BPA or Need - what did TT do?

[cheesner]

I keep seeing people say that TT changed and this draft was for need. I don't see it. Raji vrs Crabtree, I think they were rated about the same by the Packers. I think Crabtree is the better player but there were some character/lockerroom question about him that dropped him to even with Raji.

As far as Matthews goes - how can it be a need pick (reach) when they traded up for him? If the Packer board has him rated later, they probably would have waited for him at their pick. My bet is that they had him rated pretty high, even in the top 12.

The next few picks I see were typically rated higher than where the Packers took them.

The last 3 picks - well, they are just flyers. High risk/high reward type players because it will be tough to make the roster this season. Why take a safe choice on a guy who probably won't make the team. Try for a guy who has a very small chance at being very good.

I feel the draft was 100% BPA - just that the picks fortunately were at positions of need.

[ND72]

I think it was both. I think both BPA's were Needs...so it went both directions. I think you saw a more aggressive GM obviously in this draft to fill his needs through his best players being where they were in the draft.

[Lurker64]

I don't think either "BPA" or "Need" is really the right way to go about it. My way of thinking is that the correct draft pick is the guy who improves the roster the most. Don't reach for guys who aren't good value at the point where they're drafted, but always look for the "largest upgrade" at whatever position.

[wist43]

As has been said (speculated), TT did, in fact jump his draft board; which, of course, is completely out of character for him.

To me, this is the kind of move he needed to make, and the kind of move that I never thought he would.

I don't know what grading system they use, but for shits and giggles, assume Crabtree is rated at 8.9, and Raji 8.8... what's the difference??? Miniscule.

Raji plays a position of desperate need, and is a rare talent... likewise, Crabtree may be a rare talent as well, but 334 lbs DL that can move like Raji are much more difficult to come by than is a guy like Crabtree... lot's of Crabtree's out there - pun intended

Furthermore, Raji's impact improves an entire unit... makes everyone better on that side of the ball. Crabtree... well, may develop into a very good receiver in a couple of years, but simpy wouldn't have the kind of impact I expect from Raji.

TT had to pull the trigger on this pick... and I give him a lot of credit for doing so.

[retailguy]

TT had to pull the trigger on this pick... and I give him a lot of credit for doing so.

Who are you? And what have you done with Wist?

[Bossman641]

TT had to pull the trigger on this pick... and I give him a lot of credit for doing so.

Who are you? And what have you done with Wist?

Tex has been mysteriously quiet lately.......

[swede]

I'll fire off a post before I read what the rest of ya'll said.

I think the draft fell nicely for the Packers. They were able to strike a nice balance between BPA and need with their first two picks.

I thought it was cool that we had posters nailing a couple of Ted's picks 100 players deep in the draft; We are starting to figure this guy out in the middle rounds.

[Gunakor]

Both BPA and Need. We needed a NT, Raji was BPA. We needed an OLB, Matthews was BPA where we drafted him.

Many mocks had a couple of our later round pickups going much higher than they did, so I'd assume those to be BPA as well. And filled needs.

Both.

[Lurker64]

I don't think that NFL teams actually do arrange draft boards vertically like "this is the best player, this is the second best player, this is the third best player". I think they organize them horizontally.

That is, they rank all of the prospects by position: the best WRs, the best DTs, the best QBs, the best RBs, etc. Then you draw lines to demarcate tiers. So your top tier might have the top 2 QBs, the top RB, the top 3 DEs, the top 2 LBs, etc. Then you cross off guys as they become picked.

Then when it's time for you to make a pick, you look at all of the players left in the highest tier that still has players in it. All of those players are more or less ranked equally (they're in the same tier) and you just pick the one that you think will help the team the most.

This draft came to a point where TT was looking at the top NT and the top WR left in his elite tier. There's no point in trying to compare DTs to WRs when it comes "ranking prospects", just rank the WRs against each other and the DTs against each other, so Crabtree probably wasn't ranked above Raji and Raji probably wasn't ranked above Crabtree. It ultimately came down to Thompson breaking the tie (between at least two prospects) by the scales and by position.

[cheesner]

I won't argue that the players picked were at 'Need' positions, but I believe that is a coincidence. The players selected were likely the BPA when TT selected them.

[boiga]

I have to think that too many of our needs were filled for this not to be considered a "need" based draft. We needed big bodies in the D-Line, and we got them. We needed stronger prospects for the O-Line and we got them.

Sure, we were lucky to have scored some of the players where we did, but too many holes were filled for those players to all be the best player available at those moments. Coincidence doesn't stretch that far.

Thank goodness too, because if Ted and filled our roster with Crabtree and a bunch of other skill position WR's, RB's and QB's just because they were BPA, I'd have been pissed.

[Bretsky]

multiple outlets hinted that Crabtree was the BPA on the Packers board; outlets more credible than our viewpoints.

TT went Need with pick #9 and BPA on his board with pick 26.

TT probably had Raji graded out near Crab so he went the need route

But nobody will convince me he rated Raji higher than Crab; pure homerism IMO

With that being said, I've always been a win now guy so I'm kosher with need

[Joemailman]

Maybe TT decided to pick the guy who doesn't have a broken foot.

[Fritz]

I agree with Lurker...and Bretsky. I think, in general, Lurker nailed how it's done. But I also think that within a "tier" there are probably in some cases some ranking done. Not always, but in some cases. So most of the time if you have three or four guys in the same tier you can pick need, or trade down two or three spots and pick who's left.

However, I do think Bretsky's right - several sources seemed to indicatet that Crabtree was ranked highest. I mean, if you're the Lions you do need to decide that somebody is the best player, right? So maybe Thompson really, really thought Crabtree was the best player on the board. But maybe he thought that this was balanced out by the fact that he played a position that is not considered quite as crucial to the Packers as nose tackle - i.e., he was not needed as much. If for example you had this Kellen Winslow-type prospect, a most kick-ass tight end - is he really as valuable to your team as a Mark Sanchez-type QB prospect? Would anybody ever trade up to the top five or really, really far anywhere in the first round to grab a super-duper guard prospect?

Conceivably you could have a guard rated as the most kick ass, can't miss, ball-kickin' prospect ever ever, and nobody would draft the guy in the top five.

So, Lurker's right. And Bretsky, too.

[Joemailman]

I think it had a lot to do with scarcity. 330 pound guys who can move quickly and laterally are harder to find than athletic 6'2" wide receivers.