For the Green Bay Packers BPA is the New MVP

With a larger and larger frequency each year in the NFL Draft you hear teams talk about taking the “best player available.” Ted Thompson and the Green Bay Packers play a big role in the reason for that.

Under Thompson the Packers have been known for the importance they put on the draft, their methodologies towards the draft, and building the team  from within. Thompson and coach  McCarthy take a lot of pride in having a roster comprised mostly of players that have only played for the Packers.

A reason for why this is possible, according to many people and Ted Thompson himself, is because Ted likes to take the best players available in the draft at the Packers draft spot, not necessarily the best player at a position of need. When asked about that this year, Ted reiterated that by stating, “The way to draft is to take the best player because you don’t know what you’re going to need.”

I believe that is simply not what Ted does, or if it is, it is way too much of a coincidence for me personally to believe.

Look at the first round picks the Green Bay Packers have taken since 2009.

2009 – B.J. Raji and Clay Matthews:

The Packers had just switched to the 3-4 defense and in the first round they took their supposed future star nose tackle/defensive end and actually traded back into the first round to take their star pass rushing outside linebacker that would fit the scheme perfectly and far better than Aaron Kampman.

2010 – Bryan Bulaga:

The 2009 season saw the starting right tackle for the Green Bay Packers be manned by one of Mark Tauscher’s knees and Allen Barbre. It is safe to say that the Packers saw a need to plug the gaping whole at right tackle with their first selection.

2011 – Derek Sherrod:

Similar to the Bryan Bulaga pick the year before and after a few years of poor pass protection in general, the Packers had a glaring need to replace an old staple at tackle. This time it was at left tackle to replace the retired Chad Clifton. How much of a position of need was this? When the Sherrod experiment failed due to injury, they had to have Clifton come out of retirement because there was no one else there.

2012 – Nick Perry:

In 2011 Erik Walden started every game at LOLB and with the absence of Cullen Jenkins the realization that Clay Matthews was the only pass rusher on the team became all too apparent. The Packers needed to find a solid pass rusher to compliment Clay Matthews at OLB.

Perry would eventually get injured and only started six games and the pass rush was an issue once again.

2013 – Datone Jones:

With Nick Perry’s injury 2012, we saw another disappointing season for the Packers in the pass rush. The Packers decided to take another swing at fixing the pass rush, this time at defensive end to go with a potentially healthy Nick Perry at OLB.

2014 –  Ha Ha Clinton-Dix:

The 2013 season was a dismal one for the Packers at safety. Morgan Burnett had five passes defensed, zero fumbles forced, and zero interceptions.

Meanwhile opposite of Burnett was even worse with Jerron McMillian getting the ax mid-season and with M.D. Jennings falsely diagnosing pretty much every play, he was released as well, this time after the season.

This left the cupboard empty at safety opposite Burnett with only Micah Hyde with any hope to play the position and even then it wasn’t a preferred option to have him be the guy and have no one behind him. Thus, Ha Ha to the rescue.


The Packers have made the playoffs every year since 2009 and have been one of the elite teams in the NFL in that time.

Elite teams typically still have one or two areas that they need help in each season and in those six years the Packers took seven players at seven different positions of need from the previous season.

It’s just too much of a coincidence to me that the best players available at the Packers pick each year were also positions of need with all seven picks.

Fast forward to last weekend and the 2015 NFL draft. The Packers finished 2014 as the second worst team in the NFL in kick returns. They also just lost two cornerbacks to free agency.

That left them with one starting corner spot in good shape with Sam Shields and it left a question mark with Casey Hayward, who while great at covering the slot, has questions on whether he can cover the outside on a consistent basis. Behind those two there is absolutely nothing.

What do the Packers do with their first three picks of the 2015 draft? They go after two corners with their first two picks to fill in for the ones they lost (both of whom can probably help at safety if need be too). Then they go after a receiver, a position the Packers have decent depth at but could use one more guy. More importantly, they got a receiver who just happens to be considered one of the best kick returners in the draft.

Again, that’s 3 for 3 in drafting for positions of need. After that in the fourth round they take an inside linebacker who also played outside linebacker in college in Jake Ryan. Again, he plays a position of need with A.J. Hawk’s departure (not just ILB, but ILB with long blonde hair, a strong position of need for the Packers this year).


To me there needs to be a redefining of the term “best player available.” Best player available shouldn’t mean literally taking the best player on the board. It should mean taking the player with the most value to your team, whether that be in a position of need or not. Typically that is going to be taking the best player at a potential position of need, not necessarily the most glaring position of need, but a position of need nonetheless. I believe that is how the Packers draft, whether Ted Thompson wants to admit it or not. He doesn’t draft best player available, he drafts the player with the most value to the Packers.

Just like how the MVP is typically no longer given to the “most valuable player” it is given to the best player, the term BPA, or best player available, needs redefining. The best player available should not be taken to mean the “best player available” it should be taken to mean the best fit (or valuable player to the team) available.


Mike Reuter lives in the Twin Cities and is a graduate of the University of St. Thomas. He is a mobile tech enthusiast, a 19 year Gopher Football season ticket holder and a huge Packers fan. Mike is a writer with and you can follow him on twitter at @uofmike.


56 thoughts on “For the Green Bay Packers BPA is the New MVP

  1. Your point is true. That said, I think CB was less of a need this year than 5 technique and ILB, and equal to OLB. I thought Heyward would do fine as an outside CB, and Hyde would do fine as a full time starter at slot CB. What the DBs really needed was developmental prospects who aren’t necessarily ready to play this year but have a high ceiling. Equally, I remember thinking in 2012 that Perry looked like Tarzan played like Jane before the draft. Ditto Jones before 2013. IMO those were both “need” picks that have come back to bite the team. So hopefully, these CBs, albeit not “need” picks, will truly be BPA and man the secondary for years to come.

    1. Bearmeat, I understand your reasoning, but what do you do in the defensive backfield when the other team sends 4-5 guys on passing routes? Or when one of your starters gets injured? Just let the other team complete deep passes all game long?

      In today’s NFL you need *at least* 7 guys who can cover, and the Packers lost two of theirs to free agency, plus not wanting to bring back Bush, plus one of their developmental guys during last season when Rolle signed with Houston.

      Yes, the Packers had two guts they were developing, but its always better but can you name both of them? And is it wise to rely on 2 guys filling two holes? (See Safety in 2013).

      Meanwhile at ILB you need no more than 3 guys — the second ILB who is on the field for less than half the snaps and a backup. There they already had Barrington, a developmental guy (Thomas) as the ‘Thumper’, plus Clay and three guys they are developing or converting (Bradford, Palmer, and Francis) for the ‘Chase’ position.

      So they really only needed a guy to compete with Barrington, evaluated the draft class and figured they could get a starting quality ‘Thumper’ late (based on what they analyzed the other teams would pick, something every GM always does) and add developmental guys in undrafted free agency (as the Packers always do) and planned their strategy for the whole draft with those conditions in mind.

      As the draft developed, the Packers saw they could get their ILB in the 4th round, letting them add additional value by getting the consensus best return guy in the third.

      So out of this draft the Packers got 2 guys who are the consensus best at the role they were drafted for (Randall at safety/slot corner, Montgomery at returner with added value as a 4th or 5th receiver), a starting quality ILB (Ryan), another high-ceiling prospect at CB (Rollins), a developmental QB who had once been talked about as 1st round immediate starter, and potential replacement for the aging John Kuhn, and potential help at TE and DE.

      How is that not maximizing value to the team **throughout the entire draft?**

      1. 3rd paragraph should read:

        Yes, the Packers had two guys they were developing, but can you name both of them? And is it wise to rely on 2 guys filling two holes? (See Safety in 2013). Its always better to have more guys competing than the spots you need to fill.

        Sorry, posting too fast 🙂

      2. Ed, I agree that CB was the biggest need. I’ll forego repetitive posts on why I believe that. Many would question whether Randall was the consensus best prospect for the role envisioned, though, at least if that role is starting outside or even slot corner. But, perhaps TT viewed Randall not only as a candidate at CB but also as a possible back-up to Clinton Dix should he miss time and Hayward or Rollins comes through at Tramon’s old spot. I don’t think Sean Richardson can even remotely play FS, and the jury is out in my book on him as a back up SS. Otherwise Ha Ha’s back-up would be Banjo, a guy I like in many ways but who was not snatched off the practice squad by some other team, after all. Those 2 elements might lead one to assign to Randall a higher value to the teams needs. He was the consensus best FS in this draft, after all. Note that most of the rest of the players you listed were all obvious needs either this year or down the road, except maybe, arguably Hundley, who I think he was just too good to pass up myself.

        1. Thanks for the great conversation (to most on this thread).
          I think where people (fans) often go wrong in evaluating BPA is that they do not account for exactly what Reynaldo points out above. We look at pre-draft grades like Kipers or the ones that show up on and think aha, the player with a 5.7 is a better player that the one with a 5.3!
          But that is not the case for every scout, and it is especially not the case for every GM. Some players may ‘fit’ better on one team as opposed to another. Capers defense relies on highly versatile defensive backs where even the safeties can cover receivers one-on-one over the whole field. That kind of player will have a higher value to someone picking for Green Bay in 2015 than someone picking for a team coached by Lovie Smith.
          That’s not mere subjectivity, it’s a fact that needs to be accounted for when evaluating the player, and that the simplistic pre-draft grades we reference our opinions to generally ignore. Many of the publicly available evaluations for Randall treated him strictly as a safety, and compared him to box safeties like this year’s kid from Aabama. When you do that Randall seems like a crappy tackler. When you think of him as a corner he is more physical than most and gets a higher grade as a result.
          And that doesn’t even get to evaluating the relative upside provided by a potential shut-down cover guy vs. the best expectation for a two-down thumper ILB. That’s why Anthony (for example) wasn’t worth a 1st down pick to Green Bay (but was worth that to someone else.)

      3. You can do it either way – the Pats pass rush last year was not good. Neither was the Seahawks. But both covered extremely well. GB was better in pass rush than both of them and covered somewhat comparably. BUT until week 8, our run D was a disaster.

        It looks like GB is going to continue find pass rushers and run stoppers at value and place a premium on stopping the pass. IMO a little more balance would have been better, but what do I know?

        Hope the coverage-and-outscore-them model works.

        1. Or hope that Ryan in the 4th, Barrington, and the return of Raji help the run defense enough to justify taking the exrtra coverage guys earlier in the draft.
          Why not wish for success in multiple ways?

          1. Moving Matthews inside really improved the D against the run. I wouldn’t want to see that undone too soon.

    2. Those need picks as you call them were highly rated as pass rushers and were at the top of lot’s of draft boards. Ted values certain positions more highly than say… ILB. Taking an ILB in this draft would’ve convinced me that he drafts for need.

  2. The word, “best,” is a comparative adjective. It is most often used by people wishing to state an opinion. When they do so, though, they should be able to support their opinion with objective criteria and facts. So, for example, if I were to say that “Lawrence of Arabia” is the best movie, I should be able to back my subjective opinion about it with facts about the cast, the cinematography, the musical score, the movie’s historical significance, etc., and compare it to other “great” movies. By redefining “best player available” to mean “the player with the most value to your team,” BPA becomes totally subjective because you’ve defined it terms of another subjective element, “most value.” And who determines which player brings his team the “most value”? Why, the guy making the selection, of course. So, when the Packers selected Christian Ringo, was he the BPA? Yes, because he was selected. Ringo, in the opinion of the selector, brought the team the “most value.” Therefore, of all the players available to us at the time of his selection, Christian Ringo was the BPA. You have made “Best Player Available” an empty, meaningless and senseless term.

    1. Sometimes best can’t be quantified. People disagree on the definition of BPA. Is the prospect with the highest chance of being an NFL starter? Or highest chance of being elite? Does one factor in off the field issues? Medical issues? Projection to a different position? Since scouts factor all these subjective elements into best prospect available, and we can be fairly certain that various scouts assign different grades to the same prospect, there is subjectivity in the term. You’re right that adding in the factor of value to the team – which player makes our team the most better – is an additional subjective factor, but it doesn’t make it meaningless.

      Your example of backing up one’s opinion of the best movie by citing facts about the cast, etc., is just adding another subjective element. I personally think Kevin Costner is a terrible actor but he was in quite a few movies that I liked. Tom Selleck played a PI in a popular show, though I think he was pretty bad – I thought the show would have been better with a guy like James Garner starring as the lead. Is the best comedy one that made me chuckle 25 times or the one that elicited real side-splitting guffaws 6 times? I guess I am the only one that knows which comedy I liked best.

      1. Subjectivity is always present whenever the word, “best,” is used. Prior to its redefinition by the writer of this article, though, one’s opinion about who is the BPA could be supported by facts about that player and others in comparison and we could all then judge the validity of the opinion. But, by adding the element of bringing “the most value to the team,” the possibility of any objective analysis is foregone. The BPA is the player the selecting GM says he is. As VaPacFan wrote, “Beat the drums, fall in line, march in step. Don’t question anything, believe all that you are told to believe.” Yes, Christian Ringo was the BPA, not Bryce Hager, Hayes Pullard, Ben Koyack, etc Believe it!

        1. I agree that Randall, Ringo, Backman and probably Ripkowski were not the best players available. I use tiers, and Randall was in the next tier. I had Backman in the UDFA tier, and certainly not in the 6th round. I responded only to the BPA thing, My wife loved West Side Story – best musical ever, the dancing, etc. I love musicals, but all I know is that I couldn’t wait for the guy to stop caterwauling about his Maria!

          1. We share the same opinion about West Side Story. Has your wife seen South Pacific? Wonderful music coupled with an uplifting story.

            1. WSS is tragic, but better music and a story. South Pacific is no slouch though. My personal favorite musical is Les Mis. 🙂

        2. Oliver is my favorite. Grain of sand: I was about 9 when I saw it – I could hit the notes at that age! – and it was maybe the first musical I ever saw in a theater, unless it was Sound of Music, another favorite.

          For a semblance of football, yes, Nemo, I noted that Pullard lasted until the 2nd pick in round 7. I thought for sure that one of those 6th rd. comp picks would be him. I liked him even if he turned out to be a Brandon Chillar type and only played on 3rd down passing situations.

          1. Man of La Mancha with Richard Kiley for me. To Dream the Impossible Dream! Thanks, Since ’61

            1. A good musical needs to have several pleasant songs, and at least one “showstopper.” The Impossible Dream qualifies. To relate this to football, a good draft needs to produce a couple of pleasant players, and at least one showstopper!

              I remember my mother, in an attempt to instill some culture into me, taking me to Figaro. She asked me afterwards if I liked it, and I told her it had 3 darn good songs. I thought she was going to have a stroke.

    2. Actually, the word “best” is a SUPERLATIVE adjective, but we get the idea. 🙂

      1. Yes, it is a superlative adjective. Good, better, best. And we use these adjectives to express an opinion, often comparing one thing to another. Good point!

        1. “Good, better, best,
          Never let it rest.
          ‘Til your good is better
          and your better best.”
          — Steve’s Grandpa
          I figure if half this thread is talking about musical theater, I’m not too far off bringing up an inspirational quote from my Grandpa.

    3. I would venture that Ringo truly was BPA. Though he was from a small school. He was very highly ranked by those who scouted him. Look him up in the ProFootball Focus college write ups for inside defenders.

      I believe that BPA goes very much hand and hand with MVP. If you reach too far away from BPA to get the MVP you begin losing value and resources. It is better to trade back to get a guy and get some extra value than to reach too far. When the BPA is your MVP it may be worth trading up to get him, such as with CMIII. If the BPA is not helpful trade back.

      If a guy is an MVP but no other team values him, then you can let that player slide to a lower round or into UDFA, unless of course you are wrong.

      Example: two years ago the Packers needed a RB they saw that their were several quality Players that fit the need but that they could trade back into a later pick in the second round and still get the MVP at BPA, while gaining additional value. They got Eddie Lacy.

  3. Amen, Mr. Reuter. That TT often drafts for need has been obvious to me for years. I do think he drafts BPA at times during his drafts, particularly in the later rounds. This year’s draft contained obvious need picks in rounds 1-4, and one of the three 6th round choices. If you are looking at needs 2 years out, then arguably Hundley, Ripkowski and Ringo can be viewed as need picks, too.

    2013: Ha Ha: need (arguably also BPA though). Adams: need. Thornton was at a position that needs an upgrade. Rodgers: need. Bradford: arguable; as an OLB, probably not, but as a ILB. yes. Linsley: need (for those who mention Tretter, try to remember that he hadn’t played a snap in the NFL or in the preseason either – we’ve seen lots of training camp and preseason wonders come and go. I’d say Abby might have been for talent, and Janis too. Goodson could be argued both ways.

  4. Its worth remembering that as you get later in the draft the ‘best player available in an ideal world’ is not that much better that the ‘best player available at a position you need.’ So it is unsurprising that the Packers were able to draft ‘BPA” (or, if you insist, player with the best value for your team) that filled a need when their draft position was in the 20’s and 30’s.

    It’s very rare that a player whose ‘ideal’ value is far above the the other players left to draft as even the first round progresses — but the one time that happened Thompson grabbed him (2005). He also jumped to move up for that player when there was a reasonable trade available in 2009 with Clay (there are other examples in later rounds including Casey Hayward and Hundley this year.)

  5. Beat the drums, fall in line, march in step. Don’t question anything, believe all that you are told to believe.

  6. I do not agree with you. Not because you do not put some valuable arguments, but because we really do not know how Packers make their draft boards… If your claim is right, why nobody, I will repeat that, nobody was talking of taking 2 CB and KR in first 3 rounds of the draft. Everybody was surprised, maybe not with picking CB at round 1, but with next 2 picks… I do not have link, but I read that Ted Thompson said by himself that when they need to pick and have 2 or more players valued same on their board, they will pick guy who play the position Packers need. So, this is just one of the differentiation reasons to pick player A instead of player B.

    Also, lot of people here is mad because Ted Thompson did not pick either Stephone Anthony or Malcolm Brown, presuming that Packers rate those 2 players as better that Randall. Maybe they did, maybe they do not. We do not know that…

    After I watched the tapes for first 3 picks, I understood why they were rated so high on Packers board. Of course there is some mistakes in their plays, of course they are raw, of course there is no certainty that they will be able to transfer their game to the NFL speed. But that is why Packers has Player Personnel Department… They are evaluating players through lot of levels. And that is why I tend to believe their judgments….

    1. Croat, no one as far as I know thinks GB’s first three picks are dogs who have no chance. I viewed Randall and Rollins as high 2nd and mid to late 2nd round picks, respectively, and 2nd Round picks have a good chance at becoming starters in the NFL. Tell you what, watch a bit of Malcom Brown’s film if you have not done so and tell me what you yourself think of him. What GB’s and every other team’s board looked like is a closely guarded secret, but if Randall was thought to be the most talented player, then it looked like few known big boards.

        1. I don’t really remember any. It is getting to be a blur though, now. The worst I heard about him was “Plays hard but scouts do not consider him a “glass-eater.” CBS wrote that he had tenacity, and considered him to be very mature off the field.

              1. A lot of the pass rushers and perimeter CBs were in trouble with coaches and/or the law. Maybe you mixed up Brown with Shane Ray or someone like that?

  7. I’m really starting to like this John Crockett signing. Check out some of his vid’s on Youtube. Apparently, during the draft, the Packers told him over the phone, it would either be him or a defensive lineman. They went with Christian Ringo, but when the Packers offered after the draft, along with about 20 other teams, he chose the Pack!

  8. I think it was just a coincidence in most cases. What I don’t get is this obsession with a lot of people here trying to figure out why Ted does what he does. Some feel like they need an explanation for each pick. This BPA argument to me stems from an inner need to know everything that goes on including TT’s top secrets to successful drafting. The fact nobody can ever guess or even come close to who Ted will pick every season is the funniest and best part of the draft. I laugh every single year when Ted pisses off the masses by his selections and shortly after people realize they really don’t have a effin clue, the Packers once again win more than they lose and life goes on with TT firmly in charge. People say “In Ted We Trust” for a reason. I quit trying to figure out Ted a long time ago. I just accept the fact he’s one of the best.


    1. What I don’t get is how star struck you are with TT. You should bring your head out every once in awhile to smell some fresh air.

      1. lol… Hey, what can I say Big T. When I see greatness I acknowledge it. Someones gotta do it.

      2. TedTomsin is madly in love with TT. He feels TT should not be questioned. “In Ted We (Blindly) Trust” is his motto. Super Bowl appearances are vastly overrated… even with Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers, once every ten years is plenty!!!

        1. Actually considering I almost waited 30 years for one effin playoff appearance, one super bowl every ten years is definitely plenty. I would take that in a second if I could have it.
          BR, how old are you? I am guessing between 20 and 40. I can’t say I blame you. You only know of winning. You do not know true reality. It’s coming again. The good times are about to end.

          1. I’m 54, and remember the horrid teams of the 70’s. I don’t hate Thompson, he’s a good drafter, and nobody manages the salary cap better. But he’s limited in his approach to acquiring players, and, because of this, will never be as effective a GM as Wolf, Belichick, or Schneider.

  9. Unless you have access to the Packer draft board (which none of us do), then we don’t enough info to determine if he picked the guy on the top his board on every pick.

    IMO, the best evidence to show TT picks BAP is there are multiple instances where he clearly picked guys at positions that were not a high need (Aaron Rodgers would be exhibit 1A). If he targets a player and that person is not at the top of his list, then he attempts to trade down or if he thinks he needs to trade up to get a guy he wants he trades up. The fact that TT makes so many trades on draft day tells you he is picking for value (BAP).

    1. Or to say it a little differently… TT may very well have seen ILB as his greatest need. But he didn’t see value at that position until he got to D4. Now people look at his fourth round pick and say, “AHA! You see? Ted’s drafting for need!” If he were truly drafting for need he would have reached for a guy in D1. But he didn’t.

      Let’s admit what ought to be painfully obvious: EVERY SINGLE PLAYER is drafted to fill a need. (If a player didn’t fill a need, why would he be drafted under any circumstances whatsoever?) But are you just going to take the first and best guy you possibly can at that position? Or are you going to wait until you find a good value?

      1. Yes, Marpag, well said. Drafting for need implies reaching if it is to have a pejorative connotation. Once in a while, and hindsight helps a lot, there is a player who is so good one ought to draft him regardless of need. We might have Tramon in his prime, Shields and House under contract, but if a Revis is available to draft, I think you should take him. But your point is so well made, I’ve had to change my opinion, at the margins anyway. I see myself citing more extreme examples.

  10. You are like the rest of us…you don’t have a clue as to how Ted Thompson views the draft or who is at the top of his draft board. I think he most values CB and pass rushers on defense and QB and Left Tackle on offense…those are the positions that will be at the top of his board. I think it’s why he drafted CB’s instead of ILB in the first and second rounds…and Hundley was clearly the BAP in the fifth round. We could argue forever about he approaches the draft…he says it’s BAP so why should anyone doubt him. He’s done pretty well for the Packers.

  11. I will tell you TT’s secret drafting weapon. He has the players available for his pick all listed on a paper attached to the wall. He then brings in his pet chimp and gives him a dart. The chimp is exactly 10 yards away. When the time comes he has Chester the chimp throw the dart. The name the dart comes the closest to is who he then picks. One time the dart struck Murphy in the ballsack, so TT took this as a sign to trade down. One time old Chester threw way to soon and hit MM in the neck, so TT took this as a sign to trade up. And the rest is history my friends…

  12. Another thing is, it’s so hard to compare players of different positions. A great RB has less value than a great CB, so even if the RB is the “BPA”, he’s not necessarily the better pick. Plus some defensive lineman are better suited to a 4-3 versus a 3-4, so that has to be factored in. I like that our first 2 picks this year are “ball hawks” and playmakers, even if they seem more like safeties than cornerbacks.

  13. I enjoy West Side Story but still think Singin in the Rain would get my vote. Syd Charise in that green dress. Thats a doozy. GoPack!

    1. “This Nearly Was Mine,” “Younger Than Springtime,” Bali Ha’i,” “I’m Gonna Wash that Man Right Out of My Hair,” “There is Nothing Like a Dame,” and “Some Enchanted Evening” all sung in the beautiful “South Pacific” at a time of war, bravery, love and a recognition and overcoming of one’s cultural and racial biases. Rogers and Hammerstein at their best.

  14. Hallelujah! Somebody besides me finally gets it.

    TT takes need over BPA every time.

    Even worse, with roughly equal needs at DL and CB, TT chose the lesser player in Randall, compared to Malcom Brown.

    In other words, just like what veterans he keeps based on personality i.e. who he likes in the locker room, TT does the same with his draft picks. Randall is much better than Brown when it comes to the intangibles but Brown is the far better football player, ready to start in day 1. And, like Randall, Brown is positionally versatile – he can play any position along the DL in a 3-4 or 4-3. The difference is Brown is not a projection to a different position and he is ready to start day 1. Isn’t that what a R1 pick should be?

    Scot Wells and Cullen Jenkins were really good players TT did not personally like. He found them too prickly i.e., not willing to worship him as the best GM. Devon House could be included in that group.

    Whereas a guy like AJ Hawk sucked on the field but kept getting ginormus contracts. Same was true of Brady Poppinga and many others. That’s how TT rolls. He believes he doesn’t have to take the BPA. And, as long as he has 12 at the controls, that is probably true. Same way with MM when it comes to his coaches. If we had a real GM and a real HC, we would have 3 SBs in the bank under Rogers. But we don’t and because of that we don’t.

    1. We agree that TT drafts for need (at least, too often, IMO) and that he should have picked Malcom Brown, not Randall, because Brown was simply is a much better prospect, and by a wide margin.

      I don’t think CB and DL were remotely close to equal in terms of need. GB is getting everyone back on the DL, and will be augmented by the return of Raji. I might think it consists of Daniels and a bunch of JAGs, but the JAGs were not complete stiffs. At the least, I think we can get by on the DL. I do think it could use an upgrade.

      At CB, we lost 1417 snaps when Tramon and House left. Those were 1417 actual, played in the NFL, hey these really count, snaps. Assuming you think Hayward can play outside CB (which I don’t), he can increase his snaps by maybe 600, from the 426 snaps he played last year. Hyde (if you think he can play outside, which I don’t) can increase his by maybe 200 from the 704 snaps he played last year. Assuming Hayward and Hyde have no injuries, and can play outside, GB still need 617 snaps from somewhere, and it leaves a rookie, PS player, or Goodson to supply them. Drafting a rookie who can become a starter at outside CB sooner rather than later seemed the most important thing to me.

      That said, TT should still have taken Brown at #30. There were good CB prospect available later in the draft. But mostly, Brown was just too good. We often complain about drafting late in each round, and here a top 15 talent drops to #30, and we don’t take him or get a robust trade down deal? Sounds like a wasted opportunity to me.

      I know of no evidence to support the rest of your post about why TT keeps certain players and not others. He does seem to have a tendency to overvalue and overpay his own players. If you have any links to articles suggesting that TT liked the personalities of certain players and thus kept them on the team, I’d be the first to read them.

Comments are closed.