His one sided approach to building a team reminds me of a small market MLB team instead of the NFL with more revenue sharing and more strict salary minimum and maximums.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I think I was reading Vic Ketchman's articles once and he alluded to the fact that it's a tough sell to get a guy to want to come to GB with it's freezing winters, small market which hinders a player's "branding", plus you have income taxes in WI. All of these factors lead to the Packers often having to outbid other teams, and thus overpay for a player something Ted rarely does to begin with. For these reasons, in essence the Packers are a small market team.

Originally Posted by: musccy 

2006 OT Tony Moll, DE Dave Tollefson

2007 TE Clark Harris

2008 OG Josh Sitton

2009 None

2010 OT Marshall Newhouse

2011 CB Davon House

2012 DT Mike Daniels, S Jerron McMillian, OT Andrew Datko, QB BJ Coleman

2013 NT Josh Boyd

That's 11 compensatory picks. 2 are top players for us in Sitton and Daniels. 2 more have the potential to contribute in House and Boyd. 7 are no longer part of this team and made little to no impact, with the exception of Newhouse who filled in nicely for Bulaga in 2011, then faded.

I think this calls into question just how "successful" Ted has been with this. It could be argued he might be better off diving into FA and landing more top talents. Factoring in just Sitton and Daniels, he is only hitting on around 18% of his comp picks making key contributions. Is that good?

Originally Posted by: play2win 

I too like Uncle Ted. He knows how to evaluate players.

His one sided approach to building a team reminds me of a small market MLB team instead of the NFL with more revenue sharing and more strict salary minimum and maximums.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Something tells me if we had signed 4 solid UFAs over the past 8 years we might have seen some better overall results. That's just fewer comp picks than the 11 we obtained... of whom more than 80% of them contributed little to nothing. Who knows? Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

Yes those are defiantly factors. Without getting too deep into race issues, I was reading way back in the 80's that the lack of an urban life was a real deterrent. Things as simple as getting a good haircut were a problem.

When Reggie came players lined up to play with him. Others wanted to play alongside Brett. Too bad they don' have that same kind of draw these days.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

The thing about the haircuts was something that was around during the Lombardi days as well. He allowed the black players on their off days during TC to bus down to Milwaukee. I wonna say he slid them extra $ to pay for the bus fare as well.

Originally Posted by: Mucky Tundra 

"In fact, it’s been 733 days since Thompson last signed an unrestricted free agent. You have to go back to the signing of Anthony Hargrove on March 30, 2012 for the most recent. The signing of center Jeff Saturday two weeks earlier is Thompson's only other unrestricted pickup in the last five years."

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I know what you're saying but I still disagree with that phasing (that writers brought in).

Because Peppers and others were unrestricted free agents, even though they were released. They had no restrictions on them and they were free agents.

Originally Posted by: beast 

This logic doesn't make much sense to me. Using your logic, one could just say if Ted Thompson would have picked better players with his compensatory picks, there might have been better overall results. The same for the unrestricted free agents (UFA). UFA's are abosolutely no certainty, either. The point should be more focused on execution, not the preference of one method or another. If he would have pulled more Josh Sitton's out of his compensatory picks, things would be even more skewed. It's all about execution.

Moreover, the salary implications can't be overlooked here, which makes the benefit of compensatory picks even greater. I have no doubt that weighs heavily on the minds of Ted Thompson and the entire Packers organization. I think being fiscally conservative is a strict goal of the Packer's organization, whether we as fans like it or not. It's just the way it is.

Lastly, how many 3rd round compensatory picks has he had? I know he's had a few 4th rounders, and there has been some substantial success there. But I feel like most of the compensatory picks have been in the 5th round, or later. If he can consistently bring in 3rd and 4th round picks, I think the approach is well worth it. Let's not forget, one can't only examine the compensatory picks exclusively. Obtaining the additional picks gives Thompson more flexibility to pursue trades with his non-compensatory picks. The true value of compensatory selections can't be quantified by the picks themselves, imo. As usual, there is much more to it and it is much more complicated than that.

When 3rd and 4th round picks are rolling in, I rather like the approach. Not so much the 6th and 7th rounders.

Originally Posted by: DoddPower