Restating the obvious, Dorsey learned from Ted Thompson

[ct]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/04/03/packers-prefer-compensatory-picks-over-unrestricted-free-agents/


Packers General Manager Ted Thompson has a formula for building his team, and he’s sticking with it.

Thompson believes in building through the draft, not free agency, and that includes acquiring more draft picks by declining to sign unrestricted free agents. In the NFL, teams that lose more in free agency than they acquire get compensatory picks, and the Packers’ moves in free agency this year indicate that they’re already thinking about acquiring compensatory picks for next year. The NFL doesn’t public the precise formula used to determine compensatory picks, but the simple version is that if the unrestricted free agents you lose are better, higher-paid players than the unrestricted free agents you sign, then the NFL will compensate you the following year with compensatory picks.

As the Green Bay Press-Gazette points out, even the one big name the Packers have signed this offseason, Julius Peppers, was a free agent because he was released by the Bears, not because his previous contract expired. That means he won’t count as an unrestricted free agent addition for the Packers for the purpose of determining their compensatory picks next year.

Last year the Packers lost two key players, receiver Greg Jennings and linebacker Erik Walden, as unrestricted free agents. And the Packers didn’t sign any unrestricted free agents last year. As a result, this year they’re getting an extra third-round pick and an extra fifth-round pick as compensatory selections.

This year the Packers have again not signed away any players whose previous contract expired, but they have lost four players, center Evan Dietrich-Smith, receiver James Jones, defensive lineman C.J. Wilson and offensive lineman Marshall Newhouse. That means the Packers will almost certainly do well when the compensatory picks are passed out a year from now.

Building through the draft and declining to overspend in free agency would be a smart strategy even if the NFL didn’t have a compensatory pick system to reward frugal teams. But when compensatory picks are added to the equation, it’s easy to see why Thompson declines to go after free agents. The Packers have been successful this way. It’s surprising more teams haven’t copied them.


May not be popular here but Dorsey is doing exactly the same thing Thompson and Ozzie Newsome are doing, stockpile draft picks and let UFAs get overpaid elsewhere.

[KCwolf]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It was two critical picks. A good GM will get 2 solid starters out of 2nd round picks. He essentially traded two of them for Alex Smith.



They didn't HAVE to draft a QB. Again, a GOOD GM would find a way to get a good QB without mortgaging his own draft strategy.

For all of the talk about how "garbage" last year's draft was, this year's draft is one of the BEST in recent memory.

And we're missing a 2nd round pick.

The Horror!! .... You must be one of those guys. I for one THANK GOD Matt Cassell is not our starting QB and instead of saying "we could've had ?? @ QB" We do have Alex Smith and are not looking for a QB this year.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

If that's your straw man, might as well fire Dorsey now because his first round picks will be the next Ryan Sims or Sylvester Morris.

Heh, no. I just don't think a 2nd rounder is as critical as you think it is. I'll take Alex Smiths play any day over the average 2nd rounder
Posted via Mobile Device

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by Messier

People here seem to have a problem with Dorsey, they say because last offseason doesn't look like this offseason. "Where's the continuity?!?" personally, I think they're just mad because we're not active this year, not that there's no continuity.

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either. I was never really a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by KCwolf

The Horror!! .... You must be one of those guys. I for one THANK GOD Matt Cassell is not our starting QB and instead of saying "we could've had ?? @ QB" We do have Alex Smith and are not looking for a QB this year.

I like Alex Smith.

It's not my problem people aren't smart enough to separate the player from the moves it took to get him.

Alex Smith needs complimentary players. The team's ability to get said complementary players is hampered by the fact that they gave up two high picks to get him.

That's just simple logic.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Heh, no. I just don't think a 2nd rounder is as critical as you think it is. I'll take Alex Smiths play any day over the average 2nd rounder
Posted via Mobile Device

We're counting on Dorsey's draft picks to be better than "average".

Again, if those two picks are just expendable, Dorsey's reign here is DOOMED.

If he's even remotely good at his job, those picks are EXTREMELY valuable.

You can't have it both ways.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by keg in kc

I think it's more about being upset because the chiefs haven't done exactly what people want. It happens every year, usually more with the draft. "I want (insert player name) but they didn't do that so I deem this (draft/free agency period/off-season) a complete failure."

I do it, too. I thought (and still think) Andy Reid was the wrong hire. I've been pretty vocal about that. They identified what they believed was the best available short and long term option at quarterback, which is something I should agree with philosophically, but I didn't like Alex Smith, so I wasn't happy there either.

I was never a dick about it but I wanted them to give Geno Smith a look. Which I believe they never did - not for a second. And if not him, then I would have gone Austin or Patterson. Fisher was a move I will never, ever like, short of the guy making the Hall.

Is that fair? Probably not, but that's the way it is. That's the way fans are. We aren't rational no matter how much we try to cloak our arguments in logic and stats. We believe that we know how things should be done, better than anyone else, be it owners or gms or other fans, and that's every bit as true for those of us who think the chiefs should never be questioned and everybody who does is an idiot as is it for the ones who thinks they're incompetent clowns and anybody who approves is a homer.

At the end of the day this is mostly emotion and we're mostly throwing tantrums because we didn't get the toys we want, or we're bitching out people who disagree with us, or we're slapping people on the back and hailing them as geniuses if they say something we actually like.

Pretty simple really. It's the internet and that's how things are done.

I agree with a great bit of this, but for me it has NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

It has everything to do with the apparent contradictions in their moves.

People can ignore it all they want but trading two picks for a QB and then saying "we're building through the draft" don't comfortably co-exist.

That's just simple logic.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It was two critical picks. A good GM will get 2 solid starters out of 2nd round picks. He essentially traded two of them for Alex Smith.



They didn't HAVE to draft a QB. Again, a GOOD GM would find a way to get a good QB without mortgaging his own draft strategy.

For all of the talk about how "garbage" last year's draft was, this year's draft is one of the BEST in recent memory.

And we're missing a 2nd round pick.

Instead of two good starters, it appears they got a franchise quarterback.

[crossbow]

So which 2nd round QBs were the Chiefs going to draft last year that were as ready as Alex Smith?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by O.city

Instead of two good starters, it appears they got a franchise quarterback.

How many franchise QBs win Super Bowls all by themselves while surrounded by garbage?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by crossbow

So which 2nd round QBs were the Chiefs going to draft last year that were as ready as Alex Smith?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Heh, no. I just don't think a 2nd rounder is as critical as you think it is. I'll take Alex Smiths play any day over the average 2nd rounder
Posted via Mobile Device

For all I've read on this forum about QB being the most important position on the team I guess I didn't understand. To me two 2nd round picks for a winning, starting QB is a steal considering that a lot of people would have giving up a draft and a half for RGIII.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How many franchise QBs win Super Bowls all by themselves while surrounded by garbage?

Are there not other ways to surround said qb with players?

I mean, we haven't had the draft yet, we don't know how players from last year will further develop in this system, etc and on and on. It's just too soon to know.

Maybe Alex smith under Andy Reid can elevate the players aroun him instead if vice versa. Half of last years says yes, half says no.

It just seems ironic that the talk around here is always "give up anything for a franchise qb", now they did and it was one the HC everyone loved hiring because he's the "qb" whisperer really wanted, and people are pissed at the compensation.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

Heh, no. I just don't think a 2nd rounder is as critical as you think it is. I'll take Alex Smiths play any day over the average 2nd rounder
Posted via Mobile Device

I would too if it were just 1 pick; however, we're talking about TWO #2's, and even then I dont have a problem IF after the Chiefs choose that course, they go "all in" and build on that decision rather than being contradictory with an oppisite approach this season, while saying its the correct approach to building a team. IF true, then trading away TWO #2's was wrong. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking a player. It has everything to do with them not being consistent to building the team in back to back seasons.

[BlackHelicopters]

Originally Posted by O.city

Instead of two good starters, it appears they got a franchise quarterback.

Whatever a "franchise"QB is , Alex Smith isn't

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I agree with a great bit of this, but for me it has NOTHING to do with what I wanted.

It has everything to do with the apparent contradictions in their moves.

People can ignore it all they want but trading two picks for a QB and then saying "we're building through the draft" don't comfortably co-exist.

That's just simple logic.

As Obi-wan said, it's really all about your point of view. I think it would be pretty simple to adjust that so-called logic - let's call it rationalize - and look at that move as their way of acquiring a long term solution at quarterback. He's their franchise quarterback, for all intents and purposes, and the only real difference from a rookie is that they skipped the 3 or 4 (or more) years of ups and downs that it takes them to develop.

So in one sense it is an immediate move, but on the other hand it's also still perhaps a long term investment made with those picks...

What it's not is Joe Montana on his last legs for a year or two. And while I've often said I'd gone with a guy like Jason Campbell, let's face it, that would've been a short term move, too. Whereas I think it's safe to say that Alex Smith may well be here as long as, if not longer than, most of the players drafted last year, including anyone they might have taken in the second.

I'm not saying I agree with it or like it or even that I look at it that way. I don't. What I am saying is that our brand of simple logic isn't necessarily the only one out there, and sometimes it can be beneficial to consider different angles, or recognize that our own may be skewed or biased.

At least, I know mine is, when it comes to most of the things this damned franchise does.