fun mock!

[Malfatron]

19 hours ago, ya ya said:

Then trade number one to buffalo for picks 21-22 and tyrod taylor

If this is a reasonable trade, let's go the other way.

Trade up and get Buffalo's 22nd pick.

Then package our 14th, 22nd, and Hundley to Cleveland to get the number 1 pick.

[Packer_ESP]

22 hours ago, ya ya said:

Then trade number one to buffalo for picks 21-22 and tyrod taylor.

I'm more than willing to read fun mocks that involve trading Rodgers. However, with this trade you're valuing Tyrod Taylor as a #3 to #9 overall pick, depending on which chart you use. It's just a bad trade that kills the whole thing.

[SSG]

17 hours ago, ya ya said:

I was looking at the future costs with Rodgers. Also the first 4 picks should upgrade our defense. Taylor adds a different dimension than  Hundley and given a better running game this team would be fun to watch.Two TE 's should help also.You could swap out Rudolph QB at 21-22 picks.that could carry us if taylor smells it up.

Its a huge gamble.  Those picks could help but they could also prove to be non difference makers.  You've then traded away a franchise QB for a guy who's been nothing short of mediocre despite having an elite running game to lean on.  Tyrod Taylor isn't a QB who is going to get any team to the playoffs with his arms muchless Green Bay who's offense has shown to be pretty terrible without elite play from the QB. 

 

It's foolish to look at the Eagles as a receipt for success given the fact that Nick Foles had one of the best games in NFL history by a QB.  That isn't success that can be replicated IMO.  Rarely do you make it through the playoffs with bad or mediocre play from your QB. 

[pacman5252]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:56 AM, ya ya said:

packers trade Rodgers QB and Cobb WR the Cleveland for picks 1-4-33-35 and 2 in 19.Then trade number one to buffalo for picks 21-22 and tyrod taylor.

with pick no. 4-fitzpatrick CB

14-vita vea DT

21-davenport DE/LB

22-vander esch ILB

33-okorafor OT

 35-Michel RB

45-gesicki TE

76-white SS

114-fumagalli TE

133-white QB

150-nelson CB

172-benkurt QB

174-toth OT

lst 3 picks trade for lower ones in 19.

this will make us competitive and cost fit for some time.

 

 

I think sometime fans get fooled by the "teams are paying their QB too much" argument. While I'd agree that some QBs have been overpaid (the Joe Flaccos of the world) the analytics say high level QBs (Rodgers, Brady, BB, Brees) are worth it (Vegas values these guys as a touchdown+, pretty much all other players are worth under a point.

The  truth is the teams that win in the NFL have a combination of;

1. The right vets getting paid at the right positions- (usually QBs, pass rushers, Tackles)

2. Cheap young talent (players on their first contract. Year 5 when good players become UFAs, a second/third rounder if they are a quality starter will make 8-20x more. You can really only really pay like 10-15 core guys.

3. Luck in injuries- (usually not injuries to key vets, star young players)

Using these characteristics, when looking at GB;

1. I'd say we've been paying the right guys until about now (Nelson, Clay, are old, Perry is a walking injury, AR is a god, Bak is good)

2. Our last 5 drafts have been average to subpar. The last really above average draft GB had was 2012. 2015 and 2017  we've gotten little production from. 2013, 2014, 2016 were solid. 

3. We've had some bad injury -Injuries to Rodgers (NFC title game 2014, and last year), the entire OL in 2015, and D 2016/17  slam dunk draft GB has had was in 2012

Now when looking at the teams that have gone to super bowls recently;

NE has been healthy, decent drafting, paying the right guys

Philly- combination of really good recent drafts, solid vets at key positions (OL, pass rushers), key players at impact positions (outside Wentz) were healthy

ATL- Stayed healthy in 2017. Paying the right vets (Ryan, Jones). Had a few really stellar D drafts in 15/16

Denver- They had stellar drafts, great at key positions (edge). Bought a QB, won, and then all their players hit their second contract and they've had to lose guys (while not paying a QB I might add), didn't have major injuries

Carolina- great young talent, Newton had just gotten paid, didn't have injuries 

Seattle- Had epic drafts in the early 2010s. Now they are paying people, not just RW, and have had injuries

 

[pacman5252]

On 3/2/2018 at 5:56 AM, ya ya said:

packers trade Rodgers QB and Cobb WR the Cleveland for picks 1-4-33-35 and 2 in 19.Then trade number one to buffalo for picks 21-22 and tyrod taylor.

with pick no. 4-fitzpatrick CB

14-vita vea DT

21-davenport DE/LB

22-vander esch ILB

33-okorafor OT

 35-Michel RB

45-gesicki TE

76-white SS

114-fumagalli TE

133-white QB

150-nelson CB

172-benkurt QB

174-toth OT

lst 3 picks trade for lower ones in 19.

this will make us competitive and cost fit for some time.

 

 

One other issue with this draft, in 2024 if we had all these core players due for extension, we'd have 100M in contracts to do in a short period. This is kind of what Denver went through losing Jackson, Trevathon. MN is going through this debate right now since they will have Diggs, Barr, Kendricks, Waynes, Hunter all up next year. 

You really can't keep everyone forever. You keep your core pieces (like the best QB in football) and reload with young guys

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, pacman5252 said:

One other issue with this draft, in 2024 if we had all these core players due for extension, we'd have 100M in contracts to do in a short period. This is kind of what Denver went through losing Jackson, Trevathon. MN is going through this debate 

If all those top players hit, you worry about that after 4-5 years of having them on rookie contracts.

If a team is worried about having to pay great players after their rookie deals, then just draft bad players and that problem is mitigated.

[Joe]

Go away troll...

[Golfman]

On 3/2/2018 at 7:13 PM, Pugger said:

If Gutey does what ya ya here suggests he'll go down in history as the second dumbest draft move since Mike Ditka traded away his draft for Ricky Williams.

John Hadl? Herschel Walker? Both would be right up there. By the way, if he'd drafted a potential franchise QB with one of those picks and the kid turned out it would be OK. He also didn't take the best defender in the draft and our most pressing position, DE and Bradley Chubb. This one for me, is a failure all-around. 

Also, any 'fantasy' trade with Cleveland that doesn't include Myles Garrett is not a good idea. 

[pacman5252]

21 hours ago, squire12 said:

If all those top players hit, you worry about that after 4-5 years of having them on rookie contracts.

If a team is worried about having to pay great players after their rookie deals, then just draft bad players and that problem is mitigated.

My point was more, from a cap planning standpoint, you’d want to do a few future trades (get more 19, 20) picks or a quality young vet. That way you can smooth out the cap impact. Having like a ton of first and second round picks sounds great, but you’d eventually be in the “oh crap” position of paying all of them at once.

[squire12]

1 hour ago, pacman5252 said:

My point was more, from a cap planning standpoint, you’d want to do a few future trades (get more 19, 20) picks or a quality young vet. That way you can smooth out the cap impact. Having like a ton of first and second round picks sounds great, but you’d eventually be in the “oh crap” position of paying all of them at once.

If those picks are worthy of being paid well, then you had good to great play from a big group of players on rookie deals.  First world worries is having too many good players.