2018 Free Agents to Target

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,321
Reaction score
1,547
Arizona is not going to trade up with us knowing we are not taking a QB.


Right, no team is going to trade up 1 spot just to take a QB that they know the team ahead of them isn't going to take anyway. That would be a sign of a really poor football team and any team who did it would have to be staffed by idiots.

You stole my thunder two posts earlier Poker but I went with it anyway. Partly to see who got the reference.
 
Last edited:

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,321
Reaction score
1,547
The thing about edge rusher is that there is Chubb and then a lot of question marks. He will be gone. Then you’re talking about Landry and Davenport. I’m not ruling either out at this point, but they aren’t slam dunk values at 14 either. Landry needs to answer questions about his dropoff in 2017, and Davenport needs to demonstrate that his tools are genuinely rare enough to overlook his lack of development. It’s just something to continue monitoring.

Personally, I think 3 QB’s is a lock, 4 is reasonably likely, and 5 would be sweet. Barkley’s gone. Guice is a dark horse as well. Nelson should go in that range, as should Chubb, Edmunds, and Fitzpatrick. I would love it if someone took Derwin James. So say that’s ~9-10 picks accounted for.

That means that a number of the following could be in play at #14: Calvin Ridley, Connor Williams, Vita Vea, Da’Ron Payne, Roquan Smith, Denzel Ward, Harold Landry, and Marcus Davenport.

That’s a higher class of prospect than the Packers have had a shot at in some time. I just hope they’re open minded about positions and take the best impact player rather than reaching down the board to address a need. For instance, if Vea is their highest graded prospect by a good margin, take him and stack up strength on strength along that defensive front. Frankly, I think that kid will explode at the next level if he’s allowed to play 50-60% of snaps instead of 90+.

That's why I leave the draft analysis to you guys and why I appreciate it so much. I don't know any of these guys but common sense tells you that the talent pool will be stronger at 14 than at 24. That's all I have to go on if I rely on my own knowledge of college football so when you guys start throwing out info like this, even though its just your opinion, it helps me a great deal. No player is going to get 100% support but if enough guys like a certain player it tells me that maybe the guy has something and vice versa.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
Ah, that explains it. I only passed the third grade and that's just because I outgrew the desk.

Jethro, is that you?

Right, no team is going to trade up 1 spot just to take a QB that they know the team ahead of them isn't going to take anyway. That would be a sign of a really poor football team and any team who did it would have to be staffed by idiots.

You stole my thunder two posts earlier Poker but I went with it anyway. Partly to see who got the reference.

Da Bears.

Dumb move or not, I honestly can see a team in the next spot trading one spot down if they really think they are going to lose a guy they have coveted. I'm not so sure I would like to see the Packers trade back too far or out of the first round, unless the board was still flush with guys they still had as equals. Can you imagine getting your round #1 guy and still going into round 2 with 12 or 13 picks?

Can teams specify the terms of a draft trade before it is made. For instance, can the Packers swap the #14th with Arizona for their #15 pick and include the wording "Arizona will only select player named X and the Packers will receive the 15th pick and Arizona's 4th round pick"? Otherwise, the Cardinals may end up duping the Packers and actually grab the guy the Packers wanted.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
15,906
Reaction score
6,831
Jethro, is that you?



Da Bears.

Dumb move or not, I honestly can see a team in the next spot trading one spot down if they really think they are going to lose a guy they have coveted. I'm not so sure I would like to see the Packers trade back too far or out of the first round, unless the board was still flush with guys they still had as equals. Can you imagine getting your round #1 guy and still going into round 2 with 12 or 13 picks?

Can teams specify the terms of a draft trade before it is made. For instance, can the Packers swap the #14th with Arizona for their #15 pick and include the wording "Arizona will only select player named X and the Packers will receive the 15th pick and Arizona's 4th round pick"? Otherwise, the Cardinals may end up duping the Packers and actually grab the guy the Packers wanted.
Makes sense. I believe they are either restricted to a particular player or position. Great question
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
5,321
Reaction score
1,547
Jethro, is that you?



Da Bears.

Dumb move or not, I honestly can see a team in the next spot trading one spot down if they really think they are going to lose a guy they have coveted. I'm not so sure I would like to see the Packers trade back too far or out of the first round, unless the board was still flush with guys they still had as equals. Can you imagine getting your round #1 guy and still going into round 2 with 12 or 13 picks?

Can teams specify the terms of a draft trade before it is made. For instance, can the Packers swap the #14th with Arizona for their #15 pick and include the wording "Arizona will only select player named X and the Packers will receive the 15th pick and Arizona's 4th round pick"? Otherwise, the Cardinals may end up duping the Packers and actually grab the guy the Packers wanted.

I'm not saying its automatically a dumb move for the very reason you said. In the case of the Bears they really wanted Trubisky and this was the best way to ensure they got him. Was someone about to move up ahead of them and grab him? maybe not, probably not but you never know. Besides they gave up a lot less than the Chiefs and the Texans did to get the guys they wanted and who is to say that the Chiefs or Texans didn't prefer Trubisky. Maybe the 49ers wanted more than they were willing to give up to move up to #2 so they figured they would roll the dice and take their chances with whoever was left.

A lot of picks are nice but if they could package 5 or 6 of those picks and move up in the second and third I'd be all for that as well.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
You know better than anyone that those grades are a lot better than "Decent" on their scale. Both are close to their "elite" category. Why are you downplaying them?

I'm not downplaying Daniels and Clark as both of them are definitely upper echelon starters. When I think about great (or elite, which is kind of the same to me) players at those positions there are other guys that come to mind. Overall with Lowry being an average player and the Packers not having any quality depth on the defensive line I consider the unit to be decent.

We have a great DL. A good DL. A very good DL. However you want to say it, we are good there. I know we can all have our opinions, but the idea that we are "sufficient" at DL is so ridiculously insane that even CaptainPFF is trying to ignore his favorite set of ratings rather than just saying, "oh hey, maybe I was wrong." Watch the game. Why do you think Martinez had so many gaps to RB's? Why do you think our run game was good? Please try to realize that the general function of a 3-4 DL scheme like what Capers ran is fundamentally different than a 4-3.

The Packers defense ranked 17th in rushing yards allowed which is far from being great. Once again, while Daniels and Clark are close to being elite players the rest of the defensive line isn't that talented to be considered a great unit.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
I'm not downplaying Daniels and Clark as both of them are definitely upper echelon starters. When I think about great (or elite, which is kind of the same to me) players at those positions there are other guys that come to mind. Overall with Lowry being an average player and the Packers not having any quality depth on the defensive line I consider the unit to be decent.



The Packers defense ranked 17th in rushing yards allowed which is far from being great. Once again, while Daniels and Clark are close to being elite players the rest of the defensive line isn't that talented to be considered a great unit.

I think this is coming down to semantics.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
A parody account making fun of the mental capacities of a Packers great who is almost certainly actually dealing with early onset cognitive problems. Hilarious!

Hey, maybe if they draft Shaquem Griffin from UCF you can create a new handle to ridicule him for only having one hand! Wouldn’t that be great?!
 

NBA1971

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
14
Reaction score
1
I know a lot of people like talking about the draft around this time of year, but for me the FA signing period can play a role in who you go after in the draft.

With TT out as GM, will the Packers be more active in Free Agency?

What positions/players should they go after?

You can always hope that a first or second round pick will come in and fill a need immediately, but for the Packers to be successful in 2018, I think they have to look long and hard at filling the needs at the following position through Free Agency. I'm not saying go after all high end guys, but I would love to see more depth with veteran guys.

OLB, TE, CB, #2 QB, and OL

DeMarcus Lawrence
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
DeMarcus Lawrence is going to get a massive payday and it won't be in Green Bay.

Predicted: Low point could be a four-year, $60 million deal while the high point could be five years at $85 M
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
12,116
Reaction score
3,036
DeMarcus Lawrence is going to get a massive payday and it won't be in Green Bay.

Predicted: Low point could be a four-year, $60 million deal while the high point could be five years at $85 M

And Dallas will either be the one to give it to him or he will be tagged.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
Ross Cockrell might be another guy at CB to look at in Free Agency. This was a guy I wanted last year but he was a RFA with Pittsburgh. They ended up trading him to the Giants for what ended up being a 7th round pick. For the pick and the $1.1 M he cost the Giants, would have been a nice pickup last year as it turns out. Not sure how he would fit into what Pettine plans on doing though. :)
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Trade for Eli Apple. He needs a change of scenery. He's got big potential, and even though he's average now, an average CB is a huge upgrade over what we've got.
 

Veretax

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
637
Reaction score
11
One thing to also consider. Who is just before the packers in the Draft. Washington. I know a lot of people think their QB is settles with Alex Smith, but I wouldn't put it past Bruce Allen and the skins taking a QB (or making a lot of noise and getting someone to trade up to draft to get a few more picks). The Skins lost their #3 QB (who wasn't on the roster to Rival Philly), Colt McCoy is serviceable but they need a young guy they can groom. From what I can tell there's a drop off in QB Talent from 1st Round to third rd. there's a lot to be concerned with though.

Maybe there's another position that has some quality that might attract a trade up into the packers position.
 

PackerDNA

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
6,793
Reaction score
1,723
Right, no team is going to trade up 1 spot just to take a QB that they know the team ahead of them isn't going to take anyway. That would be a sign of a really poor football team and any team who did it would have to be staffed by idiots.

You stole my thunder two posts earlier Poker but I went with it anyway. Partly to see who got the reference.


Right. But they may trade up to keep a team behind them from getting the pick.
 

thisisnate

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
185
Location
Maine
Not an FA, but the Vikings may look to trade Laquon Treadwell. Anyone interested in that? He was a first round pick at WR 2 years ago that hasn't produced much *yet* but that's in MN and behind Diggs, Thielen, Rudolph, etc. and beneath a lot of QB turnover. Pretty confident he beats the heck out of anyone we'd draft with a late pick, and that would likely be his trade cost.
 
Last edited:

thequick12

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 17, 2014
Messages
3,235
Reaction score
620
Not an FA, but the Vikings may look to trade Laquon Treadwell. Anyone interested in that? He was a first round pick at WR 2 years ago that hasn't produced much *yet* but that's in MN and behind Diggs, Thielen, Rudolph, etc. and beneath a lot of QB turnover. Pretty confident he beats the heck out of anyone we'd draft with a late pick, and that would likely be his trade cost.

He hasn't produced for one main reason and it's not because he's stuck behind great receivers in MN it's because he is too slow that was the knock on him when the Vikings reached for him in the first round and it's turned out to be true. No matter what you have to give up it's not worth it because he doesn't add anything to the team even as the number 6/7 receiver I think the Packers have better options.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
Not an FA, but the Vikings may look to trade Laquon Treadwell. Anyone interested in that? He was a first round pick at WR 2 years ago that hasn't produced much *yet* but that's in MN and behind Diggs, Thielen, Rudolph, etc. and beneath a lot of QB turnover. Pretty confident he beats the heck out of anyone we'd draft with a late pick, and that would likely be his trade cost.

He hasn't produced for one main reason and it's not because he's stuck behind great receivers in MN it's because he is too slow that was the knock on him when the Vikings reached for him in the first round and it's turned out to be true. No matter what you have to give up it's not worth it because he doesn't add anything to the team even as the number 6/7 receiver I think the Packers have better options.

if he was still under contract with the Packers, I would trade Jeff Janis for him. :coffee:

Edit: On second thought, I just looked at Treadwell's cost. $1.3M in 2018 and $1.8M in 2019...might have to noodle on that trade a bit :D
 

thisisnate

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 25, 2012
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
185
Location
Maine
I think you're slightly overrating speed. A lot of slowpokes have succeeded. Fitz, Rice, Carter, etc. He was pretty unanimously regarded as a 1st round talent, which makes me think there's something to him. If you just have to give up a 5th comp or 6th round pick or something for him, I think that may be good value. He may just suck, who knows. But I'm all for trading a late draft pick for a 22 year old player at a position of need who was a 1st round pick just two years ago. Obviously, he's a Viking though. Don't know that they'd even consider doing business with us.
 
OP
OP
Pokerbrat2000

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
33,680
Reaction score
8,914
Location
Madison, WI
I think you're slightly overrating speed. A lot of slowpokes have succeeded. Fitz, Rice, Carter, etc. He was pretty unanimously regarded as a 1st round talent, which makes me think there's something to him. If you just have to give up a 5th comp or 6th round pick or something for him, I think that may be good value. He may just suck, who knows. But I'm all for trading a late draft pick for a 22 year old player at a position of need who was a 1st round pick just two years ago. Obviously, he's a Viking though. Don't know that they'd even consider doing business with us.

That probably is the key part of this, I don't remember any player trades between the 2 teams in recent history. In 2008 TT made a draft pick trade with the Queens. Sending our 5th round, 137th overall, (Vikings picked QB John David Booty) to Vikings for their 2008 5th round pick (150th overall, OT Breno Giacomini) and 2008 7th round pick (209th overall, Matt Flynn). Packers came WAY out ahead on that trade! :tup:

Maybe Gute will be different, but TT didn't make a lot of player trades, especially with division rivals.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top