Packers trade scenario

[CaptainKickass]

With all the talk regrading trading for WR's etc I wanted to get some feedback from the rest of you regarding what I see as a unique position for the Pack to be in.

Just look at the position we are in with a mutitude of young players at several positions other than OL and WR. If I recall, the Pack has some 90+ players right now. The highest in the leauge I believe. We are in a tremendous position to trade player(s) for depth to other teams for positions of need before the mandatory roster reductions begin, rather than just simply releasing those who don't make it past the reduction.

I don't see TT giving up draft picks, but I could certainly see him trading multiple players to bolster depth at perhaps several positions to a team for a player of specific need - ie: OL/WR. Wether or not TT can make that happen remains to be seen but it is a very interesting scenario to say the least.

Considering the quantity of players - which positions on the GB roster are the deepest?

What teams have a player that we could use, but a lack of depth where we have abundance?

[Bretsky]

We ran over this idea a while back; I really don't think we are loaded with depth of quality players at any position on our roster. We have a bunch of role players on the DL we could sacrifice. Our OL depth is slim. WR's slim. RB's slim. LB's behind the top 4 slim. Safetie depth slim. Depth behind top 3 CB's slim. I see nothing.

I'm not saying we are going to be that bad; but we have little that would interest another team w/o hurting ourselves.

MAYBE a team would take a flyer on a DL that wouldn't hurt us, but in reality teams won't give up much for the likes of Kenny Pederson or Corey Williams.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Considering the quantity of players - which positions on the GB roster are the deepest?

We really don't have that many guys with a lot of trade value or enough depth to fill the spot if we trade the guy. Our best tradeable players are Donald Driver (nobody to replace him), Chad Clifton and Mark Tauscher (nobody to replace them), Aaron Kampman (nobody to replace him), Nick Barnett and A.J. Hawk (wouldn't want to trade them), Charles Woodson and Al Harris (nobody to replace them), Nick Collins (wouldn't want to trade him). Bubba Franks might be tradeable, but I don't think he has a ton of a value, and we can't rely on David Martin. If you are looking for a smaller deal we have depth at DT. We could deal one of our DTs for a young prospect on the OL.


What teams have a player that we could use, but a lack of depth where we have abundance?

Denver has some depth on the OL (Chris Kuper, Greg Eslinger, Dwayne Carswell, etc.) and they could use a DT. Maybe a Corey Williams for a Kuper or Eslinger.

[Bretsky]

I STILL can't believe we didn't draft Greg Eslinger

[woodbuck27]

We ran over this idea a while back; I really don't think we are loaded with depth of quality players at any position on our roster. We have a bunch of role players on the DL we could sacrifice. Our OL depth is slim. WR's slim. RB's slim. LB's behind the top 4 slim. Safetie depth slim. Depth behind top 3 CB's slim. I see nothing.

I'm not saying we are going to be that bad; but we have little that would interest another team w/o hurting ourselves.

MAYBE a team would take a flyer on a DL that wouldn't hurt us, but in reality teams won't give up much for the likes of Kenny Pederson or Corey Williams.

We need more meat and potato's Bretsky.

Did you see my post in Romper room ole chap ? Took a little shot of satire your way. Hope you enjoy it. :mrgreen:

[CaliforniaCheez]

Teams are not going to give up talent at this point.

I just don't see them finding better than Boerigter, Gardner, and Ferguson.

With Jennings and Driver there and Favre throwing I think the passing game will be okay.

The problem as Brett identified is that there is a lack of experience on this young talented team. The only way to gain is experience is by playing.

The Packers will be getting better as the season progresses.

[CaptainKickass]

Obviously - we aren't gonna trade the namesake guys. And I am not insinuating that we do anything of that nature.

What I am saying is that some (almost half) of these guys will be cut. Nobody's gonna be looking for any of those guys to be a starter, but who's thin where we are heavy? C'mon - 90 players now, minus 53 = 37.

There's gonna be 37 players with us now who won't be with us at the start of the season. They are all young.

Who do you think they are and what team might need some of them?
Think about who might be able to use 2, 3 or 4 guys?

[run pMc]

I agree w/ Bretsky...we really don't have very good depth.
Years of making the playoffs have led to other teams raiding our depth chart. Whether you choose to blame Sherman for not restocking is up to you.

Smart coaching and adequate depth (at least some talent in the bottom third of the roster) go a long way towards making the playoffs (IMHO).

Every team has lots of would-be players in camp right now. Barring injuries, I don't think you'll see many trades for marginal players -- most teams will wait for the roster cuts between preseason games.

[Homer Jay]

We may have 37 extra players right now, but, most of them are nothing more than camp bodies. I can't see any team trading for someone who will be cut fairly soon anyway. I don't think the Packers are deep enough at any position to trade quantity for quality.

[woodbuck27]

Yes we have 37 players over the 53-man roster but all teams have that group of players that will be cut and they sorta form a pool that we wil study and throughout the NFL teams it's fist come maybe first served.

Essentially because of that, and (the lack of TRUE depth) we'll have, after T2 selects his Roster. Those extra players slated to be cut, are presently virtually useless in a trade scenario.

[ND72]

I'm going to tell you one guy I think we will trade, not for anything spectacular, but I think he won't make the team, and Thompson is smart enough to know to trade him rather than release him.

Samkon Gado...

I know i'll take some heat, but both practices i've seen, he's easily the 3rd best running back, not counting Ahman Green. If I had a depth Chart, i'd have Green, Davenport, Herron, Gado right now. But that's me.

[MJZiggy]

I can't see him getting rid of Sam. 1. Coach is kinda high on him and says he's improving every day, 2. He's kind of a fan fave and TT would take a lot of heat for trading him especially if he turns into something great, and 3. With the commitment to the run that the coaches are talking about, they may keep an extra back in there. It will be very interesting to see how the 53-man is structured.

[ND72]

so we'll keep a guy cause the fans like him...glad we're trying to win.

[Badgepack]

I'd be more inclined to say we keep him because of all the running backs coming off of injuries, the fact he did a hell of a job last year, Gado's young enough, and doesn't cost much.

[MJZiggy]

That was one reason of 3. You missed the part about his steady improvement and coach really liking what he sees, not to mention the probable extra spot on the squad. We will field the best men and he will be one of them.

[woodbuck27]

I'm going to tell you one guy I think we will trade, not for anything spectacular, but I think he won't make the team, and Thompson is smart enough to know to trade him rather than release him.

Samkon Gado...

I know i'll take some heat, but both practices i've seen, he's easily the 3rd best running back, not counting Ahman Green. If I had a depth Chart, i'd have Green, Davenport, Herron, Gado right now. But that's me.

From what I'm reading I have to say your sense of things at RB certainly has credibility.

I also hold for what MJZiggy just posted, as well. Samkon was the BEST Story - the Packers had in 2005. If your T2 you don't offer Gado. You certainly might consider trading him if overall you see a step forward for the team.

Having expressed that. Samkon Gado is yet being field tested, and we don't know for sure, what he will bring to OUR future? All teams have RB's in that same situation.

Unproven assets - seems a contradiction, but the intrigue outweighs an early exit, when that move could haunt your future.

I believe T2 will keep Samkon Gado unless another team comes knockin'. T2 is a very careful man.

[the_idle_threat]

Maybe we just trade quantity for quality. Say ... the bottom 40 guys on the roster in exchange for Cadillac Williams?

[woodbuck27]

Maybe we just trade quantity for quality. Say ... the bottom 40 guys on the roster in exchange for Cadillac Williams?

:lol:

The Buc's would likely lose that one. To simply, emphasize his potential to them.

[CaptainKickass]

Maybe we just trade quantity for quality. Say ... the bottom 40 guys on the roster in exchange for Cadillac Williams?

That's kind of the idea. We're never gonna get that kind of trade - but maybe we trade 2 or 3 guys for a young talented unknown offensive lineman? Maybe TT and the scouts have someone on their "radar"

[woodbuck27]

Maybe we just trade quantity for quality. Say ... the bottom 40 guys on the roster in exchange for Cadillac Williams?

That's kind of the idea. We're never gonna get that kind of trade - but maybe we trade 2 or 3 guys for a young talented unknown offensive lineman? Maybe TT and the scouts have someone on their "radar"

I am sure that OUR scouting Dept. is nose to the grindstone every day now to make any move to upgrade us where we are weakest.

OL/RB/WR :idea:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Captain,

I don't get your point about the roster size. Every team has a bunch of players on their roster. We got a couple more than most teams because we had more NFLE players on our roster, and for every NFLE player you have you get to carry an extra roster spot (it's an incentive to get more teams to send players to NFLE). It's not like these bottom 50 are even tradeable. NOBODY would trade for the bottom 50 guys on our roster.

Sure, we could work a trade, but it wouldn't be because we have 90 players while other teams have 85-89 players.

[Bretsky]

We ran over this idea a while back; I really don't think we are loaded with depth of quality players at any position on our roster. We have a bunch of role players on the DL we could sacrifice. Our OL depth is slim. WR's slim. RB's slim. LB's behind the top 4 slim. Safetie depth slim. Depth behind top 3 CB's slim. I see nothing.

I'm not saying we are going to be that bad; but we have little that would interest another team w/o hurting ourselves.

MAYBE a team would take a flyer on a DL that wouldn't hurt us, but in reality teams won't give up much for the likes of Kenny Pederson or Corey Williams.

We need more meat and potato's Bretsky.

Did you see my post in Romper room ole chap ? Took a little shot of satire your way. Hope you enjoy it. :mrgreen:

YES, Woody, that had me LMAO. Thanks for the Bar Time Tribute.

Cheers,
B

[Bretsky]

IF Abdul Hodge looks like a monster and GB is comfortorable with him, Nick Barnett could be traded and bring back some real value. But I don't see it happening for a while and probably never.

Bottom line is the guys GB cut are marginal NFL players; heck we'll have enough marginal guys that make our roster. I'd be surprised to get anything more than another guys future cut (like Robert Thomas) for anybody we don't want.

[woodbuck27]

We ran over this idea a while back; I really don't think we are loaded with depth of quality players at any position on our roster. We have a bunch of role players on the DL we could sacrifice. Our OL depth is slim. WR's slim. RB's slim. LB's behind the top 4 slim. Safetie depth slim. Depth behind top 3 CB's slim. I see nothing.

I'm not saying we are going to be that bad; but we have little that would interest another team w/o hurting ourselves.

MAYBE a team would take a flyer on a DL that wouldn't hurt us, but in reality teams won't give up much for the likes of Kenny Pederson or Corey Williams.

We need more meat and potato's Bretsky.

Did you see my post in Romper room ole chap ? Took a little shot of satire your way. Hope you enjoy it. :mrgreen:

YES, Woody, that had me LMAO. Thanks for the Bar Time Tribute.

Cheers,
B

Isn't that the way it could be though. . .yaaa gotta be sensable. :mrgreen:

NOT all the time.

[CaptainKickass]

I guess my point Harvey is that with so many guys we are likely to "let one slip through the cracks" at the time of roster reduction. (Like how we acquired Gado)

I wanted to see if any of you had someone (or anyone) you really liked in college that is on the team now - but isn't likely to make the roster because of the projected starters.

Additionally - with that many guys being on the roster being so rare - how would you (or any GM) take full advantage of it?

[CaptainKickass]

Also - I haven't had time to look but I was under the impression that we had like a good 20-25 more than most other teams.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, I tried. The best I could come up with is one of our DTs for one of Denver's OL. They need DL help. They have good OL that play the zone blocking scheme.

The biggest disappointment of the offseason for me was Thompson passing on Greg Eslinger three times to draft Tony Friggin' Moll, Johnny Jolly, and Tyrone Culver. He also passed on Chris Kuper to draft Ingle Martin. Right now, both of those guys would look great on our OL. Denver (a zone blocking team) ended up drafting both of those guys.

[CaptainKickass]

That's the kind of speculation I'm looking for Harv.

Anyone else?

[Lare]

I always wondered what the benefit was of keeping 30 guys on your roster through training camp that really have no chance of making the team.

Every coach and player I've ever heard has mentioned about the importance of getting as many "reps" as possible. Well that seems pretty hard when you give some of those precious reps in each practice to players who'll be gone in a few weeks.

Sure guys need a breather, we have to plan for injuries and practice squad players may eventually make the official roster at some point. But you can't tell me the coaches can't already identify 10-15 players who have no real chance of making the club. I say ship them out already and let the real players get additional practice time.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, not many players would make it through camp if they didn't have the extra bodies. It's good to get a look at guys to see if there are some nobodies (e.g. Samkon Gado) out there that could help your team or replace any injured guys.

[CaptainKickass]

This from JSonline:

"Given injuries and other variables, Thompson was skeptical that any team could have six defensive tackles worth retaining by the end of August. If that proves to be the case in Green Bay, Thompson indicated that a trade made sense."

[ahaha]

I think a trade is very plausable. What Thompson needs to find, is a team that's deep at offensive tackle and thin at DT or Safety. Let's say a team has 5 tackles they want to keep, and only 4 spots. We could trade a guy like Corey Williams for a solid back-up at OT. Or maybe that team is thin at the safety position. If the Pack feels comfortable with Tyrone Culver and Tra Boger(both seem to be doing all right), they might deal Underwood(who has impressed in camp) for that quality back-up tackle.

[Creepy]

Everybody is waiting for the cuts. Nobody is going to trade for anything less than a back-up i.e., 3d back or OL. GB has some depth at DL, and teams will watch the pre-season games to see if any will produce and possibly be picked up after week 3 or 4. The first round of cuts is camp fodder. ST players, RBs, DBs, and WRs that are not making it.

The 2d round cuts are when teams may release a player you want as a back-up or for future project. Not many taken due to having to cut additional players from your team.

The final cuts is where it gets interesting, players on the hot seat in GB could be there like Ferguson, Davenport, Herron, or DL like Petersen or Jenkins or even Allen. DBs that have played ok but need work will be cut maybe a Horton or Hawkins. GB will be watching the waiver wire to see if any of those OL from Denver get cut. Somebody stated they picked up what he considered two decent OL in the draft. That means there are some Bronco OL coming available before the final cut. GB may pick one or two up to get more depth.

Right now though, nobody is going to cut anybody big, and most teams are not trading for somebody’s back-up when there is a good chance they may get cut anyway. See who loses a starting player and then you might get some trades as teams can't wait for the chance of picking a player up off waivers.

Remember, GB is in a good position when it comes to the waiver wire. Like the draft there is a picking order. Good teams get the last chance on a waived player, while GB will be in the same position as the draft. That means GB could pick up a few good players off waivers in the final week of the pre-season.

IMO I am more interested in what comes available than what we may give up.