Is Ted Thompson this bad or was he never that good?

[squire12]

45 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Not sure the exact methodology you're using, but in fairness Tom Brady has a CAV of 236. Even if you assume 6 picks for 18 years, that's a bump in average CAV of 2.19 by one player. 

If you're going to play the game of "Without Aaron Rodgers, Ted isn't that good" (and I'm not saying you are), you kind of have to play it in the opposite direction as well. 

Not making any claim on taking away a pick from any team.    Just responding to the idea that TT has found a lot of players in rounds 4-7 and the idea that no other GM has.   Which is not the case.  

Took the sum CaV for picks rounds 4-7 for teams and divided that by the number of players drafted during those rounds.   Like I said in my post above, trying to determine which GM is better is a really hard task when so many factors are involved in determining the components that go into that

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Clay Matthews was the 26th overall pick.  Kinda kills the whole "we need a top 10 pick" theory.  We don't, we just need to get lucky. 

Ding, ding, ding.  Luck plays a HUGE part of that.  When it's on your side, you're hitting.  When you're not, you look a lot worse.

[Shanedorf]

21 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Ding, ding, ding.  Luck plays a HUGE part of that.  When it's on your side, you're hitting.  When you're not, you look a lot worse.

Some are obviously forgetting that GB had a top 10 pick in Raji AND the ammo to trade back into the 1st to get Matthews.

If they don't have the high value of a top 2nd ( 41)  + the favre 3rd + their own 3rd, they don't have nearly enough draft clout to pull it off. And without having already secured Raji , you might be a bit reluctant to trade 3 more picks to get back into the 1st round and secure Clay.

So yes, you do need top picks in order to get a shot at the top defenders. Luck played a role in Matthews dropping, but the ammo to get him came from being 6-10 the previous season.

[MacReady]

3 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

Some are obviously forgetting that GB had a top 10 pick in Raji AND the ammo to trade back into the 1st to get Matthews.

Clay Matthews was the better pick between Raji/Matthews.  I'm not forgetting anything.  Watt, White, Clark, Rhodes, Smith, Hightower, Jordan, Wilkerson, McCourty and Matthews are all all-pro defensive players taken 24th overall or later since 2009.  Great players are available late in drafts.  We got one just last year. 

[wgbeethree]

Great players are available at any point in the draft but by design the further down in the draft you are the harder it is to find impact players.

Since 2009 thirty players drafted 1-16 have have made the pro bowl (admittedly not the best bar but an easy one to locate) for a combined seventy appearances. Fifteen players drafted 17-32 have made the pro bowl for a combined 27 appearances. 8 of those appearances are by players TT drafted (CMIII 7 HHCD1).

For the rest of the NFL you're about three and a half times as likely to get a pro bowl season from a top 16 defensive pick than you are from a 16-32 pick (69-19). 

So even though it's possible there is a SIGNIFICANT difference in likelihood .

Since 2009 every DPOY has been a top 16 pick as well.

[MacReady]

Just now, wgbeethree said:

Since 2009 every DPOY has been a top 16 pick as well.

Stop.  I can't dispute anything you've said, I just want you to stop. 

[incognito_man]

5 hours ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Clay Matthews was the better pick between Raji/Matthews.  I'm not forgetting anything.  Watt, White, Clark, Rhodes, Smith, Hightower, Jordan, Wilkerson, McCourty and Matthews are all all-pro defensive players taken 24th overall or later since 2009.  Great players are available late in drafts.  We got one just last year. 

Watt?

[wgbeethree]

33 minutes ago, HorizontoZenith said:

Stop.  I can't dispute anything you've said, I just want you to stop. 

Just a little bit more....

Defensive players drafted since 2009....

1-16: twenty three first team all pro seasons

17-32: two first team all pro seasons

13 of the last 15  defensive rookie of the years have been top 16 picks.

[th87]

33 minutes ago, wgbeethree said:

Just a little bit more....

Defensive players drafted since 2009....

1-16: twenty three first team all pro seasons

17-32: two first team all pro seasons

13 of the last 15  defensive rookie of the years have been top 16 picks.

So then why were people so against tanking the season? 

[cannondale]

33 minutes ago, th87 said:

So then why were people so against tanking the season? 

Not saying this applies to you, but every time I see someone mention that word, I immediately think the closest they ever got to taking the field or court was on xbox.

If it does apply to you, then you wouldn't understand if I tried to explain it.

[Acrid Josher]

1 hour ago, th87 said:

So then why were people so against tanking the season? 

Because the opportunity cost of tanking is high when you consider A) you still can miss drafting high in the draft, B) you can hit high in the draft but due to injury or non-football reasons it turns into a miss, C) every year you make the playoffs you have a non-zero chance of winning the superbowl- if you are an average playoff team about 8%. If you miss the playoffs you have 0% chance.

If Aaron Rodgers has five years left in his superbowl window, and the packers are an average playoff team each year, they have a (1-.92^5) ~ 34% chance of winning at least one more  Superbowl. Each year they miss the playoffs reduces those chances by about 6%. Even if you assume that we are guaranteed a successful defensive pick by tanking this year, that pick would have to increase our average playoff chances each remaining year from 8% to 10%. It's certainly _possible_ that we'd dodge A and B and rookie stumbles for that player to increase our entire team success rate in the remaining 4 year playoff window by 25%, but it's extremely unlikely for a single player to have that much impact, especially if we aren't picking first or second overall but instead in the 10-16 range when the surest hit pass rushing talents are likely gone.

Yes I made a lot of assumptions above- you can quibble with the particulars all you like- but the point remains that without extremely favorable assumptions it's very hard to justify tanking if you have a shot of making the playoffs with #12 as QB if your goal is to maximize the chance of winning another Superbowl.

[AlexGreen#20]

8 hours ago, th87 said:

So then why were people so against tanking the season? 

Because the objective is to win the superbowl, and this team has the ability to win the superbowl as currently constructed.

It's real life, not Madden Ultimate Team.

And I say that as someone who was a huge proponent of "The second the team is out of contention, start tanking"

[SassyFascistAlphaGuy]

Yeah, it's a bit easier to get good players with 2 picks on day 1. That would be the equivalent of the Packers drafting Lattimore and Watt in the first round this year. We'd be a much different football team with those two. 

[TheOnlyThing]

"General manager Ted Thompson’s anachronistic approach to talent acquisition has left them exposed at one specific position or area of athleticism or facet of the game at the end of every season since the Packers won their 13th championship in February 2011."

LOL, so pretty much ignoring unrestricted free agency and never making trades for players = anachronistic.

http://www.packersnews.com/story/sports/nfl/packers/2017/12/17/silverstein-packers-show-theyre-capable-teasing-but-not-contending/939547001/

[packfanfb]

This. This is all TT's bull**** to start. If we have an injury problem at a position the guy repeated does NOTHING. When is the last time he brought in a guy mid-season to help? Instead he fills the back-end of the roster with UDFAs like Pipkins and Brown who literally aren't even good enough to play so the coaching staff has Burnett, Whitehead and Jones playing CB in big games. And then no one bothers to call TT out or demand he answer for it. **** has been going on for years. It's  like having a 43 man roster instead of 53.