ESPN INSIDER : Pack looking for takers

[packers11]

Green Bay Trade Pack looking for takers

<Apr. 10> Even though the Packers have had a passive offseason in terms of free-agent signings, don't be surprised to see them trade down in the first round. General manager Ted Thompson values gaining additional draft choices. At No. 16 in the first round, the Packers may not be in position to get halfback Marshawn Lynch, and the team has the luxury of drafting the best athlete. The Packers could trade down and still get a top receiver or maybe even tight end Greg Olsen.

[privatepacker]

If tt thinks a particular receiver is a real playmaker, then I understand going after them. I think the point is not to get a #3 WR, since Driver and Jennings are 1&2 w/ Robinson coming back , as much as I believe that TT is still building the team. The more choices he has the better chance of adding meaningful players. We could pick up Olsen but in 2 years will Kevin Boss be better? If we have Driver, Jennings, Robinson, Holiday, Martin do we really need a Bowe or would a Mike Walker from Central FL. be our next Jennings?

[MJZiggy]

I think the author of that piece is blowing smoke. It is based on what the author thinks TT might want to do based on what he's done in the past. There is no mention of a source of the information from within the Packers organization.

[wist43]

I don't think TT cares one wit about "filling holes"...

He'll take the BPA (in his opinion) regardless of position... if that player fits a need, then great, if not??, then tough.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see TT go OT/CB in rounds 1/2... won't do much to help the team now, but those will be needs in a year or two.

[run pMc]

Yeah, I think the author is just making that up because there's not a lot going on. Anyone on this forum could've posted that...just because ESPN posted it without a source doesn't give it much more credibiility.
Having said that, I'm not opposed to TT trading down 4-5 spots to pick up an extra first day pick.
I'm a little skeptical TT wil do a lot of trading this year though -- the depth at many positions still needs upgrading, but the lack of playmakers is glaring. Those playmakers usually come in the form of higher picks. The other thing: he's drafted a crapload of players the last 2 years, so GB is a young team. Young teams can grow into playoff teams, but they might kill the HC's career first. I hope TT knows the team still needs some veteran leaders...Hendo will be a big loss in that department.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

If TT is looking to add a WR early then we should trade down. You can find a good WR at the end of round one, and then add another first day pick.

[CaliforniaCheez]

Last year ESPN "Insider" said a trade of Brett Favre to the Raiders was likely and made a lot of sense. They did not bother to look and see that Oakland had a very bad cap situation and could not afford it.

Ted has not traded a first round pick. I think he wants high quality before trading down but anything can happen. I don't think there is a player that so enthralls Ted that he has one targeted.

For a guy who spends a lot of time looking at the draft there is no one player I really want to target. I will wait to see what happens.

Ted has many options.

[Brando19]

I still believe we'll end up picking Lynch.

[mmmdk]

If tt thinks a particular receiver is a real playmaker, then I understand going after them. I think the point is not to get a #3 WR, since Driver and Jennings are 1&2 w/ Robinson coming back , as much as I believe that TT is still building the team. The more choices he has the better chance of adding meaningful players. We could pick up Olsen but in 2 years will Kevin Boss be better? If we have Driver, Jennings, Robinson, Holiday, Martin do we really need a Bowe or would a Mike Walker from Central FL. be our next Jennings?

This is getting old yet TT's 2005 had him drafting 11 guys; still it's barely a grade D draft. 2006 is a solid B+ with 12 guys being drafted with numerous good picks - 2005 is basicly an average starter at best in Collins, an overachiever in Popps and wild card QB Rodgers - the rest is either gone or camp bodies at best.. The point is that just because you draft a bunch doesn't mean you'll strike gold. TT gotta get players and playmakers with, be it, 5-6-7-8-9 or 10 picks. Just get'em with any number of picks available.

[Spaulding]

I'd love to see TT trade down but the draft seems drop off sharply after #5 (where CJ, Thomas, Russel, Quinn, Peterson would the top five) and after that it's like most drafts in that picks 6 - 15 could be surprising.

Given I'm not enamored with Lynch and although I like Nelson I quietly hope that TT figures Underwood will already push Manual so that drafting a safety so high isn't needed. I also am not a huge fan of Ginn Jr. but given his ability to change games in the return department I wouldn't mind him being taken in 20's in the first round but not at #16 where we stand. Same goes for Rice/Bowe/Meacham.

Stockpile picks and give the darts hitting the wall a better chance for the bullseye unless a must have player is available at #16 (like Hawk was last year).

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I still believe we'll end up picking Lynch.

Lynch won't be there at 16, and if he is I still think we pass on him

[Brando19]

I still believe we'll end up picking Lynch.

Lynch won't be there at 16, and if he is I still think we pass on him

He'll be there.

[Merlin]

Pass on Lynch. Either get AP or call it a day and trade for more picks. There isn't another great player that can make a difference for us right away in the top 16. Quinn would be a nice pick up for the future but I don't see TT doing that if he is sold on Rodgers.

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is getting old yet TT's 2005 had him drafting 11 guys; still it's barely a grade D draft. 2006 is a solid B+ with 12 guys being drafted with numerous good picks

IT's too early to grade, but 2006 could be better than B+ and 2005 could turn out to be good--depending on how Rodgers does. Thompson was hurt by his second round pick, Murphy, getting an unfortunate injury. In two years, Rodgers, Collins, Poppinga, and Underwood could all be solid starters (they all show some promise). Possibly Coston too, but that would be a real longshot. Murphy likely would have been. If that's the case, then it's much better than a D grade. Too early to tell.

[LL2]

If tt thinks a particular receiver is a real playmaker, then I understand going after them. I think the point is not to get a #3 WR, since Driver and Jennings are 1&2 w/ Robinson coming back , as much as I believe that TT is still building the team. The more choices he has the better chance of adding meaningful players. We could pick up Olsen but in 2 years will Kevin Boss be better? If we have Driver, Jennings, Robinson, Holiday, Martin do we really need a Bowe or would a Mike Walker from Central FL. be our next Jennings?

The point is that just because you draft a bunch doesn't mean you'll strike gold. TT gotta get players and playmakers with, be it, 5-6-7-8-9 or 10 picks. Just get'em with any number of picks available.

I totally agree. TT likes to stock pile picks and draft a bunch of players but that doesn’t translate into a better team. Having a bunch of camp bodies and backup players doesn’t make a great team. Drafting 2-3 potential star players that will be playmakers does. Let’s get them with the picks we have. We need a homerun or two in this draft and a couple players from the past two draft to become playmakers.

[swede]

Well, that is why they hung on to their first pick last year, You have a good shot at an impact player at #5.

This year the talent seems to be a little jammed up at pick #16. I would not be disappointed to hear that the pick had been traded down 4-6 spots in order to pick up an extra choice.

Edit: How much would a team expect in return for dropping from 16 to 22? An extra third?

[Fritz]

I read an excellent article a couple of years ago on the science of trading up vs. stockpiling picks. A university - I am sorry to report I don't have the source - did a study and found that trading up rarely works, and stastically the more picks you have the better your chances of "hitting" on players. I am sorry I don't have the source, but saw it in a Detroit paper a couple years ago.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I read an excellent article a couple of years ago on the science of trading up vs. stockpiling picks. A university - I am sorry to report I don't have the source - did a study and found that trading up rarely works, and stastically the more picks you have the better your chances of "hitting" on players. I am sorry I don't have the source, but saw it in a Detroit paper a couple years ago.

I definitely can buy that. It's all a crap shoot. Trading up might increase your chance of hitting on a player at that pick, but I don't think it increases it that much. Whereas having 8 or 9 picks--instead of 5 or 6--would seem to almost double your chances.

[Guiness]

I don't see it being likely that TT trades down from 16 - for the reason stated that he'd want to. The same as we don't see a talent drop off by going down a few picks, why would other teams see value in moving up 6-10 slots?

I think the teams immediately below us will likely be happy to stay where they are and take what comes to them as well.