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.

[Marcellus]

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 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.

/CP

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by TEX

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.

What they have done has been consistent with all three GMs the last 30+ years.
IMO, anyone that doesn't think it is an ownership thing, has their head buried the sand.

The second round pick given up for Cassel and the first one for Alex Smith were also very high second round picks, unlike this years pick.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So they weren't following the Ted Thompson approach then.

People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Like BCD said - sometimes you have to deviate from the plan. It was desperate times for ownership.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Somebody gets it.

What? So you DO understand why they traded for Smith?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Like BCD said - sometimes you have to deviate from the plan. It was desperate times for ownership.

Of course.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

What? So you DO understand why they traded for Smith?

Yep, I absolutely do. Said as much several times. Have even said I think it was a good move.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

How many times do I have to type the obvious before I give up?

Some of you are too stubborn and/or stupid to acknowledge reality, so why would I continue to waste my time?

NO. You keep frickin changing your story. You don't get to keep saying people don't understand you when your point is a bad one.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

NO. You keep frickin changing your story. You don't get to keep saying people don't understand you when your point is a bad one.

Haven't changed my story one time. Sorry.

[Messier]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Alex Smith.

I guess I don't understand, when you say you like the move and make a post like this.

[Frosty]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

So they weren't following the Ted Thompson approach then.

People are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

BTW, I really don't buy the "Dorsey makes all the decisions" thing. I think Reid has a lot more say in personnel than they keep saying. It seems that some of the moves so far, especially last season, have been more "Reid Eagles" than "Green Bay Packers". I don't think you can point at Ted Thompson articles like this and say "that's what the Chiefs are going to do".

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

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.

I had a thought just occur to me, one that I'm a little surprised I've never had before.

(And let me first reiterate that I hate that we gave up two picks for Smith. That's always been my biggest issue with it...)

In all of the various and sundry discussions about drafting a QB on this board over the years, I can't count the number of times I've seen people say they would do "whatever it takes" to acquire a franchise quarterback. Just as an example, I've seen the Redskins lauded by certain proponents of a first round QB (myself included) for the RGIII move, because they, basically, had the balls to attempt something that this franchise is clearly not interested in (if not outright terrified of...) doing.

So let's say, as a theoretical exercise, that we're in the draft in may, round about pick 14, and the Chiefs see a quarterback that they really like on the board. Somebody they like so much that they're willing to offer the Bears a couple of picks to take their spot. Carr, Manziel, whoever. Doesn't really matter what the name is. They identify their guy, the guy they think can take over in, let's say 2018, Aaron Rodgers 4 years on the bench style, but they're sure he won't slip past the 14th pick.

Should they make that move? Because, you know, they'd be giving up more than one pick, and potentially crippling the franchise since they wouldn't have as many picks to use to put around him...

Basically, is the problem with the Alex Smith trade that we lost a 2nd round pick this year (let's consider him the 2013 second rounder - we couldn't have picked up both him and another player with that pick last year, so that pick doesn't change anything around him....), or is the problem that the trade was for Alex Smith himself?

If that makes any sense....

Bascially, if a quarterback is a position worth risking multiple picks for, as I think almost all of us in favor of a 1st round QB have said at times over the years, then why is the loss of a 2014 2nd round pick for Smith such an issue? Are we in 'trying to have our cake and eat it, too" territory here?

[philfree]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Alex Smith.

Brilliant reply. Besides trading for Smith who were our big time win now FA moves? Shaun Smith? Besides the Alex Smith trade I don't see a big difference from last year to this year. Perhaps they aren't meeting our expectations because we think we have a chance and we want them to push all their chips to the middle of the table.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Messier

I guess I don't understand, when you say you like the move and make a post like this.

His question was "What were the big "win now" moves they made last year?"

The answer is, obviously, Alex Smith.

The defense was largely the same cast of characters, so was the offense.

So who was responsible for a NINE WIN swing?

That's the definition of "win now".

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Frosty

BTW, I really don't buy the "Dorsey makes all the decisions" thing. I think Reid has a lot more say in personnel than they keep saying. It seems that some of the moves so far, especially last season, have been more "Reid Eagles" than "Green Bay Packers". I don't think you can point at Ted Thompson articles like this and say "that's what the Chiefs are going to do".

I would tend to agree.

These types of articles are mostly intended to make people feel better about what the Chiefs are doing right now.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by philfree

Brilliant reply. Besides trading for Smith who were our big time win now FA moves? Shaun Smith? Besides the Alex Smith trade I don't see a big difference from last year to this year. Perhaps they aren't meeting our expectations because we think we have a chance and we want them to push all their chips to the middle of the table.

I don't really care which approach they use. I would like to see them pick one and commit to it.