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

[mraynrand]

well he puts in the effort with a lot of detail which takes more time than just ripping into things

I'd love to have somebody really dive into rounds one and two the last few years and break down a redraft sceanario given how players have developed

But stuff like that, and what partial did, takes time

I wasn't impressed overall, but I get your point. If I have some time to waste I might do what I challenged Partial to try : team by team comparisons.

[call_me_ishmael]

You weren't impressed overall because you disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't make them wrong or unfounded. The criteria is black and white. Just because Giacommini and Newhouse eventually found rosters, that doesn't mean they were anything more than a bad starter w/ potential. What player specifically is the evaluation wrong on? I am sure some could be up for debate and I will concede there is a lot of nuance to player evaluations and often times it's difficult to categorize them.

The reality is the drafts in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were terrible for 2016 and 2017 squads.

The only present starters that were offered second contracts by the team are:
Nick Perry - average to above-average starter, nothing special, often injured
Mike Daniels - undersized but above-average starter
David Bakhtiari - special player
Randall Cobb - average to above-average starter, nothing special

That is awfully rough and frankly indisputable. I don't see how someone can disagree with that assessment but to each their own. When applying the Ron Wolfe successful draft philosophy, the Packers should have 9 starters from those 3 drafts. They have 4. That's bad.

[mraynrand]

You weren't impressed overall because you disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't make them wrong or unfounded.

I do not disagree with your specific point: "The reality is the drafts in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were terrible for 2016 and 2017 squads." if that analysis is limited to the number and quantity of the picks from those drafts contributing to the last two teams it's essentially correct but it's limited.

Still about your conclusions:

1) I thought they were pretty shallow. 2) I don't agree with the criteria, but it's not terribly far off 3) There's too little internal perspective (for example my point that guys may not be on today's roster, not because they were bad picks, but for other reasons. e.g. injuries and other players emerging) and 4) perspective compared to others teams (this is hard work, but it makes a big difference). 5) I only specifically pointed out that 2013 was not all that bad. I don't believe I evaluated 2011 and 2012. 6) You are lumping in responses others made with your response to my post. I realize this happens on a forum, but some of those arguments are not mine.

[Smidgeon]

You weren't impressed overall because you disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't make them wrong or unfounded. The criteria is black and white. Just because Giacommini and Newhouse eventually found rosters, that doesn't mean they were anything more than a bad starter w/ potential. What player specifically is the evaluation wrong on? I am sure some could be up for debate and I will concede there is a lot of nuance to player evaluations and often times it's difficult to categorize them.

The reality is the drafts in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were terrible for 2016 and 2017 squads.

The only present starters that were offered second contracts by the team are:
Nick Perry - average to above-average starter, nothing special, often injured
Mike Daniels - undersized but above-average starter
David Bakhtiari - special player
Randall Cobb - average to above-average starter, nothing special

That is awfully rough and frankly indisputable. I don't see how someone can disagree with that assessment but to each their own. When applying the Ron Wolfe successful draft philosophy, the Packers should have 9 starters from those 3 drafts. They have 4. That's bad.

I like the effort you made to categorize them, and while the criteria is black and white, slotting players into that criteria is still subjective. You ranked many players less than what I would have ranked them, but ultimately like rand is saying, those rankings depend on the rest of the league too.

Now if average meant they ranked 75 out of 150 according to PFF's in depth rankings, then it would be less subjective. Instead, I see many players you called average or below average that are still consistent starters. Linsley, for example, might be a top 10 center.

[Bretsky]

When our GM is nearly all Draft and Develop, you can't f'ck up the draft, or f'ck up decisions on who to keep and who not to keep.
That is partly why I'd say Partial does a pretty dam good job here

[yetisnowman]

I get so sick of the narrative that the Packers are bereft of talent because of their draft position. We have drafted poorly, especially on defense. The Steelers have 8 pro bowlers this year, and not a single one is a top 10 pick. They draft consistently late as well.

Look at the top 5 in the NFL in sacks and their draft position.

Chandler Jones - 21
Calais Campbell - 50
Demarcus Lawrence - 34
Everson Griffen - 100
Cameron Heyward - 31

Look at rushing and receiving leaders as well. It's not littered with top 10 picks and athletic freaks.

The lack of pro-bowlers and all pros in an indictment on TT. How is it not? We have very limited personnel. And we always seem to stand pat as opposed to being aggressive in draft or free agency.

[red]

When our GM is nearly all Draft and Develop, you can't f'ck up the draft, or f'ck up decisions on who to keep and who not to keep.

Exactly

[Zool]

When our GM is nearly all Draft and Develop, you can't f'ck up the draft, or f'ck up decisions on who to keep and who not to keep.
That is partly why I'd say Partial does a pretty dam good job here

You agree with the sentiment is why you appreciate what he did here. I've been saying for multiple years, if you want to evaluate a draft from a specific team's GM, you need to compare what he drafted, vs what the NFL team consensus round slotting was, vs how other teams fared in that same draft by position. Any other analysis is, as Smidgeon put it, subjective.

After you put out your opinion based rankings system, and get called out on it, you might at least define what "good" and "bad" and "average" mean in your opinion. Also good and bad is a pretty weak way to define a draft pick. It seems the only "good" ones were multi year starters who are near pro-bowl level. If the only good draft picks result in that level of player, I guarantee you every GM in the league is shitty at drafting.

[esoxx]

I get so sick of the narrative that the Packers are bereft of talent because of their draft position. We have drafted poorly, especially on defense. The Steelers have 8 pro bowlers this year, and not a single one is a top 10 pick. They draft consistently late as well.

Look at the top 5 in the NFL in sacks and their draft position.

Chandler Jones - 21
Calais Campbell - 50
Demarcus Lawrence - 34
Everson Griffen - 100
Cameron Heyward - 31

Look at rushing and receiving leaders as well. It's not littered with top 10 picks and athletic freaks.

The lack of pro-bowlers and all pros in an indictment on TT. How is it not? We have very limited personnel. And we always seem to stand pat as opposed to being aggressive in draft or free agency.

This is completely spot on.
The excuse making on this site for all things TT is amusing.

[gbgary]

When our GM is nearly all Draft and Develop, you can't f'ck up the draft, or f'ck up decisions on who to keep and who not to keep.
That is partly why I'd say Partial does a pretty dam good job here

yup. can't be one dimensional. that's why the next gm needs to be someone who'll get proactively involved in the free agency and trades to acquire talent.

[hoosier]

You weren't impressed overall because you disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't make them wrong or unfounded. The criteria is black and white. Just because Giacommini and Newhouse eventually found rosters, that doesn't mean they were anything more than a bad starter w/ potential. What player specifically is the evaluation wrong on? I am sure some could be up for debate and I will concede there is a lot of nuance to player evaluations and often times it's difficult to categorize them.

The reality is the drafts in 2011, 2012 and 2013 were terrible for 2016 and 2017 squads.

The only present starters that were offered second contracts by the team are:
Nick Perry - average to above-average starter, nothing special, often injured
Mike Daniels - undersized but above-average starter
David Bakhtiari - special player
Randall Cobb - average to above-average starter, nothing special

That is awfully rough and frankly indisputable. I don't see how someone can disagree with that assessment but to each their own. When applying the Ron Wolfe successful draft philosophy, the Packers should have 9 starters from those 3 drafts. They have 4. That's bad.

I don't quite understand why you're trying to evaluate TT as GM based on this peculiar metric of assessing contributions of the 2011-13 drafts for the 2016 and '17 Packers. Why not look at 2014-16 as well? If you include 2014 then you have to add HHCD, Adams and Linsley--three average+ starters. Include 2015 and you have to add Randall, Montgomery and Rip--three serviceable starters, one of whom still has potential for more.

By contrast, if you want to focus on 2011-13 then you have to ask what those drafts added for the short to intermediate term: the 2012-15 Packers. Those drafts added important contributors for that period who don't show up on your list: Hayward, Lacy, Tretter, and Hyde.

If you want to argue that TT hasn't hit it big in the draft in recent years I have no argument. But I don't think hitting home runs is the best yardstick for measuring a GM's draft savvyness. Draft home runs have a high degree of luck. A better yardstick is whether or not the GM is able to keep the talent level at a consistently high basis. On that measure I would say TT has done has job.

[mraynrand]

The lack of pro-bowlers and all pros in an indictment on TT. How is it not?

because some people don't care about popularity contests. Bottom line is more important: Regular season wins, Playoff appearances, Playoff wins, Championships. These things happen because a GM builds a team. TT is top 5 against his peers in these critical areas. You can't deny it.

[red]

because some people don't care about popularity contests. Bottom line is more important: Regular season wins, Playoff appearances, Playoff wins, Championships. These things happen because a GM builds a team. TT is top 5 against his peers in these critical areas. You can't deny it.

Yup, all that does happen because of one guy, but his name is Aaron not ted

[ZachMN]

Yup, all that does happen because of one guy, but his name is Aaron not ted

HA! YES! Too much Kool Aid around here and the need to back up your opinion with a term paper level analysis.

[mraynrand]

Yup, all that does happen because of one guy, but his name is Aaron not ted

Same old, same old. Who developed Rodgers? What offense is he running? Name the other great Tedford QBs in the NFL. According to you, Rodgers did it all by himself of due to a pure luck pick, spontaneous development that had nothing to do with anyone but Rodgers, and a totally uncontroversial decision to keep him over Favre. I marvel at your absolutely polarized vision. Do you even remember 2010 and how they won against the Bears (twice) and Eagles? Who caught all those crazy throws from Rodgers? Do you even remember Jennings?