TED THOMPSON- BREAKING THE TRADING BANDIT DOWN MORE

[Bretsky]

THE JAVON WALKER TRADE ENDED UP BEING

Walker and a 5th (139) for Colledge (47), a 4th (109), and a 6th (183)


Beyond that trade, he traded down 16 spots from 36 for #52 and 75.

He passed on some first round talent to land Greg Jennings (52) and Jason Spitz (75)

YOU CHOOSE; WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE CHAD JACKSON OR THOSE TWO ?


He also traded down from 93 to 109 and 183...


Last year TT was rolling extra picks like crazy; call me harsh for saying this, but so far one out of 11 picks have worked out. Hope the odds are a heck of a lot better this year.

[RashanGary]

Walker -> 39 -> 47, 109, 183

[Bretsky]

1 - Hawk
2a - Jackson
2b - Colledge
3 - Hodge

or

1 - Hawk
2a - Colledge
2b - Jennings
3a - Hodge
3b - Spitz

[RashanGary]

He dropped down 8 spots for 3 picks.....I don't mind that...

[RashanGary]

I liek the 2nd better Bretsky and there are still 2 or 3 picks to go from those trades.

[RashanGary]

I take it back...I was gonna say Jennings will do as good as Jackson but then I realized Jackson went to NE

[Fosco33]

Walker -> 39 -> 47, 109, 183

He also gave up 139.

[Deputy Nutz]

I know Thompson's trading down syndrome is a bit frustrating. He believe that more picks, gives the team the best chance at rebuilding this franchise.

Simply put, the Packers front office was not impressed with Chad Jackson. I don't know why, they knew that New England wanted him. I think it might have hurt them a bit with trade of Javon Walker to Denver. If I had the access to these players like an NFL organization does, then I could probably tell you why the Packers passed on Jackson. The fact is, they got a likely starter in Colledge, and a kick returner and right now a 4th or 5th reciever and kick returner for the 2006 season.

I heard a couple of scouts claim that this was not a strong recieving group at the top, it has some depth, but teams could easily find a reciever that could make a bigger splash and impact on a team in later rounds than with the first couple of guys at the top of the list.

[Fosco33]

Chad Jackson = Chris Chambers. Tough call - but we need more picks b/c we have plenty of holes to fill. That is - you get more quality players in the draft than searching in FA. It had to be done but it's a tough one.

[mraynrand]

Bretsky,

It think you're obsessing over specific players. Sherman used to do this. he got all jacked up over a particular guy with certain measurables and then moved around to get the guy, losing picks in the process. Some other GMs stay put and follow their board and their needs. Others like TT stockpile picks. On the assumption that a draft pick in any round has a certain probability of making it as a starter or competent back up, and a certain probability of failure, you can see the logic in getting more picks. Lets say the percentage is 50% - so TT should get 5 guys from this draft. If he hadn't made a move, he has 7 picks and maybe gets 3 or 4. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I would guess that the probability of success drops through the rounds. So if you stockpile picks in rounds 1-4, you're probably better off than stockpiling 5-7. Now if you factor in the fact that TT has drafted pretty well in the past, you're percentages go up. So I think you may have a difference of +2 solid players with TT's system.

I don't but the 'impact player' argument either. The number of guys who make the probowl drops from 50% in the top 10 picks to less than 25% in the late first round. So you really need top 10 for a really good shot at impact players and after that, you'd better get some guys that can ably fill out your roster and hope for a gem here and there.

Only time will tell which guys survive, but I bet TT will have a better overall number than other teams, just by virtue of getting more picks.

[RashanGary]

35, 37, 139 = 550 + 530 + 36.5 = 1116.5
52, 75, 47, 109, 148, 183 = 380 + 215 + 430 + 76 + 32.2 + 19.2 = 1152.4

Those are the three picks that were originally traded and the picks that we got in place. At the end of the day T.T. got value for what he traded.

[Bretsky]

35, 37, 139 = 550 + 530 + 36.5 = 1116.5
52, 75, 47, 109, 148, 183 = 380 + 215 + 430 + 76 + 32.2 + 19.2 = 1152.4

Those are the three picks that were originally traded and the picks that we got in place. At the end of the day T.T. got value for what he traded.

NUMBER WISE the only deal he lost out on was the last deal.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Re: TED THOMPSON- BREAKING THE TRADING BANDIT DOWN MORE

THE JAVON WALKER TRADE ENDED UP BEING

Walker and a 5th (139) for Colledge (47), a 4th (109), and a 6th (183)


Beyond that trade, he traded down 16 spots from 36 for #52 and 75.

He passed on some first round talent to land Greg Jennings (52) and Jason Spitz (75)

YOU CHOOSE; WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE CHAD JACKSON OR THOSE TWO ?


He also traded down from 93 to 109 and 183...


Last year TT was rolling extra picks like crazy; call me harsh for saying this, but so far one out of 11 picks have worked out. Hope the odds are a heck of a lot better this year.

Depends if the Packers had Jennings or Jackson rated higher on their board. A lot of teams were sour on Jackson because of his lack of production.

[Bretsky]

LISTENING TO TT"s PRESS CONFERENCE.


Cliffy Cristl just asked what will TT do if none of the young receivers blossom and the RB's don't recover from injury. He's scooping for a negative slant.

The only silly think TT said was we thing Robert Ferguson is a very good NFL receiver...............other than that he sounded OK

He also denied they had Jennings rated above Jackson but implied it was close and they really liked Jennings cause of his ability to run after the catch.

[BF4MVP]

I think the trade would have looked a lot better if he hadn't traded away the last third round pick..That was overkill.