Anylizing Ted Thompson's drafts

[Bretsky]

Re: Stupid

Bretsky, were you happy with Brett Favre as QB?

Now your going to compare a QB and GM? Congrat's my friend. You just set the bar for the dumbest sports statement of all time.........

Packnut, were you happy with Ron Wolf as GM?

I think that's fair; and if TTT's success and percentage of titles to years as GM for Green Bay are as good as Wolf's we'll be happy with that.

[Gunakor]

So the Giants won 2 in 16 years; Colts...may not have been a perfect example. Steelers and Patriots seems to be the cream of the crop. Regardless we strive to build a franchise like some of the best organizations are able to do. One might argue Wolf was close but we never got there. One might also argue if Dallas was not so dominant GB might have won a couple more titles. I just don't buy the 1 in 32 theory

Neither do I. But I don't buy the notion that we should be winning them every year, or even every decade, either. Complete roster turnarounds take several years, and if you pick the right guys all the time you become the Steelers or the Giants who only take a decade and a half to dismantle one SB winning roster and assemble another SB winning roster in it's place.

The Steelers too - didn't win a damn thing between Bradshaw and Rothlisberger. Patriots didn't win anything before Brady, and will probably see at least a 10 year span between Brady's retirement and the next time they smell a SB victory. It just doesn't happen that fast, even for the Steelers or the Patriots or the Cowboys or the Giants.

You have to keep that in mind. We are where those teams were for those time spans. If we were to win a Super Bowl this year - just pretend - it would be with a completely remade roster, top to bottom, including coaches and upper management. When you think of it that way, at least in the context of the history of teams in the position we are in right now, 13 years doesn't seem too horribly long. You won't find many examples of teams who did it faster.

[gex]

The win/loss record sways my opinion more than anything. He is ultimately responsible for our teams success and he is below .500(no excuses)

So every time the defense gave a game away in the last minute, and both times that we lost on a missed FG you blamed TT? Last year suggested to me that we're pretty darn close to having a good football team. The new defensive coaching staff is reason to yet be hopeful that we can contend for the division with minimal roster changes. I don't disagree that W/L is the ultimate measure of a GM, but if I'm the President of the Green Bay Packers I damn well am going to consider much more than W/L in evaluating the health of my organization.

...each and every person will not be swayed by any arguments that dont go along with what they believe.

That is a remarkable statement that may say more about you than the rest of us.

And whats it say about me, Swede? Please explain this and why you felt the need to point this out?

[Partial]

We shouldn't be winning them every year, but their are teams that are consistently (as much so as you can be with a salary cap) sucessful. We were like that during the 1990s because we had some stars.

Playoffs should be a goal every year, and we should be extremely dissapointed if they don't make. .500 isn't good enough. 10-6 should be the measure of an 'ok' year for us imo. Maybe it's not realistic, but we should be held to a higher standard because we are the GBP.

[cheesner]

Re: Anylizing Ted Thompson's drafts

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20090418/PKR01/90418050/1058&referrer=NEWSFRONTCAROUSEL


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.

Lost in all these comments is the original subject.

Justin, you made an excellent post. I hope you sent this to the author of the article you reference. You make an excellent rebuttal of the authors take on TT's ability to draft.

That being said, I could really care less about previous Packer GMs, and feel he should only be judged on the here and now, that is: other GMs in the NFL right now.

[RashanGary]

Thanks, Cheesner. I know so much about the last guy, it's my first and easiest comparison. I see your point though.

[Fritz]

Why is does Thompson have about a .500 record as a GM and Sherman had over .600?

A lot goes into that (including the previous GM). For those of us that can see a little deeper, the future is not nearly so hard to predict. Anyone that still doubts Thompson, I'll just say this, "the Packers are going to be a good bet for success for the next 5 years" and I'll put my money where my mouth is to any doubter who thinks his record will below .500 for the next 5 years.

I don't think we'll be under .500... in fact, I think it is likely we will be over .500 - one principle contributing factor is the abysmal division we play in; however, I think it is even more likely that we end up with exactly zero Lombardi Trophies.

I want to win Superbowls, you guys seem content to be 10-6. And, while 10-6 isn't bad if you're ascending, I see 10-6 as about as good as TT will produce.

Certainly a 13-3 fluke like a couple of years ago is a possibility, but that's all it will be - a fluke.

The NFL is a 4-5 year cyclical league, TT is a sub .500 GM to date, and the roster is still full of holes. The OL is a complete mess, the defense has been internally overrated by TT and his staff to the point where I think it is fair to say that the front seven is a complete mess as well.

I give him some credit here and there, but in the end, I don't see any Superbowls, and I see plenty of holes on the roster 4-5 years into TT's tenure.

The line in boldface above is the line that troubles me, Wist. Even if the Packers do very well, you're going to attribute it to a "fluke." You appear bound and determined to not like a Ted Thompson team, no matter what it does on the field.

[GrnBay007]

The line in boldface above is the line that troubles me, Wist. Even if the Packers do very well, you're going to attribute it to a "fluke." You appear bound and determined to not like a Ted Thompson team, no matter what it does on the field.

Not true! Wist was negative when Sherman was in GB too.

[PlantPage55]

Not true! Wist was negative when Sherman was in GB too.

Me too. Which proves I'm not a company man. I, for one, am in love with Ted's philosophy. Has he gotten us results so far? I think so. There's room for much improvement, but I feel it is coming.

[chain_gang]

I guess I don't understand comparing TT to a terrible GM in Mike Sherman. Shouldn't we be setting the bar a little higher.

While TT has done a solid job drafting players in Rounds 1 & 2, the main issue with his drafts have been the later round picks 3-7. I realize you're not going to hit on every late round pick, that's a big makeup of the team considering how that's over half your draft picks. I'd rather see the success rate of him drafting in those rounds. Comparing them to a solid GM, not Mike Sherman. Hell if we compare him to Mike Sherman we may as well compare him to Matt Millen.

TT hangs his hat on the draft, so it's much more important for him to hit on his picks, which is why we see him acquire so many later round draft picks. That's fine, but you better find some impact players in the later rounds then.

For the record, I do like TT as a GM.

[wist43]

The line in boldface above is the line that troubles me, Wist. Even if the Packers do very well, you're going to attribute it to a "fluke." You appear bound and determined to not like a Ted Thompson team, no matter what it does on the field.

Not true! Wist was negative when Sherman was in GB too.

My main criticism has always been defensive philosophy... wanted TT to go to a 3-4 when he came in; now we've wasted 4 years, and you guys are still defending the direction he took us???

As for Sherman??? We all hated him, at least as a GM... I loved his philosophy in the running game though. I'm an advocate of power football, on both sides of the ball... Hate finesse ball... and the Packers have been, if nothing else, all about finesse, especially on defense; will always be critical of that wimpified approach.

[Patler]

My main criticism has always been defensive philosophy... wanted TT to go to a 3-4 when he came in; now we've wasted 4 years, and you guys are still defending the direction he took us???

I have never known a non-headcoach GM to specify the general philosophy on either side of the ball. They leave that up to the head coach.

Surely you can't have expected him to come in and order Sherman to change defensive philosophy the first year? Perhaps he could have insisted on something when hiring MM, but at worst that "wasted" 3 years.

[Joemailman]

I've often wondered though whether the fact that TT didn't hire Bates as HC was in part because he didn't care for the Bates defense. He was right to allow MM his choice of DC in 2006, but we don't know what kind of conversations they had in 2009.

[swede]

The win/loss record sways my opinion more than anything. He is ultimately responsible for our teams success and he is below .500(no excuses)

So every time the defense gave a game away in the last minute, and both times that we lost on a missed FG you blamed TT? Last year suggested to me that we're pretty darn close to having a good football team. The new defensive coaching staff is reason to yet be hopeful that we can contend for the division with minimal roster changes. I don't disagree that W/L is the ultimate measure of a GM, but if I'm the President of the Green Bay Packers I damn well am going to consider much more than W/L in evaluating the health of my organization.

...each and every person will not be swayed by any arguments that dont go along with what they believe.

That is a remarkable statement that may say more about you than the rest of us.

And whats it say about me, Swede? Please explain this and why you felt the need to point this out?

Your post indicated that only one metric may be used to measure the performance of a GM. I gave reasons for my disagreement with you on this point.

You said that "...each and every person will not be swayed by any arguments that dont go along with what they believe."

I thought it interesting that you would state that each and every person on this board is incapable of responding to rational argument or new information with a change in viewpoint.

[Gunakor]

I guess I don't understand comparing TT to a terrible GM in Mike Sherman. Shouldn't we be setting the bar a little higher.

While TT has done a solid job drafting players in Rounds 1 & 2, the main issue with his drafts have been the later round picks 3-7. I realize you're not going to hit on every late round pick, that's a big makeup of the team considering how that's over half your draft picks. I'd rather see the success rate of him drafting in those rounds. Comparing them to a solid GM, not Mike Sherman. Hell if we compare him to Mike Sherman we may as well compare him to Matt Millen.

TT hangs his hat on the draft, so it's much more important for him to hit on his picks, which is why we see him acquire so many later round draft picks. That's fine, but you better find some impact players in the later rounds then.

For the record, I do like TT as a GM.

Impact players from the later rounds generally take 3 or more years to develop into impact players. The reason they are drafted so late is because they are too green to be immediate starters. Very rarely will you find a Tom Brady or a Marques Colston in the later rounds. In fact, 90% of draft classes don't have late round gems like that. This draft doesn't either, so I hope you aren't setting yourself up for a huge disappointment.