Packer Draft 1978

[Fritz]

Here's the link to a JSO article on Bart Starr's 1978 draft for the Packers:

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/249075821.html

A few notes of interest:

1. Notice the focus on drafting for need. Starr is quite clear in the article that the plan was to draft for position primarily, not BPA. The exception might've been James Lofton, their #6 pick overall and a fine pick.

2. The Packers lost a fourth round pick when they (unknowingly) broke a league rule about working out players. Starr acknowledges that they did not know the rule. And again, in looking at need, the team then traded Dave Puerifoy, a starting defensive lineman, for a fifth round pick, in order to draft a running back, specifically.

3. The journalism of the day. What would McGinn or most any other contemporary writer have done with the above fuck-up? Well, when you read the article, the writer simply notes that the Packers lost a pick due to breaking a rule. No commentary is attached. In addition, the language of the game was still old-school. At one point, Starr comments on wanting to add to the "offensive backfield." That's old-school.

[mraynrand]

Today, you'd get a hundred + post thread and years of derision for that f-up over the practice rule. Of course, the John Hadl trade would make the Bert Favre drama look like the crying over a five-year-old's birthday piñata fail.

[MadScientist]

The trade was idiotic and not knowing the rule was stupid, but the overall draft wasn't bad by any stretch.

[hoosier]

That would almost qualify as a great draft: got one HOFer, one pro bowler (Douglass) and a more than solid starter (Anderson). Hood was an ok backup, and Mike Hunt (gee, sorry about that name, son!) might have been something if he hadn't gotten hurt.

[red]

3. The journalism of the day. What would McGinn or most any other contemporary writer have done with the above fuck-up? Well, when you read the article, the writer simply notes that the Packers lost a pick due to breaking a rule. No commentary is attached. In addition, the language of the game was still old-school. At one point, Starr comments on wanting to add to the "offensive backfield." That's old-school.

the way i wish all news would be reported

just the fucking facts, no slant, no spin, no agenda

[gbgary]

That would almost qualify as a great draft: got one HOFer, one pro bowler (Douglass) and a more than solid starter (Anderson). Hood was an ok backup, and Mike Hunt (gee, sorry about that name, son!) might have been something if he hadn't gotten hurt.

lol

[pbmax]

the way i wish all news would be reported

just the fucking facts, no slant, no spin, no agenda

The news articles still read this way for the most part. If you see Silverstein or Dunne on the main story in the Journal Sentinel, they read much the same way. But its the additional articles which are columns that give you the spin, history and general bloviating like what we do here.

[mraynrand]

The news articles still read this way for the most part. If you see Silverstein or Dunne on the main story in the Journal Sentinel, they read much the same way. But its the additional articles which are columns that give you the spin, history and general bloviating like what we do here.

sans profanity

[pbmax]

sans profanity

And fewer movie clips.

[mraynrand]

And fewer movie clips.

what's wrong with your face!?

[esoxx]

the way i wish all news would be reported

just the fucking facts, no slant, no spin, no agenda

Take it to FYI

[Fritz]

Yeah, it was a good draft, though trading Pureifoy wasn't so hot, nor was losing your fourth rounder. Anderson was very solid, Douglass very good, Lofton great.

I am amazed, though, at how thoroughly the Packers drafted for need. I wonder if that was the general practice in the NFL in those days, or if that's why the Pack sucked so thoroughly in those days? Well, okay, why they were so thoroughly mediocre.

[Patler]

Drafting for need made more sense back then because you had a player for as long as you wanted to keep him. If you didn't have a need at a position with a young player in it, you wouldn't have the need for a long time. Teams always emphasized need back then.

BPA makes sense now because of players being much more mobile and the salary cap meaning there is always room for a good but inexpensive player. Even if you don't have a need now, you might in a year or too, especially if salaries are very different for the vet and the younger player.

[mraynrand]

I don't think BPA is really a strategy anyone employs, realistically. I think teams generally draft in such a way as to build their roster, and then will draft against that if someone drops to them that they can't pass up, even if they are set at that position. For example, say the Packers first round comes up an there is a guard that they have higher rated overall than a safety, but those two are their top two rated players rated at the time, they will draft the safety, because there's more need. They're still getting a guy they rate highly, but they let the guard go because they are set. But say, Dennard (plausible) or Evans (highly unlikely) drop to them, they might select them because they're just too good to pass up, even if their highest rated safety is on the board.

^^^ 'kinda random musing but I hope it makes sense'

[Fritz]

I don't think BPA is really a strategy anyone employs, realistically. I think teams generally draft in such a way as to build their roster, and then will draft against that if someone drops to them that they can't pass up, even if they are set at that position. For example, say the Packers first round comes up an there is a guard that they have higher rated overall than a safety, but those two are their top two rated players rated at the time, they will draft the safety, because there's more need. They're still getting a guy they rate highly, but they let the guard go because they are set. But say, Dennard (plausible) or Evans (highly unlikely) drop to them, they might select them because they're just too good to pass up, even if their highest rated safety is on the board.

^^^ 'kinda random musing but I hope it makes sense'

I don't entirely disagree, just on a slightly different part of the spectrum. I think teams use a modified BPA strategy. If TT is sitting there in the first round and he has to choose between a safety he needs (say Clinton-Dix) and some sure-fire superstar wide receiver, he'll take the wide receiver. But what if it's between C-Dix and a sure-fire left guard? I'm not so sure.

Or what if a team like Seattle gets a shot at a young QB that they're sure is a big-time NFL starter, and they just signed Russell Wilson to an extension?

On the other hand, I don't think many NFL GM's (except maybe Cleveland's) will pass on a player they have pegged as a superstar outside linebacker, even if they already have one or maybe two, in order to take a "meh" journeyman tight end prospect just because they need a tight end.

I think teams use a kind of modified BPA, and of course some GM's lean more that way, and some more toward need.

I wonder though if in the past the Packers under Starr would've done better had they drafted more BPA. I'm not going to go back and see who they passed on, but I wonder.

I do know Starr's greatest drafting error was in ignoring his scouting department's recommendation that he draft this Notre Dame kid named Montana. Starr wanted to assert himself, so instead he drafted the hot California QB, the immortal, Pro Bowl, Hall of Famer Rich Campbell.

Bart Starr is a great, great gentleman. And according to Cold Hard Football Facts, THE greatest QB to ever play the game. But he was a very mediocre GM and coach.