Trading off the 1st round pick

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
There´s no way the Packers get two early second round picks in return for the 30th selection.

I would tend to agree with you there if you mean getting two early 2nd round picks in the same draft, but one of the more interesting developments in recent years is teams trading multiple high picks in the same round spread over a number of years- look at what Washington gave St. Louis to take RGIII. There are instances where teams have taken an upper half choice this year plus a pick in the same round from the same team the year following. That doesn't necessarily give you a bounty right now, but over time if you play that strategy, you have extra ammunition to build or move.

Someone mentioned the Patriots getting high level compensatory picks by losing free agents regularly. They're typically pretty savvy about getting extra 2nd and 3rd round picks from personnel moves that allow them to trade picks out of the current draft into higher value picks into the future.

Most have said it right- you may not find anyway worth trading down with depending on the market for the pick (which is a factor of the players who might slide into day two that teams want to make sure they get). BUT, if there's one of those types someone doesn't want to get to the second day, you can get some enticing packages to trade out.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Its one thing wanting to trade back, but its another thing entirely to find a trading partner to do it with. Usually, when you're the one wanting to trade back, its hard to find a partner. These types of "trade back scenarios" usually only happen when someone calls YOU wanting to trade up into your pick.

With that said, I wouldn't mind us trading back into the front of the 2nd round and pick up an extra mid rounder or two.
For another team to trade up for the #30 pick, it would stand to reason they are targeting a particular player or one among a small group of players. That would indicate a draft day trade, fairly deep into day 1. By the same token, the holder of the #30 pick wouldn't want to deal it until (1) he has a handle on whether any of his high value targets will be off the board at #30 or (2) he sees a high value target falling to the pick he'd be wrangling for.

Otherwise it's all just shooting in the dark.

So, it's not just finding a trading partner that fits the obvious criteria. It's doing it in a tight time frame.

I could see a deal laid out in advance contingent on certain players being on the board at the time of the #30 pick. That plan could easily be busted as well.

As far as trading down a few spots from #30 to the upper second round, that narrows the possibilities...only a few teams have such a pick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Lance Zierlein of NFL.com has Eric Kendricks going in the first round. Thompson traded the 30th pick in the 2008 draft for the 36th and a fourth round selection, the Packers received the third second rounder for trading Corey Williams before the draft.
According to the Jimmy Johnson draft value chart, the #30 pick scores 620 points. The #36 pick scores 540 points. The other pick received in the Nelson trade was #113 (mid-4th. round) scoring 68 points.

That's 620 from the Packers vs. 608 to the Packers. That's very close...the differential is a 7th. round pick which isn't much to speak of one way or the other.

Whatever arguments that can be made about the outdated nature of the Johnson chart, the majority of trades hue closely to it to this day.

So, yeah, trading down will not get 2 upper second round picks...not even close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Lot of areas of "need" (DL OL CB LB) so if GB sees a guy they like slip to them, I don't think they trade the pick unless somebody else is really chomping at the bit to snag a guy and makes a great offer to jump back into the first round.

The Packers don't have a pressing need on the offensive line to use a first round pick on the position. I would be fine with Thompson spending a late round pick to add depth to the OL.

He's not that good against the run and he's kinda small to play 3-4ILB on a team without a good NT. I would imagine that there will be better values on the dline, CB or TE on the board for the Packers to select from. Guys like Kwon Alexander or Paul Dawson should be available for the Packers in the second round and neither of them is that far off from Kendricks. McKinney would probably the better value in the second round rather than Kendricks in the first if you want to talk about trading down.

Kendricks, while not being known for his jarring hits, can defend the run and cover RBs and TEs. I don't put too much stock in PFF ranking him as the 19th best run defender in college last season as long as I don't know where the other top prospects are ranked.

Alexander and Dawson are best suited to play WLB in a 4-3.

Note: I said our first pick, not the 30th pick of the draft. Having said that, obviously you're right in absolute terms, but I can't envision a scenario in which taking an ILB first wouldn't be the best move.

Randy Gregory dropping to #30 could be such a scenario if Thompson wants to take a gamble on him.

It depends how far a team moves up into our position. I've seen teams get 1st rounders in return for this type of trade. Seems like the Saints gave up a 1st rounder to move up and select Mark Ingram that year.

That was a terrible move by the Saints.
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
Regarding trading down with pick #30:
I would tend to agree with you there if you mean getting two early 2nd round picks in the same draft, but one of the more interesting developments in recent years is teams trading multiple high picks in the same round spread over a number of years- look at what Washington gave St. Louis to take RGIII. There are instances where teams have taken an upper half choice this year plus a pick in the same round from the same team the year following. That doesn't necessarily give you a bounty right now, but over time if you play that strategy, you have extra ammunition to build or move.
It depends how far a team moves up into our position. I've seen teams get 1st rounders in return for this type of trade. Seems like the Saints gave up a 1st rounder to move up and select Mark Ingram that year.
Quite a while ago I remember reading an interview with Thompson in which he talked about trading one year’s picks for another’s and he said he didn’t believe in doing that. He may not have been that blunt about it – Thompson usually isn’t – but that was the gist of what he was saying. We all know Thompson has been a prolific trader of draft picks, usually trading down but occasionally trading up and I don’t remember even one instance of Thompson receiving, or giving up picks from a future draft, even in his most dramatic trade up for Matthews.

Given Thompson’s MO for building teams, I understand not giving up future picks. That would be somewhat similar to “going for broke in UFA” in that it could jeopardize the future to a degree. But I don’t understand not being willing to receive future picks when trading down, particularly because Thompson so values draft picks and because he properly views those picks as building for the future. Anyway, if Thompson does trade down out of #30, his history tells us we shouldn’t expect him to receive a future pick as part of the deal.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I don’t remember even one instance of Thompson receiving, or giving up picks from a future draft, even in his most dramatic trade up for Matthews.

You're forgetting pretty fast, TJV, really fast. In 2008 Thompson made a blockbuster trade by sending a seventh round pick to New Oleans for a sixth rounder in 2009. The pick was used to select Brandon Underwood. :D
 

TJV

Lifelong Packers Fanatic
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
5,389
Reaction score
954
You're forgetting pretty fast, TJV, really fast. In 2008 Thompson made a blockbuster trade by sending a seventh round pick to New Oleans for a sixth rounder in 2009. The pick was used to select Brandon Underwood. :D
I should have posted: "... I don’t remember even one instance of Thompson receiving, or giving up SIGNIFICANT picks from a future draft ..." Oh for the absence of an adjective. :oops:

El Guapo, I hope you meant "under the former".
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
Regarding trading down with pick #30: Quite a while ago I remember reading an interview with Thompson in which he talked about trading one year’s picks for another’s and he said he didn’t believe in doing that. He may not have been that blunt about it – Thompson usually isn’t – but that was the gist of what he was saying. We all know Thompson has been a prolific trader of draft picks, usually trading down but occasionally trading up and I don’t remember even one instance of Thompson receiving, or giving up picks from a future draft, even in his most dramatic trade up for Matthews.

Given Thompson’s MO for building teams, I understand not giving up future picks. That would be somewhat similar to “going for broke in UFA” in that it could jeopardize the future to a degree. But I don’t understand not being willing to receive future picks when trading down, particularly because Thompson so values draft picks and because he properly views those picks as building for the future. Anyway, if Thompson does trade down out of #30, his history tells us we shouldn’t expect him to receive a future pick as part of the deal.
I think there are a couple of reasons Thompson doesn't go in for future picks of consequence.

- If he won't fill holes in FA, he must do it in the draft. I do believe, at least at the margins, that positioning to win a championship in the current year has some priority.

- Trading down has been a draft day tactical decision in the Thompson MO. It's about gaining a marginal value advantage in the context of an informed calculated risk. If, for example, he does not see value in the available players at #30 or he anticipates there will be player(s) of good value at #36, and he can find a trading partner, then he'll make the deal and pick up a 4th. rounder in the bargain.

- It's simply a matter of drafting low every year. Future picks are more common the higher the first round pick simply because the team trading up must dip into the next year's picks to assemble an attractive package. If Thompson was looking to trade down out of the first round, one would expect him to bypass teams without a second round pick given the limited amount of time to make a deal. The same logic would apply if he wanted to trade down in the second round...he'd want a package including a lower 2nd. rounder or a 3rd. rounder this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,361
Reaction score
1,742
[TWEET][/TWEET]
I'm always a HUGE proponent of this philosophy when drafting near the 30 slot unless Ted's big time playmaker has fallen to this spot. I like moving back to 35-45 as imo there usually is very little difference between picks 20-50 for a team like the Packers who normally don't count on rookies to be an immediate core player. Trading back to 40 can also get you pick 71 and a 7th round pick if you find that wanting partner. Pick 71 is an early 3rd and should be an early contributor.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
I'm always a HUGE proponent of this philosophy when drafting near the 30 slot unless Ted's big time playmaker has fallen to this spot. I like moving back to 35-45 as imo there usually is very little difference between picks 20-50 for a team like the Packers who normally don't count on rookies to be an immediate core player. Trading back to 40 can also get you pick 71 and a 7th round pick if you find that wanting partner. Pick 71 is an early 3rd and should be an early contributor.

The Packers are counting on rookies to contribute right away. Although the team didn't suffer a lot of injuries last season Green Bay ranked fourth in the league in snaps played from scrimmage by rookies last season with 3.225.

The other 11 teams that made the playoffs averaged 1,747.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,361
Reaction score
1,742
The Packers are counting on rookies to contribute right away. Although the team didn't suffer a lot of injuries last season Green Bay ranked fourth in the league in snaps played from scrimmage by rookies last season with 3.225.

The other 11 teams that made the playoffs averaged 1,747.
Yes, I think they've always expected rookies to contribute right away, I don't think they expect most of them to be core calibre players their rookie season. When you get a rookie of the year type production where we draft from, that's gravy.
 

paulska

Cheesehead
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
112
Reaction score
14
Location
Nova Scotia, Canada
Regarding trading down with pick #30: Quite a while ago I remember reading an interview with Thompson in which he talked about trading one year’s picks for another’s and he said he didn’t believe in doing that. He may not have been that blunt about it – Thompson usually isn’t – but that was the gist of what he was saying. We all know Thompson has been a prolific trader of draft picks, usually trading down but occasionally trading up and I don’t remember even one instance of Thompson receiving, or giving up picks from a future draft, even in his most dramatic trade up for Matthews.

Given Thompson’s MO for building teams, I understand not giving up future picks. That would be somewhat similar to “going for broke in UFA” in that it could jeopardize the future to a degree. But I don’t understand not being willing to receive future picks when trading down, particularly because Thompson so values draft picks and because he properly views those picks as building for the future. Anyway, if Thompson does trade down out of #30, his history tells us we shouldn’t expect him to receive a future pick as part of the deal.

Good point about TT's normal approach being to gain additional ammunition within the current draft- I'm with you in that aside from the Brandon Underwood reminder I couldn't lay my finger on an instance of TT picking up a future pick to move down.

That said, I wonder if that's because he pushes for picks in the current year as a matter of principle, or if that's because teams don't offer the picks in subsequent years OR because TT is too ready to take lesser this year picks rather than wait on higher value next year ones. Guess those are things you only know if you're in the war room. It would be cool to know!

I also think that it kind of takes a perfect storm to get multiple same round early picks- the player someone is trading to obtain has to be a big deal/great value at our pick to motivate them to part with a package that oversteps the general frame of the Johnson draft pick value chart. RGIII is the most prominent example- he wasn't a number one pick, but in another draft he might have been, which is why Washington sold the farm to get him.

Hypothetically, the only way a team might trade use their second this year, and their second next year along with some lesser picks (late rounder this year perhaps) is if a player tumbled down the draft that fit a team's need/value equation and there are a series of teams likely to take him below our pick. That's a lot of moving parts necessary to precipitate a move that would warrant such a play by a team trading into our spot, which I suppose is why you don't see a lot of teams sell the farm (or at least the back 40) to get into the low first round, which is where TT typically picks... Can't say I can fault him for not reaping this kind of windfall- it would be pretty exceptional for that to happen.

That said, knowing that TT is about bang for the buck where you pick a guy as a key aspect of draft strategy, you'd have to think he'd be amenable to a trade that gave similar return on the present draft and significantly enhanced next year's at the same time.

In the end, I put our odds of getting two early 2nd rounders for our first this year in the same neighbourhood as the Maple Leafs winning the Stanley Cup this season. :)
 

adambr2

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
609
If we traded down to the Jets spot at #37, we would likely receive their early 4th as compensation. Trading all the way down to the 49ers spot at #46, we should realistically be looking at getting their 3rd rounder in return. Both of those are fairly even on the value chart.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Yes, I think they've always expected rookies to contribute right away, I don't think they expect most of them to be core calibre players their rookie season. When you get a rookie of the year type production where we draft from, that's gravy.

Well, Thompson has done a good job over the last three years of drafting players making an immediate impact. Casey Hayward finished in 3rd in ROTY voting in 2012 with Eddie Lacy winning the award a year later. Neither Linsley and Clinton-Dix received a vote for ROTY but played significant roles for the Packers last season.
 

G0P4ckG0

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
761
Reaction score
153
If we traded down to the Jets spot at #37, we would likely receive their early 4th as compensation. Trading all the way down to the 49ers spot at #46, we should realistically be looking at getting their 3rd rounder in return. Both of those are fairly even on the value chart.
Agreed. If there is no ILB left on the board at pick #30 that could be a serviceable starter year 1, trading down is the best option. Pick up an ILB later in the draft and move Matthews to that spot for at least half of the snaps next year. Groom the ILB just like a rookie QB (minimal snaps) and have him be ready to start in 2016, and then move Matthews back to primarily playing OLB...assuming Matthews doesn't set the world on fire playing ILB in 2015.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,361
Reaction score
1,742
Well, Thompson has done a good job over the last three years of drafting players making an immediate impact. Casey Hayward finished in 3rd in ROTY voting in 2012 with Eddie Lacy winning the award a year later. Neither Linsley and Clinton-Dix received a vote for ROTY but played significant roles for the Packers last season.
Sure has. It's been amazing especially that guys like Bakhtiari and Linsely have been able to immediately step in and fill gaps like they have. Thompson's team of scouts have done a fabulous job of finding the right guys.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
The Packers don't have a pressing need on the offensive line to use a first round pick on the position. I would be fine with Thompson spending a late round pick to add depth to the OL.



Kendricks, while not being known for his jarring hits, can defend the run and cover RBs and TEs. I don't put too much stock in PFF ranking him as the 19th best run defender in college last season as long as I don't know where the other top prospects are ranked.

Alexander and Dawson are best suited to play WLB in a 4-3.



Randy Gregory dropping to #30 could be such a scenario if Thompson wants to take a gamble on him.



That was a terrible move by the Saints.


PFF said his run stop percentage was 19th among ILBs in this draft class. Not 19th overall, just among ILBs
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Sure has. It's been amazing especially that guys like Bakhtiari and Linsely have been able to immediately step in and fill gaps like they have. Thompson's team of scouts have done a fabulous job of finding the right guys.

That´s mostly true for Thompson´s tenure, the 2011 and ´12 drafts have been mostly disappointing though.

PFF said his run stop percentage was 19th among ILBs in this draft class. Not 19th overall, just among ILBs

According to PFF a run stop constitute a "loss" for the offense. I´m not concerned at all with Kendricks only ranking 19th in this category as it´s not a perfect way to evaluate ILBs. I agree that he has to make more plays behind the LOS and improve his pass rush.
 
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Messages
69
Reaction score
2
If we traded down to the Jets spot at #37, we would likely receive their early 4th as compensation. Trading all the way down to the 49ers spot at #46, we should realistically be looking at getting their 3rd rounder in return. Both of those are fairly even on the value chart.

I think it's worth noting that the 49ers primary need is at ILB too. Letting them move back in front of us in the draft would be a bad move in my opinion
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
That´s mostly true for Thompson´s tenure, the 2011 and ´12 drafts have been mostly disappointing though.



According to PFF a run stop constitute a "loss" for the offense. I´m not concerned at all with Kendricks only ranking 19th in this category as it´s not a perfect way to evaluate ILBs. I agree that he has to make more plays behind the LOS and improve his pass rush.

Agreed, the stat isn't perfect. However, generally you would still expect a first round pick to be one of the best in the nation. I'm not saying he's terrible, just that the gap isn't that huge between him and guys you could get late in the second.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
Agreed, the stat isn't perfect. However, generally you would still expect a first round pick to be one of the best in the nation. I'm not saying he's terrible, just that the gap isn't that huge between him and guys you could get late in the second.

I would really like to be able to take a look at PFF's stats, especially where the other possible early round picks are ranked and how many ILBs they ranked. According to NFL Draft Scout there are 134 draft eligible ILBs.
 
H

HardRightEdge

Guest
That´s mostly true for Thompson´s tenure, the 2011 and ´12 drafts have been mostly disappointing though.

According to PFF a run stop constitute a "loss" for the offense. I´m not concerned at all with Kendricks only ranking 19th in this category as it´s not a perfect way to evaluate ILBs. I agree that he has to make more plays behind the LOS and improve his pass rush.
Right. Kendricks tackle-for-loss count was low. It's one of those "splash play" stats of dubious import since they're not often drive killers. Solid performance play-in-play-out is what the doctor ordered...101 solo tackles, 3 picks, 4 sacks against good competition reflects that.

He'll be projected as the cover weak side backer that also needs to read-and-react/scrape-and-plug in the run game (what I characterize as flow and efficiency). Kendricks scores high on this count.

The idea here should be to look for an all-around, polished "glue" player. In base he needs to complement Barrington playing strong side run stuffer; in nickel he needs to handle coverage when Matthews blitzes from the middle or blitz himself to change things up.

I would expect Kendricks to be at least decent in all aspects of the game. I have more concern with his man coverage ability that needs some work than with his run play ability. He looks good dropping in zone.

There's an a smart, athletic platform here to build on.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top