Has Ted Thompson really changed?

[Patler]

Lots of miscellaneous discussion in a couple threads, good comments by several on here, and citations to articles such as:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2706871-at-long-last-the-packers-seem-to-understand-that-its-evolve-or-die-in-the-nfl

Being old and confused, I decided to start a single thread to focus the discussion.

My opinion? Many of the national articles are shallow and overlook the details of what has transpired this off season.

1. The Packers have signed just 2 unrestricted free agents that I am aware of who are subject to the compensatory calculation, Bennett and Evans. Francois, House and Kendricks were released by their former teams, and therefore do not enter into the calculation . TT has always been willing to sign these types of players when the roster requires it.

2. The Packers lost an unusually large number of free agents this year, but it is understandable why. Guys they otherwise would have liked to keep (I'll suggest Cook, Lang and Lacy for sure; and maybe Hyde and Tretter under the right circumstances) demanded (Cook) or received offers (Lang, Lacy, Hyde & Tretter) well behind the limits the Packers had set for them. GB has always stuck to its determinations in this regard. Additionally the Packers lost Peppers and Jones, neither of which seemed to be in their off season plans. That's seven lost players subject to compensatory draft pick calculations.

3. Additionally injuries, age and stupidity took out former contributors Shields. Starks and Pennel, respectively. Combined with item #2 above, The Packer roster was down 10 players, all starters or 1st line reserves. You can't replace that many players of that level easily. It requires some input from the outside. Thus, the seemingly large number of signings by TT.

4. Interestingly, TT has brought in all these free agents WITHOUT impacting his compensatory draft pick awards next season significantly, because:
- The compensatory awards are given when the number lost exceeds the number signed.
- Players lost are offset by players signed, based on draft round awarded.
- No team can receive more than 4 picks.
- The Packers are still at a net loss in compensation, 7 lost and 2 signed. They can sign one more and still be entitled to 4 compensatory picks, potentially. Being entitled to 7 wouldn't have helped them in the numbers of picks awarded, nor does their current 5 net losses. All it can do is impact the round awarded, unless, of course, the value drops the lowest award beyond the 32 maximum awards. So far, that seems a ways off.

5. While this can change because the signing period remains open (players signed after a certain date do not enter into the compensation calculation no matter what their contract is); preliminary compensation projections are:
- Players Lost: Lang-3rd round, Hyde and Tretter 5th round, Cook, Lacy, Jones and Peppers 6th round.
- Players Gained: Bennett 5th round, Evans 6th round.
- Projected off-sets; Bennett against the Packer's highest 5th (Hyde) and Evans against the lowest 6th (Peppers). Because ot the 4 award maximum, the 6th for Jones will not be received currently.

So far, the net result of the "new" Ted Thompson is a net loss of a few draft spots in the 5th round because Bennett off-sets Hyde, not Cook. The Packers can still get the maximum award of four picks, depending on the final FA contracts around the league.

Don't be surprised if the Packers sign another free agent cheap enough to offset one of their 6th round picks. It won't impact their compensatory awards.

Caveat - some have suggested that players with 10+ years in the league do not enter into the calculations. This would affect both Peppers and Evans and may be why projections off set them against each other.

[Zool]

Thanks for the consolidation and breakdown. Much easier to digest.

[vince]

Great post Patler.

In my opinion, this shows how widely misunderstood by some and mischaracterized by others he's been, even by the most active followers of his actions, which is interesting in itself.

[King Friday]

I think Thompson's "normal" is somewhere between last year and this year. Thompson would prefer to draft and develop...picking up the occasional FA when it makes sense. Last year, was an epic failure all over the place...when you have to turn a WR into a RB, it has to be a little humbling for the GM who is supposed to have a plan for that kind of stuff. Rodgers showing displeasure also has to have an effect, not that anyone in the front office would admit it.

[vince]

They went into the year knowing Montgomery was an available RB, which is why they only kept 2 (plus Monty, 2 on the PS, Ripkowski, Cobb, FA's, etc.). That plan has been confirmed publicly by McCarthy and the fact that Monty has proven to be an able RB supports that plan. Their top 2 guys went down for significant periods, but even with that, the RB position didn't hurt the Packers last season. They were 7th best in the league in Yds./Att.

[Patler]

They went into the year knowing Montgomery was an available RB, which is why they only kept 2 (plus Monty and 2 on the PS). That plan has been confirmed publicly by McCarthy and the fact that Monty has proven to be an able RB supports that plan.

Not only that, in Montgomery's limited rookie season they used him in the backfield more and differently than Cobb, and talked about expanding it even more before he was lost for the year. I think this move would have happened regardless, just like the moves of many others from the college positions to their NFL positions.

[pbmax]

2. The Packers lost an unusually large number of free agents this year, but it is understandable why. Guys they otherwise would have liked to keep (I'll suggest Cook, Lang and Lacy for sure; and maybe Hyde and Tretter under the right circumstances) demanded (Cook) or received offers (Lang, Lacy, Hyde & Tretter) well behind the limits the Packers had set for them. GB has always stuck to its determinations in this regard. Additionally the Packers lost Peppers and Jones, neither of which seemed to be in their off season plans. That's seven lost players subject to compensatory draft pick calculations.


Unless you were Chad Clifton, in which case being a Left Tackle and getting literally to the brink of FA and ready to break another market value deal meant the Packers coughed up much more dough at the end for I think his 3rd contract.

I want to say there was one other example they road to the end and saw the market climbing; was it Hawk's second contract? Maybe Cobb?

Regardless, each of these occurred right before FA broke, so the Packers committed to signing them to market value before the market hit. If a player hits the open market, there is a much harder budget for them.

Good to see you back Patler.

[Patler]

Unless you were Chad Clifton, in which case being a Left Tackle and getting literally to the brink of FA and ready to break another market value deal meant the Packers coughed up much more dough at the end for I think his 3rd contract.

I want to say there was one other example they road to the end and saw the market climbing; was it Hawk's second contract? Maybe Cobb?

Regardless, each of these occurred right before FA broke, so the Packers committed to signing them to market value before the market hit. If a player hits the open market, there is a much harder budget for them.

Good to see you back Patler.

Thanks pb. I'll likely be around from time to time.

Re Clifton - I suspect their intention always was to keep him, and to pay what was needed to do so. Getting it done just before FA hit avoided an outrageous offer. I'm sure they held out for a while, hoping for a better deal; but I'm not sure they exceeded what they pegged his value at. Maybe they did, I don't know.

The guy many say they paid excessively just to do it was Ryan Grant. He was an exclusive rights FA as I recall, yet they negotiated a pretty good multi-yeardeal for him even though his options were to sign their tender or sit out the year. That was the summer of Favre, Grant had refused to sign his contract and seemed willing to sit out. It looked like the Packers wanted to avoid that potential mess on top of the Favre/Rodgers transition, so they caved into to Grant.

[Upnorth]

I did and still do love the grant signing, as he was going to help smooth the transition.
The Bennett signing this year has a woodson feel to me in terms of impact. We got cooks ability and added an able blocker. I'm not big on winning the off season, but man I'm pleased with what I'm seeing. Loosing Lang and tretter ducks but between last year's draft and stopgap Evans we should be good.

[texaspackerbacker]

Why is Lacy supposedly only worth a sixth round compensation pick when he was picked in the second and had a fairly decent tenure with the Packers?

I don't know if you can say Ted changed, as he didn't sign any really top of the line FAs. Bennett was basically just a sideways thing with losing Cook. He did do a little more than usual with lower level guys, though. I'm thinking Jahri Evans is gonna more than make up for losing Lang. All in all, I'd say he was a net slight positive in free agency - OK but not enough to say he has changed.

[Joemailman]

Why is Lacy supposedly only worth a sixth round compensation pick when he was picked in the second and had a fairly decent tenure with the Packers?

I don't know if you can say Ted changed, as he didn't sign any really top of the line FAs. Bennett was basically just a sideways thing with losing Cook. He did do a little more than usual with lower level guys, though. I'm thinking Jahri Evans is gonna more than make up for losing Lang. All in all, I'd say he was a net slight positive in free agency - OK but not enough to say he has changed.

Comp picks are based mostly on how big a contract the player signed with the new team. Where he was drafted doesn't matter.

[texaspackerbacker]

Comp picks are based mostly on how big a contract the player signed with the new team. Where he was drafted doesn't matter.

So Seattle got him cheap? I find that a little hard to believe it was that extreme.

[Bossman641]

So Seattle got him cheap? I find that a little hard to believe it was that extreme.

Rb deals in general are smaller. Lacy also had injury and weight working against him

[gbgary]

Has Ted Thompson really changed?

letmethinkaboutitno.

[bobblehead]

Thanks pb. I'll likely be around from time to time.

Re Clifton - I suspect their intention always was to keep him, and to pay what was needed to do so. Getting it done just before FA hit avoided an outrageous offer. I'm sure they held out for a while, hoping for a better deal; but I'm not sure they exceeded what they pegged his value at. Maybe they did, I don't know.

The guy many say they paid excessively just to do it was Ryan Grant. He was an exclusive rights FA as I recall, yet they negotiated a pretty good multi-yeardeal for him even though his options were to sign their tender or sit out the year. That was the summer of Favre, Grant had refused to sign his contract and seemed willing to sit out. It looked like the Packers wanted to avoid that potential mess on top of the Favre/Rodgers transition, so they caved into to Grant.

That is exactly what happened and I predicted that the minute...second...Grant was not of use to TT and MM he was gone for leveraging the Favre fiasco like he did.

[Fritz]

The only way I see Ted having done much differently is by drafting guys defensive players who fit the "new" mold - athletic and able to play multiple positions.

He still drafted another "meh" defensive lineman - to me, the comparison of Adams to Khryi Thornton is not quite right - it's more like the Richard Rodgers pick.

[George Cumby]

Nope. Still smarter than just about everyone on this forum and still knows more about football than everyone on this forum.

But the walking dead impersonation was a slightly new wrinkle.