Packers in good spot

[Pacopete4]

if Sanchez from USC comes out to the NFL draft the packers could be sitting nice at #9. SF is right behind them at #10 and there might be a couple teams (MN,CHI,MIA,NYJ) might be looking to trade in front of SF to snag Sanchez who would be projected #1 the following season.... Your thoughts?

[HarveyWallbangers]

If Curry, Mays, and Rey are gone, I think they'd have to look at trading down or drafting Oher or the other OTs. I'm not high enough yet on any of the DL or other LBs to take at #9. Of course, Thompson would be criticized for trading down again. Of course, it's early and I don't really know what I'm talking about.

[Pacopete4]

I'm ok with a trade down if it nets their first and their 2or3rd otherwise I'll be pretty upset we didn't get a stud

[sheepshead]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

[Bossman641]

I hope as many underclassmen come out as possible to push prospects down to us.

I'm not sure how many teams I could see behind us trying to move up to take a QB though.

10. SF
11. Buff - No
12. Den - No
13. Wash - No
14. NO - No
15. Hou - No
16. SD - No
17. NYJ
18. Chi

Like you said you'd probably be looking at the Jets or Bears moving up 8-9 spots if they wanted to leapfrog SF. How much compensation would that require? I'd have to guess quite a bit.

I think if Ted traded down from 9 to the late teens or early twenties Packer boards all over the internet might explode.

[rbaloha1]

Great point.

Trade down. Brandon Spikes is the guy.

[Patler]

I hope as many underclassmen come out as possible to push prospects down to us.

I'm not sure how many teams I could see behind us trying to move up to take a QB though.

10. SF
11. Buff - No
12. Den - No
13. Wash - No
14. NO - No
15. Hou - No
16. SD - No
17. NYJ
18. Chi

Like you said you'd probably be looking at the Jets or Bears moving up 8-9 spots if they wanted to leapfrog SF. How much compensation would that require? I'd have to guess quite a bit.

I think if Ted traded down from 9 to the late teens or early twenties Packer boards all over the internet might explode.

Trading with the Jets from #9 to #17 would require the Jets second pick at #49. The "point values" are almost a perfect match. The Packers would never make a trade in the first round with the Bears, and SF would have no reason to flop positions with GB.

The Packers have made a number of draft related trades with the Jets in recent years, the second round in 2007, first round in 2008, etc. Whether the Jets would be willing to give up their #2 to flip flop with GB from #17 to #9 is another question, but I could see it being done.

[Bossman641]

I hope as many underclassmen come out as possible to push prospects down to us.

I'm not sure how many teams I could see behind us trying to move up to take a QB though.

10. SF
11. Buff - No
12. Den - No
13. Wash - No
14. NO - No
15. Hou - No
16. SD - No
17. NYJ
18. Chi

Like you said you'd probably be looking at the Jets or Bears moving up 8-9 spots if they wanted to leapfrog SF. How much compensation would that require? I'd have to guess quite a bit.

I think if Ted traded down from 9 to the late teens or early twenties Packer boards all over the internet might explode.

Trading with the Jets from #9 to #17 would require the Jets second pick at #49. The "point values" are almost a perfect match. The Packers would never make a trade in the first round with the Bears, and SF would have no reason to flop positions with GB.

The Packers have made a number of draft related trades with the Jets in recent years, the second round in 2007, first round in 2008, etc. Whether the Jets would be willing to give up their #2 to flip flop with GB from #17 to #9 is another question, but I could see it being done.

Thanks.

The one team I could see realistically trading with would be the Jets at 17. There are a few teams (Buff, Wash) behind us that have young QB's in their second and third years. I'd guess they'd be willing to give those guys more time. The other team I could maybe see would be the Bucs at 19: not sure how many years Garcia has left on his contract but there's not much behind him. Cardinals could be a longshot at 21. I don't know how they feel about Leinart, if they are willing to give him more time or they're sick of him.

[Guiness]

Trading with the Jets from #9 to #17 would require the Jets second pick at #49. The "point values" are almost a perfect match. The Packers would never make a trade in the first round with the Bears, and SF would have no reason to flop positions with GB.

The Packers have made a number of draft related trades with the Jets in recent years, the second round in 2007, first round in 2008, etc. Whether the Jets would be willing to give up their #2 to flip flop with GB from #17 to #9 is another question, but I could see it being done.

SF might be interested in giving up a late rounder to swap spots if they coveted Sanchez, and were convinced we were close to a deal with the Jets.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I hope as many underclassmen come out as possible to push prospects down to us.

I'm not sure how many teams I could see behind us trying to move up to take a QB though.

10. SF
11. Buff - No
12. Den - No
13. Wash - No
14. NO - No
15. Hou - No
16. SD - No
17. NYJ
18. Chi

Like you said you'd probably be looking at the Jets or Bears moving up 8-9 spots if they wanted to leapfrog SF. How much compensation would that require? I'd have to guess quite a bit.

I think if Ted traded down from 9 to the late teens or early twenties Packer boards all over the internet might explode.

Trading with the Jets from #9 to #17 would require the Jets second pick at #49. The "point values" are almost a perfect match. The Packers would never make a trade in the first round with the Bears, and SF would have no reason to flop positions with GB.

The Packers have made a number of draft related trades with the Jets in recent years, the second round in 2007, first round in 2008, etc. Whether the Jets would be willing to give up their #2 to flip flop with GB from #17 to #9 is another question, but I could see it being done.

I wouldn't mind seeing us trade down if we could get a good player at 17 and a second to boot. Extra picks would probably be needed if we switch to a 3-4 defensive scheme.

[swede]

Trading with the Jets from #9 to #17 would require the Jets second pick at #49. The "point values" are almost a perfect match. The Packers would never make a trade in the first round with the Bears, and SF would have no reason to flop positions with GB.

The Packers have made a number of draft related trades with the Jets in recent years, the second round in 2007, first round in 2008, etc. Whether the Jets would be willing to give up their #2 to flip flop with GB from #17 to #9 is another question, but I could see it being done.

SF might be interested in giving up a late rounder to swap spots if they coveted Sanchez, and were convinced we were close to a deal with the Jets.

You can't have too many 7th round picks.

[red]

why would sf give up a later round pick to trade spots with us?

they know we aren't going to draft a qb

so if sanchez is there at #9 he's going to be there at #10 too

[Bossman641]

why would sf give up a later round pick to trade spots with us?

they know we aren't going to draft a qb

so if sanchez is there at #9 he's going to be there at #10 too

TT could tell SF that he is in negotiations with the Jets and is considering moving back to 17 or so in exchange for the Jets' 2nd round pick. He could tell SF he'd swap picks in exchange for a 5th rounder or whatever.

Not very likely IMO, but at least possible.

[Guiness]

[quote=Patler]Thanks.

The one team I could see realistically trading with would be the Jets at 17. There are a few teams (Buff, Wash) behind us that have young QB's in their second and third years. I'd guess they'd be willing to give those guys more time. The other team I could maybe see would be the Bucs at 19: not sure how many years Garcia has left on his contract but there's not much behind him. Cardinals could be a longshot at 21. I don't know how they feel about Leinart, if they are willing to give him more time or they're sick of him.

Washington and Buffalo were the two that stood out in your list as maybe being interested.

Edwards didn't have a great season in his second year as a starter, sputtering badly down the stretch. Campbell sure looked awful early in the season. Did he show enough later for management to have confidence in him?

Both these teams might be looking for another option, but you're probably right, they'll be looking for a lower round developmental pick while they see what they've got. In particular, I can't see Wash being very happy with Campbell.

[HarveyWallbangers]

why would sf give up a later round pick to trade spots with us?

they know we aren't going to draft a qb

so if sanchez is there at #9 he's going to be there at #10 too

I guess the threat that we would trade the pick to a team that does need a QB. Unlikely, but possible. With Thompson's reputation for trading down, it would be a legitimate concern for San Fran.

[Guiness]

why would sf give up a later round pick to trade spots with us?

they know we aren't going to draft a qb

so if sanchez is there at #9 he's going to be there at #10 too

TT could tell SF that he is in negotiations with the Jets and is considering moving back to 17 or so in exchange for the Jets' 2nd round pick. He could tell SF he'd swap picks in exchange for a 5th rounder or whatever.

Not very likely IMO, but at least possible.

It's happened in the first round before - just last year, Detroit and KC swapped 15th and 17th picks.

[Pacopete4]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

Is this needed? Plus we have Brohm and Flynn getting ready if he gets hurt or doesn't pan out in the long run...

[sheepshead]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

Is this needed? Plus we have Brohm and Flynn getting ready if he gets hurt or doesn't pan out in the long run...

absurdity 101

[Pacopete4]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

Is this needed? Plus we have Brohm and Flynn getting ready if he gets hurt or doesn't pan out in the long run...

absurdity 101

Quit ruining threads and grow up

[sheepshead]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

Is this needed? Plus we have Brohm and Flynn getting ready if he gets hurt or doesn't pan out in the long run...

absurdity 101

Quit ruining threads and grow up

Didnt think it was possible to ruin a thread. If you didnt like my comment (do a search and you'll appreciate the humor and validity of my point) well then blow it out your ass.

[Pacopete4]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

[cpk1994]

Where are the Rodgers bashers saying we should trade up and get Sanchez?

Is this needed? Plus we have Brohm and Flynn getting ready if he gets hurt or doesn't pan out in the long run...

absurdity 101

Quit ruining threads and grow upWow. This post blows my mind.

[sheepshead]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

I was totally on subject. People dont like Aaron Rodgers as our quarterback, maybe we need to draft one. Just sayin'

[cpk1994]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

I was totally on subject. People dont like Aaron Rodgers as our quarterback, maybe we need to draft one. Just sayin'I think Tank is the only one wanting the Packers to draft a QB.

[Pacopete4]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

I was totally on subject. People dont like Aaron Rodgers as our quarterback, maybe we need to draft one. Just sayin'I think Tank is the only
one wanting the Packers to draft a QB.

We drafted two good ones last year we are set at QB if Arod doesn't work out or gets hurt. No need for drafting one and the thread is not about drafting one.

[Gunakor]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

I like the logic, but I think we might have a better chance at landing one impact player by drafting at #9. The impact DE's, especially, will be gone by #17 anyway. Normally I'd agree with you that more picks = more chances, but I'm not sure about trading out of the top 10 when our core is already in place. If the guy who could make the greatest impact is available at #9, that's the guy you take IMO.

If, however, #9 rolls around and there aren't any impact DE's left (or at another position of need, that's just the big one that matters most IMO), then absolutely try to get better value for your #9 pick by trading down.

[sheepshead]

just shut ur trap and stay on the subject and we probably would have less fights around here.. Ur not helping the situation..


On that note, trading down to 17 with the Jets and their 2nd would be awesome to me.. Then u could always package one if our 2nd's and our 3rds to get back in the first round again.. Allowing us to get hopefully two cracks at an impact player.

I was totally on subject. People dont like Aaron Rodgers as our quarterback, maybe we need to draft one. Just sayin'I think Tank is the only
one wanting the Packers to draft a QB.

We drafted two good ones last year we are set at QB if Arod doesn't work out or gets hurt. No need for drafting one and the thread is not about drafting one.



:huh:

[HarveyWallbangers]

I'm not sure there are any impact DEs available at #9. They all look to be guys that need to grow into becoming good players. I want a stud at #9--whether that's at LB, S, or OT.

[Partial]

Maulaluga!

[Gunakor]

Maulaluga!

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

I like Barnett. I hope he gets healthy and be productive going forward. From an experience standpoint, drafting Maulaluga would be a step backward for our LB corps. Barnett is the most experienced guy in our front 7. So he's the starter, and I can't see paying top 10 salary to a backup. Desmond Bishop fills the backup role for a lot less money. Remember, every dollar you spend on one player is a dollar less you have to pay someone else. And there are far greater needs than MLB on this team, which require a much larger investment than I'd be willing to make on another MLB.

[Lurker64]

I would personally be happy with the Packers trading down to 17, and picking up a 2nd round pick if they end up drafting a top DT (like Raji) at 17. As I see it, if Thompson decides he doesn't want a Tackle, Orakpo remains somewhat questionable, and Mays and Curry are both unavailable for whatever reason, trading down at #9 wouldn't really be a bad call.

But it's really, really early to start speculating on this. But considering the last twenty #9 picks were: Keith Rivers, Ted Ginn, Jr., Ernie Sims, Carlos Rogers, Reggie Williams, Kevin Williams, John Henderson, Koren Robinson, Brian Urlacher, Chris Claiborne, Fred Taylor, Tommy Knight, Rickey Dudley, Kyle Brady, Antonio Langham, Lincoln Kennedy, Tommy Vardell, Stanley Richard, Richmond Webb, Sammie Smith, and Terry McDaniel; we're not necessarily guaranteed with any high probability of landing an immediate contributor that will grow into a household name. The best names on that list are probably Kevin Williams, John Henderson, Urlacher, Fred Taylor, Lincoln Kennedy, and Richmond Webb and most of the rest are either forgettable or it's too early to tell.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

[chain_gang]

I'm not sure there are any impact DEs available at #9. They all look to be guys that need to grow into becoming good players. I want a stud at #9--whether that's at LB, S, or OT.


I don't see a true impact DE in a 4-3 scheme, but there are a few that could be monster pass rushes in the hybrid mold. That said DE seems to be a huge risk in the first round, a lot of them don't pan out, and the ones that do usually go in the top 3-4 picks. I think the best chance at an impact player are at the positions you listed, LB, S, OT.

As for trading down in the first round, I don't think this is the year to do it. We need an impact, and while your not guaranteed an impact player at the #9 spot, I like the odds a lot better than trading back into the mid 20s, even with 2 selections. Now if we were picking late in the first round I'd be all for trading back but that's a whole different scenario. This team needs to get a gamechanger or 2, not a bunch of depth, that's supposedly what Thompson already took care of, the depth on the Packers roster I mean.

[Partial]

That DE from Georgia sounds like your prototypical 3-4 PR.

[Bossman641]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

He could, but boy that seems like a ton of money tied up in LB's.

I don't know the specifics of their deals but between new(er) deals for Barnett-Poppinga-Chillar along with Hawk's rookie deal it seems like a lot. You throw a deal on there for Maluaga and that is a pretty good chunk of change in the LB's. I'd be fine with Rey only if we switch to the 3-4, otherwise I pass.

[Gunakor]

Then we'd be paying premium salary to 2 MLB's. Not worth it IMO assuming we keep a 4-3 base defense.

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

[cheesner]

if Sanchez from USC comes out to the NFL draft the packers could be sitting nice at #9. SF is right behind them at #10 and there might be a couple teams (MN,CHI,MIA,NYJ) might be looking to trade in front of SF to snag Sanchez who would be projected #1 the following season.... Your thoughts?
For Sanchez? I am not sure he is going to garner any attention in the top 10. On GBN he is listed as #70 on the top 100 players.

Walter football has him ranked as 2-3 round material.

http://www.walterfootball.com/draft2009QB.php


Is anyone ranking him as a top 10 pick?

[HarveyWallbangers]

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

What if the USC LB is another Ray Lewis and is considerably better than Chillar?

[Gunakor]

What's the reason Barnett can't just stay inside where his experience serves him best? Why the need to move him outside? He's a fine MLB.

Or I could answer it this way... Because both Hawk and Chillar would probably make better OLB's than Barnett, and Barnett definitely makes a better MLB than Hawk or Chillar. Moving Barnett outside takes Chillar out of the game, and I don't want to see that either.

I'd rather not see any new LB's at all, to be honest. I like the guys we have.

What if the USC LB is another Ray Lewis and is considerably better than Chillar?

Maybe, but he could be another whatshisname that Cincinatti drafted a while back (the one Bretsky was raving over). That's beside the point anyhow. It's another "don't fix what ain't broken" scenario. There's nothing wrong with our LB's. I like the guys we have.

Besides that, even if this kid is a Ray Lewis type, he won't be Ray Lewis experienced in his rookie year. He won't even be Nick Barnett experienced, which is the point I'm getting at. It's not what Barnett does personally from the MLB spot, it's what he does for the defense as a whole from the MLB spot. What I'm getting at isn't going to show up in a stat line, it's gonna show up in the W-L column. The points given up column. The # of 20+ yard plays given up column. There is no better example of what I'm talking about than the last 6 weeks of the 2008 season. I don't think a rookie would be able to fill that void better than Hawk did, and Hawk didn't do so hot himself. I want Barnett in the middle.

[HarveyWallbangers]

So, what you are basically saying is he wouldn't fill a need?

I don't believe you necessarily draft for need at the #9 pick. Sure, they probably won't take another QB or WR because they are set there, but I think all bets are off at any other position. I wouldn't say we are set at LB.

[Gunakor]

So, what you are basically saying is he wouldn't fill a need?

I don't believe you necessarily draft for need at the #9 pick. Sure, they probably won't take another QB or WR because they are set there, but I think all bets are off at any other position. I wouldn't say we are set at LB.

Yes and no. What I'm really saying is that I want Barnett to be our starting MLB next year. After that, yes, I am suggesting that we don't need another LB. But especially not one to replace Barnett at MLB.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think Barnett is versatile enough to play another LB spot. I'm not married to the idea of Barnett as the MLB. We also don't know how healthy he'll be next year. We also don't know what type of scheme we'll run. Barnett's size and speed matched up well with the Bates scheme for a MLB. Maybe not our new scheme.

[Lurker64]

What's the reason why Barnett couldn't play OLB?

The problem is not that Maualuga isn't a good player and Barnett can't play outside, like he played in college. The problem is that there are likely to be two linebackers in the draft who are both better than Maualuga (in the opinions of many people, including my own) and who fit the LB needs for the Packers more than Rey does. Aaron Curry is likely the best defensive player in the draft and is a natural Strong Side backer (but could play inside as well). Brandon Spikes is an absolute terror on the field, and can play both inside and out.

In my personal opinion, I'd rather take Curry and Spikes before Maualuga, and the prospect of taking the third LB on the board at #9 overall doesn't really appeal to me. Though, the new DC (whoever that is) will probably have a bit to say about which players best fit his planned scheme. Plus, LB isn't as much of a need for Green Bay as say four other positions on defense.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Curry will likely be gone. I know nothing about Spikes. Every time I see the USC LB, he looks like a beast.

[Lurker64]

Curry will likely be gone. I know nothing about Spikes. Every time I see the USC LB, he looks like a beast.

Hard to say at this point. He doesn't play a glamorous position, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Crabtree, Stafford, Jenkins, Smith, Bradford, Orakpo, and Oher go before Curry just because Sam backer isn't a particularly attractive posiiton. So Curry could easily be there at 8 and Jacksonville needs an OT much more than they need at linebackers.

But, it's January, and all of this is going to change. Invariably somebody who's currently viewed as a late teens early 20s pick is going to have a crazy combine and vault himself up to be drafted by the Raiders.

I suggest watching for Spikes during the BCS game on Thursday. IMO, he's more of a terror than Maualuga is.

[rbaloha1]

Potential offensive players taken before pick #9

Andre Smith
Michael Crabtree
Sam Bradford
Matthew Stafford
MarK Sanchez
Knowshon Moreno

This leaves a top defensive player available. IMO Mauluaga and Orakpo are too risky at #9. Curry is probably gone. Unsure about the Oklahoma dt.

Taylor Mays is justified at #9. Trading down could land Spikes or a highly rated left tackle.

[Bretsky]

If Curry, Mays, and Rey are gone, I think they'd have to look at trading down or drafting Oher or the other OTs. I'm not high enough yet on any of the DL or other LBs to take at #9. Of course, Thompson would be criticized for trading down again. Of course, it's early and I don't really know what I'm talking about.


ABSOLUTELY AGREE

Hold out for a 2nd from somebody looking to move up 5-8 picks. Not sure I'd take a third

[Bretsky]

Draft a star at #9 or trade down

I too think that USC LB could be a beast

[mngolf19]

Sanchez will be a late 1st early 2nd round pick. Not top 10

[Lurker64]

Sanchez will be a late 1st early 2nd round pick. Not top 10

Has he declared, or is he leaning towards declaring? Latest I heard is that he was probably going to stay. I think that would be wise, it's not as though he doesn't have a lot to work on in his game and a stellar senior career would make him a pile of filthy lucre, but I haven't heard much recently.

[Zool]

Potential offensive players taken before pick #9

Andre Smith
Michael Crabtree
Sam Bradford
Matthew Stafford
MarK Sanchez
Knowshon Moreno

This leaves a top defensive player available. IMO Mauluaga and Orakpo are too risky at #9. Curry is probably gone. Unsure about the Oklahoma dt.

Taylor Mays is justified at #9. Trading down could land Spikes or a highly rated left tackle.

Bradford redshirt one year? I guess I thought he was a true Soph.

[sheepshead]

Sanchez will be a late 1st early 2nd round pick. Not top 10

Good, we can trade down and get him!