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

[red]

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?

Talk about the same old bullshit. Mike McCarthy, the q.v. guru who made Aaron rodger because all of the other Redford qbs were flops. Never mind that right up until the day of the draft most people still thought there was a 50/50 chance that Rodgers could go #1 overall.

And to listen to so many homers talk about what a great job fat mike did in molding a-rod, well he must have done that with every qb that’s come through the door. Why half the starters in the nfl must have been McCarthy pupils. Whoops wrong, none.

Let’s talk about how fat ass scoffed at the idea that they would bring in someone else once a rod went down. Huntley is the guy he said, I’ve spent over 2 years grooming him he said. What a crock of shit

I marvel at your complete head up your ass constant trolling on this site and how it’s ever been allowed to go on for this long

[BZnDallas]

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

You don't think Aaron playing the whole season means more pro bowlers for GB? You're not paying attention if not. Love how everybody here accuses everybody else of not being objective, all the while being subjective themselves. Hahaha

[yetisnowman]

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.

No all pro and pro bowl selections are not simply a popularity contest. That's absurd. Its not like the NBA where MJ and Kobe were all star starters at 40. I like how you parsed this part and ignored the part that shreds your "no difference makers left when the packers pick" narrative. I'm not so blind to say that all of the packers success is due to Aaron . But damn sure I'll contend that the majority is. We have a big enough sample size without him. A listless, slow, unexplosive team with pedestrian talent. TT built a balanced team 5-7 years ago. But honestly minus Davante, Bahktiari, and Rodgers and I could take or leave the rest of this squad we have now.

[BZnDallas]

Teddy boy has his issues. They are well documented. So are his successes. To give all or zero credit to either Aaron or Ted is doing the other a disservice. Its give and take, every year an unknown number of parts are moving in an unknown number of directions. Trying to make it black and white or good and bad is also a disservice although it gives us shit to talk about.

[BZnDallas]

No all pro and pro bowl selections are not simply a popularity contest. That's absurd. Its not like the NBA where MJ and Kobe were all star starters at 40. I like how you parsed this part and ignored the part that shreds your "no difference makers left when the packers pick" narrative. I'm not so blind to say that all of the packers success is due to Aaron . But damn sure I'll contend that the majority is. We have a big enough sample size without him. A listless, slow, unexplosive team with pedestrian talent. TT built a balanced team 5-7 years ago. But honestly minus Davante, Bahktiari, and Rodgers and I could take or leave the rest of this squad we have now.

Take a peak at the 2016 Pro Bowl rosters. Then take a look at the players selected to the 2016 pro bowl but didn't play. You could field a better roster from the 'didn't plays' than you can from the 2 rosters that faced off. When more than 100 players make the pro bowl, it loses quite a bit of its meaning. Popularity contest might not be the best comparison, but making the pro bowl isn't what it used to be.

[call_me_ishmael]

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.

Exactly. I think the 2014-2016 drafts are looking pretty darn good. This thread was looking at the 5 year body of work, I added a sixth because it helped make my argument because 2011 draft was really bad :-p

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.

I am not saying Ted has done a great job or a bad job. I merely took my draft grades and averaged them out to form a high-school style GPA (A = 4.0, B = 3.0, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0). That value from 2012-2016 was 2.4 GPA so that speaks to itself. He has done a slightly above average job from 2012-2016 based on my grades. The last three years look very good, and the two or three before that look awful. It average out to slightly above average.

I personally do not think average is good enough for drafting when your program's core tenant is draft and development. I am optimistic and feel that with two more strong drafts, the Packers can compete for a super bowl in 2019.

[pbmax]

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.

I don't agree at ALL on pro bowlers or all pro. All Pro is a better mark, but you aren't going to get more than one or two per team most years.

But I am as amazed as you that the Packers haven't just fallen into a better, more consistent pass rush.

I think there might be some chasing of Ted's own tail. He got Matthews and Raji and had pass rush out the wazoo with vets like Jenkins. Peppers helped the last few years.

But between having plenty of pass rush in 2009-10 and now, they really needed to beef up run defense. It has worked, but they are now bereft of depth that can pass rush. Something has to give here to allow balance.

Quentin Dial and Brooks plus the new ILBs have helped run defense a lot (also Matthews inside plus Perry and Fackrell on edge). Clark shows signs of having both. But there is not enough explosion to get pressure often enough.

[hoosier]

Exactly. I think the 2014-2016 drafts are looking pretty darn good. This thread was looking at the 5 year body of work, I added a sixth because it helped make my argument because 2011 draft was really bad :-p



I am not saying Ted has done a great job or a bad job. I merely took my draft grades and averaged them out to form a high-school style GPA (A = 4.0, B = 3.0, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0). That value from 2012-2016 was 2.4 GPA so that speaks to itself. He has done a slightly above average job from 2012-2016 based on my grades. The last three years look very good, and the two or three before that look awful. It average out to slightly above average.

I personally do not think average is good enough for drafting when your program's core tenant is draft and development. I am optimistic and feel that with two more strong drafts, the Packers can compete for a super bowl in 2019.

All grading scales rely on comparison: between what the person accomplished and either some notion of an average level of competence or a notion of what they could have accomplished. What are you comparing TT's drafts to? Those of his NFL peers? In grading his drafts, how do you account for the fact that GB has almost always been picking in the last quartile of each round?

[pbmax]

Fackrell has taken a step this year and has been pretty reliable in run defense for the last six games or so.

If he steps up in pass rush, it would be just shy of a cure all.

[yetisnowman]

I don't agree at ALL on pro bowlers or all pro. All Pro is a better mark, but you aren't going to get more than one or two per team most years.

But I am as amazed as you that the Packers haven't just fallen into a better, more consistent pass rush.

I think there might be some chasing of Ted's own tail. He got Matthews and Raji and had pass rush out the wazoo with vets like Jenkins. Peppers helped the last few years.

But between having plenty of pass rush in 2009-10 and now, they really needed to beef up run defense. It has worked, but they are now bereft of depth that can pass rush. Something has to give here to allow balance.

Quentin Dial and Brooks plus the new ILBs have helped run defense a lot (also Matthews inside plus Perry and Fackrell on edge). Clark shows signs of having both. But there is not enough explosion to get pressure often enough.

You don't agree 'AT ALL" about pro bowlers and all pros? What does that even mean? Wouldn't you want a handful of pro bowlers as opposed to zero? Or maybe get a 1st or 2nd team all pro more than once every 5 years aside from Aaron? You guys have twisted the argument so much, that pointing out a lack of star players is somehow an irrelevant point.

I see signs from some of the young guys, but not enough consistency to feel assured they can be pieces to truly build around.

[Zool]

I am not saying Ted has done a great job or a bad job. I merely took my draft grades and averaged them out to form a high-school style GPA (A = 4.0, B = 3.0, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0). That value from 2012-2016 was 2.4 GPA so that speaks to itself. He has done a slightly above average job from 2012-2016 based on my grades. The last three years look very good, and the two or three before that look awful. It average out to slightly above average.

Based off what comparison? You call it an average, but an average would have to include all 31 other teams drafts over that time with successes and failures determined off your ranking. Giving randomly assigned grades to draft picks based off your personal opinion is ridiculous.

[Bretsky]

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.

I have no idea at all what you are talking about here; I give credit to those who put in extra effort to accumulate date.............I didn't accumulate a thing

[Bretsky]

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

I would agree and I'm not arguing TT is bad. He's ok but when he chooses to leave I'll be fine with it

[Zool]

I have no idea at all what you are talking about here; I give credit to those who put in extra effort to accumulate date.............I didn't accumulate a thing

You’re either drunk or didn’t figure out I was talking about Partials arbitrary grading system for each pick/draft. Or both.

[call_me_ishmael]

Based off what comparison? You call it an average, but an average would have to include all 31 other teams drafts over that time with successes and failures determined off your ranking. Giving randomly assigned grades to draft picks based off your personal opinion is ridiculous.

What's not clear? The criteria for a good draft has been laid out in the post. It derives from the Ron Wolfe judgement of a draft, where three starters is the sign of a successful draft. Based on that metric as a good draft, the average draft since 2012 has been slightly above average, where average is defined as half-way between really bad and really good.

There is no team vs team comparison here nor a GM vs GM comparison. It is simply looking at the Packers draft picks in isolation and the known/presumptive successes/failures there. Basically, the goal was to find out why they have so many holes on their team this year compared to say 2014 or 2010.

Grading scale:
3 starters, 2 good, 1 average/bad = A (4.0)
3 starters, 1 good, 2 average/bad = B (3.0)
2 starters, 1 good, 1 average/bad = C (2.0)
2 starters, 2 average/bad = D (1.0)
1 starter, 1 good = D (0.0)
1 or less starter, bad = F

If somebody wants to dive into each players PFF rankings or do a team vs team comparison, I'm all ears, but those are both significantly more effort than I care to spend. I was mainly interested in this data for myself, and found it to be an interesting. I truly believe the 2011-2013 paint the picture of the 2016 and 2017 Packers and the holes they have. For those thinking I'm being a hater, I am definitely not as I have graded out the more recent drafts and they score very well according to the scale, and if they continue and APRH the Packers are poised to compete for ARod's second superbowl in 2019 or 2020.