Jump to content

Possible Trade Partners for Pick 30


Brit Pack

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, GWH87 said:

Why wouldn’t we be entertaining the option to trade up to 20/21 with either the Jags or Philly?

It could be the desired landed spot to land one of the last “Top 4” WR.

I know the mantra don’t get hopes up for that based on history, however Gute has shown his like for trading up recently and this range wouldn’t mean giving up the farm in this draft or future ones either. Eagles and Jags need DBs even floating J Jackson in the package couldn’t hurt.

The only issue I have with the Jags or Philly is that we probably would want to jump them rather than trade with them as they most likely want what we want and that being one of the top 4 WRs fallen into that spot. Or even if we really love Mims and there has been a run on the WRs. I'm not sure who else we would be moving up for? Maybe Josh Jones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

It's the other team that is likely to care. Any deal has to work for both sides.

Again, if the other team is trying to get back into round 1, they realize it is going to cost them a draft pick. Shouldn't come as a surprise to them. I appreciate your idea, but it's not a route I'd like us to take. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, GWH87 said:

Why wouldn’t we be entertaining the option to trade up to 20/21 with either the Jags or Philly?

It could be the desired landed spot to land one of the last “Top 4” WR.

I know the mantra don’t get hopes up for that based on history, however Gute has shown his like for trading up recently and this range wouldn’t mean giving up the farm in this draft or future ones either. Eagles and Jags need DBs even floating J Jackson in the package couldn’t hurt.

Both are probably in the market for a WR and the top 4 are likely gone at 20 anyway. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Golfman said:

Both are probably in the market for a WR and the top 4 are likely gone at 20 anyway. 

Agreed. If we're trading up, it's for Patrick Queen. Most likely, we're trading down and as much as I like the idea of trading down with SD for pick 37 and Desmond King, I don't see it happening. I also don't think that Indy would trade that far up  from 44 and for that much capital. If they were to actually make that trade, I suspect that we wouldn't get pick 75 and would get pick 122 while swapping 5ths. Personally, if we're trading with Indy, I'd rather get pick 34, throw picks 209 and 242 in, and swap 3rds. I really hate our draft position in the 3rd and 5th rounds so if there was any way we could move up in either round while moving back from 30 a couple spots, I'd do it in a heartbeat unless we really like what's at 30.

Personally, if we're trading down from 30, I'd rather see the following as options:

Carolina: picks 30, 136, and 175 for picks 38, 113, and 148
Jacksonville: picks 30, 94, and 175 for picks 42, 73, and 157
Miami: picks 30, 94, 175, 192, and 236 for picks 39, 70, and 154

If our options at 30 are beyond screwed and we really hate the board. I'd do the following:

Denver: picks 30, 94, 136, and 209 for picks 46, 77, 118, and 178

Day 3 will be the day we'll probably move around and can target certain teams that are hard up for picks like Atlanta, Arizona Cleveland, and even Pittsburgh who has two 4ths:

Atlanta: picks 136 and 192 for pick 119
Arizona: picks 136 and 192 for pick 114
Cleveland: picks 136 and 192 for pick 115
Pittsburgh: picks 136 and 192 for picks 124 and 198

These are all options. What I would rather see is the following:

Trade 1: picks 30 and 192 to Indy for picks 34 and 122
Trade 2: picks 94, 175, and 209 to Denver for picks 77 and 181
Trade 3: picks 181 and 242 for 168
 

This leaves us with the following to do the following:

34: Jalen Reagor
62: Jeff Gladney - I think he falls due to his size
77: Jordan Elliot
122: Saadiq Charles/Jack Driscoll - whichever's available
136: Darrynton Evans
168: James Morgan
208: BPA
236: BPA
 

Edited by Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Brit Pack said:

They do like to trade and often do dumb deals. Having said that unless we were doing multiple picks and positional swaps I don't see it as an easy deal.  To move up 3 spots costs 60 draft value points and that would mean for us to give up our 4th and 5th rounder which might be too much for such a small gain really.

Just kinda depends on who you're looking to trade up for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Golfman said:

I'm not trading down with anybody and giving up 1 point in value. The biggest reason two reasons to trade back into the 1st round is the 5th year option, and a guy you don't think is going to be there when you pick. Have to get value for that move. I"m perfectly fine with trading down, but not for losing value. In fact 30-40 points of premium are what I'd be looking for to move.

I'd rather go back about 40ish to get a 3rd in the 70's. I think you can get an OT, WR, ILB and DL with pretty good value if you can manipulate the draft that way. There is one major assumption on my part however. The needs I feel we need to address match those of Gute as well as the value in some order of those positions with those picks. That is why the draft is best left to the real experts. 

Except if the player is worth a damn, that 5th year option is usually irrelevant because you're going to lock that player up with a long-term extension.  I'm with you on the not losing value wagon, but I think the flexibility of moving back from our FRP is that it "frees up" a few draft picks to possibly move up with the 62nd pick.  IF the Packers move back similar to the deal a few years ago with Kevin King, they could in theory deal their SRP (#62) and 3rd round pick (#94) to the ~50th pick.  That should put the Packers in play for one of the top WRs if they fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Norm said:

Isn't the real part of that is the leverage you have with it?

I'd argue it's most valuable when you're in that no man's land with regards to where their future lies.  I think Nick Perry is the perfect example of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I'd argue it's most valuable when you're in that no man's land with regards to where their future lies.  I think Nick Perry is the perfect example of that.

That's fair, I agree. I guess I was just saying it probably helps the team some with long term negotiations too but maybe it really doesn't do much either

My understanding was with QBs that was the thing though, having that year on their side.

Edited by Norm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...