1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Trade Down Scenarios

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Malk, Mar 15, 2009.

  1. Malk

    Malk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    My personal thought is that, if Raji is available, we ought to take him. If not (seems increasingly likely) we should trade down. Keeping values close, what are some likely scenarios? Here's what I would like to see:

    Trade our 1st, 4th, &6th round picks for both of Philly's 1st rounders (#21 & 28) - Philadelphia's Super Bowl window will be closing in the next year or two ... after getting torched by Fitzgerald & Boldin in the NFC title game, they've got to be thinking of getting a playmaker at WR to put them over the top. Either Maclin or Crabtree will almost certainly be available at #9. Their other big need is a safety to replace Dawkins, but there's no one who's 1st round-worthy. They could very likely jump at this for those reasons.

    Trade the #21 pick to New England for both their 2nd round picks (# 48 & 55). It's a poorly kept secret that Belichek would love to get Clay Matthews - but he also badly needs to upgrade his secondary ... this trade would allow him to take care of both his wants and his needs.

    Finally, trade both our 3rd round picks to Tampa Bay for yet another 2nd round pick (#51 overall). The Bucs are going to have to do some rebuilding, and could use the extra picks this would give them ... we may have to throw in a 6th or 7th round pick to make it happen.

    This would have us drafting at: 28, 41, 48, 51, & 55. This is where the strength of this draft is ... it is also where players like Mack, Gilbert, Jackson, Barwin, Brace, Kropog, and Unger are most likely to be taken. While resulting in a net loss of only one pick, we get 5 quality players who should all be starters within the next 2 years, some as early as '09.
     
  2. Jess

    Jess Movement!

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,118
    Ratings:
    +473
    I don't think you'd get 2 first rounders for pick 9. Maybe pick 1, not pick 9.

    I prefer to stay at 9. This is a thin draft, talent-wise, as it is. The higher we can pick, the more of a chance we have at getting a game-changing player out of a draft that I don't think has a lot of game-changing players in it.
     
  3. PackAttackUK

    PackAttackUK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Ratings:
    +26
    I'm in agreement with Jess. I think we need to keep the #9 pick, and draft the best player possible for one of our needs.
     
  4. pacman5252

    pacman5252 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Ratings:
    +0
    I wouldn't be against trading down in the first IF we got two first rounders from Philly, or got the 20th pick and 33rd from Det. We would get two quality guys then.....

    I don't know why you guys are saying that we should take a player just for a need. Rookies shouldn't be taken to start.
     
  5. PackAttackUK

    PackAttackUK Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Ratings:
    +26
    I don't think Philly would give us their 2 picks for our #9 though. If they did, then I would take it, but I just dont think they will.

    It just all depends on what our biggest need is going to be, going into the draft.
     
  6. PackersRS

    PackersRS Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2008
    Messages:
    8,471
    Ratings:
    +980
    That really depends on the situation. If the rookie has a decent amount of experience from playing in the same position, in a playbook that is similar to what most teams in NFL uses, against quality competition in college, he can be a contributor from day one.
    If you draft a Jr., that played in a gimmick offense, per example, and have a competent veteran to play in his position, then the rookie shouldn't start.
    Raji, Orakpo, Jenkins, Andre Smith, Monroe, Cushing, Tyson Jackson, Sintim are all guys that can start from day 1. Brown, Maybin, are guys that can share reps with the veteran, and if they perform well, can start late in the season...
    And I would love us to trade down and get Jackson, Brace and Sintim or Matthews. For me, the only player that can really make a difference is Curry, and he'll prob be gone. I don't see in neither Orakpo nor in Raji a player that demands the opposition to gameplan against, and all the guys from mid one to mid two can be solid contributors.
    The thing is, this trade seems very unlikely...
     
  7. Aaron rodgers is god

    Aaron rodgers is god Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Messages:
    786
    Ratings:
    +154
    I dont care if we trade up or down honestly all i care is that TT makes the right decision
     
  8. Malk

    Malk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    Straight up, no, the value is way off - that's why i figured we'd have to add in a 4th & 6th rounder. I think that, if we made the offer, even if Philly did not accept, it's quite likely they would conter-offer IF there was a player on the board that they really wanted. It just seems to me that, at positions w're likely going to want to draft, there is not very much drop off in talent between the #9 pick and anywhere in the top 60. That being the case, doesn't it make sense to secure as many of those top 60 picks as possible? It may not be likely, but I'd love to see it happen.
     
  9. gbpack54

    gbpack54 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    6
    Ratings:
    +0
    It's no different than any other draft. If a guy is worth a 9, when our pick comes up at 9, TAKE HIM! If there is no one worth a 9 at that time, trade down, if some team is willing. This is really not rocket science, once the player scouts have finished their evals on the available choices.
    The fact that the Packers are changing to a 3-4 doesn't change the draft philosophy in terms of
    value at the respective pick.
     
  10. Veretax

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings:
    +6
    According to the Draft trade chart that is often referenced the 9th PIck overall is worth 1440 Points

    This from the one at ProFootballTalk.com

    http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/04/ ... ade-chart/

    If the numbers have changed this year then the picks could be different.

    Packers Picks by Round:
    1st (9): - 1440
    2nd (41): - 490
    3rd (73): - 225
    3rd (19): - 175
    4th (9): - 84
    5th (9): - 37.5
    6th (9): - 23.8
    6th (14): - 21.8
    7th (9): - 11

    Now Phily only has the one Second Ruond pick by my recollection.

    1st(21), 1st(28), 2nd(53), 3rd(85), 4th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th,

    So to Evaluate this let me put in the Values for their picks.

    1st(21): - 945
    1st(28): - 770
    2nd(53): - 370
    3rd(85): - 165
    4th (21): - 60
    5th (5): - 39.5
    5th (17): - 33.5
    5th (21): - 31.8
    6th (21): - 19
    6th (22): - 18.6
    7th: - 6.2

    So To Equaly our #9 Pick which is worth 1440....Phily could give the following:


    1st(21): - 945
    1st(28): - 770
    1715 (We'd have to give up at least one more pick possibly the 3rd Ronder Valued at 225 and the 6th Rounder valued at 23.8 to get even)


    1st(21): - 945
    2nd(53): - 370
    4th: - 60
    1375 (25 points short Phily may need to throw in their first 6th Rounder too to even things up.)

    It is difficult to pictuer any scenario that involves their #28 Pick that does not include picks for next year, or both of their firsts and us giving up some picks. The #9 pick is just too valuable.
     
  11. cheeseheads84

    cheeseheads84 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
    Sincerely, I don't see the Eagles trading up to the 9th spot. They need players at TE, S, RB & OT. And there are not TEs, Ss or RBs that worth be the 9th overall selection of this draft. The only posibility that they would like to trade with us is that Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith are avaiable when it's our turn (what's not probable). If that happens, then, we shouldn't trade down and select any of them, because that would be an unique chance.

    That's what I think.

    PD: I'n sorry about my english
     
  12. Veretax

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings:
    +6
    Great point ch84. I don't see the eagles trading up, and they hate spending money on players to boot.
     
  13. Malk

    Malk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    I think this chart is more accepted: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/n ... id=2410670 In this one, our #9 is worth 1350, their #21 & 28 totals 1460. Throwing in our 4th (84) & 6th (24.8) would make the value awfully close to even. Whether they'd be tempted to make the trade would depend on whether a player is available at #9 that they feel would make a difference in them making one last strong SB run before McNabb, Westbrook, et al begin to fade. Crabtree, if he falls, could be that type of player.

    I agree with ch84 that they have other needs, but much depends on their mindset ... are they a team that was very close to the Super Bowl this past season, or an aging team that needs to rebuild? Since Andy Reid probably knows that he would not be part of any rebuilding project, my guess is that he'll go with the former rather than the latter.
     
  14. Veretax

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings:
    +6
    That page is dated 2006, the one I linked to was dated 2008, but there had been some talk last year of revising this, I'm not sure if the one I linked was the update or not.
     
  15. cheeseheads84

    cheeseheads84 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    4
    Ratings:
    +0
  16. Veretax

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings:
    +6
    No date, no way to know.
     
  17. Malk

    Malk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well, I guess if we knew what was going on, the draft wouldn't be as much fun. I'd guess that each GM will look at the available charts & choose the one that's most advantageous to him whenever a trade gets proposed.

    The one I was using is way outta whack at the very top ... Detroit's pick is worth 3,000, while Seattle at #4 is worth only 1,800. If they wanted to trade up to #1, moving up those 3 spots would cost them every single pick they have in the remainder of the '09 drat, & still wouldn't even out the value. After the top 3 picks, though, I think it's pretty fair.
     
  18. Veretax

    Veretax Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    596
    Ratings:
    +6

    that's why I think the one I linked too is the new one. Having the higher pick is not always see as advantageous given the salary such a player would command.
     

Share This Page