An End to Ted Thompson Draft Surprises

[Lurker64]

In his tenure as our GM, Ted Thompson's strength is almost unquestionably in his ability to draft. At the same time, however, other than taking Hawk at #5 overall Thompson has had a particular gift at surprising people with who he takes. Picks like James Jones, Jason Spitz, or Tony Moll were regularly roundly criticized by dedicated Packer fans at the time, even though in retrospect these players have certainly done enough to earn their draft status. Even Jennings, who is a star in the making, was met with groans by many of the Packer faithful. The outrage at the Justin Harrell last year was palpable, even though Harrell proved valuable, if unspectacular, when a rash of injuries depleted our depth at DL.

Part of the reason for this is the emotional rollercoaster that is fandom, as part of being a fan is fundamentally irrational. But a large part of some of our disappointment with the draft is due to preconceived notions. We convince ourselves before the draft last year that Favre desperately needs offensive weapons, and so a first round pick that's not a RB, WR, or TE is not acceptable. In retrospect, we didn't take any of those positions first overall, and we managed to do okay on offense last year. This year we've been thrown into the "not a lot of clear needs" bin, so I'm afraid that fans will fall into the trap of "there is one position we need to shore up in order to win the superbowl." But at the same time, since we have "not a lot of clear needs", this might empower Thompson to buck the conventional wisdom even more in going for "Best Player Available, regardless of position."

Thus, as a means to avoid surprise, rage, disappointment, and general befuddlement, I propose the following thought experiment to dedicated Packer fans:

For each position in the draft, make a serious case for taking a player at that position early in the draft, assuming that some reasonable case for "Best player available" can be made for the individual taken at that position.

We're all thinking that this team might be best served taking the best remaining CB in a class with good CB depth at #30, or the best OG in the draft, or potentially a Tight End. However, knowing Ted Thompson we should not rule out the possibility that we take a DE, RB, WR, QB, or OT at #30. We might think it's insane to pick any of those positions personally, but let's try to understand what Ted might be thinking when he picks. If nothing else, if we practice thinking outside the box, we'll likely be happier on draft day.

It's always possible that your draft board might work out in such a way that even though position A is your #1 need, there's a large bunch of players available at position A that are all ranked about the same on your board, so thinking that at least one of them will be around for your next pick, you might pick a player at position B that (while position B is less of a need) stands out among the remaining players at position B. So there's always a case to be made for not drafting a certain position. I'm interested in the case *for* drafting any position.

I'll post some of my own ideas later, but I'd love to hear some of yours.

[CaliforniaCheez]

I hadn't heard much about the guys drafted last year. After researching them in a couple of days after the draft I liked it a lot.

I did not agree with the criticism.

It will likely be the same this year.

How many thought Korey Hall would make a great transition to FB??

One key trend is that Ted is bringing in good attitude guys. As they age there will be very good team chemistry.

I'm not spending nearly the time on draft prospects as I have in the past.

Figuring what Ted will do, especially with his trades, makes any effort in researching the draft, futile.

[packinpatland]

I have alot more of a 'comfort level' with TT......guess he's proven that he does indeed know what he's doing. I'm going into this year's draft with less 'intrepidation'..........and isn't that a good feeling!

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I'll make a case for drafting a WR in the first round (yes a WR).

While this position may not be an immediate need, I feel that the position is not as set for the future as some may think. To have a very good WR crop you really have to have at least three good WR's, and right now I only see two that are long term answers at the position.

DD is 33, and while he's still awesome, I don't see him playing more than 2-3 more years. krob wasn't horrible, but he clearly wasn't as effective as he was in the past. Was it being out of football for a year? Was it his knees? Probably a little of both, but the fact of the matter is I don't think he can be depended on for the future. And as for RM, I just don't think he's all that good to be honest.

Possible picks at WR; (listed in order of whom I would want and who I think will be available)....

1.) Mario Manningham. I have watched him play in a couple games; he's exactly the type of WR that we like and have on our team. He has the same mentality as DD and Greg Jennings in that he’s always looking down field after he catches a pass. That's why I love our WR's now. They never go down after the catch and Manningham would continue that tradition.

2.) Malcolm Kelly. I would love to draft this guy. He is exactly the type of WR that we don't have and one that we could definitely use. At about 6-5 he could become a great red zone target for either Favre or Rodgers. He is a bit inconsistent, but he has really great hands.

3.) Limas Sweed. Like Kelly he is a big WR who would be a great playmaker and a red zone threat.

Well, that's one possibility I could see happening that may not be the most obvious. I would not be mad with either of these guys.


BTW, I love the thread idea...

[RashanGary]

There are many ways to win in the NFL. You can have 3 stud WR's and an average RB. You can have a stud QB and a stud RB with average WR's. You can have a GREAT defense, GREAT ST's and an average offense. You can have a GREAT offense, GREAT ST's and a good defense.

Bottom line, take the best player available becuase while you can win many ways, nothing will change the fact that real talent and skill is rare. Take the rare talent and adjust your game plan according to your strengths.

In one word, "opportunisitic"

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

There are many ways to win in the NFL. You can have 3 stud WR's and an average RB. You can have a stud QB and a stud RB with average WR's. You can have a GREAT defense, GREAT ST's and an average offense. You can have a GREAT offense, GREAT ST's and a good defense.

Bottom line, take the best player available becuase while you can win many ways, nothing will change the fact that real talent and skill is rare. Take the rare talent and adjust your game plan according to your strengths.

In one word, "oppertunisitic"

Exactly. As long as the player he picks turns out to be good, am happy.

[Lurker64]

I personally think picking a defensive end at #30 overall could be a reasonable decision, assuming the right player is there. Now, Kampman is an all-star and deserves to be, KGB is a capable spot-rusher, and Jenkins got paid last year, but when you're picking a guy at #30, he's not expecting to be handed a starting job on a platter, just an opportunity to compete for a starting job, and I believe there's one of those for every position except QB here (assuming Favre in '08). The Jenkins experiment isn't necessarily a success yet, as he raised questions last year as to his ability to play with pain.

The Packers defensive system puts a lot of emphasis on getting pressure with the front four, something we did reasonably well in the early season but didn't do so well later on. This is potentially due to the fact that Kampman played so many downs as there isn't a lot behind him. The Giants showed in the postseason that they could make hay by putting four passrushers on the DL during obvious passing downs, and given the right talent most teams could manage that.

A reasonable player to consider (who might be there at #30) would then be Calais Campbell out of Miami. He's very large (6'8" 280 lbs) and is rather athletic and quick off the edge, and he had a monster 2006 season where at times he looked mostly unblockable. He had a somewhat disappointing (but still above average 2007), which might be explained by the fact that Miami was simply a bad team last year and bad teams tend to negatively impact individual performance. Despite his impressive physical tools, Campbell is a little raw as a pass rusher and needs to improve his technique, which is why he might fall all the way to 30 depending on how 29 other teams draft. He also has some growing up to do, he's smart but a little immature (but wouldn't be a bad fit for our locker room). The combine hasn't happened yet, but a lot of people don't have him in the first round, so it's not unreasonable to see him at 30.

[KYPack]

I've learned NOT to try and predict what he'll do.

Wouldn't shock me if he drafted Another DT who was injured his Senior season. I take it for granted that he knows the BAA's and will pick off more than our share for the Pack.

The guy knows college talent as good or better than any GM in the league.

[Lurker64]

I've learned NOT to try and predict what he'll do.

Wouldn't shock me if he drafted Another DT who was injured his Senior season. I take it for granted that he knows the BAA's and will pick off more than our share for the Pack.

The guy knows college talent as good or better than any GM in the league.

I agree that Thompson knows players very well, but that's not what this is about. None of us are NFL scouts and we know a comparatively small portion of college players in the draft, and we know of virtually none of them from small schools. What we do know, however, is positions. We look at the lack of TE production in 2006 and we think that "TE is a need position and we don't get one in FA or draft one early on we've made a terrible mistake".

So when Thompson picks Harrell, we're angry that he's not a TE (or a WR, or whatever we thought we needed.)

So in an effort to make our expectations as fans (who are, by their very nature, irrational) rather than talking about "why we NEED x position", we should discuss (at least in one thread) "why we could use any given position enough to spend an early draft pick on it."

If Packer fans had bothered to consider that Thompson thinks that having a lot of talented big guys in the middle of the DL is a priority, and that even though it's apparently as "position of strength" Colin Cole is merely average and losing Williams after the 2007 season is a distinct possibility (after which we no longer really have a lot of depth), then drafting Harrell wouldn't have been such a shock and disappointment to so many Packer fans on draft day.

[RashanGary]

Lurker, I think there are people who cannot see how drafting the best available player is good (even if they see it succeed).

I forget what radio show I was listening to, but it was one of the evening shows on ESPN radio. The guy was talking about the NFL draft. He said GM's talk about taking the best available player but it was all lip service. He said any GM who did that was an idiot and that none of them acctually do.

I was suprised that a person who covers sports would think this way, but apparently some people just cannot fathom it. I'm sure there are a share of those poeple here.

[Bretsky]

I'd be pretty surprised if TT didn't have Brady Quinn rated as the BPA at his pick when he chose JH.

[RashanGary]

I'd be pretty surprised if TT didn't have Brady Quinn rated as the BPA at his pick when he chose JH.

I wouldn't.

I see your point though, it's BPA within reason. Ted Thompson has said he's not going to take 7 QB's in a row or 3 kickers.

There is a point where it's not good but the BPA for the most part, at most positions is the way to go IMO.

[vince]

I also have read things that imply Thompson uses a tiered system for evaluation rather than a simple numbered list, as Bretsky's statement would indicate.

There would likely be numerous players at many positions that fall within the same tier of raw value. Within the highest tier of players still on the board, Thompson would surely give himself the flexibility to select a player that would potentially deliver the greatest net value because of current team depth at various positions in question, the relative depth of players at the same position at the same or lower tiers remaining in the draft, and/or the strategic importance of the projected role the player may fill in general.

[Patler]

I also have read things that imply Thompson uses a tiered system for evaluation rather than a simple numbered list, as Bretsky's statement would indicate.

There would likely be numerous players at many positions that fall within the same tier of raw value. Within the highest tier of players still on the board, Thompson would surely give himself the flexibility to select a player that would potentially deliver the greatest net value because of current team depth at various positions in question, the relative depth of players at the same position at the same or lower tiers remaining in the draft, and/or the strategic importance of the projected role the player may fill in general.

I think Vince is correct. TT has justified trading down several times with the explanation that they knew one of several players would be available at the lower position, and the liked all of them equally well. Clearly he will then pick a player at a position of need rather than a similarly ranked player at a position of depth for the Packers.

This may cause some to then ask why he selected Harrell instead of a position of greater need, or instead of Quinn as Bretsky suggested. I think TT answered that, too, when he stated in one interview that they had Harrell ranked much higher than where he was picked, even in the top 10. He may have had Harrell and Quinn similarly ranked, so went with Harrell. With respect to Harrell vs. an unspecific equally ranked player at another position, I think TT looked at defensive tackle as more of an area of need than many fans. He may still look at it as an area of need. I think he always will, unless and until he can send out a line of dominant players at each DL position.

[pbmax]

If a D Line player is in his remaining top ranked range, I could easily see him going D Line again.

I cannot give you the person, as I cannot bring myself to try to scout college players, but we still have a need here and its in Thompson's training to value D Line players in the first round.

I don't see him going guard/center, TE, safety or LB in the first round. EDIT: It won't be a WR either, at least not without trading down.

At D Line, the player I thought was most responsible for the early season pressure was Jolly. He collapsed more than a few pockets, especially on 1st and 2nd down play actions and drove QBs into Kampman several times.

After Cole and Jolly's injuries, the pressure evaporated. Jenkins battled injuries and Kampman may have peaked and been scouted out or adjusted to, but whatever the cause, the pressure wasn't even modest by midseason.

I was worried about the pass rush last season and it still worries me if its dependent on Jolly.

It could be either DE or DT. But you can't say you weren't warned.

I personally think picking a defensive end at #30 overall could be a reasonable decision, assuming the right player is there...

...The Packers defensive system puts a lot of emphasis on getting pressure with the front four, something we did reasonably well in the early season but didn't do so well later on.