You can't judge a GM solely on the big hits he had in FA or the draft. Ted stuck to his price point on Steven Jackson and look how that turned out, but does that specific example, and philosophy he utilizes routinely ever get recognized? Judge him on the totality - cap management, draft, UDFAs, who you retain, who you do and don't sign/draft, what you pay, etc.

As far as division titles, nobody on here cares about that. However, the division titles are a reflection of the team being consistent contenders so that in any given year they can be "the hot team" in January, such as for 55 minutes in the NFCG or the SB year.

Trying to "dominate" didn't work for the Saints with Ricky Williams, Bears last year, Broncos went for broke to make it a round less in the playoffs, Eagles dream team, Jarius Byrd on the Saints?, Dan Snyder, etc. The Packers on the other hand have been in contention annually. I'm not claiming Ted is flawless, but he has kept this team consistently relevant.

It's alllll Aaron Rodgers!! The other 52 players on the team, the practice squad players, and the entire coaching staff, administration, and everyone else associated with helping the Packers succeed are just along for the ride. Aaron Rodgers would have become the same quarterback he is today regardless of team, situation, or coaching. They should just change the Packers name to the "Green Bay Rodgers"? "Rodgers Packers"? "Aaron Rodgers is the best quarterback that has ever graced the NFL"? Errr, ummm, something like that! [sarcasm]

Trying to dominate doesn't always work. That is true.

I'd rather the team try to dominate and fall on their face, than not try.

(shrug)

---

So you actually believe NFL teams aren't trying to dominate their opponents? Some teams are just much better at actually doing so. Doesn't mean the others aren't trying. Some teams/players are just better than others. As I said, I think that's a ubiquitous goal. I'm sure teams like the Browns and others say and preach that they want to "dominate", along with a lot of other cliche' rhetoric. They likely just don't have the players and/or coaches to actually make that goal come to fruition. It's likely a personnel issue not an effort problem.

uffda - So I can understand your perspective a bit better, can you provide some examples (10 or so) of recent draft picks (not all first or second round) that you'd grade as an A or A+? And a general idea as to how many A players per draft are drafted in each round, and your general philosophy towards grading (does round selected factor into the grade or only performance?)

Your grades don't make a lot of sense to me, but that's mainly because I don't know what a D- or an A are on your scale. Always like trying to understand different people's perspectives, helps me understand why people disagree - Usually it's on subjective things, which I can easily live with.


In general/to nobody in particular, think it might help if people clearly state if a particular opinion INCLUDES or DOES NOT INCLUDE UDFAs. While success with UDFA's is certainly relevant when judging a GM's overall talent acquisition record, it isn't when you're talking about how the GM performs in the draft.

I thought so too Porforis; ‘til another poster changed my mind. I think UDFAs should count regarding drafting, which is as much about who a GM doesn’t draft as who he does. Marginal 7th rounders are identified via precision draft scouting and draft board assembly, which allows a GM to identify whether to begin to court likely UDFAs or to decide to draft them or not draft them. If the scouting and draft board are off maybe Hubbard is a mid round pick as all the draftniks said and/or Shields is playing for the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

IN ’99 Wolf advised Driver he’d be signed after the draft; but Driver made it known that the Packers better draft him or he’s going to the highest bidder. So Wolf decided to not take a chance and used the 7th he got for trading Glyn Milburn to Bears on Driver [Thanks Bears! LOL].

In 2010, just like dad in ‘99, Eliot had a special side project in Sam Shields. Eliot and Highsmith used their connections to confirm that Sammy’s sensimilla issue use was not indicative of his character and used their relationship w/ Sammy and Miami to bring him to GB. Ted Thompson judging that he’d get the opportunity to match any other UDFA offer for Sammy, strategically picked CJ Wilson instead of Shields. Knowing his huge upside, if Ted Thompson felt there was real competition for Shields he would have either traded for another 7th or picked Shields and tried to sign CJ afterward.
Ted Thompson not drafting Shields was a brilliant draft day decision and if we only look at the draft, Wolf gets credit for unearthing Driver, but Ted Thompson gets none for Shields. I don’t think TT’s relative draft day performance should be penalized for stellar UDFA management.

UDFA's have nothing to do with the draft. Two total separate entities with entirely different rules. Ted Thompson is good at UDFA's, I give him his due there. It's too bad he isn't as good at the draft as he is at UDFA's.

---

So if he drafts Shields in the 7th rather than recruiting him as a FA, he is better at drafting?? Shields would get a good grade as a late draft pick, no?

I disagree (🤣. ) If he can save a draft pick and still get the guy he wants, that is better. (According to me.)

Uffda, that reminds me, when are you going to post your analysis of all of TT's drafts? The analysis that represents so much more thought and work than any of us have put into assessing Ted.

---

clearly the two are subject to different rules, but this still all stems from the draft board process.