Jets trade... three second's?!

[swhitset]

OK.....so you begin 2018 with Saquon Barkley, Chubb and Rudolph, now what? Remember, you are having to use 1 of those three picks to replace Rodgers, that pick could otherwise have been used on someone else to improve the team.

Also, keep in mind that the #1 and #4 pick are going to cost you about $14M/year in salary.

There is a a difference between a "Franchise QB"... and having somebody that is legitimately in the conversation for GOAT... this is a ludicrous discussion that makes a lot of the other conversations on this board much more clear.

 

[weeds]

After witnessing what we all did in 2017, Rodgers' value to the Packers cannot have a number attached to it. Hopefully he'll have mercy on the Pack's cap position.

Just want to add that I see those teams with draft picks to toss around and cap space to go with it as giving a High School girl your Platinum Card and dropping her off at the mall. Nothing good will come of it.

 

[PikeBadger]

Actually, I think we could get more in draft picks. 1,2,3 this year, 1,2,4 next year. Then you draft a whole bunch of good young talent the next two years, and win the superbowl in 2020 with the quarterback you draft this year at 14 or even 4 if you really like someone.

Lol, well if it was that simple, everyone would be doing it.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

That's how my math is working too.....

 

[Dantés]

Nothing gives you a better shot at a Super Bowl than an elite quarterback. Nothing. And the goal is to win the Super Bowl. Thus it makes no sense to trade away the biggest advantage towards that goal, even for a king’s ransom of picks. This is why teams with great QB’s don’t trade them.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I'm shocked at the value teams put on young unproven qbs. This is Herschel walkeresque. 3 , 2nd round picks?!?! To move up three spots in the first round.... and not to number 1 overall..... but to #3......?

#3?

How valuable is a player like #12? Really?

This is what happens when teams are desperate for a quarterback. Obviously, there is someone they are targeting that they think would not have lasted to pick #6.

Last year, the Bears gave up three draft picks to move up one spot and take Trubisky. The Vikings gave up a first and a fourth for mediocre Sam Bradford, then cut him loose for nothing this year in part so they could overpay for Kirk Cousins. And if you're old enough to remember, think back on what Green Bay gave up for John Hadl. When teams don't have a quarterback, they'll do crazy, desperate things to get one.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

When teams don't have a quarterback, they'll do crazy, desperate things to get one.

Except trade picks for Brett Hundley

 

[Curly Calhoun]

Except trade picks for Brett Hundley

Desperate is one thing, stupid is another.......

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I wish the Packers had traded Hundley last year, while there seemed to actually be a market. But I don't think anybody realistically thought he would struggle as much as he did. I also doubt that Callahan would have done much better, but in hindsight, maybe we lose those to OT games to Cleveland and Tampa Bay and are sitting with the 5th, 6th or 7th pick in the draft.

 

[PackAttack12]

Echoing what others have said, and re-iterating what I have stated in the past, there isn't a realistic trade package out there that would even come close to equal value for Aaron Rodgers.

The draft picks would be nice, but you're going to put the faith in some of the very people that have mucked up many draft selections in recent years? I know BGK is technically in charge right now, but I'm not going to rely upon a GM's ability to somehow hit on a generational talent like Aaron Rodgers when we already have...wait for it...Aaron Rodgers.

This is the same guy that hasn't had a single top 10 defense in the past 7 years, yet somehow has managed to win 5 playoff games and appear in 2 NFC championship games despite the lack of help on that side of the ball.

There are teams that literally have been irrelevant for more than a decade or more because they haven't had a quarterback. Aaron Rodgers is on the untouchable list for me.

 

[sschind]

I wish the Packers had traded Hundley last year, while there seemed to actually be a market. But I don't think anybody realistically thought he would struggle as much as he did. I also doubt that Callahan would have done much better, but in hindsight, maybe we lose those to OT games to Cleveland and Tampa Bay and are sitting with the 5th, 6th or 7th pick in the draft.

While I never wish to lose games just to get a higher draft pick had we lost them and we were sitting just outside the top 5 I would not be so upset about it. A win is always* better than a loss but sometimes losses can have their benefits.


* I can think of only one situation where I MAY consider rooting against the Packers. Week 17. The Packers are eliminated. A win by the Packers puts the vikings in the playoffs, a loss by the Packers eliminates the vikings as well. I don't know if I would actually root against them but I certainly wouldn't be upset with a loss under those circumstances.

 

[sschind]

Echoing what others have said, and re-iterating what I have stated in the past, there isn't a realistic trade package out there that would even come close to equal value for Aaron Rodgers.

The draft picks would be nice, but you're going to put the faith in some of the very people that have mucked up many draft selections in recent years? I know BGK is technically in charge right now, but I'm not going to rely upon a GM's ability to somehow hit on a generational talent like Aaron Rodgers when we already have...wait for it...Aaron Rodgers.

This is the same guy that hasn't had a single top 10 defense in the past 7 years, yet somehow has managed to win 5 playoff games and appear in 2 NFC championship games despite the lack of help on that side of the ball.

There are teams that literally have been irrelevant for more than a decade or more because they haven't had a quarterback. Aaron Rodgers is on the untouchable list for me.

They key word in your post is realistic. While we may think it it stupid for the Packers to trade away Rodgers I think it would be stupid for any team to give up what it would take to get him. The proverbial offer you can't refuse. In one of my post I mentioned Cleveland's first 6 picks (before they traded away #65) Even if that would be enough to pry him away I think they would be very stupid to do it.

 

[weeds]

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[Arod2gjdd]

How valuable is a player like #12? Really?

There is no player like #12

 

[OldSchool101]

I noticed that also. They’d better hit or that’s a costly move.
Just please continue consolidating QBs early. All I’m seeing is a our guy inching closer and closer to #14. It’ll take just a couple of additional unexpected picks after all these QB come off the board and we could be staring at a couple of players who fit perfectly for us slipping outside the top 10. It’ll be tempting not to trade up a couple of spots.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I noticed that also. They’d better hit or that’s a costly move.
Just please continue consolidating QBs early. All I’m seeing is a our guy inching closer and closer to #14. It’ll take just a couple of additional unexpected picks after all these QB come off the board and we could be staring at a couple of players who fit perfectly for us slipping outside the top 10. It’ll be tempting not to trade up a couple of spots.

I think that there will be a large enough pool of players that we want and need that we won't need to trade up. Doing that would probably involve our 2nd round pick and that one could be valuable as well. Now if Gute can package up all his comp picks and a 6th and/or 7th to gain a pick in the 2nd or 3rd, lets do it. I really don't want to end up with 12 players at the end of the draft.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

They key word in your post is realistic. While we may think it it stupid for the Packers to trade away Rodgers I think it would be stupid for any team to give up what it would take to get him. The proverbial offer you can't refuse. In one of my post I mentioned Cleveland's first 6 picks (before they traded away #65) Even if that would be enough to pry him away I think they would be very stupid to do it.

I wouldn't even think about trading Rodgers for six picks with four of them being outside the first round.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think that there will be a large enough pool of players that we want and need that we won't need to trade up. Doing that would probably involve our 2nd round pick and that one could be valuable as well. Now if Gute can package up all his comp picks and a 6th and/or 7th to gain a pick in the 2nd or 3rd, lets do it. I really don't want to end up with 12 players at the end of the draft.

I ageee with the part about not wanting too many picks spread thin. Im trading up somewhere, somehow.
I doubt anyone else wants to take on all our Comp picks either and give up a top 100 pick and especially not a top 64 overall. Although maybe an answer is doing several mini trades that aren’t quite as scary for everyone.

133,138 for #109 (gets us back early 4th round ahead of Detroit, Bears)

174,207 for #155 (Gets us back into the middle of 5th which is where we started before the Browns Kizer trade)

The Chargers only have 7 picks total,including one being a 7th round Comp) I would think this would be lucrative for both sides as they’d lose a mid round 5th (#155) in exchange for a late round 5thcomp but pick up a late 6th comp also.
We could even switch their 7th comp for our late 7th rounder we acquired from Buffalo as a perk. (Our #239 bonus pick for their final pick #251comp)

That gives us 10 picks and IMO there are going to be a nice handful of projected 2nd day picks who slide. We will have all night to re-evaluate those remaining early 4th rounders, which is a nice advantage and we pick 2 players who were realistically 3rd round material in the first hour of that last day.
14 DB
45 Edge/DE
76 WR
101,109 DB, OL
155,172 TE, LB
186 WR/RB
232,251 PS, PS