Here's the link:
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packe...280391362.html
And here's the confusing passage, for me:
"A personnel director for an NFL team said he considered Hayward as the more appealing player. He said the Packers figured to aim for the second-round pick they have invested in Hayward.
As a fourth-round selection, House might not fetch more than a conditional pick in the fourth round that would improve maybe to the third round based on criteria such as playing time and interceptions.
Hyde, a fifth-round choice, won't become unrestricted until March 2017. His 40-yard dash time of 4.57, compared with House's 4.41 and Hayward's 4.52, make him less marketable, but his versatility could interest a different cluster of teams."
So why would you trade a player you have come to find out is very probably a starting-caliber player, and is young, and trade him for only the same round draft pick in which you got him in the first place? You took the chance, drafted the guy, developed him, and now that he's paying off you trade him for the same level of pick you used before?
Is this because you think you'll lose him in free agency? If so, McGinn himself suggests that in the NFL situations change so quickly that you really can't use that as a reason. But it seems the only reason I can think of for even considering such an odd move.
On the other hand, I thought it'd be fun to think about trading either Hyde, House, or Hayward...for a player that Green Bay could use, right now.
So, which guy would you trade, if you'd trade at all, and for what player/position?
Now, don't be that dumb fan: "I'd trade Micah Hyde to the Saints because they need a defensive back, and I'd get Jimmy Graham plus a third round pick in return." Don't be that fan. Be real.
Trade one for a tight end, yes - but I wonder who that might be?
Or would you trade one for a player at another position, and if so, for what position, and what player?