It matters to us. It matters in the context of the 2009 season, having endured the "fiasco". It matters because Ted got a bad grade in his 1st draft initially, in the same year that his contemporaries in the division got good grades.

It matters because those that are critical of Ted tend to cling to that initial grade, while those that are more understanding tend to look at the result 4 years later.

It matters because Ted went "need" this year, contrasted with "BPA".

It matters because the Green Bay Packer fanbase, and for that matter, the entire NFL fanbase...is seeing some good news in the media about the Packers in the off-season, contrasted with either silence or controversy for the past year.

Like Casserly just said on NFLN even as I am typing this, it gives us some confidence that it would appear that "we" know what the hell we are doing.

I want this grade to stand 3 years from now, of course, and fully recognize that in the big scheme of things, that is far more important, but I don't have that option available to me right now. I do like what I have, hope-wise.

:wav:

TTs first draft was actually pretty good, we got a franchise QB and a prowbol safety, also Poppinga wasn't too bad.

---

I think what he meant was the media gave Ted Thompson a bad grade the day after his first day... and gave all of the other NFC North teams a good grade.

Which now it shows that the media is often wrong...
Ted Thompson in 2005 got a franchise QB (who should of been a probowler this last year IMO), a prowbol safety, a super talented very high potential WR (I'm talking about Terrence Murphy who got a career ending injury which that's part of the game :blackeye: but he clearly would of been a good pick if he had said healthy... he looked like Jennings has but a little bit more raw.....), Poppinga who has done a nice but not veryly good job starting and Montgomery (who's best fit might be 3-4 DE.. I mean he plays like a small DT and that basically what 3-4 DE is....)

While the Bears got QB Kyle Orton (since traded) and a lot of busts, that year...

While the Lions got DL Shaun Cody (since left via FA) and a lot of busts, that year...

While the Vikings got WR Troy Williamson (since traded) and DE Erasmus James (since traded) and a lot of busts, that year...


I still think the day after the draft, that some people in the media had the Packers having the worst draft grade that year....

That's kinda of why I'm afraid with the Packers getting the highest grade this year....

---

While I am excited (can you tell) about winning the Draft/NFC North off season championship, I will be SUPER excited if we can win the one that counts; The regular season title.

Draft grades 2 days after the draft are meaningless.

I think these draft grades are based on a lot of things, with one of the more influencial aspects being the way the grader views the GM/VP of football operations/draft guy. For instance, because everyone knows that Belichick is an evil genius, he is automatically given more license in his drafting than, say, Josh McDaniels, the new guy on the block.

Ted has been criticized for being a little off-beat with the draft gurus in the past. They are now seeing that Ted is crazy like a fox, that he knows more about what he's doing than they do. And, they are beginning to adjust their relatively meaningless grades accordingly. I'm excited about the good grade insofar as it promotes a positive attitude within the organization. the players hear these grades, and hopefully they can be motivated by them.

---

A positive draft grade helps build the excitement and momentum going into the season.

Especially one year after our PR backs were against the wall.. it makes all the difference in the NFL world.

But as the tempered one himself (IM) noted.. we still have to convert that excitement and momentum unto the field in terms of wins.

---

Exactly. These draft grades are a PR win, and considering how pissed off and vocal a contingent of Packers fans have been, that's an important thing.

---

You admitted it.

I'd love to see others admit it too. I've been called "stupid" on this board (although indirectly) because I don't follow the BPA religion. Yes, there is a place for BPA, but there is also a place for drafting needs. I give Ted Thompson a thumbs up for drafting needs in '09. '05-07, yes, draft BPA. But '08 should have been BPA/Needs and '09 should be Needs, as it was.

---

I think you don't go strictly on any one thing... I think it should be a mix of BPA and need... that being said I think he still went BPA for the most part but it just happened to also be need that where the BPA.

Raji was a need pick over Crabtree IMO. But Matthews though the CB were BPA IMO but also needs (other than the FB wasn't a need). After that I think it was need....

---

Draft grades don't mean a gosh darn thing.

---