What is your one trade you'd like to see the Packers make on day 1 of the draft?

[coachbuns]

3 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

28 and 92 for 35,69,117, is not a fair trade (at least not on the JJ trade value chart).

If you remove pick 117 from the equation it's pretty even - value 792 (GBs picks), 795 (NYJ picks).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equally, the @Green19 suggestion of 22 and 92 for Seattle's 40 and 41, is valued 912 to 990, besides it being very likely Seattle does not want to give up BOTH their high round 2 picks.

An alternative (that is fairly even) is pick 22 for picks 40 + 72, + an exchange of round 4 picks (GBs 140 worth 36 for Seattle's 109 worth 76). The points comparison on that deal is 780 to 770, which is at least in the ball park. If you were to also swap 5ths (GBs 171 for Seattle's 152 or 153), it would make it very close to even (just 2.4 points difference if I calculated correctly).

GBs picks after this trade would be: round 1 (28), round 2 (40, 53, 59), round three (72, 92), round 4 (109, 132), round 5 (152) and three 7th rounders (12 picks in all).

The Packers could also consider giving up their 28th pick instead, for Seattle's 41 and 72 (value 660 to 720) and to balance the books they also swap their late third (92) for Seattles high 4th (109) for a final value of 792 to 796.

This is all very mock-draft-mayhem, but fun to theorise. Also the JJ chart isn't the only one out there - the Harvard chart is another that has attempted to make the JJ chart more logical - their chart values pick one at 494.6 and pick 224 at 31.1. It is rather different from the JJ chart where the combined picks from the same point in two adjacent rounds would be enough points to move up about 8 or so spots (in the higher of the two rounds) early in the draft, and later on (factoring in the comp picks in the higher round) enough to move up about 20 spots.

In the Harvard chart, for example, pick 42 (the 10th pick in round 2), plus 74 (the 10th pick in round 3) equals 282.8 points, which is roughly the value of pick 12 (283.6). This chart does not value the higher picks nearly as much as the JJ chart, where the same picks would only get you up to pick 26. Take your pick which chart you prefer.

I'm always interested in trade scenarios but also think if some team wants another teams higher pick there has to be a premium paid to obtain that pick.  For things to even out in a trade just doesn't make sense if a team wants somebody "special".  Pay the price and if it isn't of equal point value for the team getting the higher pick, that's the price they have to pay.   

[squire12]

4 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

I'm always interested in trade scenarios but also think if some team wants another teams higher pick there has to be a premium paid to obtain that pick.  For things to even out in a trade just doesn't make sense if a team wants somebody "special".  Pay the price and if it isn't of equal point value for the team getting the higher pick, that's the price they have to pay.   

Similarly,  if a team is wanting to trade down, they may need to take lesser value to get that.

[cannondale]

Supply and demand dictates the premium. This year is a good example as it's being reported everyone wants to move down. Doubt there's a premium to move up 

[pacman5252]

9 hours ago, Old Guy said:

I don't see Thibodeaux getting outside of the top 8 picks. End of the day he's just too talented. I also predict Stingley is the first CB off the board. Talent wins! I wouldn't trade up for any of the WR's in this draft. There is too many guys who are very close to the top guys you can grab in round 2. 

Are the wrs that close, or is this just the annual falling in love with every new guy? I only see:

-2 "safe" prospects in Olave/Wilson

-5 potential R1 guys with question marks (London-Speed, Burkes-Speed/routes, Pickens-injuries, Williams injuries, Moore-competition)

-Then a bunch of T2 either limited or development guys (like Watson/Doctson/Pierce are too raw to be top 45 picks, Doctson, is limited physically, etc).

 

Considering how weak we are at WR and that we'd be doing a disservice not having an instant contributor this year, trading up for an Olave/Wilson makes a ton of sense. You can't just 2020 "this guy isn't in my wr tier" every draft.

[Spartacus]

9 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

Are the wrs that close, or is this just the annual falling in love with every new guy? I only see:

-2 "safe" prospects in Olave/Wilson

-5 potential R1 guys with question marks (London-Speed, Burkes-Speed/routes, Pickens-injuries, Williams injuries, Moore-competition)

-Then a bunch of T2 either limited or development guys (like Watson/Doctson/Pierce are too raw to be top 45 picks, Doctson, is limited physically, etc).

 

Considering how weak we are at WR and that we'd be doing a disservice not having an instant contributor this year, trading up for an Olave/Wilson makes a ton of sense. You can't just 2020 "this guy isn't in my wr tier" every draft.

You also have to remember that the mock draft community and the scouting community are not intrinsically linked. Most of the mock draft community just spends the offseason plagiarizing each others work so i'm expecting a fair bit of difference on the actual draft on some WR rankings. 

[Sandy]

1 hour ago, cannondale said:

Supply and demand dictates the premium. This year is a good example as it's being reported everyone wants to move down. Doubt there's a premium to move up 

Depends on who drops and where the tier lines break for teams though. I wouldn't put much weight into those reports.

For example, there are other reports saying Detroit, Seattle, Indianapolis, Atlanta, New Orleans, Carolina and Pittsburgh all want to draft a QB. There could be a bidding war to go up to pick 28 to try and leapfrog the Lions if Matt Corral is available. That team might be willing to lose 200 points in the JJ scale.

Or let's say that Kyle Hamilton slips to the Jets 10th pick, and some team feels he's the top player in the draft. You could see someone trading the same value they would for, say, the 7th pick to go up and get him.

[n8ghee]

Trading J-Love for a 2nd rounder or to move up in the 1st

[Green19]

13 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

28 and 92 for 35,69,117, is not a fair trade (at least not on the JJ trade value chart).

If you remove pick 117 from the equation it's pretty even - value 792 (GBs picks), 795 (NYJ picks).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equally, the @Green19 suggestion of 22 and 92 for Seattle's 40 and 41, is valued 912 to 990, besides it being very likely Seattle does not want to give up BOTH their high round 2 picks.

An alternative (that is fairly even) is pick 22 for picks 40 + 72, + an exchange of round 4 picks (GBs 140 worth 36 for Seattle's 109 worth 76). The points comparison on that deal is 780 to 770, which is at least in the ball park. If you were to also swap 5ths (GBs 171 for Seattle's 152 or 153), it would make it very close to even (just 2.4 points difference if I calculated correctly).

GBs picks after this trade would be: round 1 (28), round 2 (40, 53, 59), round three (72, 92), round 4 (109, 132), round 5 (152) and three 7th rounders (12 picks in all).

The Packers could also consider giving up their 28th pick instead, for Seattle's 41 and 72 (value 660 to 720) and to balance the books they also swap their late third (92) for Seattles high 4th (109) for a final value of 792 to 796.

This is all very mock-draft-mayhem, but fun to theorise. Also the JJ chart isn't the only one out there - the Harvard chart is another that has attempted to make the JJ chart more logical - their chart values pick one at 494.6 and pick 224 at 31.1. It is rather different from the JJ chart where the combined picks from the same point in two adjacent rounds would be enough points to move up about 8 or so spots (in the higher of the two rounds) early in the draft, and later on (factoring in the comp picks in the higher round) enough to move up about 20 spots.

In the Harvard chart, for example, pick 42 (the 10th pick in round 2), plus 74 (the 10th pick in round 3) equals 282.8 points, which is roughly the value of pick 12 (283.6). This chart does not value the higher picks nearly as much as the JJ chart, where the same picks would only get you up to pick 26. Take your pick which chart you prefer.

I mean I was just pulling a trade out of no where… I agree I don’t know if Seattle goes for the deal I put forth, most likely not. My point was more about trading to get as many high second rounders as possible.

Seattle makes for a quick exercise as they have 2 higher second rounders… so I’m only trading with one team.

The bigger argument is I believe the early second round is where I think the most bang for your buck is. This is purely just off media mock drafts and media big boards.

But to your point on the value I put forth… I think there is an argument to be made about in this imaginary scenario, Seattle is moving up for “their guy”. There is a certain price of doing that business. I’m not being rigid to a value chart. They want a guy, I don’t have to trade… and I’m operating from a position of power in that deal. They are getting the highest pick in the deal as well. It’s not like I’m saying I get 40 and 41 for 22. The 3rd has solid value and depend on my board I’m will to go as high as saying 22 and 59 for their 40, and 41.

But this is a packer forum and as a packer fan… I’m going to have the packers coming out more ahead than the other team but not being unreasonably homer about the trade offer.

[OneTwoSixFive]

34 minutes ago, Green19 said:

But to your point on the value I put forth… I think there is an argument to be made about in this imaginary scenario, Seattle is moving up for “their guy”. There is a certain price of doing that business. I’m not being rigid to a value chart. They want a guy, I don’t have to trade… and I’m operating from a position of power in that deal. They are getting the highest pick in the deal as well. It’s not like I’m saying I get 40 and 41 for 22. The 3rd has solid value and depend on my board I’m will to go as high as saying 22 and 59 for their 40, and 41.

But this is a packer forum and as a packer fan… I’m going to have the packers coming out more ahead than the other team but not being unreasonably homer about the trade offer.

I guess it's a matter of viewpoint. Just as you can view things as Seattle wanting to trade up, others  (like myself) can view it as it being the Packers that want to move back to a better position in the draft for WRs, DTs, for example. Others have already stated more teams are likely to want to move back this year, due to the depth of this draft.

I'd much rather look at an equal value deal which does not presume a 'weighting' in any direction. If the deal does not seem fair to (in this case) Seattle, they can offer a deal to the team before or the one after the Packers pick instead............ and the further Green Bay gets from an even deal, the more likely it is that Seattle will do exactly that. The deal needs to look good for both sides, to be made. It is not often at this point in the draft, that teams are so desperate, they accept a big imbalance in trade value.

Edited April 19, 2022 by OneTwoSixFive

[OneTwoSixFive]

6 hours ago, n8ghee said:

Trading J-Love for a 2nd rounder or to move up in the 1st

No.

[Green19]

1 hour ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

I guess it's a matter of viewpoint. Just as you can view things as Seattle wanting to trade up, others  (like myself) can view it as it being the Packers that want to move back to a better position in the draft for WRs, DTs, for example. Others have already stated more teams are likely to want to move back this year, due to the depth of this draft.

I'd much rather look at an equal value deal which does not presume a 'weighting' in any direction. If the deal does not seem fair to (in this case) Seattle, they can offer a deal to the team before or the one after the Packers pick instead............ and the further Green Bay gets from an even deal, the more likely it is that Seattle will do exactly that. The deal needs to look good for both sides, to be made. It is not often at this point in the draft, that teams are so desperate, they accept a big imbalance in trade value.

I guess it depends on in the moment as well. If say Seattle is moving up to get say… Kenny Pickett and they know another team is angling to do so as well and GB is on the clock… can they take the risk of letting that 22 pick go?

To your point they might just trade to 23 if Green Bay is unreasonable, but the Panthers could be willing to play ball and be more aggressive and give GB what they want for 22. And Seattle loses out on their guy because of theoretical 78 pts of “value”.

So again this exercise is hard without building out a robust scenario of what is going on. So my point is that the value chart is a starting point. All draft day trades don’t follow jimmy’s chart strictly… it’s a generally agreed upon valuing system but it’s not rigid.

[OzPackfan]

14 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said:

28 and 92 for 35,69,117, is not a fair trade (at least not on the JJ trade value chart).

If you remove pick 117 from the equation it's pretty even - value 792 (GBs picks), 795 (NYJ picks).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Equally, the @Green19 suggestion of 22 and 92 for Seattle's 40 and 41, is valued 912 to 990, besides it being very likely Seattle does not want to give up BOTH their high round 2 picks.

An alternative (that is fairly even) is pick 22 for picks 40 + 72, + an exchange of round 4 picks (GBs 140 worth 36 for Seattle's 109 worth 76). The points comparison on that deal is 780 to 770, which is at least in the ball park. If you were to also swap 5ths (GBs 171 for Seattle's 152 or 153), it would make it very close to even (just 2.4 points difference if I calculated correctly).

GBs picks after this trade would be: round 1 (28), round 2 (40, 53, 59), round three (72, 92), round 4 (109, 132), round 5 (152) and three 7th rounders (12 picks in all).

The Packers could also consider giving up their 28th pick instead, for Seattle's 41 and 72 (value 660 to 720) and to balance the books they also swap their late third (92) for Seattles high 4th (109) for a final value of 792 to 796.

This is all very mock-draft-mayhem, but fun to theorise. Also the JJ chart isn't the only one out there - the Harvard chart is another that has attempted to make the JJ chart more logical - their chart values pick one at 494.6 and pick 224 at 31.1. It is rather different from the JJ chart where the combined picks from the same point in two adjacent rounds would be enough points to move up about 8 or so spots (in the higher of the two rounds) early in the draft, and later on (factoring in the comp picks in the higher round) enough to move up about 20 spots.

In the Harvard chart, for example, pick 42 (the 10th pick in round 2), plus 74 (the 10th pick in round 3) equals 282.8 points, which is roughly the value of pick 12 (283.6). This chart does not value the higher picks nearly as much as the JJ chart, where the same picks would only get you up to pick 26. Take your pick which chart you prefer.

My scenarios were based on the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart but I can see that the first one doesn't equate to a fair trade so that probably needs to change from a 2023 4th rounder to 2023 3rd rounder to be more fair.

I also agree that having more picks at the back end of round 1 early round 2 would be good if we cant go up to get a top notch receiver or edge player. 

[coachbuns]

11 hours ago, squire12 said:

Similarly,  if a team is wanting to trade down, they may need to take lesser value to get that.

Maybe.  That being said, teams that trade up for a player they want would "pay" more for that player than if a team trades down because their player(s) aren't there.  

[squire12]

19 minutes ago, coachbuns said:

Maybe.  That being said, teams that trade up for a player they want would "pay" more for that player than if a team trades down because their player(s) aren't there.  

If 5 teams want to move down and 1 wants to move up, the price to go up is cheaper.

Law of supply and demand

[coachbuns]

On 4/19/2022 at 7:57 PM, squire12 said:

If 5 teams want to move down and 1 wants to move up, the price to go up is cheaper.

Law of supply and demand

And of course if 5 teams want to move up and 1 down, the price to go up is more expensive.  Law of supply and demand.