If Player ????? falls to ???? (this pick) GB should trade up

[Jaegybomb]

6 minutes ago, Hands said:

Right now GB is guaranteed a top ten talent because of QBs that will be picked. Why trade up if you are getting one of the top ten guys?

If Allen fell to 7? Because the difference between Allen and Burns is insane.

[incognito_man]

26 minutes ago, Hands said:

Right now GB is guaranteed a top ten talent because of QBs that will be picked. Why trade up if you are getting one of the top ten guys

Because sometimes there's 8 tier 1 guys who are better than a tier 2 + tier 4 player

[mightybk]

19 hours ago, moose said:

This is the year you need to find out about Spriggs.

We've had Spriggs for 3 years. He is not worth a 4th year. 

[packfanfb]

Not a fan of trading up this year unless it's a spot or 2 for Oliver. We need at least 4 day 1-2 picks this year to get 4 good prospects. A lot of holes yet on this team. 

[cannondale]

8 hours ago, ThatJerkDave said:

I agree with not throwing around first rounders.  I do want to know why you think that Lowry would be gone, do you think someone throws big money his way? I think that he is a guy we can retain for a reasonable salary.  If we draft his replacement, or it comes from Lancaster, Adams, or a new draft pick, then that replacement is already in hand, and not a big deal.

I also don't think that both Bulaga and Spriggs are goners.  Interesting note, I was looking at the roster, and all of our tackles entered the league at age 20 or 21, except Gerhard de Beer.  I think both are gone IF we draft a RT, or Billy Turner plays RT and not G.  I also can't help but think that we can get Spriggs signed in a similar way that we signed Lane Taylor.  Sign him for what looks expensive, but as the next round of FA hits it becomes more palatable.  

Do you consider Lowry a starter ? He is gonna get starter money from someone. Same with Spriggs. They won't be bargains. Both guys up for their second deals where they have to make their money for life. Still think anyone thinking Bulaga is worth a contract just wants to ignore putting draft capital into the position. Depends how much duct tape is holding him together but I'm not seeing it. The wild card is if Siragusa takes over RG and Turner can handle RT. Still need a swing guy though. You can run but you can't hide. There are still holes in the roster

Don't forget Clark will be looking for $100 million soon. After some terrible draft years, we need some blue chippers on rookie deals, hence exercising both First Rounders IMO. 

[incognito_man]

23 minutes ago, cannondale said:

Don't forget Clark will be looking for $100 million soon. After some terrible draft years, we need some blue chippers on rookie deals, hence exercising both First Rounders IMO

What are better odds? Getting one blue chipper from 12 and 30 or using them both on say QW?

[Jaegybomb]

They've been asking that question for decades. Even put together a value chart and ****.

[cannondale]

26 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

What are better odds? Getting one blue chipper from 12 and 30 or using them both on say QW?

Maybe I used "blue chipper" too loosely. I'll take my chances going ER and OT or DL and ER or similar over QW

Here's another scenario. We trade both Firsts for QW and he busts. Just sayin.

[JaireAlex]

2 hours ago, Hands said:

Right now GB is guaranteed a top ten talent because of QBs that will be picked. Why trade up if you are getting one of the top ten guys? For me the 30th pick is the trade or stay pick. According to multiple scouts, there are between 23-25 players with first round grades. Will Green Bay trade up from 30 to grab a first round talent or trade down for more choices in the second or third rounds. According to the same scouts...there are 60 players with 2nd round grades and 66 with 3rd grades. The strength of the draft is in those two rounds of talent that amounts to 126 players. I think Gutsy trades down that 30th pick and gets an offensive lineman, TE, WR, Edge, and RB with his next 5 picks. 

The top ten or top tier on one board is very different from another team's board.

Packers generally want to get Edge, DL, OT, or CB with that top pick. There's no CBs worth a one. The top three last year are better than Grabby Williams. And we just don't need more top investment there. As to OT, there's Dillard only that fits GB profile in round one and I'm not sure he's worth a top twelve. This DT and Edge class is loaded. very good ones will fall, and at least in my opinion -- not so humble -- only one worth the 12 that will be there (Oliver is almost surely gone), but I don't know how the FO feels about that.. We will have some great picks at 30 for DL   that will be good value. .

 It's not last year's class. DK Metcalf is not at all a GB receiver. The Devins are a very high price for a posiition of low value. The TE's are way to rich for this FO. And there may be two or more that have as high a ceiling as Hock or Fant in round two or three. It's very deep. We can develop one because we have starters. Do we want an RB at 12 -- a top ten talent?

Most our starters are set really except safety so this is for rotational and future starters, which are generally round two or three types. Anyways, I'm not for using more picks even for Bosa and Q Williams, and there's later talent that has ceilings higher than Allen imo. I have one round one receiver for GB (not Harry or Butler) around the twenty five spot that will complement what we have. A lot of really great talent between pick twenty and pick fifty in this draft.

It's not like 2009. This team needs more, not fewer picks, in a deep draft. It needs upgrades everywhere, and future starters. One stud on the DL ain't gonna fix her.

[Jaegybomb]

You guys ramble a lot but don't really answer the question.

[CWood21]

On 4/6/2019 at 4:10 PM, squire12 said:

Was thinking of what price would posters here to willing to pay to move up for specific players?  Certainly "falling" can have various meaning based on how you view/rank each prospect.  With GB drafting 12th (highest first round pick in 10 years), what who and what price would you pay to move up for the following players?

I'm generally a big believer that trading up more than a few spots is a waste of resources.  Especially when most teams are armed with so few picks in the meat of the draft.  The draft is about number of attempts as much as the quality of the picks.  That being said, I think it's hard pressed to find a trade for another team whose trading down.  I mean, if you were say the Jets and Nick Bosa falls to them at 3, why would you accept a "fair" trade when there are half a dozen teams who could make a similar package who probably pick higher than 12?  But putting out that issue, here's what the TVC would say the Packers could get for a combination of picks.

12+30 = 4
12+44 = 6
12+75 = 8
12+114 = 11

What kind of player has to be available to move up to 4?  At the very least, one of Quinnen Williams or Nick Bosa would need to be available, and even then I'd probably be hesitant to give up that much.  Don't really see any reason to move up once those two are gone.  You're getting fairly similar graded prospects.  I might be willing to move up 2-3 spots to ensure we get a certain guy, but I don't see the Packers moving up past Buffalo at 9.

[Jaegybomb]

So prices are inflated because the team trading up is often more invested in the trade? I could see that.

[Jaegybomb]

I think we are kind of moving away from that in recent years though. Teams are becoming more fluid with trading and realizing that there are tons of spots where "even" values are mutually beneficial.

[CWood21]

22 minutes ago, Jaegybomb said:

I think we are kind of moving away from that in recent years though. Teams are becoming more fluid with trading and realizing that there are tons of spots where "even" values are mutually beneficial.

Have we though?  We've only had 2 trades where a team outside the top 10 moved into the top 10 that wasn't trading up for a QB.  In 2016, the Titans deal their FRP (#15), 3rd round pick and a '17 SRP to move up to 8 to select Jack Conklin.  In 2016, the Bucs dealt a 4th round pick to move from 11 to 9 in order to select Vernon Hargreaves.

[ThatJerkDave]

2 hours ago, cannondale said:

Do you consider Lowry a starter ? He is gonna get starter money from someone. Same with Spriggs. They won't be bargains. Both guys up for their second deals where they have to make their money for life. Still think anyone thinking Bulaga is worth a contract just wants to ignore putting draft capital into the position. Depends how much duct tape is holding him together but I'm not seeing it. The wild card is if Siragusa takes over RG and Turner can handle RT. Still need a swing guy though. You can run but you can't hide. There are still holes in the roster

Don't forget Clark will be looking for $100 million soon. After some terrible draft years, we need some blue chippers on rookie deals, hence exercising both First Rounders IMO. 

I do consider Lowry a starter.  A real quick look at Spotrac lists the 64th DL at 3.75 million and the 96th is making 2.2 or so.  Lowry is set to make 2.1 and change this season, ranking him at #99 for all defensive linemen.  How much do you think he will cost on a new contract? I don't have a problem signing him to a mid-tier starter's salary if we don't have a ready replacement in house (whether that is Adams, Lancaster, or someone else).

I think Daniels is like Morgan Burnett.  A good player, but not one that I would sign to the prohibitively expensive third contract that stars get.

I am inclined to think that Bulaga is in the same boat as Daniels, but I think that Bulaga is a better OL than Daniels is a DL.  I am hesitant to spend high end draft capital on the offensive line, because I believe that the in-house options are capable this season, and moving forward.  I would like to add depth, but I don't think that necessitates an early pick.

 

I also want to make it clear that I agree that we should make selections with both first rounders and our second as well.  Always add more talent, and this year we have the chance to add more than we have in a long time.