to snatch this solid prospect at RB. To do that he had extra pics to do so. We 'only' had Pick #122 in the 4th Rd. at the beginning of the draft.

The value and Johnathan Franklin was more than, just solid. Looking at it all in hindsight that move ROCKED.

It added a little insurance too (Eddie Lacy). A smart move.

GO PACK GO !

[3irty1]

Yeah, my bloods up... but I'm not happy about the draft. I wouldn't stick with an argument if I didn't think it had merit. I'm very, very frustrated with TT. I hate their philosophy for offensive linemen and how our running game is designed. I was hoping that MM would admit defeat and incorporate some power into the playbook and pick some tougher players.

I'm sick and tired of "versatile" lineman and musical chairs on the OL. There's been less of that b/c Sitton and Lang have stayed healthy; but the Packers prefer a certain type of OL, and that hasn't changed. The muslim guy was the smallest OT available in the draft - just more of the same. 8 years of this shit!!!

And on defense... I'm thinking TT and MM couldn't bring themselves to watch the debacle in SF. I've warmed up to Jones, have my doubts about whether he can hold up as a full time player, but I do like Jones. That said, we still don't have 2-gap NT outside of Pickett. I guess when you only play 2 defensive linemen at a time, you don't need a fat guy to stop the run??

No, my frustration has boiled over with TT... this is just more of the same. I really do see our SB win as a fart in the wind; Howard Green, Jarret Bush, and Frank Zombo all made big plays in the SB - none of those guys is really a player though, except Green, he was just old - and everyone else played at an insane level, from which they've since returned to earth. It was just one of those cosmic things... everythng aligned, and we brought a Lombardi Trophy home.

Had we not gone on that run, and had Rodgers not turned out?? We'd be screaming for TT's head, b/c the rest of the team is pretty shaky without Rodgers covering for them.

Building what we've got on the OL has been a miserably slow process with not nearly as much shit sticking to the wall as we'd like. Injuries multiply the bullshit as well. For the most part Musical chairs has slowed down and now just seems like an injury thing. What's going to get my blood up is when we finally do find 5 guys and then start to lose them to the cap. Unless the football gods are truly pricks and we lose 4 or 5 starters this year... we can at least take solace that the units in better shape than it was at this time in 2012.

On the DL It helps that I imagine exactly what it would look like if the group we had performed well this year. Raji is Raji. Pickett has just always been a stud for us. Neal will probably get an expanded role and go nuts this year because its a contract year and he's a fucker. Jones is talented, Wilson does well against the run, I think Boyd will be like Wilson, Daniels is a solid guy from the inside on 3rd down, and then on top of it all we've got a chance to get some more John Jolly. Could be worse.

Most disappointing thing for me after this draft is that we're sunk again if we lose a starting OLB. All the best defenses are 2 or 3 deep there and that position seems to correlate with postseason success.

[woodbuck27]

Eddie Lacey is considered THE top RB in the draft. And a top tier RB is much more valuable than a top tier TE. Sure, you could make the case that we could have just drafted Lacy at #55, but what would that accomplish? GB doesn't have the pick used to trade up for Franklin, and SF doesn't have McDonald. Would this scenario be any better for Green Bay once they buckle their chinstraps and play the game?

This is another example of another team winning on pick value, yet Green Bay gets the more ACTUAL value. Winner: Ted Thompson, as usual.

I have zero problem with TT trading down here as I'm assuming that he felt he could still get Eddie Lacy at Pick #61. Maybe he wanted some added insurance of that (along with an extra pick) or maybe? had an agreement in with the 49ers to 'be hands off' in term of Eddie lacy. Thus the defficiency of the return? I don't really know. Such cannot be analyzed 'in reality'.

My beef (is somewhat) a trade at all with the 49ers; but moreso, that they screwed TT on that trade and again in Rd. 3. I mean ... that shit pushed my buttons.

PACKERS !

[woodbuck27]

That's exactly the point. TT traded up not to get the #125 pick, but to get a player that he apparently valued much higher than the #125 slot. The earlier trades accumulating picks allowed him to do that.

That's why I think the intermediate transactions are irrelevant, its the accumulated effect that matters. In effect, he traded #55 & #88 for #61, #109, #125, #216 and #224.

The only opportunities he lost were to draft the players selected from #55 to #60, who would have been available had he stayed at #55 but were gone when he picked at #61, and the players selected from #88 through #108, who would have been available had he stayed at #88, but were gone when he picked at #109. For that, he received #125, #216 and #224. Let's break that into the details:

In the first instance, rather than drafting Eddie Lacy, he could have drafted:
- Vance McDonald
- Arthur Brown
- D.J Swearinger
- Montee Ball
- Aaron Dobson
- Robert Alford
Who from that group would have been a better pick for the Packers? I'm not suggesting that no one was, because I don't know. But that is all that matters, because anyone else could have been drafted when Lacy was. The trades took away the opportunity of drafting those 6, and nothing more, at that point.

In the second instance, the opportunity lost was to draft any of the following:
- Corey Lemonier
- Brennan Williams
- Keyvon Webster
- Duron Harmon
- Stedman Bailey
- Will Davis
- Brandon Williams
- Sam Montgomery
- Knile Davis
- Zaviar Gooden
- Matt Barkley
- Nico Johnson
- Akeem Spence
- Ace Sanders
- Josh Boyce
- Alex Okafor
- Jelani Jenkins
- Duke Williams
- Dion Sims
- Brian Schwenke
- Edmund Kugbilla
Instead, the Packers got David Bakhtiari, who I have little feeling for one way or another.

In return for all of that, the Packers were able to assure themselves of getting Franklin at #125, and then everyone who followed. We can't say for sure that it allowed them to get Franklin, because maybe he would have continued to fall and would have been available anyway; but the trades assured them of getting him.

So, was the surety of getting Franklin, and the benefit of a couple added picks that turned into Johnson and Dorsey worth the missed opportunities on the above 27 players? That is what it comes down to.

I will leave it up to those of you who study the draft a lot more than I do to debate that,

Patler as it went he might have drafted Johnathan Franklin Rd. 4 Pick #122.

I think 'the real wild card' to watch... is the player he actually chose at Rd. 4 Pick #122 or OT J. C Tretter.

TT had many options at Rd. 4 Pick #122.... 'just at OT', instead of J.C. Tretter.

At the beginning of his Sat. draft (Rd.4) Ted Thompson had already gained Rd. 4 Pick #109; Rd. 5 Pick # 146 and Rd. 7 Pick #224 Fr. the Dolphins Fr. Friday nights Rd. 3 Pick transaction....Rd. 3 Pick #93.

Ted Thompson had to recover from the San Fran 49ers beating... he took in his first two transactions with them.

We had a scrub 6 Rd. Pick # 173 Fr. the cheating San Fran 49ers. Ted's over generosoty allowing them to trade up from #61 >>>#55 in Rd. 2.

We had another 'sexy' ...7th Rd. Pick #216 From 'the High and Mighty' San Fran 49ers flipping our #88 for their #93 Pick.

You know what I concluded from it all so far:

Now TT never has to worry about finding a trade partner in future drafts. San Francisco loves picking the Green Bay Packers pocket.

[Patler]

Sure he could have taken Franklin at #122, but apparently he valued Trotter more. His trades allowed him to take both.

[smuggler]

Whether we take Lacy at 55 or 61 does not matter. If we were going to get Lacy anyway, why not pick up whatever we could get as well?

The 2nd trade is less defensible. I agree.

[Patler]

Whether we take Lacy at 55 or 61 does not matter. If we were going to get Lacy anyway, why not pick up whatever we could get as well?

The 2nd trade is less defensible. I agree.

Maybe the third even more so than the second???
The second trade moved him only a little, from #88 to #93. But then he turned around and dropped even lower by trading #93.

[woodbuck27]

Maybe the third even more so than the second???
The second trade moved him only a little, from #88 to #93. But then he turned around and dropped even lower by trading #93.

There's the rub and the weakness in TT's strategy. Trading 'just once' again with San Fran was sketchy. Two times>>>Ohh boy>>>come on!?

How much of that and getting back so little two times fr. the same trading partner (the 49ers)!?

Prompted TT to try to re-coup by slipping out of Rd. 3 with no pick. After a trade of 3rd Rd pick #93?

Maybe TT was simply on a rampage of need to trade down as evidenced by him doing that for the third time trading Rd. 3 Pick #93 to the Dolphins on Friday night.

Ted Thompson loves using lots of picks. Ted Thompson actually believes that 'more' less quality >>> is better.

Amazing. :shock:

I call that strategy >>>more confusion>>>more disappointment.

No more nor less.

I'm not going to point at another debatable right or wrong in Ted Thompson's draft. I'm trying to direct the focus 'right there' ... to Round Three. How could he possibly justify trading out of Round Three? He had many solid options to pick from there.

Clearly he passed on better prospects in terms of measurement and College Football Programs. That doesn't add up to solid sense.

GO PACK GO !

[Patler]

If so, which of the 21 missed opportunities should he have jumped on?

[smuggler]

I think TT tried the same thing he did in the 2nd round again in the third and his guy got selected in front of him. I also would have taken Brandon Williams at #93 instead of trading back.

TT knows more about those specific players than me. If there was a problem with Brandon Williams, they you've got to pass. If Schwenke doesn't look just absolutely awesome, you can't trade up in the 4th. It wasn't obvious that the Titans would take him, all the same. 20/20 hindsight.

[Patler]

As for the two trades with SF, if you assume he had at least 7 equally weighted players at #55, and at least 6 equally weighted players at #88. does it matter who SF drafts, or who is left for the Packers? Getting anything at all from SF is net advantage to GB, is it not?

The Packers were fleeced in the first only if you conclude that #55 has vastly more potential than #61.
They were fleeced in the second only if you conclude that #88 has vastly more potential than #93.

[woodbuck27]

If so, which of the 21 missed opportunities should he have jumped on?

Who is my pick?

With this fella sitting there at Pick Rd. 3 #88. The pick would have been easy:

Hint #1: You know what I've posted about TT's pick at Rd. 1 Pick #26. Your aware of the potential for a catostrophy on our DL.

Hint #2: As Bretsky has posted. You know which player in that list was pimped around here the most at Packerrats.

Who is my Pick?

Hint #3: He's very strong and drafted by the Baltimore Ravens.

That 'Big Man' would have been hard to resist as my pick.

Hint #4: His initials are B. W.

That 'Big Man' and use Rd. 4 Pick #122 to grab RB Johnathan Franklin (maybe?) or draft from several other options at Rd. 4 Pick #122.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

I think TT tried the same thing he did in the 2nd round again in the third and his guy got selected in front of him. I also would have taken Brandon Williams at #93 instead of trading back.

So you think he targeted one or several players who were available at #88, and he thought at least one would still be available at #93; but all were gone when #93 rolled around, so he traded down from #93? Certainly is a plausible scenario. That would be the following players:

- Corey Lemonier
- Brennan Williams
- Keyvon Webster
- Duron Harmon
- Stedman Bailey

[woodbuck27]

As for the two trades with SF, if you assume he had at least 7 equally weighted players at #55, and at least 6 equally weighted players at #88. does it matter who SF drafts, or who is left for the Packers? Getting anything at all from SF is net advantage to GB, is it not?

The Packers were fleeced in the first only if you conclude that #55 has vastly more potential than #61.
They were fleeced in the second only if you conclude that #88 has vastly more potential than #93.

Ohh your tricky Patler...nice try:

Your argument is like TT's drafting strategy:

Unfortunately...

It's.............................................. ........................... 'watered down'.

Too far .................................................. .................right of 'CENTER'.

TT traded that Rd. 3 Pick #93 to the Dolphins. Your aware of that.

I Edited this for a reason...maybe your going to be fair Patler. Post to discover in good faith.


GO PACKERS !

[Patler]

Who is my pick?

With this fella sitting there at Pick Rd. 3 #88. The pick would have been easy:

Hint #1: You know what I've posted about TT's pick at Rd. 1 Pick #26. Your aware of the potential for a catostrophy on our DL.

Hint #2: As Bretsky has posted. You know which player in that list was pimped around here the most at Packerrats.

Who is my Pick?

Hint #3: He's very strong and drafted by the Baltimore Ravens.

That 'Big Man' would have been hard to resist as my pick.

Hint #4: His initials are B. W.

That 'Big Man' and use Rd. 4 Pick #122 to grab RB Johnathan Franklin (maybe?) or draft from several other options at Rd. 4 Pick #122.

PACKERS !

So for you it was all about Brandon Williams?
Williams and someone at #122 (Bakhtiari or Tretter, presumably, because he passed on Franklin to take Tretter, and he passed on Tretter to take Bakhtiari) is preferable to Bakhtiari, Tretter and Franklin?

Not arguing, just want to be sure I understand your position.

[woodbuck27]

So you think he targeted one or several players who were available at #88, and he thought at least one would still be available at #93; but all were gone when #93 rolled around, so he traded down from #93? Certainly is a plausible scenario. That would be the following players:

- Corey Lemonier
- Brennan Williams
- Keyvon Webster
- Duron Harmon
- Stedman Bailey

As I saw it TT's best Option DT Brandon Williams was on the board at Rd.3 Pick #88 and still there after he traded down with San Fran to Rd. 3 Pick #93.

The Baltimore Ravens picked DT Brandon Williams Rd. 3 Pick #94.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

Ohh your tricky Patler...nice try:

Your argument is like TT's drafting strategy:

Unfortunately...

It's.............................................. ........................... 'watered down'.

Too far .................................................. .................right of 'CENTER'.

TT traded that Rd. 3 Pick #93 to the Dolphins. Your aware of that.

I Edited this for a reason...maybe your going to be fair Patler. Post to discover in good faith.


GO PACKERS !

I replied to your unedited post, with your original posted quoted in it, so hopefully my response made sense.

As to this edited version, I don't get what you think was tricky. I simply referred to the two SF trades. I know he subsequently traded #93. I specifically identified it in my original post when I started this thread. What does that have to do with SF getting the best of him? Some have suggested that he was fleeced by SF. Maybe so, but in determining if he was or wasn't fleeced by SF the subsequent trade of #93 to Miami is irrelevant.

[Patler]

As I saw it TT's best Option DT Brandon Williams was on the board at Rd.3 Pick #88 and still there after he traded down with San Fran to Rd. 3 Pick #93.

The Baltimore Ravens picked DT Brandon Williams Rd. 3 Pick #94.

PACKERS !

So his real error was in the Miami trade, not the ones with SF in your opinion?

TT must not have been too high on Williams, because I doubt he expected him to last to #122, or at least he valued him no higher than the group he expected to be available at #122.

[smuggler]

He must not have. According to some sources, the Packers were targeting WR Stedman Bailey with the #93 pick. The Falcons traded out of #92 and the Packers lost him to the Rams.

So, no, TT was not targeting Brandon Williams.

[pbmax]

Ted Thompson loves using lots of picks. Ted Thompson actually believes that 'more' less quality >>> is better.

Amazing. :shock:


Please tell me you are joking here, you cannot actually believe that. If you did, how could you possibly explain trading up for Matthews, Morgan Burnett or Jonathan Franklin?

[woodbuck27]

So for you it was all about Brandon Williams?
Williams and someone at #122 (Bakhtiari or Tretter, presumably, because he passed on Franklin to take Tretter, and he passed on Tretter to take Bakhtiari) is preferable to Bakhtiari, Tretter and Franklin?

Not arguing, just want to be sure I understand your position.

No Patler.

"So for you it was all about Brandon Williams?" Patler

It wasn't all about Brandon Williams.

a) It's about TT watering down 'OUR' draft.

b) It's about his ego need to get lots of picks and thereby reducing the quality of the draft class overall.

c) It's about trading with partners and constantly getting hosed in those transactions. Four transactions and four times TT get's used badly. Him allowing that to serve his wrong agenda>>>more and >>>more picks>>> to serve his incredible EGO.

I could go on.

By the way Patler. Trying any mind game on this issue won't gain you any points. In a losing position. If this was a game of chess. I'd right now >>> advise you to re-sign.


It's very simple. Just like always. Play the HOMER Card.

You can cast me aside. I'll even offer you an alternative.

Try your best to simply pay a respect and read Wist43's scores of posts. Maybe... simply read a dozen of his posts firmly centered on TT's performance in this draft. That poster is busting his ass to help all Packer fans here see a better way. TT didn't demonstrate that better way on Saturday.

Just try to read Wist43. He certainly deserves such respect because he's knocked himself out. He gives it all up for Packerrats.Then (maybe??) you will understand better what this debate is about.

If I give it up? Act stupid and go to a specific player ie Brandon Williams or act emotional over any possible pick that TT passed on whenever he decided to us a pick.

Then you paint me in a corner. I'm not going to allow that Patler.

Otherwise if I just give it up. What do you learn Patler? Even you have room to learn. I learn daily.

GO PACK GO !

[Guiness]

I think TT tried the same thing he did in the 2nd round again in the third and his guy got selected in front of him. I also would have taken Brandon Williams at #93 instead of trading back.

TT knows more about those specific players than me. If there was a problem with Brandon Williams, they you've got to pass. If Schwenke doesn't look just absolutely awesome, you can't trade up in the 4th. It wasn't obvious that the Titans would take him, all the same. 20/20 hindsight.

Why so much talk of Schwenke? I've never heard of him, makes me think of the Hymie from the Bryce Courtney novel!

[smuggler]

Schwenke was the 2nd rated center in the draft, (apparently) healthy and productive through his collegiate career. He was originally projected by pretty much everyone in the 3rd round. He became the 2nd center off the board in the 4th round.

The Rats were hoping for him because of value - he might be better than Frederick, but probably wouldn't be much worse, even though he was selected almost 3 full rounds later.

Here's the article about Stedman Bailey in the 3rd round. According to the new Harvard trade value chart, we straight fleeced the Dolphins after losing out on Bailey. Their numbers are based on the fact that, mathematically, after some point in round 3, every player is (nearly) equal chance of busting or contributing.

http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/point-of-veau-did-thompson-get-fleeced-or-is-he-smart-as-a-fox

The trouble with any standard chart is that it's not intuitive and does not adjust to the makeup of the player draft pool. That's true of the old school one or the newschool.

[woodbuck27]

Please tell me you are joking here, you cannot actually believe that. If you did, how could you possibly explain trading up for Matthews, Morgan Burnett or Jonathan Franklin?

Please take the time to view his post draft interview with the media. You'll only require about 10:50 to see it all. At 2:16 into the video...Ted Thompson backs me up. Watching the entire video is very interesting. By the way TT looks good. Not at all wasted. Some of the things he says....well that's Ted. It's obvious he's never had a speech coach. I'm not even sure he's any more comfortable before the media, as he was back when he became our team's GM.... Jan. 14, 2005.

Here's the VIDEO:

Posted: Apr 27, 2013

Ted Thompson: 2013 Draft increases competition

Green Bay General Manager Ted Thompson recaps the team's selections at the close of the 2013 NFL Draft.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Ted-Thompson-2013-Draft-increases-competition/0da085ab-d3b9-4592-bc87-15ceb830ae5c

pb:

I don't use trickery nor lie. I hardly entertain or resort to such nonsence.

I'm as straight in as any man can be.

GO PACK GO!

[pbmax]

I'm as straight in as any man can be.

"The more picks, the better" does not equate at all to "'more' less quality >>> is better".

The first statement is a truism, almost a tautology, significant only for the fact that it calls to mind, like a baseball hitter, that you are going to miss a certain percentage of the time.

The second statement is an unequivocal endorsement of fewer quality players for additional, less talented players. Not only is this a faulty definition of Thompson's quote, it is directly contradicts his immediately previous statement: "We felt that draft was pretty solid through the middle rounds".

That is a clear acknowledgement that good quality, similarly rated players, were plentiful in the mid-rounds.

[Patler]

No Patler.

"So for you it was all about Brandon Williams?" Patler

It wasn't all about Brandon Williams.

a) It's about TT watering down 'OUR' draft.

b) It's about his ego need to get lots of picks and thereby reducing the quality of the draft class overall.

c) It's about trading with partners and constantly getting hosed in those transactions. Four transactions and four times TT get's used badly. Him allowing that to serve his wrong agenda>>>more and >>>more picks>>> to serve his incredible EGO.

I could go on.

By the way Patler. Trying any mind game on this issue won't gain you any points. In a losing position. If this was a game of chess. I'd right now >>> advise you to re-sign.


It's very simple. Just like always. Play the HOMER Card.

You can cast me aside. I'll even offer you an alternative.

Try your best to simply pay a respect and read Wist43's scores of posts. Maybe... simply read a dozen of his posts firmly centered on TT's performance in this draft. That poster is busting his ass to help all Packer fans here see a better way. TT didn't demonstrate that better way on Saturday.

Just try to read Wist43. He certainly deserves such respect because he's knocked himself out. He gives it all up for Packerrats.Then (maybe??) you will understand better what this debate is about.

If I give it up? Act stupid and go to a specific player ie Brandon Williams or act emotional over any possible pick that TT passed on whenever he decided to us a pick.

Then you paint me in a corner. I'm not going to allow that Patler.

Otherwise if I just give it up. What do you learn Patler? Even you have room to learn. I learn daily.

GO PACK GO !

Well excuse me if I misunderstood you (again). I understood from your post that Brandon Williams was the player you identified as the one that TT should have taken when he was available at #93, instead of trading down with Miami. If that isn't what you meant, again I apologize, but then I have no clue where you are coming from on this whole trade discussion.

I'm not sure where to even begin this discussion, at the second trade with SF, or the third trade with Miami?

Ive read Wists posts, responded to several and agreed with him on a couple.

[woodbuck27]

I replied to your unedited post, with your original posted quoted in it, so hopefully my response made sense.

As to this edited version, I don't get what you think was tricky. I simply referred to the two SF trades. I know he subsequently traded #93. I specifically identified it in my original post when I started this thread. What does that have to do with SF getting the best of him? Some have suggested that he was fleeced by SF. Maybe so, but in determining if he was or wasn't fleeced by SF the subsequent trade of #93 to Miami is irrelevant.

I revised this post from the original as I decided to trust you.This (below) is the revision:

" Ohh your tricky Patler...nice try:

Your argument is like TT's drafting strategy:

Unfortunately...

It's.............................................. ........................... 'watered down'.

Too far .................................................. .................right of 'CENTER'.

TT traded that Rd. 3 Pick #93 to the Dolphins. Your aware of that.

I Edited this for a reason...maybe your going to be fair Patler. Post to discover in good faith."

GO PACKERS !

The above is the Edited Version of an original post.

You and >>> me seeing the tricky part (in you) real or imagined:

I'll try to explain Patler:

It appears to me that you must protect the reputation of 'Patler'.

It appears that you often post to support you winning...impressing the gallery. To debate to win.

I post to discover. I'm not into impressing anyone. I'm here to learn and expand myself as a Green Bay Packer and NFL fan. I'm not a 'HOMER'. I'm objective in my style of viewing the Green Bay Packers.

When I see a concern I need to try to do something about that. That's my normal nature.

TT's performance in this draft left alot of questions for me. He frankly 'shocked ' me.

My last post for today Patler...Have a nice evening. :smile:

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Well excuse me if I misunderstood you (again). I understood from your post that Brandon Williams was the player you identified as the one that TT should have taken when he was available at #93, instead of trading down with Miami. If that isn't what you meant, again I apologize, but then I have no clue where you are coming from on this whole trade discussion.

I'm not sure where to even begin this discussion, at the second trade with SF, or the third trade with Miami?

Ive read Wists posts, responded to several and agreed with him on a couple.

Patler you asked me to pick one player from your list in a previous post. I merely obliged your request.

In no way was I implying from that choice. That TT should have chosen Brandon Williams in the Third Round before The Ravens scooped him up. A choice of DT Brandon Williams was my choice 'only' for you.

Again please understand this clearly:

I did NOT specify that TT should have picked DT Brandon Williams...Read the you won't paint me into a corner post...please.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

What the heck am I trying to win?
I haven't even said whether I think the trades were good or bad, mostly because I don't have a clue.
As I have said many times on here, I don't really put in much effort before the draft. I more enjoying "discovering" the players actually picked by GB.

However, I think looking at the actual facts of what happened, what opportunities were relinquished by trading down, makes a heck of a lot lore sense than attributing his trades to ego.

I have invited those who study the draft to debate the merits of the players who TT closed himself out from by trading down. That amounts to those drafted from #55 to #60 and those drafted from #88 to #108, because that is the net effect of his three trades down. He gave up the opportunities to draft those players. For that, he got some added opportunities.

In the end, based on what he had to start and what he ended up with, the sum of his trades was this:

- 55 & 88 were relinquished for 61, 109, 125, 216 and 224.

Good or bad deals? I don't know because I know little about the quality of the players he precluded himself from drafting.

[Patler]

Patler you asked me to pick one player from your list in a previous post. I merely obliged your request.

In no way was I implying from that choice. That TT should have chosen Brandon Williams in the Third Round before The Ravens scooped him up. A choice of DT Brandon Williams was my choice 'only' for you.

Again please understand this clearly:

I did NOT specify that TT should have picked DT Brandon Williams...Read the you won't paint me into a corner post...please.

PACKERS !

Then what should he have done that he couldn't have done anyway?
Are we discussing the trades or his draft in total?

I started this thread with the intention of discussing what effect the trades had on what the Packers did or could do.
Whether he picked the right players of those available when he did pick is a different discussion.

If you dislike any or all of the trades (and I think you do dislike them, or at least some of them) why?

[Smeefers]

Then what should he have done that he couldn't have done anyway?
Are we discussing the trades or his draft in total?

I started this thread with the intention of discussing what effect the trades had on what the Packers did or could do.
Whether he picked the right players of those available when he did pick is a different discussion.

If you dislike any or all of the trades (and I think you do dislike them, or at least some of them) why?

Well, I've gotten a feeling that the trouble with the trades is that he did not get enough for them when compared to other trades.
- Legit grievance: Our GM should be getting every penny of value for drafts he gives up.
- Non-legit grievance: TT was the initiator, attempting to get more picks while still being able to get a guy he likes in the same area.

It's also been suggested that he was just sort of shooting from the hip with the trades, not really giving them any serious thought.
- As heard on the radio. I have a hard time believing this.

There has also been a lot of angst about the type of players he drafted, having passed on the players we liked and instead going for players he likes. Because, you know, ego.
-This is just player type disagreements. I think it would suck if my team went out and got a bunch of guys I don't like and they continued to play well with them even though I see their demise around the corner.

I also think the prevailing thought is that the higher someone is drafted, the better quality that player tends to be, so when you trade back, you're basically giving up quality. That's the "more less quality players" idea.
- I disagree with this notion. You can have 30 guys whom you believe are all pretty much around the same talent level, especially when you have thousands of players in the talent pool.

Also, screw San Francisco. The jerks.
- Legit. Those guys suck. They're the enemy. It's irrational as all hell, but who likes giving the guys you're competing against a guy that they like?

[Bretsky]

Getting the whip out to stir the pot

First off, isn't it part of TT's job to get what he can for a pick ?
And IMO isn't it fair to judge him based on that, and logistically compare which GM's maximized their picks when the traded down ?

Secondly, not that I'd believe him if he did......but did GB even publicly note they got exactly who they had targeted at 55 in Lacy ?
Many PR in here have stated/assumed that.....but as the trade was going down NFL Network was pimping Monte Ball as the guy GB covets

Third, I'd be very curious to wonder how some of the same posters defending that trade....would have reacted if Denver took Lacy and GB took Monte Ball.
Then, IMO, everything would not be roses.

Fourth, I'm still not fond of the trade down from round three.

I'll take Brandon Williams there....even Schwenke.....and give back one of the OL and still find a way to get Franklyn. Getting Franklyn became more important IMO because of Lacy's injury history.

[pbmax]

I wasn't expecting a 2nd or 3rd round running back and if I would have thought they would get a choice in the 4th, it would have been Ball falling, not Lacy or Franklin.

So I did not have a horse in this race. I suspect people linking the Packers to Ball (or Franklin) were thinking along the lines of "would fit in a shotgun as a draw runner, screen catcher or wheel route target."

I don't think anyone thought Lacy in the Friday rounds. He didn't figure to be a 2nd round pick and he seemed more ground and pound than the typical Packers back. So I don't put too much stock in the NFLN and Montee Ball speculation.

Secondly, Thompson has been pretty consistent that he trades back when he can still collect value at the new pick. A better question that whether Ball was the target would be was anyone on the level of Ball when they selected? I want to know what they consciously passed up as much as what they choose.

Last, maximizing trade value. Obviously its a good thing whenever possible. However, it is not a principle to die for. To let a trade go untouched because the trade value chart shows you on the minus side is pointless if you get the same player value you wanted PLUS another pick. In fact, the only reason I can think of to refuse is to set an example that you cannot simply low ball an offer to the Packers and expect to get the choice regardless.

And I would draw that line when I can still trade down for equal value, but am currently assured that value at a position of need. On the flip side, I would take a trade whenever I am picking in a round/pick where there are no comparable round values.

[Bretsky]

I wasn't expecting a 2nd or 3rd round running back and if I would have thought they would get a choice in the 4th, it would have been Ball falling, not Lacy or Franklin.

So I did not have a horse in this race. I suspect people linking the Packers to Ball (or Franklin) were thinking along the lines of "would fit in a shotgun as a draw runner, screen catcher or wheel route target."

I don't think anyone thought Lacy in the Friday rounds. He didn't figure to be a 2nd round pick and he seemed more ground and pound than the typical Packers back. So I don't put too much stock in the NFLN and Montee Ball speculation.

Secondly, Thompson has been pretty consistent that he trades back when he can still collect value at the new pick. A better question that whether Ball was the target would be was anyone on the level of Ball when they selected? I want to know what they consciously passed up as much as what they choose.

Last, maximizing trade value. Obviously its a good thing whenever possible. However, it is not a principle to die for. To let a trade go untouched because the trade value chart shows you on the minus side is pointless if you get the same player value you wanted PLUS another pick. In fact, the only reason I can think of to refuse is to set an example that you cannot simply low ball an offer to the Packers and expect to get the choice regardless.

And I would draw that line when I can still trade down for equal value, but am currently assured that value at a position of need. On the flip side, I would take a trade whenever I am picking in a round/pick where there are no comparable round values.



San Fran run the show in this draft IMO. I hate San Francisco. Always have...always will. But they held a lot of cards and IMO threw some shit deals out there people took and it worked for them. The deal with the Titans was the worse. We traded back six spots for pretty much nothing. Part of my distaste in seeing an equitable deal go down the pick after GB was knowing SF was the one who took us. And I still say it's fair to judge a GM on how well they do on the deals. Sure...it's not a principal to die for.....but also....it should not be ignored

The tradedown in round 2 didn't bug me much even though San Fran screwed us. GB was going to be happy with Ball or Lacy. But I still think had they taken Lacy there would be many more questioners in here. Since we ended up with the player everybody wanted everybody wanted the inequity of that deal gets ignored.

Honestly, the only trade down I didin't like was giving up better quality in round three for a mid round four pick.

And it is NOT fair to assume the same value card there that they were going to be similar players.

One could argue that TT just thought he'd get better value for the multitude of picks as opposed to one player of better quality............which rolls right into a point Wist makes about the deal.

[pbmax]

When you have 12 picks you are going to make the most noise and you can be patient about what deals to do. But credit to them, they had the picks.

If he trades down and gets Ball rather than Lacy, yes, there would probably be more grumbling from the non-Badger fans. But mainly from a superficial Lacy was rated ahead of Ball and therefore I dislike the trade down that netted him. I can see that.

True that we can't assume same value since we don't know his board. But unlike Jerry Jones* and some Fantasy Football drafters, I think Thompson has proven he can count and leaves himself an out. Its possible he missed on a WR in the third, though. No one bat 1.000.

As for wist, its only a valid argument if your board is wrong about values. This one will be engraved on TTs tombstone if Schwenke goes on to the Pro Bowl.

BTW, for regular readers, I haven't had a recent stroke. This new browser is auto-correcting and when I have a typo, it seems to choose the wrong correction 50% of the time.

* You should see the grumbling from the Cowboys draft. Even the home office is leaking stories about how they have no idea what Jerrah was doing.

[sharpe1027]

Getting the whip out to stir the pot

First off, isn't it part of TT's job to get what he can for a pick ?
And IMO isn't it fair to judge him based on that, and logistically compare which GM's maximized their picks when the traded down ?

Not entirely. When a team calls you looking to trade up, you should have more leverage. When you call a team looking to trade down, you have less leverage. Plus, you do not have infinite time so you cannot call every team to negotiate.


Secondly, not that I'd believe him if he did......but did GB even publicly note they got exactly who they had targeted at 55 in Lacy ?
Many PR in here have stated/assumed that.....but as the trade was going down NFL Network was pimping Monte Ball as the guy GB covets

I have not seen anyone make this assumption. Most posters noted that they likely had several similarly ranked players available at 55. Lacy was probably one of many...not targeted specifically. Perhaps they liked Ball better, but only slightly.


Third, I'd be very curious to wonder how some of the same posters defending that trade....would have reacted if Denver took Lacy and GB took Monte Ball.
Then, IMO, everything would not be roses.

Personally, I don't know how the draft will turnout. I just don't think trading down is as bad a move as some make it out to be.


Fourth, I'm still not fond of the trade down from round three.

I'll take Brandon Williams there....even Schwenke.....and give back one of the OL and still find a way to get Franklyn. Getting Franklyn became more important IMO because of Lacy's injury history.

You could be right. Even the best GMs don't have a crystal ball.

[woodbuck27]

He must not have. According to some sources, the Packers were targeting WR Stedman Bailey with the #93 pick. The Falcons traded out of #92 and the Packers lost him to the Rams.

So, no, TT was not targeting Brandon Williams.

Yup but do we really know why?

Rd. 3... 30(92) Rams (From Falcons) Bailey, Stedman WR 5'10" 193 West Virginia 79.0

Rd. 3...31(93) Dolphins (From 49ers through Packers) Davis, Will CB 5'11" 186 Utah St. 71.0

Rd.3...32(94) Ravens Williams, Brandon DT 6'1" 335 Missouri Southern St. 73.1

We ***may all agree on that one... that TT didn't or ***maybe? didn't want DT Brandon Williams...***yet this:

*** It depends where Ted Thompson's passion lies (maybe?) TT loves picks...he loves to trade down!? There's too much evidence to deny this is a fact. I deem that watering down the overall quality of his draft.

Ted Thompson and his Draft Team receives a critique of doing that and this draft from posters like myself and Wist43. We're the posters that have to toss the snowballs. We don't do this because we're really bad Packer fans ... bad boys / too men. Disloyal troublemakers / shit disturbers.

We do it because we're conscientious in terms of our observations. I don't want to make this seem as an apology for me and what I do either. If you don't like it...tuff. Deal with yourself.

We do it out of a genuine concern because now more that ever TT has to nail his drafts. The times they are a changin' and until some GM with a real set of balls says ... NO!

NO! That's right ...

No... to the ridiculous salary demands of certain position players like Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews. That BS will ruin the game of NFL football. The greed and that's all it is. Has to be stopped ASAP. Good for Aaron and Clay and Joe and Peyton..and Drew and Calvin and Eli...and soon Tom will be adjusted...count on it.

That whole thing turns my stomach. It's so bad I don't want to go there.

Back to thios examination:

Unless Picks at Rd. 4 #109 and Rd. 5 #146 and Rd. 7 #224 or three(3) picks were more valuable to TT than using Rd. 3 #193 to pick DT Brandon Williams or anyone else that went at Rd. 3 #93 to Rd. 4 #108. That's a total of 16 prospects.

***Eight (8) of which could be clearly classified as covering Packer priority needs.

ie Safety, OLB, OL, RB...and two decent DT's....again Brandon Williams (RAVENS) and Akeem Spence,Illinois (TITANS). Like them or not they we're on someones board and on that teams roster prior to TT making his pick in Rd. 4 Pick #109....OT David Bakhtiari.

***Those coming off the board in that group between Rd. 3 #93 and Rd. 4 #108.

GO PACKERS !

[Gunakor]

Woody, why do you assume we needed a new safety? Cause Woodson isn't here anymore? Woodson wasn't here for half of last season either, and we won a bunch of football games in his absence. I never thought we needed a safety. Certainly not as a priority. I like the kids we have back there.

We did have a need for another OLB, but not one that's going to be starting. A developmental OLB to backup Perry and Matthews is all we needed, and they got exactly that in Barrington.

Didn't need two defensive tackles. We needed one backup defensive tackle so Raji isn't on the field for every defensive snap of the season, and one starting defensive end to line up in front of Matthews. Jones and Boyd. Our DL looks good. In fact, our entire front 7 looks good. On paper at least. I'm fully expecting a truly ferocious pass rush from this group this year.

The only position TT whiffed on in this draft is center. All other truly pressing needs were addressed.

As to your comment about AR and CMIII salary demands, if you would have refused them, some other GM for some other team would have gladly paid them. AR's contract is especially team friendly, actually, since they reworked it with 2 years left on his current deal rather than at the end of it. It means they can spread out the cap hit of the new deal over 7 years rather than 5 - his actual cap hit never goes over 21 million. Rodgers' "richest contract in NFL history" is actually more team friendly than Joe Flacco's or Drew Brees' contracts. The deal they gave Rodgers was great for both parties. Read up:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/27/crazy-as-it-sounds-rodgers-took-less/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/56024/chatwrapmailbag-aaron-rodgers-cap-hit

[Patler]

Some new proposals for trade value charts. Most have some statistical support to them.
I also posted these in the draft thread:

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology321.php

http://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=527

http://www.footballperspective.com/draft-value-chart/

[Bretsky]

Woody, why do you assume we needed a new safety? Cause Woodson isn't here anymore? Woodson wasn't here for half of last season either, and we won a bunch of football games in his absence. I never thought we needed a safety. Certainly not as a priority. I like the kids we have back there.

We did have a need for another OLB, but not one that's going to be starting. A developmental OLB to backup Perry and Matthews is all we needed, and they got exactly that in Barrington.

Didn't need two defensive tackles. We needed one backup defensive tackle so Raji isn't on the field for every defensive snap of the season, and one starting defensive end to line up in front of Matthews. Jones and Boyd. Our DL looks good. In fact, our entire front 7 looks good. On paper at least. I'm fully expecting a truly ferocious pass rush from this group this year.

The only position TT whiffed on in this draft is center. All other truly pressing needs were addressed.

As to your comment about AR and CMIII salary demands, if you would have refused them, some other GM for some other team would have gladly paid them. AR's contract is especially team friendly, actually, since they reworked it with 2 years left on his current deal rather than at the end of it. It means they can spread out the cap hit of the new deal over 7 years rather than 5 - his actual cap hit never goes over 21 million. Rodgers' "richest contract in NFL history" is actually more team friendly than Joe Flacco's or Drew Brees' contracts. The deal they gave Rodgers was great for both parties. Read up:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/27/crazy-as-it-sounds-rodgers-took-less/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/56024/chatwrapmailbag-aaron-rodgers-cap-hit

I'm on the we could have used a S wagon too........cause....Jennings kind of sux and IMO....very limited upside

[Smeefers]

I'm on the we could have used a S wagon too........cause....Jennings kind of sux and IMO....very limited upside

There's a reason he was a Undrafted Free Agent.

[woodbuck27]

I'm on the we could have used a S wagon too........cause....Jennings kind of sux and IMO....very limited upside

In a word and please excuse me as I'm so busy with stuff:

That.

OK some more...

Look at game film and how our safetys (tackle)

As I posted in another thread. Pins stand up better in a bowling alley.

Tackling is a problem on the Packers. Remember when we tackled well? When our defense was able to close fast on anyone with the ball. It's been some time since I've seen that. I know the game is always getting faster.

It came up 1-2 seasons ago. MM was concerned and said we need to tackle better.

Can that be taught? MM's need hasn't transpired in my view.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Woody, why do you assume we needed a new safety? Cause Woodson isn't here anymore? Woodson wasn't here for half of last season either, and we won a bunch of football games in his absence. I never thought we needed a safety. Certainly not as a priority. I like the kids we have back there.

We did have a need for another OLB, but not one that's going to be starting. A developmental OLB to backup Perry and Matthews is all we needed, and they got exactly that in Barrington.

Didn't need two defensive tackles. We needed one backup defensive tackle so Raji isn't on the field for every defensive snap of the season, and one starting defensive end to line up in front of Matthews. Jones and Boyd. Our DL looks good. In fact, our entire front 7 looks good. On paper at least. I'm fully expecting a truly ferocious pass rush from this group this year.

The only position TT whiffed on in this draft is center. All other truly pressing needs were addressed.

As to your comment about AR and CMIII salary demands, if you would have refused them, some other GM for some other team would have gladly paid them. AR's contract is especially team friendly, actually, since they reworked it with 2 years left on his current deal rather than at the end of it. It means they can spread out the cap hit of the new deal over 7 years rather than 5 - his actual cap hit never goes over 21 million. Rodgers' "richest contract in NFL history" is actually more team friendly than Joe Flacco's or Drew Brees' contracts. The deal they gave Rodgers was great for both parties. Read up:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/27/crazy-as-it-sounds-rodgers-took-less/

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/56024/chatwrapmailbag-aaron-rodgers-cap-hit

I'll come back to this maybe tomorrow AM...Have a great evening.

PACKERS !

[Smidgeon]

There's a reason he was a Undrafted Free Agent.

...and a reason they drafted Jerron "The Missile" McMillian. Go with it. I'm trying to start a nickname.

[Fritz]

McMillan's going to have a breakout year. So will Burnett.

In my opinion, of course.

[run pMc]

I'm ok if people think that TT watered down the quality of drafted players by trading down. There were a few head scratchers or "Nooooo!" moves IMO. That said, the draft is done and I am sooo over it. I'm on to hoping our picks can play and that Minny's R1 bonanza bombs. I am not a professional scout or NFL GM, so whether I agree or not, I'm willing to give TT the benefit of the doubt. Also, I think that this was a draft where a lot of the players were of pretty similar quality (i.e., the # of players at a given tier of talent was large) so it would make sense to trade down for extra picks in that tier -- it's the "having more swings at the plate" analogy. Not many R4 or R5 picks become All Stars, but you're more likely to hit on one -- or at least get serviceable starters/solid backups -- if you have more chances to pick one.

Would you rather have Lacy and Franklin, or Ball and a Safety? M.D.Jennings seemed to bounce off tackles a bit too much for my tastes at Safety, so I was (and still am) hoping there's improvement at that spot...unless they move Hyde to S it's going to have to be internal improvement. Woodson was not the answer at safety. Heaven help them if Burnett gets hurt. Maybe Richardson and McMillian can play?
FWIW, I thought getting Lacy and Franklin where they did was very good value. I think drafting 2 RBs actually increases the chances they hit on at least one...people are split on Ball and who knows if a R4 safety would crack the game day roster. (Yes, I realize McMillian was a R4 pick last year.)

I don't know a thing about Brandon Williams, but it seems like we already have a couple of guys who are 6-1 330 on our team (Pickett, Raji). Boyd can play interior DL and did so in the SEC, so I think TT did ok there. I remember people were up in arms about TT picking Mike Neal over Alex Carrington, who's not exactly lighting the world on fire over in BUF (4 sacks 29 tackles in 4 year career, compared to 5.5Sk/17 tk for Neal). Let's wait a few years before we crucify the draft choices.