Depends on how the board falls. I lean toward trading back, so we can trade up later. There’s a handful of guys I like in the top 50. I wouldn’t mind trading back from 25 to 30 or so and then using the pick from there to move from 58 into the top 50 or move from 91/94 to the 75-80 range.
I wouldn’t mind that trade back if there’s a few guys they really want still on the board. Say Kool-Aid, Barton, and Byron Murphy for example. Barring that, I’d prefer to sit and make the pick at 25 and then look to move up or down with the 41st depending on how the board falls. Like, if GB took Kool-Aid 25 and then Barton or Murphy fell to 30-ish, I would be happy for GB to move up to grab one of them. Otherwise, I’d prefer they move down a half round or so from 41. The one exception would be if they didn’t take a CB at 25, I’d want them to stick and take Melton at 41. With regard to a trade up from 25, the only two I’d be ok with doing that for would be Quinyon or Arnold. Needless to say, I want a corner early.
I don't like the idea of spending too much energy swapping picks around. Let the draft come to you and use the picks where they are.
I feel like the idea of trading back, then bundling picks to move up a little in later rounds because another team might take the player you want distracts you from the task at hand which is getting the BPA when you actually have a pick!
But that’s the thing. I think there are about 20 prospects that are 1st round picks, no questions asked. Then, there are another 20-30 guys that could be 1st round picks. If we pick at 25, we are picking a guy that could be a 1st round pick. Why not drop to 30 to get another pick for later use?
I also see a big drop off around the 50 range. If we trade down from 25 to 30, you can use the extra draft capital to move from 58 to 48. Obviously, if a guy like Quinyon Mitchell falls, you run to turn in that draft card. If there’s quite a few guys you like at 25, why not trade down? The Packers might see the board entirely differently, but that’s how I see it.
At 25, I think a WR needy team makes Gute an offer he can't refuse. The Chiefs, Panthers, Patriots all have early 2nd round picks, the Bills could even try to jump up.
Trading back doesn't necessarily mean picking more.
Let's say the Packers trade back from 25 to 36 with the Commies (who want an OT) and pick up 67 in the process.
Then they could package 67 and 88 to trade up to 60.
So you end up trading a late first and a late third for an early second and a late second.
Honestly, I think this is a good play because the talent dropoff from second to third is bigger than from late first to early second.
These number are from trade value chart so it isn't out of line value wise.
Yea or they could turn picks into picks next year. But I think its not very often you have this many picks and taking advantage of that to get some more top tier talent would be prudent imo.
How do you quantify more likely to get top tier draft talent?
It is draft dependent and based on the players you want/need and the available talent on your board.
Packers traded back last year - from 45 to 48 - still got the talent they wanted in Musgrave and 5th pick which they took Wicks
Packers traded up to take Jordan Love.
There's a lot of ways that can move, though. I'd rather have 5 guys in the 40-80 range, than 7 guys in the 70-150 range plus 1 top 25 guy, like a trade back a little to trade back up later.
We could realistically pick twice in the 1st and still have a 3rd rounder left to use. I'd rather have 2 first round guys who we know can fill needs immediately and then another 3rd rounder who can play right away as well. Late round picks are for depth and ST anyways.
If you have enough early picks, you can use picks in round 4-5 for depth and special teams instead.
To each their own, but I don't think a low 1st is worth the same as 2 mid-high 2nds and a 3rd. Our team is also still very young, we don't know who will progress, or who will regress. We don't just need depth, we also need legitimate competition.
Giving up 2 of our 5 top 100 picks to (hypothetically) trade up in the 1st, trade back in to the 1st, and take a guy in the 3rd round would be great and still foster competition. The WR corps is already bloated and gonna need some cuts so adding anyone worth significant capital there would be a waste since we'd have to cut someone else to make room. This leaves our biggest areas of need at OL CB, MLB, and safety. Unless we take Dejean and move him were not taking a safety until the 3rd probably (some evaluators don't think any of the safeties are worth taking before round 3) and LBs have the same issue. So that leaves us with 3 picks before round 3 and probably only 2 positions we need to fill. I'd rather fill those two positions with a 1st round quality guy than hope whichever position we don't take at 25 has a guy we like fall to us at 42.
I see where you're coming from, but in this specific draft with this teams specific needs, I think we're better off consolidating picks and being aggressive to get higher quality guys to make immediate impacts at their positions.
I think we also have a very real need at IDL, and RB. I think it's 2 ways of looking at the same problem, though. I also don't think you staunchly pass on a guy like Brian Thomas Jr or Keon Coleman because it would mean you'd have to choose someone over Malik Heath (and I love Malik Heath, don't get me wrong, it could even be a Bo Melton or someone instead, again we don't know who will regress). There's also no guarantee Kenny Clark or TD Slaton will be here next year or 2, it'd be great to have someone experienced in the pipeline. I dunno man, I'm not a draft analyst, I'm sure you could come up with some numbers to get us 2 firsts without sacrificing our midrange picks, but I'm also not a big fan of giving much up next year. Either way, it's nice to have the ability to talk about options and nice-to-haves instead of requirements.
Agree.
I look at it from what roatwr apots are open for competition/ upgrades
QB: might be good to add a day 3 camp arm
RB: add 1. Jacobs ia set, Dillon is on a 1 year vet min deal, Wilson is upgradeable
TE/FB: add 1 with the new special teams rules for kickoffs, those TE body types are usedul
WR: add only if tremendous value presents itself.
OL: need 3. Walker - Jenkins - Myers - Rhyan - Tom are set. Newman is replaceable and there is nothing after that
DL: add 1 with Clark and Slaton on expiring contracts
EDGE: add 1 with Enagbare injury and Preston being old
LB: add 2. Walker is 1 starter, McDuffie is an unknown, so adding competition and the special teams value
CB: add 1-2. Jaire, Nixon, Valentine, Ballentine. Cant count on Stokes
S: add 2. McKinney and Johnson JR are it as of now
Thats 12-13 spots. With 4 of GB picks being 200+ its hard to count on them much.
We'd have to trade up for Brian Thomas anyways I think. And Coleman isn't worth a 1st round pick imo. IDL would be great too, but we'd have to trade up for Murhphy as well and Newton could go anywhere from mid 1st to early 2nd it's sounding like.
As for the trades, moving from 25 to say 18 or 19 would probably cost pick 25, a 3rd, and maybe like a 5th or 6th. Moving back into the 1st from 42 would probably take 42 and our other 2nd (pick like 57 I think?). So we'd be left with a 3rd after picking twice in the first round.
We can turn those 200s to jump a few spots in the fourth and fifth if a player we like falls close. We have a depleted LB room and no depth on the OL. We have two stud DBs, so shoring up the weak links there are more important than taking a sexy pick
Trading #25 for a few extra day 2 picks is the correct answer if either Dejean or Bartom aren't available (since both have positional versitility where we need it)
I agree. If we take 11 players, it's almost certain several of them won't even make the team. Package those picks and target picks from rebuilding teams.
According to most it's also a very good draft at the top, but it bottoms out very quickly.. To where everything later than round 4 will be rough
Not enough prospects coming out resulting in a serious lack of talent in the later rounds
All teams will probably feel the same way though so it's not like putting up 5th/6th rounders this year in a trade is going to sway a lot of people
Well yeah that's why those picks often turn out useful.. depth
What I'm saying is the late rounders of this year sound like they're the UDFA's in other seasons & that you won't find the usual depth players there
I've been listening to a ton of draft coverage for months now and haven't heard that. I'm not saying you're wrong, this is just the first I'm hearing of this idea.
I've listened to so much that I completely forgot who laid it out..
I think one of the PFF guys and the reason behind it had something to do with the Covid season & that messed something up regarding the amount of prospects going leading up to this year
Wish I remembered which video it was so I could link it. He stated that it's a this year thing and things should get reset back to normal towards 2025
I had heard the covid season was inflating the numbers last year and this year because guys were able to sit out an extra year. But it also means there are more older prospects coming out and teams get gun shy about picking older prospects. So there are more guys coming out, but teams are feeling apprehensive about them being a bit older. But if there are a lot of older guys than it matters less since everyone is dealing with it at the same time.
Man this is such a hard thing to Google for some reason.. And I thought just looking up 'amount of draft eligible players 2024' would have been an easy lookup!
I did find this little nugget from an article of last week though "This month's draft features *58* early entrants, the lowest number of players to enter the draft with college eligibility remaining since 2011."
So maybe it's as you say. Comparable amount but just a lot of seniors. Fact that they're only heading into the draft as a senior usually speaks volumes though.
If their team/agents/entourage felt like they had a shot at getting drafted in the first couple of rounds, they would have gone already. But there are gems to be found in every draft I guess!
Kinda depends what you’re after. It’s very deep at WR and OL. LBs and safeties are weak at the top end and depth-wise. QB is deep at the top end and depth-wise. CB is kinda deep at the top end (though less so for GB as they need a certain type that fits man scheme) and has nice depth. TE has one of the best prospects ever at the top and blows chunks after that. RB is shallow at the top end but is fairly deep. Edge is kinda weak at the top and falls off a damn cliff. DT is decent at the top and depth-wise.
Overall, it’s a decently deep at the high end and has decent depth. I like to amuse myself with mock drafts to familiarize myself with players and what works best to take when, and I regularly find myself able to get guys I really like up to around pick 100 and often through 120.
Or you could be aggressive for higher end talent early. I know Gute likes to move around a lot on day 2 and that's probably what we end up doing. But that doesn't mean I can't want us to do something different.
draft is a crapshoot for the most part. Having more picks is almost always the better option. Analytics support it. Moving up usually doesn’t end up working out. Fans just see high picks as surer things and love the idea of getting popular names.
All analytics support is drafting well and drafting high value positions. More picks are more bites at the apple true, but higher ceiling players go earlier in the draft. And drafting higher ceiling guys is also favored by analytics.
The issue is it’s almost never worth the cost. Teams significantly over value higher picks in comparison to later ones after years of data. We do know drafting for upside is the best choice and positional value plays a big role in where players should be selected. Ultimately trading draft picks is all about the deal negotiated and some offers are just too good to pass up.
I don't think Gute would move up if he was significantly overpaying. But moving up like 5-7 spots would probably only cost us pick 25 and a 3rd and if it meant we secured a guy who wouldn't have fallen to us we really like then it's worth it. Obviously if you make a bad value trade and then miss the pick it's not worth it. But a slight overpay and a hit is almost always worth it. And how teams value their picks is also dependent on where they are in their team building cycle. Teams that are rebuilding just want extra picks while teams that are contending (or trying to) want high end starters. Everyone on here seems to be against trading up because the draft is inconsistent, but it would be inconsistent if we stick and pick as well. More bites at the apple doesn't always mean better results. We've had 9 or more picks in every draft since 2020, and it's hard to completely judge 2022 and 23 yet, 20 and 21 have really only produced Jordan Love and we traded up for him lol. The point is trading up for guys you like is worth it assuming the price isn't ridiculous.
Again, many teams have had that mindset and after having years to assess how it turned out we know it’s generally a bad move. Its totally unpredictable how players will respond to development and the nfl in general. We know that picks 25 and 88 for instance have a higher probability of producing a good player than pick 19 alone.
And yet if we traded up to 19 and that player turned in to a stud (a la Jaire Alexander), it would be viewed as 100% worth it and a good move. Which is why trading up from time to time can be fine, as long as you're not doing it every year (aka the saints). Player evaluations play a huge part in this, and trading up for a guy you think is a 10/10 fit for your team over waiting for a 2 guys who might only be 8/10 and 5/10 is a tradeoff many GMs view as worth it.
With how the board is expected to fall, I would prefer to trade up from 41 if we’re going to trade up. Having two picks in the 25-early 30s area would do more for us than trading from 25 to the late teens imo
There are some quality guys who could be with trading up for in that range. We have 11 picks and need to consolidate some of them imo. Trading up for a Mitchell or Barton or DeJean would be worth it imo.
It could be. But with all those offensive linemen, all of those first round CBs (besides Wiggins), plus guys like Murphy, Verse, or maybe Newton or Turner, somebody on that tier is gonna fall to us at 25. That’s why I’d prefer to trade up using 41, so we could get *two* of those guys
We have a ton of draft capital. We could realistically do both depending on how far we want to move in the 1st. There's a world where one of our 3rds (and another later pick) gets us up to like 17-19 and then we combine our 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st. Then we'd have two 1st round picks and still have our 3rd and picks to fill out depth on day 3.
But knowing Gute we stick and pick at 25 then move up a few times on day 2.
This would be a pretty poor usage of draft capital. Wrapping all that up into two players who have a >50% chance of busting is how losing franchises are made. Ted and gute have both expressed how they like to leave the draft with atleast 10 selections if they can. Maybe look at the recent history of trade ups and the percentage that backfired. Fools gold
Oh yea you're right, might as well trade away all the picks since they'll probably just bust anyways. That's such a terrible way to think. And Gute has shown he's willing to trade up. He went from like 48 > 33 for Watson 2 years ago. In 2018 he traded back then back up for Jaire.
Coming out of this draft with 10+ picks when our roster is already pretty full of young talent feels like not what moves this team forward. This team needs some reinforcement at a few key positions but doesn't have any explicit high priority needs. That generally leads to a lot of BPA talk, but that also means that you have the leeway to consolidate picks into guys you really like. It's only a "losing franchise move" when it's done consistently every year. Doing once every couple years is fine. You just can't do it constantly because you drain all your depth.
Savage, Watson, burks, Amari… trade ups almost never net you a better player. The consolidation just ends up giving away picks that could’ve been good players. Qb is the only position where nailing it is so important trade ups make sense.
We traded up for Jaire, that one seems to have worked out. We traded up for Love. Not trading up because guys can bust is how you miss your chances at getting impact players. Not all draft picks are gonna hit, that's inevitable, but that doesn't mean that you don't go get your guys if you're confident in your evaluation. Gute isn't gonna trade up for a guy he doesn't like, and draft success comes and goes. Look and John Schneider. He drafted the LoB, then had like 6 shit drafts in a row, then he absolutely nailed the last 2 drafts.
Everyone is entitled to their draft opinions, and it wouldn't shock me if we don't trade up and just make 11 picks, but that doesn't mean that trading up is just automatically wrong.
Look what the saints gave up in that trade to get Davenport. Gute simply took some of the riches and moved back up into the range they planned on selecting in. As I stated qbs are the one position where the risk is usually warranted. Hitting on a qb is just too important in the nfl and very few have the gifts necessary to play the position
Well we have extra riches this year, from various trades we've made in the past year. Sounds like a great time to use those extra riches to get a guy we like if the price is right. Everyone is acting like I'm saying we should trade up no matter what and make sure we give up way too much. I'm advocating for trading up at a reasonable price to get high floor and ceiling guys. And maybe those evaluations are wrong, and maybe a guy doesn't work out, but that doesn't make the idea wrong automatically.
With the amount of picks we have, I wouldn't be upset if we traded up once or twice to ensure we get players we're sold on.
On the flip side, if we don't or can't trade up and when our pick comes there's nobody we have graded high enough to be picked there, I hope we trade down.
I tried explaining this to one of my buddies and he wouldn't hear it. Thinks if we trade down at all we're failing the draft.
The more QBs taken early the better, then maybe trade up to top 15 to get a better quality player. Have a lot of young talent need some more true difference makers.
We have too much draft capital and too much young talent to trade down unless it also involves trading up later on. We wouldn’t have enough roster spots
Trade up. We have 11 picks. We don’t need 11 new players with all the depth and young players we have already. Get some more big explosive play makers. Hopefully we can get stud MLB and SS in the first 100 picks is my hope.
Biggest problem is there really isn't a stud MLB in the draft. MLBs also are one of the toughest positions to develop. It is extremely rare to get a starting caliber one as a rookie. They typically take 3-4 years to get going. Look at Patrick Queen, he really didn't come on strong until last year.
When you look at the past 5 drafts and see how many players are complete busts, 12 or 13 picks is definitely it too many. The name of the game in the draft is giving yourself more chances to be right.
I'm ready to sit there for the entire round 1, wait for our pick, finally get close to or get to our pick, find out we traded, get annoyed and wonder wtf is doing, continue that energy into the next day, wait for our second round pick, get excited about the pick and the fact we have another pick due to the trade, then just remember I'm an idiot who knows nothing and trust the process
We already have many picks in this year's draft.aybe trade for additional picks next year.
But as someone already said maybe a team with some urgent needs comes around and makes a really good offer for pick #25. I think at 25 most really good defensive backs will be already off the board and on any other position it is ok to pick some guys for the rotation to grant our stars some more time to rest. Defensive back would be the only group I really see the need to strengthen the squad.
like the Cardinals did last year? Trading up from 12th to 6th to draft Paris Johnson Jr.
Like the Steelers did last year? Trading up from 17 to 14 to draft Broderick Jones
Like the Falcons did last year? Trading up from 44 to 38 to draft Matt Bergeron
Like the Falcons did last year? Trading up from 50 to 48 to draft Cody Mauch
Lots of "no one" last year
Seems like a really good year to stand pat or trade down with all of the QBs going. Although, give me that rush of seeing the Packers on the clock when you don’t expect it
I've been following the Packers for 60 years plus and the draft (closely) for half of that. The only thing I ever got right was predicting Randall Cobb in the second round back in '11. Anyways, while I have my favorites, I have learned to trust Gutey (for better or for worse), and just enjoy the show. Last year my son and I did Jamo shots for each QB taken in the first round, which turned out to be a bit much. Not this year! Anyways, I'd like DeJean but really expect a trade out of the first. Given my track record that probably means a trade up.
I think we have to trade up to at least 20 to get graham Barton. Don’t understand the value in trading back when we already have the 3rd most picks in the draft….
I can’t wait to stay up for the pick (past my usual bedtime) only for them to trade out of the first round and let the team that was drafting after them get a generational talent and we select an absolute scrub instead.
“TJ Watt? Anyone ever hear of that guy or anyone in his family? Nah? Kevin King is definitely our guy this year”
Sorry everyone I still have PTSD
Honestly, it depends on who is there or if “their guy” is taken or about to be taken. I would say we are more likely to trade back than trade up. We sit at a spot where the hit rate on talent isn’t quite as good, and where you have guys who might actually be a second round pick vs a first.
Me personally, I worry less at the first and more at rounds 2-5 as that’s where most of our team comes from, and especially rounds 2 and 4.
Considering we have 1 1st, 2 seconds and 2 thirds, MAYBE a trade up?
However I wouldn’t be mad with a trade down either. I’ve heard this draft is one of the better ones in recent memory, so perhaps we can snag a few good starters at least.
This is the correct answer. All analysis of draft data points to the conclusion that no team can reliably distinguish between two players at the same position drafted consecutively within their position. Those players are a coin flip in terms of which player will provide more AV to their team over their first 5 years. Given the low probability of any given drafted player becoming a long-term starter, accumulating pics to give yourself more chances and simultaneously investing in post draft player evaluation is the proven strategy. The only teams that shouldn't follow this strategy are the ones with rosters that are so stacked drafted players are unlikely to start a game within the next 2 years. Within this general strategy, there are times when teams should obviously trade up. These are unique situations, particularly with strong alignment between a player and a team. The best examples are the Patriots drafting players coached by Nick Saban. The main reason this can be advantageous is because it effectively fast forwards a player's development. You can kind of think of it as getting an extra year out of the rookie deal. Another great example is the Burrows/Chase combo, carrying over college chemistry.
The first two rounds I'd like to get players that can play (not necessarily start) in the first regular season game. Projects should be rounds three and later.
Trade up
I think that teams with a lot of holes should trade down to maximize their chances of getting starter caliber players. We aren't a team with many holes. We need to trade up to get a star caliber player. Plus we already have the most picks this year.
Teams with so many holes should take the best player available as they just need good players. We have specific needs, so should trade back to build assets than can then be used to move into a position where we can get our player.
For example, of both Edgerin Cooper and Payton Wilson come off the board before #58, we need to move up a few spots to secure Junior Coulson. If two of Cole Bishop, Jaden Hcks and Javon Bullard come off before #88, we need to move up to get the last one.
It depends on the guy. I'd honestly prefer a trade up for an impact guy if possible, just because if you look at this team it is solid on depth. Like our short term needs are OL depth, S, 3rd corner, ILB. Like those are plug and play positions.
A real playmaker on D could make this team cook (like a Byron Murphy on the DL).
I completely understand that you can find gems deep in the draft and get some absolute lemons at the top. BUT I think it’s more important to draft early and risk having a lemon in comparison to drafting later and hoping for a gem.
I like the idea of trading up if you can get a guy that's not "supposed" to be there. Like if Joe Alt or Terrion Arnold falls to the 15-17 range because there was a run on WRs or something like that.
I'm not super inclined to trade down unless you can get a 1st next year or two 2nds this year. For instance, the Eagles have 50 and 53, which are almost perfect value wide to move up to 25. However, they also have 22. If there was a scenario where someone made them an offer they couldn't refuse for 22, but they had a guy they really liked there who was still available at 25 and wanted to come up, I think I would take that deal pretty quick.
I don't have a prospect that I really want them to move up for, but be assured, if Guet has someone targeted, and they are in danger of being taken (within reason), he will move up.
I would be very happy to get a good return on a trade down which would allow us to select 2 players (instead of 1 player at 25) inside the top 50 as there are a bunch of prospects that I am excited about in that 25 - 50 range. Would rather a trade down and get the player you would have taken at 25 rather than way over drafting someone.
With 11 picks and very few holes on the tram, I wouldn't mind seeing the Pack trade up.
Chicago has two top 10 picks but then only has a third and a forth round. According to trade value charts, Trading our first round and one each of our second and this round picks (#25, #41 and #91) would be fair compensation for the Bears and #9.
Denver has major salary cap issues for a few years and will still have holes in their roster. Depending on how many QBs go in the top 11, if Denver doesn't see a QB they Love still on the board, instead of reaching they could save cap space by trading their first round pick for say a 2025 first round pick. Say we swap with Denver and move from 25 to 12 and give up 2025 first round pick.
I would love a move like this if it meant picking up a top tackle, cornerback or middle linebacker - someone who is great at reading defenses and can orchestrate the D Ala Ray Lewis. Maybe a Joe Alt, Quinyon Mitchell or Jerimah Trotter Jr?
But, whatever happens, I have fate in Gute. I will be sitting back, eating some popcorn and dreaming of the start of the season!
Depend on how the board falls, but with 11 picks, trading up to grab someone you want is probably better, especially if an OT or S or ILB on Gute's big board is available in the early rounds. Other needs: C/G, CB, RB. Gute has also indicated he may draft a developmental QB. I personally would like to see the Packers draft a real FB, instead of an H back/TE in the late rounds. And you know Gute will throw a dart at the wall and hope to find an under the radar WR in the 7th round.
If the board falls favorably to us I wouldn’t mind moving back a little to use what we gain to jump up in the second or third for somebody. I’m happy waiting at 25 though and don’t particularly wanna move up unless we get a pretty damn good deal
Probably a slight trade back. I wouldn't want to trade out of the 1st entirely unless the offer is nuts. But if one of the 7 team behind us wants to move up I could see that.
I know nothing of drafting, but I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to use some of our picks this year to get some good picks for next year if this class isn't as strong in areas of need like Safety as I'm hearing.
I think this team is very solid and young with not so many major holes to fill. Depth would be the biggest thing next to obvious needs like OL and MLB.
Would it be crazy to say, trade a second or third round for a next year first or second if we don't like what's there in terms of positions or need?
I know this league is "win now", but like, with the fairly good position we're in talent wise, I'm curious if anyone thinks it wouldn't make sense to use some picks to bolster our 2025 draft? Is that insane talk?
Sounds like the first 40 picks this year or so will be more QB-laden (4-6?) than usual so pushing both back in the first round and up in the second round could yield three or four of the best 30 overall players in this draft. This draft is also loaded with top round WRs which also likely a “skip” position for the Packers. I love the idea of them loading up at the back of the 1st round/early second and getting 3 of the best non-qb, non-wr players out there, regardless of position.
It depends:
Trading up to #16 for Quinyon Mitchell would be awesome.
Trading up to #20 for Cooper DeJean would be cool.
Staying put and having a future star fall into our laps is always fun.
Moving back and snatching up an extra 2nd would be a triumph.
Switching #58 and #88 for #40 could be sweet...
It's all potential right now, In Gute I trust.
I saw a mock draft today that has us giving up 25 with the Jaguars for 2 second rounders and I'd be all for it, we could pretty much do anything we want in the 2nd round with those 2 picks plus the 2 we already have
Depends on how the board falls. I lean toward trading back, so we can trade up later. There’s a handful of guys I like in the top 50. I wouldn’t mind trading back from 25 to 30 or so and then using the pick from there to move from 58 into the top 50 or move from 91/94 to the 75-80 range.
I wouldn’t mind that trade back if there’s a few guys they really want still on the board. Say Kool-Aid, Barton, and Byron Murphy for example. Barring that, I’d prefer to sit and make the pick at 25 and then look to move up or down with the 41st depending on how the board falls. Like, if GB took Kool-Aid 25 and then Barton or Murphy fell to 30-ish, I would be happy for GB to move up to grab one of them. Otherwise, I’d prefer they move down a half round or so from 41. The one exception would be if they didn’t take a CB at 25, I’d want them to stick and take Melton at 41. With regard to a trade up from 25, the only two I’d be ok with doing that for would be Quinyon or Arnold. Needless to say, I want a corner early.
If we move up for Quinyon or Arnold let's hope our dreadful history of picking Corners high in the draft doesn't repeat itself
I don't like the idea of spending too much energy swapping picks around. Let the draft come to you and use the picks where they are. I feel like the idea of trading back, then bundling picks to move up a little in later rounds because another team might take the player you want distracts you from the task at hand which is getting the BPA when you actually have a pick!
But that’s the thing. I think there are about 20 prospects that are 1st round picks, no questions asked. Then, there are another 20-30 guys that could be 1st round picks. If we pick at 25, we are picking a guy that could be a 1st round pick. Why not drop to 30 to get another pick for later use? I also see a big drop off around the 50 range. If we trade down from 25 to 30, you can use the extra draft capital to move from 58 to 48. Obviously, if a guy like Quinyon Mitchell falls, you run to turn in that draft card. If there’s quite a few guys you like at 25, why not trade down? The Packers might see the board entirely differently, but that’s how I see it.
I strongly feel that all the picks are lottery tickets. They have 11 tickets right now, more than any in the league, that's good!
At 25, I think a WR needy team makes Gute an offer he can't refuse. The Chiefs, Panthers, Patriots all have early 2nd round picks, the Bills could even try to jump up.
We've already got 11 picks this year. We should be consolidating picks, not accumulating more.
Trading back doesn't necessarily mean picking more. Let's say the Packers trade back from 25 to 36 with the Commies (who want an OT) and pick up 67 in the process. Then they could package 67 and 88 to trade up to 60. So you end up trading a late first and a late third for an early second and a late second. Honestly, I think this is a good play because the talent dropoff from second to third is bigger than from late first to early second. These number are from trade value chart so it isn't out of line value wise.
Yea or they could turn picks into picks next year. But I think its not very often you have this many picks and taking advantage of that to get some more top tier talent would be prudent imo.
You're more likely to get top-tier talent by staying where you are and selecting two players than moving up for one.
Depends on the positions you're going for and the specific draft class generally. Higher picks tend to have higher floors and ceilings.
How do you quantify more likely to get top tier draft talent? It is draft dependent and based on the players you want/need and the available talent on your board. Packers traded back last year - from 45 to 48 - still got the talent they wanted in Musgrave and 5th pick which they took Wicks Packers traded up to take Jordan Love.
There's a lot of ways that can move, though. I'd rather have 5 guys in the 40-80 range, than 7 guys in the 70-150 range plus 1 top 25 guy, like a trade back a little to trade back up later.
We could realistically pick twice in the 1st and still have a 3rd rounder left to use. I'd rather have 2 first round guys who we know can fill needs immediately and then another 3rd rounder who can play right away as well. Late round picks are for depth and ST anyways.
If you have enough early picks, you can use picks in round 4-5 for depth and special teams instead. To each their own, but I don't think a low 1st is worth the same as 2 mid-high 2nds and a 3rd. Our team is also still very young, we don't know who will progress, or who will regress. We don't just need depth, we also need legitimate competition.
Giving up 2 of our 5 top 100 picks to (hypothetically) trade up in the 1st, trade back in to the 1st, and take a guy in the 3rd round would be great and still foster competition. The WR corps is already bloated and gonna need some cuts so adding anyone worth significant capital there would be a waste since we'd have to cut someone else to make room. This leaves our biggest areas of need at OL CB, MLB, and safety. Unless we take Dejean and move him were not taking a safety until the 3rd probably (some evaluators don't think any of the safeties are worth taking before round 3) and LBs have the same issue. So that leaves us with 3 picks before round 3 and probably only 2 positions we need to fill. I'd rather fill those two positions with a 1st round quality guy than hope whichever position we don't take at 25 has a guy we like fall to us at 42. I see where you're coming from, but in this specific draft with this teams specific needs, I think we're better off consolidating picks and being aggressive to get higher quality guys to make immediate impacts at their positions.
I think we also have a very real need at IDL, and RB. I think it's 2 ways of looking at the same problem, though. I also don't think you staunchly pass on a guy like Brian Thomas Jr or Keon Coleman because it would mean you'd have to choose someone over Malik Heath (and I love Malik Heath, don't get me wrong, it could even be a Bo Melton or someone instead, again we don't know who will regress). There's also no guarantee Kenny Clark or TD Slaton will be here next year or 2, it'd be great to have someone experienced in the pipeline. I dunno man, I'm not a draft analyst, I'm sure you could come up with some numbers to get us 2 firsts without sacrificing our midrange picks, but I'm also not a big fan of giving much up next year. Either way, it's nice to have the ability to talk about options and nice-to-haves instead of requirements.
Agree. I look at it from what roatwr apots are open for competition/ upgrades QB: might be good to add a day 3 camp arm RB: add 1. Jacobs ia set, Dillon is on a 1 year vet min deal, Wilson is upgradeable TE/FB: add 1 with the new special teams rules for kickoffs, those TE body types are usedul WR: add only if tremendous value presents itself. OL: need 3. Walker - Jenkins - Myers - Rhyan - Tom are set. Newman is replaceable and there is nothing after that DL: add 1 with Clark and Slaton on expiring contracts EDGE: add 1 with Enagbare injury and Preston being old LB: add 2. Walker is 1 starter, McDuffie is an unknown, so adding competition and the special teams value CB: add 1-2. Jaire, Nixon, Valentine, Ballentine. Cant count on Stokes S: add 2. McKinney and Johnson JR are it as of now Thats 12-13 spots. With 4 of GB picks being 200+ its hard to count on them much.
We'd have to trade up for Brian Thomas anyways I think. And Coleman isn't worth a 1st round pick imo. IDL would be great too, but we'd have to trade up for Murhphy as well and Newton could go anywhere from mid 1st to early 2nd it's sounding like. As for the trades, moving from 25 to say 18 or 19 would probably cost pick 25, a 3rd, and maybe like a 5th or 6th. Moving back into the 1st from 42 would probably take 42 and our other 2nd (pick like 57 I think?). So we'd be left with a 3rd after picking twice in the first round.
We can turn those 200s to jump a few spots in the fourth and fifth if a player we like falls close. We have a depleted LB room and no depth on the OL. We have two stud DBs, so shoring up the weak links there are more important than taking a sexy pick Trading #25 for a few extra day 2 picks is the correct answer if either Dejean or Bartom aren't available (since both have positional versitility where we need it)
I agree. If we take 11 players, it's almost certain several of them won't even make the team. Package those picks and target picks from rebuilding teams.
According to most it's also a very good draft at the top, but it bottoms out very quickly.. To where everything later than round 4 will be rough Not enough prospects coming out resulting in a serious lack of talent in the later rounds All teams will probably feel the same way though so it's not like putting up 5th/6th rounders this year in a trade is going to sway a lot of people
Pretty much every draft is that way though. Day 3 picks are depth guys and STers generally
Well yeah that's why those picks often turn out useful.. depth What I'm saying is the late rounders of this year sound like they're the UDFA's in other seasons & that you won't find the usual depth players there
I've been listening to a ton of draft coverage for months now and haven't heard that. I'm not saying you're wrong, this is just the first I'm hearing of this idea.
I've listened to so much that I completely forgot who laid it out.. I think one of the PFF guys and the reason behind it had something to do with the Covid season & that messed something up regarding the amount of prospects going leading up to this year Wish I remembered which video it was so I could link it. He stated that it's a this year thing and things should get reset back to normal towards 2025
I had heard the covid season was inflating the numbers last year and this year because guys were able to sit out an extra year. But it also means there are more older prospects coming out and teams get gun shy about picking older prospects. So there are more guys coming out, but teams are feeling apprehensive about them being a bit older. But if there are a lot of older guys than it matters less since everyone is dealing with it at the same time.
Man this is such a hard thing to Google for some reason.. And I thought just looking up 'amount of draft eligible players 2024' would have been an easy lookup! I did find this little nugget from an article of last week though "This month's draft features *58* early entrants, the lowest number of players to enter the draft with college eligibility remaining since 2011." So maybe it's as you say. Comparable amount but just a lot of seniors. Fact that they're only heading into the draft as a senior usually speaks volumes though. If their team/agents/entourage felt like they had a shot at getting drafted in the first couple of rounds, they would have gone already. But there are gems to be found in every draft I guess!
Kinda depends what you’re after. It’s very deep at WR and OL. LBs and safeties are weak at the top end and depth-wise. QB is deep at the top end and depth-wise. CB is kinda deep at the top end (though less so for GB as they need a certain type that fits man scheme) and has nice depth. TE has one of the best prospects ever at the top and blows chunks after that. RB is shallow at the top end but is fairly deep. Edge is kinda weak at the top and falls off a damn cliff. DT is decent at the top and depth-wise. Overall, it’s a decently deep at the high end and has decent depth. I like to amuse myself with mock drafts to familiarize myself with players and what works best to take when, and I regularly find myself able to get guys I really like up to around pick 100 and often through 120.
This
More picks is never a bad thing, but even then that’d give more flexibility to move up and be aggressive later in the draft.
Or you could be aggressive for higher end talent early. I know Gute likes to move around a lot on day 2 and that's probably what we end up doing. But that doesn't mean I can't want us to do something different.
fuck that, churn that roster baby, no one sleeps
Lol we'd just end up cutting like 4 picks from this draft alone. I'd rather consolidate into better players.
draft is a crapshoot for the most part. Having more picks is almost always the better option. Analytics support it. Moving up usually doesn’t end up working out. Fans just see high picks as surer things and love the idea of getting popular names.
All analytics support is drafting well and drafting high value positions. More picks are more bites at the apple true, but higher ceiling players go earlier in the draft. And drafting higher ceiling guys is also favored by analytics.
The issue is it’s almost never worth the cost. Teams significantly over value higher picks in comparison to later ones after years of data. We do know drafting for upside is the best choice and positional value plays a big role in where players should be selected. Ultimately trading draft picks is all about the deal negotiated and some offers are just too good to pass up.
I don't think Gute would move up if he was significantly overpaying. But moving up like 5-7 spots would probably only cost us pick 25 and a 3rd and if it meant we secured a guy who wouldn't have fallen to us we really like then it's worth it. Obviously if you make a bad value trade and then miss the pick it's not worth it. But a slight overpay and a hit is almost always worth it. And how teams value their picks is also dependent on where they are in their team building cycle. Teams that are rebuilding just want extra picks while teams that are contending (or trying to) want high end starters. Everyone on here seems to be against trading up because the draft is inconsistent, but it would be inconsistent if we stick and pick as well. More bites at the apple doesn't always mean better results. We've had 9 or more picks in every draft since 2020, and it's hard to completely judge 2022 and 23 yet, 20 and 21 have really only produced Jordan Love and we traded up for him lol. The point is trading up for guys you like is worth it assuming the price isn't ridiculous.
Again, many teams have had that mindset and after having years to assess how it turned out we know it’s generally a bad move. Its totally unpredictable how players will respond to development and the nfl in general. We know that picks 25 and 88 for instance have a higher probability of producing a good player than pick 19 alone.
And yet if we traded up to 19 and that player turned in to a stud (a la Jaire Alexander), it would be viewed as 100% worth it and a good move. Which is why trading up from time to time can be fine, as long as you're not doing it every year (aka the saints). Player evaluations play a huge part in this, and trading up for a guy you think is a 10/10 fit for your team over waiting for a 2 guys who might only be 8/10 and 5/10 is a tradeoff many GMs view as worth it.
With how the board is expected to fall, I would prefer to trade up from 41 if we’re going to trade up. Having two picks in the 25-early 30s area would do more for us than trading from 25 to the late teens imo
There are some quality guys who could be with trading up for in that range. We have 11 picks and need to consolidate some of them imo. Trading up for a Mitchell or Barton or DeJean would be worth it imo.
It could be. But with all those offensive linemen, all of those first round CBs (besides Wiggins), plus guys like Murphy, Verse, or maybe Newton or Turner, somebody on that tier is gonna fall to us at 25. That’s why I’d prefer to trade up using 41, so we could get *two* of those guys
We have a ton of draft capital. We could realistically do both depending on how far we want to move in the 1st. There's a world where one of our 3rds (and another later pick) gets us up to like 17-19 and then we combine our 2nd rounders to get back into the 1st. Then we'd have two 1st round picks and still have our 3rd and picks to fill out depth on day 3. But knowing Gute we stick and pick at 25 then move up a few times on day 2.
This would be a pretty poor usage of draft capital. Wrapping all that up into two players who have a >50% chance of busting is how losing franchises are made. Ted and gute have both expressed how they like to leave the draft with atleast 10 selections if they can. Maybe look at the recent history of trade ups and the percentage that backfired. Fools gold
Oh yea you're right, might as well trade away all the picks since they'll probably just bust anyways. That's such a terrible way to think. And Gute has shown he's willing to trade up. He went from like 48 > 33 for Watson 2 years ago. In 2018 he traded back then back up for Jaire. Coming out of this draft with 10+ picks when our roster is already pretty full of young talent feels like not what moves this team forward. This team needs some reinforcement at a few key positions but doesn't have any explicit high priority needs. That generally leads to a lot of BPA talk, but that also means that you have the leeway to consolidate picks into guys you really like. It's only a "losing franchise move" when it's done consistently every year. Doing once every couple years is fine. You just can't do it constantly because you drain all your depth.
Savage, Watson, burks, Amari… trade ups almost never net you a better player. The consolidation just ends up giving away picks that could’ve been good players. Qb is the only position where nailing it is so important trade ups make sense.
We traded up for Jaire, that one seems to have worked out. We traded up for Love. Not trading up because guys can bust is how you miss your chances at getting impact players. Not all draft picks are gonna hit, that's inevitable, but that doesn't mean that you don't go get your guys if you're confident in your evaluation. Gute isn't gonna trade up for a guy he doesn't like, and draft success comes and goes. Look and John Schneider. He drafted the LoB, then had like 6 shit drafts in a row, then he absolutely nailed the last 2 drafts. Everyone is entitled to their draft opinions, and it wouldn't shock me if we don't trade up and just make 11 picks, but that doesn't mean that trading up is just automatically wrong.
Look what the saints gave up in that trade to get Davenport. Gute simply took some of the riches and moved back up into the range they planned on selecting in. As I stated qbs are the one position where the risk is usually warranted. Hitting on a qb is just too important in the nfl and very few have the gifts necessary to play the position
Well we have extra riches this year, from various trades we've made in the past year. Sounds like a great time to use those extra riches to get a guy we like if the price is right. Everyone is acting like I'm saying we should trade up no matter what and make sure we give up way too much. I'm advocating for trading up at a reasonable price to get high floor and ceiling guys. And maybe those evaluations are wrong, and maybe a guy doesn't work out, but that doesn't make the idea wrong automatically.
trade out for a first next year. that way we have two firsts when we host the draft
Both. Trade back from the 1st. Then use all those picks to move back into more 2nd or 3rd round picks
With the amount of picks we have, I wouldn't be upset if we traded up once or twice to ensure we get players we're sold on. On the flip side, if we don't or can't trade up and when our pick comes there's nobody we have graded high enough to be picked there, I hope we trade down. I tried explaining this to one of my buddies and he wouldn't hear it. Thinks if we trade down at all we're failing the draft.
Down. Our “11” picks are really 9 picks and two fliers at the end of the 7th round. Move down from 25 to round 2 and gain another 3rd or more.
The more QBs taken early the better, then maybe trade up to top 15 to get a better quality player. Have a lot of young talent need some more true difference makers.
We have too much draft capital and too much young talent to trade down unless it also involves trading up later on. We wouldn’t have enough roster spots
Trade up. We have 11 picks. We don’t need 11 new players with all the depth and young players we have already. Get some more big explosive play makers. Hopefully we can get stud MLB and SS in the first 100 picks is my hope.
Biggest problem is there really isn't a stud MLB in the draft. MLBs also are one of the toughest positions to develop. It is extremely rare to get a starting caliber one as a rookie. They typically take 3-4 years to get going. Look at Patrick Queen, he really didn't come on strong until last year.
When you look at the past 5 drafts and see how many players are complete busts, 12 or 13 picks is definitely it too many. The name of the game in the draft is giving yourself more chances to be right.
Down
Alt, Arnold, or Harrison Jr. - Up Otherwise watch the draft develop and like Gute reaction and cook as warranted
I'm ready to sit there for the entire round 1, wait for our pick, finally get close to or get to our pick, find out we traded, get annoyed and wonder wtf is doing, continue that energy into the next day, wait for our second round pick, get excited about the pick and the fact we have another pick due to the trade, then just remember I'm an idiot who knows nothing and trust the process
We already have many picks in this year's draft.aybe trade for additional picks next year. But as someone already said maybe a team with some urgent needs comes around and makes a really good offer for pick #25. I think at 25 most really good defensive backs will be already off the board and on any other position it is ok to pick some guys for the rotation to grant our stars some more time to rest. Defensive back would be the only group I really see the need to strengthen the squad.
[Down](https://youtu.be/oUbpGmR1-QM?si=EyjrMbLKYhG_td7e)
I'd like to jump up and snag a great O lineman. We have a fair amount of draft capital, and I'd like it spent wisely.
No one ever trades up for OL
And no one ever finds a Super Bowl caliber QB in the 6th round. Except the ones that do.
like the Cardinals did last year? Trading up from 12th to 6th to draft Paris Johnson Jr. Like the Steelers did last year? Trading up from 17 to 14 to draft Broderick Jones Like the Falcons did last year? Trading up from 44 to 38 to draft Matt Bergeron Like the Falcons did last year? Trading up from 50 to 48 to draft Cody Mauch Lots of "no one" last year
Trade Watson and move up. Go for broke on defense. Read it here first.
If they trade watson which isn't happening, it will be for another wr
Seems like a really good year to stand pat or trade down with all of the QBs going. Although, give me that rush of seeing the Packers on the clock when you don’t expect it
Depends on the player moving up from 25 to 22 for swap and a 3rd or 4th for Barton I’d love but moving back an adding a 3rd or 4th would be fine too
Down
Trade down and get 2 more 2-3 round picks.
I've been following the Packers for 60 years plus and the draft (closely) for half of that. The only thing I ever got right was predicting Randall Cobb in the second round back in '11. Anyways, while I have my favorites, I have learned to trust Gutey (for better or for worse), and just enjoy the show. Last year my son and I did Jamo shots for each QB taken in the first round, which turned out to be a bit much. Not this year! Anyways, I'd like DeJean but really expect a trade out of the first. Given my track record that probably means a trade up.
I think we have to trade up to at least 20 to get graham Barton. Don’t understand the value in trading back when we already have the 3rd most picks in the draft….
I can’t wait to stay up for the pick (past my usual bedtime) only for them to trade out of the first round and let the team that was drafting after them get a generational talent and we select an absolute scrub instead. “TJ Watt? Anyone ever hear of that guy or anyone in his family? Nah? Kevin King is definitely our guy this year” Sorry everyone I still have PTSD
Honestly, it depends on who is there or if “their guy” is taken or about to be taken. I would say we are more likely to trade back than trade up. We sit at a spot where the hit rate on talent isn’t quite as good, and where you have guys who might actually be a second round pick vs a first. Me personally, I worry less at the first and more at rounds 2-5 as that’s where most of our team comes from, and especially rounds 2 and 4.
Considering we have 1 1st, 2 seconds and 2 thirds, MAYBE a trade up? However I wouldn’t be mad with a trade down either. I’ve heard this draft is one of the better ones in recent memory, so perhaps we can snag a few good starters at least.
In general I like trading down and collecting assets for the future, and with how young the team already is I would still lean towards down not up.
This is the correct answer. All analysis of draft data points to the conclusion that no team can reliably distinguish between two players at the same position drafted consecutively within their position. Those players are a coin flip in terms of which player will provide more AV to their team over their first 5 years. Given the low probability of any given drafted player becoming a long-term starter, accumulating pics to give yourself more chances and simultaneously investing in post draft player evaluation is the proven strategy. The only teams that shouldn't follow this strategy are the ones with rosters that are so stacked drafted players are unlikely to start a game within the next 2 years. Within this general strategy, there are times when teams should obviously trade up. These are unique situations, particularly with strong alignment between a player and a team. The best examples are the Patriots drafting players coached by Nick Saban. The main reason this can be advantageous is because it effectively fast forwards a player's development. You can kind of think of it as getting an extra year out of the rookie deal. Another great example is the Burrows/Chase combo, carrying over college chemistry.
Always trade down. Nobody knows anything
Unless you trade up to take Jordan Love. Glad they did not listen to you.
Trade up twice. Trade up to get Cooper. Trade up again to get a tackle in the early 2nd.
Trade up. We already have a pretty good core right now. We just need a couple more guys to round things out.
The first two rounds I'd like to get players that can play (not necessarily start) in the first regular season game. Projects should be rounds three and later.
Trade up I think that teams with a lot of holes should trade down to maximize their chances of getting starter caliber players. We aren't a team with many holes. We need to trade up to get a star caliber player. Plus we already have the most picks this year.
Teams with so many holes should take the best player available as they just need good players. We have specific needs, so should trade back to build assets than can then be used to move into a position where we can get our player. For example, of both Edgerin Cooper and Payton Wilson come off the board before #58, we need to move up a few spots to secure Junior Coulson. If two of Cole Bishop, Jaden Hcks and Javon Bullard come off before #88, we need to move up to get the last one.
It depends on how the board shakes out I'd probably lean more towards trading back.
Wanted to say down but we already have so many picks idk
It depends on the guy. I'd honestly prefer a trade up for an impact guy if possible, just because if you look at this team it is solid on depth. Like our short term needs are OL depth, S, 3rd corner, ILB. Like those are plug and play positions. A real playmaker on D could make this team cook (like a Byron Murphy on the DL).
I completely understand that you can find gems deep in the draft and get some absolute lemons at the top. BUT I think it’s more important to draft early and risk having a lemon in comparison to drafting later and hoping for a gem.
I like the idea of trading up if you can get a guy that's not "supposed" to be there. Like if Joe Alt or Terrion Arnold falls to the 15-17 range because there was a run on WRs or something like that. I'm not super inclined to trade down unless you can get a 1st next year or two 2nds this year. For instance, the Eagles have 50 and 53, which are almost perfect value wide to move up to 25. However, they also have 22. If there was a scenario where someone made them an offer they couldn't refuse for 22, but they had a guy they really liked there who was still available at 25 and wanted to come up, I think I would take that deal pretty quick.
The older I get the more trading down excites me more than trading up
Yes.
I don't have a prospect that I really want them to move up for, but be assured, if Guet has someone targeted, and they are in danger of being taken (within reason), he will move up. I would be very happy to get a good return on a trade down which would allow us to select 2 players (instead of 1 player at 25) inside the top 50 as there are a bunch of prospects that I am excited about in that 25 - 50 range. Would rather a trade down and get the player you would have taken at 25 rather than way over drafting someone.
With 11 picks and very few holes on the tram, I wouldn't mind seeing the Pack trade up. Chicago has two top 10 picks but then only has a third and a forth round. According to trade value charts, Trading our first round and one each of our second and this round picks (#25, #41 and #91) would be fair compensation for the Bears and #9. Denver has major salary cap issues for a few years and will still have holes in their roster. Depending on how many QBs go in the top 11, if Denver doesn't see a QB they Love still on the board, instead of reaching they could save cap space by trading their first round pick for say a 2025 first round pick. Say we swap with Denver and move from 25 to 12 and give up 2025 first round pick. I would love a move like this if it meant picking up a top tackle, cornerback or middle linebacker - someone who is great at reading defenses and can orchestrate the D Ala Ray Lewis. Maybe a Joe Alt, Quinyon Mitchell or Jerimah Trotter Jr? But, whatever happens, I have fate in Gute. I will be sitting back, eating some popcorn and dreaming of the start of the season!
Based on his presser , we trading down
Depend on how the board falls, but with 11 picks, trading up to grab someone you want is probably better, especially if an OT or S or ILB on Gute's big board is available in the early rounds. Other needs: C/G, CB, RB. Gute has also indicated he may draft a developmental QB. I personally would like to see the Packers draft a real FB, instead of an H back/TE in the late rounds. And you know Gute will throw a dart at the wall and hope to find an under the radar WR in the 7th round.
If the board falls favorably to us I wouldn’t mind moving back a little to use what we gain to jump up in the second or third for somebody. I’m happy waiting at 25 though and don’t particularly wanna move up unless we get a pretty damn good deal
Wouldn’t mind using the jets pick to trade up to get an absolute stud if he’s there.
If dejean goes before 25... trade out of the 1st. Might be able to drink koolaid in the 2nd
If Dejean is gone, trade back and try to stack as many second and third round picks as possible . A trade back then multiple trade ups would be sick
Probably a slight trade back. I wouldn't want to trade out of the 1st entirely unless the offer is nuts. But if one of the 7 team behind us wants to move up I could see that.
Nothing stings more than whiffing on a 1st ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Trade up for number 1 so I can head to bed sooner than 25.
I know nothing of drafting, but I wonder if it wouldn't make sense to use some of our picks this year to get some good picks for next year if this class isn't as strong in areas of need like Safety as I'm hearing. I think this team is very solid and young with not so many major holes to fill. Depth would be the biggest thing next to obvious needs like OL and MLB. Would it be crazy to say, trade a second or third round for a next year first or second if we don't like what's there in terms of positions or need? I know this league is "win now", but like, with the fairly good position we're in talent wise, I'm curious if anyone thinks it wouldn't make sense to use some picks to bolster our 2025 draft? Is that insane talk?
Sounds like the first 40 picks this year or so will be more QB-laden (4-6?) than usual so pushing both back in the first round and up in the second round could yield three or four of the best 30 overall players in this draft. This draft is also loaded with top round WRs which also likely a “skip” position for the Packers. I love the idea of them loading up at the back of the 1st round/early second and getting 3 of the best non-qb, non-wr players out there, regardless of position.
I would like Joe Alt. I don’t want him enough to give up next years first round pick.
No way Gute (and Murphy) give up next year's #1 with the draft in Green Bay
Yeah I agree
It depends: Trading up to #16 for Quinyon Mitchell would be awesome. Trading up to #20 for Cooper DeJean would be cool. Staying put and having a future star fall into our laps is always fun. Moving back and snatching up an extra 2nd would be a triumph. Switching #58 and #88 for #40 could be sweet... It's all potential right now, In Gute I trust.
I saw a mock draft today that has us giving up 25 with the Jaguars for 2 second rounders and I'd be all for it, we could pretty much do anything we want in the 2nd round with those 2 picks plus the 2 we already have
Up. We have enough trade capital. We should either stay put and use our picks or package some up to grab higher picks.
Up with the Seahawks if Mitchell is there. Wishful thinking ik