R T Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 11 minutes ago, sgtcheezwiz said: Some of yall would trade Doubs for that pick just to pick a receiver. It's just a hypothetical question but kind of silly because neither team would have any interest in doing that deal. NE with Wolf now in charge is in a rebuild and doesn't 'need' to fill any one position, he is just going to keep drafting the best players on his board. Also, he would have no interest in giving up a draft pick and losing 2 years of control on that player. On the Packers side, they are trying to win games now and Doubs with two years of training in the system is a plus in helping them do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 38 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: I think I am at the point that I want them to build the safety room like we have the WR room. Take a bunch of them and see who works out. McKinney can be the old man at 25 years old. Looks like that's the plan. Gute said he actually likes this safety class so I'd expect 2 picks there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 52 minutes ago, spilltray said: I think that's Jayden Reed. Arguably. 😜 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I just don't think you trade guys on your roster who are in your plans for this season. Like would you trade a DL who doesn't fit in the new defense? Sure. But you wouldn't plan a WR who's one of your roster locks. The circumstances in which you'd trade a surplus guy is "you offer another team their choice of your bubble guys." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 (edited) 8 minutes ago, PossibleCabbage said: I just don't think you trade guys on your roster who are in your plans for this season. Like would you trade a DL who doesn't fit in the new defense? Sure. But you wouldn't plan a WR who's one of your roster locks. The circumstances in which you'd trade a surplus guy is "you offer another team their choice of your bubble guys." I agree with this most of the time. I'm not advocating either way, but given our depth at WR, if a team blows you away with an offer, you probably have to take it given our depth. The 68th pick is an absolute non-starter for Doubs. But at 34, you might consider it. We'd still have Watson, Reed, Hicks, Melton, Heath and Dubois (who we know nothing about yet). It would also open us up to grabbing a WR who we have 4 years of control over as opposed to 2. I also understand the side of standing pat. Injuries happen and missing on draft picks is not unusual either. Edited March 30 by Old Guy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 1 hour ago, packfanfb said: Looks like that's the plan. Gute said he actually likes this safety class so I'd expect 2 picks there. From the 2nd on there's dudes. Couple smaller school guys you can flip out to safety somewhere day 3. McKinney's versatility really opens up some possibilities this year. It's made watching the safety class pretty fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 The Doubs question was just a for-discussion question. I was maybe the only guy who impulsively said "yes". Obviously it won't be offered or happen. But what might be the logic for saying yes? 4 years of control for high draft pick, 2 years for Doubs. In 2 years when Doubs hits 2nd contract, will he be more irreplaceable than other 2nd-contracts coming due all too quickly? Fair chance that after the 2 years, Doubs is either gone, or getting paid at a rate such that the value-per-dollar is not that great a value. We've got a depth of WR. Does Doubs do a lot that Wicks won't be able to do? If we sit Doubs for some plays and let Watson or Reed or Musgrave get some of those snaps, will it hurt all that much? Try to stagger our WR's so that that we don't have back-to-back years with ≥2 facing second contract, and than have a year with none? If you draft a new one in the 4th round this year, in a deep draft, keep the flow turning? Not suggsting it's convincing. Just talking it out a little bit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneTwoSixFive Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 20 minutes ago, Old Guy said: I agree with this most of the time. I'm not advocating either way, but given our depth at WR, if a team blows you away with an offer, you probably have to take it given our depth. If a team blows you away with an offer, as long as it is before the draft, every player at any position is on the table (barring Love, because good QBs are almost priceless, especially good young QBs). All (or almost all) players have a value and if you are offered much more than how you value them, then the deal is made. You have to be unemotional when you are a GM. You may love a player on a personal level, but must still be able to deal them away if the offer is high enough. The truth is that most other teams these days will simply not make a deal that is high enough to 'blow you away', so many players are, in effect, not likely to be traded. There is a different dynamic operating when teams try to reset a team and let their best, more expensive players go, usually for more draft picks or more cap room. Equally, when contracts expire because a player wants to be off a team, bargains can be had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PossibleCabbage Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I guess the issue I have with the thought experiment is that any team could make any other team an offer for any player basically any time they wanted. But how often do we see guys traded for reasons that aren't one of: -Contract -Scheme fit -Malcontent -Roster bubble. Like a team that wants a left tackle could just offer the Chargers something for Rashawn Slater, but he's not getting dealt. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantyWrestler Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 2 hours ago, craig said: The Doubs question was just a for-discussion question. I was maybe the only guy who impulsively said "yes". Obviously it won't be offered or happen. But what might be the logic for saying yes? 4 years of control for high draft pick, 2 years for Doubs. In 2 years when Doubs hits 2nd contract, will he be more irreplaceable than other 2nd-contracts coming due all too quickly? Fair chance that after the 2 years, Doubs is either gone, or getting paid at a rate such that the value-per-dollar is not that great a value. We've got a depth of WR. Does Doubs do a lot that Wicks won't be able to do? If we sit Doubs for some plays and let Watson or Reed or Musgrave get some of those snaps, will it hurt all that much? Try to stagger our WR's so that that we don't have back-to-back years with ≥2 facing second contract, and than have a year with none? If you draft a new one in the 4th round this year, in a deep draft, keep the flow turning? Not suggsting it's convincing. Just talking it out a little bit. Fair argument but just not for 68. Has to me at minimum a high second round pick for a starting WR for me. Especially one that young and promising Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 23 hours ago, squire12 said: Hypothetical....if NE offered pick 68 for Doubs, would you do it? Without hesitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 5 hours ago, sgtcheezwiz said: Some of yall would trade Doubs for that pick just to pick a receiver. I'd probably pick WR with 25/41 if we made that trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NFLGURU Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 23 hours ago, Sandy said: Way I see it, I like Sinnott. My guess is we'll probably draft a H-back/TE type at some point. But it's one of those "luxury" spots - like Edge, WR, DL and RB - where we can miss on the position altogether in the draft and still be fine going into TC with the core group we have. Still, wouldn't mind adding one to each of those groups if we have the picks for it. Agree, you got Musgrave,Kraft and Davis already. At what point do you add another TE in the draft at the expense of another position of need? I think another team will need a TE and draft Sinnott sooner than the Packers would, but if Gute's on board, I'm good. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted March 30 Share Posted March 30 I thought tip reiman looked like the most natural hback in the class, maybe wouldnt mind him in the 5th 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted March 31 Share Posted March 31 10 hours ago, MantyWrestler said: 68! No way. Guy is arguably our best WR. Probably for 34 though. I just have a hard time giving up a productive guy on a rookie contract for a non-premium pick. And it's not that I think that Romeo Doubs is anything special, but he's a productive WR and he's cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts