Lose for draft choice?

[Half Empty]

Not sure if it was actually a suggestion to start a new thread or poking fun, but I posted the following elsewhere:

With this being the first year in a long time that the topic even comes up, I was wondering about how the fate of the Packers, or any other team, for that matter, have been/would be changed by a higher draft position in a given year. Of course, there's no way of knowing if the optimal pick would have been made, anyhow (think Tony Mandarich), but which in which year do you think which team(s) would have made significant strides by losing?

 

[Cheesedog]

I'm a big believer in playing for pride. It helps the team in the long run and shows you which players and coaches will still give 100% even if they aren't guaranteed a playoff spot or decent record.

I understand the reasoning for wanting a higher draft position. But, two of the most successful franchises of the past 5-10 years (Patriots, Seahawks) are always bottom round drafters and it doesn't seem to affect them much. The key is talent and player evaluation. TT over the past 5-6 years stinks at it regardless of his "reputation". He clearly does not have a good enough scouting department to turn picking in bottom of rounds into decent players.

Clay Matthews was the last first round pick by TT who made it to a pro bowl. And he was drafted in 2009. And consequently was the last first round pick who really played like one for any length of time.

Do I agree in theory with a higher pick being better? Sure, even TT could luck into picking a real difference maker with more good players to choose from at a higher pick. But I don't have any faith in him or his scouting staff that he would be able to take advantage of a higher pick anyway. He would probably just frustrate us by wasting that pick on an over rated player. Besides, you give TT a top 15 pick and he'll just trade it to stock later round picks anyway.

 

[57packer]

I'm not big on losing to improve draft position, but I will say that if you aren't going to make the playoffs than at least a higher pick takes away some of the sting. As a fan it kind of adds some extra spice to the off-season.

It's an interesting topic in the sense that I wonder at some of the missed opportunities for some teams who have won meaningless games at the end of the season. Wasn't it the Packers back in the day who won a game or two at the end of the season and lost on the chance to select Troy Aikman. They took Tony Mandarich instead.

 

[diesel]

I'm not big on losing to improve draft position, but I will say that if you aren't going to make the playoffs than at least a higher pick takes away some of the sting. As a fan it kind of adds some extra spice to the off-season.

It's an interesting topic in the sense that I wonder at some of the missed opportunities for some teams who have won meaningless games at the end of the season. Wasn't it the Packers back in the day who won a game or two at the end of the season and lost on the chance to select Troy Aikman. They took Tony Mandarich instead.

Yes we did. Although in fairness, Aikmen made public if drafted by Packers, he would refuse to play here

 

[Crease Creature]

poking fun,

never

I was just thinking about something slightly off topic, but both of you guys have touched on it: having a better pick and completely whiffing on it. The 2001 draft came to mind, where Sherman traded up from 17 to 10 just to take Jamal Reynolds (and I would have taken just about any other player from the first round), and then in the second round took Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers.

But the most recent season where you could have made the case for dropping another game or two was the 2008 season where we went 6-10, but when you look at that next draft (2009) there's not one single player that it would have made sense to go get. Raji was taken at #9 and he was gonna be their guy the whole way. I remember people being surprised that we let Michael Crabtree go by.

 

[Cheesedog]

2007 is a good example of higher pick not meaning much. GB had #16, they took Justin Harrell. Remember him? Ya I don't either. The bottom half of the first round that year was stocked with guys who ended up Pro Bowlers.

2006 was AJ Hawk at #5
2009 pick #9 was Raji. Who was decent but never played like a top 10 pick

Those are the closest comparison I can get to why a higher pick isn't necessarily better.

 

[rpiotr01]

I understand the reasoning for wanting a higher draft position. But, two of the most successful franchises of the past 5-10 years (Patriots, Seahawks) are always bottom round drafters and it doesn't seem to affect them much. The key is talent and player evaluation. TT over the past 5-6 years stinks at it regardless of his "reputation". He clearly does not have a good enough scouting department to turn picking in bottom of rounds into decent players.

The Seahawks are an interesting example. They've done OK here and there over the past couple years, but they're actually following a similar pattern as GB, just a couple years later. Whereas for GB the prime years of drafting were from 2005-2009, and that's where our SB core came from, SEA's prime years were 2009-2012. That's when they got their entire core and are reaping the benefits now. Take a look at their drafts from 2013-2016. At least as ugly as ours, maybe worse. I mean, their first pick in the 2013 draft is currently fighting James Starks for reps!

 

[ski]

Honest answer ...not yet. You still have a shot at the playoffs. One more loss makes it real tough and 2 would be doubtful. Very possible it comes down to the last game at Detroit.

 

[TW]

Some teams will play guys who they know can't win games for them. They'll tell you it's to judge talent, but we all know the reason. When you're down to the wire, what good would a win do for the Browns? They're by far the worst team in the league, but if possible, they will continue to try to win. To them, winning one game would be saving face.

Either way, they get the top pick in the spring.

The Packers.... pick #12 or #26.... not that much of a difference. It's all a question of reading talent, and making it work.

 

[Dubz41]

never

I was just thinking about something slightly off topic, but both of you guys have touched on it: having a better pick and completely whiffing on it. The 2001 draft came to mind, where Sherman traded up from 17 to 10 just to take Jamal Reynolds (and I would have taken just about any other player from the first round), and then in the second round took Robert Ferguson over Chris Chambers.

But the most recent season where you could have made the case for dropping another game or two was the 2008 season where we went 6-10, but when you look at that next draft (2009) there's not one single player that it would have made sense to go get. Raji was taken at #9 and he was gonna be their guy the whole way. I remember people being surprised that we let Michael Crabtree go by.

Actually that was Wolf's last draft. All the accolades Wolf gets we forget his T-Buck pick as his first choice as GM. His last draft was a stinker too:

1 Jamal Reynolds DE
2 Robert Ferguson WR
3a Bhawoh Jue CB
3b Torrance Marshall LB
4 Bill Ferrario OG
6 David Martin TE

The Mandarich pick stands out, BUT he was the consensus pick in the League. We won a meaningless game vs Arizona the last week to fall to second in the draft.