Wide Receiver Options

[thequick12]

Honestly, I think folks would be shocked at what we'd have to give up to trade for McLaurin...I truly think it would cost us straight up what we got for Adams...I still think an additional 3rd or 4th for Adams should have been part of it all - but we were actually unlike Commanders would be, forced to trade Adams given tag situation.

I agree that it would be pricey to get McLaurin. Which is why id be trying to give up 2023 picks as well as something in this draft.

But I also know that Washington isnt far off from being in the same situation with him as the packers were in with Adams. Franchised and refusing to ever play for them again.

And yeah the Packers should of gotten more for Adams especially considering what the dolphins gave up for Hill

 

[kevans74]

So McLaurin is in the same conference as us

Same situation with Hill to the Dolphins

We sent Davante to the AFC where we will rarely run into him......

 

[kevans74]

Regarding DK, it will be a kings ransom due to age, production and what he can likely produce...but ALSO he is in the same conference as us

Do you think Seattle is thinking "hmmm maybe we should trade DK to Green Bay so he can burn us for 200 yards in rhe playoffs 2-3 year(or whenever) or regular season in the near future..."?

Probably not.

Also, I'd love to have DK but his contract demands would likely be too high..

 

[thequick12]

Regarding DK, it will be a kings ransom due to age, production and what he can likely produce...but ALSO he is in the same conference as us

Do you think Seattle is thinking "hmmm maybe we should trade DK to Green Bay so he can burn us for 200 yards in rhe playoffs 2-3(or whenever) or regular season in the near future..."?

Probably not.

Also, I'd love to have DK but his contract demands would likely be too high..

Im not interested in Dk at all...no thanks rather take my chances in the draft

 

[kevans74]

Im not interested in Dk at all...no thanks rather take my chances in the draft

Ok.

 

[Magooch]

I saw this article earlier today. Not sure I totally agree with the picks/conclusions but I think it's a fun premise.

Let's say you're the GM and have to add 3 WRs (or, maybe just to make it easier, "pass-catchers").

Pick one to trade for.
One free agent to pick up.
And one you'll add in the draft.

Who would you bring in?

 

[tynimiller]

I saw this article earlier today. Not sure I totally agree with the picks/conclusions but I think it's a fun premise.

Let's say you're the GM and have to add 3 WRs (or, maybe just to make it easier, "pass-catchers").

Pick one to trade for.
One free agent to pick up.
And one you'll add in the draft.

Who would you bring in?

Give me Laviska Shenault for that swiss army style YAC type guy in a trade. *I stayed with a more realistic trade option as he is odd man out in Jax and still young.
Sign Julio Jones
Draft George Pickens

Hit three crucial aspects the WR is void of: YAC guy, veteran pass catcher that has been there and done that on the outside, a WR1 potential of the future that does it all well.

Toss in a draftee on mid to late rounds Tyquan Thornton, Bo Melton, Velus Jones or a Danny Gray to be more a burner style guy and you've added every type.

 

[Schultz]

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/draft/draft_trade_value.htm

Using the chart at Pro Football Reference the 10th pick has a trade value of 1300 and the Packers #22 (780) and #28 (660) has a combined value of 1440. The point being it would likely take multiple picks from the Packers to make the trade and then a shemp-load of cash for a new contract. I wouldn't want any part of that deal. Now if the rumor that the Texans want a 2nd for Brandon Cooks is true I make that deal and then send the #22 pick to the Steelers for Chase Claypool still on a rookie contact.

I would be happy with one of these guys and my preference would be Claypool by a wide margin.

 

[Firethorn1001]

Whatever happens, I just don't want the Packers to get stupid out of desperation and trade away this opportunity just to get in the top 10 or get some veteran WR.

Does seem like they need to get in the 15-19 range though to get the guy they might want at WR. But, what will probably happen is a DT pick at 22 and then a WR pick at 28, but that WR will be someone that social media declares could have been taken in the 2nd round.

 

[Spanky]

Does seem like they need to get in the 15-19 range though to get the guy they might want at WR. But, what will probably happen is a DT pick at 22 and then a WR pick at 28, but that WR will be someone that social media declares could have been taken in the 2nd round.

I do not want the Packers to trade up for a WR. The difference between the 1st and 8th ranked WR in the draft is not huge. Certainly not like last year. The Packers will have excellent WR's on the board at 22 or 28 and even the 2nd round.

 

[gopkrs]

I do not want the Packers to trade up for a WR. The difference between the 1st and 8th ranked WR in the draft is not huge. Certainly not like last year. The Packers will have excellent WR's on the board at 22 or 28 and even the 2nd round.

I think there are some big differences. But I would not trade up either. And agree that we can get some real good players.

 

[kevans74]

I think there are some big differences. But I would not trade up either. And agree that we can get some real good players.

Who? Out of curiosity...

 

[Spanky]

Brandin Cooks is out. This sucks as he was my #1 veteran target.

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

 

[McKnowledge]

I think there are some big differences. But I would not trade up either. And agree that we can get some real good players.

I was advocating for drafting 2 WRs with the 1st round picks, but I'm convinced that's a bad idea.

I've been playing this Ultimate Mock Draft Simulator and the scenario of trading up isn't ideal when acquiring talent.

After hundreds of scenarios, I've noticed that Burks should still be available for #28. The question what should GB do with the #22?

As of today, 4/7/22, I say you pick the best available player, or possibly trade the #22 and get multiple picks in 2nd and 3rd rounds.

This is one scenario where you stand pat with no trades...

#22 EDGE George Karlaftis (can never have enough pass rushers)

#28 WR Treylon Burks (he should thrive in MFL system)

#53 WR Christian Watson (big dynamic fast...could be steal of the draft Christian Watson)

#59 OT Bernhard Raimann (huge tackle, will Bakhtiari return to elite status...idk)

#92 LB Quay Walker (great depth with chance to supplant Barnes, or insurance for a D. Campbell decline)

#132 DT John Ridgeway (big DT, along with Reed and Clark in tow; the DLine will bring attitude)

#140 TE Jelani Woods (huge frame, developmental pick, former QB, could pay off in the future)

#171 S Markquese Bell (another chess piece for Joe Brady)

#228 OG Thayer Munford (guard depth)

#249 WR Tanner Connor (athlete, could be a swiss army playmaker)

#258 WR Jalen Nailor (speed, quickness, can line up in the backfield and out wide)

 

[gopkrs]

Who? Out of curiosity...

For a receiver...Pickens, I'd take a flyer on Watson, Moore. There are also very good D lineman and O linemen that will still be on the board. Probably mainly OG for the O. But that could really help the run game. There will be a couple of Edges also though I would rather go the interior. I am seeing that there will be good players based on mocks. It isn't like I have studied them. But it also makes sense as they are still in the first round.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And sometimes even when teams arent interested in trading players they are forced to. Thats supposedly what happened with Adams when he personally informed gute and mlf he would never play for the packers again in march.

If McLaurin isnt going to resign with Washington they are gonna have to trade him. You say Dk wants to be in Seattle, I have not heard McLaurin wants to remain DC. So if Im gute Im going after him and im leaking it to the media so that McLaurin knows. Maybe he gets word of it and thinks, you know what id much rather be a packer than a commander...Trade Me

With McLaurin still under contract for the upcoming season on his rookie deal there's no way for him to force the Commanders to trade him this offseason. That might change next year if they can't agree on an extension.

Just for the record, it seems Adams already told the Packers in January that he wanted to be traded.

I agree that it would be pricey to get McLaurin. Which is why id be trying to give up 2023 picks as well as something in this draft.

But I also know that Washington isnt far off from being in the same situation with him as the packers were in with Adams. Franchised and refusing to ever play for them again.

Do you have any sources that confirm McLaurin wants to be traded or are you just making that up because you would like it to be true?

For a receiver...Pickens, I'd take a flyer on Watson, Moore. There are also very good D lineman and O linemen that will still be on the board. Probably mainly OG for the O. But that could really help the run game.

I definitely don't want the Packers to draft a guard in the first round.

 

[gopkrs]

I definitely don't want the Packers to draft a guard in the first round.

Yeah, centers and guards don't get much respect traditionally. I think that is being re-thought though. And if you can get a really good run blocker for the inside; there can be a lot of value there imho. It isn't easy to hit on a Jenkins. And even he was high 2nd.

 

[kevans74]

The Packers should NOT draft an OL early. Don't get me wrong, Jenkins is/was a great pick but historically the FO has done well drafting OL in the later rounds, so why mess it up and waste a pick?

Bhaktiari, Sitton, Lang, Tretter, etc

 

[McKnowledge]

The Packers should NOT draft an OL early. Don't get me wrong, Jenkins is/was a great pick but historically the FO has done well drafting OL in the later rounds, so why mess it up and waste a pick?

Bhaktiari, Sitton, Lang, Tretter, etc

Wish we had a button with the target emoji, because @kevans74 you exactly right.

 

[wist43]

The Packers should NOT draft an OL early. Don't get me wrong, Jenkins is/was a great pick but historically the FO has done well drafting OL in the later rounds, so why mess it up and waste a pick?

Bhaktiari, Sitton, Lang, Tretter, etc

It just depends on the player, as well as the other players left on the board at that time.

Early OL tend to be among the safer positional picks, so if you have an OL rated highly beside players at other positions with question marks, take the OL.

 

[Poppa San]

It just depends on the player, as well as the other players left on the board at that time.

Early OL tend to be among the safer positional picks, so if you have an OL rated highly beside players at other positions with question marks, take the OL.

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

Uh huh.

 

[wist43]

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

Uh huh.

They tend to be... doesn't mean they are.

Always depends on the individual.

 

[wist43]

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

Uh huh.

For the record, that year I wanted Thomas or Sanders. Wasn't happy when they went with Mamwich.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Yeah, centers and guards don't get much respect traditionally. I think that is being re-thought though. And if you can get a really good run blocker for the inside; there can be a lot of value there imho. It isn't easy to hit on a Jenkins. And even he was high 2nd.

I just think the Packers have way more pressing needs to address in the first round to justify selecting a guard.

If they consider a tackle presenting the best value at either #22 or #28 I wouldn't be opposed to drafting him though.

 

[thisisnate]

Haven't read through this whole thread, so maybe he's been discussed, but what are anyone's thoughts on Sammy Watkins? Just about 29 years old, usually misses a few games a year, but he was only on a 1 year, 5 million dollar contract last year and didn't do enough to expect much more than that this year. Think he'd be good for 500 yards and a few touchdowns, which isn't exactly amazing, but given what we currently have, I wouldn't mind it as insurance. I think if there were mutual interest though, it would have been done already, so I'm guessing that there isn't.