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

[HardRightEdge]

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.

Trading down from #14 to #17, for example, is 150 points, equal to pick #88 toward the bottom of the 3rd. round.

The problem is finding a trade partner on short notice who is targetting a particular player that the Packers are not in love with at #14 and that he fears will be gone at #15 or #16 . That's an awfully specific set requirements. The situation needs to be just so.

 

[Dantés]

Trading down from #14 to #17, for example, is 150 points, equal to pick #88 toward the bottom of the 3rd. round.

The problem is finding a trade partner on short notice who is targeting a particular player that the Packers are not in love with at #14 and that he fears will be gone at #15 or #16 . That's an awfully specific set requirements. The situation needs to be just so.

No doubt. Here's the specific hypothetical that, in theory, would meet that specific set of requirements:

Lamar Jackson (or possibly another QB) being coveted by the Cardinals, Ravens, and Chargers or some combination thereof.

As far as finding a partner on short notice, most of the time trades that happen during the draft have been discussed in principle before the draft.

If (and it's a big "if"), the Ravens and/or Chargers want Jackson and fear that Arizona would take him, they may have already spoken to GB about the terms of a possible trade up. Those pre-draft discussions mitigate the problems associated with the time crunch when one is on the clock.

I would also add that when coveted QB's are involved, the value chart becomes quite a bit less accurate.

For instance, the Jets sent #6 (1600), #37 (530), #49 (410), and a 2019 2nd to the Colts for #3 (2200). That 2019 2nd is hard to value. If we just place it smack dab in the middle of the 2nd round, it's 420. But future picks have historically been valued at a number a round later than picks in the present draft. So if it's currently valued as a mid 3rd, it's 190.

All that together means that the Jets gave 2730 points up to get 2200 back. That 530 point difference is the equivalent of a high 2nd round pick that was "overpaid" per the chart. So hypothetically, if there are multiple teams coveting Jackson or some other falling QB, the Packers might be able to get a good bit more than what the chart would say they should.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No doubt. Here's the specific hypothetical that, in theory, would meet that specific set of requirements:

Lamar Jackson (or possibly another QB) being coveted by the Cardinals, Ravens, and Chargers or some combination thereof.
GiAs far as finding a partner on short notice, most of the time trades that happen during the draft have been discussed in principle before the draft.

If (and it's a big "if"), the Ravens and/or Chargers want Jackson and fear that Arizona would take him, they may have already spoken to GB about the terms of a possible trade up. Those pre-draft discussions mitigate the problems associated with the time crunch when one is on the clock.

I would also add that when coveted QB's are involved, the value chart becomes quite a bit less accurate.

For instance, the Jets sent #6 (1600), #37 (530), #49 (410), and a 2019 2nd to the Colts for #3 (2200). That 2019 2nd is hard to value. If we just place it smack dab in the middle of the 2nd round, it's 420. But future picks have historically been valued at a number a round later than picks in the present draft. So if it's currently valued as a mid 3rd, it's 190.

All that together means that the Jets gave 2730 points up to get 2200 back. That 530 point difference is the equivalent of a high 2nd round pick that was "overpaid" per the chart. So hypothetically, if there are multiple teams coveting Jackson or some other falling QB, the Packers might be able to get a good bit more than what the chart would say they should.

Good points.

However, you've added more "ifs" to the previous "if" that the Packers have multiple players similarly graded that they'd be happy to take at #14, with no clear standout, that all happen to still be on the board at #14 making a trade down attractive.

Jackson may end up with the Bills, for instance. A Jackson contingency agreement in principle would be a difficult one to arrange very far in advance: "If Jackson is avilable at #14, we'll make the trade if players X, Y and Z are still on the board" with the Chargers, or players X and Y with the Ravens. The Packers would then be exposing their top prospect scouting where such info can travel. I think it would have to be more in the moment which makes getting a deal done more difficult.

As for the compensation, the Jets were quite generous out of desperation. They paid up to position themselves well in advance for a top 3 QB and had to pay the price. I would expect 2019 picks to be discounted somewhat in trade because of opportunity cost in a "what have you done for me lately" league. Getting a future 2nd. rounder for free is uncommon.

Of all the "ifs", the one most plausible is a Packer view that a cluster of players in the #14 - #20 range represent approximately equal value from a grade/fit/need standpoint, with the needs being several, as the moment approaches. Then the conditions need to be ripe for somebody else in the moment.

Trading down is certainly possible, and possibly quite attractive, but it would not be a likely event.

 

[Dantés]

Tony Pauline reported that the Packers expect Josh Jackson and Minkah Fitzpatrick to be there at #14, and that those would be the two that they’d try to decide between if that scenario came to fruition.

Now it goes without saying that this is hearsay, and not authoritative. But as it doesn’t strike me as outlandish, I thought a comparison might be in order.

Josh Jackson:

• 6'0" 196 lbs
• 31 1/8" arms
• 4.56 forty
• 38" vertical
• 123" broad
• 6.86 three cone
• 4.03 short shuttle
• 48 tackles, 34 solo, .5 TFL
• 8 INT, 18 PBU in 2017

Minkah Fitzpatrick:

• 6'0" 204 lbs
• 31 1/4" arms
• 4.46 forty
• 33" vertical
• 121" broad
• 6.73 three cone
• 4.13 short shuttle
• 60 tackles, 38 solo, 8 TFL
• 1 INT, 8 PBU in 2017
• 6 INT, 7 PBU in 2016

Jackson is a true cornerback who lines up both outside and in the slot. He plays well with his face to the QB and clearly has the best ball skills of any corner in this class. He has been effective from a press position, though he doesn't tend to get physical with receivers. He has the length the disrupt at the LOS and will need to learn to do so effectively as he lacks the long speed to carry fast receivers down the field straight up. He's thought to be a poor run defender, though that's a secondary consideration. He's only a one year starter and will likely need at least a season, if not two to come into his own at the next level. His upside is a Marcus Peters level corner, who he compares to very closely athletically.

Fitzpatrick has cornerback athleticism, but has never really been a true corner for Alabama. He's played very well over the slot, as a nickel linebacker, and as a free safety. He has three years of heavy experience in perhaps the most pro style defense in football. While he doesn't have Jackson's absurd ball skills, he can more than hold his own. He has 9 career INT's, 4 of which he housed. He's also a physical player against the run and a good blitzer out of the slot. He's known as leader on and off the field who sets a tone with his tenacious playing style.

The decision between the two would be really tough. They give and take mutually when it comes to athleticism. Jackson plays a true corner position, which is more valuable, but Fitzpatrick is far more versatile and also the better slot player, where GB has the biggest current need. I would say that Fitzpatrick is safer and more likely to make the bigger immediate impact. However, if they both maxed out their potential at the next level, I'd say Jackson would probably end up being the more valuable defender.

If forced to choose, I would opt for Fitzpatrick. His ability to help immediately in a big area of need, his versatility, and his leadership give him the edge for me. There's also the chance that he is tried at outside corner and finds a lot of success, in which case he would close the gap on Jackson's "upside advantage."

Who would you guys choose?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

The decision between the two would be really tough. They give and take mutually when it comes to athleticism. Jackson plays a true corner position, which is more valuable, but Fitzpatrick is far more versatile and also the better slot player, where GB has the biggest current need.

Who would you guys choose?

It would be a tough decision but I would prefer the Packers to draft Jackson if both are available at #14. While the team definitely has a need to improve at slot cornerback they aren't set on the outside either.

 

[Conan Troutman]

I'd take Fitzpatrick, he just seems taylor made for Pettine's scheme. Though I also really like Justin Reid should he be there in the second round, so going Jackson/some other CB and then Reid would also make a lot of sense. Either way, I really want a Collins successor, that secondary was just so much better with him.

 

[Dantés]

It would be a tough decision but I would prefer the Packers to draft Jackson if both are available at #14. While the team definitely has a need to improve at slot cornerback they aren't set on the outside either.

I’m not sure if there’s a wrong answer.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I'd take Fitzpatrick, he just seems taylor made for Pettine's scheme. Though I also really like Justin Reid should he be there in the second round, so going Jackson/some other CB and then Reid would also make a lot of sense. Either way, I really want a Collins successor, that secondary was just so much better with him.

It would be awesome if the Packers were able to add an All-Pro player like Collins but that's easy said than done as there is only an extremely limited number of such guys around. Drafting Reid in the second round would be an unnecessary reach.

 

[AmishMafia]

Tony Pauline reported that the Packers expect Josh Jackson and Minkah Fitzpatrick to be there at #14, and that those would be the two that they’d try to decide between if that scenario came to fruition.

Now it goes without saying that this is hearsay, and not authoritative. But as it doesn’t strike me as outlandish, I thought a comparison might be in order.

Josh Jackson:

• 6'0" 196 lbs
• 31 1/8" arms
• 4.56 forty
• 38" vertical
• 123" broad
• 6.86 three cone
• 4.03 short shuttle
• 48 tackles, 34 solo, .5 TFL
• 8 INT, 18 PBU in 2017

Minkah Fitzpatrick:

• 6'0" 204 lbs
• 31 1/4" arms
• 4.46 forty
• 33" vertical
• 121" broad
• 6.73 three cone
• 4.13 short shuttle
• 60 tackles, 38 solo, 8 TFL
• 1 INT, 8 PBU in 2017
• 6 INT, 7 PBU in 2016

Jackson is a true cornerback who lines up both outside and in the slot. He plays well with his face to the QB and clearly has the best ball skills of any corner in this class. He has been effective from a press position, though he doesn't tend to get physical with receivers. He has the length the disrupt at the LOS and will need to learn to do so effectively as he lacks the long speed to carry fast receivers down the field straight up. He's thought to be a poor run defender, though that's a secondary consideration. He's only a one year starter and will likely need at least a season, if not two to come into his own at the next level. His upside is a Marcus Peters level corner, who he compares to very closely athletically.

Fitzpatrick has cornerback athleticism, but has never really been a true corner for Alabama. He's played very well over the slot, as a nickel linebacker, and as a free safety. He has three years of heavy experience in perhaps the most pro style defense in football. While he doesn't have Jackson's absurd ball skills, he can more than hold his own. He has 9 career INT's, 4 of which he housed. He's also a physical player against the run and a good blitzer out of the slot. He's known as leader on and off the field who sets a tone with his tenacious playing style.

The decision between the two would be really tough. They give and take mutually when it comes to athleticism. Jackson plays a true corner position, which is more valuable, but Fitzpatrick is far more versatile and also the better slot player, where GB has the biggest current need. I would say that Fitzpatrick is safer and more likely to make the bigger immediate impact. However, if they both maxed out their potential at the next level, I'd say Jackson would probably end up being the more valuable defender.

If forced to choose, I would opt for Fitzpatrick. His ability to help immediately in a big area of need, his versatility, and his leadership give him the edge for me. There's also the chance that he is tried at outside corner and finds a lot of success, in which case he would close the gap on Jackson's "upside advantage."

Who would you guys choose?

Fitzpatrick is an elite player and a notch above Jackson. I like Jackson and have no qualms taking him at 14, but Fitzpatrick is a complete playmaker. His versatility is because he understands football, coverages, etc and is an elite athlete. I would be very jazzed if we score the Fitz at 14.

 

[Dantés]

Fitzpatrick is an elite player and a notch above Jackson. I like Jackson and have no qualms taking him at 14, but Fitzpatrick is a complete playmaker. His versatility is because he understands football, coverages, etc and is an elite athlete. I would be very jazzed if we score the Fitz at 14.

The thing that makes it tough for me is that Jackson basically matches Fitzpatrick as an athlete and playmaker. However, I think you nailed it in calling Fitzpatrick "complete." He will make an immediate impact in coverage, in run defense, as a blitzer, on ST, and as a leader. That's the edge for me.

 

[GleefulGary]

Without a doubt in my mind, we'll have a chance at one of Harold Landry, Derwin James, Minkah Fitzpatrick, and Josh Jackson (Jackson being the most likely). I'm really good with that. Jackson isn't my favorite CB prospect in the draft, but he is a good one for sure.

Anyways, that's a quartet of really good players who also happen to be at positions of need. It's nice when the board lines up that way.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I’m not sure if there’s a wrong answer.

Either would represent good value at #14.

I give the edge to Fitzpatrick for versatility and leadership. Nickel corner, FS and SS are all fits, and possibly even on the perimeter. From a two year perspective, with Clinton-Dix in his contract year, Fitzpatrick would be a natural successor if C-D departs if he doesn't take a perimeter job. My bottom line take is he's probably best utilized in the middle of the field but we'd get a better idea in preseason.

It's kinda funny reading scouting reports that he's dropped because he doesn't have a clear natural position when he excelled in multiple roles in something approximating a pro style defense. Are they sandbagging? He just might be the best "football player" in this draft.

A word on Jackson's 40 time. I looked at the tape of his Combine runs. (The weather has been bad, no golf or yard work, what else do I have to do?). His unoffical Combine times were 4.49 and 4.60, averaged to 4.55. Evidently the offical times averaged 4.56.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-combine/0ap3000000919493/Josh-Jackson-runs-a-4-56-40-yard-dash

This looks like a guy who did not go to one of these prep organizations that train sprinting technique (or he just didn't take to the training) as he stood up right out of the blocks. In the second run, it looked like he lost rhythm in the middle of the run perhaps reaching to beat the first time. The highlight tapes show speed better than 4.56. It looks to me like his field speed equates better to the 4.49 time.

He also posted a 40" vertical at his Pro Day, a scooch better than the 38" Combine number. Either way, the tape shows serious hops with good body control in the process.

I'll say this much about this draft from my casual survey: it looks good in DB value from #14 down through the 3rd. round.

I've also been casually checking in on the NFL Network and ESPN draft coverage. Don't these guys get bored with themselves, grinding on the QBs and the top 10 night after night? If I may be permitted a digression, Rudolph might not end up being the best QB in this draft, but if somebody puts a decent line in front of him he just might be. He doesn't excel at any one particular thing throwing the ball, but he's good at everything.

 

[GleefulGary]

The thing that makes it tough for me is that Jackson basically matches Fitzpatrick as an athlete and playmaker. However, I think you nailed it in calling Fitzpatrick "complete." He will make an immediate impact in coverage, in run defense, as a blitzer, on ST, and as a leader. That's the edge for me.

My largest qualm about Jackson is that traditionally, the Big 10 doesn't offer much in the way of challenging WR's. Fitzpatrick has faced far stiffer competition and excelled while doing so.

On the other hand, Iowa pretty much always has safe football prospects. They're almost always at least ok.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Without a doubt in my mind, we'll have a chance at one of Harold Landry, Derwin James, Minkah Fitzpatrick, and Josh Jackson (Jackson being the most likely). I'm really good with that. Jackson isn't my favorite CB prospect in the draft, but he is a good one for sure.

Anyways, that's a quartet of really good players who also happen to be at positions of need. It's nice when the board lines up that way.

Those are the four names I put in the 1st. round in the Amish draft contest.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think Jackson has a bigger chance of being a bust than Fitz. Both could turn into Pro Bowlers, but there is just something I don't like about Jackson as a cover corner. If you look at his tape on all of his hyped interceptions, which to me is one of the biggest reasons for him even being in the conversation, many of the picks were bad throws or deflections. Now there is something to be said about a guy being in the right place at the right time, but does that make him an elite NFL CB? I will say, his one interception against OSU, was a thing of beauty.

But I have also seen Mike Hughes name kicked around as a possible pick at #14, I would be even more disappointed in that selection.

Ultimately, I would prefer the Packers to find a pass rusher with that first pick and hopefully find another CB in round 2 or 3. Seems like Ward is about the only consensus top CB in the draft, after him,there is a large group of CB's that all are equally boom or bust potential.

 

[Dantés]

I think Jackson has a bigger chance of being a bust than Fitz. Both could turn into Pro Bowlers, but there is just something I don't like about Jackson as a cover corner. If you look at his tape on all of his hyped interceptions, which to me is one of the biggest reasons for him even being in the conversation, many of the picks were bad throws or deflections. Now there is something to be said about a guy being in the right place at the right time, but does that make him an elite NFL CB? I will say, his one interception against OSU, was a thing of beauty.

But I have also seen Mike Hughes name kicked around as a possible pick at #14, I would be even more disappointed in that selection.

I think that any time you have a player at the P5 level come away with 26 (twenty-six!) combined INT's and pass breakups in a single season, it's safe to say that they were both lucky in terms of place/time/scheme AND have amazing ball skills. You need both things to come together for a season like that.

 

[GleefulGary]

Now y'all are getting me excited for a guy who is likely a top 5 player in this draft falling to us (Fitzpatrick).

Screw all of you. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. Because I love Minkah.

 

[gopkrs]

I would not be unhappy if we get the ND tackle but if not; I hope we draft a tackle in the 2nd round. I really want to shore up the right side and the ND tackle is supposed to be a good run blocker also. I saw a mock where we drafted the Oklahoma tackle in the 2nd.

 

[HardRightEdge]

Now y'all are getting me excited for a guy who is likely a top 5 player in this draft falling to us (Fitzpatrick).

Screw all of you. I hate you. I hate you. I hate you. Because I love Minkah.

https://www.bonanza.com/listings/He...MI8Ifg3qrH2gIVylYNCh2xNAliEAQYASABEgKcU_D_BwE

 

[HardRightEdge]

I would not be unhappy if we get the ND tackle but if not; I hope we draft a tackle in the 2nd round. I really want to shore up the right side and the ND tackle is supposed to be a good run blocker also. I saw a mock where we drafted the Oklahoma tackle in the 2nd.

Orlando Brown? No way. Did you look at his Combine measurables? About the only good thing is his 35" arms and massive wingspan. His speed, jumping and agility drills fall into the UDFA range and worse. How does a 345 lb. NFL prospect manage only 14 lifts (or 18 at his Pro Day), regardless of how long his arms are?

 

[OldSchool101]

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

Just for the sake of analyzing that. Pick #14 that a team values as a top 10 pick (especially a QB) is well worth that.
So a pick valued at #10. (1300pts) is equivalent to #23 (760pts) #55 (350pts) and a future 2nd rounder=todays 3rd rounder (155pts) =1265. Actually, after careful consideration you're right, we're probably not asking for enough I wouldn't do that trade unless they had something else to offer. I'd just pick at #14

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would not be unhappy if we get the ND tackle but if not; I hope we draft a tackle in the 2nd round. I really want to shore up the right side and the ND tackle is supposed to be a good run blocker also. I saw a mock where we drafted the Oklahoma tackle in the 2nd.

The Packers should definitely add some depth at tackle but there's no reason to spend a first or second rounder on the position.

Just for the sake of analyzing that. Pick #14 that a team values as a top 10 pick (especially a QB) is well worth that.
So a pick valued at #10. (1300pts) is equivalent to #23 (760pts) #55 (350pts) and a future 2nd rounder=todays 3rd rounder (155pts) =1265. Actually, after careful consideration you're right, we're probably not asking for enough I wouldn't do that trade unless they had something else to offer. I'd just pick at #14

Why should another team value the Packers first round pick as a top 10 pick??? The 14th selection is worth 1,100. Trading back five spots (19th, 875 points) might not even result in a second rounder in return (64th pick is worth 270 points). If the team decides to move back 10 spots (24th, 740) they could most likely receive the other team's second rounder as compensation (56th, 340) but definitely not another one in 2019.

 

[AmishMafia]

Where fans go awry, is they put way too much into a trade value chart. What the chart is meant to do is quantify the average value of a player you are likely to get at a particular draft spot. It makes an assumption that you can rank draft picks in order from 1 to 300, which of course is ridiculous. It also assumes that each team ranks the players equally. Also ridiculous. It should be updated every year to exactly match the talent available.

So what happens if you are the Patriots and a player you rank as the #1 player in the draft is there at 14? Do you only offer the Packers the trade chart value of pick #14 or are you willing to go much higher for a player you think is really special? Then they also may think, wow, after Player zzzz, our next ranked player is quite a drop off. Which also drives up the price they are willing to pay. Or, take it from the Packers perspective. What if all their top players are gone and they have the next 10 players equally ranked (doubtful at this point in the draft, but I want to illustrate something)? The Packers asking price would drop significantly because they know they are getting a player they may have taken at 14 anyways. The price then is you have less players to choose from and whats left may not be a position you need.

 

[gopkrs]

The Packers should definitely add some depth at tackle but there's no reason to spend a first or second rounder on the position.

The reason has something to do with what Hard Right Edge said about Orlando Brown. He is ranked 5th of OTs but he is not very good. From what I have been reading there are no other really good OTs. And having an OT that can run block can help the offense as much or more than getting say a receiver. Also, if there is one man we want healthy; it is Rodgers. I would very much like to see us being able to run because of good blocking. Something we have lacked for a long time. If Bulaga stays healthy I will be pleasantly very surprised. And he does not have much longer in the NFL imho. Anyway, that is my logic. Of course, we need help on D. Can't have everything but I submit that making sure Rodgers has what he needs (time and less hits) is necessary. There are more corners to be had in the 2nd but no OTs.

 

[HardRightEdge]

The Packers should definitely add some depth at tackle but there's no reason to spend a first or second rounder on the position.

There's what they "should" do from the basis of incomplete information vs. what they will do.

1) Can Bulaga play?
2) Will Spriggs make a 3rd. year jump?
3) Is Murphy best positiioned as an interior lineman?

If the answers are no, maybe, and yes, respectively, there's no reason to think the Packers will not take an OT in the 2nd. or 3rd. round. All of those answers are plausible.