IS IT TIME TO PUT UNTOUCHABLE TED ON TRIAL ? HOW DO YOU GRADE HIM ??

[mraynrand]

My point was the Patriots and just about everybody else have better receivers than the Packers have.

what's your metric for comparison?

[mraynrand]

Your narrative is tired.

It's more like raw sarcasm. And it's not tired, more like aching red eyes, scratchy throat, and mild hallucinations from being up for 36 hours.

[call_me_ishmael]

Reggie McKenzie. hee hee

The Raiders team he constructed has a lot of talent despite having horrible ownership. I think they've done well for themselves by being so bad for so long.

[call_me_ishmael]

OK, so let me get the math right. If Ted is the 10th best GM in the League in the last five years, he should get the boot?

Uh-huh.

That's current GMs. Surely there have been others cycled in and out. It's really hard to say... I don't follow other teams as closely so it's all speculation and here-say. If you look at my original breakdown, it paints a very clear picture using the Ron Wolf draft scale of 3 good starters being the metric for a successful draft. I derived my own GPA equation from it. It's a pretty logical extension to the 3 good starters system.

The fact is the drafting results have been trash (2.4 GPA where even a completely inept idiot should get a 2.0 for merely showing up) since 2012. The 2012 and 2013 drafts are historically bad and are the main reason the Packers are devoid of talent right now. 2014 looks great. 2015 and 2016 remain to being seen but show both boom/bust potential still. We shall see. The numbers I posted paint a pretty awful picture, especially defensively speaking. Extend this argument to 6 years and the GPA drops dramatically further as 2011 was another historically bad draft.

We are wasting ARods prime. This team won't have the defensive talent to win the super bowl in 2018 either, so we're looking at 2019 at the earliest w/ two more great drafts.

[call_me_ishmael]

So....3 TT acolytes?

Sure, if you wish to call them that. I am being very fair to Ted. Look at the draft picks. 2011, 2012 and 2013 drafts are historically awful and show why this team is where they are. Contrast that with some of his earlier drafts like 2009, 2010 which were truly outstanding. My opinion is it's no coincidence that Ted has a hip replacement and other alleged health complicated in the 2011-2013 period (I think, anyway).

Here's 2011 to show how awful it was to go with the other recent drafts I showed. 2011-2014 players right now are the meat and potatoes of a 2017 roster, and the Packers picks were awful for three straight years before returning to a (probable) much better place.

2011 - One second contract as starter, one good. Draft grade is D or F due to 1 starter that earned a second contract as a good player
Sherrod - bad
Cobb - good
Green - bad
House - bad, gone, did not earn second contract in GB
Williams - bad
Schlauderaff - bad
Smith - bad
Elmore - bad
Taylor - bad
Guy - bad
McMillion - bad
Manning - bad
Datko - bad
Coleman - bad



For fun, here's 2010 which is very good.
2010: Very good draft, one of Ted's best. Neal was a decent player before he was blackballed. 3 starters earned second contracts, 2 are good players, 1 is average. Draft grade is A.
Bulaga - good
Neal - average
Burnett - good
Quarless - bad
Newhouse - bad
Starks - average
Wilson - bad

2009: Very good draft, possibly Ted's best. 3 good starters, A+.
Raji - good
Matthews - good
Lang - good
Johnson - bad
Wynn - bad
Underwood - bad
Jones - bad

2008: Very good draft, possibly Ted's best. 3 good starters, A+.
Nelson - good
Brohm - bad
Lee - bad
Finley - good
Thompson - Undetermined, injury retirement
Sitton - good
Giacomini - bad
Flynn - bad
Swain - bad

[call_me_ishmael]

Seriously, looking at the 2008, 2009, 2010 drafts paired with ARod, it is not surprising they won the super bowl in 2010. 2008, 2009, and 2010 was an unbelievable 3 year stretch in drafting. 3 good/average starters per year where the good players were very good at the time.

[mraynrand]

The Raiders team he constructed has a lot of talent despite having horrible ownership. I think they've done well for themselves by being so bad for so long.

It's not that hard to pick the physical freaks in the top ten, unless you're Cleveland. The 49ers did it for several years, and once they got a decent coach, they took off. There's nothing all that much there to commend Reggie McKenzie, especially if you judge GMs on bottom line.

[mraynrand]

I don't follow other teams as closely so it's all speculation and here-say. .

thank you for making my point

[texaspackerbacker]

Sure, if you wish to call them that. I am being very fair to Ted. Look at the draft picks. 2011, 2012 and 2013 drafts are historically awful and show why this team is where they are. Contrast that with some of his earlier drafts like 2009, 2010 which were truly outstanding. My opinion is it's no coincidence that Ted has a hip replacement and other alleged health complicated in the 2011-2013 period (I think, anyway).

Here's 2011 to show how awful it was to go with the other recent drafts I showed. 2011-2014 players right now are the meat and potatoes of a 2017 roster, and the Packers picks were awful for three straight years before returning to a (probable) much better place.

2011 - One second contract as starter, one good. Draft grade is D or F due to 1 starter that earned a second contract as a good player
Sherrod - bad
Cobb - good
Green - bad
House - bad, gone, did not earn second contract in GB
Williams - bad
Schlauderaff - bad
Smith - bad
Elmore - bad
Taylor - bad
Guy - bad
McMillion - bad
Manning - bad
Datko - bad
Coleman - bad



For fun, here's 2010 which is very good.
2010: Very good draft, one of Ted's best. Neal was a decent player before he was blackballed. 3 starters earned second contracts, 2 are good players, 1 is average. Draft grade is A.
Bulaga - good
Neal - average
Burnett - good
Quarless - bad
Newhouse - bad
Starks - average
Wilson - bad

2009: Very good draft, possibly Ted's best. 3 good starters, A+.
Raji - good
Matthews - good
Lang - good
Johnson - bad
Wynn - bad
Underwood - bad
Jones - bad

2008: Very good draft, possibly Ted's best. 3 good starters, A+.
Nelson - good
Brohm - bad
Lee - bad
Finley - good
Thompson - Undetermined, injury retirement
Sitton - good
Giacomini - bad
Flynn - bad
Swain - bad

To get A+, A, or A-, you need to get 3, 2, or 1 real star quality players. The only one I see on that list who qualifies is Clay Matthews. Several fairly mediocre starters barely makes it to a B if there are enough of them in a given draft.

[pbmax]

I want to point out the "Bad" draft pick Marshall Newhouse is still starting in the NFL.

So either Ted is pretty good OR the rest of the League much more worse.

[denverYooper]

I want to point out the "Bad" draft pick Marshall Newhouse is still starting in the NFL.

So either Ted is pretty good OR the rest of the League much more worse.

Lawrence Guy has been starting for the Patriots.

House is also at least "Average", having gone to make some money on a second contract and then coming back to GB.

[call_me_ishmael]

I want to point out the "Bad" draft pick Marshall Newhouse is still starting in the NFL.

So either Ted is pretty good OR the rest of the League much more worse.

He was a bad pick for the Packers. He was terrible when he was here. Sorry, letting a player go that becomes great is a NEGATIVE for a org, not a positive.

[call_me_ishmael]

thank you for making my point

Which is why my system is simple and uses *what we know about the players when they were on the Packers* and uses the second-contract-as-starter metric. Sorry, the system isn't flawed. Where are the logical errors, if they exist? What part of the evaluation is incorrect? Occasionally a team let's a promising young player go and doesn't offer a second contract, but it's not often, and frankly I can't think of very many if any instances where this happened to the Packers. If a team thinks highly of a player and think they have a very bright future, they find a way to keep them, period. The Packers had no idea what Hayward or Hyde would become, for example.

Stating "Which GMs would you rather have?" is a tough question to answer, but to say "What sort of job has Ted done at building a roster for 2017 over the past 5-6 years" and it's clear from 2011, 2012 and 2013 that the team would have minimal depth in 2017. He did an average job from 2011, 2012, 2015 at best.

Average drafting paired with limited use of free agency and external player acquisition is not good enough in my opinion. Given ARod has a few years left, I would personally rather go all in at least one of these years and have a chance to win the darn thing.

If the Packers keep drafting well like they have in recent years (2014, 2015, 2016), they'll have the talent and depth to be very competitive in 2019 I think.

[call_me_ishmael]

To get A+, A, or A-, you need to get 3, 2, or 1 real star quality players. The only one I see on that list who qualifies is Clay Matthews. Several fairly mediocre starters barely makes it to a B if there are enough of them in a given draft.

No, the system is basically as follows:

3 starters, 2 being red chip or greater = A
3 starters, 1 being red chip or greater = B
2 starters, 2 being red chip or greater = B
2 starters, 0 or 1 being red chip or greater = C
1 starter, 1 being red chip or greater = D
Otherwise = F

It's a simple scale derived from the Ron Wolfe system where a good draft produces three solid starters. When I say "good" or "red chip", I really just mean "not a huge liability". I don't mean all-pro or pro-bowl. Morgan Burnett is a good player but he'll never be a star for example.

Look at the players drafted in 2011, 2012, 2013 and tell me those aren't some of the worst drafts in NFL history. It's no surprise we are where we are with three straight drafts like that. There's no depth when you land a total of 4 starters over 3 years.

[call_me_ishmael]

Lawrence Guy has been starting for the Patriots.

House is also at least "Average", having gone to make some money on a second contract and then coming back to GB.

I can't speak to Lawrence Guy, maybe he became a good player but in his time with the Packers he did jack squat. Davon House went on to earn a decent contract and flamed out. He's a journeyman. Nothing special there. Maybe `bad` is a little harsh for house but in general average or not, he never became a starter nor did he earn a second-contract-as-starter with the Packers. They decided to let him walk because he wasn't worth the money he was offered. The fact he was cut two years later basically proves that out.