http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic..._the_draft.html

Our first reaction to the draft, generally speaking is that (like the Chiefs) teams generally drafted not for pure talent but for need – the needs we highlighted last week with our statistical wire hangers. We think next year we should put up picks against those needs that we highlight, creating a de facto (and dreaded) mock draft in that manner.

Just a wild guess here, but it would probably prove incredibly accurate.

In fact, later today or tomorrow, we’re going to compare our analysis with the actual picks. We guarantee you’ll be impressed. In most cases, we pretty much nailed the way the draft was going to go down ... and we didn't do it by pretending to have insight into NFL war rooms. We don't. Neither does anybody, apparently.

Nope, we did it simply by assessing each team's statistical needs based upon our Quality Stats. It turns out the NFL teams are very much in tune with what we say they need ... go figure.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...FC_edition.html

April 21

"GREEN BAY
Bend Score OHI DHI PYPA DPR BPI Rel
23 6 9t 14 10 4 11t 13

The departure of Brett Favre before the 2008 season was supposed to cause irreparable harm to the Packers offense.

Instead, it was the performance of the defense that declined compared with the form it showed in 2007, when the Packers hosted the NFC title game.

Green Bay was fairly solid across the board offensively last year under Aaron Rodgers and the two greatest statistical wire hangers were found on defense. The Packers ranked a mediocre 14th in our Defensive Hog Index (low-lighted by a defense that surrendered 4.6 yards per attempt on the ground, 26th in the league). They also ranked 23rd in Bendability, meaning they made it pretty easy for opponents to score points.

The Packers have made few if any moves to solidify its defense in free agency. So they need to make those moves in the draft, specifically acquiring a big-time player on the defensive front. "

And who did the Packers draft:

DT Raji
OLB Matthews

"GO FIGURE"

In fact Ive shown over and over again how TT drafts for need yet the myth persists that he picks the Best Player Available.

The only Packer personnel guru to do that was Vainisi in the 1950's.


http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Artic...even_funny.html

"GREEN BAY
We wrote: “The Packers … surrendered 4.6 yards per attempt on the ground, 26th in the league. The Packers have made few if any moves to solidify its defense in free agency. So they need to make those moves in the draft, specifically acquiring a big-time player on the defensive front.”

Green Bay’s actions: The Packers acquired a big-time player on the defensive front with their first pick, No. 9 overall: beefy Boston College DT B.J. Raji. Their second pick (No. 26 overall) was devoted to another player who will improve the Defensive Hogs, USC OLB Clay Matthews. In all, the Packers devoted half their draft (four of eight picks) to Defensive Hogs.

CHFF’s grade: A. The Packers followed our directives perfectly. Good boy. Now give us a paw. Hell, give us a bratwurst. "

I thought he did both...? Was Jordie Nelson need or BPA? Harrell?

"Was Jordie Nelson need or BPA? Harrell?"

Both need picks.

TT was still looking for DT starter replacement for the less than optimum foursome of Jenkins, Williams, Allen and Cole.

TT did not like Williams or Cole or Jenkins for that matter but Jenkins move to DE and his FA pick-up bust Allen made it imperative for TT to attempt to find a quality player in the draft.

With Driver aging and Jennings and Jones queston marks do to durability and in Jones case a confidence issue also, along with the Packers penchant for multiple WR sets plus as redemption for not getting Moss, picking Nelson for need was a no brainer.

Yes Martin is a very popular Packer player and Rodgers buddy but he as much as others think he would be a the 3rd WR on most teams I doubt it. 4th or 5th if he even makes another team which is doubtful IMHO.

This is his 6th TC he is not young.

To put him in perspective he is the same age as Brandon Chillar. Came into the league the same year.

He came into the league in 2004 didnt catch on until 2006.

Four of the five games he started in 2007 was the Packers employing a multiple WR set to start the game but still only had 16 catches for the season but four TDs.

Last season only 15 catches and 1 TD and that with his buddy the starting QB.

If he makes the team this year it will be becasue of injury IMHO.

Sorry for the longish Martin aside.

But its high time for some current Packer myths to be busted.

"I thought he did both...?"

In a way thats true if you mean by it TT "picks the BPA at a position of NEED."

Next question.

Im ready.

I expect big things from the Packers this season(12-4) but reliance on myths and excuses wont get that done.

As much as one can connect picks to need, it is a combination of both, IMO. The idea of tiers along with "need" work together. Just like GB was not going to pick Quinn or the USC QB in the first round that last couple of years, I do believe that you can make a statement that most all picks (in the early part) are for need that are in the same tier as other players. Going further, the players in the tier will be compared to the next tier and how much difference between the perceived talent in that position. If GB selects Harrell, they must feel that he is in the same tier AND that the next chance for a player in that position would be a serious drop off in perceived talent.

I can agree that Nelson and Harrell were need picks, but were they that much more of a need than RB, OL, S or TE. In any given draft, I believe that every team needs to select at least one OL, DL, LB, DB and WR. Pretty much covers most positions, but that is the case. As to the first 2 or 3 rounds, then you can look more closely. In 2008, what was GB's biggest need early? In 2009, what was more important than a big plugger on the DL and maybe OT. GB did pick a LB, was that really a bigger need than OL or RB or S? I don't think so, but I really liked the idea of GB evaluating Matthews and deciding he was worth moving up in the first round.

'GB did pick a LB, was that really a bigger need than OL or RB or S? I don't think so, but I really liked the idea of GB evaluating Matthews and deciding he was worth moving up in the first round. "


TT "picks the BPA at a position of NEED."

Which is much different than strictly picking for need or strictly picking BPA.

Because while its arguble as you say that LB was a bigger need although I think it was.

It is also arguable that Matthews was NOT the BPA at that spot.

But again "picks the BPA at a position of NEED." this is very subjective which suits TTs personality to a T as he can say he always picks the BPA true or not.

And its not true because no GM in history has been that omniscient including TT.

IMO TT drafts BPA in the first round and in rounds two and three he fills his team needs with BPA at certain positions. Baji was BPA on the board that happened to fit a need, TT got lucky their and when Matthews fell TT had to move up as Matthews would have been his first pick if Raji had not fallen...

"Matthews would have been his first pick if Raji had not fallen.."

Then he wouldnt have been taking the BPA by a longgggggggggggg shot.

"IMO TT drafts BPA in the first round.'

Then your opnion is not based on the facts.

Are we splitting hairs a bit here? Can any competent football executive pick 10 QBs in a row because they are the 'best player'? Team needs will always play into things. BPA is a myth as a consideration in and of itself, and is only actually considered in the context of team need. Without that Need context BPA is fairly valueless as a decision making tool to grow a football team.

However the process for establishing need is probably pretty top-freakin'-secret so we are left to guess on our own and reverse-engineer the results as best we can.


JMO.

I think that is a stretch, at best, to label them as "need" picks. As I recall, the biggest need on the team at the time we took Nelson were CB and we traded down to pick a WR. Not saying it was a bad pick, but I didn't think at the time that it really addressed a "need".

And Harrell, well, we had Williams who was playing great and fit in as a rotational player. We could have kept him and actually saved $$$ and had a guy that could contribute. Harrell was picked because of the "upside" and the domination we expected to get from him when he got healthy.

Willams had no chance of reamiang a Packer.

TT said as much before his fnal season began.

AS I said above TT didnt think he was good enough to be a starter.

His choce to be the starter was Kendrick Allen but Allen was a bust.

He had to try and find one and chose Harrel.

Need pick by any definition.

I also explained the Nelson pick.

Bottom line is TT doesnt pick strictly for BPA once again its:

"BPA for a positon of NEED"

Thompson picks BPA and if there are multiple players graded the same he trades down or goes with need. The Harrell pick was not a need pick. When Thompson picked Harrell they had Cole, Jenkins, Jolly, Pickett, and Williams. Nelson also was not a need pick. Dropping down they gained another pick and Thompson still was able to pick a player he slotted as a late 1st early 2nd value. Your facts are clouding your opinion.

I would love to hear the explanation of Rodgers, or Hawk, or Jackson...

Of course he doesn't. Does any GM worth his salt pick strictly "BPA" without taking into consideration the state of his team? I doubt it.

Harrell was most assuredly not a "Need" pick and nor was Jordy Nelson. You are trying to warp facts to fit your point of view instead of looking at them for what they are.

By virtually all accounts our greatest team depth was on the DL when Harrell was picked. The biggest question mark after the draft was "how are we going to keep all of these DL on the roster." That we had so much depth on the DL was as much a cause for the uproar over Harrell as his injury history. It wasn't until the following year that we lost our depth due to trades and injuries. By virtually all accounts our greatest team depth was our WR corps when Jordy was picked. He wasn't even expected to be anything more than a #3-#4 receiver. It is a rare publication or draftnik that had GB's greatest need at WR last year.

The NFL is a very dynamic business. There isn't one single team with enough depth at any position (Giants DL included) that one can't try to argue a pick is actually a "need" pick or "BPA at a position of need". Especially when the argument is made at least a year later with 20/20 hindsight. To try to argue that the greatest team needs were DL and WR when Harrell and Jordy were drafted is certainly a bit of revisionist history.

When you consider Williams upcoming FA and Jenkins move to the the outside to an already thin DE spot, depth at DL was already starting to look like an issue when Harrell was picked. I remember thinking so. I see no reason to believe TT didn't identify the dwindling depth at one of the most key position groups at that time, and that he acted on it by picking Harrell.

WR is another position group that has been lacking in recent Packer history. Pre-TT the depth and talent there has been IMO quite horrendous at times. It is obvious to me that TT has defined a higher emphasis on depth at this position compared to what Sherman kept in the cupboard.

Need is always a consideration. Always. It may not be for THIS season, but the GM and his staff are probably doing a lot more long-range figuring than even the most astute forum expert, and of course has a lot more info at hand.

BPA at a position of need. The need may not always be apparent if it is long-range or has to do with developmental goals set internally, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Have we EVER had this much talent at WR? Not in recent memory have we had such a talented group for our QB to throw to. All we really need to round it out is a stud TE. To bad T. Gonzalez didn't end up here.

You are correct and I actually agree with your last two paragraphs. Mostly I agree because I can formulate an argument as to why any position group on any team at any time is an area of "need," especially if the parameters are expanded past the current season. I don't think it a stretch to make a more compelling argument why OL, CB or DE were the more "immediate" needs last season- and I'd have lots of supporting links from the pundits and draft guides. We took a WR. I'm not arguing against the pick (I really like Jordy -although I wanted Merling), but I think one would be much harder pressed to find links supporting an argument that WR was not the position with the greatest depth and talent.

Now you've just further expanded the argument over semantics. How are people defining "need" and what timeframe is attached.

We needed depth at just about every position during all of TTs drafts. THerefore, anyone he drafts could be considered 'a position of need'.

The 'facts' as I see them indicate to me that TT drafts BPA. Period. IMHO, when Harrell and when Nelson were selected their position was one of the strongest on the team. This tells me that the 'BPA at a position of need' is not accurate. When you get later in the draft, there usually are a dozen or so players all rated the same when the Packers pick. When faced with multiple players at the same level, why not select one at an area of weakness on your team. Sometimes there is a guy rated a tier or two above and they are selected and a player is taken who is at a position of strength, but usually we are just filling out depth with those later picks anyway.

"I would love to hear the explanation of Rodgers, or Hawk, or Jackson..."

All no brainers. All needs.

Rodgers-Favre replacement

Hawk the Packers were in desperate need of a linebacker.

Jackson once again a need the Packers were very shaky at RB.

TT never drafted "BPA period" in his life and never will.

Too many TT kool-aid drinkers here for my taste.

But it will all come home to roost soon.

Not a "need" pick at all, but rather BPA. Rodgers was to take over as favre's replacement sometime in the near future.

He was not filling a hole on the team at a position of need.



Not sure why you are getting so defensive over Ted's draft choices and wheather he was going for BPA or going to fill a need. I was not happy with Nelson or Harrell or even Rodgers at the time, but they are all solid football players (except Harrell, maybe) and Ted drafted who he thought would be best for the team.

TT never drafted BPA? I think not. Rodgers comes to mind instantly.

Your arguments are fine, for you. Any picks can be construed as a "need" if you project far enough. Take Rodgers. Was he a need pick? Yes, if you consider Favre's annual event that was getting moldy in 2005. But in near term, Rodgers was not an immediate need. He was the BPA, I would have serious questions if anyone would say he was not. At 25, a player that was seriously considered to be the overall Number 1 and free falls to 25. Rodgers was the BPA and many teams could not see picking him. One can argue that 23 other teams passed on Rodgers, so he could not have been the BPA, but the reason that he have any footing is that "need" is important and QB is so difficult. Getting a stud QB takes years, just look at the Lions. They have not had an impact QB since...... so long ago that I don't want to look it up. Did Detroit try? Sure, Ware, Harrington were top 10 picks. Many teams try. Detroit picked Stafford 1st overall this year. Is he their savior? No one can possibly know.

Getting back to your post, you must love to type and see your own writings. You post a lot of stuff, just I don't see it being useful to me. I glance over and see a lot of your posts sparsely responded. This thread is another example. Your view and the opposing view will never be settled. Yet, you make statements like TT never drafted "BPA period" in his life and never will. & Too many TT kool-aid drinkers here for my taste. These cannot be proved and do not add to a lively thread.

Your posts are growing weary on me. This argument cannot convince either side.

Notes: As said earlier, NFL rosters are so fluid that depth everywhere is needed, and almost any pick can be explained as meeting a need. Favre was likely to come back the year Rodgers was drafted, but we knew he wasn't going to last forever. So was that a draft-for-need pick, long-haul? Or a BPA pick, apart from need? Nelson was perceived as a not-for-need pick, but at the time there were many who perceived Corey as still being a guy. If TT perceived Koren as washed up, and perceived Driver as being in his 30's and likely nearing the wall, could that be explained as a need pick?

2nd, needs are perceived differently by different people. If I perceived Koren and Driver as still ready for years of good service, but TT perceived Koren as done and Driver being too old to trust, our perceptions of need might have differed widely. Likewise if I perceived Geno and Barbre as being fringe scrubs, and Clifton's knees being done, OT perceives as a major need. If Ted believes that Geno and Barbre project quite favorably, and that Clifton's knees are likely good for at least a year and possibly several more, we may have widely varient perception of needs. Many perceived DL as an area of strength, thus tab harrell as a BPA. But if one of the reasons TT drafted him and didn't do much to retain Corey Williams was because he perceived Williams as being more fringey than is the more popular perception, then perhaps Harrell was a need pick given Ted's scouting evaluation.

3rd, I think the impact of need varies at different spots in the draft. Often you expect a 1st rounder to play and address a need immediately. But that isn't always true. And at later areas, no way do you expect immediate need-alleviation. I hardly think they expected Brohm to be the bomb right off as a rookie, and certainly not Rodgers. Nor Barbre. This year I think they do see Raji as being an immediate need-filler. But not Lang. Last year when they took Brohm, Lee, Finley, and Johnson, I don't think they envisioned any of those four really being ready to do much as rookies. But they may have been viewed as being picked as developmental guys, who could all be need-matchers by their 2nd year or quickly thereafter.