CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 16 hours ago, Leader said: Also - heard some "words of caution" about Josh Allen. Apparently accuracy isnt his forte and against tougher opponents he threw one (1) TD and eight (8) INTS. So much for YouTube videos telling the whole story...... He's always been this enigma. You see the good, and you see the bad in just about every game you watch with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 8:23 AM, Dubz41 said: First level of talent goes until 12th pick (depending on the QBs). We're going to trade our 1st and 2nd to Buffalo for the Bills 2- 1sts (21 & 22) and their 2nd rounder. That would give us Harold Landry and Travarus McFadden. Otherwise it's Roquan Smith at 14. We're not getting BOTH of the Bills 1st and their 2nd round pick. Put the pipe away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 6:05 AM, HorizontoZenith said: Yeah, I swear to Lombardi, if Gute trades down once in this draft and it isn't for a first round pick from a team like Cleveland or some other bottom dwelling, talentless team, I am starting the "Fire Gute" talk immediately. Hell, if Gute even stays still in this draft and uses each of his 12 draft picks, I'm starting that club. Using 12 picks suggests that we don't currently have 41 players that should make our roster, and that's IF we don't sign any free agents. We need to get an extra first, second, third or fourth round pick this year by trading up. No offense, but that's a rather narrow viewpoint to take. It really depends on how the board, and more importantly how the tiers break out. If we're sitting at 14 with ALL of the non-Chubb pass rushers on the board, I sure hope we're listening to trade offers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 11:00 AM, TheOnlyThing said: Could not agree more. The philosophy of trading back to accumulate additional, later picks is not sound one for a roster lacking high-end talent and with specific holes that need to be filled in order to compete for a Super Bowl in 2018. This year, there is even a possibility that the Pack might deal a pick for a veteran just like NE has done for years. It's not about getting late round pick, it's about getting more mid-round picks that provide ammunition to move around in the mid-rounds. And I'm not talking about a massive move back either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 11:23 AM, Dubz41 said: Trading #14 for two 1st round picks isn't BAD. Number 14 doesn't mean we get a AllPro. I think you get as many top three round picks as you can. Use those comp picks and get up there. The two guys picked at 21-22 will contribute more than one at 14 and they are all basically on the same plateau. You could possibly end up with Key and Landry- which would be awesome. The Bills aren't trading both of their 1st round picks for the 14th pick, that one needs to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: We're not getting BOTH of the Bills 1st and their 2nd round pick. Put the pipe away... Forgive me!! The draft pick charts say that is within reason. IF the right QB falls to that spot you don't know that it couldn't happen. This is a forum where you can kind of throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 3 minutes ago, Dubz41 said: Forgive me!! The draft pick charts say that is within reason. IF the right QB falls to that spot you don't know that it couldn't happen. This is a forum where you can kind of throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks? I'm telling you've already seen it hit the floor already. But back to your QB scenario, why would the Redskins no accept a similar deal? Or how about the Bengals? Or any of the other teams that pick ahead of the Packers? Putting your eggs (or any for that matter) on a QB falling in order to create a market is setting them up for disappointment. And if a QB is dropping, he's probably dropping for a reason which means the market really isn't there. EDIT: Which trade value chart are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubz41 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 2 minutes ago, CWood21 said: I'm telling you've already seen it hit the floor already. But back to your QB scenario, why would the Redskins no accept a similar deal? Or how about the Bengals? Or any of the other teams that pick ahead of the Packers? Putting your eggs (or any for that matter) on a QB falling in order to create a market is setting them up for disappointment. And if a QB is dropping, he's probably dropping for a reason which means the market really isn't there. EDIT: Which trade value chart are you using? No offense, but that's a rather narrow viewpoint to take. It really depends on how the board, and more importantly how the tiers break out. Whoa! Deja vu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Just now, Dubz41 said: No offense, but that's a rather narrow viewpoint to take. It really depends on how the board, and more importantly how the tiers break out. Whoa! Deja vu. Maybe so. Maybe a QB does fall and someone overwhelms the Packers with an offer. I don't know. I do know that history has shown that's not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransientTexan Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 27 minutes ago, Dubz41 said: The draft pick charts say that is within reason. err, not any chart I've seen. For the Bills to give that much, the pick charts would have GB send them their 1st (#14), 2nd (#46), and 4th at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 16 minutes ago, CWood21 said: No offense, but that's a rather narrow viewpoint to take. You think I care about being narrow minded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cannondale Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 If I'm Gute, I'm narrowed minded about 1 thing. I exercise the first four picks. If you want to move up a bit using late rounders or move down a bit fine, but he needs to find at least 3 starters or near future starters with 1,2,3,3. Needle movers, not place holders. I know it's fun talking about packaging picks, but last year should be an eye opener. We are not 1 player away anymore. We have too many guys that have plateaued or trending down and dangerously few trending up. Reason 1: He watched the football games after Rodgers went down. Reason 2: The more starters on rookie contracts, the more FA signings you can make filling holes. Reason 3: You are at 14 and may not be there again. Reason 4: Rodgers is gonna get an even bigger contract. Reason 5: He watched the football games after Rodgers went down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOnlyThing Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 2 hours ago, CWood21 said: It's not about getting late round pick, it's about getting more mid-round picks that provide ammunition to move around in the mid-rounds. There are 7 rounds in the draft. Rounds 1-2 are the top rounds, rounds 6-7 are the bottom rounds, and rounds 3, 4 & 5 are the mid-rounds. As it stands, the Packers presently have, I believe, 7 "mid-round" picks (2-3s, 1-4, and 4-5s). Why is that not sufficient ammunition to "move around in the mid-rounds?" Your proposal to trade back in round 1 to acquire even more mid-round picks only makes sense if you see the roster as bereft of talent and consider the Packers to be in a rebuilding mode. Otherwise, in a draft in which the team already owns 12 draft picks, trading back in round 1 for even more mid-round picks just adds to the QUANTITY of picks while diminishing the QUALITY and that seems an odd use of draft capital for those of us who view the Packers as a team that should be challenging for a Super Bowl in 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 53 minutes ago, TheOnlyThing said: Otherwise, in a draft in which the team already owns 12 draft picks, trading back in round 1 for even more mid-round picks just adds to the QUANTITY of picks while diminishing the QUALITY and that seems an odd use of draft capital for those of us who view the Packers as a team that should be challenging for a Super Bowl in 2018. You're literally arguing semantics here. Let's use my example I threw out a while ago. Let's say the Chargers or Cowboys want to move up, and are willing to give up their 3rd round pick. That means the Packers moved back 3 or 5 picks, which unless the board drops off drastically we're probably looking at a similar tiered player. So you're grabbing an extra pick and getting a similarly graded player. Flash forward to the 2nd round pick the Packers originally own and they have a slew of players they still have 1st round grades on. If you don't make that same trade down, you're only going to get one shot at those player. If you made the trade down, you can offer ALL of your 3rd round picks (original, one via trade, and the compensatory pick) and could reasonably move back into the middle of the 2nd round. So I'll ask you this, is two picks in the top 45 better than three picks in the top 50ish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted January 26, 2018 Share Posted January 26, 2018 If I'm the Browns I'm taking Allen and it isn't even close. He's either going to be Favre under Mac/Holmgren or Favre under Sherman depending on who you have coaching him (hopefully not Hue for Cleveland's sake) but that's the best QB in the draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.