Official 2015 NFL Draft Thread

interesting, I saw Shaq Thompson in the first, that would be interesting

Yeah but I don't get it. The best possible linebacker is there, so you take a player who is "best" at.... what?  Some other position? Football in general?  What does it (BPA) even mean?  You're trying to compare different positions.

 

I could see it in the top 10-15 players, but not at 30.*

 

This draft will be like last year.  We pick late and there is a position of desperate need.  There will be one of the best players at that position available, who likely won't be there in round 2.  You take him.

 

*Edit: unless there's a lap faller, a la

Because you may have a better player at a position that will need restocking, like CB.  ILB value in the second round is as good as the end of the first so you balance the approach.  The guy you want at ILB is gone, do you reach?  Only bad organizations do.  

 

There's no "cute".  CB's and DT's are harder to replace than ILB.

 

 

Not sure what to think, guess we should rely on what the"experts" say.

 

 

 

 

Regarding need versus BPA........TT doesn't slot player 1 through 500 with a strict #25 is ALWAYS better than #26.  He has tiers, where the players in those tiers are considered similar.  I think everyone knows this.  At the end of round 1, odds are that all tier 1 players are gone and there are only tier 2 through tier X players left.   Now TT obviously sticks to tier 2 (ie: highest ranked tier) where there are likely multiple players.   In this case, since only tier 2 guys fall, he has a choice from a number of players (assuming no tier 1 guys fall).  This is because the top of the draft is pretty clear for all teams, so rarely is there a surprise tier 1 guy falling.  And if one does, the pick is clearly BPA b/c it's not likely a position of need (ie: Aaron Rodgers).  But in the later rounds, every team's board becomes pretty unique and all of a sudden in the 4th round, you have 1-2 guys from tier 3 dropping to the Packers.  With only 1 or 2 guys in that top tier, TT really doesn't have positional flexibility he had with that first pick, making the pick look more like BPA.  

 

A better way to say it.......the number of players in the "top remaining tier" become fewer and fewer as the draft gets to the later rounds, so it's more clear that a GM is taking BPA because they don't have positional variety with their later picks.  But in earlier rounds, the top tier is more defined leading to more players being available in that tier, giving the GM a variety of positions to fill with BPA.  

 

Make sense?  

At what point was this the BPA?

 

We judge that pick knowing the results, but that was thought of as a pretty solid pick at the time. Harrell had injury issues that lowered his draft stock, but there were articles that came out saying that there were teams ready to take him if GB hadn't (I think it was Denver?). It was a risky pick because of his recent injuries, but I remember liking it at the time because he actually was a pretty good player at UT. He didn't show any signs of being the slug he ended up being in the NFL.

Yeah I remember the same about Harrell.  I remember reading that he played in a big game right after tearing his bicep which to me, shows mental and physical toughness.  For whatever reason, that didn't translate to the NFL.  

Yes, Denver was absolutely going to take Harrell if we didn't. I've mentioned before I wanted a DB in that slot. (Leon Hall)

 

FYI....TT was going to take Revis if the Jets didn't take him at #14

 

I believe Harrell was going to be excellent in 2010 when he blew out his knee in game #1 vs. Philly.

 

Calling him a slug? I Disagree. He couldn't stay healthy, that was his problem.

 

For clarity, Take a look at 2007 Round 1

 

I think honestly he turned into a slug after his first big injury. Weren't there stories about him not rehabbing properly and going home a lot and just fattening up? I feel like there were some stories out there about his work habits not being that great after he had been injured. Maybe I'm wrong.

Leon Hall would have been a really great pick. To me it shows how Ted seems to value DL or OL over positions like CB in r1. Hall was a solid, accomplished player at Michigan while Harrell had some question marks. Ultimately I think Ted thought the upside of a DL was more valuable than the upside of a CB in r1. I think we see something similar play out this year. A couple good CBs might be available to GB, but I think ultimately he will decide the the upside of a DL or LB is greater than that of a CB.

Urgh! TT should have definitely traded up there to get Revis. What would they have been out, Aaron Rouse? Worst case scenario B-Junk? Giving up Harrell and B-Junk or Rouse for Revis sounds like giving up Robert Ferguson and Jarret Bush for Joe Thomas except could have actually happened.

I clearly remember Harrell getting bad reviews in training camp and preseason in 2010. He was barely playing on defense at all at that point, he blew out his knee on special teams while defending against a FG attempt. The guy just sucked.

I.  Huh?  WUT?  I've never seen that.  That's GLORIOUS.  I'm not even saying from a perspective that I knew Rodgers would become this good, I don't think anyone did.  But to say that Brohm was a better prospect IN 2008 than Rodgers?  Brian Brohm?  MORE MOBILE? Brian Brohm's upside is greater than that of Rodgers?  Rodgers has no creativity or anticipation?  Hoge and McShay should have bags of urine lobbed at them every time they leave their homes for being so so wrong.   My god, it is nearly impossible to be that wrong about something.  

 

There was one documented case of Thompson passing on a higher tier player and drafting a different player for need.  In 2009 Michael Crabtree was the last remaining player from his tier and B.J. Raji was in the tier below, and Thompson passed on Crabtree and took Raji because they were set at WR but needed the NG for the 3-4.

Did you find Ted's board in the trash on the curb of 1265 Lombardi?

Crabtree turned off a lot of teams with his attitude, perhaps we were one of them? 

The Raji/Crabtree thing is no secret, it was in the papers the week after the draft.  The Packers had Greg Jennings, Jordy Nelson, James Jones and an aging Donald Driver for depth, there was no room for another WR, especially a high draft pick in the off-season when switching from a 4-3 to a 3-4.

 

"Best player available" = GM speak 101

 

 

That Brohm stuff wasn't exceptional at the time. Every single "expert" guaranteed Rodgers was going to fail. I remember on the morning Favre "retired", Adam Schefter guaranteed Rodgers was going to be the next Scott Hunter. Even after Rodgers had an excellent season in 2008, they all instantly anointed Jay Cutler the best QB in the NFC North when the Bears traded for him in 2009. **** all of those imbeciles and blowhards.

You got a link to those papers? 

Maybe it was in Slocum's playbook that found its way to said curb.

Ted has picked wide receiver high when there wasn't a need before.  He also seems to have a particularly good eye for wide receivers.  I'm guessing if he thought Crabtree was going to be special, he would have picked him.

 

Ted saw Crabtrees 40 time and said "pass."

 

 

Thompson said Raji and Crabtree had the same grade on the Packers' board. That's probably a matter of semantics, but people with knowledge of the Packers' thinking said Crabtree stood far and away as their pre-eminent player.

 

Earlier in the month, a Journal Sentinel poll of 21 scouts showed Crabtree a close runner-up to linebacker Aaron Curry as the best player in a weak draft.

 

"That doesn't necessarily decide the outcome," said Thompson, referring to the Crabtree-Raji comparison that will be followed for years. "We felt he was the best pick for us."

 

 

 

I don't think Best Player Availabe always means the most talented player available. Saying BPA is only half the sentence, the other half is ...for the Green Bay Packers. I think talent is the biggest part, but character, fit for the team and need are rolled into it also. The best player available for GB was not Michael Crabtree, it was BJ Raji. I think GB probably picked up that Crabtree was a little immature and there was not any kind of need for a WR so all things being equal they went for a player who fit what they were looking for and needed. If talent was the only deciding factor then drafts would look a lot different and I think teams that have picked based only talent (Jacksonville with Justin Blackmon) have had those picks blow up in their faces more often than not.

 

Yep.  Thompson sure isn't going to say, "we took a player we had graded lower."  He's not going to say that.

 

Jennings, Nelson, Jones, Driver...Ted wasn't going to take another wide receiver.  When there are situations like that "team need" will jump "best player available" every time.

 

"We felt he was the best pick for us."  They didn't have a 3-4 nose guard and were fully stocked at wide receiver.  "Best pick for us" doesn't always equal "best player available."

 

The team's first six picks in the 2012 draft:

1st round = LB

2nd round = DL

2nd round = CB

4th round = DL

4th round = S

5th round = LB

The previous season the team finished dead last in the league in yards allowed.  And in the following draft the "best player available" just happened to play defense six times in a row to start off the draft.

 

Ted's drafts have been pretty consistently need driven over the last six years.  Let's say something unexpected happens like Jaelen Strong, Breshad Perriman and Phillip Dorsett all end up jumping DeVante Parker on draft day and push him down to #30.  Ted looks at his board and Parker is the only player left in the Packer's top remaining tier.  How many people out there think that Ted would take Parker under those circumstances with Nelson, Cobb and Adams already on the roster with multiple years remaining on their deals?

 

 

Best Player Available is a very subjective concept. Who YOU consider the BPA is not the same as who Thompson considers the BPA. Only time can tell who is right, if we are looking back on Crabtree vs Raji, I would still take Raji. Crabtree is talented, but he's still immature and he hasn't lived up to his hype (that's not all his fault though). So your board or your consensus board or McShay's board may all say one player is a BPA, but that doesn't mean that is true for all 32 teams.

We were fine without Crabtree in 2010.  Wonder what might have happened if we were without Raji instead.

She lives in Canada.  You wouldn't know her.  

Another case that backs up the idea of personality being more important to TT than other teams was when TT drafted Jordy over Desean Jackson.  Maybe TT's board really had Jordy as the better player, but I think it was the case where TT knew a guy like Desean never would have fit into this team and a town like Green Bay, so we went with the lesser talent knowing he was a perfect fit otherwise.  

 

The word "player" already includes character.   If it didn't the phrase would be best athlete available.    Let's not try to wordsmith our way out of the fact that TT doesn't always go BPA. It's a ratio between BP and need with BP probably carrying more weight than need. 

You can add value of the position and projection of need in the immediate future as well.

 

Point being, BPA is subjective.  Of course there will be picks for need, that's ****ing inescapable.

Pete Prisco's latest Mock

Packers Draft needs

Does anyone really think Ted takes a player he considers the 2nd or 3rd best player available. Your BPA isn't the same as his, he picks who he thinks is the best player available.

Just stop the silliness.

Nobody knows jack diddly squat about what Ted will or won't do

Even Ted doesn't know -  he keeps it a secret from himself till draft day.

 

Joe does. Packer or Arrigo... take your pick.

Thompson said... but you focus on what people think? See Satori's post.

 

 

Best player available is never one player. You said it yourself, Thompson has tiers, and he had them graded the same. Thompson has also said you can never have enough big guys, especially those who can move.

 

 

Facts don't really support your first sentence. As for the rest of this paragraph, in that scenario Thompson either takes Parker or gets about 4 picks for the spot to draft him.