What positions...first three picks?

[HardRightEdge]

I'm not convinced that a rookie backup quarterback could be developed into an upgrade over a veteran with limited snaps. With the Packers introducing a new scheme under LaFleur other QBs than Rodgers might even receive fewer snaps this offseason.

I'm not convinced either and Gutekunst/LaFleur also wouldn't be convinced. But there's no doubt in my mind they are in fact exploring options. That might include a QB if they pick up a 4th. pick in the range of first round to mid-second round in a trade down from #12 or it could be one of the following guys after the draft:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/quarterback/available/

Kizer or Boyle is not going to be able to carry this team for a few games if necessary. You'd like to get a Flynn-like 2-2-1 performance in 2013 if it came to that and there are rasons to be believe the incumbents are not that guy.

I put no credenece in the smoke screen argument. There is one other possibility. Interviewing Lock and wanting to interview Jones may be an attempt to gauge interest in these players from teams drafting below the Packers who might want to trade up to #12 to beat somebody else to the punch, thereby getting a handle on how much to extort for that #12 pick. A competitive auction would be optimal; the phone lines would be smoking.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'm not convinced either and Gutekunst/LaFleur also wouldn't be convinced. But there's no doubt in my mind they are in fact exploring options. That might include a QB if they pick up a 4th. pick in the range of first round to mid-second round in a trade down from #12 or it could be one of the following guys after the draft:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/all/quarterback/available/

Kizer or Boyle is not going to be able to carry this team for a few games if necessary. You'd like to get a Flynn-like 2-2-1 performance in 2013 if it came to that and there are rasons to be believe the incumbents are not that guy.

I put no credenece in the smoke screen argument. There is one other possibility. Interviewing Lock and wanting to interview Jones may be an attempt to gauge interest in these players from teams drafting below the Packers who might want to trade up to #12 to beat somebody else to the punch, thereby getting a handle on how much to extort for that #12 pick. A competitive auction would be optimal; the phone lines would be smoking.

IOW, due diligence.

Washington (#15), seems like a likely candidate.

 

[HardRightEdge]

IOW, due diligence.

Washington (#15), seems like a likely candidate.

Seattle is badly in need of an edge after trading Frank Clark.

Seattle now has #21 and #29 = 1450 points.

Packers #12/1200 points + #75/215 points + #150/31 points = 1446 points

I'd be pretty happy to hear, "The Packers trade the 12th. pick to Seattle who selects Clelin Ferrell".

Trading down from #12 to #15 only gets you a mid-3rd. rounder, give or take, depending on the level of either love or desperation.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Seattle is badly in need of an edge after trading Frank Clark.

Seattle now has #21 and #29 = 1450 points.

Packers #12/1200 points + #75/215 points + #150/31 points = 1446 points

I'd be pretty happy to hear, "The Packers trade the 12th. pick to Seattle who selects Clelin Ferrell".

While the Packers would end up with three first round picks in that scenario they might miss out on a player in their top tier. I don't like that idea.

 

[HardRightEdge]

While the Packers would end up with three first round picks in that scenario they might miss out on a player in their top tier. I don't like that idea.

The top tier is a pretty select group and does not reach down to #12.

There is a wide swath of second tier players that reaches down close to #44, with the Packers having 4 picks between #21 and #44 in that range with that trade.

I like the idea quite a bit.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The top tier is a pretty select group and does not reach down to #12.

There is a wide swath of second tier players that reaches down close to #44, with the Packers having 4 picks between #21 and #44 in that range.

I like the idea quite a bit.

It depends on if the Packers believe they will be able to select one of the players they deem to be available in their top tier at #21 as well. In that case it would be extremely smart. I'm not sure about that being the case though.

 

[gopkrs]

The top tier is a pretty select group and does not reach down to #12.

There is a wide swath of second tier players that reaches down close to #44, with the Packers having 4 picks between #21 and #44 in that range with that trade.

I like the idea quite a bit.

I am hoping for one of the best in class of OT. And I just don't think he will be there later. But at least we can wait and see who is there at 12 before making the trade.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I am hoping for one of the best in class of OT. And I just don't think he will be there later. But at least we can wait and see who is there at 12 before making the trade.

All draft day trades are merely speculation. The Seattle trade I illustrated is no different. Trading up and reaching for a QB does seem to be popular with one of the top prospects likely to be stil on the board.

Given the cluster of talent from #12 on down quite a ways, including some good OT prospects, I would not be surprised to see a trade down of some kind. It might be worth noting that Gutekunst traded down from #14 to #27 last year probably before he knew he could trade back up.

 

[gbgary]

no trading back dammit! lol
if anything trade up...at either spot.
i still think it's dl, ol, rb. it's not necessarily what i want but what i think they'll do.

 

[GleefulGary]

OL, WR, S

Or

LB, OL, S

 

[elcid]

Seattle is badly in need of an edge after trading Frank Clark.

Seattle now has #21 and #29 = 1450 points.

Packers #12/1200 points + #75/215 points + #150/31 points = 1446 points

I'd be pretty happy to hear, "The Packers trade the 12th. pick to Seattle who selects Clelin Ferrell".

Trading down from #12 to #15 only gets you a mid-3rd. rounder, give or take, depending on the level of either love or desperation.

This trade would thrill me, yet I deem it highly unlikely. Seattle has, with the added first rounder of the Chiefs, a total of 5 picks this draft, and numerous holes. Them trading back from one of their first rounders is way more plausible imo

 

[gbgary]

The top tier is a pretty select group and does not reach down to #12.

There is a wide swath of second tier players that reaches down close to #44, with the Packers having 4 picks between #21 and #44 in that range with that trade.

I like the idea quite a bit.

it's a very interesting scenario. tier-2 guys are more of a coil-flip than tier-1 and we really don't know how good gute is at tossing coins. if he hits on those picks and can replace good with good, the pending cap hell can be lessened by not having to resign clark, for example, and trading him for a great pick instead. damn you for coming up with this. lol

 

[HardRightEdge]

it's a very interesting scenario. tier-2 guys are more of a coil-flip than tier-1 and we really don't know how good gute is at tossing coins. if he hits on those picks and can replace good with good, the pending cap hell can be lessened by not having to resign clark, for example, and trading him for a great pick instead. damn you for coming up with this. lol

Trade speculations aside, even if you assume 3 QBs in the top 11, I don't see 9 clear tier one players.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

if he hits on those picks and can replace good with good, the pending cap hell can be lessened by not having to resign clark, for example, and trading him for a great pick instead.

It would be a terrible mistake not to re-sign Clark or trading him.

 

[gbgary]

It would be a terrible mistake not to re-sign Clark or trading him.

i agree...if you don't a good replacement and a plan...geesh. say the make a move up and get one of the two DT's that are expected to go early. there's no need to sign clark and they could trade him, for a 1st or 2nd, save a bunch of cap to use elsewhere and have an extra draft pick. trading good players for picks, and saving money for other things, is what's kept NE ahead of everyone else.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i agree...if you don't a good replacement and a plan...geesh. say the make a move up and get one of the two DT's that are expected to go early. there's no need to sign clark and they could trade him, for a 1st or 2nd, save a bunch of cap to use elsewhere and have an extra draft pick. trading good players for picks, and saving money for other things, is what's kept NE ahead of everyone else.

Kenny Clark is an elite defensive lineman who will not turn 24 years old until October. Teams that want to end up being successful definitely don't trade players like him.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

What positions...first three picks?

tough to choose just one:

Cowgirl, Doggie and Missionary.

Hope I read the question right?

 

[gbgary]

Kenny Clark is an elite defensive lineman who will not turn 24 years old until October. Teams that want to end up being successful definitely don't trade players like him.

i know how old he is. he's going to be very expensive. i just used him as an example. i'm just saying they're going to have to shed cap-hits very soon. if they draft a cheap stud, who's as good as an expensive starter, you trade the starter for a pick. that's the only way they're going to be able to succeed in the cap mess they're facing.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

i know how old he is. he's going to be very expensive. i just used him as an example. i'm just saying they're going to have to shed cap-hits very soon. if they draft a cheap stud, who's as good as an expensive starter, you trade the starter for a pick. that's the only way they're going to be able to succeed in the cap mess they're facing.

While I understand what you are saying, as well as the philosophy of it, the problem is that its very hard to rely on "drafting a cheap stud." Mainly due to the fact that often times, you really don't know right away if that player is a stud. Not to even mention you don't have enough draft picks each year to adequately fill all 22 starting positions, unless you hit with every pick. Finally, you have to pick and choose your 2nd contract guys correctly. Seems like this is where TT failed more than he succeeded. For me, Kenny Clark is a guy you absolutely have to sign on a second contract, unless his next 2 seasons are injury filled or busts.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

i know how old he is. he's going to be very expensive. i just used him as an example. i'm just saying they're going to have to shed cap-hits very soon. if they draft a cheap stud, who's as good as an expensive starter, you trade the starter for a pick. that's the only way they're going to be able to succeed in the cap mess they're facing.

The Packers will use the fifth-year option on Clark in 2020 so he will be relatively cheap for another two seasons.

I agree that the team has to be smart about handing out second contracts to players headed for free agency but not holding on to Clark would be a mistake.

 

[gbgary]

The Packers will use the fifth-year option on Clark in 2020 so he will be relatively cheap for another two seasons.

I agree that the team has to be smart about handing out second contracts to players headed for free agency but not holding on to Clark would be a mistake.

yes i know that but they won't let it go that long and risk angering him. it wouldn't be a mistake if they got oliver or williams who i used in my example.

i can't believe anyone would argue against shedding an expensive contract for player as good or better and get a 1st or 2nd round pick to boot. it boggles.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

yes i know that but they won't let it go that long and risk angering him. it wouldn't be a mistake if they got oliver or williams who i used in my example.

Even if the Packers end up drafting a possible stud defensive lineman there's no reason to get rid of Clark.

It would be smarter to release Daniels, Bulaga, Williams or Crosby before the start of this season or Graham or Taylor next offseason to create additional cap space.

 

[gbgary]

Even if the Packers end up drafting a possible stud defensive lineman there's no reason to get rid of Clark.

It would be smarter to release Daniels, Bulaga, Williams or Crosby before the start of this season or Graham or Taylor next offseason to create additional cap space.

they're going to have to do some of that anyway. but will the replacements be as good? i see a step backwards there...but that's a different topic completely.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

they're going to have to do some of that anyway. but will the replacements be as good? i see a step backwards there...but that's a different topic completely.

It will definitely be easier to adequately replace either of the players I mentioned than Clark. That doesn't mean it will work out with everyone of them though.

 

[GleefulGary]

yes i know that but they won't let it go that long and risk angering him. it wouldn't be a mistake if they got oliver or williams who i used in my example.

i can't believe anyone would argue against shedding an expensive contract for player as good or better and get a 1st or 2nd round pick to boot. it boggles.

1) Good teams don't trade away good players like Kenny Clark.

2) Possibly Q Williams could replace Clark, but playing him at Nose would be a waste. Oliver and Simmons don't play the same position as Clark. They would be drafted to replace Mike Daniels.

3) Kenny Clark is rare. He's a NT that can pass rush. You don't trade that. He's the best defensive player we have right now.