players that TT must trade up for if the opportunity is there

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Oh, I think the Packers should be willing to move up into the mid-teens for him or McDowell; short of something coming out of nowhere (e.g., past crime, drug use, injury) there's no realistic shot either of those guys fall to the Packers.

The Packers would probably have to part with at least their #1 and #2 to move up into the 17th or 18th spot. I don't see TT doing that, nor do I think he should. Address your immediate needs in Free Agency and use those 2 picks in the hopes that you find two future starters.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Been doing half of that for a long time, and 'close, but no cigar' lately.

When you rely so heavily on the draft and UDFA's to fill your roster every year, as well as during the season, you are bound to be missing half of the equation.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
The Packers would probably have to part with at least their #1 and #2 to move up into the 17th or 18th spot. I don't see TT doing that, nor do I think he should. Address your immediate needs in Free Agency and use those 2 picks in the hopes that you find two future starters.

**** the future. You're likely not going to get much, if any help at #29 and the end of rd2. Trade up for an impact pass rusher.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
Oh, I think the Packers should be willing to move up into the mid-teens for him or McDowell; short of something coming out of nowhere (e.g., past crime, drug use, injury) there's no realistic shot either of those guys fall to the Packers.
To move up to pick #15 from #29 would cost TT our 1st, 2nd AND 3rd round pick. Using the trade value chart:
(29) 640 pts + (61) 292 pts. + (93) 128 pts. = 1060 pts.
Pick #15 = 1050 pts.

NOT worth trading 3 top-100 picks for 1 player, IMHO.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
**** the future. You're likely not going to get much, if any help at #29 and the end of rd2. Trade up for an impact pass rusher.

What guarantees/help are you going to get when you trade 2-3 picks to move up 12-15 spots?
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,428
Reaction score
1,499
What guarantees/help are you going to get when you trade 2-3 picks to move up 12-15 spots?

Who said 12-15? You can probably get one of them- Red****, for example- by moving up less than ten spots.
The 'guarantee' **** has gotten old too. Here's a guarantee. Sit on your *** and do nothing guarantees you won't get anywhere.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
To move up to pick #15 from #29 would cost TT our 1st, 2nd AND 3rd round pick. Using the trade value chart:
(29) 640 pts + (61) 292 pts. + (93) 128 pts. = 1060 pts.
Pick #15 = 1050 pts.

NOT worth trading 3 top-100 picks for 1 player, IMHO.

It can be, if you think the guy is worth it. Personally think trading Randall and Rollins and Jake Ryan for Marcus Peters in 2015 would have been worth it...hindsight I know but trading up CAN be worth it.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
It can be, if you think the guy is worth it. Personally think trading Randall and Rollins and Jake Ryan for Marcus Peters in 2015 would have been worth it...hindsight I know but trading up CAN be worth it.

You are right....hindsight.

Would you say the same thing about trading up for Kevin Johnson or Trae Waynes?

Seems like a crapshoot no matter what you do, but you start hedging your bets a bit more with multiple picks. Personally, I would be fine with trading the #29 to someone like the Rams/Chargers/Jets for their 2nd and 3rd round picks.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
The Packers would probably have to part with at least their #1 and #2 to move up into the 17th or 18th spot. I don't see TT doing that, nor do I think he should. Address your immediate needs in Free Agency and use those 2 picks in the hopes that you find two future starters.

I'm not a big fan of trading up in the draft either giving up multiple picks as I like the team to have as much selections as possible with the draft mostly being a crapshoot. There are exceptions though once a top tier player starts to drop in the first round though.

Unfortunately that approach requires the general manager to address obvious positions in need of an upgrade via free agency.

It can be, if you think the guy is worth it. Personally think trading Randall and Rollins and Jake Ryan for Marcus Peters in 2015 would have been worth it...hindsight I know but trading up CAN be worth it.

Ryan was a fourth round pick though as the Packers drafted Montgomery in the third round of the 2015 draft. Trading that pick for Peters would have left them without a runnng back last season.

When talking about trading up just take a look at Thompson's last two drafts. He gave up five picks to move up to select Hundley and Spriggs. While it's too early to fairly evaluate those moves as of right now it hasn't paid off.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
When talking about trading up just take a look at Thompson's last two drafts. He gave up five picks to move up to select Hundley and Spriggs. While it's too early to fairly evaluate those moves as of right now it hasn't paid off.
I think Spriggs is definitely in the Packers long-term plans for the O-line. As a rookie forced into duty at both OG & OT he didn't dominate but I thought he performed well. TT traded #57 (2nd), #125 (4th), and 248 (7th) to get #48 for Spriggs. Per the trade value chart TT "won" by getting 420 pts. for #48 and giving up approx. 380 (low 7th rounders have very little value on the chart).

I think this preseason Hundley gets the spotlight and extended playing time for him to shine brightly and become trade-bait. TT traded our 5th & 7th rounders to move up in the 5th to grab Hundley... and a '17 trade will hopefully net a 2nd or 3rd (worst case). Per the trade value chart TT "won" by getting 32 pts (Hundley) and giving up 27 pts.
 
Last edited:

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
Ryan was a fourth round pick though as the Packers drafted Montgomery in the third round of the 2015 draft. Trading that pick for Peters would have left them without a runnng back last season.

When talking about trading up just take a look at Thompson's last two drafts. He gave up five picks to move up to select Hundley and Spriggs. While it's too early to fairly evaluate those moves as of right now it hasn't paid off.

Peters was the 19th pick in the draft, not the 15th. I just assumed the Packers would give up less to move to 19 rather than 15, hence the fourth and not the third.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I think Spriggs is definitely in the Packers long-term plans for the O-line. As a rookie forced into duty at both OG & OT he didn't dominate but I thought he performed well. TT traded #57 (2nd), #125 (4th), and 248 (7th) to get #48 for Spriggs. Per the trade value chart TT "won" by getting 420 pts. for #48 and giving up approx. 380 (low 7th rounders have very little value on the chart).

I think this preseason Hundley gets the spotlight and extended playing time for him to shine brightly and become trade-bait. TT traded our 5th & 7th rounders to move up in the 5th to grab Hundley... and a '17 trade will hopefully net a 2nd or 3rd (worst case). Per the trade value chart TT "won" by getting 32 pts (Hundley) and giving up 27 pts.

The discussion wasn't about the draft trade value chart though. In my opinion the Packers should have drafted five different players instead of trading up for Spriggs and Hundley maximizing the chance of finding a decent player.

I don't agree that Spriggs performed well during his rookie season as Barclay leapfrogged him on the depth chart nor believe that Hundley will yield a second or third round pick in return.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
The discussion wasn't about the draft trade value chart though. In my opinion the Packers should have drafted five different players instead of trading up for Spriggs and Hundley maximizing the chance of finding a decent player.

I don't agree that Spriggs performed well during his rookie season as Barclay leapfrogged him on the depth chart nor believe that Hundley will yield a second or third round pick in return.
My 2015 & 2016 mock drafts had neither player in them, so I don't disagree that you preferred 5 different players, too. Both guys were value-picks where they were taken so I'm not complaining. I'm REALLY glad that TT didn't use our 1st rounder on Spriggs, but he was projected by many "experts" to go late 1st/early 2nd, so wasn't a reach at 48.

Hundley in the 5th round was a steal! Most mocks/projections had him in the 2nd/3rd round.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...rback-jameis-winston-marcus-mariota/26363071/

"He was not easy to grade," an AFC scout tells USA TODAY Sports, speaking on the condition of anonymity. The scout, who sees Hundley as the third-ranked quarterback in the draft, did not want to be identified because of the sensitive nature of draft evaluations.

"He's got the things you need," the scout says. "He can make the throws that really impress you and put it in tight spots. He's accurate, smart, athletic. I'm a big fan of his. But one game he looks like a first-round talent, and the next game you wonder if it's the same guy."

Hundley (6-3, 226 pounds) has been knocked for taking too many sacks and in other cases for taking off and running too quickly." ** Editorial ~ sounds A LOT like AR, doesn't it? ;)

With preseason showcasing Hundley may be some (desperate) team's answer and could easily be ready to step in and be a starter, so a 2nd or 3rd would be on the low side.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
With preseason showcasing Hundley may be some (desperate) team's answer and could easily be ready to step in and be a starter, so a 2nd or 3rd would be on the low side.

I don't believe Thompson reached for either Spriggs or Hundley either but there's no denying the Packers have received minimum impact out of both so far while spending five picks to acquire them.

There are teams in the league desperate for a quarterback but there's close to zero chance one will trade a second or third rounder to acquire a backup based on his preseason performance.
 

Pkrjones

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
3,803
Reaction score
1,725
Location
Northern IL
There are teams in the league desperate for a quarterback but there's close to zero chance one will trade a second or third rounder to acquire a backup based on his preseason performance.
Actually the better plan would be for the Packers to completely blow-out their opponents the first 5 or 6 games and let Hundley play the 2nd half of each game. That would showcase his talents against #1 D's, but can't bank on that happening too often before the trade deadline.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
I don't believe Thompson reached for either Spriggs or Hundley either but there's no denying the Packers have received minimum impact out of both so far while spending five picks to acquire them.

I don't think Thompson really reached for Spriggs or Hundley either, but I think both you and I and a few other, at the time, questioned "Why"? Still seems odd that they gave up all those picks for what are amounting to back-up players. I realize not every pick is a starter, but when you have AR, Hundley will never beat him out. When you have Bahk and Bulaga, will Spriggs ever unseat either of them? Sure they are great backup options, but at what cost of finding players at positions of higher need?
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Actually the better plan would be for the Packers to completely blow-out their opponents the first 5 or 6 games and let Hundley play the 2nd half of each game. That would showcase his talents against #1 D's, but can't bank on that happening too often before the trade deadline.

Or just have AR sit one out against Detroit and let Hundley pull a Matt Flynn out of his backside. :D
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I don't think Thompson really reached for Spriggs or Hundley either, but I think both you and I and a few other, at the time, questioned "Why"? Still seems odd that they gave up all those picks for what are amounting to back-up players. I realize not every pick is a starter, but when you have AR, Hundley will never beat him out. When you have Bahk and Bulaga, will Spriggs every unseat either of them? Sure they are great backup options, but at what cost of finding players at positions of higher need?

After Thompson traded three picks to acquire Spriggs I expected him to be groomed as the future starting left tackle. With the Packers extending Bakhtiari before the start of the season the move doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Actually the better plan would be for the Packers to completely blow-out their opponents the first 5 or 6 games and let Hundley play the 2nd half of each game.

I would be absolutely ecstatic about that. ;)
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
After Thompson traded three picks to acquire Spriggs I expected him to be groomed as the future starting left tackle. With the Packers extending Bakhtiari before the start of the season the move doesn't make a lot of sense.

I remember chatting about that after the draft. I think some of us assumed Bahk wasn't being resigned after this season. While its never bad to have good backup Tackles in the NFL, who knows what 3 players we would have gotten with the #57, #125 and #248 picks we used to get him.

Edit: Had to look who was selected with those picks:

#57: TJ Green CB
#125: Antonio Morrison OLB
#248: Austin Blythe C
 
Last edited:

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
Spriggs did perform well. He took his lumps, seemed to need a couple plays to warm up, but he got tossed out in some tough situations too and they expected him to perform. He was at least adequate in that role as a rookie. He needs to add a bit of strength, but so did BahkT and I'd say that worked out.


I don't think Thompson really reached for Spriggs or Hundley either, but I think both you and I and a few other, at the time, questioned "Why"? Still seems odd that they gave up all those picks for what are amounting to back-up players. I realize not every pick is a starter, but when you have AR, Hundley will never beat him out. When you have Bahk and Bulaga, will Spriggs ever unseat either of them? Sure they are great backup options, but at what cost of finding players at positions of higher need?

"You can never have too many good QB's" I paraphrased. Since Ted isn't too well liked by most lately, Ron Wolf said that, or something to that effect and also said you should always plan on drafting a QB to develop no matter who your starter is. From the brief appearances, I'd say Hundley was a good pick in the 5th.

as for the last bit about " at what cost of finding players at positions of higher need" what was our need last year going into the draft? The previous year the constant rotation and injury at the offensive line really affected this team all year long. Quality back ups at the offensive line, especially knowing that a year from then we'd be looking at potentially replacing 2 pro-bowl caliber guards, I'd say offensive line was one of our only needs going into the draft last year. We were set at safety. Defensive backs were considered a strength, we had a committed Eddie Lacy and serviceable backups at RB, ILB was a perceived need, and getting Jordy back.

Now that we're a season behind us we can see we only have to replace 1 guard, which we did, maybe another. that has yet TBD'd. We can see DB's were decimated and maybe not as strong? or maybe just really injured, but despite losing some brief stints on the oline, Spriggs stepped in and did pretty well for us. Certainly better than trotting that other guy out there at left tackle. bad enough he had to take snaps at guard.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Spriggs did perform well. He took his lumps, seemed to need a couple plays to warm up, but he got tossed out in some tough situations too and they expected him to perform. He was at least adequate in that role as a rookie. He needs to add a bit of strength, but so did BahkT and I'd say that worked out.

or maybe just really injured, but despite losing some brief stints on the oline, Spriggs stepped in and did pretty well for us. Certainly better than trotting that other guy out there at left tackle. bad enough he had to take snaps at guard.

Completely disagree that Spriggs performed well during his rookie season as he struggled for most of his playing time. While he's for sure not best suited to line up at guard Barclay leapfrogging him on the depth chart isn't a great sign for things to come.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Spriggs did perform well. He took his lumps, seemed to need a couple plays to warm up, but he got tossed out in some tough situations too and they expected him to perform. He was at least adequate in that role as a rookie. He needs to add a bit of strength, but so did BahkT and I'd say that worked out.




"You can never have too many good QB's" I paraphrased. Since Ted isn't too well liked by most lately, Ron Wolf said that, or something to that effect and also said you should always plan on drafting a QB to develop no matter who your starter is. From the brief appearances, I'd say Hundley was a good pick in the 5th.

as for the last bit about " at what cost of finding players at positions of higher need" what was our need last year going into the draft? The previous year the constant rotation and injury at the offensive line really affected this team all year long. Quality back ups at the offensive line, especially knowing that a year from then we'd be looking at potentially replacing 2 pro-bowl caliber guards, I'd say offensive line was one of our only needs going into the draft last year. We were set at safety. Defensive backs were considered a strength, we had a committed Eddie Lacy and serviceable backups at RB, ILB was a perceived need, and getting Jordy back.

Now that we're a season behind us we can see we only have to replace 1 guard, which we did, maybe another. that has yet TBD'd. We can see DB's were decimated and maybe not as strong? or maybe just really injured, but despite losing some brief stints on the oline, Spriggs stepped in and did pretty well for us. Certainly better than trotting that other guy out there at left tackle. bad enough he had to take snaps at guard.

The one problem I have with the draft and develop a QB, when you have AR, is why? Sure, if AR gets hurt, retires early, you have Hundley. But chances are, Hundley plays out his rookie contract with few starts under his belt and than what do you do? I would have prefered a vet QB at #2 and you have a guy like Callahan developing. Please don't bring up drafting AR, I think we all know Favre's time was up soon and the Packers knew it. But only a 5th round pick for Hundley, so probably not worth arguing about.

As far as Spriggs. I think the needs on defense (ILB, DL, OLB) were greater than OT last year, at least to spend your #2 and 2 additional picks on. 3 picks for a backup is kind of steep in my mind. Had the Packers decided they weren't resigning Bahk, smart move. So yes, Spriggs looks to be a capable backup on a rookie contract, but are the Packers done with Bulaga (27 yrs old) when Spriggs's contract is up?
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top