Packerraymond Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 53 minutes ago, Mazrimiv said: Does this trade from Acme seem realistic? I'd think GB would need to give up more than #91 and a 2024 RD4 to get to #16. You won't have to worry about it, Ted flat out said "we don't trade future picks." Have to believe Gute holds the same value. Add in that next year's draft is in GB and every time the home city is on the clock is like a celebration where they do something unique, I'd bet my house that we won't part with any future picks, we may even try to add a few for the hype leading into next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 4 minutes ago, packfanfb said: Word is they are. I think the Packers might bite on a deal with them if they aren't trying to trade rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isherwood Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said: Does this trade from Acme seem realistic? I'd think GB would need to give up more than #91 and a 2024 RD4 to get to #16. Not at all. Tyler Brooke would not be able to explain why Seattle would agree to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 8 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: I think the Packers might bite on a deal with them if they aren't trying to trade rape. I could see it. Guys like Fashanu, Verse or Mitchell/Arnold (whichever one is left) could be a target there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isherwood Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 9 minutes ago, {Family Ghost} said: I think the Packers might bite on a deal with them if they aren't trying to trade rape. That would be great, but I think it’s going to take more than 91 and a future mid-round. That would be incredibly favorable. Gute would owe Schneider a reach around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 54 minutes ago, Lodestar said: They have a pretty long track record of trading down in the 1st (2012, 2014, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019) And in most of those other years they already traded away their picks for players (Harvin, Graham, Adams) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like they're consistently making up for previously traded picks. Teams that are missing picks are usually willing to cut deals to increase the number of picks they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
{Family Ghost} Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 2 minutes ago, Isherwood said: That would be great, but I think it’s going to take more than 91 and a future mid-round. That would be incredibly favorable. Gute would owe Schneider a reach around. I agree .. I wrote down #91 earlier by mistake, but it's more like #25 and #58 to get to #16. Maybe you get a later pick back from Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Penske Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Brat&Beer said: We’re reaching the point where I want it to be Cooper more and more so justo and Bukowski have to eat crow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 1 hour ago, Mazrimiv said: Does this trade from Acme seem realistic? I'd think GB would need to give up more than #91 and a 2024 RD4 to get to #16. Not really, no. But then again, the Packers traded #76 and a 6th/7th swap to move up from 27 to 18 a few years ago to get Jaire Alexander. Sometimes relationships matter when you're discussing trades. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lodestar Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 6 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like they're consistently making up for previously traded picks. Teams that are missing picks are usually willing to cut deals to increase the number of picks they have. That's a good point and probably has something to do with it. But with his GB roots Schneider also strikes me as the kind of guy who is more open to trading down and accumulating picks than some other GMs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonKarman Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 22 hours ago, OneTwoSixFive said: You don't like Colson at, say, 58 ? Get Eichenberg in the 4th instead. Not as athletic as Colson, but reliable and smart as a Mike. I would want to see him run in the 4.7 area, though. The question is weather Colson is available at 41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 4 hours ago, MacReady said: 5 hours ago, JBURGE said: I am kind of hoping that the antiquated view of not taking a WR in the first is on its way out, we just haven't had the opportunity to take one yet. All the rumours were that we loved Aiyuk had Love not been available. WIth the cost of WRs skyrocketing it is now a benefit to have them on a rookie deal. lol. How is it an antiquated view when the Packers have been the most consistent team in the NFL at having elite receivers without spending a single first round pick on one? Driver to Jennings to Nelson to Adams to Wicks/Reed/Doubs/Watson. And now you think it’s antiquated? When we have like four extremely promising prospects not only on rookie deals, but on rookie 2nd, 3rd and beyond round deals. With WRs now being paid $30M it is now antiquated. Where did I say the Packers do not have good WRs now? However, none of te WRs we have now are top 10 players not look like they have that ceiling, though it is early. We all know your rules for the draft and fortunately they're just yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HokieHigh Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 6 minutes ago, JBURGE said: With WRs now being paid $30M it is now antiquated. Where did I say the Packers do not have good WRs now? However, none of te WRs we have now are top 10 players not look like they have that ceiling, though it is early. We all know your rules for the draft and fortunately they're just yours. Watson and reed certainly can be top 10 guys 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mazrimiv Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 5 minutes ago, JBURGE said: With WRs now being paid $30M it is now antiquated. Where did I say the Packers do not have good WRs now? However, none of te WRs we have now are top 10 players not look like they have that ceiling, though it is early. We all know your rules for the draft and fortunately they're just yours. None of GB's current WR's have a ceiling of being a top 10 WR? That seems like a pretty weird statement to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBURGE Posted April 24 Share Posted April 24 2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said: Top 10 WRs (Receptions) 2023 1st Round Picks: 1. Cee Dee Lamb Not 1st Round Picks: 2. Tyreek Hill 3. Amon-Ra St. Brown 4. Michael Pittman Jr. 5. Keenan Allen 6. Stefon Diggs 7. AJ Brown 8. Puka Nacua 9. Davante Adams 10. Adam Thielen Now do hit rates in the last 4 drafts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts