1st round pick for Jalen Ramsey???

[XPack]

I don't think it's irrelevant to bring up a recent trade opportunity for a cornerback in a discussion about a current trade opportunity for a different corner. It would seem silly to not reference the Minkah trade in discussing the Jalen trade. That being said, please continue, some of the best points one ever made were on a bender... Or maybe it was most entertaining posts?

I don't know. Saying one trade which didn't happen is better than another trade whick also might not happen seems a exercise in futility. If your point was not trading for Minkah was a mistake, I'd agree the reference, but saying Minkah would be a better fit when he's not on table seems a bit off the mark.

 

[OldSchool101]

I’m also in agreement with others that we have to keep our eye on the prize. This Defense is plenty good. We’ve got Redmond, Jackson, Sullivan, Hollman, etc.. as backups and I’m confident with those guys playing adequate if they had to fill in.

If we could plug any position with a solid player it would be OG and WR or both.
I say #1..OG first because nothing happens unless we keep #12 upright. If Our LG was a pro-bowl quality player #12 would do some damage even with this WR group. It would be nice to have a mauler for the Run game that we are now emphasizing.
WR would be #2 most important, but I still feel we’re not near potential with our current group.
#3 would be ILB next to Blake. I’m not counting Burks out yet, I think he’ll be back around our Dallas game Oct 6th (just a hunch)

Don’t get me wrong though, I’d be looking at all 3 right now, if I found a sure thing that was reasonable I’d even give up my personal pick of “best value” in the draft RB Mr Dexter right now.

 

[swhitset]

Unlike Mack, we really don't "NEED" another CB. Would it be nice to have one as good as Ramsey to go along with Alexander, King, Williams, Brown and Jackson, sure. But not at the cost of giving up 2 first Round picks and $15-16M/year. Ramsey isn't going to play on his rookie deal or his 5th year, he is going to demand a new contract.

Like a few have said, if the Packers were really wanting to heavily invest more draft capital in the secondary, Fitzpatrick would have been the better option, but I was a "no" on him as well.

This team has ignored its offense in the draft and in Free Agency way too long, its about time they shift gears and save draft picks and cap money to do that. The defense is operating just fine (2nd in NFL) right now.

I can't believe anyone is even seriously contemplating that this would be a good idea, to be honest.

I hit agree on your post.... because I completely agree with your point. I however, can believe it’s being discussed by some as a good idea. Fortunately they do not run the Green Bay Packers.

 

[Calvin]

Unlike Mack, we really don't "NEED" another CB. Would it be nice to have one as good as Ramsey to go along with Alexander, King, Williams, Brown and Jackson, sure. But not at the cost of giving up 2 first Round picks and $15-16M/year. Ramsey isn't going to play on his rookie deal or his 5th year, he is going to demand a new contract.

Like a few have said, if the Packers were really wanting to heavily invest more draft capital in the secondary, Fitzpatrick would have been the better option, but I was a "no" on him as well.

This team has ignored its offense in the draft and in Free Agency way too long, its about time they shift gears and save draft picks and cap money to do that. The defense is operating just fine (2nd in NFL) right now.

I can't believe anyone is even seriously contemplating that this would be a good idea, to be honest.

No one said anything about giving up two 1st round picks other than the guy posting in front of you with the , "reports are saying 2 1st? You can't use that straw man as your argument against people wanting Ramsey; not one post suggested that much. You basically arguing against your own extremes. Fitz is gone and no where near the level or Ramsey. Ramsey can be a good idea if the price is right. Bringing in top talent usually leads to success. We probably have a 5 year window with Rodgers, so me personally, I'll take my chances with proven talent over draft picks.

I'm all for improving the offense but..... Ramsey, look it up and look at his stats, has been a shutdown corner, many consider him the best in the league. If we can't get a #2 WR, TE to help Rodgers, nothing is wrong with trying to build an over the top secondary to lead GB to the promise land.

 

[Do7]

No one said anything about giving up two 1st round picks other than the guy posting in front of you with the , "reports are saying 2 1st? You can't use that straw man as your argument against people wanting Ramsey; not one post suggested that much. You basically arguing against your own extremes. Fitz is gone and no where near the level or Ramsey. Ramsey can be a good idea if the price is right. Bringing in top talent usually leads to success. We probably have a 5 year window with Rodgers, so me personally, I'll take my chances with proven talent over draft picks.

I'm all for improving the offense but..... Ramsey, look it up and look at his stats, has been a shutdown corner, many consider him the best in the league. If we can't get a #2 WR, TE to help Rodgers, nothing is wrong with trying to build an over the top secondary to lead GB to the promise land.

And then later using our players on the defensive side as bargaining chips to trade for offensive talent while still having depth for the defense since chances are we won't be able to afford everyone. Especially if our defense ends up as juggernauts. That will only make their value even better when it comes to trading them.

 

[sschind]

I don't know. Saying one trade which didn't happen is better than another trade whick also might not happen seems a exercise in futility. If your point was not trading for Minkah was a mistake, I'd agree the reference, but saying Minkah would be a better fit when he's not on table seems a bit off the mark.

A lot of what goes on here is an exercise in futility. If we stopped it all this place would wither up and die.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

A lot of what goes on here is an exercise in futility. If we stopped it all this place would wither up and die.

I also think there are a few people thinking Fantasy Football and NFL Football are one in the same.

No one said anything about giving up two 1st round picks other than the guy posting in front of you with the , "reports are saying 2 1st? You can't use that straw man as your argument against people wanting Ramsey; not one post suggested that much.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-want-two-first-round-picks-for-jalen-ramsey/

What would suit your narrative to discuss this? Should we ignore what we are hearing is the Jags asking price? Much like people did about Mack? We can all put our heads in the sand or maybe in this case, the clouds, and say "oh hell yes, lets trade our first round pick", but that isn't what the Jags are asking. Also, for the record, I will repeat my previous posts, I am against even trading a first rounder for him. Our CB situation is what I would call pretty good. Spending high draft capital and even more importantly, committing that much of our Cap on another CB, isn't thinking about the other 21 positions moving forward. Finally, Ramsey is going to want a new contract for this trade to happen and that would probably mean draining pretty much everything we have in reserves to do it and carrying one of the highest paid CB's in the NFL for 4 years.

Bringing in top talent usually leads to success. We probably have a 5 year window with Rodgers, so me personally, I'll take my chances with proven talent over draft picks.

Look at the history of the NFL and many of the teams that have tried your strategy, "bringing in top talent usually leads to success"....it often has led to failure as well.

Ramsey, look it up and look at his stats, has been a shutdown corner, many consider him the best in the league.

I don't think anyone, including myself has said anything to the contrary. However, for all the reasons I stated above, I would be totally opposed to mortgaging the farm for another CB.

 

[Do7]

Look at the history of the NFL and many of the teams that have tried your strategy, "bringing in top talent usually leads to success"....it often has led to failure as well.

The last team I recall to do something along these lines were Denver and they got to 2 SB appearances. Granted they won one, but wouldn't call that a failure. And then you have New England, taking chances on players. I don't recall other teams doing this. Which teams were this?

 

[swhitset]

The last team I recall to do something along these lines were Denver and they got to 2 SB appearances. Granted they won one, but wouldn't call that a failure. And then you have New England, taking chances on players. I don't recall other teams doing this. Which teams were this?

is this a real question?

Ask Dan Snyder how it’s been working out for him. He’s been trying to buy a winning team for as long as I can remember with 0 success. Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. Countless others spend a bunch of money in free agency every year.

 

[Do7]

is this a real question?

Ask Dan Snyder how it’s been working out for him. He’s been trying to buy a winning team for as long as I can remember with 0 success. Only one team wins the Super Bowl every year. Countless others spend a bunch of money in free agency every year.

Yes. I was honestly curious, as Denver and New England were the two teams that came in my mind.

Washington has been a bad organization from its owner to the GMs, to the head coach, and to the quarterback. Gruden is a joke, and Washington has gone through several quarterbacks and we all know how important that position is. I guess I can see the similarities, but I don't necessarily agree with the comparison.

I could be wrong, but I couldn't help but feel as if you were being condescending towards me with your words. I hope I'm wrong as it was an honest question.

 

[Mondio]

The redskins, you have the Browns right now AND they've had many high draft picks and had a lot more this year to work with too. Remember the Eagles dream team? I don't either. The broncos were fortunate to win 1. I still think if they correctly call that PI right before Newtons first sack fumble for a TD to set the tone I think the game would have been much different in the outcome. But maybe not. But they have been pretty bad since and no sign of crawling out of it.

The Jags spent quite a bit in '16 and in '17 had some success, but seem on their way back down.
Plenty of others to back and look thru.

 

[swhitset]

Yes. I was honestly curious, as Denver and New England were the two teams that came in my mind.

Washington has been a bad organization from its owner to the GMs, to the head coach, and to the quarterback. Gruden is a joke, and Washington has gone through several quarterbacks and we all know how important that position is. I guess I can see the similarities, but I don't necessarily agree with the comparison.

I could be wrong, but I couldn't help but feel as if you were being condescending towards me with your words. I hope I'm wrong as it was an honest question.

I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of condescension because their was no malice intended, however I am definitely frustrated by your question. You chose two teams that have won Superbowls and attributed that success to free agency when you could literally choose any other team that hasn’t won anything and the majority of them have spent large sums with nothing to show for it. Do the Vikings look appreciably better to you over the last two years after giving all that money to Cousins? This year is still up in the air, but to me, they seemed better off with Case Keenum....

 

[Do7]

The redskins, you have the Browns right now AND they've had many high draft picks and had a lot more this year to work with too. Remember the Eagles dream team? I don't either. The broncos were fortunate to win 1. I still think if they correctly call that PI right before Newtons first sack fumble for a TD to set the tone I think the game would have been much different in the outcome. But maybe not. But they have been pretty bad since and no sign of crawling out of it.

The Jags spent quite a bit in '16 and in '17 had some success, but seem on their way back down.
Plenty of others to back and look thru.

The Browns are TBD but I think they're heading in the right direction, but I definitely see your point. But to be fair I don't think they had a franchise QB up until now. But again I do understand.

I completely forgot about the "Dream Team"! That was a disaster! XD

Washington again I think they're a bad organization from the head to toe, due to the people there, but I could be wrong. I'm wishing Haskins the best as he seems like a nice guy, and Washington fans are not bad people to talk to. I hope they finally find their franchise QB. It's such a shame they have a bad coach and had bad luck at QB.

As for Denver, again that was the team that really came to mind due to them going to 2 SB. Having said that I do know that this "strategy" has a major drawback.

I appreciate the insight. I honestly was curious, because I couldn't really think of anyone outside of Denver and NE.

 

[Do7]

I wouldn’t say it rises to the level of condescension because their was no malice intended, however I am definitely frustrated by your question. You chose two teams that have won Superbowls and attributed that success to free agency when you could literally choose any other team that hasn’t won anything and the majority of them have spent large sums with nothing to show for it. Do the Vikings look appreciably better to you over the last two years after giving all that money to Cousins? This year is still up in the air, but to me, they seemed better off with Case Keenum....

And I asked because like I said I couldn't think of any other team outside of Denver. And I attributed it to those two in particular because they had two high level QBs like we do, unlike with Washington. That's why I thought it was a fair comparison.

Let's be honest here, do you honestly hold and Kirk Cousins in the same regards as Rodgers, Brady, or Peyton Manning? But I do agree Minnesota should have kept Keenum.

That's why I was asking because I seriously wanted to know. It wasn't due to me trying to be difficult. Geez man!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

New England, taking chances on players.

I'm sure someone will be able to point out a player or two that Bill Belichick has taken a chance on by throwing 2 #1 picks and a ton of cap space on, but using the Pats as a team that has successfully made this kind of trade to win SB's seems like a stretch. BB has made his bread and butter being more frugal with his picks and cap.

 

[Do7]

I'm sure someone will be able to point out a player or two that Bill Belichick has taken a chance on by throwing 2 #1 picks and a ton of cap space on, but using the Pats as a team that has successfully made this kind of trade to win SB's seems like a stretch. BB has made his bread and butter being more frugal with his picks and cap.

Wait to be clear! I do agree that trading two first round picks in order to acquire him is too much to ask.

I feel like there's a misunderstanding. I'm simply referring to people not wanting to take a chance on him due to his personality.

If was the price was right, while I would've prefered Minkah. I wouldn't be opposed to getting him. If the price is right. (No pun intended)

 

[Mondio]

Wait to be clear! I do agree that trading two first round picks in order to acquire him is too much to ask.

I feel like there's a misunderstanding. I'm simply referring to people not wanting to take a chance on him due to his personality.

The only way I'd take him is if it was cheap on the trade side and put him in the best position to be great and let someone else pay him a boatload in the offseason and we get a comp pick. Though at the rate we've been signing FA's I'm not sure it would matter.

But either way, i'm not investing future picks or future cap for a guy that has shown as many "me first" traits as he has recently. The time has passed for him to **** or get off the pot with that defense. They haven't exactly been holding up their ends of the bargain over there in Jacksonville either and instead of putting his nose down, he's flapping gums. Guys that point fingers and talk rather than get to work whenever it gets tough aren't guys you invest in. You may take a flier on and see if you can't use their talent for a short time, but you don't trade high picks for that and you don't sign them to long term contracts. Because things will get tough again and then he'll be your expensive problem to deal with.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I appreciate the insight. I honestly was curious, because I couldn't really think of anyone outside of Denver and NE.

I honestly think its a fan fallacy "you can buy a winning team". You build a winning team through solid drafting, good development and filling in your various needs with decent FA signings and trades. Bill Belichick has been the master of this. Like I said in my previous post, trading for Ramsey is not something I would see BB doing, unless he absolutely needed a CB to complete his team. Something that I don't think the Packers need to do at this point either.

As far as Cleveland. Yes, they have bought a few of their missing pieces, but their years of loosing and stock piling high draft picks/players because of it, has gotten them to where they are today. Add to that, for the most part, they have hit on a # of their picks as of late. That would be what I would attribute to them being on the brink of possibly being really good. They just need to figure out how to work all the Super Star pieces together in a good working fashion.

The Packers don't have the benefit of years of loosing and stock piling top 10 picks. So when people start talking about trading them away, especially for another CB, I start shaking my head.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

If was the price was right, while I would've prefered Minkah. I wouldn't be opposed to getting him. If the price is right. (No pun intended)

Let me ask you and some other posters this question. If the Bears put Mack on the market, would you want to trade for him? In asking you that question, I want you to think about 3 things. One, what would it cost the Packers, now and in the future? Two, do we need another OLB at that price? Finally, how does this set your team up in the future, in regards to the other 21 starting positions.

 

[Do7]

I honestly think its a fan fallacy "you can buy a winning team". You build a winning team through solid drafting, good development and filling in your various needs with decent FA signings and trades. Bill Belichick has been the master of this. Like I said in my previous post, trading for Ramsey is not something I would see BB doing, unless he absolutely needed a CB to complete his team. Something that I don't think the Packers need to do at this point either.

As far as Cleveland. Yes, they have bought a few of their missing pieces, but their years of loosing and stock piling high draft picks/players because of it, has gotten them to where they are today. Add to that, for the most part, they have hit on a # of their picks as of late. That would be what I would attribute to them being on the brink of possibly being really good. They just need to figure out how to work all the Super Star pieces together in a good working fashion.

The Packers don't have the benefit of years of loosing and stock piling top 10 picks. So when people start talking about trading them away, especially for another CB, I start shaking my head.

Right and I do agree. I was strictly talking about people not wanting to pursue him because of his personality.

But I am curious of your opinion as I think this strategy I came up with could possibly work, granted it would require some luck. But for the sake of argument, we somehow end up getting Ramsey and our defense ends up as a defensive juggernaut. Wouldn't we then have enough pieces to make trades due to how appealing they are? And considering the depth we would have we wouldn't have to worry about being depleted. Plus it's not like we could afford everyone and we would be losing them in FA. I would rather trade the pieces away and acquire new pieces rather than just letting them walk. What do you think? I know this a lot of what ifs, but just humor me. Do you think this would work?

 

[Do7]

Let me ask you and some other posters this question. If the Bears put Mack on the market, would you want to trade for him? In asking you that question, I want you to think about 3 things. One, what would it cost the Packers, now and in the future? Two, do we need another OLB at that price? Finally, how does this set your team up in the future, in regards to the other 21 starting positions.

In regards to Mack, I'm over that ordeal. While I do think he would buffer the defense, and would be a great cornerstone for us to build through, I am happy with the overall depth that we have. And that's what I'm referring to, increasing our depth that way we can potentially set up for trades to get better pieces in glaring areas we need. Granted the defense still has to play good, but what I was thinking was that should the defense actually prove to be one of the best, I'm sure we could convince a few teams desperate enough for a trade for either draft picks or whatever hole that is in dire need.

For the record I do think we're better off without Mack. I have come to you guys' side of thinking regarding that.

 

[Mondio]

In regards to Mack, I'm over that ordeal. While I do think he would buffer the defense, and would be a great cornerstone for us to build through, I am happy with the overall depth that we have. And that's what I'm referring to, increasing our depth that way we can potentially set up for trades to get better pieces in glaring areas we need. Granted the defense still has to play good, but what I was thinking was that should the defense actually prove to be one of the best, I'm sure we could convince a few teams desperate enough for a trade.

how would you build around him after you gave away all those picks and cap space? We have 4 very important players on this defense right now that likely aren't around if Mack was. How do you rectify that?

I think the Bears are still waiting for their first pick in the draft after that LOL

 

[Do7]

how would you build around him after you gave away all those picks and cap space? We have 4 very important players on this defense right now that likely aren't around if Mack was. How do you rectify that?

I think the Bears are still waiting for their first pick in the draft after that LOL

Wait, I just said I was over that ordeal, and that I was on the side that we were better off without Mack. Did I miss something?

 

[Mondio]

Wait, I just said I was over that ordeal, and that I was on the side that we were better off without Mack. Did I miss something?

apparently you forgot that immediately after saying you were over it you said

While I do think he would buffer the defense, and would be a great cornerstone for us to build through,

to me that says you still think he would have been a good guy to get to build around and a cornerstone for the defense

 

[Do7]

apparently you forgot that immediately after saying you were over it you said

to me that says you still think he would have been a good guy to get to build around and a cornerstone for the defense

I know what the issue was. I was in the middle of editing my post and then my net cut out for few moments in which I had to do a diagnosis hence I wasn't able to finish my thought before you replied. Because I figured there would be a misunderstanding on my stance regarding the Mack situation. Granted I should've had used the word "would've been" but I thought I made my stance clear when I said I am happy with the depth we have currently. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

I do think Mack would be a good guy to build around in general, but I would not want to sacrifice our depth that we have currently.