1st round pick for Jalen Ramsey???

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

I took it that you were referring to Ramsey, not Mack. I really don't think it would be wise for the Packers to spend this kind of draft capital and money just to improve their depth at CB. Would Ramsey do that? Hell yes! But at a future cost of improving elsewhere.

Hard to set up trades, when you have already traded high draft picks and cap space for a top CB. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Meaning, you just have to figure so much of your cap on high end players and then spread the rest around the best you can.

Fitzpatrick might have been a decent deal for the Packers for just a #1, but only if they needed him, I don't think the need was there and definitely not for what he ended up going for (a predicted high first +)

 

[Do7]

I took it that you were referring to Ramsey, not Mack. I really don't think it would be wise for the Packers to spend this kind of draft capital and money just to improve their depth at CB. Would Ramsey do that? Hell yes! But at a future cost of improving elsewhere.

I understand. That's fair. Good talk!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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?

Play your strategy out on a piece of paper and a timeline, keep the cap space in mind and be very realistic on the value of the Packers you are using in your scenario as well as the players you are picking up. First, who are your "valuable pieces" that you are trading away? Who replaces those pieces in the starting lineup, since I assume you are trading away a starter, to get another "valuable needed piece". Second, how do you pay for all this? Ramsey wants a new contract and that is going to be around $16M/year. How much of the cap does that leave to sign valuable new and current pieces? Kenny Clark, do we not pay him and dump in a trade for a WR? Chance are the pieces you are trying to acquire are going to cost you either high draft picks or really good players, along with a boat load of cash.

So no, in all honesty, I don't think your strategy would work, unless you found some really dumb trade partners and/or some of our not so important pieces suddenly start playing like Pro Bowlers and you can trade them or the guy whose place they are taking.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

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.

I only threw Mack out there, because it was a recent example of "what would you pay for one of the best players at his position?" At least in the case of Mack, at the time the Packers REALLY NEEDED an OLB. Right now, I just don't think they NEED a high priced (picks and $$) CB. While I didn't want the Packers to trade for Mack, had the price been right, I wouldn't have hated the trade due to the glaring need the Packers had at the position.

As far as Ramsey's personality, I really haven't factored that in, since I can't get past the trade cost. However, just the little I have read and the fact that he is yet another guy who is demanding to be traded and wants to be paid in the process, I would pass on that aspect of him as well.

 

[gbgary]

Let's be honest here, do you honestly hold and Kirk Cousins in the same regards as Rodgers

not over all but he did have a better year than rodgers last year. heard/read something the other day that said cousins first 4 years as a starter was very close to rodgers first 4 as a starter. whodathunkit?

 

[Dantés]

not over all but he did have a better year than rodgers last year. heard/read something the other day that said cousins first 4 years as a starter was very close to rodgers first 4 as a starter. who knew.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

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.

Not when I'm saying that, if Minkah is the better fit and the Packers didn't trade for him, then why would they trade for the other guy who might be more expensive in trade assets? Minkah becomes a point of reference for what the Packers might be willing to trade; they weren't willing to beat what the Steelers traded and therefore I don't think they'd be willing to trade MORE than that for Jalen.

 

[Do7]

not over all but he did have a better year than rodgers last year. heard/read something the other day that said cousins first 4 years as a starter was very close to rodgers first 4 as a starter. who knew.

I like how you highlighted part of that sentence when I threw in both Brady and Peyton as well. You couldn't help yourself could you?

 

[gbgary]

I like how you highlighted part of that sentence when I threw in both Brady and Peyton as well. You couldn't help yourself could you?

ugh...cuz rodgers stats are better than the other two guys in their first 4 seasons. tried to make it as close to apples to apples as i could with your choices. cousins stats are better than manning's or brady's in their first 4.

 

[thequick12]

No thanks on Ramsey he's too expensive. Minkah Fitzpatrick was worth because of the rookie contract

 

[RRyder]

https://twitter.com/PFF_George/status/1174037626011230208?s=19

I'm not for trading more then a 1st and say Josh Jackson for Ramsey (and that isnt at all likely) but I'm just putting this up here for anyone that wants to argue he would of been the better guy to trade a 1st for (contract situation be damned)

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

https://twitter.com/PFF_George/status/1174037626011230208?s=19

I'm not for trading more then a 1st and say Josh Jackson for Ramsey (and that isnt at all likely) but I'm just putting this up here for anyone that wants to argue he would of been the better guy to trade a 1st for (contract situation be damned)

LOL.....yeah, who cares about the contracts, it isn't our money.

No offense, but I have not seen one poster try to argue that Ramsey isn't a solid CB, because he is. However, most of us, seems like you included, wouldn't want to see the Packers trade for him for other reasons; Draft pick(s) cost, salary cost, current state of the CB position are the 3 biggest I have seen, with his personality being a 4th.

 

[RRyder]

LOL.....yeah, who cares about the contracts, it isn't our money.

No offense, but I have not seen one poster try to argue that Ramsey isn't a solid CB, because he is. However, most of us, seems like you included, wouldn't want to see the Packers trade for him for other reasons; Draft pick(s) cost, salary cost, current state of the CB position are the 3 biggest I have seen, with his personality being a 4th.

Well I've seen people imply that a 1st for Fitzpatrick is better value then a 1st for Ramsey bases mostly on fit and contract.

I'm just saying "if" it was the same cost to acquire value goes to Ramsey his talent overrides the contract discrepancy. In other words I dont think most really understand just how good he is

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Well I've seen people imply that a 1st for Fitzpatrick is better value then a 1st for Ramsey bases mostly on fit and contract.

I'm just saying "if" it was the same cost to acquire value goes to Ramsey his talent overrides the contract discrepancy. In other words I dont think most really understand just how good he is

I guess I understand just how good he is.

But, now I see what you meant by "contract situation be damned". However, I do think that contracts would be a huge factor in it and at the end of the day, the trade picks might be closer to being equal with the Jags probably getting a more for Ramsey. Think about it, Ramsey is not only going to be $16M/year, he is going to want a lot of that guaranteed. Right now, Fitz is stuck on a rookie deal, that the Steelers are only on the hook for:

2019: $1.07 M (prorated share of 2019)
2020: $1.975M
2021: $2.7M
2022: 5th year option

That is almost $43M over 3 years that Ramsey will cost you over Fitz. I would actually have to agree with posters that are saying that for the money, Fitz would have been the better way to go, especially when you consider the Packers secondary is already pretty good.

I still go back to the analogy of throwing lobster on top of filet mignon and then not having enough money to pay the tip or cab fare. I understand everyone's hunger to have one of the best players at his position, but I wouldn't understand doing that at the cost of bettering the team at other positions via the draft and/or cap dollars.

 

[RRyder]

I guess I understand just how good he is.

But, now I see what you meant by "contract situation be damned". However, I do think that contracts would be a huge factor in it and at the end of the day, the trade picks might be closer to being equal with the Jags probably getting a more for Ramsey. Think about it, Ramsey is not only going to be $16M/year, he is going to want a lot of that guaranteed. Right now, Fitz is stuck on a rookie deal, that the Steelers are only on the hook for:

2019: $1.07 M (prorated share of 2019)
2020: $1.975M
2021: $2.7M
2022: 5th year option

That is almost $43M over 3 years that Ramsey will cost you over Fitz. I would actually have to agree with posters that are saying that for the money, Fitz would have been the better way to go, especially when you consider the Packers secondary is already pretty good.

I still go back to the analogy of throwing lobster on top of filet mignon and then not having enough money to pay the tip or cab fare. I understand everyone's hunger to have one of the best players at his position, but I wouldn't understand doing that at the cost of bettering the team at other positions via the draft and/or cap dollars.

That's all fair. Especially the last part. Although I should note that the only way this trade is made is if the fo and coaching staff feel VERY confident in 2 of Jenkins, MVS and/or Sternburger being legit/strong starters by next season.

There just something to be said for taking a really good unit and making it game breaking elite in my book

I can see both sides