Should TT trade out of first round?

[ExpatPacker]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

If the Packers got that in return, that would be awfully tempting. Basically 2 picks in rounds 2, 3, and 4

 

[PikeBadger]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

Wow, that must have been the infamous trade to get the generally useless Cordarelle Patterson. Never could figure out why they gave up so much for a guy that was the second best receiver on his college team. It's great having a GM like that in your division. Lol

 

[PikeBadger]

If the Packers got that in return, that would be awfully tempting. Basically 2 picks in rounds 2, 3, and 4

Yes it would. I wouldn't turn down that offer.

 

[McKnowledge]

Then again, who would have thought with Brett Favre, the Packers would have drafted Aaron Rodgers in the first round, that turned out ok.

I too am not saying the Packers should draft Mahomes, than again, I was scratching my head when they did draft Rodgers, so what do I know!

If Rodgers was 38 instead of 33, then I would draft Mahomes. Absolutely. Presently, we have the best QB and a great back-up. Unlike other organizations, Green Bay has mastered the art of QB development, which always gives the Packers a fighting chance.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If Rodgers was 38 instead of 33, then I would draft Mahomes. Absolutely. Presently, we have the best QB and a great back-up. Unlike other organizations, Green Bay has mastered the art of QB development, which always gives the Packers a fighting chance.

What do you base Hundley being a great backup on??? The Packers don't have a fighting chance if Rodgers goes down for an extended period of time.

 

[thequick12]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

If browns wanna give up 52 and there pick at top of 3rd and 4th for 29 I'd probably take it. 52 is a long way to wait for first pick but then you'd have 5 picks from 52-108 should be 5 really good players. numbers 52, 61, 65, 93, and 108.

 

[AmishMafia]

Imagine the Packers with Ezekiel Elliot in the backfield! Now...imagine the Packers 2016 Defense trotting out onto the field!

Once again, the Packers don't have the luxury of an offensive pick in the first round, so for the 6th straight year, I see them having to go defense with the first and possibly the second pick as well.

Imagine the 2016 Packers defense trotting out on the field with a 3 score lead always well rested because our offense leads time of possession 2 to 1.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Imagine the 2016 Packers defense trotting out on the field with a 3 score lead always well rested because our offense leads time of possession 2 to 1.

Haven't we seen that scenario? When your defense allows the opponent quick and easy scores, it really doesn't matter how big your lead is, your offense is then asked to play perfect the entire game. As good as AR and the Packer offense has been at times, I don't expect perfection, nor should it be required for 4 quarters against every team in the NFL.

Also, people talking about drafting a RB in the first round in my mind are saying "We need more weapons on offense to score more points and use up more clock to win" are ignoring just how bad our defense was at times and how successful our offense was, passing the ball. I really don't think shifting the Packers offense to a run first, pass less and try to use up the game clock is using Aaron Rodgers in the best possible way. The Packers offense was just fine in 2016 and to think the defense would be better because the offense is better doesn't make sense to me.

I do hope that the Packers can rely on Montgomery and/or another RB to help the offense, but I don't think the Packers and TT have afforded themselves the luxury of using a first round pick on one. Had TT done more in the offseason to improve the defense, a first round pick on a RB may have made sense.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Imagine the 2016 Packers defense trotting out on the field with a 3 score lead always well rested because our offense leads time of possession 2 to 1.

That's extremely hard to imagine as the defense would have to get at least two stops at some point for it to happen.

 

[McKnowledge]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

If I were Cleveland, I would make this trade with the Packers. They could conceivably draft Garrett, Fournette/O.J. Howard/Malik Hooker/ with the 12th, and finish the 1st Round with actually getting a QB like Kizer. The Browns have a hell of a lot of draft capital. Meanwhile, Packers fall back, gain an extra pick, and replenish the roster. Looks more like TT won't draft a CB in the 1st round.

 

[McKnowledge]

What do you base Hundley being a great backup on??? The Packers don't have a fighting chance if Rodgers goes down for an extended period of time.

They won games with the wack Scott Tolzien a couple seasons ago, with Rodgers missing games due to injury. Hundley is a massive upgrade over him.

 

[Poppa San]

Hundley is a massive upgrade over him.

You base this on a few hand offs in mop-up duty and preseason games 2 seasons ago? I don't think he played much if at all last preseason. I'd feel more comfortable with the Callahan guy ATM.

 

[McKnowledge]

You base this on a few hand offs in mop-up duty and preseason games 2 seasons ago? I don't think he played much if at all last preseason. I'd feel more comfortable with the Callahan guy ATM.

"Methinks thou dost protest too much"

 

[Poppa San]

"Methinks thou dost protest too much"

Define too much. First I've said about this in 8 months.

 

[Mondio]

Define too much. First I've said about this in 8 months.

and that's too damn much

 

[DoURant]

They won games with the wack Scott Tolzien a couple seasons ago, with Rodgers missing games due to injury. Hundley is a massive upgrade over him.

Actually, they never won a game Tolzien started. They resigned Flynn that year and he won the only game/games Rodgers didn't start. Tolzien was 0-2 as a starter, and got pulled his 3rd game vs the Vikings in favor of Flynn who brought us back to earn a tie in that game.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They won games with the wack Scott Tolzien a couple seasons ago, with Rodgers missing games due to injury. Hundley is a massive upgrade over him.

The Packers went 2-5-1 with Rodgers being sidelined for eight games in 2013, winning both games by only a single point with one of them taking an epic collapse by the Cowboys to get back into it. As DoURant correctly pointed out the team didn't win a game with Tolzien starting.

In addition it's ridiculous to suggest Hundley being a great backup because of his performance during the preseason against second and third stringers two years ago. He looked mostly terrible in mop-up duty during the regular season last season.

Therr's absolutely no doubt the Packers are done if Rodgers misses significant time because of an injury.

 

[McKnowledge]

Actually, they never won a game Tolzien started. They resigned Flynn that year and he won the only game/games Rodgers didn't start. Tolzien was 0-2 as a starter, and got pulled his 3rd game vs the Vikings in favor of Flynn who brought us back to earn a tie in that game.

I stand corrected.

 

[McKnowledge]

The Packers went 2-5-1 with Rodgers being sidelined for eight games in 2013, winning both games by only a single point with one of them taking an epic collapse by the Cowboys to get back into it. As DoURant correctly pointed out the team didn't win a game with Tolzien starting.

In addition it's ridiculous to suggest Hundley being a great backup because of his performance during the preseason against second and third stringers two years ago. He looked mostly terrible in mop-up duty during the regular season last season.

Therr's absolutely no doubt the Packers are done if Rodgers misses significant time because of an injury.

DoURant corrected my error in recollections. However, to suggest Hundley is incapable of being a serviceable back-up is almost treasonous. I question your Packer pride. We must support all Packers!!! As fans, we must uplift them; instill confidence...But I digress. Lol.

 

[Dantés]

If the top corners and edge rushers are off the board (i.e. Conley, Humphrey, White, and Watt are all gone), it could be slick to move into the top of the 2nd for a guy like King or Awuzie. Teams that pick high in that round who don't take a QB at the top of the first could be looking to make the move to secure that 5th year option.

However, given that the Packers could really use some immediate impact on defense, I do think that if the right player is there at #29 you just stay put and take them. A guy like Adoree' Jackson really intrigues me as a 4 down contributor. He's a talented and capable cover corner and probably the best return man in the class. The Packers need help in both spots. He's shorter than the ideal Thompson corner, but then that's really the only reason he might ever fall to the Packers (and he may not anyways).

 

[DoURant]

For those who haven't seen this chart, it is a nice reference to look at to see just what draft pick trades are usually valued at. I think Jimmy Johnson was given credit for putting this together in 1991 and it seems to be pretty accurate.

http://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp?RequestTeam=gb

For instance:

Packers #1 pick is valued at 640 points. If they trade it to San Fran, they would expect the 49er's #2 (560) and their #4 (76) in return.

What would you think if we traded our 1st and 2nd (#29, #61 pt value 932) to Cleveland for both of their 2nd Rd picks (#33, #52 pt value 960)? For them to get a 5th yr option on a 1st rd pick should be worth the extra pts. Moves us up 9 slots in the 2nd. Plus TT would have the prime spot to trade back again to start Day 2 of the draft if he wanted to.

 

[DoURant]

The last time a team traded the 29th pick was in 2013 when the Patriots received Minnesota's second (52nd), third (83rd), fourth (102nd) and seventh (229th) round picks in return.

Would you be up to trading our 1st rd pick to the Patriots for Malcolm Butler? I believe they have a 1st rd tender on him. That would be the top CB signing at that position everyone wants us to make.

 

[DoURant]

DoURant corrected my error in recollections. However, to suggest Hundley is incapable of being a serviceable back-up is almost treasonous. I question your Packer pride. We must support all Packers!!! As fans, we must uplift them; instill confidence...But I digress. Lol.

I still think Tolzien got a raw deal that year by fans, they expected too much. We got the guy off the 49ers practice squad that yr, he got pushed into play, with very few reps. I thought he showed good arm strength, moved the ball well between the 20's, just couldn't finish drives off, making some bad decisions w/ Int's. I am officially supporting the wack Scott Tolzien, Lol

 

[thequick12]

I'd trade 29 for richard Sherman but not for Malcom Butler. I'd rather have the guy you cannot draft at 29 than Butler because I think that guy has a significant chance to be better than Butler but not Sherman. I don't think I'd even give a 2nd for Butler a 3rd is where I'd consider it. but then you have to pay Butler 10 million a year and he's just not worth that

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What would you think if we traded our 1st and 2nd (#29, #61 pt value 932) to Cleveland for both of their 2nd Rd picks (#33, #52 pt value 960)? For them to get a 5th yr option on a 1st rd pick should be worth the extra pts. Moves us up 9 slots in the 2nd. Plus TT would have the prime spot to trade back again to start Day 2 of the draft if he wanted to.

I posted the exact thing earlier this week.

I would be in favor of it, IF there were enough players (4-5) on the board that interested the Packers when their pick at #29 was on the clock. Really a no brainer in my mind. Still get a guy you want and move up 9 spots in the second to possibly still find a first tier player. Not sure how much value the 5th yr. option is on a #29 pick, but definitely something to consider.