http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Comme.../borges2403.htm

"Four players were acquired very likely for the cost of what the No. 8 pick in the first round is likely to be paid. At a time when everyone in America is looking for such things, the Patriots got the only sure thing they could find in this draft — good value and reduced risk. These days, what more could you ask for?"

Now wouldnt you think the blurb above would be about the Packers and TT given TTs past draft history?

But its not its about the Patriots and BB.

So the question is why did TT do it?

Was it because of last years under achievement?

Was it because of the sudden move to the 3-4?

Or was it the best way to go for the Packers and teh Patriots given the circumstances?

We wont know for a coupla years which strategy was correct or if both were.

But I believe the comparisons will be made either way as these are two high profile organizations whose every move is scrutinized more so than most teams with the possible exceptions of INDY(Polian) and DALLAS(Jones/history) and of course the two NY teams by definition. Jeez I suppose I shouldnt leave out the Raiders and Davis/History.

Id include Pittsburgh and Chicago but even with their histories they seem to fly under the radar more often than not.

Any way now Im getting far toooooo off topic. Or am I? Arent the two issues nearly inseparable?

How do others see/evaluate the contrasts/comparisons and peculiarites of this draft?

Sometimes we give journalism majors too much credit for their football knowledge. The simple fact is that sportswriters are always running to catch up with what the football minds are doing and then claiming one or the other is clever. The easiest case is to simply praise the Patriots because it makes it seem like you are eating at the cool kids table. The Patriots have been a successful franchise, but they don't get every move right. I looked at the actual players they picked up and I was not impressed. But the writers don't focus on that, they give Belicheck the presumption of genius. The Patriots had a ton of picks this year. For that, I give Scott Pioli credit - but those were done last year, and Scott is gone. As for the player selection...

Well, I have my doubts if Patrick Chung, Ron Brace, Sebastian Vollmer, & Darius Butler are really better value than Michael Oher and Clay Matthews. Chung is an incomplete safety, Brace has a balky back, and Vollmer is just learning the position. Butler seems fine... but I wonder if they aren't starting to water down that team a bit. Pioli was always successful identifying and selecting the core stars like Wilfork, Seymour, Mayo, etc. But if you look at the 2005-2008 drafts for the Patriots, there is not much outside of Mayo, and there are some really boneheaded moves like trading up for Chad Jackson.

I think the press would have more credibility if they were ahead of trends in their criticism, not just trying to eat at the cool kids table after lunch is done.

--------

We'll see in five years, but if Oher or Matthews turn into a star than the Patriots will be looking like fools and you'll hear nothing from the Profootballweeklys of the world.

Heck, one draft that nobody talks about but could prove to be the best in 10 years is the Jaguars. They got both Monroe and Britton for their line... two guys who could be franchise tackles. Who cares about the rest if you get a couple core players.

Agree 100%. Every year it seems as though the Patriots are lauded for their draft prowess regardless of what they do. I've always thought the Patriots were great because of superior coaching, not superior player personnel acquisitions. They lucked into Tom Brady (and they will admit that). Otherwise what they've done is found guys with specific skill sets and then coached them up. That's admirable and worthy of praise, but it doesn't mean they play the draft game better then anyone else. In fact, one could argue their constant recent offseason activity (Moss, Welker, Adalius Thomas, etc.) is a direct result of NOT being aces on draft day.

I actually could care less about what the Patriots did in their draft. I don't care how weak a draft is, every year there are dozens of great football players selected, with some of them found in each and every single round. I think that the Patriots and the Browns both missed out on great players because they were in a trade-down mentality due to the perceived weakness of this draft. 2005 was supposed to be a very weak draft and it sure seems like it ended up being pretty damn good upon reflection. Yeah there were a lot of teams that picked busts early on, but that completely overlooks guys like Aaron Rodgers and DeMarcus Ware early and then solid guys from later on like Marion Barber, Brandon Jacobs and Kerry Rhodes. I think that the Patriots are going to look back and regret passing on guys like Michael Oher, Clay Matthews and Ray Maualuga with their first two picks. I'm just glad that the Packers were willing to move up for CM3. I think that he's going to be a star for this team for years to come. IMO the Patriots loss is our gain. Also, with so much depth already on the team, the Patriots are going to be cutting a lot of quality veterans and/or rookies this offseason. They've spent a lot of money to end up just dumping guys too soon. Overall I'm not impressed with what they did in the least bit.

stick, there are many possible arguments about why he traded up for Matthews.

Possible reasons include:
1.Feeling the pressure from above to get better immediately, even at the expense of losing draft picks.
2.Feeling the pressure from below, (from McCarthy via Capers), to get what is needed for the 3-4 immediately.
3.Attempting to cultivate more popularity with the fans, with more 'consensus' good picks**.
4.Feeling the team is just a pick or two away from great things, so willing to gamble.
5.Feeling the value in round three was poor.

I don't think any of the above played into what he did. I think the clues for his reasoning were hinted at just after the draft. He has said he especially wanted Matthews and Raji, and was looking for ways to achieve it. He also said he expected Matthews to go anywhere between about 12-30. He waited until pick #26 before he made the trade to move up, so he must have felt he had waited as long as he possibly could before doing a deal.

The turnover in the last few years may have allowed Ted to feel more confident in burning picks this year (so reason 4 above might have some validity), but he has always said he would trade up for a player if he thought it was worth it. If it had been me making the decisions, I'd never have had the cojones to give up a 2nd and two 3rds, because I wanted to draft an OT too much (which he addressed later anyway).

Ted has quite often said he looks more at the long term benefit of the team than perceived team needs for the coming year. Posters here seem to have a hard time taking that statement at face value (including me), but his actions have been consistent with that statement.

So, to conclude, I think he traded up simply because he liked Matthews enough to pull the trigger on him. Even he said it wasn't a great trade (but didn't think it was that bad either). No 'feeling the pressure from above or below' or 'being clever' or anything like that, he just liked the player enough to pay the price to get him.

**When reporters told TT fans had cheered his picks this year instead of booing, he just smiled and joked "They're getting soft", classic TT dry humor.

I think this is the correct answer. TT felt that CM3 would make the team better than if he didn't make the trade and selected players at those 3 spots.

As always, TT does what he thinks is in the best interest of the Packers, no matter what we think, the press writes, or the rest of the NFL GMs do.

Remember when Chad Jackson was a brilliant move?

Every team has good picks ( well at least most teams) and bad picks just like the Pats when they drafted Chad Jackson instead of Greg Jennings . The Pats do have a good track record but they are not perfect. Right now in retrospect I think TT had pretty much a perfect draft getting possibly two impact starters on defense in their first year.The next guys should make the team and eventually become starters with the FB and Lang getting playing time this year. Hopefully Jamon Meridith can be Clifton's replacement in a year or two.Wynn and Jones have some upside and if they pan out it will be gravy.

TT drafted for quality this year as the team is finally getting the depth it needed. More picks were not needed quality was needed and TT got quanity with two first round picks not just trading up for a impact quality player and paying alot for one guy but he was smart enough to get two guys which is amazing.And then being able to get some guys with upside on the second day that were in positions of need was huge and again he got two Oline guys and I hope they both make it but if he bats 500 well if for some reason one of the two does not pan out the impact on the team will not be major.Then comes Wynn and Jones the guys that were the normal TT under the radar guys that he normally picks and every Packer fan says who the hell are these guys. Both are somewhat projects and at positions that are needed , I think that Jones will surprise and make the 53 man roster with Wynn going to the practice squad.

But TT was not done yet and he picks up a bunch of undrafted guys that he actually targeted and one or two might make a difference as TT builds the depth of the roster even more maybe getting a WR to beat out Martin or a RB/returner to compete with the existing guys and so on down the line TT keeps the competition coming. It has taken TT a few years to get to this point but he has a plan and is sticking to it. Building from the top down and the bottom up.

In retrospect? They haven't played a down yet.

Anyone else think the fact that Thompson has known Clay Matthews since he was born played a role in the trade up? I mean, no GM could be closer to a prospect than TT to his best friend's nephew.

Clay Mathews was acquired with so many picks because the packers had him rated as a top 15 prospect. The Patriots on the other hand seemed to be reloading their core with a gazillion picks. They're not rebuilding but the core of their team is old and they have increasingly more FAs. IMO BB was loading up the roster with mid round picks that he can develop over the next couple of years.

I really don't think TT's trade had anything to do with friendship. The kid is good, TT wanted him. I have no problem with it.

Knowing the kid doesn't mean that Thompson just wanted to select him as a sop to his family. It could instead mean that he's well-placed to judge and mentor him. He has a better idea of Matthews' so-called intangibles, and is better able than other GMs to assess his value.

The family ties could become a problem later, though, if Matthews underperforms or suffers Harrell-like niggling injuries. Could TT be objective enough to cut ties with him in these circumstances? Hopefully, we won't get to find out.

The trade for Matthews is very likely to be considered a bad move in a couple years. When it was discovered how much was given up, people declared he'd have to be a future hall of famer to justify the cost. Well, really if anybody between pick #41 and pick# 109 turns out to be a better player than Matthews, many people will declare the trade a bad one. And even if Merideth reaches his potential, it probably won't matter because nobody seems to remember that 5th rounder we got in return (How many articles have you read that declared we gave up a 2nd and 2 thirds for Matthews?).

Which makes the move all the more impressive in terms of its boldness. Even if people remember the 5th rounder in there, in 3 years it's going to be Matthews and Merideth vs. the 3 best players chosen between pick#41 and pick#109. Because we'd expect our GM to be able to identify those 3 players.

So I give Ted a lot of credit for sticking his neck out like that knowing it probably won't look good for him in the future.

I don't agree, actually. The move tended to be criticized based on the old draft value chart. I think in future when that chart becomes increasingly obsolete, the perception of the trade as a trade-chart overpay will diminish, and it will increasingly become viewed as a trade that was value-fair, and as such will go down as any quantity-for-perceived-quality trade. Which typically go down as scouting smart or scouting dumb.

Matthew is the perceived-quality player here.

If the perception that he is a quality player is confirmed, the trade will go down as a winner. If Ted's perception that Matthews will be a quality player is proven wrong, it will go down as a loser. It's pretty much all up to matthews.

If Matthews is a bust, of course the trade will go down as a bust trade. Ted scouted him as a winner, but instead he's nothing much. Ted was an idiot to scout him so favorably, Ted is a dumb scout, Ted blew it, what a dumb trade. Boo for Ted, fire the dummy.

If Matthews is good, I don't think anybody is going to complain. Ted scouted him as a winner, he is a winner. Ted scouted him smart, Ted followed that up by making a smart trade, and Ted showed good guts to do so. Hurray for Ted, lets keep such a smart scout and courageous GM.

The trade is mostly about whether Matthews makes Ted's scouting of him as a good 1st rounder look smart or dumb.

Remember when Wolf gave a first round choice for a QB who had been picked in the second round and seemed to be in disfavor with his coaches? I wasn't real thrilled with giving a first round choice for a second round player, but learned to live with it.

LoL !!

I was a bit ticked we gave up those 3 picks at first. I got over it quite quickly.

Beacause Day 2 was almost as enjoyable as Day 1 was. Getting both those bookends and brusing FB? It was like having Christmas two days in a row.

I've thought alot about the trade for Matthews...

Here's my take, and why I think TT pulled the trigger...

I do believe he really liked Matthews, but I think he gave away the BF 3rd round pick as saying "hey, I respect Brett and I'm not trying to capitalize on Brett's decision to come out of retirement. When Brett retired, we did not have that pick..." From what I've heard; Ted is one of the kindest people you will meet. I think this was part of Ted saying to Brett, "this is now water under the bridge". If you take away that second 3rd round pick; values are pretty darn close.

IMO Ted did not value that pick as something we deserved for Brett to "unretire".

So he gave the pick away to another team because he didn't think the Packers deserved it ? Polishhawk, that is seriously wacky.....

And if we didn't have that extra 3rd round pick we might have had to give up next year 3rd round pick.

BIG DAVE:

"Beacause Day 2 was almost as enjoyable as Day 1 was. Getting both those bookends and brusing FB? It was like having Christmas two days in a row. '

It made my apprehension of the loss of both 3rd round picks nearly evaporate.

And made me think much more highly of TT than I have since he drafted Rodgers and Collins 2005, Hawk and Jennings 2006.

All of whom I thought were stellar picks at the time and still do.

I revived this thread rather than starting a new one. In light of the current state of the O-Line this paragraph from one of Patty's pre-draft write-ups REALLY jumped out at me.

Pre-2009 Draft Report by our PC draft "Expert"

"I believe in this draft that the Packers need two quality OT’s and not just a development types. The Packers need OT’s ready by seasons end to be able to start. In other words we got to get as good as we can at this position. Solid OT play can make a huge difference in the course of a game and season."

While TT helped the D considerably with Matthews and Raji, the Packers lost-out on OT's that would have helped IMMENSELY in Oher, Britton, Loadholt or Beatty. I don't want to be accused of 20/20 rearview vision, but an NFL-ready OT (or 2) would sure look nice protecting AR. Matthews is definitely a player, but can't help wondering if TT had traded out of #9 and gotten Matthews and another 2nd, which would have given the Packers #41, #??, #73 AND #83 to work with...

Defense was the biggest problem last year, and I think it was addressed nicely. I am very happy with Matthew and Raji. It is nice to see Lang doing well for 4th rounder and now Johnson is seeing the field. Still the tackle situation is critical. I would truly love to see a Ron Wolf type move and see GB select 3 tackles in the first 3 rounds of the upcoming draft.

2009 looks to be a good draft, still like Patty pointed out it was no where near enough....

I do hope we give Lang a shot at RT. At this point he sure looks to be a much better prospect than Barbre.

shoulda coulda woulda taken Oher at 9 and still made the Matthews trade. so far that looks like it would have been the ideal scenario. i like Raji too, but our team would be la bamba with a good OL...