How Much Did The Packers Lose By Drafting Brett Hundley?

“Drafting Brett Hundley was a waste”

I do find it kind of funny that Packers fans bemoan every draft when Ted Thompson picks someone who no one has ever heard of (I mean who the hell is Jordy Nelson?) but they seemed even more incensed when Thompson traded up to select UCLA quarterback Brett Hundley, who presumably everyone knew about.  A multitude of arguments were raised 1) he’ll never play a down with Rodgers ahead of him 2) he’s a spread quarterback who will not translate to the NFL and 3) he won’t even make it onto the roster with Scott Tolzien far ahead of him as the Packers #2 quarterback.  This is all quite possible but of course these people are also likely the ones who trashed (and rightly so) Thompson for not having an adequate backup plan when Rodgers broke his collarbone and the coaching staff was forced to trot out Seneca Wallace and a raw Scott Tolzien before finally being rescued by Matt Flynn.

Nevertheless, the fans do have a point; in a perfect world Brett Hundley never sees a meaningful snap in his entire career as a Green Bay Packer; hopefully Aaron Rodgers can maintain his productivity and durability as the NFL’s best quarterback for the next 4-5 years and in essence the draft pick will be a waste.  The bigger question is just how much of a waste that would be.

First off, just how valuable is a 5th round draft pick on average?  To determine this, I used Profootball Reference’s Career Approximate Value (CarAV) metric and looked at all drafted players from 2008-2012; just as a quick brief of CarAV, its a weighted average of a player’s approximate value with all the gritty details here.

Data 1

As you can see there is logarithmic decay when it comes to CarAV compared to round; what this means is that 1st round picks are significantly more valuable than 2nd round picks and so forth.  While this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, it does lend some credibility to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, which also values picks logarithmically.  The second point to consider is that at some point it doesn’t really matter what round a player is picked as it’s essentially a crap shoot.  Sure sometimes a team will get lucky like with Tom Brady or Corey Linsley, but more times than not they get players that never see the field and is quickly out of the league.  Another point that supports this is that players drafted in the first 4 rounds are almost never cut immediately while players in the 5-7th rounds are commonly cut in their rookie seasons meaning GMs are fully aware that they are rolling the dice.  I would argue that there is serious value in the top 3 rounds with each round getting significantly less valuable, round 4 is the turning point and round 5-7 are essentially have the same low value.

With that being said, a player picked in the 5th round like Brett Hundley in the best case scenario (meaning he plays for a minimum of 3 years) would on average expect to produce between 4 (5th round average) to 3.43 (5-7th round average) CarAV.  To flip this around, if Brett Hundley in fact doesn’t play a down for the Packers they will have lost 4 to 3.43 CarAV that they would have gotten if they had picked a player more likely to see the field.  To put that into comparison players who were drafted by Ted Thompson who produced 3-4 CarAV include Pat Lee, Jerel Worthy, Derek Sherrod, David Clowney and Deshawn Wynn.  To put this in a broader perspective, Aaron Rodgers leads the list with a 103 career AV while other “busts” like AJ Hawk (56), Brad Jones (18), Mike Neal (10), Nick Perry (8) still have produced more career AV than 4.

What does this all mean?  Simply put, drafting Brett Hundley may in fact be a waste, but it’s a very very small waste.  Try to remember how much impact Jerel Worthy or Pat Lee had on the field and that’s in essence what the Packers are missing out on by drafting Hundley.  Now if the Packers were a bad team and absolutely needed every pick to produce as much possible or the Packers had selected Hundley higher then this pick would have been a poor decision but at the 5th round, it’s such a crap shoot that picking another player more likely to produce on the field likely wouldn’t have realistically resulted in a better team.

What is valuable about drafting Hundley is insurance and development. In the best case scenario, Rodgers stays healthy, Hundley develops into a tradable quarterback and the Packers see a return on their investment while reaping the benefits of a young and talented player on a dirt cheap contract.  Somewhere in the middle is Hundley is forced into action by a Rodgers injury sometime during his rookie season and manages to “not lose the game” for the offense.  In the worst case scenario, Hundley doesn’t make the roster and gets signed by another team and in reality the Packers are no worse than they were before.  In any situation the Packers stand only to lose very little value compared to what they might have gotten from another player, but they get insurance at the game’s most important position.  Would you trade Jerel Worthy or Pat Lee for the piece of mind that in the event that Rodgers is hurt you wouldn’t have to see Vince Young under center? I certainly would.

 

 

——————

Thomas Hobbes is a staff writer for Jersey Al’s AllGreenBayPackers.com.

——————

  • TedTomsin

    The headline has Archie, Big T and Captain Nemo salivating. Finally, someone on their side. After reading it though it thankfully puts TT in a positive light and says he really does know what he’s doing. Excellent article Hobbes. I said all along that Tolzien is going to light it up and has no worries of being cut because of Hundley. Hundley is just a guy at this point and more than likely ends up on the practice squad with no worries of being picked up by another team. It was a good gamble by TT to pick him up though. He’s a good long term investment.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      We’ve gotten a mandate from the chief (Al) to make our headlines more catchy.

    • There is no way Brett Hundley winds up on the practice squad. He would be snatched up in a hot minute by a league starving for quarterbacks and I find it extremely unlikely that the Packers go into a season with only 2 quarterbacks, they’ve done it before, but I think that experiment is over with. The best case scenario for Hundley is that he develops into a tradable commodity down the road a la Matt Hasselbeck.

      • Thomas Hobbes

        I think that really depends on the exposure that Hundley gets during the preseason If: 1) Hundley sees maybe 5 snaps or so a game as the clear #3, then the Packers might get away with it 2)If Hundley sees significant snaps and appears to be pushing Tolzien then the Packers probably won’t get away with it 3) if Hundley somehow beats out Tolzien then obviously he won’t be on the practice squad.

        • TedTomsin

          What he said.
          Ted

      • TedTomsin

        Oh there is a way. You just don’t want to believe it. Remember Vic So’oto? Yep, practice squad.

    • Archie

      Actually I was fine with TT taking Hundley where he did. It was TT that left us with a bare cupboard at QB, S and ILB that pisses me off. Not to mention all his misfires trying to draft front 7 guys. I don’t criticize everything TT does just because he did it. My criticisms of TT are very targeted and born out by the facts.

      • WKUPackKan

        Multiple references to TT as an a**wipe were targeted and fact specific.

  • Rossonero

    Nice write-up! If they can turn Hundley into trade bait and get a higher draft pick, then I’ll be happy. This harkens back to the days of Mark Brunell, Aaron Brooks and Matt Hasselbeck. Hasselbeck being traded to Seattle in March 2001 was an example of how all draft picks are crap shoots to some degree.

    The Packers used Hasselbeck to trade up from #17 to the #10 spot and selected……..Jamal Reynolds. The Seahawks took Guard Steve Hutchinson, who went on to be a 7-time Pro Bowler for the Seahawks and Vikings.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I think the important thing to note is that even if Hundley ends up being a complete waste of a pick, it doesn’t really have any effect on the Packers since they gave up so little to get him. Sure getting more draft picks in the future would be great but I’m not sure any team really can honestly draft players expecting them to improve and net more in return, the game is too tilted towards youth and while Hundley plays a position of longevity, whoever trades for him will likely have to pay up for an unknown product all the same.

      • Rossonero

        Well said. Given Rodgers’ recent injuries, I can see Hundley getting a chance, especially if Tolzien is allowed to walk.

        All it takes is a few games and some teams start drooling. For example, Matt Flynn’s big games vs. New England in Dec. 2010 and vs. the Lions in Jan. 2012 helped him get interest and a big contract from the Seahawks. That’s all Hundley needs too.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          While teams will likely be calling up Tolzien’s agentif he’s a free agent should he post a game like Flynn’s game against the Lions, the question of the day is whether or not anyone would trade for him. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Flynn had thrown 6 touchdowns with 1 year left on his contract instead of being a free agent.

  • Jeff

    Forgot the scenario of Rodgers decides he will retire in 5 years! Won’t it be nice to have his replacement trained and ready for action instead of getting thrown into the fire as a nobody?

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Hundley signed a 4 year contract and as a lower round pick, he does not have a 5th year option. Rodgers has stated he wants to play another 7-8 years so unless something drastic happens to Rodgers in terms of health of production, I don’t think they will overlap. It will be interesting to see in a couple years if the Packers start looking for the QB of the future.

  • NemoOutis

    Nice article, Mr. Hobbes. I think your statement that “drafting Brett Hundley may in fact be a waste, but it’s a very small waste” has validity. Often, 5th round draft picks don’t pan out. The last QB TT picked in the 5th round was Ingle Martin of Furman in 2006. Remember him? However, TT has had better success in the 5th round in the last two drafts. Corey Lindsley, Jared Abbrederis, Michah Hyde and Josh Boyd all were 5th round picks, and 3 of them have been positive contributors (the jury is still out on Abbrederis). So, who could we have had with our 5th and 7th round picks instead of Hundley? As the draft was in progress, I, like many fans, made my own selections. I picked Michael Bennett, DE, Oh. St. for us in the 5th. and OLB Alani Fua of BYU in the 7th. There were many other, very good players still on-the-board at the time we picked in the 5th. CB Charles Gaines, TE Nick O’Leary, OLB Max Valles, and WR Darren Waller, to name a few. One of my 6th round picks was CB Darryl Roberts of Marshall. Turns out that the Pats used our 7th round pick, which we traded to them to move up in the 5th, to select Roberts. None of these players, including Hundley, may stick to an NFL roster, of course. If I had to choose, though, between a developmental QB, who most likely will only see “mop up” duty this year, or having immediate depth at DE and a back-up OLB who can contribute to STs, I’d take the latter. I would want to pick players whom I believe can make immediate contributions towards getting a SB this season.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Hundley will be immediate depth at QB, so it’s not as if the Packers are losing depth unless they cut him and try to sign him to the practice squad (which may happen, but I doubt it since Hundley will leave if given the chance to start somewhere else). Also keep in mind while Thompson does have his fair share of successes in the 5th round he’s also had plenty of misses including Terrell Manning, DJ Williams, Quinn Johnson, Breno Giacomini and Jermon Meredith. As I mentioned above it’s completely hit or miss when drafting so late so I don’t fault any GM for missing a pick.

      • NemoOutis

        Mr. Hobbes: You are right. Late round draft picks are “hit or miss.” Look at Sam Barrington, a 7th round draft pick in 2013. I remember when TT selected him. TT said, “I can’t believe that he was still on the board.” Like Barrington, I couldn’t believe that Ohio St.’s Michael Bennett was still on the board in the 5th round. Bennett may not prove to be the “hit” that Barrington is, but it is realistic to predict that he will make a positive contribution to his team, the Jaguars, this season. Do you seriously believe that Hundley will? A-Rod has only so many years left. I’d hate to see him go out with only one SB.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          I would argue that it’s not realistic to expect Bennett to be a positive contribution to the team; of the 36 players drafted in the 5th round, 18 (50%) recorded a 0 for their rookie season when it came to AV (which is the single season version of CarAV). 13 (36%) of those players didn’t play in a single game. The chance of Bennett seeing the field and contributing is basically the same as Hundley’s. I will say that Bennett may contribute on special teams while Hundley most definitely will not but really its a wash in terms of how much time on the field either will see.

          • NemoOutis

            With all due respect, I differ with your comment that Bennett’s chances of contributing to his team this year “are basically the same as Hundley’s.” He was a projected 2nd round pick who fell to the Jags in the 6th because of a groin injury. He’s drawing rave reviews at his OTAs. See http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/sports/2015/06/08/jaguars-rookie-michael-bennett-drawing-rave-reviews-at-otas/28695997/

            • TedTomsin

              Zip it Nemo!! You are on silent count remember?
              Ted

            • Thomas Hobbes

              Hundley was projected as the 3rd best quarterback and a 1st round draft by some boards, and he doesn’t have an injury either. To be honest, none of that means anything since no one knows the exact value of either player. What we do know is that both players were drafted low and players drafted low do not contribute much either in the rookie or subsequent seasons. Rave reviews in the OTAs are also pretty dubious; writers are dying for any snippet of news during this period and anything and everything will be exaggerated to get your views.

              • NemoOutis

                “. . .players drafted low do not contribute much either in the rookie or subsequent seasons.” Tell that to another player from Ohio State, Corey Linsley. Bennett won’t be carrying a clip board along the sideline. He’ll see plenty of real time action this year.

              • Thomas Hobbes

                Ok, I don’t have any particular feeling for or against Bennett, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and says he plays a significant part for the Jaguars this season.

                Excluding Bennett, do you have similar feelings for any other player drafted in the 5th and 6th rounds? What percentage of those players do you think will play as rookies? I’m not arguing that no player drafted late will contribute, as you mentioned Linsley played all 16 games and graded out very well. However, both you and I know that Linsley was an exception and most players don’t even play a down let alone start a game.

              • NemoOutis

                Provided that they make their teams’ active roster and are not QBs, I think most of the 5th and 6th round draftees are in better positions to make positive contributions to their teams than Brett Hundley. Hundley is a QB, the position that takes the most time to develop. At most, I see him getting game time as a PAT holder and as a mop-up, run-out-the-clock QB. Players at other positions often get game time as rotational players or on STs. Some, like Linsley, will get the opportunity to start. Who do I think will play as rookies? That depends upon the situation and injuries to veterans. Titans RB David Cobb may see substantial playing time. The same applies to 3 DTs selected in those rounds (Darius Kilgo, Leterrius Walton and Grady Jarrett) and 3 players I mentioned in my earlier post (Nick O’Leary, Max Valles and Darren Waller). Even our own Christian Ringo, if he makes the roster, may occasionally be rotated in at DE to give the starters a breather. My main point is that we need players who can contribute to the success of next year’s season. Hundley is a “wasted pick” in the sense that he won’t. We would have been better off signing one of the UDFA QBs (Cody Fajardo, Brandon Bridge, Shane Carden , Chris Bonner) and develop him.

              • Thomas Hobbes

                I agree, non-QBs drafted in the 5th and 6th round are in a better position to make a positive contribution. However and the point of my article is that this contribution is going to be very very small. At this point we are talking about deep rotational players that likely won’t see many snaps unless serious injuries occur ahead of them, which is what happened to Linsley. How many snaps do you think Kilgo, Walton and Jarrett will see? How much production do you think they will produce? I agree it’s likely not to be 0, which is what Hundley will like do, but its gonna be damn close. History would dictate that at least half will do essentially nothing in the rookie season and even those that do have very very low contributions.

              • Relaxed Packer Backer

                I think you’re missing the bigger picture Nemo. We have picked QB’s in the past and none of them have panned out. TT saw a top 5…top 3 really…QB that was available in the fifth round. And he said, we need that guy cause if Aaron goes down again, I don’t want the round robin that was Seneca Wallace, Vince Young, or Matt Flynn. Take an athletic QB with all the right measurements and upside and hand him off to McCarthy to become better…if he does become what the organization thinks he can become…then we can cash that coin in later for your ‘useful’ pick. I dunno, just happy we finally selected a QB that actually has an upside.

      • I don’t really think Hundley is immediate depth at QB this season. Maybe next year unless he turns out to be a prodigy and picks up the mental aspects of the game while fixing his throwing motion and his footwork. I like the pick but if Rodgers goes down, GB will bring in another QB to back up Tolzien.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          My point was that Hundley will be immediate depth if he makes the roster as the #3 quarterback. How useful the #3 quarterback is is up for debate.

  • Taryn Miller

    I believe Hundley was the last QB taken in the draft and since Tolzien being valued enough to let Flynn seek other pasture,and though it’s possible that Hundley could’ve been selected before the very close together sixth round spots of the Packers,I cannot help think that doing so would not have been worth the risk.

    In reality or at least in mine,the odds of Hundley playing to a level that would inspire hope for an 8-8 season are enormous much less him being the savior ‘ if ‘ Rodgers was lost at anytime during the season,as the Packers IMO,simply do not have enough of a certain grade of players (defense) at positions that are lacking to make it more than a pipe dream.

    I hope,to levels and time lengths in reason, that most of the younger guys can make the steps to erase parts of the defenses mediocrity and SPT blunders and take questions of drafting Hundley,off the head scratching list inspired by TT for some.

    His value for the Packers is merely,at this point,possible trade bait in 3 years which of course offers no real benefit to what’s needed for the Packers to meet the expected that has eluded them for 4 seasons since the last real achievement…Super Bowl Victory.

    Unless Hundley becomes a most desirable piece of bait for trade in a couple or few years and be able to allow the Packers a shot in that draft year for whomever may be considered the next in line to keep the string of years alive with having an ‘elite” QB at the helm, since it’s very likely that is when the Packers will want to start grooming the heir apparent. Especially if we keep suffering with more years of a #28-30 pick in the draft,ammunition to amass ammunition to move up will be needed. 🙂

    • Thomas Hobbes

      The counter argument is: do you think you are going to be getting an impact defensive player in the 5th round? Sure every year there are a couple of players to jump out but those guys are few and far in between and I would argue that at this point in the draft, players succeed by being in the right scheme and not the other way around. If you want to argue that Thompson hasn’t been all that successful drafting defensive players high I will give you that, but the 5th round is not the place to be really projecting any pick to accomplish anything. As for Tolzien, him sticking on the roster only dictates that he was better than Matt Flynn, which could be from two options 1)Flynn was decent and Tolzien was simply better or 2) Tolzien is decent and Flynn was just terrible. Either way, the fact that Flynn was the backup last year ahead of Tolzien, even with everyone gushing over him does say something. In other words, the Packers could still have no confidence in Tolzien but are confident that Flynn is done.

  • Big T

    TT has proven time and time again he can’t draft for defense. So why not get a qb you could potentially trade instead of another defensive bust. Just keep listening to us TT, we will get you through this.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I hope to god Thompson never listens to any of us. Also I would argue no player is a bust in the 5th round.

      • Big T

        TT listens to us. There is a lot of knowledge and best of all common sense on this board. TT needs the common sense part more than anything.

        • dobber

          I sure hope you turned to someone after you posted this, laughed, and said, “You won’t believe what I just posted on the AllGBP board…”

          • Big T

            You have to admit TT lacks common sense… And we are here to help him

            • dobber

              I wouldn’t say that. I would say that we lack the insight to be able to judge the sense behind some of his decisions. His track record across the board ain’t too shabby, though.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          I think in reality, TT does what he does and if we’re lucky we’re coincidentally on the same page. Also any GM that has the time to spend trolling around our website should be fired.

          • TedTomsin

            I’m Ted Tomsin and I approve your message.
            Ted

  • croatpackfan

    My humble opinion is that future for Brett Hundley will be decided by, mainly, 2 factors. First factor is his ability to transform himself from spreed offense to west coast one (and transform must be fast!). If that will be successful, we might see Packers trade Scott Tolzien for high round pick (second factor) and leave Brett as back up… But not this season. This scenario may happen for 2016 or 2017 season. Not earlier…

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I don’t think any team will trade for Tolzien. He would need Rodgers to be hurt for a significant amount of time again and to be vastly improved from the last time he saw the field. If not, teams are going to remember a quarterback who threw a lot of picks and was benched for a street free agent with a bum elbow (Flynn).

      • croatpackfan

        Thomas, you might be right. But I doubt that teams are making decisions by how they remember some player(s). I think those decisions are made little bit more seriously. Lot of people thought Seattle paid Matt Flynn only because of his performance against Lions? I have no doubts that this performance had some influence on their decision, but it was not the only reason. Also, every clever man will understand reasons for Scott Tolzien’s under performance. He had only 10 training with the first line, most of them as 3rd QB, than few as 2nd QB… I wonder how many QB’s will perform better in that circumstances. Also, I will challenge you to bring out data (because I was not following NFL at that time), how many snaps Brett Favre had played in real NFL game before Wolf traded for him? This is how I looking on this discussion…

        • Thomas Hobbes

          I think the bigger problem is that there are plenty of players out there who fit the Scott Tolzien mold of a younger quarterback who obviously has some talent but is also inconsistent and isn’t someone who you would feel to trade for. For instance, why would a team trade for Tolzien when they could sign Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Jimmy Clausen, Kellen Moore, TJ Yates or a bunch of other developmental QBs? Also keep in mind this is a contract year for Tolzien which significantly lowers his trade value since any team that trades for him will only get him for 1 year and why would you trade for a player when he’s likely going to be a free agent next year anyways? It’s not like the Packers are going to tag him and any team could easily outbid the Packers in a position they are set in.

          • croatpackfan

            I admit I forgot that Scott is back on 1 year deal. And that is valid argument! But, please, Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Jimmy Clausen, Kellen Moore, TJ Yates are way under Scott Tolzien performance we saw last pre season. Colt McCoy was not able to fight out for some time on the very weak QB roster. And he had full year of development under his belt… Matt was kept last year as gratitude for what he did season before. My opinion is that he did not do that much. Most of the burden was carried by Eddie Lacy and OL. Mike McCarthy knew that. That was the reason why he activated Scott for final games last season when Aaron was hurt.

            • Thomas Hobbes

              I don’t think you should put that much stock into a players preseason production, after all Tolzien destroyed Flynn in the preseason (6.6 vs. -5.1) and Flynn was still the backup, so even the Packers didn’t trust Tolzien’s performance. Even if Tolzien was better than any of the quarterbacks I listed, he has to be so much better than the rest that you would warrant giving up a draft pick.

              • croatpackfan

                I understand what you are talking, but by my opinion, Packers show less trust in Matt Flynn than in Scott. After that game against Lions, Packer activated Scott and neither Matt nor Scott get any time to play for Packers. It would be interesting to see who would Mike McCarthy choose to replace Aaron if he had to go out. I understand what you are saying, but please, admit at least that my question is interesting. Why they activated Scott if they were so trustful in Matt. And still I did not hear (or read) yet how many snaps Brett Favre played in NFL game(s) before Wolf traded for him…

              • Steve Cheez

                If I recall correctly, Favre had thrown something like 3 passes his year in Atlanta, and at least two of them were picks. He might have had a few other kneel-downs in blowouts.

              • Thomas Hobbes

                Actually in the game against the Lions (assuming you are referring to week 17), the Packers activated Tolzien, but it was Flynn who got snaps (a grand total of 1!) behind Rodgers, which would indicate that Flynn was the backup, even at the end of the season. http://www.nfl.com/liveupdate/gamecenter/56412/GB_Gamebook.pdf

                The reason why they activated Tolzien is because of Rodgers’ injury (and the fact that they probably would pull Rodgers early if the game was a blowout). Basically everyone gets promoted one spot. If Rodgers were to go down, Flynn would be the one to replace him and if Flynn were then to go down then Tolzien would have replaced Flynn (the only example I can think of this actually happening is the Bears-Packers game where Cutler got hurt, followed by McCown and then Hanie had to come in). The only real signal that the Packers thought more highly of Tolzien than Flynn during the regular season would have been if they had activated Tolzien and kept Flynn inactive and there wasn’t a injury issue.

                For your question about Favre, he thew a grand total of 4 passes, for 0 yards and 0 completions and 2 interceptions for the Falcons before being traded. Favre did have the pedigree of being a high 2nd round pick, which Tolzien does not have.

              • Steve Cheez

                I stand corrected

              • Thomas Hobbes

                All intents and purposes you were dead on; Favre sucked as a Falcon.

              • croatpackfan

                So, as I understand correctly, only because Favre was 2nd round pick he deserves to be traded. Well, Scott has better results with Packers, didn’t he? He threw 5 INT, but he scored TD and he was playing more snaps than Favre in much harder situation(s). Hmmm. Something to build about?
                Anyhow, your and Thegreatreynoldo fact that Scott was on 1 year contract, I overlooked, make this discussion irrelevant, because Packers will not be able to trade Scott (except that theoretical situations).
                To be honest, what I saw from Brett Favre is impressive will he possessed and his strength to make other to accept it. Great arm, but not so precise. Great physical abilities, but less game reading and understanding opponent defenses. This I got when I search and look at the old games played by Favre.
                Scott looks quite similar to Brett to me… I apologize if I offended anyone here with that comparison…

              • No offense should be possible to take on a football-related opinion. One can only offend by insulting another commenter or author in a personal way.

                I think your opinion on Favre is essentially correct, and noting that playing QB is largely contingent on the ability to read defenses – that it is mental – is also correct. Yes, one has to have a good level of physical tools to play QB in the NFL, but the mental part is more important that having a rocket arm, etc.

                Many thought Favre could have been the best QB ever. He did win 3 MVP awards in the 90’s with Coach Holmgren reining in some of his bad tendencies. But Holmgren left. 7 years later MM arrived and he was able to improve Favre by reining him in a bit. But the 7 year gap doomed Favre to merely being really good as there was no strong coach around to rein him in.

              • marpag

                On the issue of talent vs. QB success, I will maintain to this day that I’ve never seen a human being throw a prettier ball than Jeff George. That guy could flat-out spin it; it looked like the ball was propelled from within. And he sucked.

              • Thomas Hobbes

                And Peyton Manning throws a wobbly duck now but I don’t see anyone complaining.

              • BTW, many of us think Tolzien has the physical tools to be a quality NFL QB. But so does Jay Cutler. Mental is necessary too.

              • Thomas Hobbes

                No offense taken, you’re actually one of the more rational thinkers on this website.

                Draft stock has a ton of value, and high picks get many many more opportunities than lower round ones; if I told you that a tackle who first got tried at guard, failed at guard, then got switched back to tackle and failed that, then got hurt, spent basically two years on IR and then got another shot at tackle only to fail that and then got cut mid-season, would you sign him afterwards? Well thats basically Derek Sherrod in a nutshell and he’s currently with the Kansas City Chiefs.

                The second issue that should be raised, is that if Tolzien was really that good in the preseason and since the Packers decided on Flynn as their backup, why didn’t Tolzien get traded last year?

              • croatpackfan

                I thank you for your kind words…

                Basically, as I already said, this discussion is cut down with this 1 year contract fact. I understand what you said about higher draft pick and I’m not opposing to that. You will sell yourself easier if you are picked earlier in the draft!

                Last remark is regarding last year trade. Same reason as this year – one year contract. And Packers did not sign Matt, but Scott. That says everything about whom they trust more…

                This is tricky discussion. We all discuss as we are certain what MM or TT or any coach thinks. We taking our conclusions from facts and our conclusion are all circumstantial. At the end of the day we may find out what was 10 years ago, and maybe not. So, I suggest to stop here. I respect your opinion (not only your Thomas, but all that was in the discussion) and I think in some portion all of you are right. But I will stick with my opinion only if somebody can give me really hard evidence to oppose it. Thank you!

              • Since Tolzien is on a 1-yr contract his value to GB is his play this yr, if he plays, or what we might get as a compensatory pick if he leaves as a FA. Of course, GB might just re-sign him or even extend him, theoretically.

  • mark

    Why does everyone who tries to do a Ted Thompson defense miss the point like they are D. Capers or AJ Hawk?

    The point of the WORLD CLASS TERRIBLE QB plan was the two losers TT kept for a long time, had entire off seasons to make decisions on, compounded by the horrendous pre season showings and complicated by continual bad reactions.

    It was not one error, it was a repeated and compounded series of bad mistakes, all of which were obvious and clear to even the most casual fan. instead of trite columns why not write how the statements made by the man Jeff Saturday replaced tie into the qb disaster? Why not write about how that is entirely consistent with confusing Randy Moss for one year with injecting cancer cells for a life time? or how the NFC power elite would have changed if Lynch had been in GB instead of Seattle? Why attribute every stupid signing like Saturday to fans who did not want him and knew better – and who knew why a real center left – with a GM with an axe to grind? Signing a Pickett, Moss Lynch Peppers is NOTHING like signing a saturday or a broken legged safety or a bad tackle who never played guard.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Did the Packers just sign someone, or was this comment meant for another article? I don’t think I mentioned free agency, the Seahawks or centers at all.

      • marpag

        LOL. You gotta admit, though, it sure was a cute little rant…. as if Ted Thompson were the one who had “an axe to grind.”

  • Steve Cheez

    I had a logarithmic decay once, but my proctologist cleared it right up.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      better than having the proctologist find a exponential growth.

  • Oppy

    It was always a big part of Ron Wolf’s way he went about his business to regularly draft and develop QBs.

    A 5th round pick of a QB with some potential could yield much greater value as a possible trade option than taking a 5th round pick at any other position.

    The majority of teams in the NFL are looking for their QB. If Hundley develops nicely, puts up impressive performances in preseason games to come (or better yet, gets live reps in a regular season game and looks good), He could be a very attractive option for a team looking for a QB, as Hundley would have actual, real, NFL production on film and could potentially be had for, let’s say, a mid to late second round pick(if he was stellar) or maybe a pair of day 2/3 picks, as opposed to having to maneuver through a draft, hoping there’s a guy you’re interested in still there, and then praying if you get him he actually develops.

    The reward is potentially much greater than any risk. Picking a player like Hundley is not generally about what he can do for the Packers on gameday, it’s typically about the draft picks you may be able to reap via trade (or compensation) a few years down the line.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I have wondered if the game has progressed to be so specialized that being able to draft, develop and trade quarterbacks isn’t really an option. I personally am unsure if you swapped say Russell Wilson and Drew Brees if they would have the same production. Or Colin Kapernick and Andy Dalton. I think Rodgers might be the only quarterback in the league right now that could run any offense.

  • In essence, the question is what is the average 5th round pick worth? A secondary question is what is the value that Hundley might bring to GB and when. CareerAV is probably as good of a standard as any, but it has severe and obvious flaws. It takes no time at all to find individual comparisons that are absurd. Yet the graph shown by the author comports well w my preconceptions. A limiting factor is that the graph uses rounds, probably because it almost has to do so, instead of tiers that many of us prefer, which has been discussed in prior articles. No one necessarily agrees on just how many tiers there should be or how many slots should be in each. I personally use about 11. One could use one of the trade charts, which also can lead to goofy results. By drafttek, the 16th pick is worth 2.5 second rounders, 5 3rd rounders, 15 4th rders, 32 5th rounders, 62 6th rounders and 294 7th rounders. Clearly, Drafttek severely devalues late round picks. It did not take Wolf 294 7th round picks to equal the average first round pick (think of Donald Driver, Adam Timmerman, Mark Tauscher, maybe Scott Wells and Keith McKenzie). TT hasn’t done real well in the 7th but let’s look at his 5th round picks (even though sample size is too small). Also, the CarAv fails to account for difference makers. A team needs difference makers because they, um … well for want of a better term, they make a difference. I would posit that if TT were the robot that many think he is, and every year he drafted exactly to Mr. Hobbes’ CarAv chart (i.e. every 1st rounder had a CarAv of 23, 2nd rders a 15, and so on), we’d have an absolutely terrible team, and not even close to an average team.

    TT’s 5th Rd. Picks: Coston, Hawkins, Moll, Martin, Clowney, Giacomini, Meredith, Quinn Johnson, Newhouse, Quarless, D.J. Williams, Manning, Boyd, Hyde, Linsley, Abbrederis. 16 players.

    So, depending on how Hundley turns out, he might be a wasted pick if drafting him prevented TT from taking a Linsley, Hyde, maybe Quarless, Quinn Johnson (who inexplicably has a ZERO CarAv), or Giacomini (?he played better after leaving GB). One can argue about all of them except Hyde and Linsley. My own conclusion is that it would not be a very, very small waste

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I would guess that if you split players into tiers, you would still get a logarithmic decay so in essence the results would be perhaps more refined but would lead to the same conclusion. As for drafttek, I believe their draft chart is based on the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, which doesn’t actually take the player into account. From what I recall, Johnson commissioned the chart so that he could determine in a very short time (ie when he was on the clock) if trading picks for picks was worth it. Up until that point, when Johnson fielded a trade to move up or down, it was mostly a gut call whether to take it, but with the chart he could see if he was getting value or not. At least that’s how the story goes.

      • I agree that tiers would also have a logarithmic decay. The slope of the decay would look a bit different.

        I forgot Boyd. So about 3 or 4 of 16 players drafted in the 5th round have contributed on the field in a significant way (Linsley, Hyde, Boyd & perhaps Quarless – Abby TBD). In the area of 25% chance of decent help with a 5th rd. pick. I don’t think that is very, very small, but I don’t think it is large. I like the Hundley pick and feel that he will be worth it, either on the field for GB, as trade material, or as a comp pick down the line, or some combination thereof.

        I am amused; some of the commenters on APC don’t think much of the commenters on this site (Curds – June 9th). Their attitude does not surprise me.

  • marpag

    The odds that your house will burn down are very, very, very slim. How many of you thought it wise to insure your house and its contents?

    The odds of Rodgers being injured and Tolzein flopping are much, much, much higher than the odds of your house burning down. Anyone interested in some cheap insurance?

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Ironically I was going to use this argument, but only 44% of Americans have health insurance….

      • The 44% rate for health insurance is incorrect. See Census bureau link below. Marpag’s argument is a good one. But only 3% of homeowner fail to carry homeowners insurance (See link below). Renter’s insurance might serve as a better example. 37% of renters have renter’s insurance (See Link below). Renter’s insurance is cheap in WI -average is $130 per year.

        Since we do not know what will happen with Tolzien after this year, and I think Hundley will not be ready for most of this year, probably all of this year, the insurance he affords is mostly for 2016, but if he can help this year sometime, great!

        Can you tell that my first career was as a research assistant?

        https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-250.pdf

        http://www.insweb.com/news-features/drop-home-insurance.html

        http://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/renters-insurance

        • Thomas Hobbes

          I figured as much since you might the only one to throw data back at me. On the plus side, it’s good to see 86% of Americans have health insurance.

          The second point you bring up is that if Tolzien plays well as the backup (assuming he sees significant time), does he leave for a chance to start somewhere else and in effect make Hundley the backup of 2016? I guess that would depend on if he thinks his stock has risen enough where he can challenge a starter for another team (cause that’s not happening in GB), assuming no one signs him outright to be a starter.

          • LOL. Really, the 37% of people with renter’s insurance is a good analogy. Good idea to cover yourself and cheap ($130 average in WI plus scheduled jewelry, guns, etc., is not unlike 5th & 7th rd. picks). Just guessing that maybe 1/3 of teams have something at #3 QB like GB (yeah, not going to research that guess).

            Most likely scenario isn’t that Tolzien gets enough opportunity and plays well enough such that other teams view him as a starter (it’s possible, though) but that he gets enough opportunity that he shows he is a top back up and moneyball comes into play. Would GB pay Tolzien $3 -$5 million per yr. to be a back up? We’ve seen teams do that sort of thing. Well, that probably depends on what Hundley shows, and then your point comes into play as to whether Tolzien wants to bet on himself that he can challenge for a starting position on another team.

  • aaronqb

    Hundley is an insurance policy. We would all be happy if the #2 QB never had to play a meaningful down, but at this point we can’t be sure this will be the case. Having a capable backup (or two) is a good thing.

    Ron Wolf is about to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and he argued for drafting a QB in every draft.

    There is one additional benefit … if Hundley plays well, the Packers may be able to trade him for a higher pick or get a compensatory pick when his contract is complete. Wolf used a #6 pick to draft a backup QB named Matt Hasselbeck. He later traded him for the equivalent of a high #2 pick (if you use the draft value chart).

    I fully support the drafting of Brett Hundley.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I probably wouldn’t be so optimistic about trading Hundley, I think it would take a pretty significant injury (or two if you count Tolzien) plus Hundley playing well in order to really garner any trade value. I think Hundley’s value lies more in insurance.

      • aaronqb

        Not necessarily true. Matt Hasselbeck was Mr August when he was traded to Seattle. He saw little regular season playing time because he played behind Favre. If Hundley demonstrates talent and the ability to move an offense, he will generate interest.

        I’m not optimistic about trading him. It is WAY too early to even think about that. He hasn’t even been to training camp yet. It was simply a comment about possibilities if things work out well. And, they probably would not be looking to trade for 3 years anyway.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          Fair enough, one interesting question that has been brought up recently is the whole question of “draft, develop and trade”, when was the last time a quarterback drafted in the later rounds was traded to another team and became the starter?

  • Dan Stodola

    Packers lost next to nothing picking Hundley. He’s a QB that was in need of development, so what. Almost all QB’s are, Rodgers too. So they passed on a possible developmental player at another position that might contribute on ST. The Packers had already used a couple picks on players that will contribute on ST. Randall, Rollins, Especially Montgomery, Ryan… And after a couple that might as well.

    Hundley had a chance of being a 2nd round pick. Some even thought possible 1st, tho I thought that was crazy talk. But 2nd or 3rd round prospect in the 5th is great value and easily worth the cost of a late 5th and 7th, the Packers used to move up to get Hundley. If the Packers/McCarthy are able to develop Hundley into a competent NFL QB, which he has the skills to become, they might be able to flip him for a higher pick, 2nd and depending possibly even a 1st.
    Seems like a pretty freakin good gamble to me.

    • Yes, perchance GB gave up something by drafting Hundley, such as a possible contributor to the team over the next couple of years. But there is nothing to say that Hundley won’t make an important contribution down the line, either on the field, or in a trade or even a compensatory pick well down the line.

  • LA Cheese

    You had me until the Vince Young comparison. I think Hundley would be lucky to get to Vince Young’s level.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Young was cut after training camp for Seneca Wallace…if that’s a vote of no confidence I don’t know what is.

  • Tundraboy

    Essentially a 5th round or later is like a lottery ticket. Sometimes you have a freak win, like Linsley but far far more often you do not. Because they are a deep team it is worth the gamble to have a tradeable asset down the road. Welcome to the GB coaching Academy for QBs

  • Relaxed Packer Backer

    Good article Thomas. It seems to me that everyone is up in arms over this pick because of assumed deficiencies in our DB’s, DL, or MLB positions. Any one of those could have seen an extra pick in the draft and everyone would have been soothed. But we don’t really need anyone on those fronts. Raji is back and hungry to prove himself and a get a real contract…that’s on top of Guion playing well last year and returning. Casey Hayward is a beast when healthy, and so far it looks like both Rollins and Randall seem to be ball hawks. All of this is up in the air for sure…but that is TT’s job. He clearly thought that bringing in a QB that may be rough on the edges for the NFL and also has all the prototypical attributes you want in a QB…was a nice future investment…that could get you that top 15 pick that we never get cause we’re the Packers.

    • Well, I agree with you that Hundley is a good pick and worth the modest cost. Otherwise, Hayward is a beast when healthy as a zone slot CB, but as an outside CB he is TBD. There is no “so far” for Rollins and Randall. I think Raji is likely to have a good year and get a “real contract” but I hope some other team gives him that fat contract, not GB.