Mock Offseason

[PackFan2]

If I was Gute...
Draft Day - via The Draft Network Draft Machine

I think this seems pretty realistic. But I highly doubt they go this route. (See Amish's Annual Draft thread).

1.12 - Devin Bush Jr, LB

• Bush is a freakish athlete and would do wonders next to Martinez
• If Ed Oliver falls to this spot take him here.

1.30 - Noah Fant, TE

• Hock or Fant here. Hock didnt last to 30 and doubt Hock does. Spending late 1st on a freakish athlete that's willing to block. I'm all in. Either that or trade- trades always happen.

2.44 - Taylor Rapp, S

• With C-Garner and Adderly gone. Took best safety available. Rapp is a smart, sure tackler and a tough SOB that will bring the attitude to our defense.

3.75 - JJ Arcega-Whiteside, WR

• savy WR with alittle wiggle. Will win Contested catches, has size. Perfect complement to Adams.

4.114 - Mecole Hardman, WR

• Can't believe he fell to the fourth. I wanted to take Rodney Anderson or Damien Harris here or a OL. I took Mecole instead - and if those two RB fell i'd pick one of them next. Hardman is that Johnny Knox, Tyler Lockett - Dri Archer player. Small but muscled up. Lighting fast. Cant teach speed and this kids got it.

4.118 - Rodney Anderson, RB

• Take Rodney Anderson, or Damien Harris. In the mock Damien Harris got taken before this pick. I feel like Anderson is the boom or bust player. If injuries never occured, he'd be the best RB out of this class. Coming to GB Anderson won't have start- with two players ahead of him. Ease him in later than early.
• Both Anderson and Harris have potential to be starters. However, Anderson can't seem to get healthy but behind to veterans can slowly ease him in. Damien Harris start ASAP and can run the rock 20+ with power.

5.150 - Bobby Evans, OT

• Plug and play type of guy. Can play left or right tackle. With Bulaga gone, Evans can take over.

- Last three are just athletes. Tauaefa probably a FA special teams guy- Chung is the dark horse here. Played across OL. Verstile. Jack of all trades, master of none. Athletic. Needs to stay healthy. I can see him taking over the center position after Linsey contract ends.
6.185 - Isaiah Buggs, IDL
6.194 - Josiah Tauaefa, LB
7.226 - Kyle Chung, OL

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As long as that deal doesn't involve #30 or #44 I'd be OK with it. The DVC has the difference at only 150 points. Give up our third and and 5th for Buffalo's 4th then use 2 of our 3 the 4ths to move back up into round 3. The numbers work, would that get the deal done. I'd take it.

Also when you say #1 target do you mean the top guy left on their board or their #1 target overall. You would have to think that their #1 target would probably be Bosa, William, or Allen. No matter how unlikely it is that they will fall there are others ways to get your #1 target (trading up) even if it means giving up a lot.

What I mean is do you even bother targeting a guy if it is very unlikely he falls to within range of what you are willing to give up. They have to be in your mind even if the chances are slim because you don't want to get caught off guard. Lets say they are willing to move the #30 pick. That might get them a swap up to #5 with TB. If they are willing to give up that pick they could possibly target one of those three guys because I think one of those guys will be the #5 pick (Cardinals take Murray and some other team trades up with the Raiders 49ers or Jets to take another QB) If someone else decides they want to beef up their OL one of those three could drop to #6 in which case we could possibly keep our #30 and move up to 6 with #44 with the Giants (assuming the Giants are not the team to trade up.

Here is my crazy trade prediction for the draft.

Cardinals take Murray
49ers take Bosa
Giants trade their 2nd and a 5th to the jets and take Haskins
Raiders take Williams (or Allen)
TB take an OL (J Williams? it doesn't matter)
Packers trade their 2nd and a 6th to the Jets and take Allen, or Williams whichever one is left.

for moving down from 3 to 12 the Jets pick up #37 and 44 plus a 5th and a 6th. Who do they take at 12? Who the hell cares its the Jets.

1 in a million chance it happens but it would cause some excitement.

I could be wrong, but I doubt the Packers actually have Bosa or Williams on their radars all that much. Sure if one of them drops far enough, maybe worth moving up to get him, but I expect both to be gone top 5 and trying to trade up that far would be too costly IMO. I like Allen, but I wouldn't trade that far up to get him and honestly, I would rather have Oliver.

One way the Packers could move up in that first round, to grab a guy that they really like and not hurt themselves too much, is with teams like the Giants, Jacksonville or Buffalo. The Packers could package both of their first round picks in exchange for one of those teams first and 2nd rounders. Chances are, at #30 there will be a large group of players that the Packers like and getting one of them early in Round 2 would suffice. So instead of having #12 and #30, the Packers could find themselves with #9 and #40. If that is what it took to get Ed Oliver, I would do it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The Packers could package both of their first round picks in exchange for one of those teams first and 2nd rounders. Chances are, at #30 there will be a large group of players that the Packers like and getting one of them early in Round 2 would suffice. So instead of having #12 and #30, the Packers could find themselves with #9 and #40. If that is what it took to get Ed Oliver, I would do it.

I'm not in favor of the Packers trading out of the first round with the fifth-year option being in play down the road.

 

[AmishMafia]

If I was Gute...
Draft Day - via The Draft Network Draft Machine

I think this seems pretty realistic. But I highly doubt they go this route. (See Amish's Annual Draft thread).

1.12 - Devin Bush Jr, LB

• Bush is a freakish athlete and would do wonders next to Martinez
• If Ed Oliver falls to this spot take him here.

1.30 - Noah Fant, TE

• Hock or Fant here. Hock didnt last to 30 and doubt Hock does. Spending late 1st on a freakish athlete that's willing to block. I'm all in. Either that or trade- trades always happen.

2.44 - Taylor Rapp, S

• With C-Garner and Adderly gone. Took best safety available. Rapp is a smart, sure tackler and a tough SOB that will bring the attitude to our defense.

3.75 - JJ Arcega-Whiteside, WR

• savy WR with alittle wiggle. Will win Contested catches, has size. Perfect complement to Adams.

4.114 - Mecole Hardman, WR

• Can't believe he fell to the fourth. I wanted to take Rodney Anderson or Damien Harris here or a OL. I took Mecole instead - and if those two RB fell i'd pick one of them next. Hardman is that Johnny Knox, Tyler Lockett - Dri Archer player. Small but muscled up. Lighting fast. Cant teach speed and this kids got it.

4.118 - Rodney Anderson, RB

• Take Rodney Anderson, or Damien Harris. In the mock Damien Harris got taken before this pick. I feel like Anderson is the boom or bust player. If injuries never occured, he'd be the best RB out of this class. Coming to GB Anderson won't have start- with two players ahead of him. Ease him in later than early.
• Both Anderson and Harris have potential to be starters. However, Anderson can't seem to get healthy but behind to veterans can slowly ease him in. Damien Harris start ASAP and can run the rock 20+ with power.

5.150 - Bobby Evans, OT

• Plug and play type of guy. Can play left or right tackle. With Bulaga gone, Evans can take over.

- Last three are just athletes. Tauaefa probably a FA special teams guy- Chung is the dark horse here. Played across OL. Verstile. Jack of all trades, master of none. Athletic. Needs to stay healthy. I can see him taking over the center position after Linsey contract ends.
6.185 - Isaiah Buggs, IDL
6.194 - Josiah Tauaefa, LB
7.226 - Kyle Chung, OL

Well done. I think there will be better options at 12, but Bush is an excellent player who will contribute quickly.

The only player I worry about is Anderson. Great player but often injured throughout college. He had a 3 season ending injuries IIRC. My original mock had us taking him in the 7th. In the 4th se can get a good player and Anderson is too much of a risk for me.

Otherwise you have great value in your picks. Too bad we didnt get some DL help.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not in favor of the Packers trading out of the first round with the fifth-year option being in play down the road.

I can understand that train of thought and yes, the 5th year option can have some future value, but as we have seen, it isn't always exercised and probably statistically less on late first round guys. The beauty of that #30 pick, is that 5th year option, so Gute and the Packers might see teams more willing to give up more value for it. Basically, the value goes both ways.

 

[Dantés]

If I was Gute...
Draft Day - via The Draft Network Draft Machine

I think this seems pretty realistic. But I highly doubt they go this route. (See Amish's Annual Draft thread).

1.12 - Devin Bush Jr, LB

• Bush is a freakish athlete and would do wonders next to Martinez
• If Ed Oliver falls to this spot take him here.

1.30 - Noah Fant, TE

• Hock or Fant here. Hock didnt last to 30 and doubt Hock does. Spending late 1st on a freakish athlete that's willing to block. I'm all in. Either that or trade- trades always happen.

2.44 - Taylor Rapp, S

• With C-Garner and Adderly gone. Took best safety available. Rapp is a smart, sure tackler and a tough SOB that will bring the attitude to our defense.

3.75 - JJ Arcega-Whiteside, WR

• savy WR with alittle wiggle. Will win Contested catches, has size. Perfect complement to Adams.

4.114 - Mecole Hardman, WR

• Can't believe he fell to the fourth. I wanted to take Rodney Anderson or Damien Harris here or a OL. I took Mecole instead - and if those two RB fell i'd pick one of them next. Hardman is that Johnny Knox, Tyler Lockett - Dri Archer player. Small but muscled up. Lighting fast. Cant teach speed and this kids got it.

4.118 - Rodney Anderson, RB

• Take Rodney Anderson, or Damien Harris. In the mock Damien Harris got taken before this pick. I feel like Anderson is the boom or bust player. If injuries never occured, he'd be the best RB out of this class. Coming to GB Anderson won't have start- with two players ahead of him. Ease him in later than early.
• Both Anderson and Harris have potential to be starters. However, Anderson can't seem to get healthy but behind to veterans can slowly ease him in. Damien Harris start ASAP and can run the rock 20+ with power.

5.150 - Bobby Evans, OT

• Plug and play type of guy. Can play left or right tackle. With Bulaga gone, Evans can take over.

- Last three are just athletes. Tauaefa probably a FA special teams guy- Chung is the dark horse here. Played across OL. Verstile. Jack of all trades, master of none. Athletic. Needs to stay healthy. I can see him taking over the center position after Linsey contract ends.
6.185 - Isaiah Buggs, IDL
6.194 - Josiah Tauaefa, LB
7.226 - Kyle Chung, OL

I absolutely love Devin Bush Jr. I would be all over that pick. In my opinion, it's him, not White, that compares really favorably with guys like Roquan Smith and Reuben Foster.

I like Fant's athleticism, but the more I see, the lower I am on him. He's not a terrible blocker, but he's not what you want in LaFleur's offense. And for all that athleticism, he's not dangerous after the catch. His hands are an issue.

I'm a fan of Rapp, but I don't want the Packers to draft someone who is strictly a box type of safety. I want someone with more versatility than that. Adderley, Gardner-Johnson, Thornhill, and Savage all fit that bill. I'd take all four before Rapp, myself.

I don't have a big problem with JJAW, and I really, really like Hardman, but I don't really see the need to double up on receiver, especially at the expense of offensive line.

In my opinion, if Bobby Evans is really a plug and play tackle (which I kind of doubt), he isn't going to be an option at #150. I don't think you're finding a starting tackle there, unless it's a developmental target and you get really lucky.

 

[GleefulGary]

I have to agree with that ***** Dantes on Fant.

He doesn't break or elude tacklers.
He doesn't make contested catches.
He had a lot of drops.

He's a fine player, but first round? I think the player he reminds me of the most is Jared Cook...and Jared Cook is a good TE, don't get me wrong! But first round? I would really struggle with liking that.

Hockenson is the only TE that should go in the first round.

 

[Dantés]

I have to agree with that ***** Dantes on Fant.

He doesn't break or elude tacklers.
He doesn't make contested catches.
He had a lot of drops.

He's a fine player, but first round? I think the player he reminds me of the most is Jared Cook...and Jared Cook is a good TE, don't get me wrong! But first round? I would really struggle with liking that.

Hockenson is the only TE that should go in the first round.

I disagree with everything but the ***** part.

 

[elcid]

I can understand that train of thought and yes, the 5th year option can have some future value, but as we have seen, it isn't always exercised and probably statistically less on late first round guys. The beauty of that #30 pick, is that 5th year option, so Gute and the Packers might see teams more willing to give up more value for it. Basically, the value goes both ways.

This would be great. Pick up Oliver and still get a quality player at one of the deepest positions of the draft, which also happen to be some of the positions of need for the Packers (OL, WR, S).

Either way, I feel like the FO cant do any wrong this draft. The only move I wouldn't love is a trade down from 12 as I feel that at the very worst there will be a premier talent available at OL, DL, or EDGE, and if not, Bush/White. And tbh we could use all greatly.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm not sure a single 4th would get it done. Depends if the Bills want to move back or will need some extra inducement. You've' played around with a lot more trade scenarios than I have so you may have a better feel for what works but looking at the chart you have to figure the team initiating the trade has to give up a bit more simply because they want it more.

No You’re exactly right It’s a bit more than just a 4th. Such as likely a 4th + late rounder 6th/7th etc..).

That said, it is my belief a small move won’t work as well with the calculator. Keeping in mind in going from #10 to #12 if you’re moving back you already know who’s getting picked at #10.. so you’re really only facing 1 unknown before you pick right away again. However, Its more like 1.25-1.5 picks differential in my mind because it does still slightly reduce the pool of selections for our opponent, thereby narrowing our chance of the team directly in front of us picking someone we have no interest in.

Trading back two slots is especially a no brainer if you’re at #10 and there’s two guys you have valued equal (as in the flip of a coin).
I’d do it at #12 to #14 for a 4th and 6th in a heartbeat if my main guys on my board are gone. In particular if several remaining prospects have a trivial amount of disparity on my board it’s an easy decision.There’s other exceptions, like trading out of day 1 like we did in 2017. But we demanded more for moving backwards those 4 spots because we also lost a 5th year option.

I still believe trading back #12+#150 with the Redskins for #15+#76 should be completely on the table if we have 3 draft prospects left at #12 that we deem fairly equal.
Then being aggressive and using #76 and #44 package to pick inside day1 for a 3rd time.
E.g,
#15, #29, #30
..
#75
#114, #118
..
#185, #194
#226
Etc..

 

[sschind]

No You’re exactly right It’s a bit more than just a 4th. Such as likely a 4th + late rounder 6th/7th etc..).

That said, it is my belief a small move won’t work as well with the calculator. Keeping in mind in going from #10 to #12 if you’re moving back you already know who’s getting picked at #10.. so you’re really only facing 1 unknown before you pick right away again. However, Its more like 1.5 picks differential in my mind because it does still reduce the pool of selections too, but you still have an above average chance at selecting the same player at #10 as #12 in that scenario. It’s especially a no brainer if you’re at #10 and there’s 2 guys you have valued equal as in the flip of a coin. I’d do it at #12 to #14 for a 4th and 6th.. again, if my main guys are gone.
There’s other exceptions like trading out of day 1 like we did in 2017. But we demanded more for those 4 spots because we also lost a 5th year option. It ended up being a terrible move because that 4th rounder ended up on IR immediately, but I’m confident TT didn’t get full disclosure on Biegel (which also contributed to the later decision to put Vince out to pasture). No way does TT pick a guy who’s having a double foot operation just weeks later if that information is available, at least not the lead pick of day 3

So do you think the team trading down would stipulate that they will move down only if you don't take a particular player. It would really suck to be Buffalo thinking the Packers want a guy they have no interest in so they trade back only to have the Packers take the guy they really wanted.


To be honest I kind of view 6th an 7th round picks as disposable anyway. I mean they are nice if that's all you got but if it takes one or even two to move up earlier in the draft you will be better off for it in the long run.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

So do you think the team trading down would stipulate that they will move down only if you don't take a particular player. It would really suck to be Buffalo thinking the Packers want a guy they have no interest in so they trade back only to have the Packers take the guy they really wanted.


To be honest I kind of view 6th an 7th round picks as disposable anyway. I mean they are nice if that's all you got but if it takes one or even two to move up earlier in the draft you will be better off for it in the long run.

I have to guess that when 2 GM's are on the phone talking a 1-3 spot trade swap in the first round, if actual conversation on specifics is allowed under the rules, the GM giving up the higher pick is going to try and find out which player the other team is targeting. Now whether the other GM is forthright and honest, probably helps to get the deal done for that trade and future trades. I imagine word gets around pretty fast if you have a GM who bamboozles others and ends up taking a different player.

As far as 6th and 7th round picks. I actually covet those to some extent. They are valuable for grabbing top special teams players (K, P, LS, Returners) or high priority free agents that otherwise might choose to sign with another team.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That said, it is my belief a small move won’t work as well with the calculator. Keeping in mind in going from #10 to #12 if you’re moving back you already know who’s getting picked at #10.. so you’re really only facing 1 unknown before you pick right away again. However, Its more like 1.25-1.5 picks differential in my mind because it does still slightly reduce the pool of selections for our opponent, thereby narrowing our chance of the team directly in front of us picking someone we have no interest in.

Trading back two slots is especially a no brainer if you’re at #10 and there’s two guys you have valued equal (as in the flip of a coin).
I’d do it at #12 to #14 for a 4th and 6th in a heartbeat if my main guys on my board are gone. In particular if several remaining prospects have a trivial amount of disparity on my board it’s an easy decision.

As others have pointed out I highly doubt a general manager interested in trading up informs the other team about their plans on who they're going to select.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

As others have pointed out I highly doubt a general manager interested in trading up informs the other team about their plans on who they're going to select.

That would be an interesting thing to find out, as well as would it be against the rules? But I can see the situation when GM Bob really wants Player X and he goes to GM Dave and says "There is a player we really want and we are willing to give you a nice deal to get him, are you interested?". If GM Bob convinces and gives GM Dave a gentleman's assurance who that player is (player X) and he isn't a player that GM Dave wants, the trade is more likely to go happen.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

That would be an interesting thing to find out, as well as would it be against the rules? But I can see the situation when GM Bob really wants Player X and he goes to GM Dave and says "There is a player we really want and we are willing to give you a nice deal to get him, are you interested?". If GM Bob convinces and gives GM Dave a gentleman's assurance who that player is and it isn't a player that GM Dave wants, the trade is more likely to go happen.

Why would GM Bob be interested in trading with GM Dave if both are interested in a different player though??? In that case it would be smarter for GM Bob to talk to GM Matt who is on the clock next.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Why would GM Bob be interested in trading with GM Dave if both are interested in a different player though??? In that case it would be smarter for GM Bob to talk to GM Matt who is on the clock next.

In this situation GM Bob knows there is a good chance that GM Matt wants Player X, so he needs to leap frog him, by swinging a trade with GM Dave. Letting GM Matt know that he is interested in the exact player that GM Matt wants, will shut that door fast.

I am sure there is a lot of Poker being played by GM's throughout this process, including draft visits. Depending on the rules of the NFL, some GM's may hold their cards really close to their vests or others might be willing to expose a card to a GM they trust, in order to get the deal done.

 

[OldSchool101]

As others have pointed out I highly doubt a general manager interested in trading up informs the other team about their plans on who they're going to select.

Possibly. I’m talking just the reverse though Captain.
Im referring from the angle of the team standing down and I believe they absolutely know who the team trading up “won’t” select though. They can care less as long as you don’t pick at their position etc.. Think about it, teams can easily do that without even ever mentioning a specific player’s name or showing all their cards. This doesn’t even take into account partners in crime who have already made the decisions before you read this post.

 

[OldSchool101]

In this situation GM Bob knows there is a good chance that GM Matt wants Player X, so he needs to leap frog him, by swinging a trade with GM Dave. Letting GM Matt know that he is interested in the exact player that GM Matt wants, will shut that door fast.

I am sure there is a lot of Poker being played by GM's throughout this process, including draft visits. Depending on the rules of the NFL, some GM's may hold their cards really close to their vests or others might be willing to expose a card to a GM they trust, in order to get the deal done.

That’s exactly what I initially said! Just like in poker there’s lots of non verbal communication going on that changes the entire scope of the situation.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

That’s exactly what I initially said! Just like in poker there’s lots of non verbal communication going on that changes the entire scope of the situation.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[OldSchool101]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

Barbara Mandrell would be so proud of you Amish! Lol

 

[Deleted member 6794]

In this situation GM Bob knows there is a good chance that GM Matt wants Player X, so he needs to leap frog him, by swinging a trade with GM Dave. Letting GM Matt know that he is interested in the exact player that GM Matt wants, will shut that door fast.

I have lost track of who Bob, Dave and Matt are working for as well as who they're talking to at this point

Possibly. I’m talking just the reverse though Captain.
Im referring from the angle of the team standing down and I believe they absolutely know who the team trading up “won’t” select though. They can care less as long as you don’t pick at their position etc.. Think about it, teams can easily do that without even ever mentioning a specific player’s name or showing all their cards. This doesn’t even take into account partners in crime who have already made the decisions before you read this post.

While I agree teams might have a guess which player a team trading up is interested in or as you said won't select with that pick I have a hard time believing they have knowledge about it though.

 

[AmishMafia]

Barbara Mandrell would be so proud of you Amish! Lol

I'm missing the inference.

I am not proud of that ******. I mean, I cant believe she would dress that way. Buttons? Really? She wears buttons? And zippers? Who does she think she is with all that modern technology?

Sorry. I will get off my soapbox now.

 

[OldSchool101]

I'm missing the inference.

I am not proud of that ******. I mean, I cant believe she would dress that way. Buttons? Really? She wears buttons? And zippers? Who does she think she is with all that modern technology?

Sorry. I will get off my soapbox now.

Ha. The Mandrell sisters and Kenny Rogers ran in the same circles.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Barbara Mandrell would be so proud of you Amish! Lol

I never pictured Amish as a grey haired singer, in my head he looked more like this.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[sschind]

I have lost track of who Bob, Dave and Matt are working for as well as who they're talking to at this point

Its probably a good thing I didn't post what I initially had written out. I introduced Tony into the mix as the GM trading with Matt to jump ahead of Dave who just moved down two spots in his trade with Bob and took the guy Dave was certain would be there because He knew who Bob was taking and figured he knew who Matt was taking. I'm glad I didn't do that though because it would have gotten real confusing.

Ha. The Mandrell sisters and Kenny Rogers ran in the same circles.

There were some first rate genes floating around in that family let me tell you.