And here is the counterfactual bit (okay lots and lots of bits) referred to in part one....

PART TWO: A counterfactual draft

Much as I like the two metrics above, neither addresses the trade-down issue quantitatively. They don’t address it now, and they won’t be able to address it three years or whatever point “down the line” one thinks we ought to wait for. Neither does so by itself, and the two together don’t do so either.

Part one addresses only the question of what value was received in the players picked. They do not address the question of what additional value might have been received had Ted acted differently.

And when we complain, rate, discuss, bitch, and all the rest about our GM’s drafting (or any of his decisions, for that matter), it is those “could he have done better?” questions, those questions we historian types call “counterfactuals,” that are the true center of our complaints and claims and discussions. When I bitch about Thompson its less about what the people drafted will or won’t do in some absolute sense, and more about what the people drafted will do relative to the alternatives.

When I bitch about the Adams pick, I’m not stating my belief on the question of how much production Adams will have. I’m bitching because I believe Ryan Grant, picked two rounds later, would have provide the same value. This matters, in my opinion: if you spend a 3rd to get production you could have got with a 5th round pick, you have used up an opportunity to get other value.

That “value for position” is what makes consideration of trade possibilities so important. And thanks to the people at NFL.com, we can use the trades that teams actually executed to narrow the possibilities of what might have been.

Of course, we are still making guesses. But they can be guesses made much more concrete. They don’t have to rely on the mythical/magical “trade value” table, but can instead be grounded upon what two teams actually decided was a worthy exchange. And in so doing they provide a more precise bound on what might have been offered/accepted when the Packers were on the clock.

But the connectedness of trades available with a whole host of decisions and values being made not just by the prospective trade partner but by the other 30 GMs as well, points out just how difficult getting the counterfactual analysis correct really is. Anyone can invent their own point scale and assign values according to it (see Part I, ahem). But being able to predict the alternative pasts of “what would X have done if Ted Thompson had chosen A instead of B when he was on the clock? That’s seemingly a matter of alchemy and Gandalf fantasyland.

It’s not, but I very much understand if it seems that way to you. I spent years of graduate school learning the general methodology, and so its a bit easier for me, but I’d be lying if I didn’t admit it still feels like I’m trying to nail Jello to the wall an awful lot.

While blindfolded.

The key to effective (i.e., worth the file storage it takes) counterfactual analysis is actually quite simple. It does, however, demand several practices of its user that almost no one likes to have to do. Most importantly, it demands that you *always* strive to choose data and interpretation biased against your argument. If you are trying to argue that incomes for the middle class are falling, you don’t emphasize the part of middle class that is doing worse, you look at the ones who are doing the best. If you think the margin of error for a set of numbers is between 10 and 20%, you don’t run the numbers assuming it is only 10%; you run them assuming it is 20%.

Here, good counterfactual analysis doesn’t ask “could trade offer X have been made?”; one’s trying to pierce the fog of history enough to answer “is it likely” or even “is it highly likely”? it asks, “is it likely” or even “is it highly likely.” It isn’t enough to point out that Minnesota made a trade; you have to ask, how likely is it that Minnesota would have offered the same trade to GB? Frankly, doing it right can be a royal pain in the ass and takes far too much time, which probably explains why so many focus on being able to shout out their opinions more loudly than everyone else, rather that do the logical and empirical slogging necessary.

But I digress, and this post is going to end up far too long even if I avoid my usual tangent-taking. So, without any more, here’s my best guess of what I would have done if I were the one making the war room decisions a few weeks ago.


1. Summary of the simulation:

DAY ONE (no picks):
Round 1 (#21) (original pick, traded to cleveland)
Round 1 (#26) (acquired from cleveland, traded to dallas)
DAY TWO (five picks):
Round 2 (#47) (from dallas): Jeremiah Attaochu. OLB
Round 2 (#53) (original pick, traded to miami)
Round 3a (#78) (from dallas) Gabe Jackson. OG
Round 3 (#81) (from miami, traded to houston)
Round 3b (#83) (from cleveland): Donte Moncrief. WR
Round 3c (#85) (original pick) DaQuan Jones. DT
Round 3d (#98) (compensatory pick) Dakota Dozier. C/OL
DAY THREE (nine picks)
Round 4 (#101) (from houston, traded to cincinnati)
Round 4a (#116) Marqueston Huff. CB/S
Round 4b (#121) (original pick) Carl Bradford. ILB
Round 4c (#123) (from cincinnati) Telvin Smith ILB
Round 5a (#141) (from Houston) Nat Berhe. SS/FS
Round 5b (#161) (original pick) T.J. Jones. WR
Round 5c (#176) (compensatory pick) Laurent Duvernay-Tardif. OT
Round 6 (#197) (original pick) Daniel McCullers, NT.
Round 6 (#199) (from cincinnati) Rashaad Reynolds, CB
Round 7 (#236) (original pick) Colt Lyerla, TE

2. Comparison of counterfactual draft with actual Packer draft

How does my draft compare? I know it’s arrogant for a fan to say this, but I think mine is not just going to prove to be better than Ted Thompson’s, but I believe it will prove substantially better.

The biggest negative comparison of mine with his, of course, is missing out on Clinton-Dix because of the trading down. While I believe Berhe may, in the end, prove to be a better player, I believe he will likely only be at the level of “serviceable” starter by week one this year, whereas Clinton-Dix will be a “high quality” starter. High quality starter in week one is only for those who I think have round 1 or, like Clinton-Dix and Attaochu, round 2a value.

However, while Thompson’s draft gets a “serviceable starter by week one this year” grade for only Bradford, I believe I have four or five deserving of that grade: Bradford and Berhe, plus Jackson, Dozier, and either McCullers or DaQuan Jones.

How do the picks compare position-by-position?
i. Safety (1 pick each). Advantage, Thompson, especially immediately. Right now, Clinton-Dix > Berhe.
ii. Defensive tackle(TT 1 pick, Wade 2). Big advantage, Wade. Jones and McCullers are each, in my opinion, far superior to Thornton, both in where they already are developmentally and in terms of their ultimate potential. Thorton has potential for replacing Raji eventually, but for now expect him to be in “learn from Raji” mode. Jones and McCullers will challenge Raji now. And my draft gets them both.
iii. Wide receiver (TT three picks, W two): Advantage, Wade. As far as their immediate contribution goes, I think Moncrief and Adams are about a wash, but think Moncrief and his speed has much upside. The biggest immediate contribution for Thompson’s draft is going to be Abbrederis. Neither the Badger nor the Golden Domer has the upside that Moncrief and Adams have, but both offer more right now, especially when it comes to the quality of their route-running. And, in my opinion, Jones ranks above Abbrederis both now and in his potential. The addition of a third draftee at this position helps Thompson, but to my mind Janis is at best a practice-squader. Despite only going WR twice, I take my two against his three.
iv. Inside linebacker (TT 1 pick, W, 2): Slight advantage, Wade, but primarily because I drafted twice here and he only dipped IL once. We both got Bradford.
v. Cornerback (TT 1 pick, W 2): Advantage, Wade. In my opinion, both Huff and Reynolds are both substantially better than Goodson right now; and while Reynolds may not have as much upside, Huff has more.
vi. Outside linebacker (TT no pick but Hubbard in FA, W 1 pick): Big advantage, me. Attaochu is a stud. Hubbard is a good pickup, but he’s not in the same category
vii. Interior OL (TT 1 pick, W 2 picks): Slight advantage, TT, or push. Linsley may be a bit more ready to push Tretter now, and most don’t think there’s going to be a competition at RG this year. But IMO Jackson will be better than Lang and Dozier definitely has more upside than Tretter long term and can swing better to either guard or even RT if needed for injury.
viii. Offensive tackle (Ted zero picks, W 1). Slight advantage, Wade, because of numbers Duvernay-Tardif is a project, however, so its not a big difference.
ix. Tight end (1 pick each, plus Ted Thompson picks Lyerla up as UDFA). Advantage, Ted because of the extra body and because Rodgers does have a good deal of long-term upside. But potential is only potential.


3. Pick by pick analysis of the counterfactual (for those of you still reading and terminally bored):

DAY ONE:

Pick #21:
Trade down with Cleveland at #26, and pick up a third third-rounder (#83).

Had an extra third not been there, I would have picked Clinton-Dix. But I see no reason why the trade Cleveland gave Philadelphia one pick later wouldn’t have been available. And based on my beliefs, first, that Clinton-Dix is value level 2(a) not value level 1, and second, the quantity of value available in the top 100 this year, I would have seen this trade as a no-brainer. And I still do.

Pick #26 (from Cleveland):
Trade down a second time, with Dallas, all the way to pick #47. Pick up another third at #78.

I now have an extra second and a total of four third round picks.

Options available to GB if they had this pick:
i. I’m assuming that Clinton-Dix would have been gone, probably to Philadelphia. Given that the Cardinals traded up to #27 for Bucannon, I’m assuming there’s a good bet they’ve traded up to get him before #26. So the cost of the trade down is the top two safeties still on the board at #21.
ii. Players still on the board at #26 with Packer possibilities: Kelvin Benjamin, Jimmie Ward, Xavier Su’a Filo, Demarcus Lawrence, Joel Bitonio, Ra’Shede Hageman, Austin Sefarian-Jenkins, Marqise Lee, Kyle Van Noy, Lamarcus Joyner, Jordan Matthews, Weston Richburg, Stephon Tuitt, Trent Murphy, Timmy Jernigan, Jeremiah Attaochu, Ego Ferguson, Troy Niklas, Davante Adams. I like none of these at #26, so I’m trying trade real hard here. If I can’t find a trade partner, my choices, in order, would be: Lee, Ward, Jernigan, Attaochu, Van Noy. I’d put all these as the remaining 2(a) level picks, the rest at 2(b) or lower.
iii. Possible trading partners (the teams that actually traded up to somewhere between pick 26 and pick 53): Minnesota, Dallas, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, San Diego.
iv. Since my minimum price for a trade down from #26 is an extra top-100 pick, the Detroit, St. Louis, Philly, and San Diego offers would be rejected here.
v. Based on the “don’t trade inside the division” idea, I’m assuming the deal Minnesota offered to Seattle would not have been offered to Green Bay. And even it it was, I’m not interested in helping them improve on Ponder.
vi. I do believe, however, that the Dallas deal would have been available. Only reason it wouldn’t is that the trade was the result of Easley going earlier than expected and Jones panicking. But much as I dislike Jones, he’s a billionaire. And I have a hard time believing he’d panic that way. If he’s willing to jump up to #34 to take Lawrence, he’s offering already by #26. Therefore the trade down is available, and I take it.

Day one ends. No picks, Packer fans really grumbling at foregoing Clinton-Dix and missing both Bucannon and Ward, too. I’m happy, knowing I’ve six top-100 picks, when I started the day with only four.

Day one grade: Incomplete. Depends on what I do with the extra second and two extra third picks.

[b]DAY TWO:[/b]

Pick #47 (from Dallas):
Jeremiah Attaochu, OLB.

Really like this pick, though I fellow fans are grumbling really loudly now about ILB and S needs going unfilled. Going from a pass rush of Matthews and a bunch of guys, to a rotation including Matthews/Peppers/Attaochu -- serious pass rushing rotation from the outside. And if Nick Perry/Datone Jones improve, that’s even better.

Options available at #47:
1. Now gone from my wish list: Lee (okay this is really annoying; I wanted him more than any WR other than Watkins), Van Noy (this is really annoying, too, though if he and Attaochu had both been here, I would have had a tough choice), Richburg (annoying, but I wouldn’t have picked him this high anyway), Bitonio (same), Sefarian-Jenkins, Matthews, Tuitt. If any of the last three had been “best on board,” I would have been trying hard to trade down again.
2. Still on the board: Jernigan, Attaochu, Niklas, Adams, Mewhort, Landry, Marcus Martin, Borland, Gabe Jackson, Kareem Martin. Jernigan or Niklas maybe. Too early for rest.
3. Possible trading partners: Philadelphia, San Diego, Denver, San Francisco.

Consider the extra fourths offered by Philadelphia and San Diego, briefly, before deciding two trade downs enough, at least for now. There are players falling that I didn’t expect to fall, but not enough to think I’m going to get any of them at the picks being offered (#122 or #125). Denver and San Francisco deals not good enough to consider this early, even if offered.


Pick #53 (original Packer pick):
Trade down with Miami. Get another third (#81) and a mid-forth (#116).

I may regret this one. It depends on what happens before pick #78.

Options available at #53:
i. Gone: Jernigan, Niklas.
ii. Still on Board: Mewhort, Landry, M.Martin, K. Martin, Borland, Jackson.
iii. Possible trading partners: Denver, San Francisco, Jacksonville, Miami. Briefly consider Denver’s offer of fourth in 2015 draft, but isn’t enough.

Pick # 78 (from Dallas):
Gabe Jackson, OG.

Packer fans, loving Lang a lot more than I do, starting to do more than grumble. Me, I’m happy. Had I not been able to make the trade with Miami, I would have likely stretched for either him or Borland at #53. I love this guy.

I expect him to be pushing Lang hard for a starting job in 2015. And if, shudder, Lang gets hurt enough to miss several games before that, he might never get his starting job back.

Options available:
1. Gone: Stanley Jean-Baptiste, Mewhort, Landry, Fiedorowicz, Moses, M. Martin, Crichton, Preston Brown (really liked this guy, but I didn’t expect him going anywhere near this early), Swanson, Borland (%$^&).
2. Available: Terrence Brooks, Gabe Jackson, Will Sutton, Nix, K. Martin, Moncrief, Breeland, Stork, DaQuan Jones, McCullers, Telvin Smith, Yankey, Berhe, Ed Reynolds.
3. Possible trading partners: Houston, Jacksonville, Cleveland. Decide I don’t want to chance waiting three more picks.


Pick #81 (from Miami).
Trade down one last time, with Houston, and pick up the first pick of round four (#101) and a mid-fifth (#141).

And, I admit, I’m starting to think the earlier Miami trade might have been a bad idea. Technically, I’ve given up one of those top-100 picks I’ve been going on about so much. Still #101 is almost #100, and given some team’s odd picks, there is a good chance that fourth round talent will be left at #141. But I may end up paying. Count me apprehensive and worrying more than I expected about the rest of the third round.

Packer fan grumbling loud enough now that cops across Midwest are getting calls about excessive noise from their neighbors.

Options available at the pick:
i. Gone: Terrence Brooks (who I wouldn’t have picked here anyway).
ii. Available: See list for pick #78.
iii. Possible trading partners: Houston, Jacksonville, Cleveland.


Pick #83 (from Cleveland).
Donte Moncrief, WR.

Feeling a little better. I would rather have had the better route-running of Lee, Matthews, Landry, but they’re all long gone. But I’ve got speed and moves to work with here, much more than Adams. Immediately pencil him as #4 on the depth chart, but expecting to see serious challenge for #3 before season starts.

Options available at the pick:
i. Gone: K. Martin, Will Sutton.
ii. Available: See list for pick #78.
iii. Possible trading partners: Jacksonville, Cleveland. No, I think I’m done with the trade downs. Fans still annoyed with me big time, but some have cooled down a bit with this pick.


Pick #85 (original Packer pick).
DaQuan Jones, DT.

Grumbling gets louder again: “We don’t need more defensive line. We need ILB, and we really need a S!!” I thought a bit about Telvin Smith and a lot about Carl Bradford, but none of the safeties on the board other than maybe Nat Berhe are worth this high a pick, and I expect him to fall at least another round.

No, this is the pick where I’m seriously thinking DT help. I don’t want B J Raji as the default “best available” on day one.

In the end, it was two guys: Jones and Shade Tree. Since I was really shocked at how far the latter fell, I was willing to go this high for him.

In the end, though, I listened to those who emphasized getting immediate inside pass rush help to rotate with Daniels. And I did have Jones a bit higher on the board: McCullers was “potential”; Jones was solid “early third,” above not just McCullers but Kareem Martin and Will Sutton.

Possible trading partners here were just Jacksonville and Cleveland. No, I think I’m done with the trade downs. I’m not willing to give up this third for any amount of late rounders.

Pick #98 (compensatory pick).
Dakota Dozier, OL.

Before I decided on Jones with the previous pick, this or #101 is where I had planned to go with McCullers. But while I am still hoping to get a second DT, going back-to-back in the third doesn’t seem smart.

Plus Dozier is easily BPA on my board right now. I had him as late 2nd, right after Jackson. Plus this guy has serious attitude.

Tackle backup in a pinch, certainly guard possibilities, but I have him as a center. I know a lot of people are sold on Tretter, but Dozier is the guy I expect to be the starting center on day one. And his name minus the I makes be think of one of the most underrated blockers in Packer history making the most important block by a center in Packer history.

Personal day two grade: B+. Obviously, Thompson got Clinton-Dix and I have no safety yet. That has to knock the grade down. On the other hand, I think Jones is better than Thornton and Moncrief better than Adams, and I think Dozier offers far more at C than Rodgers offers at TE. Plus I’ve added Attaochu and Jackson. I definitely am liking this better than Ted’s draft at this point, but I’m not claiming greatness yet.

DAY THREE:

Pick #101 (from Houston).
Trade down with Cincinnati for picks #123 and #199.

Okay, I was wrong. I wasn’t done trading. After looking at my board overnight, I realize that many players I had as top 100 value on the board are still available and are going to be available throughout the fourth and probably well into the fifth. “Stay with the board,” the advice goes, and my board is saying “try to get another pick because you’re going to be able to get another high ranked player.” Number #199 is not much to get to drop 22 spots, but I’m really only dropping 15 because of the earlier trade with Miami.

Cincinnati made this deal with Seattle for pick #111. I believe they would have made it even earlier.

Pick #116 (from Miami).
Marqueston Huff, CB

While some might be happy that I’ve finally picked some safety help (because Huff can play safety), that’s not why I picked him. He’s purely a corner to me, and as a corner, I consider him late third/early fourth value, and the later in the draft I go, the more I’m BPA regardless of need.

And because I’m not as sold on Hayward as others, I see more need at corner than others do. At the very least I want some serious competition for the nickel, and if the Packers do lose Tramon after this year as some expect, Huff definitely has starter qualities. I almost went with Rashaad Reynolds, but I wanted more speed instead. This guy could end up being Sam Shields #2.

In the end, it would come down to ILB or CB with this pick, and I thought it more likely that one of two ILBs atop my board would be available at #121 than one of the two top CBs.

Pick #121 Pick:
Carl Bradford, ILB.

Turned out that I could have had either Huff or Reynolds here after all, as well as the second ILB remaining on my board, Telvin Smith.

But Bradford was the number one ILB. So this ended up being the easiest choice for me in the entire draft. No reason to entertain any trades seriously at this pick.

In my opinion, Bradford was Thompson’s best pick in the draft. Though most draftniks saw him as an OLB and ranked him accordingly, I’m with Mayock and have him as ILB all the way. And, as an inside backer, I had him as mid-second quality. If McCarthy/Capers use him right, this is Brad Jones’ replacement for week one.

As of this pick, I’ve now only got three draft needs left to fill: a safety, obviously, a tight end, and a tackle to seriously challenge Bahktiari/Bulaga/Sherrod. There are players out there left to fill one of the three, but I’m greedy and I’m looking for all three.

Pick #123. (from Cincinnati) Telvin Smith, ILB.

Pure BPA for me right here. Okay, he’s a tweener. And he’s from Florida State. And he’ll never be a long run starter, even if I’m wrong about Bradford.

But this dude offers a new dimension for the Packer defense, as long as McCarthy/Capers might try the “make it fit approach” they seem to usually take with tweeners.

Because that would be a mistake, and a waste of talent. Make him into a situational rover LB. He can blow up the run like a linebacker, and he can cover tight ends. He’s a sideline to sideline guy with great instincts, closing speed, and above average tackling ability. Don’t laugh, but his skill set reminds me of all the S/LB skills Charles Woodson showed between 2009 and 2011. Not his CB skills, his rover skills.

A tweener, but a third round quality tweener.

Pick #141 (from Houston).
Nat Berhe, S.

When Dontae Johnson went to the 49ers at #129, I started to worry big time. He had been the second safety still on my board, and there were only two left that I saw as worthy of anything more than a seventh round pick.

Fortunately, Nat Berhe was the one left. I had him above everyone except Clinton-Dix, Pryor, Bucannon, and Ward. I wanted this guy badly -- “film” showed him with great closing speed and proved to me that “serious tackling skills” and “defensive back” need not be an oxymoron anymore.

Unfortunately, after Johnson got snapped up, I didn’t expect him to last until #161 where I had planned to pick hi. The Lions alone, who I thought much in need of a safety, had three picks before then. So I picked him half a round earlier and counted myself lucky.

I think this guy will make everyone forget that they missed Clinton-Dix and the rest.

Did I say I loved this guy?

Pick #161 (original pick).
Pick: T. J. Jones, WR.

Pure BPA. Picks I had hoped would be here: Caraun Reid, Ed Stinson, Brent Urban, T.J. Jones, Ryan Grant, Devin Street, Dri Archer, Ross Cockrell, Lamin Barrow. Since all the others were gone, some long gone, this was an easy pick. Thought a bit about the Packers’ actual pick, Corey Linsley, but I actually thought he’d last at least into the late sixth, and Jones might go before the compensatory pick at #176. So I went WR for the second tie.

Apologies to Badger fans, but I had this guy above Abbrederis, and that was without remembering the latter’s concussion history. I tend to be prejudiced against the Golden Domers in football the way I am against Duke in basketball. But this guy means three guys should be fighting for that #3 WR spot, and that to me is a really good thing.

I might have gone with Ryan Grant if he had been available (I vacillated between those two a lot when making my board), but he was gone 19 picks before it never came up.


Pick #176 (compensatory pick).
Pick: Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, OT.

I thought about McCullers here, E.J. Gaines, Rashaad Reynolds, Ahmad Dixon, and Yawin Smallwood. Also possible was Tiny Richardson, who I never expected to fall this far, much less out of the draft entirely. Indeed, all of these had a fourth round or better grade from me. Could have gone with Abbrederis as Thompson did, but I’ve already picked two WRs.

In the end, it came down to McCullers and Duvernay-Tardiff. Both are players for which I think the sky is the limit. I went with Duvernay-Tardif primarily because I’d already spent one high pick on DT.

This guy is serious smart and serious take-no-prisoners in his attitude. In my opinion, the only reason he won’t be pushing Bahktiari/Bulaga/Sherrod for a starter position this year is he’s still too raw. But I do believe that unless there is major improvement by the starting tackles, this guy will have one of their jobs no later than opening day 2015.


Pick #197 (original pick)
Daniel McCullers, NT.

Zach Moore from Concordia (went to New England with very next pick) was now on my board, but I really thought he would last until late in the 7th or maybe to free agency. Plus, I had just spent the last pick on a developmental project, I didn’t want to spend two in a row that way. Might would have taken Logan Thomas, but the frigging Cardinals had screwed me on that plan (I had him on the 7th round board, too) by taking him two rounds earlier.

But I couldn’t pass on the Shade Tree yet again. I’d already passed on him five time in the last two rounds, and I’d seriously kick myself if some team ended up taking him after I’d pass on him yet again.

Raji, you better seriously ratchet it up. By my depth chart, you now have three tackles in front of you on the depth chart (McCullers, Jones, and of course Mike Daniels.) Fear for your job. Really fear for it.

Pick #199 (from Cincinnati):
Rashaad Reynolds, CB.

So much for Zach Moore. Damn you, Belichek!.

(To be honest, I would have tried to package this pick and #236 and use them in earlier attempts to gather extra top 100, and then top 150, picks. But that’s not allowed by the rules of my own simulation here, so I’m using them.)

Of the players still available here, my board has the following: Jay Prosch, Trey Millard, and J.C. Copeland at FB, Tajh Boyd and Jeff Matthews at QB, Rajion Neal, Henry Josey and LaDarius Perkins at RB, Colt Lyerla, Marcel Jensen, Rob Blanchflower, and Blake Annen at TE, Adrian Hubbard, Christian Jones, Shayne Skov, Matt Bullough, Derrell Johnson, Brock Coyle, Trevor Reilly, Howard Jones, Tyler Starr, and Morgan Breslin at LB, Richardson, Anthony Steen, Matt Armstrong, Seantrel Henderson, Sam Longo, and Brian Clarke at OL, Tevin Reese at WR, Dixon and Lonnie Ballentine at S, Anthony Johnson, Jackson Jeffcoat, Jamie Meder, and Kerry Hyder at DL, Rashaad Reynolds, Marcus Roberson, and Chris Davis at CB, and Craig Loston, Dion Bailey, C.J. Barnett, BooBoo Gates, Nickoe Whitley, and Pierre Warren at S.

Of these, most only had a seventh round grade. Of those who highest ranked are Prosch, Millard, Boyd, Neal, Lyerla, Hubbard, C. Jones, Skov, Richardson, Steen, and A. Johnson, Reynolds, Roberson, and Loston. For me, it comes down to Richardson (who had a third round grade), Reynolds (early fourth), and Jones (mid-fourth). Since I just chose a tackle with more upside (Richardson is a RT for me, Bulaga II in his ability/upside, but Duvernay-Tardif can play either side, I go with Reynolds even though I know now that he would have been available as a UDFA.


Pick #236.
Colt Lyerla, TE

In the end, this one came down to four players the Packers ended up picking in free agency anyway (Hubbard, Neal, Lyerla, and Perkins) and five they could have, but didn’t (Richardson, Jensen, Bullough, Steen, Skov). Since TE was the only need unaddressed, I went with Lyerla and his questions over Hubbard, Bullough, and Richardson and theirs.

Points to Thompson for getting him as a UDFA.

---

The thing that stands out to me is your use of the word "counterfactual" Maybe I misunderstood your explanation of the word but I would naturally assume that a word that has "fact" as part of its core would involve facts. None of your counterfactul analysis contained any facts. They are all opinions.

Although, the other part of the word is counter which means against so I suppose you could say that counterfactual really means "against facts" which could be construed as a fancy way of saying "it is my opinion" Which is all it is.

Your opinion certainly is as valid as anyone else's. It may even be more valid than mine since I don't know anything about the vast majority of the guys you would have drafted. Of course my opinion is that I trust that Ted Thompson knows a thing or two about drafting football players and he knows a hell of a lot more than I do so I will let his opinion trump mine. You may know a lot about conterfactual analysis but I really don't know how much you know about evaluating football players so you will excuse me if I allow his to trump yours as well.

Please don't take this post the wrong way. I certainly appreciate all the work you did in your two most recent posts. I do love the way you made it known what YOU would have done. It is much better than simply "he sucks this guy is better" which is all some people can muster. All I can say however is that you seem to have put forth A LOT of effort just to convince yourself you are right because I'm pretty sure it won't have much of an effect on most of the rest of us.

We will have to see.

Adding an OG and an OT, neither of whom will be ready to start in 2014 in your 5 top 100 picks gives me some pause. I don't see either of those guys being able to beat out our current starters in Bahktiara and Lang.

You clearly think they are inferior players, so I guess we disagree there, and with many of the other picks you've proposed.

I don't believe that you would have waited until round 6 to take McCullers. You would have at least taken him in round 3.

The thing about McCullers that really concerns me is he does so damn little with what he has. He's a low effort fall down kind of player who we wouldn't even be talking about if he were 3 inches shorter.

I wanted him in GB too, but more for the novelty of that size on the DL and the hopes we could do something with that. His pedestrian stats and low effort have always been a concern with me.

At 6-7 352, he batted down just one pass and had 0.5 sacks in 2013.

On reflection, I probably shouldn't have used the term counterfactual at all; its just a piece of jargon used by economic historians.

But essentially it is a "what if...?" historical scenario.

One looks at the past, sees what happened at times X, Y, Z, etc. But the professional historian doesn't just find X, Y, Z and report them; the professional historian puts them together in stories of cause and effect: Because Churchill did X, the English survived the Blitz (Y), etc.

But how do we know that X was the reason for Y (the old "correlation isn't causation" point)?

So the historian puts himself or herself in the position of the decisionmaker (here, I did this several times, putting myself in tTed's shoes, and then, separately, in the shoes of each GM that might be making a trade offer). Then, using the other information he/she might have about what players are wroth, what other teams might do, etc., we then ask "What would our decision-maker have done had the situation been X1 or X2 instead of the actual X?

You're right, all of this is belief and opinion on the historian's part. Worse, its not merely opinion about what was but speculation on what might have been but never was. To all this, I plead guilty as charged.

But that is what historians do. We pile up information about what happened and what we know about the relevant decision makers, and pull them together into a story that is informed by the "what if..." questions we asked along the way.

This is why you'll rarely see me using the word "facts" much less "truth". The interesting part of history is not the facts that we know (Ted picked Clinton-Dix; Churchill was a British leader during WWII), it is the stories of how and why they did what they did whether they made the right decisions. Did Churchill make the right decision by not disclosing that the German's code has been broken? Did Ted have better alternative choices?

But, yep, despite the length of my posts, everything I said other than a few statements about what this or that team actually did, is simply my opinion. "Cleveland did trade with Philly" is a fact; "Cleveland would have traded with Green Bay on the same terms" is a conjecture. An opinion.

Was I just trying to convince myself that I was right?. Oh, probably in part. But that by itself wouldn't be enough.

Because this is absolutely the worst time of year for me to be spending time on detailed historical analysis. (My final grades are still not done, and they are due tomorrow.)

I think the main reasons I went into such extended depth were three: (i) I couldn't understand the near unanimity both here and elsewhere that this was a very good draft. Those who give letter grades seem to all be B's and A's. Yet the draft looks to me like a D or and F. I've disagreed with people about individual picks a lot, but this year it was as if, other than uffda, I'm disagreeing with Ted and everyone else about virtually the entire Packer draft. So I wanted to investigate and see which of our opinions was better.
(ii) As a teacher at a 4-year college rather than a research university, I get surprisingly little opportunity to apply the tools of my trade to new question; I'm too busy prepping for and teaching class, doing the bullshit admin stuff, advising, etc. Usually any of this kind of fun stuff is relegated to the summer. But the draft caught me at a time when I was looking for an excuse to postpone the shit stuff.
(iii) and I hoped by putting all my cards on table, some of you would see my opinion as one worth agreeing with.

---

1. Jackson. I doubt he'd be given an opportunity to win a starting job in 2014. So you are right there. I think he would be an upgrade over Lang right now, even with the usual rookie problems, but that isn't going to happen.

2. Dozier. I wasn't drafting him as a tackle. I was drafting him as the replacement for Deitrich-Smith. Everyone is ready to see what Tretter can do as the starter. I'd rather have him earn the job after training camp and showing himself the best alternative. I think Dozier would make that competition serious, because I think he's capable of starting at C right now. (He's also ready now to play guard, so he's also potential competition with Lang/Jackson.) To me he's top 100 as an interior lineman, but he's not top 100 as a tackle.

I did want to get a tackle with one of those top 100 picks. I want serious competition for four of the five Packer OL starting positions and I especially wanted someone who will challenge Bahktiari. But the ones I wanted (James, Mewhort, Turner, and, especially, Bitonio) all went earlier than expected). So I resolved that I was going to get that tackle competition, if at all, in the later rounds, and that the starting LT is going to be either Bahktiari, Sherrod, or Bulaga.

---

As the draft fell out, no. But, based on who I thought would be available and when, I planned to take him as early as I took Jones.

But Jones did fall, and offers more in terms of past rush than McCullers. I didn't lose interest and desire for getting McCullers, but I dropped him out of the third round because the Packers had a lot of positions not yet filled in this draft, too many to go back to back DTs this early.

I literally thought about McCullers at every pick to come. But there were so many people of high value at other positions, each time I had to ask "another DT?" with "Not yet?"

I was actually probably closest to picking him at #123 instead of Telvin Smith. In Bradford, I had a guy I rated mid-second that was going to replace Brad Jones. Both Telvin Jones and McCullers offer something hard to find to the defense: one a rover back, the other a ManMountain cloger in the middle. In the end, I kept seeing all those passes getting completed in the 5-20 yard middle and went with Smith.

So you're right in part -- I was seriously considering McCullers for several rounds before I took him.

---

And pre-draft comments by you and others are part of why I didn't go McCullers when I was faced with choices between him and Jones at #85, Dozier at #98, and when I decided to trade #101 to Cincinnati.

---

Wade, it is going to be really interesting to see what he does in PIT. I got you... I felt the same way, because you never really know what some of these players are going to do at the next level. Thought he was worth taking a flier on.