Packers free agent rumors?

[Deleted member 6794]

Worth it? In my opinion TT excels in finding OL in late rounds, which moving into next year is a HUGE thing. This draft is riddled with DL players...so to me thinking crazy I know for me why not trade our 2016 1st and 3rd and 2017 1st to trade up?

Now granted this is only if we are sure Jack is the long term answer...moving up was worth grabbing Clay...does TT have that same feeling on Jack? I say if so, you gotta make that thought happen...whether you do it or not, explore that thought fully.

The Packers most likely would have to give up this year's first- and second-rounder as well as their first-round pick in next year's draft. IMO way too much to consider it.

While trading up for Matthews was a great move by Thompson the Packers only had to give up two third-round picks to move up 15 spots. In addition they received another fifth-rounder.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

why not trade our 2016 1st and 3rd and 2017 1st to trade up?

Now granted this is only if we are sure Jack is the long term answer...

(sprinkling a 4th or 5th in it as well would be an option)

As much as I would like to see Jack in Green and Gold, I wouldn't be a fan of mortgaging our draft future for one guy who could very well get hurt or be a bust.

 

[tynimiller]

We aren't trading up for Jack, that would be nice but too costly. I can see us trading up for Ragland if he is there at 20 and up. Funny thing is with our front office, you never know or get any idea who they like.

Which in a way is a great thing...no one knows is better than everyone knows.

 

[PackerDNA]

Yeah, the cost of moving up #27 to #5 is prohibitive. And even if you're willing to pay it, would the team at #5 be willing to drop that far?
Is the old draft points chart still used?

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Is the old draft points chart still used?

I think TT dances to his own "draft point chart" and its Turbo charged.

 

[tynimiller]

I think TT dances to his own "draft point chart" and its Turbo charged.

Ain't that the truth....I could see him just as likely bouncing up as I could bouncing out of the 1st...haha!

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Is the old draft points chart still used?

It seems like a lot of teams still use it.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Trading away a future #1 pick (or #2), even by a team as good as the Packers, is such a risky move IMO. Rodgers goes down, a few other key injuries, Packers end up with the #1 pick in the 2017 draft, oh wait....they traded it away in 2016. I don't mind seeing current known picks being bartered, but that future one is such an unknown.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Trading away a future #1 pick (or #2), even by a team as good as the Packers, is such a risky move IMO. Rodgers goes down, a few other key injuries, Packers end up with the #1 pick in the 2017 draft, oh wait....they traded it away in 2016.

You enjoy being optimistic, don't you???

 

[tynimiller]

Trading away a future #1 pick (or #2), even by a team as good as the Packers, is such a risky move IMO. Rodgers goes down, a few other key injuries, Packers end up with the #1 pick in the 2017 draft, oh wait....they traded it away in 2016. I don't mind seeing current known picks being bartered, but that future one is such an unknown.

I get it, and as I've made clear I am more the conservative type for drafting, trading back preferred to trading forward and burning picks...but ILB is such a dire need of our team to push through the edge...I don't think I could mortgage that much but I often wonder if TT and Co will surprise us similar to the Clay trade (still can't believe how little we gave up then).

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

You enjoy being optimistic, don't you???

LOL.....I just try to stay realistic That move (trading future draft picks) has always been a troublesome one for me. Simply because you just never know what pick you could be trading. Given the Packers track record and current team, most likely anything between a 20-32, but you just never know.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I get it, and as I've made clear I am more the conservative type for drafting, trading back preferred to trading forward and burning picks...but ILB is such a dire need of our team to push through the edge...I don't think I could mortgage that much but I often wonder if TT and Co will surprise us similar to the Clay trade (still can't believe how little we gave up then).

I'm the same way on trading back vs forward.

As far as the Clay move, the deal looks cheap now. But had Clay been a bust, people would have viewed it a lot differently.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

LOL.....I just try to stay realistic That move (trading future draft picks) has always been a troublesome one for me. Simply because you just never know what pick you could be trading. Given the Packers track record and current team, most likely anything between a 20-32, but you just never know.

You can use that to your advantage too... A great team with a large core of young players do not really need all their draft picks every year. Especially with UDFAs and practice squads to pick from... And to be honest. Iwould bet we would have 10+ wins without ANY draft picks this year. But say we trade 27 for a decent pick this year and a 1st next year. From one of these hazzardly aggressive teams like Washington or browns, has been at times.

What really plays to our favor... A towering 6'7" 244 pound QB Paxton Lynch. A team might need #27 to steal him...

 

[Pkrjones]

...but ILB is such a dire need of our team to push through the edge...

WE all think ILB is our achilles but I'm starting to think the coaching staff, and therefore TT have A LOT more confidence in the 3 young ILB's on the roster to make a big step up in '16. Bradford, Ryan & Thomas are all listed as 2nd year guys and Barrington will have had almost an entire year to heal. With the draft weak in ILB's (with speed to cover) those guys must have the potential to make a big leap otherwise TT will be on OUR (forum's) hot seat for another year for leaving that position devoid of starter-caliber talent.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You can use that to your advantage too... A great team with a large core of young players do not really need all their draft picks every year. Especially with UDFAs and practice squads to pick from... And to be honest. Iwould bet we would have 10+ wins without ANY draft picks this year. But say we trade 27 for a decent pick this year and a 1st next year. From one of these hazzardly aggressive teams like Washington or browns, has been at times.

What really plays to our favor... A towering 6'7" 244 pound QB Paxton Lynch. A team might need #27 to steal him...

It's way more realistic to draft an impact player than sign one in undrafted free agency or from another team's practice squad.

While the 2016 Packers would maybe win 10 games without any rookies being added the team would regress pretty fast by following that approach over an extended period.

 

[PackerDNA]

Bradford and Thomas? Talk about needing huge leaps. If we have to end up relying on such guys, we're in trouble.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

WE all think ILB is our achilles but I'm starting to think the coaching staff, and therefore TT have A LOT more confidence in the 3 young ILB's on the roster to make a big step up in '16. Bradford, Ryan & Thomas are all listed as 2nd year guys and Barrington will have had almost an entire year to heal. With the draft weak in ILB's (with speed to cover) those guys must have the potential to make a big leap otherwise TT will be on OUR (forum's) hot seat for another year for leaving that position devoid of starter-caliber talent.

Im lookin more at the 4-3 OLBs over 250 pounds.... theres got to be a ILB in there somewhere...

 

[Deleted member 6794]

WE all think ILB is our achilles but I'm starting to think the coaching staff, and therefore TT have A LOT more confidence in the 3 young ILB's on the roster to make a big step up in '16. Bradford, Ryan & Thomas are all listed as 2nd year guys and Barrington will have had almost an entire year to heal. With the draft weak in ILB's (with speed to cover) those guys must have the potential to make a big leap otherwise TT will be on OUR (forum's) hot seat for another year for leaving that position devoid of starter-caliber talent.

I don't have any faith in Bradford, Palmer or Thomas to improve enough to get the job done. With Barrington coming back from a season-ending injury Ryan is the only inside linebacker the Packers should rely on entering the offseason workouts.

I really have no idea how Thompson (or any fan for that matter) is able to ignore the fact that the position is on dire need of an upgrade.

 

[Pkrjones]

I really have no idea how Thompson (or any fan for that matter) is able to ignore the fact that the position is on dire need of an upgrade.

Which is why THEY must know something about the young guys otherwise TT knowingly chose to pass on numerous FA's that would have been an improvement to the position (not necessarily long-term Pro Bowl studs but at least temporary upgrades).

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

It's way more realistic to draft an impact player than sign one in undrafted free agency or from another team's practice squad.

While the 2016 Packers would maybe win 10 games without any rookies being added the team would regress pretty fast by following that approach over an extended period.

Seriously though. You dont think GB would do just fine if they lost their #27 outright? It wouldnt bother us at all IMO in the bigger picture...
Consider GB a person, who has plenty of money(players)... Its easier to stash away a dozen benjamins, without feeling it... Meanwhile, when the 12 month note is up, you have 1500 bucks...
Like becoming the bank for these teams looking to make a big move.

All in all. If there is a player we really want. We pick him. But why not save a pick and gain some value?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Im lookin more at the 4-3 OLBs over 250 pounds.... theres got to be a ILB in there somewhere...

The only one I can possibly think of is Leonard Floyd.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Which is why THEY must know something about the young guys otherwise TT knowingly chose to pass on numerous FA's that would have been an improvement to the position (not necessarily long-term Pro Bowl studs but at least temporary upgrades).

I'm sorry but taking a look at the way Thompson hasn't been able to adequately improve inside linebacker for four years running I've lost faith in his ability to evaluate talent at the position. Relying on the ones currently on the roster doesn't cut it this offseason.

 

[Pkrjones]

...Its easier to stash away a dozen benjamins, without feeling it... Meanwhile, when the 12 month note is up, you have 1500 bucks...

So...with that analogy is TT planning on picking Jaylon Smith with #27 and having a long term Pro Bowl stud ready to go in '17? Maybe the young guys we have are OK-enough to get through the '16 season (in TT's mind)?

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

The only one I can possibly think of is Leonard Floyd.

What about Joshua Perry? 6'4" 254 OLB from Ohio St. rated 2nd rounder by CBS. 4.68 40. "non stop motor", and "consumate team mate" due to mature mental make up...
He led the team in tackles 124 (32 more than 2nd place ) when Ohio won the national championship in 2014.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Seriously though. You dont think GB would do just fine if they lost their #27 outright? It wouldnt bother us at all IMO in the bigger picture...
Consider GB a person, who has plenty of money(players)... Its easier to stash away a dozen benjamins, without feeling it... Meanwhile, when the 12 month note is up, you have 1500 bucks...
Like becoming the bank for these teams looking to make a big move.

All in all. If there is a player we really want. We pick him. But why not save a pick and gain some value?

Most of the time trading away early draft picks to acquire a player thought to turn into an elite one doesn't work out in the long haul.