Overall I like who the Packers picked.  I think Brohm is an excellent choice as he's a smart QB who will do well in the West Coast system.  Nelson is interesting and seems to excel at what the Packers want to do.  Lee...is he a potential replacement for Harris/Woodson...we'll see.  I like the potential of the TE out of Texas.

 Now, onto the matter at hand.  Every year, we have the same song and dance from Trader Ted.  After the Woodson/Pickett year, he's sat on his hands at free agency and traded down at the draft. 

 Looking objectively at the philosophy, for a team that's rebuilding, getting the right guys for your system, having a lot of "talent" competing for positions, improving depth are important things.  You need a lot of draft choices to accomplish those.

Thompson initially defended his position saying, "maybe if I felt we were one player or two away" then he'd go out and pay the $ or take a chance on talent (trade up or sign a big-time free agent).

 We have the money, we were an overtime away from going to the Super Bowl...wouldn't this have been the year to do a little more of that?  Again, I'm not saying that Nelson isn't going to be good, etc.  But to value the 6th and 7th rounders as a 13-3 team...that is puzzling.  To me, this would've been the year to go out and get a Rogers-Cromartie in the first round by trading one of those second round picks.  Instead, Ted does his usual song and dance and parlays it down into an extra 4th.  Then parlays that into an extra 5th and 2 extra 7th...it is just a bit "stodgy" in my mind.

 Wolf had the guts to trade away a first rounder for a second round QB and also sign White to the largest contract seen at that time.  He got Keith Jackson, Seth Joyner, Andre Rison, etc.  Given his history, I'm just not sure he is able to adapt as a GM.  I think his philosophy is ok...but using Moss as an example last year...he could've had the guy who broke all kinds of records but he valued Babre/James Jones more.  Those are both nice players, but sometimes it takes a bit more of the gonads to pull the trigger on some of those type of moves to get a superstar.

Milachi Crunch:

Overall I like who the Packers picked.  I think Brohm is an excellent choice as he's a smart QB who will do well in the West Coast system.  Nelson is interesting and seems to excel at what the Packers want to do.  Lee...is he a potential replacement for Harris/Woodson...we'll see.  I like the potential of the TE out of Texas.

 Now, onto the matter at hand.  Every year, we have the same song and dance from Trader Ted.  After the Woodson/Pickett year, he's sat on his hands at free agency and traded down at the draft. 

 Looking objectively at the philosophy, for a team that's rebuilding, getting the right guys for your system, having a lot of "talent" competing for positions, improving depth are important things.  You need a lot of draft choices to accomplish those.

Thompson initially defended his position saying, "maybe if I felt we were one player or two away" then he'd go out and pay the $ or take a chance on talent (trade up or sign a big-time free agent).

 We have the money, we were an overtime away from going to the Super Bowl...wouldn't this have been the year to do a little more of that?  Again, I'm not saying that Nelson isn't going to be good, etc.  But to value the 6th and 7th rounders as a 13-3 team...that is puzzling.  To me, this would've been the year to go out and get a Rogers-Cromartie in the first round by trading one of those second round picks.  Instead, Ted does his usual song and dance and parlays it down into an extra 4th.  Then parlays that into an extra 5th and 2 extra 7th...it is just a bit "stodgy" in my mind.

 Wolf had the guts to trade away a first rounder for a second round QB and also sign White to the largest contract seen at that time.  He got Keith Jackson, Seth Joyner, Andre Rison, etc.  Given his history, I'm just not sure he is able to adapt as a GM.  I think his philosophy is ok...but using Moss as an example last year...he could've had the guy who broke all kinds of records but he valued Babre/James Jones more.  Those are both nice players, but sometimes it takes a bit more of the gonads to pull the trigger on some of those type of moves to get a superstar.

I have no problem with the philosophy of gaining more draft picks to strengthen the depth of the team; however, when one looks at what we have given up compared to what we have received it looks like we were better off not making all these trades down.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what has transpired....

We traded:                             We received:

 30                                        36                         

113                                        102

128                                       150

137                                        209

162                                        217

Again, if I am reading all trades done by Green Bay correctly - this is what has transpired and it doesn't look like we have added any depth and it seems we are losing out alot in draft position.  Curious as to what all of you think about this.

Brewer Invasion:

I have no problem with the philosophy of gaining more draft picks to strengthen the depth of the team; however, when one looks at what we have given up compared to what we have received it looks like we were better off not making all these trades down.  Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is what has transpired....

We traded:                             We received:

 30                                        36                         

113                                        102

128                                       150

137                                        209

162                                        217

 

Again, if I am reading all trades done by Green Bay correctly - this is what has transpired and it doesn't look like we have added any depth and it seems we are losing out alot in draft position.  Curious as to what all of you think about this.

Let's look at net results of the trade by draft position

Trade 1 .... Trade 30........ .........for 36 and 113

Trade 2....  Trade 113 and 162 ........for 102

 Net Result .... for a 30, 113, and a 162 ........ we received a 36 and a 102   ( traded 3 for 2)

Trade 3 ... Trade 128 .......for 137 and 217

Trade 4... Trade 137........ for 150 and 209

 Net Result... for a 128 and 137........ we receive a 150, 209, and 217    (trade 2 for 3)

Again, I don't see the added depth, nor do I see an improvement in draft position.  Am I looking at this wrongly?  I certainly have faith in TT, but these trades don't add up to draft board improvement when you look at net results.   Certainly when you put a name and player to the # it may make more sense???

OK, Please don't think I'm trying to be rude when I say this but: What is wrong with moving back 10-15 spots to pick up a pick in the next rd?  TT usually does this when there are quite a few players at that spot where he thinks he can still get one of them if he moves back...If it's getting thin in that rd then he can trade up which he also did today...

Brewer Invasion:

Let's look at net results of the trade by draft position

Trade 1 .... Trade 30........ .........for 36 and 113

Trade 2....  Trade 113 and 162 ........for 102

 Net Result .... for a 30, 113, and a 162 ........ we received a 36 and a 102   ( traded 3 for 2)

 

Trade 3 ... Trade 128 .......for 137 and 217

Trade 4... Trade 137........ for 150 and 209

 Net Result... for a 128 and 137........ we receive a 150, 209, and 217    (trade 2 for 3)

 

Again, I don't see the added depth, nor do I see an improvement in draft position.  Am I looking at this wrongly?  I certainly have faith in TT, but these trades don't add up to draft board improvement when you look at net results.   Certainly when you put a name and player to the # it may make more sense???

You are just looking at numbers..... GMs will trade down if there isn't anybody they think is worth the pick or will trade up if they see somebody slipping that would be a good value.  You can't just start calculating it based on draft position without knowing the situations behind the individual decisions.

 I'm with Brewer Invasion on this.

It seems to me that Ted would be happy as all heck if he could somehow parlay his normal group of picks into 32 7th rounders.

When you have a stronger, deeper team, you should not need as many bodies, just fewer better ones. 

im with b.i. and radar, and to take it a step further-why not keep the 3 4th rounders when you had them?  it seems ted is 'compulsive' with this need to trade down--almost to where quantity is better than quality.

nelson looks to be good, but the pick puzzles me like the harrell pick last year.  no linebackers? or rb's?  i was waiting for him to trade nelson to someone for another player. 

 we'll see......

badgerbrewer:

im with b.i. and radar, and to take it a step further-why not keep the 3 4th rounders when you had them?  it seems ted is 'compulsive' with this need to trade down--almost to where quantity is better than quality.

nelson looks to be good, but the pick puzzles me like the harrell pick last year.  no linebackers? or rb's?  i was waiting for him to trade nelson to someone for another player. 

 we'll see......

Mason Crosby 6th rd

Corey Hall 6th

Mark Tauscher 7th

Aaron Kampman 5th

Tony Moll 5th

Donald Driver 7th

Michael Montgomery and Johnny Jolly 6th

That's just the Packers roster....Take a look at other good teams and check out all the 5-7 rounders that made the probowl...Where was Devin Hester picked? 

The thing I'm having a hard time seeing is picking Nelson with our first pick of the 2nd round.  He was going to be there at the end of the round.  He wasn't going to be picked until the 3rd at the earliest.  Why not someone who you knew would be gone by the end of the 2nd round.  I like the player and what I see but I think he would have been available at the end of the round or maybe our 3rd round pick.  The draft is already hit or miss so why not take chances every once in awhile.

 Another problem I have with TT is HE HAS NOT DRAFTED A star player.  His best draft choices are Hawk and Jennings but neither are close to being stars yet.  They are good players but not stars.  We need someone who makes plays when a play is needed.  I won't 100% agree with Thompson's style until he provides us with a difference maker.

badgerpharm:

The thing I'm having a hard time seeing is picking Nelson with our first pick of the 2nd round.  He was going to be there at the end of the round.  He wasn't going to be picked until the 3rd at the earliest.  Why not someone who you knew would be gone by the end of the 2nd round.  I like the player and what I see but I think he would have been available at the end of the round or maybe our 3rd round pick.  The draft is already hit or miss so why not take chances every once in awhile.

 Another problem I have with TT is HE HAS NOT DRAFTED A star player.  His best draft choices are Hawk and Jennings but neither are close to being stars yet.  They are good players but not stars.  We need someone who makes plays when a play is needed.  I won't 100% agree with Thompson's style until he provides us with a difference maker.

Brewer Invasion:

Let's look at net results of the trade by draft position

Trade 1 .... Trade 30........ .........for 36 and 113

Trade 2....  Trade 113 and 162 ........for 102

 Net Result .... for a 30, 113, and a 162 ........ we received a 36 and a 102   ( traded 3 for 2)

 

Trade 3 ... Trade 128 .......for 137 and 217

Trade 4... Trade 137........ for 150 and 209

 Net Result... for a 128 and 137........ we receive a 150, 209, and 217    (trade 2 for 3)

 

Again, I don't see the added depth, nor do I see an improvement in draft position.  Am I looking at this wrongly?  I certainly have faith in TT, but these trades don't add up to draft board improvement when you look at net results.   Certainly when you put a name and player to the # it may make more sense???

Sort of.

Pick 113 (acquired in Trade 1, dealt in Trade 2) is a wash.  So the Packers dealt a #1 (30) and a #5 (162) for a #2 (36) and a #4 (102).  So move down 6 picks from the end of Round 1 to the beginning of Round 2 in order to move up from the end of the 5th round to the beginning of the 4th.

Same thing with pick 137 (acquired in Trade 3, dealt in Trade 4).  So the Packers dealt a #4 (128) for a #5 (150) and two #7s (209 and 217).  Basically, TT moved down 22 spots from the end of the 4th to the middle of the 5th and aquired two 7th round picks for his trouble.

In total:

GB traded three picks - a #1 (30), a #4 (128), and a #5 (162).

GB received five picks - a #2 (36 - Jordy Nelson), a #4 (102 - Jeremy Thompson), a #5 (150 - Breno Giacomini), and two #7s (209 - Matt Flynn and 217 - Brett Swain).

Looking at the fabled "Value Chart", it works out like this:

• Trade 1 - GB gave 620 points and received 608.
• Trade 2 - GB gave 95.6 points and received 92.
• Trade 3 - GB gave 44 points and received 43.1.
• Trade 4 - GB gave 37.5 points and received 40.2.

None of these point values take into consideration a) that New England forfeited its #1 pick or b) compensatory picks.

So one way or the other, it looks like TT got decent value in his trades.  If his plan was to draft Nelson at #30, trading down to #36 was a good move.  And Thompson was projected as going in the 2nd or 3rd rounds on several draft websites, so moving up to get him at #102 appears to be good value.

Whether these guys are any good or not, I have no idea.  Despite the endless scouting and analysis, the NFL Draft is basically a crap shoot.  By trading down, TT gives the Packers a couple of extra shots at rolling a "7".  I guess I can't really argue with TT's philosophy - if for no other reason than I was down on Sherman's drafts because he traded up so often.

Of course, I can argue with TT's selections, but that's a different thread. :)

badgerpharm:

The thing I'm having a hard time seeing is picking Nelson with our first pick of the 2nd round.  He was going to be there at the end of the round.  He wasn't going to be picked until the 3rd at the earliest.  Why not someone who you knew would be gone by the end of the 2nd round.  I like the player and what I see but I think he would have been available at the end of the round or maybe our 3rd round pick.  The draft is already hit or miss so why not take chances every once in awhile.

 Another problem I have with TT is HE HAS NOT DRAFTED A star player.  His best draft choices are Hawk and Jennings but neither are close to being stars yet.  They are good players but not stars.  We need someone who makes plays when a play is needed.  I won't 100% agree with Thompson's style until he provides us with a difference maker.

There is no way you can say that Jordy would have been there at the end of the 2nd round.  There is nothing to base that on other than pure speculation.  TT not having drafted a star player is true but I believe it is still too early to criticize him on.  At least another year is a fair time frame to wait to see if one of the youngsters is looking like a Pro Bowler.  Even if there are only a couple Pro Bowlers from his current or future picks, if he can build a team of superior depth, it would still be considered successful drafting.

badgerpharm:

The thing I'm having a hard time seeing is picking Nelson with our first pick of the 2nd round.  He was going to be there at the end of the round.  He wasn't going to be picked until the 3rd at the earliest.  Why not someone who you knew would be gone by the end of the 2nd round.  I like the player and what I see but I think he would have been available at the end of the round or maybe our 3rd round pick.  The draft is already hit or miss so why not take chances every once in awhile.

 Another problem I have with TT is HE HAS NOT DRAFTED A star player.  His best draft choices are Hawk and Jennings but neither are close to being stars yet.  They are good players but not stars.  We need someone who makes plays when a play is needed.  I won't 100% agree with Thompson's style until he provides us with a difference maker.

Jennings is a star, 2007 numbers