Tweet
The press gazette gives him about a 33% hit rate. But is the percentage hit as important as the total quality and quantity of talent acquired? Comparing Sherman's drafts to Thompson's drafts will shed some light.
Sherman selected 6 players in the 2002 draft and hit on 2 (Walker and Kampman). This is a 33% hit rate. However, Sherman started with 8 picks. After trading up and trading for players that didn't work out, he ended up with 6 picks. If you divide 2 into 8, you end up with Sherman getting a 25% quality Packer return rate on the 8 picks he was originally given. Not good.
In 2003 Sherman selected 9 players (lets say 10 with Al Harris being the 10th). He ended up with 2 players good players of the 9 or 22% (Barnett and Harris). (note, I shouldn't even count Harris because the press gazette didn't count Grant, but I will out of mercy). Not good. However, he started with 11 picks (7 normal, three comp picks and another pick for Matt Bowen). 2/11 = 18%. Sherman ended up getting an 18% quality Packer return on the 11 picks he started with. Horrible.
In 2004 Sherman again selected 6 players. Two ended up being decent (Wells and Corey Williams). 2/6 is again 33%. However, he started with 8 picks, again making it a 25% quality Packer return rate on his original 8 picks.
At the end of Shermans reign as GM, he ended up with 21 total picks. He ended up with 6 quality Packers, about a 30% return rate. Using this percentage, you'd think Sherman did a good job drafting. However, he didn't start with 21 picks. He started with 27 picks and got 6 quality Packers. He ended up with a 22% quality Packer return rate on his original 27 picks. He ended up with 6 good Packers.
Now for Thompson. Using the GBPG model, he ended up with 13 good picks out of 43 (about 30%, same as Sherman). They didn't count players playing for other teams as good picks, only counted ones that are quality Packers. I think that's fair because it's not just how you draft, it's if they actually help). I'm not going to go through and break each down because the press gazette already did (and there are minor details that can be quibbled with, but there always will be in this subjective world). I'm just going to use their number even though I think it will ultimately be viewed as low. Anyway. . .
In 2005, Thompson started with 6 picks (after Sherman traded away 3 of them in previous years for Rkal truluck and d combs). I didn't count these against Sherman, so just imagine now that his number of total picks is higher and his % hit is even lower. The important stat here is that Thompson started with 6 picks.
In 2006, Thompson started with 9 picks (although he turned 9 into 12).
In 2007, Thompson started with 8 picks (turned 8 into 11)
In 2008, Thompson started wtih 8 picks (turned 8 into 9)
In total, Thompson started with 31 picks (not 43). If you divide the 13 quality picks the press gazette credits him with by 31, you end up with a 41% quality Packer return rate (double Sherman's).
In the end, Thompson ended up with far more talent than Sherman even though they hit on the same percentage of players. When judging the draft, it's more than just percentage hit. It's the overall quality and quantity of talent brought in and that has as much to do with the number of picks as it does with the percentage hit. Because Thompson has a good percentage and a high number of picks, he ends up with more talent and is clearly better at the draft. Because sherman has a good percentage and an extremely low number of picks he has far less talent and is clearly inferior to Thompson when it comes to the draft (and just about everything else, I might add).
And I think Thompson will end up with closer to a 50% return rate on these first 4 years when it's all said and done, but even using cruddy judgment from the press gazette, he is a stud.
Comment