Summary of Packer Trades

[Guiness]

I think TT tried the same thing he did in the 2nd round again in the third and his guy got selected in front of him. I also would have taken Brandon Williams at #93 instead of trading back.

TT knows more about those specific players than me. If there was a problem with Brandon Williams, they you've got to pass. If Schwenke doesn't look just absolutely awesome, you can't trade up in the 4th. It wasn't obvious that the Titans would take him, all the same. 20/20 hindsight.

Why so much talk of Schwenke? I've never heard of him, makes me think of the Hymie from the Bryce Courtney novel!

[smuggler]

Schwenke was the 2nd rated center in the draft, (apparently) healthy and productive through his collegiate career. He was originally projected by pretty much everyone in the 3rd round. He became the 2nd center off the board in the 4th round.

The Rats were hoping for him because of value - he might be better than Frederick, but probably wouldn't be much worse, even though he was selected almost 3 full rounds later.

Here's the article about Stedman Bailey in the 3rd round. According to the new Harvard trade value chart, we straight fleeced the Dolphins after losing out on Bailey. Their numbers are based on the fact that, mathematically, after some point in round 3, every player is (nearly) equal chance of busting or contributing.

http://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/point-of-veau-did-thompson-get-fleeced-or-is-he-smart-as-a-fox

The trouble with any standard chart is that it's not intuitive and does not adjust to the makeup of the player draft pool. That's true of the old school one or the newschool.

[woodbuck27]

Please tell me you are joking here, you cannot actually believe that. If you did, how could you possibly explain trading up for Matthews, Morgan Burnett or Jonathan Franklin?

Please take the time to view his post draft interview with the media. You'll only require about 10:50 to see it all. At 2:16 into the video...Ted Thompson backs me up. Watching the entire video is very interesting. By the way TT looks good. Not at all wasted. Some of the things he says....well that's Ted. It's obvious he's never had a speech coach. I'm not even sure he's any more comfortable before the media, as he was back when he became our team's GM.... Jan. 14, 2005.

Here's the VIDEO:

Posted: Apr 27, 2013

Ted Thompson: 2013 Draft increases competition

Green Bay General Manager Ted Thompson recaps the team's selections at the close of the 2013 NFL Draft.

http://www.packers.com/media-center/...7-15ceb830ae5c

pb:

I don't use trickery nor lie. I hardly entertain or resort to such nonsence.

I'm as straight in as any man can be.

GO PACK GO!

[pbmax]

I'm as straight in as any man can be.

"The more picks, the better" does not equate at all to "'more' less quality >>> is better".

The first statement is a truism, almost a tautology, significant only for the fact that it calls to mind, like a baseball hitter, that you are going to miss a certain percentage of the time.

The second statement is an unequivocal endorsement of fewer quality players for additional, less talented players. Not only is this a faulty definition of Thompson's quote, it is directly contradicts his immediately previous statement: "We felt that draft was pretty solid through the middle rounds".

That is a clear acknowledgement that good quality, similarly rated players, were plentiful in the mid-rounds.

[Patler]

No Patler.

"So for you it was all about Brandon Williams?" Patler

It wasn't all about Brandon Williams.

a) It's about TT watering down 'OUR' draft.

b) It's about his ego need to get lots of picks and thereby reducing the quality of the draft class overall.

c) It's about trading with partners and constantly getting hosed in those transactions. Four transactions and four times TT get's used badly. Him allowing that to serve his wrong agenda>>>more and >>>more picks>>> to serve his incredible EGO.

I could go on.

By the way Patler. Trying any mind game on this issue won't gain you any points. In a losing position. If this was a game of chess. I'd right now >>> advise you to re-sign.


It's very simple. Just like always. Play the HOMER Card.

You can cast me aside. I'll even offer you an alternative.

Try your best to simply pay a respect and read Wist43's scores of posts. Maybe... simply read a dozen of his posts firmly centered on TT's performance in this draft. That poster is busting his ass to help all Packer fans here see a better way. TT didn't demonstrate that better way on Saturday.

Just try to read Wist43. He certainly deserves such respect because he's knocked himself out. He gives it all up for Packerrats.Then (maybe??) you will understand better what this debate is about.

If I give it up? Act stupid and go to a specific player ie Brandon Williams or act emotional over any possible pick that TT passed on whenever he decided to us a pick.

Then you paint me in a corner. I'm not going to allow that Patler.

Otherwise if I just give it up. What do you learn Patler? Even you have room to learn. I learn daily.

GO PACK GO !

Well excuse me if I misunderstood you (again). I understood from your post that Brandon Williams was the player you identified as the one that TT should have taken when he was available at #93, instead of trading down with Miami. If that isn't what you meant, again I apologize, but then I have no clue where you are coming from on this whole trade discussion.

I'm not sure where to even begin this discussion, at the second trade with SF, or the third trade with Miami?

Ive read Wists posts, responded to several and agreed with him on a couple.

[woodbuck27]

I replied to your unedited post, with your original posted quoted in it, so hopefully my response made sense.

As to this edited version, I don't get what you think was tricky. I simply referred to the two SF trades. I know he subsequently traded #93. I specifically identified it in my original post when I started this thread. What does that have to do with SF getting the best of him? Some have suggested that he was fleeced by SF. Maybe so, but in determining if he was or wasn't fleeced by SF the subsequent trade of #93 to Miami is irrelevant.

I revised this post from the original as I decided to trust you.This (below) is the revision:

" Ohh your tricky Patler...nice try:

Your argument is like TT's drafting strategy:

Unfortunately...

It's.............................................. ........................... 'watered down'.

Too far .................................................. .................right of 'CENTER'.

TT traded that Rd. 3 Pick #93 to the Dolphins. Your aware of that.

I Edited this for a reason...maybe your going to be fair Patler. Post to discover in good faith."

GO PACKERS !

The above is the Edited Version of an original post.

You and >>> me seeing the tricky part (in you) real or imagined:

I'll try to explain Patler:

It appears to me that you must protect the reputation of 'Patler'.

It appears that you often post to support you winning...impressing the gallery. To debate to win.

I post to discover. I'm not into impressing anyone. I'm here to learn and expand myself as a Green Bay Packer and NFL fan. I'm not a 'HOMER'. I'm objective in my style of viewing the Green Bay Packers.

When I see a concern I need to try to do something about that. That's my normal nature.

TT's performance in this draft left alot of questions for me. He frankly 'shocked ' me.

My last post for today Patler...Have a nice evening.

GO PACK GO !

[woodbuck27]

Well excuse me if I misunderstood you (again). I understood from your post that Brandon Williams was the player you identified as the one that TT should have taken when he was available at #93, instead of trading down with Miami. If that isn't what you meant, again I apologize, but then I have no clue where you are coming from on this whole trade discussion.

I'm not sure where to even begin this discussion, at the second trade with SF, or the third trade with Miami?

Ive read Wists posts, responded to several and agreed with him on a couple.

Patler you asked me to pick one player from your list in a previous post. I merely obliged your request.

In no way was I implying from that choice. That TT should have chosen Brandon Williams in the Third Round before The Ravens scooped him up. A choice of DT Brandon Williams was my choice 'only' for you.

Again please understand this clearly:

I did NOT specify that TT should have picked DT Brandon Williams...Read the you won't paint me into a corner post...please.

PACKERS !

[Patler]

What the heck am I trying to win?
I haven't even said whether I think the trades were good or bad, mostly because I don't have a clue.
As I have said many times on here, I don't really put in much effort before the draft. I more enjoying "discovering" the players actually picked by GB.

However, I think looking at the actual facts of what happened, what opportunities were relinquished by trading down, makes a heck of a lot lore sense than attributing his trades to ego.

I have invited those who study the draft to debate the merits of the players who TT closed himself out from by trading down. That amounts to those drafted from #55 to #60 and those drafted from #88 to #108, because that is the net effect of his three trades down. He gave up the opportunities to draft those players. For that, he got some added opportunities.

In the end, based on what he had to start and what he ended up with, the sum of his trades was this:

- 55 & 88 were relinquished for 61, 109, 125, 216 and 224.

Good or bad deals? I don't know because I know little about the quality of the players he precluded himself from drafting.

[Patler]

Patler you asked me to pick one player from your list in a previous post. I merely obliged your request.

In no way was I implying from that choice. That TT should have chosen Brandon Williams in the Third Round before The Ravens scooped him up. A choice of DT Brandon Williams was my choice 'only' for you.

Again please understand this clearly:

I did NOT specify that TT should have picked DT Brandon Williams...Read the you won't paint me into a corner post...please.

PACKERS !

Then what should he have done that he couldn't have done anyway?
Are we discussing the trades or his draft in total?

I started this thread with the intention of discussing what effect the trades had on what the Packers did or could do.
Whether he picked the right players of those available when he did pick is a different discussion.

If you dislike any or all of the trades (and I think you do dislike them, or at least some of them) why?

[Smeefers]

Then what should he have done that he couldn't have done anyway?
Are we discussing the trades or his draft in total?

I started this thread with the intention of discussing what effect the trades had on what the Packers did or could do.
Whether he picked the right players of those available when he did pick is a different discussion.

If you dislike any or all of the trades (and I think you do dislike them, or at least some of them) why?

Well, I've gotten a feeling that the trouble with the trades is that he did not get enough for them when compared to other trades.
- Legit grievance: Our GM should be getting every penny of value for drafts he gives up.
- Non-legit grievance: TT was the initiator, attempting to get more picks while still being able to get a guy he likes in the same area.

It's also been suggested that he was just sort of shooting from the hip with the trades, not really giving them any serious thought.
- As heard on the radio. I have a hard time believing this.

There has also been a lot of angst about the type of players he drafted, having passed on the players we liked and instead going for players he likes. Because, you know, ego.
-This is just player type disagreements. I think it would suck if my team went out and got a bunch of guys I don't like and they continued to play well with them even though I see their demise around the corner.

I also think the prevailing thought is that the higher someone is drafted, the better quality that player tends to be, so when you trade back, you're basically giving up quality. That's the "more less quality players" idea.
- I disagree with this notion. You can have 30 guys whom you believe are all pretty much around the same talent level, especially when you have thousands of players in the talent pool.

Also, screw San Francisco. The jerks.
- Legit. Those guys suck. They're the enemy. It's irrational as all hell, but who likes giving the guys you're competing against a guy that they like?

[Bretsky]

Getting the whip out to stir the pot

First off, isn't it part of TT's job to get what he can for a pick ?
And IMO isn't it fair to judge him based on that, and logistically compare which GM's maximized their picks when the traded down ?

Secondly, not that I'd believe him if he did......but did GB even publicly note they got exactly who they had targeted at 55 in Lacy ?
Many PR in here have stated/assumed that.....but as the trade was going down NFL Network was pimping Monte Ball as the guy GB covets

Third, I'd be very curious to wonder how some of the same posters defending that trade....would have reacted if Denver took Lacy and GB took Monte Ball.
Then, IMO, everything would not be roses.

Fourth, I'm still not fond of the trade down from round three.

I'll take Brandon Williams there....even Schwenke.....and give back one of the OL and still find a way to get Franklyn. Getting Franklyn became more important IMO because of Lacy's injury history.

[pbmax]

I wasn't expecting a 2nd or 3rd round running back and if I would have thought they would get a choice in the 4th, it would have been Ball falling, not Lacy or Franklin.

So I did not have a horse in this race. I suspect people linking the Packers to Ball (or Franklin) were thinking along the lines of "would fit in a shotgun as a draw runner, screen catcher or wheel route target."

I don't think anyone thought Lacy in the Friday rounds. He didn't figure to be a 2nd round pick and he seemed more ground and pound than the typical Packers back. So I don't put too much stock in the NFLN and Montee Ball speculation.

Secondly, Thompson has been pretty consistent that he trades back when he can still collect value at the new pick. A better question that whether Ball was the target would be was anyone on the level of Ball when they selected? I want to know what they consciously passed up as much as what they choose.

Last, maximizing trade value. Obviously its a good thing whenever possible. However, it is not a principle to die for. To let a trade go untouched because the trade value chart shows you on the minus side is pointless if you get the same player value you wanted PLUS another pick. In fact, the only reason I can think of to refuse is to set an example that you cannot simply low ball an offer to the Packers and expect to get the choice regardless.

And I would draw that line when I can still trade down for equal value, but am currently assured that value at a position of need. On the flip side, I would take a trade whenever I am picking in a round/pick where there are no comparable round values.

[Bretsky]

I wasn't expecting a 2nd or 3rd round running back and if I would have thought they would get a choice in the 4th, it would have been Ball falling, not Lacy or Franklin.

So I did not have a horse in this race. I suspect people linking the Packers to Ball (or Franklin) were thinking along the lines of "would fit in a shotgun as a draw runner, screen catcher or wheel route target."

I don't think anyone thought Lacy in the Friday rounds. He didn't figure to be a 2nd round pick and he seemed more ground and pound than the typical Packers back. So I don't put too much stock in the NFLN and Montee Ball speculation.

Secondly, Thompson has been pretty consistent that he trades back when he can still collect value at the new pick. A better question that whether Ball was the target would be was anyone on the level of Ball when they selected? I want to know what they consciously passed up as much as what they choose.

Last, maximizing trade value. Obviously its a good thing whenever possible. However, it is not a principle to die for. To let a trade go untouched because the trade value chart shows you on the minus side is pointless if you get the same player value you wanted PLUS another pick. In fact, the only reason I can think of to refuse is to set an example that you cannot simply low ball an offer to the Packers and expect to get the choice regardless.

And I would draw that line when I can still trade down for equal value, but am currently assured that value at a position of need. On the flip side, I would take a trade whenever I am picking in a round/pick where there are no comparable round values.

San Fran run the show in this draft IMO. I hate San Francisco. Always have...always will. But they held a lot of cards and IMO threw some shit deals out there people took and it worked for them. The deal with the Titans was the worse. We traded back six spots for pretty much nothing. Part of my distaste in seeing an equitable deal go down the pick after GB was knowing SF was the one who took us. And I still say it's fair to judge a GM on how well they do on the deals. Sure...it's not a principal to die for.....but also....it should not be ignored

The tradedown in round 2 didn't bug me much even though San Fran screwed us. GB was going to be happy with Ball or Lacy. But I still think had they taken Lacy there would be many more questioners in here. Since we ended up with the player everybody wanted everybody wanted the inequity of that deal gets ignored.

Honestly, the only trade down I didin't like was giving up better quality in round three for a mid round four pick.

And it is NOT fair to assume the same value card there that they were going to be similar players.

One could argue that TT just thought he'd get better value for the multitude of picks as opposed to one player of better quality............which rolls right into a point Wist makes about the deal.

[pbmax]

When you have 12 picks you are going to make the most noise and you can be patient about what deals to do. But credit to them, they had the picks.

If he trades down and gets Ball rather than Lacy, yes, there would probably be more grumbling from the non-Badger fans. But mainly from a superficial Lacy was rated ahead of Ball and therefore I dislike the trade down that netted him. I can see that.

True that we can't assume same value since we don't know his board. But unlike Jerry Jones* and some Fantasy Football drafters, I think Thompson has proven he can count and leaves himself an out. Its possible he missed on a WR in the third, though. No one bat 1.000.

As for wist, its only a valid argument if your board is wrong about values. This one will be engraved on TTs tombstone if Schwenke goes on to the Pro Bowl.

BTW, for regular readers, I haven't had a recent stroke. This new browser is auto-correcting and when I have a typo, it seems to choose the wrong correction 50% of the time.

* You should see the grumbling from the Cowboys draft. Even the home office is leaking stories about how they have no idea what Jerrah was doing.

[sharpe1027]

Getting the whip out to stir the pot

First off, isn't it part of TT's job to get what he can for a pick ?
And IMO isn't it fair to judge him based on that, and logistically compare which GM's maximized their picks when the traded down ?

Not entirely. When a team calls you looking to trade up, you should have more leverage. When you call a team looking to trade down, you have less leverage. Plus, you do not have infinite time so you cannot call every team to negotiate.

Secondly, not that I'd believe him if he did......but did GB even publicly note they got exactly who they had targeted at 55 in Lacy ?
Many PR in here have stated/assumed that.....but as the trade was going down NFL Network was pimping Monte Ball as the guy GB covets

I have not seen anyone make this assumption. Most posters noted that they likely had several similarly ranked players available at 55. Lacy was probably one of many...not targeted specifically. Perhaps they liked Ball better, but only slightly.

Third, I'd be very curious to wonder how some of the same posters defending that trade....would have reacted if Denver took Lacy and GB took Monte Ball.
Then, IMO, everything would not be roses.

Personally, I don't know how the draft will turnout. I just don't think trading down is as bad a move as some make it out to be.

Fourth, I'm still not fond of the trade down from round three.

I'll take Brandon Williams there....even Schwenke.....and give back one of the OL and still find a way to get Franklyn. Getting Franklyn became more important IMO because of Lacy's injury history.

You could be right. Even the best GMs don't have a crystal ball.