How Well Do The Packers Develop Players?

The Packers are a "Draft and Develop" team, but just how good are they at developing and retaining their players?

Since everyone seemed to love starting out with a worn out cliché, let’s start off with “For better or for worse”…

The Packers organizational philosophy has been “draft and develop” under general manager Ted Thompson.  While a lot of writers, including myself, have talked about the draft aspect (i.e best player available), I haven’t done much research looking into the development part of the Packers strategy. 

My initial impression that once a player is drafted, it behooves the Packers to optimize their investment (i.e. the drafted player) by developing him and if he becomes a good football player to do everything in their power to retain him.  Overall the Packers are one of the best teams in this regard, almost the entire roster every year has only played for the Packers and the majority were Packers draft picks as well.  The Packers also have been able to keep pretty much everyone they wanted; as I’ve mentioned in the past, the Packers feature one of the most lopsided salary caps in the NFL, with their top 10 players (Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Cobb, Sitton etc) making a huge proportion of the salary cap while the rest of the team is comprised of short and cheap contracts (essentially, the Packers have no “middle class” players)

Profootball Reference recently (I believe) introduced DrAV, which is essentially the CarAV of a player by the team that initially drafted him.   For instance Aaron Rodgers CarAV is the same as his DrAV since Rodgers has only played for the Packers while the DrAV and CarAV for Julius Peppers will be very different since Peppers has played for the Panthers, Bears and Packers.  I’ve included the 5 years between 2013 and 2009 to exclude players who haven’t been in the league for at least 3 years.  Naturally undrafted players don’t factor into these numbers as they were not drafted. 

Top 5 teams                                      Bottom 5 teams

Seattle                                  584       Oakland                               253

Cincinnati                            551       Chicago                                262

Green Bay                           567        New Orleans                      264

New England                     500        NY Giants                            268

Houston/Denver                451        NY Jets                                 296

 

The top of the list doesn’t come up with much surprise, the Seahawks, Bengals, Packers, Patriots and Broncos have been some of the strongest and most consistent teams in the NFL over the last 8 years (Houston is a little odd but maybe they just need a quarterback, which every other team in the top 5 has).  The bottom five is a little more interesting; while not many people would argue that Oakland has had a hell of a time drafting talent over the years, the Bears have also been absolutely dismal in drafting talent (so yes the Bears still suck).  New Orleans and the Giants are have been good and bad but overall have had terrible luck drafting and developing players. Overall, there does seem to be a high correlation between wins and high DrAVs, but having a low DrAV doesn’t automatically mean a team will be bad. 

Perhaps it’s more about retaining talent than just developing it; after all, what good is a player if a team spends all their time and effort to develop them only to see them produce for another team after they leave for free agency?  I looked at the ratio between DrAV and CarAV using the same dataset as before and the results are a lot more surprising.   

 

Top 5 teams                                                       Bottom 5 teams

Minnesota                           95%       Oakland                               65%

Cincinnati                            93%       Jacksonville                        75%

NY Giants                            92%       San Francisco                     79%

Washington                        92%        Philadelphia                       80%

Detroit                                  91%        Baltimore/Pittsburgh     80%

 

For comparison the Packers have a 90% AV retention rate, which was good enough for 6th.  While there this list does have some obvious teams, I would not have guessed Minnesota would have been the best at retaining it’s draft picks nor would I think anyone in their right mind would put either Washington or Detroit (two of the worst run franchises in the NFL) as great player retention teams.  New England is at 86% while perineal dumpster fire Cleveland is at 82%

So simply looking at the proportion CarAv versus DrAV doesn’t appear to have much correlation; in other words winning percentages doesn’t seem to correlate to how well you retain players.  My best guess is that the best teams have AV to spare as it were, for instance the two Packers players with the lowest DrAV/CarAV ratio are Marshall Newhouse and Davon House, both of whom were not priority resignings, so while it’s true that the Packers lost out on some production from these two players, the Packers also had players waiting in the wings that they felt had more production potential than either.  The New York Giants on the other hand have a high DrAV/CarAV ratio because they are one of the worst teams at drafting a developing players and thus make it easier to retain any player that is talented because so few of them exist on their roster. 

What I haven’t been able to figure out is if Minnesota is the best at retaining its own talented players, why do they always pick up free agent Packers?  

 

0 points
 

Comments (30)

Fan-Friendly This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.
TarynsEyes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 12:41 pm

It appears the Vikings have aided the Packers by retaining mediocrity at best with a high number of players via extention of rookie contracts and second contracts to already ceiling achieved others as like the Bears and Lions. This however does bring to question....Have the Packers dominated the division via the utter lacking of the front office of others in the division or because of Rodgers alone or is the D&D of the Packers and retention just enough better to create the mirage of it. Since the performance outside of the division the past 10 years pales somewhat in comparison of record. Not sure but just seems so. : )

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 01:26 pm

44-21-1 in the division
60-34 non division

Not as apart as thought but certainly not so good as to discount the weak division has aided/padded his overall numbers and their being so inept in the D&D/ retention the Vikings, Bears and Lions, how disparaging would it be had we not dominated the division or the benefit of Rodgers of late and Favre earlier back to 05'.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:46 pm

That's not something the Packers have much control over and it would be foolish to not take advantage of the weakness of the rest of the division.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 03:06 pm

I agree it's foolish to not take advantage of another's ineptitude but at the same time it opens the door of doubt to the worshipped D&D of Green Bay based on the success vs Division and non- Division opponents in the Thompson/McCarthy Era to date with two (2) Hall of Fame QB ' S back to back. : )

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:08 pm

This would be true for all teams all seasons; how much can success be attributed to positives on your team versus negatives on other teams? How do you factor schedule difficulty, opponent injury, or just plain luck into your assessment of a team? I would argue build a team that most efficiently takes advantage of the situations it finds itself in.

0 points
0
0
Bearmeat's picture

May 20, 2016 at 08:38 pm

Exactly. Look at the Patriots. Now, I'm not saying GB has been as good as the Pats since 05, because they haven't. But the Pats have dominated their division - and they've had a harder time with the AFCN and AFCW.

0 points
0
0
porupack's picture

May 21, 2016 at 12:36 am

Bearmeat says exactly my reaction, the Patriots legacy is pretty much gifted by a weak division of dysfunctional teams (Jets, Dolphins) and unlucky Bills), and season after season, its somewhat a shoe-in to the post season.
But patriots are impressive in their use of FAs, contrasted with sometimes bad drafting too. 10 years ago, I thought they were a D&D team, but seems that they really changed philosophy.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

May 21, 2016 at 07:05 am

I am starting to believe the difference between the Pats and the Pack is in how they philosophically view the locker room culture.

The Packers look at the locker room culture as a delicate and fragile balance that is created by the sum of the players themselves. It must be nurtured and tended lest it be disrupted and spoiled- what you put in is what you get out of it. TT goes to great lengths it seems to make sure the personalities in the big room work together.

The Patriots look at the locker room culture as a rigorous and regimented construct that is created by the HC. It is strict and unbending, and if you do not conform, you are expelled. You get in or you get out of it. Belichick is so sure he will not lose his locker room, that he doesn't care about the players' personalities when they walk through the door. You are going to conform or GTFO.

I think this is where the two teams really diverge, and it accounts for the variance in FA acquisition to a great extent.

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

May 21, 2016 at 09:20 am

@Taryn: ~I open the "door of doubt" every time I attempt to comprehend your posts.

0 points
0
0
TarynsEyes's picture

May 21, 2016 at 06:14 pm

Perhaps it's because you never had to open a door with so many always and easily opened for you...one way thinking.

0 points
0
0
TKWorldWide's picture

May 21, 2016 at 10:08 pm

Shall I compare thee to a (summer's) door? For whence upon opening it through my own merits, effort, and talents, I find that a scoundrel has once more foisted upon me the slings and arrows of outrageously constructed, convoluted and needlessly compounded caricatures in an attempt at literary excellence both forced and farcical; much sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or could it be something? Let he (or she) among you who is without guilt open the first door, while casting the first stone at he (or she) who liveth in a glass house(th).

0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 22, 2016 at 08:06 am

Hahahahahaha. I think I just peed myself?!;)

0 points
0
0
Pack88's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:44 pm

The sample size is too small! (only 5 years). First rule of statistics is smaller the sample more skewed the results. Try a 10 years and you will have a better sample. also bad teams that have recently started winning are almost always full of drafted players so in the short run they also look good. More data is needed for this to be very valid!!!

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:48 pm

I agree but I simply don't have the time to compile 10 years of data. I also think 5 years should be fairly statistically strong considering that's about 50-60 players total for team.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:58 pm

The issue is, in part, a function of ownership and management as well. What's the life expectancy of a GM in the NFL? Over 10 years, most teams will change once, I might argue. Changing GMs changes many aspects of what teams do. I think 5 years makes plenty of sense as you're likely to capture a snapshot of the current management (the one that matters) and their tendencies.

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

May 20, 2016 at 02:57 pm

CarAV, DrAV... Please define?

Also, there is nothing inherently plus or minus in retaining your own draft picks. There is something inherently plus or minus in retaining either achieving or underachieving draft picks. Is this something that is taken into account by CarAV or DrAV? Again, what are these metrics?

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 20, 2016 at 03:01 pm

"Also, there is nothing inherently plus or minus in retaining your own draft picks. "

Very true. Several commenters here get after the Packer brass for resigning so many of its own players. I think this number in correlation with salary cap space, avg. draft position, or W/L percentage over the time period would help...which is what we naturally did when we looked at the top of the list (attached a notion of whether or not the teams in question were perennial playoff teams). I think in and of itself, the player retention numbers don't mean a lot.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:01 pm

I'd probably argue that more people have issues with the packers not signing free agents rather than retaining their own.

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:00 pm

Both CarAV and DrAV are metrics designed by pro football reference to measure player production on a seasons basis. Another way of thinking about it is it's similar to PFFs old player grade but on a more macro scale. DrAV is CarAV but only when the player is still on the team that drafts him. In other words the ratio between the two should be how good your team is at developing and/or retaining players. This doesn't actually seem to be the case as I mentioned in the article

0 points
0
0
Oppy's picture

May 21, 2016 at 06:56 am

Thank you for the clarification Thomas!

0 points
0
0
holmesmd's picture

May 22, 2016 at 08:29 am

What do the terms stand for?!

0 points
0
0
sonomaca's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:00 pm

Wait a minute. The flip side to development is error recognition. Some GM's are too quick to cut, others hold on to a loser too long.

How well do you scout your own roster?

0 points
0
0
hobbes's picture

May 20, 2016 at 05:05 pm

This is partly the answer but it's also how stocked you are at any given position. For instance if Brett Hundley goes on to have a pro bowl career it will be likely with another team. Now I don't think anyone would fault the packers for letting a pro bowl qb go when you already have a HOF qb on the roster but in a sense the Packers are hopefully developing Hundley for no long term benefit.

0 points
0
0
Ustabeayooper's picture

May 20, 2016 at 09:09 pm

Some points that should be considered are that the packers usually pick late in the round. The Vikings have almost always picked in or near the middle of the draft order and until recently have always picked 10-15 spots before the packers. Another factor is the propensity for TT to acquire more draft picks thru the compensatory draft system and his willingness to trade down to acquire more picks. Eventually, as your overall rooster gets stronger, the ability to retain newly drafted and second contract players becomes more difficult. A final point is the ability of the packers to find undrafted talent and develop them into members of the team. Draft and develop isn't limited to drafted players. These hidden gems come at the expense of drafted players and will skew your percentages regarding retention of drafted players.

0 points
0
0
dobber's picture

May 21, 2016 at 05:41 am

"The Vikings have almost always picked in or near the middle of the draft order and until recently have always picked 10-15 spots before the packers."

True, but I would argue that aside from round 1, that position doesn't mean very much as preference and need take over pretty quickly. Just look at this year's draft as an example: how many guys with "first round grades" lasted well into the second day? Drafting players at the top with clean injury records is becoming more important (which probably helps the track record on D&D a little). The Packers were also drafting for scheme fit...moreso than we've seen them do in recent years. That will help these numbers, too.

0 points
0
0
Ustabeayooper's picture

May 20, 2016 at 09:09 pm

Some points that should be considered are that the packers usually pick late in the round. The Vikings have almost always picked in or near the middle of the draft order and until recently have always picked 10-15 spots before the packers. Another factor is the propensity for TT to acquire more draft picks thru the compensatory draft system and his willingness to trade down to acquire more picks. Eventually, as your overall rooster gets stronger, the ability to retain newly drafted and second contract players becomes more difficult. A final point is the ability of the packers to find undrafted talent and develop them into members of the team. Draft and develop isn't limited to drafted players. These hidden gems come at the expense of drafted players and will skew your percentages regarding retention of drafted players.

0 points
0
0
Since'61's picture

May 20, 2016 at 10:43 pm

I look at it this way, 10 out of the 11 starters on offense have played only for the Packers. It would be 11 out of 11 if not for the recently Cook at TE. On defense 9 out of 11 starters have only played for GB. It would be 10/11 if Raj stayed with the team. I'm counting Guion and Peppers as starters when in reality they are in rotations and when not on the filed they are replaced by players who have only played for GB, specifically Perry and Pennel or draft picks. This combined with their consistent playoff appearances tells me that the Packers develop their players well. Add in the fact that the Packers usually draft at 24 or higher and the Packers are doing an excellent job of developing their players. The Packers have made the playoffs 8 out of 10 seasons with TT and MM. That's a good, consistent sample size. Thanks, Since '61

0 points
0
0
Thegreatreynoldo's picture

May 21, 2016 at 08:33 pm

61, what you wrote is all well and good, but I cannot say I found it persuasive. I would say that Whitt is able to develop CBs. Perry at Safety has been so-so, IMO. Burnett took forever to play well (he was supposed to be able to cover but never has been good at that) and Dix is coming along. I cannot give a ringing endorsement for our LB or DL coaches. Lot of talent with only 2 pluses so far. Clearly the coaches are doing well with the OL. Not a lot of talent recently for the TE coaches to work with, and now we have a new guy. TT has given the WR coaches lots of talent to develop, with good results outside of last year. RB has been adequate. I think Clements and MM are good QB coaches.

0 points
0
0
Dan Collins's picture

May 21, 2016 at 03:23 pm

Perineal dumpster fire? Sounds painful.

0 points
0
0
Rossonero's picture

May 21, 2016 at 03:25 pm

Vikings GM Rick Spielman said last year they are basically copying the Packers draft and develop philosophy. I don't have the video clip, but Spielman was very honest about it.

0 points
0
0