Who Won The NFL Draft?

[Fritz]

I agree, Packrulz. TT was on fire. I wonder if it all slowed down for him, like the great athletes say it does when they're in the zone? Maybe all the other GM's were freaking and sweating, the clock ticking like a bomb, the pressure on, and for Ted it was all slow motion, even the phone ringing s-l-o-w-l-y. Or maybe he was just stoned. Whatever it was, it worked. It worked.

[MJZiggy]

Did you see the picture of him on Packers.com? He was completely relaxed (must have been right after the Hawk pick) and smiling. Best pic of him in a long time.

[packrulz]

If a someone told me before the draft that TT would trade Walker, turn it into 5 picks, & still get Hawk & Hodge I'd think they were nuts. No way. Wow!

[Tarlam!]

Did you see the picture of him on Packers.com? He was completely relaxed (must have been right after the Hawk pick) and smiling. Best pic of him in a long time.

Also, what Fritz said about slow-mo.

M3 quipped about how hectic it got just as the Walker trade went down, how organized the chaos was, and how he thought that was par for the course. TT remarked he'd never seen a situation go down like that in any previous draft.

Let's also give credit to the phone guys TT had at his side. They must have been just as incredible in that space of 5 minutes. What this tells me is that TT briefed his TEAM so well, that they flew in under the radar, they were on night-sight auto-pilot and just dropped the bombs and flew home.

The whole episode is beautiful for me to fantasise about. Makes me awfully proud to be a fan.

[RashanGary]

bump for tank

[RashanGary]

See how it talks about the salary cap as a set budget and that the cost of each player effects the ability to sign other players....It talks of UFA as a free market and by nature will drive the price up...

These have been my main points for quite some time. This is why I believe Thompson is such a good GM. I've listened to him speak and everything he says fits this puzzle...Thompson will be a great GM Tank..Wait and find out.

[RashanGary]

bump for tank

[RashanGary]

bump for tank

[Anti-Polar Bear]

For Collins:

This theory of “surplus” seems to only take into consideration the surplus of cap room made available through cheap rookie contracts. It fails to consider essential elements such as the odds of success for rookies, compared to proven veterans still in their prime, holdouts and experience.

Bloomberg writes, “Given the history of picks in the second and third rounds, Green Bay should have a number of players locking down valuable slots on their roster for years…” If Bloomberg is going to use historical data as a fact for his argument, he should have analysis the Packers’ draft success for picks in the top 3 rounds before making a conclusion. According to a Washington Post study, the Packers' picks in the top 3 rds in the past 10 years only averaged only 11.44 starts per season, second worst in the NFL behind only the woeful Lions. That study contradicts Bloomberg’s assertion that the Packers should be successful with picks in the top 3 rds. The odds of a rookie becoming a success for the team that drafted him are less than that of a proven veteran, especially one who is in his prime or has yet to reach it. For example, suppose the Packers can trade for Hutchison by giving up a 2nd rd pick, which is used on Colledge. Hutchinson’s chances of success with the Packers are better than the rookie Colledge because Hutchison has proven to be successful in the NFL. On the other hand, Colledge’s chances of turning a success are just as good as his chances of turning into bust. Put it another way, because Hutchinson is more predictable than Colledge, and despite the high price in the free agent market, signing Hutchinson is less risky that drafting Colledge.

Bloomberge writes, ‘If you can select a competent starter in a late round, you may have him for five or six years at a salary far below what he could negotiate on the free market” and “going rate for a star running back is $9 million a year, and you find one in a later round for $750,000 a year, that frees up lots of money to spend on veteran players at other positions.” Bloomberge fails to take into consideration the consequences of holdouts and competitions. Would a player who is effective and productive play for $750K a year when his value is $9 M a year? Initially, you gain a surplus for hitting on a late round player who turns out to be a Pro Bowler. But that surplus is usually only temporary, unlikely to last up to “5 or 6 years” since the Pro Bowl caliber player would eventually threaten to holdout for a market value contract. The team either would have to honor his contract demand or trade him. The Walker dilemma is an example. Furthermore, “late” round picks usually become restricted free agents after only 3 years of service. There are 32 teams in the NFL so competition for the player’s service is plentiful when he becomes a restricted free agent. Other teams are going to offer market rates for the player and you either have to match their offers or lose him.

As the saying goes, nothing can be substitute for experience but experience itself. If you depend so much on rookies, then you have an inexperienced team. Inexperienced teams usually aren’t very successful. By the time your pro bowl caliber rookies have gained enough experience they would likely be demanding bigger contracts. Sure, if you use the temporal surplus money you gained from hitting on drafts picks efficiently on other teams’ free agents, you could have a pretty good team. But the GM the Packers have isn’t using surplus money efficiently, as is evident by Thompson’s inability to land multiple top tier free agents with $35M.

[Anti-Polar Bear]

The bottom line is this: efficent free agent expenditures+effective drafting = competitive team.

Thus far thompson has shown he sucks at both area, free agent and the draft. Thompson 1st FA class produced players Little, Freeman, Klemm, ODwyer, Thompson and Navies; all but Klemm is not on the team anymore. THompson's first draft class produced only 1 contributor, 1 contributor out of 11 picks.

THe result: 4-12.

[RashanGary]

The main point of the story if you missed it is that because of the set cap used in NFL each team has to strive to get the most out of the $$ they are allowed.

They stressed how rookie contracts are smaller than FA contracts so if you draft well you have extra money to afford your star players.

They explained how UFA is a free market. Even those with basic understandings of economics could deduct that a free market drives the price up because of the competition.

But who is a Prestigious university economist to argue cap management with you tank...Obviously you have a firmer grasp on it than the rest of the eductated world.

The whole point of the artical was that when dealing with a set salary cap you're goal is to get the most out of the money you have. It is just like a family who makes 100,000 per year or a buisness who has revenue of 1,000,000 per year. It is a simple concept, but you'll argue your view untill the end of time...

I just thought I'd show you an artical with insight from university economists that basically backs up everything I and half of this forum have been saying.

[MJZiggy]

Hey, Tank--do you have a link to that Post study? Thanks.

[Tarlam!]

Hey, Tank--do you have a link to that Post study? Thanks.

I was thinking th same thing. Only three small spelling mistakes on a page cannot be Tank...

[RashanGary]

Tank is a very skillfull writer. He deserves that much credit.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ESPN is the big winner. They fill-up about 30 hours of programming, get good ratings, and just sit around and replay some clips. Best sports gig of the year.