T.T. should trade up???

[packers11]

Bill Parcells is expected to try to trade the Dolphins' No. 1 pick.

Parcells is looking to gain multiple early picks, and also wants to avoid paying a high contract to a player who could very likely be a bust. The Dolphins already have four picks in the first two rounds of the draft, but likely will try to add more as they overhaul their 1-14 team.

Source: Palm Beach Post

:lol: I know it would never happen, but McFadden would look pretty good in a green bay uniform 8-)

[MJZiggy]

Great. New England'll take it...

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If he traded every pick we have next year, he still wouldn’t even come close to what they would want for that pick. He would have to trade multiple 1st rounders, something he would never do.

[Tarlam!]

If he traded every pick we have next year, he still wouldn’t even come close to what they would want for that pick. He would have to trade multiple 1st rounders, something he would never do.

Totally agree. This isn't speculation, this is a wet dream.

[Jerry Tagge]

TT trading up is like a Bears fan showing intelligence. It will never happen.

[GoPackGo]

I think having a high draft pick is way overrated.
what GM in his right mind wants to sign a college player to a contract with 20-30 million + in guranteed money?

[The Leaper]

We'd have to trade away our entire draft to get the #1 overall pick...and who in this draft is worth the #1 pick?

Even contemplating the notion is insane to me.

[MadtownPacker]

If a shit team like Miami doesn't want the #1 why would the Packers or anyone else? They should just keep taking to long (like the vikings did that one draft) and skip their turn so the patriots have to pay #1 pick money for the one they got from SF.

[packrat]

Just how many "can't miss" first round draft picks have actually been worth it? I agree with TT's philosophy of "more picks means more chances to get a good one". We can pick up those first round picks a few years later when they've proved their worth, like Woodson and Pickett.

[Lurker64]

If we trade up, I don't think we'd trade up to number 1. Not that there's nobody we'd want at number one, but the problem is that number one picks are very expensive. Moving from the late 20's to #1 overall would be a Ricky Williams type trade, involving giving up virtually our entire draft and multiple future draft picks.

It's just not sensible, and that's why nobody ever does it; even though teams with #1 overall are usually desperately trying to trade away that pick.

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if he trades up to the teens though. I have no idea what his board looks like though, the season is still more interesting than the draft at this point.

[The Shadow]

I think we should recognize the fact that Thompson knows what he's doing.
If there is no compelling reason to move up - don't move up.
I'm sure many here would have been in favor of moving up to select Cedric Benson....and we have seen how that #4 pick is working out.

[BooHoo]

It is too risky to trade that far up. As already mentioned, top picks don't always work out.

[Fritz]

Dr. Fritz thinks that Ted's deeply ambiguous sexual feelings are the key to his draft success.

Mike Sherman was a one-man man - he'd fall in love with a guy and his heart would go pitter-patter as he'd do anything to get his guy. He'd move heaven and earth and a couple of draft picks to move up and get his man.

Ted likes group action - he picks a lot of guys he would equally like to have, and waits to see if he can get any one of them. If it's his turn and he could have multiple guys, he trades down, knowing he'll still get one of them. If he's down to the last guy in that group, Ted picks him - even if he's someone that doesn't look attractive to the rest of the guys that are picking.

Thus, Ted's success in drafting is a result of his ambivalent feelings toward the young men from who he is to choose.

[RashanGary]

Sadly, that metaphor was a pretty good description of teddy's draft strategy.

I think he has a formula too. If he has 5 guys that are all rated the same, he might be willing to drop 7 spots because the odds are one will still be there. He's never given his formula, but he mentioned having one.

[The Leaper]

Dr. Fritz thinks that Ted's deeply ambiguous sexual feelings are the key to his draft success.

Thanks for the laugh, Fritz.

[LL2]

I bet NE would trade their pick, but there is still no way TT would trade up to #8. I'm content with GB picking #31 after they win the SB.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Bill Parcells is expected to try to trade the Dolphins' No. 1 pick.

Parcells is looking to gain multiple early picks, and also wants to avoid paying a high contract to a player who could very likely be a bust. The Dolphins already have four picks in the first two rounds of the draft, but likely will try to add more as they overhaul their 1-14 team.

Source: Palm Beach Post

:lol: I know it would never happen, but McFadden would look pretty good in a green bay uniform 8-)

Won't happen.

Even if the Packers traded their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks it could not be done. Trading their first three picks could get them to 15th or 16th pick.

Ted's not that kind of guy. Trading the first down into the second round he could pick up a third round pick.

The Ahman Green Compensatory pick should be at least a 4th round and possible a third round pick that cannot be traded.

[Deputy Nutz]

Forget about drafting in the top ten, unless we trade all of our picks.

Everyone else said it, I just thought I would too.

I just don't see TT trading up unless there is a huge drop between players that he has ranked personally.

For example player #23 is a 8.5, player #24 is a 6.5. Then you could possibly see a trade to move up to the bottom tier of the top talent.

[Guiness]

There's a school of thought that says the high picks do more damage than good to a team.

With the amount of money teams are forced to lay out for those high picks, it can do quite a number on the cap...even if the guy ends up a starter, but a pedestrian one.

Look back at how teams with multiple top 10 picks on their roster (Cinncinati in the early '90s, Cleveland in the later '90s) did...you just need a one of those guys to be a bust to really hurt you.

[esoxx]

Then why were some people "happy" b/c the Bears victory just caused them to drop further in the draft?

And why, in 2005, were some people openly wondering if they would like to see the Packers win the last few games on their schedule, since it would only serve to submarine their draft position?

Not a consistent argument.

[sepporepi]

And why, in 2005, were some people openly wondering if they would like to see the Packers win the last few games on their schedule, since it would only serve to submarine their draft position?

Not a consistent argument.


Because those people either do not know/understand the economics of signing a top draft pick or just do not believe in the theories regarding the value of top picks compared to middle and late first round picks.

If you are interested in the matter, i strongly recommend:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=276

The author discusses draft value based on a quite known paper (http://www.nber.org/papers/W11270) by Massey and Thaler.

[Fritz]

Great link for a good read. Thanks.

Here's my two cents about one aspect of drafting that hasn't been mentioned a whole lot: a few people have mentioned something I agree with - the drop-off in talent levels between the #1 and the #30 pick is not all that great. So the question for me is then why is so much emphasis put on those top ten picks?

The answer is simple. It's in the nature of our society to focus on lists - top ten stories, top ten hottest women (or men, MJ and 007), top ten whatever. The media then focuses on the top ten or fifteen or whatever, and so the perception develops that these players are significantly better than what comes after.

This makes sense, too, if you think about how much reading and listening you have to do in order to really become familiar with the players that will be drafted in, say, the third round. There's only so much information the casual fan is willing to go after - we become saturated with information and can bandy about the merits of the top forty or fifty, maybe, but after that we're done. And even within that range, all the media attention goes to the top ten.

So there'a a perception that the top then players are significantly better. Thus fans clamor all the time (see the many pre-draft posts last year on just about any fan site) for their team to move up to get "that" guy.

GM's, who are not immune to public perception and pressure (some more than others), know that they'll catch hell if they don't get a top ten pick right. If you screw up your seventh round pick and skip Marques Colston, it's not going to get you the heat that skipping Adrian Peterson would get you in the first round. This might explain - in part - why so many GM's seem willing to trade down from the top ten, though of course to justify this they ask for the world. Imagine trading from the #6 overall pick in exchange for a team's #26 pick overall and their second and say fourth rounders. Wouldn't happen. This is despite what seems clear evidence that the difference between the #6 and #26 pick may not be all that significant. So public pressure and perception play a large role in this, I think.

To me, the consequences of this are twofold: first, you need a GM who doesn't flinch in the face of public criticism and pressure. Someone who has the courage of his convictions. Maybe like some gray-haired former journeyman linebacker. He responds to his board, not the boards of Mel Kiper or other teams. James Jones in the third round, anyone? That's why I never understood the term "value pick" that Kiper tosses around so much. To me, that just means a big name who has slid down the board.

The second consequence is obvious but woth stating: it's about the scouting, stupid. No, it doesn't matter if your starters are all from the first three rounds or the last three rounds, but if your team is filled with guys drafted solely in the first three rounds, it's a sign your scouting department isn't good enough to dig out the talent that sits later in a draft. Thus, you are depriving your team of opportunities to improve. Case in point: Matt Millen. The dude has five players on his roster (from seven drafts) that come from rounds later than the third. None of them are starters.

Another point to be made about scouting: The link above brings up the question of pick value in relation to where teams draft over time. The whole theory of the reverse-order draft is that it encourages parity. But for this to happen, the bottom-feeders have to take advantage of their draft position (not just the top picks but the fact they pick early in every round). But if you can't scout the talent well, that won't happen. That's why for long stretches we see the same teams sucking and drafting high: the Lions, the Cardinals, the Saints, the Dolphins, the Bucs, the Jets, the Falcons.

Some of those teams have intermittent success (except the Lions and Cards), which I believe comes in a spurt and doesn't last long (maybe it's partly the impact of a couple of good picks and the impact of a coach). So you might have some big-name front line talent, as the Lions and Cards do, but you have no depth.

Everybody blows some top picks. Ron Wolf did (Jamaal Reynolds, John Michels, Antwan Edwards). But a GM who has a good scouting department and stays true to his board makes up for those with gems he finds later in the draft (Marco Rivera, Donald Driver, Mark Chmura).

So in the end, to me, it comes down to having a GM who knows how to scout, puts a premium on scouting, trusts his scouts, and has the cojones to do what he thinks is right, despite what criticism might come.

[hurleyfan]

Very nice Fritz...

Specially the "top ten" list theory

[Carolina_Packer]

Has any team ever traded up to get the #1 overall pick?

[Lurker64]

Has any team ever traded up to get the #1 overall pick?

Yes. In 2001 the Chargers traded their first round pick (#1 overall) to Atlanta (who chose Ron Mexico) in exchange for: Atlanta's first round pick (#5 overall, used to select LT), Atlanta's third round pick (used to select Tay Cody), Atlanta's Second round pick in 2002 (used to select Reche Caldwell), and Tim Dwight.

I don't know of any cases where someone has traded up double digit spots to get into the #1 overall position, but people have traded into it. As you can see, it took a king's ransom for a small jump and didn't work out for Atlanta.

If it takes two additional first day picks and a serviceable player to trade up from #5 to #1, trading up from #31 to #1 would be nigh-unthinkable.

[sepporepi]

giants traded for eli with the chargers, who took him first overall.
Technically they did not trade for the no. 1 pick, but basically they did.

Gave up a lot: Rivers (4th that year), next years first rounder and some more 2nd and 3rd round picks. (Too lazy to look it up)

[Lurker64]

Gave up a lot: Rivers (4th that year), next years first rounder and some more 2nd and 3rd round picks. (Too lazy to look it up)

In exchange for Eli, the Chargers got: the rights to Phillip Rivers (#4 overall), a 3rd in 2004 (K Nate Kaeiding), a 1st in 2005 (LB Shawne Merriman), and a 5th in 2005 (traded to the Bucs for LT Roman Olben).

Manning's value in this trade was likely somewhat diminished, as he was on record that he would not sign with San Diego if drafted.

[CaliforniaCheez]

When you look at the price tags you can see why Ted hasn't seen a player that was worth the price of trading up.

With small differences in raw talent coaching can add a lot of value to lesser picks. Also the small difference in the value of raw talent can make trading
down very cost effective.

The more you understand the draft the more you understand Ted.

[Tarlam!]

Ted stated in an interview only this weeks there were phonecalls made to see if he could go up and get Marshawn Lynch, but it was impossible.

It takes two to tango, so even if TT wants to trade up, he has to find a player, a trade partner and create a trade value that both teams fell comfortable with.

That's a tall order. That Eli trade is enough to shock me into submission, and the Giants only traded up from 4th to 1st....

[RashanGary]

The more you understand the draft the more you understand Ted.

I agree with this. The more you understand the basic principle of value the more you understand Ted Thompson too. I think value is the driving principle behind how Ted Thompson works and with the way the CBA is structured and the draft, I think "value" is the principle that makes or breaks GM's (whether they realize what they are doing or not). In my opinion, Ted Thompson has it pretty well figured out both in concept and through the wisdom of watching others succeed and fail. I see him as the complete GM package. Well, not complete, he's lacking what people perceive as ideal communication skills and their seminar taught, cookie cutter leadership tactics :roll:. Other than that, he's got it all. Just don't tell that to someone who lives thier lives by those leadership seminars. They won't believe it.

[Patler]

In my opinion, Ted Thompson has it pretty well figured out both in concept and through the wisdom of watching others succeed and fail. I see him as the complete GM package. Well, not complete, he's lacking what people perceive as ideal communication skills and their seminar taught, cookie cutter leadership tactics :roll:. Other than that, he's got it all. Just don't tell that to someone who lives thier lives by those leadership seminars. They won't believe it.

Basically, I have supported TT's approach; but I am not willing to consider him the total package as a GM until it is shown that he can sustain the team year after year.

The Bears looked pretty good last year at this time, too. Not so much this year. The Packers have had a few gifts this year to help their record, from fortunate bounces, and facing teams at the best times, to individual players making key and even unexpected contributions at critical times. Until they do it again next season, we can not be sure if they were just very, very lucky; or if they have truly built a team that will compete year after year.

The fact that it carried over from the end of 2006 is an encouraging sign.

[The Leaper]

I agree with the notion that having a top ten pick is somewhat overrated...I would rather have additional 2nd/3rd round picks and a lower first round pick, for most of the reasons mentioned.

However, there is little doubt that it is EASIER to land a franchise caliber player in the top 10 picks. That is why there is importance around those high picks. Getting a guy like Adrian Peterson is your reward for doing wisely in the top ten picks...a pretty good reward regardless of price.

In the end, there are advantages to all points on the draft board...and the greatest philosophy when it comes to drafting is the one that Thompson ascribes to, which is to maximize the number of picks you have regardless of position. That is due to the fact that scouting college talent is such an imperfect science.

[Scott Campbell]

Basically, I have supported TT's approach; but I am not willing to consider him the total package as a GM until it is shown that he can sustain the team year after year.


I think I fall into this camp too. Though I'm pulling for him to succeed because its good for the team.

We definitely live in a what have you done for me lately world, with Bobby Bowden being a notable exception.

[Tony Oday]

I cant imagine how many more fricken young players the Packers need? I mean the packers are the youngest in the NFL it would be nice to trade some picks for some talent. Ya know like Michael Turner.

[Pacopete4]

why turner when we saw what we have in grant who is emerging as a top back in the nfl, and jackson who we saw today what he is all about, not to mention morency is a good backup along with wynn...

we need depth at oline, LB, and dbacks

we also may need to think TE, the more weapons the merrier

[Lurker64]

I cant imagine how many more fricken young players the Packers need? I mean the packers are the youngest in the NFL it would be nice to trade some picks for some talent. Ya know like Michael Turner.

Michael Turner hasn't really impressed anybody this year. I'm not sure I'd want to give up much for him. His yards, average per carry, and TDs are down this year, and he hasn't really looked good.

[Scott Campbell]

I cant imagine how many more fricken young players the Packers need? I mean the packers are the youngest in the NFL it would be nice to trade some picks for some talent. Ya know like Michael Turner.


I think you always need young players. CB's, G's, OT's are at the top of my list right now.

[Freak Out]

So in the end, to me, it comes down to having a GM who knows how to scout, puts a premium on scouting, trusts his scouts, and has the cojones to do what he thinks is right, despite what criticism might come.

Trusting his scouts and their opinions.
Didn't Sherman shut down his scouts all the time? I remember reading something about that.

[Bretsky]

Basically, I have supported TT's approach; but I am not willing to consider him the total package as a GM until it is shown that he can sustain the team year after year.


I think I fall into this camp too. Though I'm pulling for him to succeed because its good for the team.

We definitely live in a what have you done for me lately world, with Bobby Bowden being a notable exception.

I'm here too; TT seems like a very solid GM
He has the cap so under control if he chooses he can sign a blockbuster free agent w/o putting the team in much future risk

Yall know my criteria for a great GM

TT will be a Great GM when Green Bay wins a Super Bowl

[Tony Oday]

You can NEVER have enough good backs and Turner is a good back and I would think we could get Turner for a little less than last year.

We definately need to get a couple of CBs and Safties. The rest is good IMO we just need the oline to gel.

[Bretsky]

You can NEVER have enough good backs and Turner is a good back and I would think we could get Turner for a little less than last year.

We definately need to get a couple of CBs and Safties. The rest is good IMO we just need the oline to gel.


OG