Obviously, this draft has been a tad surprising. But more importantly, I think we can make two inferences stemming from this draft: (1) Thompson does not solely draft BPA (best player available) and does in fact employ a hybrid of BPA and need, and (2) Thompson thinks this team is ready to compete and win now.

First, let's look at Thompson's drafting philosophy. Thompson has been routinely labeled a BPA drafter--that he takes the best player regardless of position. Yesterday suggested the contrary. If the prior McGinn report was true about Crabtree being the BPA on the Packers' board, then Thompson and Co. drafted a player whom they think wasn't the BPA overall; rather, they took a player who was probably in their top three (maybe two) because he filled a more pressing need. I'd argue that the Packers have the best WR corp in the NFL, and that defensive line was their number one need (outside, perhaps, offensive tackle), and they filled that hole with Raji, a guy who can play NT but also probably play some DE. He is going to play a lot as a rookie. Raji filled a big need, but he was not a typical Thompson pick.

Thompson then continued with need, surprisingly trading up to get Matthews. Many here don't like what he had to give up, which even he admitted was perhaps a bit much, but he did it because he was apparently enamored with Matthews. He was surprised he slipped that much and made a move that filled another big hole on defense. Not only did Thompson again address a need, but he also obviously targeted a player. Matthews must have been high on his board if Thompson was willing to give up this much for one player.

As Thompson said, "We were really zeroed in on Clay. We think he’s a really, really nice fit for our defense. [...] We really wanted to try to get him. We have thought about this for the past couple of weeks in terms of what strategies we would use to maybe try to get him at some point."

Wolf always said you could get yourself in trouble, conceding that he himself found himself getting in the most trouble, when you target certain players and draft for need. Time will tell on this move, but the aggressive trade up and targeting of a player is out of character for Thompson indeed. A bold move.

So while these two moves show that Thompson does not take strictly a BPA approach, that he seems to use a synthesis of need and BPA, these two picks also are very telling of how Thompson perceives the current state of the Packers.

For me, Thompson feels as though the Packers are a team that is posed to win now; that is, he does not believe that this will be a transition year. Yes, the Packers will transition to a 3-4, probably slowly, but no: it should not result in a losing season--at least in his eyes.

In the past, Thompson wanted to purge the roster, so continually trading back allowed him to get more players to fill empty roster spots and create camp competition. Now, however, Thompson sees a team with relatively few glaring needs. Whether he is truly correct or not is yet to be determined. But Thompson obviously felt that these two players--both of whom will most likely start--position this defense to be a contender.

Now again, time will tell. But this trade up for Matthews suggests that Thompson felt this defense was just about one player away. He must have knew (or projected) that a player like Barwin or Sintim would be available in the second round.

That is how much Thompson valued Matthews.

Very interesting and telling draft.

This BPA versus Need debate is going nowhere!!! Look I hope our GM when faced with two BPA's selects a need!!! We don't need to draft 1-7 picks of WR's if they happen to be the BPA at the time. It can be the BPA if having to chose among a small group of good players but at long as your not reaching for a need like Wolf did when he selected Michael's/LT then he is doing a good job. All GM's say they pick the BPA but lets face it unless your looking at their board at the time you don't know. Just because he is the BPA of some ESPN of NFL Networks board doesn't mean he is on TED's. Also Crabtree has some major personality issues. Not a Packer person.

I don't see this argument as compelling.

Crabtree is enormously physically gifted, there's no doubt about that. He's also immature and me-first: looks to me like a real locker room cancer who, like Owens, Moss and Walker will take a walk just as he's starting to pay off. I'm not at all envious that the 49ers have him.

Mathews is being reported to us as something a bit like Rogers: he fell much further than TT's boards would suggest, so based on value he jumped on him.

I'm not yet convinced that TT drafted for need, I think a decent argument can be made that this is still BPA, mixed with the idea that it's time to look for difference makers now that our depth is ok.

The fact that the Pats traded away two of their 3rd round picks shows that these picks in fact had less value than the charts would suggest. Much as I dislike Bellichick, one must allow that he knows how to draft. Perhaps we also didn't get taken to the cleaners in the Mathews trade.

Thompson said as much himself. He takes best player available. What people arent considering is that he doesnt typically list them #1, 2, 3, 4...etc. But rather catagorizes them in tiered groups. Maybe tier one has 5 players in it. Crabtree and Raji are in that tier so they are considered equal in value. At that point he looks at need. So as it turns out the BPA is a combination of tier and need IMO.

How do we know that Raji wasn't the BPA on Thompson's board? Are we just going off that GBPG rumor? I would not be surprised if Raji was higher than Crabtree.

When all was said and done--and by that, I mean taking into consideration the guy's attitude (i.e., character), etc.--perhaps Raji was higher.

But yeah, I'm going off the McGinn rumor.

TT had them about even in his PC after the pick

Almost every pick aside from Johnson at FB seems like a need...

TT has said it before The Lord just doesnt make alot of guys with the size needed to play the line. TT puts a premium on these guys therefore they are rated higher on the board .

I disagree with the premise that TT drafted for need over BPA. Even the FB Johnson was rated best at his position by most scouts...he's a punishing blocker.

Several of the picks, from Raji and Matthews, to Meredith, Lang and Underwood were projected to be selected ahead of where the Packers took them. Usually, that implies BPA, not reaching to fill team needs.

Considering the tier system they use, all the players could also have been BPA picks as well.

The need/BPA issue really only applies when guys seem to get drafted way too high. I don't think any player we took fits that profile. I don't see any reason to think TT took guys on a lower tier if higher tiered guys were available.

I'd believe the "tiered theory". If you have a group of guys that are roughly the same talent level, but one fills a need and the other would be a luxury at this point, you take the need.

Also, later on, after watching the 3rd round, I thought that it was a fairly weak round in terms of the talent matching up with where they were being picked. Rounds 1, 2, 4 and 5 had many teams with better VALUE picks.

JMO

Oh, I agree.

Guys (and gals): I was simply pointing out that Thompson probably doesn't go strictly BPA, which many here (and others elsewhere) have labeled his philosophy.

This year more than ever it appears to be a hybrid of need and BPA.

Moreover, I'm really, really happy with this draft. Obviously, this is all speculative, but if some of these players pan out, then the Packers just got three potential starters for this season (Raji, Matthews, and Johnson) and the two bookends on their line in 2010 (Meredith at LT and Lang possibly at RT).

I'd be hard pressed to say he didn't try to address the glaring weaknesses on this team.

Good effort in the draft; now, let's get these guys on the field and teach 'em up.

Here is the thing I see in Thompson's drafting and the BPA v Need argument. Thompson may indeed draft for position but he doesn't seem to reach to draft position. He is patient as most good GMs know they have mroe than one need. Case in point is taking a WR with his first selection last season. I'd say it was a need, not a pressing one but one that he needed to fill and one where the talent fit his pick.

The pick this season of Matthews is one where, from what I can read between the lines, was a guy he had rated very highly, probably 10-15 picks higher than the draft position and a guy whose talent fit the Packers system very well. That's another bg part of the draft process. Clay Matthews might have been the Packers 5th rated player in this draft but he may not have been the 20th rated player on anyone elses board.

Is that a reach for need or is that BPA?

What I can tell you is it seems different than trading up to select Donnell Washington or James Lee, guys who never were good college players but were physical specimens. Those to me are need choices and reaches. Thompson is truthful if he's anything. He wants to draft football players and he seems to be doing that.

I really don't think he uses either method. I think he uses the "want" method. He has a short list of players he really wants, and the stage in the draft he's willing to take them. I don't necessarily disagree with that strategy either, excpet it can cause you to fall in love too much with certain players. Harrell is a good example. You start convincing yourself based on all the positives, and start overlooking the negatives.

Based on that, I can safely say TT took the BPA (BJ and CM) and they just happen to fit two of the three biggest needs on the team.

TT is either very lucky it came down this way or, these two picks were just one hell of a coincidence.

PS, I really don't care what happened, I'm happy with the picks.

My guess is Thompson looked at the team's needs and drafted the BPA at each spot.

We needed a NT - Raji was the best NT available

We needed a LB - Clay was the best, most versatile LB for their system

etc.

What about the "tiering" of players. Was crabtree a lot better than Raji? Probably not. Can Raji potentially have a greater impact on GB than crabtree? Probably. All things somewhat equal, Raji was a better fit for GB. If Sanchez or Stafford falls to GB at the 10th pick, and GB cannot trade it, do they select him? It was be extremely difficult to think they would.

When you are looking for depth, you have a bigger pool to select from. You don't look at any particular area, but you evaluate the players you want to select and if there are many of them, say 5, then trading down 4 spots or even gamble at 5 or 6, you get more value and still one of the players you want (while it is a gamble to trade down more than the number of players you group together, most teams will not have the same group). When you have your eye are specific individuals and have a range of where they will be selected, you determine what you are willing to give up to get them. I think that if Raji was gone, then GB picks crabtree (completely PBA and not a big impact with the other WR on the roster) or an OT. They could have traded down at that point as well. When Raji was in position, then GB's dream scenario went into affect. Attempt to trade up for Matthews. They did b/c their vision of these two players and how they would fit with the other players they have without a big reach. It was costly, but GB had to think that Matthews was going to be selected by another team.

Thompson must have thought that Matthews was ready to play from day one. Other than Curry, maybe the best LB their and Curry is an ILB, right.