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

[elcid]

Another hypothetical for you guys, since there is virtually no chance of it happening. Would you trade our first round pick for all of the picks owned in the second round by either the Colts or Browns?

 

[Dantés]

Another hypothetical for you guys, since there is virtually no chance of it happening. Would you trade our first round pick for all of the picks owned in the second round by either the Colts or Browns?

While either would technically be a win for the Packers on the value chart, I would not. Green Bay has a lot of solid players, but few stars. They need impact players. Their best shot at that would be to make a selection at #14, in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

While either would technically be a win for the Packers on the value chart, I would not. Green Bay has a lot of solid players, but few stars. They need impact players. Their best shot at that would be to make a selection at #14, in my opinion.

I agree about preferring the Packers to keep the 14th pick. I'm not that sure about the team having a lot of solid players though.

 

[Dantés]

I agree about preferring the Packers to keep the 14th pick. I'm not that sure about the team having a lot of solid players though.

I would consider Rodgers, Jones/Williams platoon, Graham, Adams, Cobb, Bakhtiari, Taylor, Linsley, Bulaga, Clark, Daniels, Wilkerson/Lowry platoon, Martinez, Perry, Matthews, and Clinton-Dix to all be somewhere in the spectrum of solid starter to super star.

Where do you disagree?

 

[AmishMafia]

Another hypothetical for you guys, since there is virtually no chance of it happening. Would you trade our first round pick for all of the picks owned in the second round by either the Colts or Browns?

Yes, I think I would. There will be some good players going at the top of the 2nd round. I like to spread my risk and would rather have 3 potentially very good players than 1 potentially great player. But if one of my top players was there at 14, chubb, Edmund's, fitz, James, barkley, Nelson, or ward, I'm staying put. If I have to gamble on a player like Landry or Davenport, I'm trading back.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I would consider Rodgers, Jones/Williams platoon, Graham, Adams, Cobb, Bakhtiari, Taylor, Linsley, Bulaga, Clark, Daniels, Wilkerson/Lowry platoon, Martinez, Perry, Matthews, and Clinton-Dix to all be somewhere in the spectrum of solid starter to super star.

Where do you disagree?

Jones and Williams still have to prove themselves and Bulaga is injury-prone. You have to compare that number to other contenders to get any significant statement out of it though.

Yes, I think I would. There will be some good players going at the top of the 2nd round. I like to spread my risk and would rather have 3 potentially very good players than 1 potentially great player. But if one of my top players was there at 14, chubb, Edmund's, fitz, James, barkley, Nelson, or ward, I'm staying put. If I have to gamble on a player like Landry or Davenport, I'm trading back.

The Packers already have the most picks in this year's draft with 12. There's no reason to increase that number but time to select some impact players.

FWIW I wouldn't clnsider drafting Landry at #14 as a gamble.

 

[GBkrzygrl]

Another hypothetical for you guys, since there is virtually no chance of it happening. Would you trade our first round pick for all of the picks owned in the second round by either the Colts or Browns?

Pardon my ignorance, but why, when this is the highest pick we have had in years, are people speculating a trade. We need this high pick. I wouldn't risk the gamble that you can get good value by trading, IMO.

 

[Dantés]

Jones and Williams still have to prove themselves and Bulaga is injury-prone. You have to compare that number to other contenders to get any significant statement out of it though.



The Packers already have the most picks in this year's draft with 12. There's no reason to increase that number but time to select some impact players.

FWIW I wouldn't clnsider drafting Landry at #14 as a gamble.

Most teams have one or two injury prone starters no? But if you like, throw them out. We could debate them separately. Even so, you’re still talking about 14 spots on the starting depth chart without including younger guys slotted for roles that haven’t proven themselves, such as the running backs, King, and Jones. I guess you could also make the case to include Tramon Williams given how he played in Arizona last season.

So that illustrates my original point— lots of solid players or better in starting roles. Few stars.

 

[AmishMafia]

The Packers already have the most picks in this year's draft with 12. There's no reason to increase that number but time to select some impact players.

FWIW I wouldn't clnsider drafting Landry at #14 as a gamble.

Landry was not very good last year. Against a good OL at ND he was horrendous. Against a mediocre freshman OT he was manhandled. At times he did not look motivated in the run game. These are red flags to me and gets him a 'gamble' designation.

I would not expect the Packers to end up with 15 picks if they did the proposed trade. 10 would be about right as the back end would be burned on trade ups.

 

[brandon2348]

The Packers still need to upgrade at cornerback but I would prefer Gutekunst to address the position with a veteran through free agency or a trade.

My top three choices would be Landry, Jackson and Smith. One player to keep an eye on is Maurice Hurst who would most likely be gone by the time the Packers are on the clock but with the heart issue he was diagnosed at the combine, of which he has been cleared in the meantime, he might drop to #14.

Mo Hurst is a beast. Reminds me of Aaron Donald. He is a "disrupter". I would take him over Vea all day long. Maybe the plan is to run 4-3 which I would be very happy with.

 

[AmishMafia]

Pardon my ignorance, but why, when this is the highest pick we have had in years, are people speculating a trade. We need this high pick. I wouldn't risk the gamble that you can get good value by trading, IMO.

There is a gamble with every pick. If somehow Chubb drops to 14 and we take him he could break his leg first day of training camp. 1 or 2 top 10 picks bust nearly every year, it's the nature of the game. 3 players who are good and can start is an impact on the whole team and sometimes those 2nd rounders develop into super stars. Jordy, Adams, Nick Collins, and Favre come to mind as impact packers from the 2nd round.

 

[elcid]

There is a gamble with every pick. If somehow Chubb drops to 14 and we take him he could break his leg first day of training camp. 1 or 2 top 10 picks bust nearly every year, it's the nature of the game. 3 players who are good and can start is an impact on the whole team and sometimes those 2nd rounders develop into super stars. Jordy, Adams, Nick Collins, and Favre come to mind as impact packers from the 2nd round.

Exactly. If we can draft the next great SURE thing at 14, I say do it. But when the pick can be traded so that we have 4 picks in the second round, inluding 3 in the top 15, theres a legit possibility that you can take 2 solid corners from Oliver/Hughes/Alexander, some quality pass rush help in Key/Carter, and a burner for Arod in Clark at WR. Of course it all hinges on the assumption that a team wants to give us such value for our selection, which seems slim. But if we are on the clock and neither Fitzpatrick, James, Ward, Edmunds or Smith is still on the board, I wouldn't mind such a trade in this draft.

 

[GleefulGary]

Landry was not very good last year. Against a good OL at ND he was horrendous. Against a mediocre freshman OT he was manhandled. At times he did not look motivated in the run game. These are red flags to me and gets him a 'gamble' designation.

I would not expect the Packers to end up with 15 picks if they did the proposed trade. 10 would be about right as the back end would be burned on trade ups.

He was also injured. His main asset is his explosiveness around the corner, his ankle injury sapped him of that.

Watch his 2016 tape.

Seriously. If you switched his 2016 and 2017 tape, he's a top 10 pick. Recency bias is killing him. Dude is a baller, and the best pure pass rusher in this class.

 

[AmishMafia]

He was also injured. His main asset is his explosiveness around the corner, his ankle injury sapped him of that.

Watch his 2016 tape.

Seriously. If you switched his 2016 and 2017 tape, he's a top 10 pick. Recency bias is killing him. Dude is a baller, and the best pure pass rusher in this class.

Watch his 2017 tape. Which one are you getting? Are you 100% sure you are getting 2016? No? Hence the topic, he is a risk, and not a sure thing.

 

[GleefulGary]

Watch his 2017 tape. Which one are you getting? Are you 100% sure you are getting 2016? No? Hence the topic, he is a risk, and not a sure thing.

In general, I'm going to trust the healthy tape over the injured tape. Ankle injuries happen, they suck, but they're typically not a long term concern.

In general, there is no safe player in the draft. Every single one is a risk. I think Landry's risk factor is fairly low, but he certainly could turn out to be a bum. But I doubt it. Players don't fluke into playing well for a season...they can fluke into playing poorly, they can fluke into having one good game and the rest bad, but they pretty much never fluke into having an entire season of good and then being a bad player.

 

[GleefulGary]

Denzel Ward is 183 pounds, didn't weigh in at his pro-day and only started one year. He's a gamble.

Saquon Barkley for all of his talent, doesn't possess great vision and doesn't run between the tackles well. He's a gamble.

Quenton Nelson is a great run blocker who can occasionally struggle pass blocking against quick 3T's. He's a gamble.

Sam Darnold for all of his talent, has a problem with turnovers. He's a gamble.

Baker Mayfield is small, not that fast, and doesn't have a big arm. He's a gamble.

Bradley Chubb isn't overly athletic, is better against the run than as a pass rusher, and had a really poor 3-cone time. He's a gamble.

Roquan Smith struggles shedding blockers. He's a gamble.

Tremaine Edmunds is raw and doesn't use his athletic capabilities to their fullest, and might be more athlete than football player. He's a gamble.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on. There are no safe picks. Quenton Nelson is probably as safe as it gets, but we've heard that about iOL before, and they've still done nothing!

My point is that every player in this draft is a risk. Every player is a gamble. That's why most GM's don't have an excellent record in the draft...it's stinking hard! They are all a risk, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

 

[Dantés]

Watch his 2017 tape. Which one are you getting? Are you 100% sure you are getting 2016? No? Hence the topic, he is a risk, and not a sure thing.

But if it’s true that 2017 was mostly attributable to playing through an injury, then wouldn’t that be an indication of which season is the better representation?

 

[brandon2348]

Denzel Ward is 183 pounds, didn't weigh in at his pro-day and only started one year. He's a gamble.

Saquon Barkley for all of his talent, doesn't possess great vision and doesn't run between the tackles well. He's a gamble.

Quenton Nelson is a great run blocker who can occasionally struggle pass blocking against quick 3T's. He's a gamble.

Sam Darnold for all of his talent, has a problem with turnovers. He's a gamble.

Baker Mayfield is small, not that fast, and doesn't have a big arm. He's a gamble.

Bradley Chubb isn't overly athletic, is better against the run than as a pass rusher, and had a really poor 3-cone time. He's a gamble.

Roquan Smith struggles shedding blockers. He's a gamble.

Tremaine Edmunds is raw and doesn't use his athletic capabilities to their fullest, and might be more athlete than football player. He's a gamble.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on. There are no safe picks. Quenton Nelson is probably as safe as it gets, but we've heard that about iOL before, and they've still done nothing!

My point is that every player in this draft is a risk. Every player is a gamble. That's why most GM's don't have an excellent record in the draft...it's stinking hard! They are all a risk, there is no such thing as a sure thing.

Which is precisely why I want them to trade back and then trade up on day 2 getting as many bites at the apple in the top 100-150 picks.

 

[AmishMafia]

But if it’s true that 2017 was mostly attributable to playing through an injury, then wouldn’t that be an indication of which season is the better representation?

It could mean he is susceptible to injury. He didn't come back very well. Is there nerve damage? Will he ever be at that 2016 level?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

With 12 draft picks, I would prefer the Packers keep their #14 and use some of their 4-7 picks to move down in the early rounds. If we ended the draft with 6-7 picks from rounds 1-5, I would be happy with that.

 

[GleefulGary]

It could mean he is susceptible to injury. He didn't come back very well. Is there nerve damage? Will he ever be at that 2016 level?

Considering his combine numbers, pretty safe to say he's back to healthy.

Guy had 5 sacks his first 6 games, then ankle injury and didn't play well. This happens. Again, every player is a risk. Every player is flawed.

 

[GleefulGary]

Which is precisely why I want them to trade back and then trade up on day 2 getting as many bites at the apple in the top 100-150 picks.

Have to disagree. First round talent in this class is gonna end at like 16-18 players. Maybe 20, imo. I'm good with reading into the early 2nd or late first, but not trading out of 14.

Ward, Landry, James. One of those three should be there. Backup plan being Alexander or Josh Jackson. I would take any of them, and if we trade back, we probably don't.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I might be willing to trade back 3-5 spots in the 1st if there are 3-5 desirable players still on the board, but no way do I trade out of the first. If the Ravens want to leap over the Cardinals and give us their #16 pick and their 3rd rounder (#83), I would be all over it if the right guys were still there.

 

[brandon2348]

Have to disagree. First round talent in this class is gonna end at like 16-18 players. Maybe 20, imo. I'm good with reading into the early 2nd or late first, but not trading out of 14.

Ward, Landry, James. One of those three should be there. Backup plan being Alexander or Josh Jackson. I would take any of them, and if we trade back, we probably don't.

I highly doubt James or Ward will be there at 14. Depends on the run on QB's I suppose. Landry will probably be there and I wont complain if Packers take him there but i"m not convinced he will be an elite pass rusher. I do like Landry though. Just not sure he will be elite.

I really like Alexander but 14 might be a little high for him too. Jackson concerns me for a lot of reasons posted. If he isnt a press corner then why invest so highly in him?

I'm down for a situation where we can get Sutton and Alexander and then trade back up multiple times to amass other talent.

 

[Dantés]

It could mean he is susceptible to injury. He didn't come back very well. Is there nerve damage? Will he ever be at that 2016 level?

I see what you’re saying. I’ve said all along that drafting him at #14 would depend on medicals that we don’t have access too. But I agree with JJ that his testing is a pretty strong indicator that he’s past the issue.