"DRAFT ONLY PART OF GB'S SUCCESS

[HarveyWallbangers]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3

[Gunakor]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3

It's the same number but the chances of reaching that number are greater. 3 is the constant. You'd like to get 3 starters or at least major contributors from each draft. Those contributors can come from the bottom of a draft too. So if you can turn 7 picks into 12 you give yourself a much better chance of finding those 3 major contributors. If you turn 7 picks into 6 you actually hurt your chances.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

[Chester Marcol]

25% of 12 is a heck of a lot better than 50% of 6.

Simple arithmetic.

Actually, wouldn't it be the same?

25% of 12 = 3
50% of 6 = 3

That did come out wrong didn't it. I guess the point I failed to make was more I like our odds of hitting 1 in 4 more than 1 in 2.

[Patler]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.

[Scott Campbell]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.

Yeah, Sherman used to place his bets like a roulette player, where as Ted acts more like the Casino and sides with the house odds.

[Patler]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

That's true, but I think TT has tilted the probabilities of success in his favor by maximizing picks in rounds 2, 3 and 4. He has had 14 picks in those rounds in 3 years. Picks in rounds 2-4 should contribute, at least for a few years. If he continues to get 5 or 6 picks in the first 128 each year, he should continue to find players who help, at least for a while, and should occasionally hit on a good one in those rounds.

Yeah, Sherman used to place his bets like a roulette player, where as Ted acts more like the Casino and sides with the house odds.

Don't get me started on that! How many GMs would trade a future #6 to get a pick just eight spots ahead of the one you already have in Round 7? or trade two picks to move up 8 spots in round 6?

[woodbuck27]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

[sharpe1027]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

Are you suggesting that all players selected in later rounds have been shit?

First round picks probably do *marginally* better on average, but plenty of later picks are not *shit*, and plenty of 1st round picks are *shit*. The analogy is poor, IMO.

[mngolf19]

Re: "DRAFT ONLY PART OF GB'S SUCCESS

wide receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker A.J. Hawk, the draft has produced a handful of average to slightly above average starters and a bevy of backups..............

This analysis is worthless without some context. Which teams have done better than that over the same span of years?

Let's start with our division:
Vikings:
1 Adrian Peterson Oklahoma
2 Rice Sidney South Carolina
3 McCauley Marcus Fresno State
4 Robison Brian Texas
5 Allison Aundrae East Carolina
6 Alexander Rufus Oklahoma
7 Thigpen Tyler Coastal Carolina
7 Williams Chandler Florida International

2006
Rnd Name College Note
1 Chad Greenway Iowa
2 Cedric Griffin Texas
2 Ryan Cook New Mexico
2 Tarvaris Jackson Alabama State
4 Ray Edwards Purdue
5 Greg Blue Georgia

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso

So, they got 1 superstud in AD and what....3 starters that are O.K.? This on a team that didn't make the playoffs...

The 2005 draft was as bad as possible. But the 2006 and 2007 drafts have produced 7 starters and most of the rest get decent playing time.

[Scott Campbell]

Re: "DRAFT ONLY PART OF GB'S SUCCESS

2005
Rnd Name College Note
1 Troy Williamson South Carolina
1 Erasmus James Wisconsin
2 Marcus Johnson Mississippi
3 Dustin Fox Ohio State
4 Ciatrick Fason Florida
6 C.J. Mosley Missouri
7 Adrian Ward Texas-El Paso

2005 - that had to hurt.

[woodbuck27]

I agree that it's the right philosophy, but the 6 would be weighted. Hypothetically, you'd have a greater chance at hitting on the 6 then the 12.

Quality not Quantity.

If you throw shit against the wall you still have shit.

Packers Forever!

Are you suggesting that all players selected in later rounds have been shit?

First round picks probably do *marginally* better on average, but plenty of later picks are not *shit*, and plenty of 1st round picks are *shit*. The analogy is poor, IMO.

No. What I'm getting at is this.

If I was drafting talent for OUR team I'd be looking at it like I would an employer. The best people have the best resume and talent with the right mind set in terms of attitude.

In this football life we talk in terms of upside based in athletic ability. How much will training and drilling upgrade a prospects ability to perform? How many fifth round picks or later Vs first to third round picks go on to make a Pro Bowl?

Patler would likely have that stat at his fingertips.

I believe that 1-3 round talent, exceeds 5-7 round talent in terms of success in the NFL. In other words in the context were dealing with here. I believe that trading down to lower rounds. Specifically to the rounds 5-7 dilutes a GM's opportunity for success. Unless that GM knows something that the other 31 GM's doesn't.

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's. Here he sits today with a whack of money too spend ands he sits on it.

He's a fine accountant. For sure. I want him to guard my money.

I believe that this draft will determine more on TT's ability to draft quality.So why should he dilute the product?

I am pulling (again) for Ted Thompson.

GO TED GO !!

PACKERS FOREVER.

[sharpe1027]

Re: "DRAFT ONLY PART OF GB'S SUCCESS

The 2005 draft was as bad as possible. But the 2006 and 2007 drafts have produced 7 starters and most of the rest get decent playing time.

I apologize in advance, my familiarity with the Vikings is mostly limited to what I saw as their listed depth chart. Which 7 do you consider starters?

[Scott Campbell]

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for.

Ummmm, who exactly is "we"? And when were you elected spokesmodel for the group?

[sharpe1027]

No. What I'm getting at is this.

If I was drafting talent for OUR team I'd be looking at it like I would an employer. The best people have the best resume and talent with the right mind set in terms of attitude.

In this football life we talk in terms of upside based in athletic ability. How much will training and drilling upgrade a prospects ability to perform? How many fifth round picks or later Vs first to third round picks go on to make a Pro Bowl?

Patler would likely have that stat at his fingertips.

I believe that 1-3 round talent, exceeds 5-7 round talent in terms of success in the NFL. In other words in the context were dealing with here. I believe that trading down to lower rounds. Specifically to the rounds 5-7 dilutes a GM's opportunity for success. Unless that GM knows something that the other 31 GM's doesn't.

I believe we are recognizing clearly on this board that Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's. Here he sits today with a whack of money too spend ands he sits on it.

He's a fine accountant. For sure. I want him to guard my money.

I believe that this draft will determine more on TT's ability to draft quality.So why should he dilute the product?

I am pulling (again) for Ted Thompson.

GO TED GO !!

PACKERS FOREVER.

I see your point, but which is better? Taking your job-applicant analogy:

No matter how detailed of resumes you receive, you can never be sure which applicant is going to produce the best. If you had the chance to have 3 of your top applicants come in and work for a couple months at the expense of your top applicant going to another business, I would guess that you would generally end up ahead. Resumes are fine and all, but there is no substitute for putting someone to work and seeing how they do.

Also, I'll take a football player over a first round speedster anyday of the week and especially on Sunday. Anyway way you cut it, very good players come out of every round of the draft.

As for "Ted Thompson is not the GM Guru that some here once hoped for. He's not the GM of all GM's." Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I've rarely seen anyone make a claim that bold. Maybe you are overstating people's opinion of TT a little? I certainly don't think that he is the GM of all GM's and I've said as much. That being said, I think his drafts have been better than average.