TT's Pre-Draft Press Conference

[Joemailman]

http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2010/04/16/3/

http://www.packers.com/multimedia/videos/2010_non_game/video_20100416__5ebd3019a09a__9707f19ed2a6/

He pretty much told the reporters which guys he was planning to draft.

Not sure if he was playing to the home crowd a bit, but he had some very positive words for O'Brien Schofield.

[MadScientist]

Well it's better than having reports like those coming out of Philly saying that they are looking to trade up for a safety.

I did like this bit:

(Do you like the idea of doing one round one night, two rounds the next night ...?)
Yes. The commissioner changed it that way, so I love it. It's perfect.

[Tarlam!]

(What do you think of this draft class as a whole?)
It's a good draft class. That's what the commissioner told me to say, right?

Two, count 'em, two references (or backhanded comliments) to Goodell!

I wonder if TT takes him seriously. If Goodell scews up the CBA, he might be gone.

Anyway, I, for one, always get a kick out of TT's pressers.

[Patler]

I wish they would ask some different questions like:

What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others? Which?
You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise? Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen? Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced? Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?

[Fred's Slacks]

I wish they would ask some different questions like:

What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others? Which?
You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise? Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen? Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced? Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?

Someone needs to kidnap Bedard the next time he has an interview scheduled with TT and we can replace him with Patler. I'd love to hear this interview.

[Fritz]

I second that, Slacks. Thompson could answer these questions without any danger of tipping his hand at all. He might then actually be inclined to share at least a little about these issues, which I would like to read.

Great questions. I'm curious about all of them.

[pbmax]

I second that, Slacks. Thompson could answer these questions without any danger of tipping his hand at all. He might then actually be inclined to share at least a little about these issues, which I would like to read.

Great questions. I'm curious about all of them.

It would be interesting just to see which of those he would choose to answer.

[RashanGary]

Their questions are horrible but I think there is a reason for it. They ask these loaded questions now, knowing Ted will sand by his guys and then 8 months from now, if the OL has struggles, they can site this response from Ted, indicating incompetence. It kind of works for them.

The problem with their constant negative energy is that at some point, when the things they complain about go right (and it seems the inevitably do), they just switch subjects like they never banged that drum.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for that paper. Outside of the McGinn draft series, which I love, it really lacks integrity.

[Fritz]

Agree with you, JH. And PB, that's a good question. I suppose if he even gave up a tidbit like "I look more carefully at Factor X than I used to," he might feel he was tipping his hand regarding players he might like who have that great Factor X.


It would be a good interview, I think.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Patler: What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
TT: That I have plenty of both.

Patler: How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
TT: I've gotten older.

Patler: Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
TT: No.

Patler: Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others?
TT: No.

Patler: Which?
TT: None.

Patler: You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
TT: No, no thoughts. Just luck I guess.

Patler: Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise?
TT: Yes, of course.

Patler: Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
TT: It depends on the individual circumstance.

Patler: You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen?
TT: We are constantly self-scouting.

Patler: Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced?
TT: We are constantly re-evaluating our drafting technique.

Patler: Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?
TT: Oh, yeah. All the time.

(Apologies to Patler )

[Tarlam!]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

[Fritz]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

Someone who knows his German chancellors. I love this board!

I say the Packers draft Helmut Kohl and turn him into a linebacker.

[Maxie the Taxi]

That's unfair to TT, Maxi. He's not like the ex- German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt who used one word answers to get back at an infamous reporter.

I hear ya.

TT uses 100 words to say "No."

[MJZiggy]

I'll take a stab at this. Seems like an interesting exercise. Now all we need is for someone to be bright enough to actually ask TT these questions so we can compare. Maybe we should send them to him.

Patler: What have you learned about your own strengths and weakness in evaluating talent?
TT: I think anyone in any profession has strengths and weaknesses. It's more a challenge of learning what they are so you can work with them.

Patler: How have you changed as a talent evaluator?
TT: As you get older and get more experience you learn from your mistakes. You get a better feel for what you're looking for in a player and how they fit into the team you have.

Patler: Have you changed the significance you give any evaluation factors over the years?
TT: No.

Patler: Do you think you have a better "feel" for judging talent at some positions than others?
TT: I'm not sure. I guess everyone has positions that they tend to do well with.

Patler: Which?
TT: I don't know that I could say that. I mean we all like to think we can evaluate them all equally, but you do the best you can with the players that are available.

Patler: You seem to have "hit" with a high percentage of you WR picks, any thoughts why?
TT: We like to look at guys that have a good speed and good hands. We scout these guys very well and I'm not sure there's much more to it than that.

Patler: Do you see your scouts as having particular position expertise?
TT: All of our scouts are talented guys, that said, I suppose you could say that some of them are pretty good at evaluating certain positions.

Patler: Do you defer to one for DBs, maybe another for WRs because they really seem to know the position and what it takes?
TT: It depends on who is scouting where and what they find. The guys look at a lot of film. I do trust the team we have here. They're a great bunch of guys.

Patler: You have drafted a lot of O-linemen, with only average results. Many are gone. None have achieved league-wide recognition. Most are inconsistent. Have you evaluated how you evaluate O-linemen?
TT: We are constantly self-scouting. I like the line that we've put together. They've been nicked up a lot, but I think we've put together a good group of players and you'd see it more if they had the chance to play more together without the injuries.

Patler: Have you changed your points of emphasis based on the results you have experienced?
TT: Not necessarily. You have to evaluate your players based on your criteria and the criteria for a good football player is relatively constant. You do scout your own team as well as other teams in the league.

Patler: Have you said to yourself "'Factor X' really isn't as important as I thought it was." or "'Factor Y' should be considered more strongly."?
TT: No, not really. The goal has always been to draft good football players and I think we've done that. And we're gonna try our best to continue to do that.

(Apologies to Patler )

Fun exercise.

[pbmax]

Their questions are horrible but I think there is a reason for it. They ask these loaded questions now, knowing Ted will sand by his guys and then 8 months from now, if the OL has struggles, they can site this response from Ted, indicating incompetence. It kind of works for them.

The problem with their constant negative energy is that at some point, when the things they complain about go right (and it seems the inevitably do), they just switch subjects like they never banged that drum.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for that paper. Outside of the McGinn draft series, which I love, it really lacks integrity.

There were other media (TV and newspaper) in the room, not just JSO for that press conference.

They aren't loaded questions (although Packer beat guys do ask those, especially Bedard) in that only one answer satisfies the terms of the question. Patler's are more imaginative, but this isn't a magazine style interview where there is significant time for questions and then they will get to write a lengthy piece and give detail and background to his answers. I would love to read that piece, but few have written about T2 in that form that I am aware. There was one background piece that spoke to Reinfeldt and the 49ers former GM that gave some context to his approach. I think it was in the pre-season in the last two years.

In a fixed time press conference meant for newspaper and TV coverage about an event in less than a week, I would expect reporters to get him on the record about his own players, roster and needs. When Thompson refuses to give specifics or reveal his thinking beyond its principals, all that is left to evaluate are the results.

And I think its a fair area of inquiry, his draft record has had some specific holes and prior to Matthews/Raji/Lang/Jones, his record in the draft was above average but not above reproach. I do think Patler's question about altering his evaluation over time might help shed light on the O line struggles.