With their 1st Pick in the 2018 NFL Draft the Packers select...

[Pokerbrat2000]

It actually seems really likely to me that Anthony Lynn likes Lamar Jackson a lot. He's a running game guy all the way. A QB who can open up so much of the offense due to his running threat would seem like a really attractive option for him. And Arizona very well could like Jackson too, thus providing the motivation for the move. Wilks is a defensive guy, and those are generally the head coaches that are more comfortable with a "playmaker" at QB who doesn't always operate within the confines of the offense. Most defensive coordinators hate game planning against QB's that can run. And Wilks has spent the last several years with Cam Newton finding success in Carolina.

I think Cardinals, Chargers and Bengals could all be interested in him, all 3 are teams picking behind the Packers. If one moves ahead of the Packers and takes him, great, but if the Cardinals or Chargers want to move up to 14 to get him, even better. Not sure I would want to trade back to #21.

 

[jetfixer]

I would think our front office guys have a list of first round talent, non QB guys, likely only 10-15 guys. Then the next 50 or so are all about equally ranked. If there are no, or several there at 14th pick (but not only 1 or 2) then you can trade back. If at picks 10 or 11 and only 1 or 2 of our first round talent guys are left we may try to trade up.

 

[OldSchool101]

yes, and to the top of the draft. That's kind of expected. There always seem to be 1 or 2 BIG names at QB that people position for. Some are saying that there are 4 at least worthy of 1st round picks this year and even more that will leave people trying to position to get back in around #14 in the draft to get a QB?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but you're severely underestimating the QB position this year. There is no "some" about this year. Everyone has QB's going heavy and early. These are several examples so you don't have to rely on my opinion alone

https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/20...ons-top-players-order-2018-nfl-draft-april-17 (5 QB's picked by #23)

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft...b-drafted-saquon-barkley-falls-out-of-top-10/ (5 QB's picked by #15)


http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/mock-drafts (4QB's picked by #12, 6 QB's picked by #16, 4QB's picked by #11 and 4 QB's picked by #12

I didn't have to be selective to prove a point btw, these were the 1st 3 sites I opened. Nearly everyone in the industry has stated 3-5 QB's will be taken by GB's pick. Notice the consensus is 4 QB's that teams are "fighting for" by pick #12...not 1-2 like in a typical year as you've stated "Some" say. If you are a GM you MUST be prepared to entertain an offer for a trade at #14 if your main options are taken. The other thing I was going to mention is.. we have no idea what the final order will be.. so don't expect it to line perfectly with these mocks.. We could get some good fortune and have 5 QB's taken early in which case our ideal prospect is probably there at #14

OR only have 3 QB's taken before #14 and everyone eats up all the best Defenders before #14. Then we know if our ideal candidate is gone? there is a high likelihood someone is salivating over the 4th QB to be picked (where it's not nearly as costly as a top 10 pick)

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong at which scenario is the best.. I am saying we best be prepared if we can land a couple extra 2nd day picks for going back a few spots

 

[Mondio]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information but you're severely underestimating the QB position this year. There is no "some" about this year. Everyone has QB's going heavy and early. These are several examples so you don't have to rely on my opinion alone

https://www.landof10.com/big-ten/20...ons-top-players-order-2018-nfl-draft-april-17 (5 QB's picked by #23)

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft...b-drafted-saquon-barkley-falls-out-of-top-10/ (5 QB's picked by #15)


http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/mock-drafts (4QB's picked by #12, 6 QB's picked by #16, 4QB's picked by #11 and 4 QB's picked by #12

I didn't have to be selective to prove a point btw, these were the 1st 3 sites I opened. Nearly everyone in the industry has stated 3-5 QB's will be taken by GB's pick. Notice the consensus is 4 QB's that teams are "fighting for" by pick #12...not 1-2 like in a typical year as you've stated "Some" say. If you are a GM you MUST be prepared to entertain an offer for a trade at #14 if your main options are taken. The other thing I was going to mention is.. we have no idea what the final order will be.. so don't expect it to line perfectly with these mocks.. We could get some good fortune and have 5 QB's taken early in which case our ideal prospect is probably there at #14

OR only have 3 QB's taken before #14 and everyone eats up all the best Defenders before #14. Then we know if our ideal candidate is gone? there is a high likelihood someone is salivating over the 4th QB to be picked (where it's not nearly as costly as a top 10 pick)

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong at which scenario is the best.. I am saying we best be prepared if we can land a couple extra 2nd day picks for going back a few spots

and that was my question, I don't live off college football. I hear what everyone is saying, but I haven't watched. But I have watched a lot of NFL football over the years, and have heard the hype machines every year for a lot of NFL drafts and i'm having a hard time believing that the QB's coming out this year are THAT good and there are that many of them. I hope 13 QB's are drafted before 14, it only increases the odds we get a guy we need. In an outstanding QB draft 5 by the end of the round would seem about right. 5 by the halfway point in the draft? This will either turn out the best QB's to play the game, or half a lot of teams that made very bad decisions when this is all done. I mean I have seen some of these guys play some and I can't say they blew my doors off or anything. some look like they could play in the NFL, same as any year.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Imagine moving back 5-10 spots but getting an additional 2nd rounder both this year and next.

Unfortunately there's no way another team gives up two second round picks to move up 5-10 spots to #14.

The way I see it, unless a top 10 player drops to us, the next 10 or so are about the same quality. So if we drop down to low 20s we are still getting the same quality of player AND another 2nd pr 3rd rounder. Why the hell would a fan be opposed to it?

Why should any team trade up to the Packers spot if there isn't another top 10 player available though???

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

and that was my question, I don't live off college football. I hear what everyone is saying, but I haven't watched. But I have watched a lot of NFL football over the years, and have heard the hype machines every year for a lot of NFL drafts and i'm having a hard time believing that the QB's coming out this year are THAT good and there are that many of them. I hope 13 QB's are drafted before 14, it only increases the odds we get a guy we need. In an outstanding QB draft 5 by the end of the round would seem about right. 5 by the halfway point in the draft? This will either turn out the best QB's to play the game, or half a lot of teams that made very bad decisions when this is all done. I mean I have seen some of these guys play some and I can't say they blew my doors off or anything. some look like they could play in the NFL, same as any year.

When you look at what the top 10 QB's in the league are doing on the field, as well as making in salary, it's easy to understand why the teams without a top QB are hoping to strike it rich by landing one in the draft and are willing to gamble a bit on it.

I agree with Mondio, I have watched Darnold, Allen, Rosen and Mayfield play and none of them blew me away. But I also watched Russell Wilson play in college and I wasn't overly impressed with anything other than his brains. Of course, Russell wasn't a first round pick either.

There are so many things that go into scouting a college QB and trying to figure out if they can make the transition to an NFL QB, that the risk involved is probably higher than most positions, but the payoff can be extremely high. Heck if was easy, Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers would have been the first players selected in their respective drafts.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Undorrunately there's no way another team gives up two second round picks to move up 5-10 spots to #14.


Why should any team trade up to the Packers spot if there isn't another top 10 player available though???

A QB hungry team might want to move up to grab one of the top QB's that slid to 14. If the top tier of non QB's are gone and the Packers still have 4-5 guys that they covet, that would be a good move for them. But I agree with you on what that would net the Packers. If its only moving back a few spots, they might get lucky and get an additional 3rd rounder out of it.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

A QB hungry team might want to move up to grab one of the top QB's that slid to 14. If the top tier of non QB's are gone and the Packers still have 4-5 guys that they covet, that would be a good move for them.

I don't expect one of the top quarterbacks to be available at #14. You're right that it's possible another team might reach for one though.

 

[Poppa San]

Which players do you consider "Elite" in this draft? (let's keep QB's out for the sake of argument please)

No matter who I mention, someone will be quick to point out his flaws. I do not follow the college scene closely enough to have an opinion.

 

[AmishMafia]

Why should any team trade up to the Packers spot if there isn't another top 10 player available though???

Teams don't use the same player rankings. Their top 10 is not our top 10.

Imagine this: Gute and Pettine both rate Oliver the #2 CB and the top player available at 14. We know Pettines valued CB skills are different than most DCs and that we can probably get Oliver at 25. NE offers their 1.23 and 2.10 to move up for a QB. We know we can still get the same player, why wouldn't we do that?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

We know we can still get the same player, why wouldn't we do that?

There's no way teams know for sure that a player they covet will still be on the board if they move back.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

There's no way teams know for sure that a player they covet will still be on the board if they move back.

Agreed and I have wondered if they can "talk about that" during say a one slot trade back with Arizona. If 3 teams want Mayfield and he is available at #14, but so is Denzel Ward, can the Packers assure themselves in a trade back with Arizona that the Cards will take Mayfield and not Ward. Probably not. You also would want to set up a "deal" of "we will select Mayfield, you select Ward and we will trade players and the additional pick after its done." Since that could fall through as well.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Agreed and I have wondered if they can "talk about that" during say a one slot trade back with Arizona. If 3 teams want Mayfield and he is available at #14, but so is Denzel Ward, can the Packers assure themselves in a trade back with Arizona that the Cards will take Mayfield and not Ward.

Why should the Cardinals trade up if the Packers assure them they would select Ward???

 

[Dantés]

Why should the Cardinals trade up if the Packers assure them they would select Ward???

They would have to threaten to trade back with another team if the Cardinals don't move up.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They would have to threaten to trade back with another team if the Cardinals don't move up.

That would be awfully tough to pull off in 10 minutes.

 

[bigbubbatd]

The amount of qbs going in the top 15 area is great for the Packers. It would be nice if there was a team in the 20s or so that could make the Cardinals nervous to even trade up one spot with the packers. If the Packers could leverage those teams against each other. Even getting Arizona to move up the one spot should be worth a mid to late 4th rounder. The Cardinals have a comp pick in the late 4th. They also have one in the late 3rd but I doubt the Packers could get that. If Buffalo didnt take a qb with their 1st first rounder then a trade for their 1st and 2nd (22 and 53) would be pretty even. If NE wants a qb their 2 firsts (23 and 31) would likely leave the Packers needing at their 3rd or 4th (not sure that would be worth it).

It will be an interesting draft. If the Packers decide to trade up then you are looking at their 3rd round pick to get to the 9 or 10 area and their 2nd gets them to about pick 6. With the run on qbs that is likely I just dont know if I see the Packers needing to jump that high but if they jump into the 6-10 area you could be looking at getting one of the top 2 or 3 defenders in this draft with Darnold, Barkley, Rosen, and Allen all likely being top 5 picks. Chubb will be in their too. If Nelson went in the top 6 as some think too then you are looking at pick 7 for the 2nd defender taken. I could also see a team like Arizona or Buffalo trying to move up big into the 7 range to grab Mayfield if he slips.

This draft sets up really well for the Packers to get a high quality defender. If Ward or someone slips toward the 10 range I would love to see the Packers be aggressive and go get him. I dont want to lose a 2nd but could be ok with a 3rd.

 

[AmishMafia]

There's no way teams know for sure that a player they covet will still be on the board if they move back.

Of course you can't know for sure. But what if they were fairly certain - like 90% sure. And they were certain there would be a dozen next teir guys there at 2.10 who could become a starter.

You are ignoring the point that trading back doesn't necessarily mean you are decreasing quality of player you draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Of course you can't know for sure. But what if they were fairly certain - like 90% sure. And they were certain there would be a dozen next teir guys there at 2.10 who could become a starter.

You are ignoring the point that trading back doesn't necessarily mean you are decreasing quality of player you draft.

As Poppa has mentioned it's strange that posters that used the Packers consistently selecting at the end of the first round as an explanation for some poor draft choices now advocate for the team to trade back once they are slated to pick at #14.

You're fooling yourself if you truly believe the chances aren't higher to select an impact player earlier in the draft.

 

[Dantés]

That would be awfully tough to pull off in 10 minutes.

It happens though right? Isn't that what the 49ers did with the Bears last year? I think one thing that makes it possible is that many possible trade scenarios are discussed in principle before the draft ever happens.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

It happens though right? Isn't that what the 49ers did with the Bears last year? I think one thing that makes it possible is that many possible trade scenarios are discussed in principle before the draft ever happens.

I agree that it has happened before but it might still be tough to pull off especially later in the draft.

 

[Dantés]

As Poppa has mentioned it's strange that posters that used the Packers consistently selecting at the end of the first round as an explanation for some poor draft choices now advocate for the team to trade back once they are slated to pick at #14.

You're fooling yourself if you truly believe the chances aren't higher to select an impact player earlier in the draft.

This is true.

I think what people are saying is that if the Packers' have their highest graded players off the board and a number of guys similarly rated, then a small move backwards could be a gain without sacrificing value. I mean, they'd have to be right about their assessments, but if they aren't going to trust their scouting then what's the point?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This is true.

I think what people are saying is that if the Packers' have their highest graded players off the board and a number of guys similarly rated, then a small move backwards could be a gain without sacrificing value. I mean, they'd have to be right about their assessments, but if they aren't going to trust their scouting then what's the point?

I would prefer the Packers to select the highest ranked player left on their board at #14 than add more draft picks in a year when they already have 12 selections. It might be a smart idea to use some of those picks to move up in the second or third round though.

 

[AmishMafia]

As Poppa has mentioned it's strange that posters that used the Packers consistently selecting at the end of the first round as an explanation for some poor draft choices now advocate for the team to trade back once they are slated to pick at #14.

You're fooling yourself if you truly believe the chances aren't higher to select an impact player earlier in the draft.

The difference, of course, is getting an extra pick in an area of the draft in a year in which you can get a starter.

Again, are you under the impression that all teams use the same player rankings?

 

[Dantés]

I would prefer the Packers to select the highest ranked player left on their board at #14 than add more draft picks in a year when they already have 12 selections. It might be a smart idea to use some of those picks to move up in the second or third round though.

I would definitely like to see them use extra picks to move up at various spots. And if they have a guy there at #14 who they grade significantly higher than others, I want them to sit tight and take that player. But if their top players are cleaned out and they have 4-5 similarly graded left on the board, I can't see the harm in moving back 1-3 slots for another top 100 pick.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Again, are you under the impression that all teams use the same player rankings?

I'm well aware that teams have players ranked in different ways. That doesn't change the fact that it's more likely to select an impact player earlier in the draft.

I would definitely like to see them use extra picks to move up at various spots. And if they have a guy there at #14 who they grade significantly higher than others, I want them to sit tight and take that player. But if their top players are cleaned out and they have 4-5 similarly graded left on the board, I can't see the harm in moving back 1-3 slots for another top 100 pick.

I agree with that but hopefully there will be a top tier player available for the Packers to select at #14.