Thompson's way or the highway?

The give and take of drafts is highllighted in this latest from C.D. Angeli:

http://packerchatters.com/?p=5247

Highly recommended reading for all would-be GM's.

I see the bloggers point but do not agree with it. I am not a fan of the point system regarding the pick number. TT did what he had to do to get his man ans I commend him for that. Of course it remAins to be seen if it was the right pick.

I too will go way out on a limb and let you know after their third season in the league

Exactly, thats why they are a BLOGGER
(and not a real great one)
and Ted is an NFL GM.

He knows what he's talking about and doing.

All though, some here won't agree.

Go Pack!!

To me it comes down to the value that TT placed on Mathews. Obviously he had a REALLY high grade on the kid. So at that point the chart gets thrown out the window. Getting back into the first usually takes your first next year. I will admit I was a bit floored when I saw what we gave up. Because of that the expectations will be high for Mathews. Comparing him to Brown or anyone else taken after him makes no sense to me. The woulda coulda shoulda game and the NFL draft don't work too well. There must be some reasons why Brown fell about 30 spots lower than what the "experts" thought.

And 66, why the sarcasm? We could all offer uninformed guesses as to how Mathews will pan out but what good is that? We won't know for a year or two. We haven't even seen him in a preseason game and we're supposed to pick a side of an argument?

It wasn't really sarcasm, Although I have a problem with FSU DEs our bust DE wasn't the only one from that school. I think Mathews has much greater potential. like I said we will know in three years

Some Lions fan developed a linear regression model to project pass rushers drafted in the first two rounds:

http://thegoodbyeladiesdraftreport.blogspo...-4-rush_19.html

Although I don't like draft position being one of the variables, it is interesting work which seems to do a sound job of at least retroactively modeling the past (predictive ability remains to be seen).

The work indicates that -- despite outstanding college productivity -- Brown will suck. Big time. He simply doesn't have the athletic ability to make it at the NFL level. Drafting Brown would have been like drafting a RB who runs a 4.8; or a QB with a 45 mph fastball. There are certain minimum attributes needed to play various positions in major professional sports, and Brown doesn't seem to meet these minimum requirements.

For the sake of being redundant, here are my thoughts on the article, which I also posted in a reply:

I just don’t understand the premise underpinning this article: why are Brown and Matthews even linked to one another?

Put another way: why, of all players, would Brown’s career “shadow” Matthews’? Why should the Packers, of all teams, care about Browns’ future success (or lack thereof)? Because C.D. Angeli read some mock drafts and thinks he would have fit in well as a Packer? Because he prefers Brown to Matthews?

The Rodgers/Smith analogy only underscores how faulty both the original premise and the connection he is trying to make are.

Let’s start with Rodgers/Smith. These two are obviously linked because (1) they play the same position (something Matthews and Brown won’t even do!), and (2) they were explicitly vying for the number one overall pick; that is, everyone knew the 49ers were going to select one of those two players. Adding to the connection was that Rodgers was purportedly the number one guy until about a week before the draft, when San Francisco suddenly fell in love with Smith, passing on Rodgers who dropped, as we all know, to the Packers. Furthermore, nobody had to trade up or down to select either Rodgers or Smith. No team gave up anything to acquire either player; teams—or in this specific case, San Francisco—simply passed on a player.

Brown and Matthews are not linked in the same fashion.

Before the draft started, I predicted to my friends that Brown would not be picked until the second round. My reasoning: he simply wasn’t first round material, even in this weak draft class. He is too one-dimensional and would be a massive project if turned from a DE to an OLB. Hell, even as a DE, Brown lacks many fundamentals, as Florida State does not utilize their DE’s in a fashion similar to teams in the NFL; rather, at Florida State, DE’s forfeit any run stopping obligations and simply rush the quarterback. Makes things pretty easy, eh? In addition, I’m not sure how Brown could be “a potentially more established OLB” than Matthews given that Brown has never played the position and Matthews has.

But player evaluation aside, there is nothing to link Matthews and Brown except for Angeli’s desire for Brown to be a Packer. The Packers, from all accounts, were not debating between Matthews and Brown. They wanted Matthews specifically and traded up to acquire him specifically.

Almost every team in the NFL passed on Brown—some twice. Should every team in the NFL compare their first round pick’s progress to Brown’s? At least the connections between players like Smith/Rodgers or even Manning/Leaf make some semblance of sense.

The only connection between Brown and Matthews is that, had the Packers drafted Brown, he likely would have been converted to play the same position as Matthews. But so would players such as Connor Barwin and Clint Sintim, both of whom were selected within three spots of Brown. Should the Packers also watch how well they develop when assessing Matthews? Are Barwin or Sintim not also the “price the Packers’ paid” to get Matthews? And why single out Brown? What about the players the Packers could have potentially selected at number 73 and 83?

This type of guesswork and thinking is counterproductive and can be played out ad nauseum with any team and any draft pick. In the end, it accomplishes nothing. Even the idea that Player A would be just as effective on another team elides the importance of matching up players in specific schemes and/or surrounding them with a strong supporting cast. In other words, even if Brown is successful in Carolina, that does not entail he would have had the same success in Green Bay.

Poor article with poor analogies, exacerbated even more by myopic thinking.

I know this time of the year people look for any angle they can, but this is a weak article nonetheless.

I expect more from LA.

I apologize in advance for my tone, which I know is a little agonistic.

Interestingly enough, both Clay Matthews and Jeremy Thompson would rank quite well when looking specifically at the first two variables, both of which the blogger considers the most important: short shuttle time and vertical leap.

Matthews - shuttle time: 4.18 (2nd best among linebackers and tied for first with Connor Barwin against DEs considered potential OLB prospects); vertical leap: 35.5 (tied for 2nd best amongst linebackers, though slightly below DEs considered potential OLB prospects such as Connor Barwin, Brian Orakpo, Michael Johnson, Aaron Maybin, and Larry English)
Thompson - shuttle time: 4.23; vertical leap: 32.

Not too shabby, if we put any stock in this formula, that is.

The guy who came up with the formula was asked about Clay Matthews (after the draft, when everybody knew that he'd be a 3-4 OLB) and he said that he didn't think Clay really fits the formula because he was a 4-3 OLB in college. But, from what we've seen on tape, he's a good blitzer. If Clay had played DE or 3-4 OLB, then he may have put up sack numbers like Maybin and Barwin (other one-year starters). I think that, even if Thompson beats him out this season, there is a lot of reason to be excited about Matthews. Likewise, the story on Thompson was that Wake Forest used their DEs in coverage a lot of the time, and he didn't get much of a chance to play the pure pass-rusher role.

When you look at their athleticism and hear what their coaches say about them, I think it's possible that we have two diamonds in the rough. If one of them pans out, we're in good shape.

I'd also like to clarify what I previously said, when I stated that I don't like draft position being a variable: if I were a GM, and my stats guy gave me a formula that included draft position as a variable, I wouldn't be happy. I could get a consensus opinion of my scouts as to where a player should be picked, but I wouldn't know what the other 31 teams were thinking. From a predictive standpoint, it would make the model pretty worthless. However, I do think that draft position gives a good indication of what professional scouts are thinking of a player, and for a guy like Brown to drop so far, in such a weak draft, it indicates that scouts don't like him. So, he put up good (but not historic) sack numbers in a sack-friendly system; he isn't an athletic marvel; and the scouts didn't view him as being better than a mid-second-rounder in a weak draft class.

I just don't see much to make me think that we made a mistake by trading up for Matthews as opposed to holding our ground and drafting Brown. I'd rather roll the dice on a one-year-wonder like Connor Barwin, than take a guy like Brown.

But that's just me, and there's a reason that I'm not working in an NFL scouting department.

Brown was overrated thats why he fell. He was overhyped by the media. This guy IS Jamal Reynolds the II and will be out of the league in 4 years.

Well, I for one thought it was an interesting read (isn't that all you can ask for a blog article?) and I got what LA was saying. It was a steep price to pay to move up like that. And hindsight's 20/20...we had no way of knowing if Brown or anybody else for that matter (maybe even Clay Matthews) would have been available at 41.

But one thing that I keep coming back to is that the Journal-Sentinel's Bob McGinn is one of the best in his field, and he compiled a list of the top 100 prospects, based on many interviews with scouts and personnel men. And he had Clay Matthews rated #12 overall.

So I'm going to sit back and let this one play out.

I thought it was a good article.

TT did give up a lot for Mathews--a lot. Especially since not just Brown, but Sintim and Barwin would also have been there for very much less, and in Brown's case, nothing. Essentially, TT traded out of the first day for this guy.

Now, he did get lucky in that Meredith was there on the second day. Most people thought he was worth a second rounder.

If Mathews turns out to be a Keith Bullock type, then the question is moot. But if he turns out to be another Hawk, that is a serviceable player, but nothing more, then TT is going to have some problems on this one.

First, I'd like to point out a few things I've read in this thread and in the article that I disagree with.

1) I HATE it when fans judge a player based upon previous players at his position from his school. This is a lazy method of analysis. If you think a guy is going to fail, point to physical/mental/emotional reasons why, not just guys who happen to go to the same school. Even if the conclusion is correct and the player fails, the analysis is still poor.

2) This is a message board where fans (many knowledgable) express their opinions. The "Ted is a GM and you're not so he's right and you're wrong" argument stinks of elitism and annoyance. As an example, the CEO's of many of the recently failed companies are CEO's and we're not. We should just assume they know what they are doing, and know better than we do? Given the opportunity, I think a fair number of the more knowledgable fans could do an adequate job evaluating talent for an NFL team. Even if they can't, this is a forum where these things are discussed. This entire statement is not to say that I oppose Ted's decisions, just to say that the argument outlined above is again an extremely lazy method of analysis.

3) I think the analogy between E. Brown/C. Matthews and Alex Smith/Aaron Rodgers is not very strong. The only comparable point I see is that by playing the same position and both being considered options by draftniks, there will inevitably be comparisons. What makes it a poor fit is the fact that the scenario from this year includes analysis of trades (ie was it worth it?) and the fact that without the trade, Brown would've still been on the board for our next pick.

4) I've grown a little weary of the "let it play out" defense. To make a final judgment, that makes 100% total and complete sense. That's not what we're doing here, IMO. Personally, I don't want to know what people's opinions are after the fact nearly as much as what they are before the play on the field. The odds of getting it right are lower, and it truly separates the knowledgable fans from the casual or even fervent observer who may not possess the vision/foresight to predict the outcome before it happens. Anyone can tell you the steal of the draft 10 years later. The really fascinating people are the ones who can point out the steals before the draft occurs or immediately thereafter.

Alright, complaints aside, I must say I understand the point of the article. It is natural to compare because many fans thought Brown to be a better option. Personally I had Brown ranked quite a bit higher than Matthews. On the flip side, I still think Matthews is a good player so I am certainly not complaining. I don't mind us taking a player who isn't my top guy at the time, I just don't want us taking a guy I view as a poor value or talent. Matthews is certainly a legitimate talent to be taken at that spot, and I am happy with the pick. My only caveat would be that I think we got very close to fleeced in the trade value. Two 3rd rounders was a lot to give up in this case, even if we did get a 5th rounder back. I think we should have gotten better trade value, BUT I am happy to see Ted identify a player he wants and aggressively pursue that player, so I'm willing to let it slide.

I'm assuming this was directed toward GBP4EVER's comment that Brown was the next Jamal Reynolds, but even so, I don't think this type of analysis is entirely fruitless, especially in this particular case. Allow me to explain.

It is no secret that Florida State utilizes their defensive ends in a different manner from not only numerous college football teams but also every NFL team; that is, defensive ends at Florida State only have to rush the passer. They don't drop into coverage. They don't hold the point of attack and look to stop the run. In other words, a defensive end from Florida State is at a double disadvantage when drafted to the NFL: not only will he have to adjust to the pro game, which in and of itself is a difficult task for every rookie, but he will also have to learn all of the nuances and different obligations that come with playing defensive end in the NFL.

Put another way, the defensive scheme at Florida State acts as a facade: it gives the illusion that defensive ends are better than they are because they commonly put up inflated sack numbers.

As such, it becomes a more arduous task than usual to evaluate these players. And while, as you say, it is "lazy," one method of evaluation--though not an all-encompassing one, not in the slightest--is to look at former players who played in that scheme and have similar tangibles and numbers and then to see how well they performed in the NFL.

Obviously, each prospect is different, and just because Jamal Reynolds and other Florida State defensive ends have failed in the NFL does not entail, for certain, that Brown too will fail. However, the lack of success for Florida State defensive ends over the last decade does not augur well for Brown. After awhile, you start to take notice of these trends and stop chalking them up to anomalies.

But hey, maybe Brown will be the anomaly.

Even so, I can understand GMs' reticence in taking Brown in the first round, especially when he doesn't seem to have that unique of a skill set to begin with.



At the moment, the big (and perhaps only) downfall in this trade is that the Packers, from many indications, gave up too much to get Matthews. Personally, this situation humors me, as it is one of those classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of scenarios. More than a few people have grown tired of Thompson trading down, but when he trades up--and in this case because he values the player greatly, believing him to be a top 12 talent--he gets maligned.

When I look at this trade, I think of it in terms of Thompson's grand scheme. Like all GM's, his overall goal is to build a Super Bowl contending team, and to start that process, he believed he had to give the team an enema. Consequently, we saw an influx of new talent, as Thompson traded down frequently and brought in a bunch of players each draft.

Well, he did that for a few years, and he has built a team that, as I have said in a few threads, is one of the deepest Packer rosters I have seen in awhile. And if Thompson likes the depth on this team as well, which I believe he does, then trying to acquire as many players per draft no longer seems necessary and/or the most prudent approach. Now, he can target, at least to a degree, certain players. In sum, if he likes the depth and doesn't perceive any major holes, he can use the draft to acquire a player or two whom he covets and feels will be an elite prospect.

And remember: by making the trade up with the Patriots, the Packers forfeited only one player. Had the trade not happened, the Packers would have drafted two additional players: one to take Matthews' roster spot and one to take another roster spot. Some may say they prefer the odds of two other players to Matthews, but I guess it all comes down to how well one likes Matthews. Thompson, obviously, liked him a lot, and his thinking was as follows: Matthews' potential impact on the Green Bay Packers was worth more than the combined contribution of the two players he could have selected (the one player who would replace Matthews and the additional player he would have taken with the pick he sent to the Patriots).

Considering the Packers will already have to make some tough cuts as it is, I'm quite fine with giving up the one roster spot to get Matthews, whom I think can be great.

My problem with LA's entire analysis is that he sat back, after the fact, and picked one player to single out: Everette Brown. Moreover, he juxtaposed not taking Brown with Rodgers/Smith, which was just not very applicable or illuminating. It confounded me.

I can write a similar article two years from now and pick out a player the Packers could have drafted that ended up making a big impact. But what does that accomplish? Now that type of analysis seems "lazy"--as well as a few other adjectives.

I do, however, appreciate LA's boldness and willingness to label Brown as the player he thinks the Packers will regret passing on now, but as I said previously, this is really an irrelevant and stagnant game of "what if."

I just don't think it adds much to intelligent discussion.

**

As a side note, I found it interesting to see that the Patriots pretty much took a Thompson-esque approach to this draft by trading down multiple times to acquire a bunch of players. The Patriots will be competitive this year--hell, they might even be the best team in the NFL--but they also are quite cognizant of the fact that they are an aging team, particularly on defense.

The main difference is that the Patriots have the foresight to prepare for the imminent decline of many of their main cogs so there is (hopefully and in theory) a smooth transition. In Green Bay, Sherman didn't have that foresight, and he handicapped the Packers by (1) trading up far too often for players who didn't pan out and (2) signing pedestrian players to exorbitant contracts.

Thompson had to eat those mistakes.

**

Lastly, I think its interesting, though maybe irrelevant, that Matthews and Thompson are the only two players Thompson (the GM) has traded up for during his tenure.

These trades suggest that these were two players he really wanted. I'm eager to see if his want was well founded.

I agree with this, but don't think TT is entirely in the clear in this regard, case in point Brady Poppinga. I was among those fans frustrated by TT unwillingness to pay decent money for FA's, but then signing a very pedestrian Poppinga to a fairly large contract.

I support TT, but there are times when I have to shake my head and just hope that he knows a lot of things that are not obvious ( and I think he does)

big ror, you're making a lot of sense to me. good posts.

i think TT valued Matthews so highly that, had Raji not been there, he may have taken him at #9. time will tell if his assessment was right or wrong, but with that perspective giving up a 3 doesn't seem like that big a deal. especially in what was roundly viewed as a weak draft.

I'm not sure I would describe Poppinga's contract as exorbitant. I think he might have been overpaid a bit, but his deal never precluded the Packers from retaining a key cog or going out and signing another player. In fact, Poppinga's contract is extremely cap friendly and front loaded. And since he has been a fairly productive starter the last two years (some coaches graded him the best linebacker last year) as well as a great special teams contributor, the front loaded money he received actually seems condign.

Poppinga is due to make 1.9 million this year and 1.95 million next year.

I don't think that's too excessive a price for his services and the intangibles he brings to the team in terms of leadership and work ethic.

**

Be_Here_Now: thanks. And I think you might be right about Thompson taking Matthews at #9 if Raji had been scooped up. I don't think Crabtree was on his radar despite how high he might have ranked him.

OUCH!!!
**

Quite.

I disagree. Poppinga may be overpaid, but not to an extreme. It is cap friendly and he could be cut with little deep cap $$$. In the past, the team was tight to the cap year in and out, so contracts were not only backloaded, but the SB was large and precluded GB from cutting the player until a few years in. Also, the length of the contracts were much bigger. The closest Thompson came to a "bad" contract was Franks, IMO.

Franks was not a bad contract, it was a very bad contract. Just dumb.

Brady P is not as bad but if you look at the total value of it, he is simply not worth it.

If you ask me, this has been TT's worst area of player procurement, the linebacker crew. And this is one reason why I think he overreached for Mathews. He has been almost as bad with the LB's as Sherman was with the DL. (Although no one could be that bad.)

This is one reason why I was surprised he went with the 3-4. Since I just don't think we have the LB's for it. There's just too much uncertainty. But if Mathews comes through, the trade up will be justified. I would not have made it though since I thought it was giving up too much.

BTW, the comparison with Reynolds and Brown is I believe not really fair. From what everything I read, Reynolds could not play LB at all. Brown can play there.

I would still maintain that using past players is a very lazy analysis. Your argument seems to basically stem from the notion that a player in a given defense would put up inflated numbers due to the scheme, and that should be factored into the evaluation. I would counter that statistics have no business being part of the evaluation in the first place. What should be looked at is a player's skillset, talent, work ethic, and intelligence. These things are learned not through statistics, but instead through vigorous film study and research on personal history. A player may have a similar skillset to a previous player from the same college, but that should be determined by study that player, not by making any sort of comparison.

I also disagree to some extent with your "damned if you do, damned if you don't" analysis of the trade for Matthews. At least from a personal standpoint, I am looking for one thing......value. I think that Thompson often does not get solid value in his trade, be it a trade up or down. I like the fact that he was aggressive for once in moving up for Matthews, the guy he targeted. What I don't like is that I think New England got way too much out of it. I'll give an overly exaggerated example to make my point. I think Joe Thomas is a very good OT for the Cleveland Browns. I also think that LT is probably our biggest remaining need in Green Bay. I would certainly welcome a trade for Joe Thomas to fill that need. I would still be extremely upset if we trade our next seven 1st round draft picks for Thomas because that isn't good value. It's not a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" analysis, but rather a "damned if you don't do it intelligently" analysis.

With all that said, I'm arguing far too much against this deal just to make a point. In reality, I think we got poor value, but I'm not greatly upset by it and I'm very much looking forward to seeing what Matthews can do. I prefer aggressive mistakes to passive mistakes, so I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

After Jamaal Reynolds I didn't see them drafting Brown in the first. Perhaps past performance can't predict present success but outside of Wadsworth I have doubts about FSU DE's hving success in the NFL.

How successful has Thompson been overall?

If I had to rate TT as a pure drafter, it would probably be a little bit above the norm.

TT has done fairly well in building a team that has some depth at most positions.

Where I think he has come up short is in drafting Pro Bowl type players aka impact players. . In fact, I can think of Rodgers and Jennings in that regard, and not much else. At least for now. Maybe some others will come through later.

Not very succesful at all by any standards, but this could be the breakout year. This is his chosen roster now.

Don't forget about Collins. He has actually made the Pro Bowl, unlike Jennings and Rodgers who are just Pro Bowl type players.

So, in his first 3 drafts, Thompson has gotten 3 Pro Bowl type Players. His last 2 need another year or two to judge them, although you could consider Crosby as a Pro Bowl type kicker seeing as he had a better year his rookie year than Nick Folk did, and Nick went to the Pro Bowl.

I would not call Collins an impact player at all.

The guy has been around for years and he had one good season. And if you analyze that one good year, it wasn't really that good all the way around. He had two really good categories: interceptions and ints for TD's.

Mason Crosby is not close to being an all NFC kicker.

Greg Jennings is a real good WR who has had more than just one good year. I expect this kid to average 70 catches, 1,000 yards, and at least 10 TD's.

AR, in his first full year of starting, threw for over 4,000 yards, almost 30 TD's, and more than twice as many TD's as Ints. And that was on an offense which had a mediocre OL, below average tight ends, and a RB who averaged less than four YPC! That is saying a lot. If TT builds an offense around this guy, AR will be a top five QB in the NFL.

Been around for years? You make it sound like Collins is ancient and getting ready to retire!

Collins was drafted in 2005 and was considered a project by some...IMO after his rookie year he's learned, studied and has become a very dependable player. Yes, and he is an All-Pro!!

I hate to be the nagging old granny, but wasn't this supposed to be about Brown and Matthews?

You are right....I got sucked in also.

It happens to the best of us (or the most easily distracted, as is often the case with me).

I appeciate the different posts in this thread....Very articulate and well thought out...Having drifted from the topic I am very happy we have Matthews and his pedigree, rise from walkon to wherever he is going and its gonna be far...Im stoked TT has this kid rated so high..I did as well and dont think we traded too much at all based on what our scouting dept. had him rated at..I think we may have gotten a steal ala Aaron Rogers falling...I clearly realize an OLB 3-4 linebacker deosn't have the value as an extremely possible first pick in the draft and a QB, but for our team needs and our defensive change he was rated higher on our boards....I have no doubt Matthews will not be satisfied without a career that rivals his families and will work as hard as he ALREADY HAS TO GET TO WHERE HE WANTS TO GO....Everette Brown scared the hell out of me and if we would have picked him at 9 I would have choked...If we would have picked Matthews at 9 I would have been fine with it....To trade up and get him where we did for what we gave up..
IM STOKED...MATTHEWS AND RAJI ...I LOVE IT

Two things. . .

#1. I've pointed this out in a previous post, but I'll go back and do so again. The value was not excessive at all to move up into the late 1st round to draft Clay Matthews. The Bills paid their 2nd round pick and a future 1st to move up and draft QB: J. P. Losman in 2004, the Browns paid it in 2007 for QB: Brady Quinn and the Eagles paid nearly the same price to move up and draft OT: Jeff Otah in 2008. Also in 2004, in almost the exact same picks and scenario the Houston Texans traded up with the Tennessee Titans and drafted OLB: Jason Babin. That is the trade that I think the Packers were basing their move on. The Texans traded their 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th round picks. They gave up four picks and got one back. The Packers traded their 2nd and two 3rd round picks and got a 5th round pick. The two 3rd round pick that they gave up was worth more than the Texans 4th and 5th round picks, but the Packers also got an additional 5th round pick back which eventually was used on OL: Jamon Meridith (great value). The Packers gave up three picks and got two back. When you take precedent and history and compare it with what Ted Thompson actually paid, IMO it makes it a lot easier to appreciate the move.

#2. Clay Matthews vs. Everette Brown isn't even a comparison in my opinion. Again, it's only my opinion and you're free to disagree with me all you want to (that's why it's a discussion forum). . . but I believe that Clay Matthews is an elite player with top 15 potential. I believe that he will continue to develop and grow into a star player for Dom Capers and Kevin Greene and will end up being an All Pro player for the Green Bay Packers. I believe that he has the athletic ability and intangibles needed to become our version of DeMarcus Ware, Terrell Suggs and/or James Harrison. It's also my opinion that Everette Brown was a 2nd round situational pass rusher at best and that for us he'd be a shorter, less versatile version of Jeremy Thompson. He could blow up and become the next Dwight Freeny, but I really just do not see that happening.

There were a LOT of players that I liked a lot better than Everette Brown at #41 (Darius Butler, Connor Barwin, Clint Sintim, Warren Beatty and Jarron Gilbert to name a few) and if it had broken that way I'd have been just fine with it. Then we could have used the two 3rd round picks and added some more depth to the team at OL, TE or RB. I wouldn't have had a problem with that. But Ted Thompson and the scouting department saw an elite player still on the board and made a bold move to jump up and grab him. I loved the move and the player. I really think that Ted got this one right.

I think you are missing what ROR is saying on both accounts.

Please correct me if I am wrong but what I took out of Ror's post about FSU ends is that he basically agreed with you- each player should be judged on their own skills set and not on statistics. I think the point was that FSU uses it's personel in a way that deceptively skews the stats of their ends and that should be taken into account when evaluating these players - much like you would take Tedfords system into account when evaluating his QB's. That doesn't mean they all stink, it just means that their stats can't be trusted. The problem is that scouting services have often over-valued FSU ends based on skewed statistics. Was Brown rated so high because of talent or stats? It would seem that all of the league had him rated much lower than almost every scouting service.

I took the "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" comments to mean that many fans who had ripped Thompson in the past for not doing anything aggressive, were now ripping him for being aggressive. In those past posts the theme was often about him hording draft picks, being afraid to pull the trigger and not being willing to pay the price for top talent. How many posts did you read that started out - "Just do something". IMO, those are the posters that Ror's comments were directed at.

I agreed with almost everything you wrote, I just think you missed where Ror was coming from.

As for the original post - I don't see the connection between these two at all. If Mathews fails he will be compaired to every good player after him that the Packers could have drafted. If Brown is a huge star, every team that passed on him will look bad not just the Packers. Their is nothing special linking these two guys.

Well put Cocoman. Excellent post.

I see what you're saying on the issue of being aggressive and making trades, I just think it is important to always keep value in mind. Targeting a guy you want and doing what it takes to get him is a good thing in my book, but not if the cost is too much. I'm not necessarily saying it was a bad deal, just saying that value is more important than a qualitative analysis of "did he or didn't he".

I still feel very strongly about the first part of your statement. I feel like stats have VERY little to do with scouting in the first place, thus I don't think a player is often overrated due to his stats. Maybe the average fan looks at the numbers, but scouting services certainly should not. I don't think a system that skews stats should be taken into account when evaluating, because the stats should never be a factor at any point in the process. Personally, from watching film, I felt that Brown was a better prospect than Matthews. I'm still happy with the Matthews selection, but I do think the cost was high. I am confident he can make an impact, and I look forward to training camp.

A couple of observations:

It is really interesting to see how many people are sure that Everette Brown is going to be an absolute bust and how many people are sure that Clay Matthews is going to be gold. If Matthews is that good, why did he last until pick #26? Wouldn't you think someone else would have tried to trade up and snap him up earlier? Furthermore, if Everette Brown is that much of an assured bust, why did the Panthers trade up to get him? Why didn't he fall completely out of the draft, a la Ernest Shazor?

The comparison I made didn't have as much to do with comparing their positions, but the fact that many "experts" (including many draft experts who were guests in chats right here at PackerChatters) had Brown predicted to be taken by the Packers with their #9 pick. I found it quite intriguing that such a player was still available at that point, and the fact that he would still have been available with the second round pick was even more so.

I don't care that much about their positions (though I certainly was looking at the 3-4 scheme change)...that could have been a cornerback we were predicted to take at #9, and fell to the second round.

I know there are folks out there that would defend Ted Thompson trading up to take a punter, and for those folks, more power to you. The original article was in regards to value of the draft picks given the available talent, and other than those of you defending it (and resorting to insults in return), there are few outside experts that regard what the Packers paid as worth it.

Again, this is to take nothing away from Matthews, who I personally see taking an OLB spot opposite Thompson next season when Kampman moves on.

A few responses:



I don't see why this is interesting considering the number of people who fall into that category is extremely low. It's probably not even worth mentioning unless, of course, you were using hyperbole to make a point, which I think you were.

Even in this thread, the only people who explicitly suggest that Brown will be a bust are GBP4EVER and myself, and the former shouldn't be a surprise considering his reputation for brash, untenable statements. Moreover, neither of us claim Matthews will be "gold." Resorting to these false extremes only weakens the discussion and caters toward the lowest common denominator. You seem to have a penchant for this, which is evident in your Shazor comment as well as your below remark about Thompson zealots defending a trade up for a punter. On the whole, the discussion of and assessment of both players have been pretty sound and not nearly as dichotomous as you suggest.



Why use this flawed reasoning? Players move up and down draft boards for a myriad of reasons; some of those reasons are legitimate, while others are simply silly (e.g., Rodgers holding the ball too high). I don't think Matthews went too low or too high. I'm sure if we were to look at all 32 teams' draft boards, Matthews would be ranked all over the place. The same can be said of Brown.

Few are suggesting that he will be an "assured bust," and the Panthers surely don't think (or hope) so. They probably see a guy whom they believe can rush the passer effectively and can hopefully account for the inevitable departure of Julius Peppers. By trading up, they obviously felt Brown provided great value at that spot. Thompson felt the same way with Matthews.



The fact that you had to put experts in quotation marks is quite telling. Too many people are labeled (or label themselves) draft experts. That title, however, means nothing. The draft isn't a direct science; it's a crap shoot. Every GM on every NFL team has made a poor draft choice.

I expected Brown to be available in the second round and he was. That doesn't make me a draft expert nor does it make another purported expert who slotted him in the top 10 any less credible. Furthermore, it says nothing of the player. For all we know, Brown might end up being far more successful in Carolina than he would have been if he went to a team selecting in the top 10. Coaching, opportunity, supporting cast, and scheme are all outside factors that greatly influence how successful a player is.



Nobody knows right now if what the Packers paid was "worth it." Hell, if Matthews continually plays at a Pro Bowl level, then Thompson might be accused of robbery. There are numerous value charts, and their importance is relative. Thompson admitted that it might appear as if he gave up too much, but this is all about the long term. In other words, Thompson didn't give up what he did to select Matthews believing he was getting a raw deal; he did it because he believed the tangible long term gain witnessed on the football field would far outweigh the value derived from a sheet with a bunch of numbers. Put another way, Thompson believes Matthews has more individual value than the two players the Packers would have taken.

Again, time will tell.

Indeed, time will tell. It always does. A couple of thoughts, which will undoubtedly seem like it's TT-apologism.

First, the classic value system is conveniently used as an objective evaluator of value, and one that can be used without having to wait for time to tell. The classic chart indicates that TT got robbed. Is it true that using updated charts that are actually used by most teams, that it doesn't appear that he got robbed? Or at least not as badly? If GM's aren't actually using the old chart, it may not be surprising that you can't get trades done as cheaply as the old chart might indicate to be fair?

Second, if TT had made the same trade and selected the same player, but done it with the 20th pick, even the tradional value chart would have judged it even. From comments made by Ted as well as rumors etc., it's fairly clear that the Packers had him rated higher than #20.

Third, if TT had him top 18 or higher, but he's still there at 27, it would seem that TT's scouting view is out of step with the majority view.

It all comes down to scouting. If TT scouts him as a top-15 guy, and he plays like one, good trade. If TT scouts him as a top-15 guy, but he doesn't play like one, it's going to look stupid. It's still too soon to tell whether TT's scouting eval was stupid or smart.

An epiphany does not "epiphanies" make.

Therein lies the rub.

To follow on from what Craig said in his post.

Clay Mathews could be said to have three draft values.

The first is his 'absolute value'. This value is exact, it is where he WAS drafted, 26th overall.

The second value is less defined, it's 'Ted's Personal Value'. I remember Ted talking about where Clay was rated. This is what he said:

(Q. Was there a void in the second and third rounds that made it worth going up to get him?)
A. Yeah, I don't think it was so much that really as how much we thought of Clay. 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. People had him going anywhere from like No. 12 or so to No. 30. We didn't know where it would be. Actually, quite frankly when I was here before, I had no idea that we would be able to get back in a position that we would be able to take him. I didn't know.

This suggests to me, if only vaguely, that Ted waited until Clay was near the bottom of the spread where he thought Clay would go before doing a deal, which in turn suggests he valued him higher than #26. I'd speculate Ted had him rated about 16-19. Ted knows the numbers in the trade deal he made were not in his favour for a 26th pick, but things look better if Ted believes Clay's real value is around #19.

The third value is an even vaguer figure. It's the 'Value in Hindsight'. You could say it is the value Ted would put on Mathews after he has played in the league many years (or is out of the league). If Ted's judgement at the time of the draft was that Mathews was (say) the 19th best player (or more pedantically, was in that plateau group that contained the 19th best player), then he should feel satisfied if, when looking back, he feels there were not more than 18 players that turned out better than him. In fact, to be fair there are always some very unexpected lower picks that turn into gems, so we could up the figure by maybe three to 21.

The third value is pretty pointless, except as ammunition in a critique of Ted's past performance, but many fans look back to pass judgement, so I have included it.

This might help clarify peoples thoughts on whether Ted made a good or bad deal. Judging by 'Absolute Value' Ted did not make a good deal, and even he said they lost out according to accepted chart value. Judging by 'Ted's Personal Value', I'm guessing he felt he got at least equal value and maybe a little the better of the deal. The 'Value in Hindsight' is unknowable for several years.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I agree with you that the 3rd value is pretty pointless, EXCEPT if you are arguing beforehand that you thought "Player X" will be better and we took Matthews instead. Anyone can say they like a player after the fact, but it takes a little more to go out on that limb before these guys have played. This is the interesting part of LA's article, because in many circles, Everette Brown plays the role of "Player X". Many fans and analyists liked Brown more than Matthews (and many did not). The kicker is that we could have had Brown without trading up. That is why I feel this article develops good discussion and should not be dismissed as unimportant.

Which I thought was one of LA's main points.

Good post. In terms of the "hindsight" thing, aren't there certain to be many more than three picks that come after the 19th pick who are likely to be better than 19th? If when a scout is drafting at 19, the guy he picks ends up one of the three best out of all the hundreds of candidates, I'd say he's doing a pretty job.

Of course, some of the first 18 picks aren't going to turn out great either. So some of the many guys behind matthews (some only barely so) will probably outplay him. But if he's a good choice, some of the guys ranked above him will probably flop and underplay him too. So probably your estimate is pretty good.

Given the back-and-forth arguments on Browne, Orakpo, Matthews, etc., that festooned this board in the weeks leading into the draft last spring, it might prove interesting to track their performances week by week this year. Anybody know a good place for really detailed defensive player stats?

I think the main thing to understand is that you are never going to get fair value trading up in the draft. Unless you have a team with a Top 10 or Top 5 pick that is desperate to move down. For the most part, the team wanting to move up is going to give up something. Sure maybe the trade could have been more fair in regards to value but I think it was pretty much on the Patriots terms and Ted really wanted to get Clay. I think analyzing the trade now is silly. Let's wait a few years and see how Clay turns out. If he ends up being a very good player, then the trade was worth it. One impact player is better than a couple of average Joes. Especially on this roster. Ted spent the first 4 years building up roster depth with tons of draft picks. The core of this team is strong and young. We need impact players now. We can't really draft 10 new players every single year. A good chunk of them won't make the team if we constantly do that.

Define fair value? Did the Falcons get fair value from Wolf for Favre? The Falcons again, fair value between them and SDG for picking Vick? Fair value on draft day is in the eyes of the pundits and fans. I believe there is no such thing in reality, it is only perceived

What I meant was perceived immediate value. In accordance with the trade value chart. You are rarely going to get fair perceived value when trading up. Like I said in my post though. It all depends on what type of player Clay Matthews becomes. You provided very good examples. I bet most NFL people thought Wolf was out of his mind trading a 1st for Favre.