Draft Idea (does this go here)

[packersfan152]

I think it would be a solid idea to find a trade partner with our first round pick. Have a team move back in to grab a QB or WR and we can pick up an early 2nd maybe 3rd/4th round pick.

There are a ton of solid Dline and Linebackers in this draft and stock piling picks would be great. Also, with our Oline hitting the end of their contracts, might be wise to use one of those picks for a interior lineman for insurance purposes.


Thoughts?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

We have three 4th round picks this year. I bet we could replace our guards right there...

I want ragland.....i wouldnt even care if tt went loco and did a clay mathews type trade to get him...

But the top tier dlinemen are too valuable to trade back imo. There are some beasts! Theres one who was a wrestling champ in hs. Nebraska maybe? Cant remember name. I think he would be a great 2nd tier dline pick up...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I think it would be a solid idea to find a trade partner with our first round pick. Have a team move back in to grab a QB or WR and we can pick up an early 2nd maybe 3rd/4th round pick.

There are a ton of solid Dline and Linebackers in this draft and stock piling picks would be great. Also, with our Oline hitting the end of their contracts, might be wise to use one of those picks for a interior lineman for insurance purposes.


Thoughts?

If Ragland is still on board at #27 I want Thompson to pull the trigger. If he's gone trading back to the early second round, use the selection on a defensive lineman and acquiring another pick might be an option.

 

[Ace]

If Ragland is still on board at #27 I want Thompson to pull the trigger. If he's gone trading back to the early second round, use the selection on a defensive lineman and acquiring another pick might be an option.

So if Ragland is there, you want him no matter what? DLine IMO is sooo much more of a need with ILB a distant 2nd. I understand the draft is deep at DLine but we need to find at least 4 this offseason I think. Probably 2 drafted and another 2 or 3 UDFA I'm thinking. It's really bad now with Raji's abrupt hiatus.

 

[Mondio]

I want an ILB too, I dont' watch enough college football to really know, but I guess if they think he's a can't pass stud, then i'm ok taking him. BUT, i believe that DL is much more important and right now we are thin with a fairly weak rotation. We have 2 good guys and after that? we barely have bodies unless I'm forgetting someone. I was hoping to see Penel take off this year. He's been working hard and improving, but now he's out 4 games, so we'll see what happens there. But I think DL is easily more pressing and more important than ILB. Worst case scenario, clay is still ILB and I'm ok with that.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So if Ragland is there, you want him no matter what? DLine IMO is sooo much more of a need with ILB a distant 2nd. I understand the draft is deep at DLine but we need to find at least 4 this offseason I think. Probably 2 drafted and another 2 or 3 UDFA I'm thinking. It's really bad now with Raji's abrupt hiatus.

I would prefer drafting Ragland over a defensive lineman in the first round. The draft is extremely deep on the DL so it´s possible to select an impact player later in the draft. I agree the Packers should draft at least two players at the position though.

Worst case scenario, clay is still ILB and I'm ok with that.

It´s incomprehensible that Packers fans are fine with moving the defense´s best player out of position instead of finally addressing the position with a talented player.

 

[Ace]

I would prefer drafting Ragland over a defensive lineman in the first round. The draft is extremely deep on the DL so it´s possible to select an impact player later in the draft. I agree the Packers should draft at least two players at the position though.

So if it came down to Billings and Ragland, you'd take Ragland? I would take Billings and not think twice about it. If the DLine was adequate (which I don't think we're even close to at this point) wouldn't that make the ILB's better by default? What good is Ragland if he's constantly covered up because the DLine can't eat up blockers?

I completely understand that it's deep at DLine but I'd be fine if TT spend the first 2 picks on DLine and waited on ILB which is pretty contradictory to what I've said in the past but I now realize how poor we are at the position right now, especially the 1st 4 weeks.

 

[PikeBadger]

I think it would be a solid idea to find a trade partner with our first round pick. Have a team move back in to grab a QB or WR and we can pick up an early 2nd maybe 3rd/4th round pick.

There are a ton of solid Dline and Linebackers in this draft and stock piling picks would be great. Also, with our Oline hitting the end of their contracts, might be wise to use one of those picks for a interior lineman for insurance purposes.


Thoughts?

I'm fine with this concept as well if the draft board dictates and a willing and hopefully desperate trade partner dials up Ted. I'd be hoping for a ILB, OLB, D-lineman & O-Lineman with 4 picks in rounds 2-3 if the trade took place. Then trade our 4th round for a 3rd rounder in '17 to one of the perennial bottom feeders. That would be a great setup for us.

P.S. Ted doesn't agree with me about my trade into next draft philosophy.

 

[HardRightEdge]

It´s incomprehensible that Packers fans are fine with moving the defense´s best player out of position instead of finally addressing the position with a talented player.

Matthews is done at ILB, now and forever. If he was good at it, I might give pause. His only redeeming characteristic were the middle blitzes, but that's nowhere near enough to get the job done.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

So if it came down to Billings and Ragland, you'd take Ragland? I would take Billings and not think twice about it. If the DLine was adequate (which I don't think we're even close to at this point) wouldn't that make the ILB's better by default? What good is Ragland if he's constantly covered up because the DLine can't eat up blockers?

I completely understand that it's deep at DLine but I'd be fine if TT spend the first 2 picks on DLine and waited on ILB which is pretty contradictory to what I've said in the past but I now realize how poor we are at the position right now, especially the 1st 4 weeks.

I agree the Packers need to add talent on the defensive line but should be fine by adding one starter at the position. With the draft being deep at the position Thompson should be able to achieve getting that player in the second round as well.

On the other hand Ragland is the only three down inside linebacker available in the deaft capable of starting immediately. That's why I would be in favor of selecting him.

While I agree a better defensive line would make our ILBs look better against the run there's no doubt in my mind the Packers desperately need an upgrade at coverage ILB.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Then trade our 4th round for a 3rd rounder in '17 to one of the perennial bottom feeders. That would be a great setup for us.

P.S. Ted doesn't agree with me about my trade into next draft philosophy.

Not that it matters in any way but I don't agree with your philosophy either.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I think it would be a solid idea to find a trade partner with our first round pick. Have a team move back in to grab a QB or WR and we can pick up an early 2nd maybe 3rd/4th round pick.

There's a lot that goes into that. You have to be confident that the players projected to be available at the #27 pick don't represent good value, factoring in need, relative to the players you project at, say, #40.

According to the Jimmy Johnson chart, which surprisingly still holds fairly true in trades actually executed, the difference between 27 and 40 is not that great...you'd gain pick 82, middle of the 3rd. round. The CAVOA chart is less generous. It attempts to apply a statistical performance basis in measuring draft position value, with that method coming up with pick #174 as compensation, middle of the 6th. round. Whatever Harvard might say, GMs stick fairly close to the Johnson chart even since the rookie salary scale was implemented. CAVOA doesn't consider cost at all.

https://harvardsportsanalysis.wordpress.com/2011/11/30/how-to-value-nfl-draft-picks/

I'm sure Pro Personnel does some advance work regarding other teams needs, but that's only Kentucky windage. It only starts to get interesting as the picks in the 20's come off the board. You get some idea of where teams will be picking through #39 and whether there are a few attractive names still on the board to choose from, one of which is likely to be available at #40.

There is a tight time frame to make the assessments and then find a willing trading partner.

Consider the Nelson trade. The #30 was traded away for the #36 plus a 4th. rounder. Was Nelson the only guy Thompson was targeting? Not likely; Thompson is a risk averse guy. He likely had more than one name in mind, maybe several, that he thought were good values at that spot. Is it possible he had 4 names in mind, they all got taken in front of him, and Nelson was in reality a reach? It's possible; after the fact, of course, nothing but good things will be said. Who in their right mind would say, "that's not what we wanted to happen".

Further, in recent years where there was clear strength at one or two position groups, there has been a run on those groups whereby the value proposition was not so exceptional by the time the #40 rolled around. Once top-of-the-board teams get their big need guy in the first round, usually at the high demand positions (QB, OT, WR, perimeter CB, edge rusher), they could swarm on any high value DTs left in the 32 - 39 range.

Add it all up, and there are many factors that inhibit a value-added trade down. It's not something you just do at that level of the draft board.