Packers Should Consider Trading Up in the 2012 NFL Draft: Fan's Take

[woodbuck27]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/664983-nfl-draft-2011-ted-thompson-and-his-impact-on-the-green-bay-packers#/articles/1126462-green-bay-packers-should-consider-trading-up-in-the-2012-nfl-draft-fans-take

Green Bay Packers Should Consider Trading Up in the 2012 NFL Draft: Fan's Take

March 30,2012

[HarveyWallbangers]

Without actually reading this fan's post, these Fan's Take articles are usually awful. I don't even bother reading them anymore.

[Brandon494]

Can we just make a thread for woodbuck to post all these links? I mean come on man.

[woodbuck27]

The Packers were rewarded with four compensatory picks. Picks 132, 133, 241 and 243 and own 12 picks with three fourth-round picks and four seventh-round picks.

The compensatory picks can't be traded. The Packers have eight picks that are trade-eligible.

The Packers are coming off a season with a defense that surrendered more passing yardage than any unit in NFL history.

If Ted Thompson is true to nature he's a solid bet to trade up; if a player he covets is available to fit a 3-4 defense and in his mind, alleviate it's pass rush woe's. He may well make that move.

TT may also want to add depth on the Packers OL with a more quality pick by trading up. Maybe he will need a quality player at FS and the trade up works for him?

[woodbuck27]

Can we just make a thread for woodbuck to post all these links? I mean come on man.

I'm posting more than ' LINK's '.

Can you 'please' post a little less whining about my efforts here. Try to be more open minded and get off the 'picky attitude'. That negativity does nothing for the threads.

I know you can turn it around. I'd really appreciate that. Thank You Brandon494 .

[woodbuck27]

Without actually reading this fan's post, these Fan's Take articles are usually awful. I don't even bother reading them anymore.

With respect to you opinion Harvey and in any case..... ' this fan' expresses his point this way:

" Quantity is important in the draft because it's largely a crapshoot. The more picks a team has, the more opportunities they have of finding quality players who are coachable. With that said, I think the Packers are at a point where they can sacrifice some that "Quantity" with a chance at getting their defense some "Quality" in the upper echelons of the draft." that Fan

Comment woodbuck27:

I agree that 'that Fan' makes a valid point.

[Zool]

i stopped bothering to pay attention at the 2nd page where Finley was a 6th round pick in 2008. At least check facts?

[woodbuck27]

Without actually reading this fan's post, these Fan's Take articles are usually awful. I don't even bother reading them anymore.

Harvey:

This fans article is solid.

It's well researched, informative and relevant to our teams current situation RE: defensive woe's. The article is fair to the Green Bay Packers in terms of it's objectivity. I'm not going to imply that this writer has published perfection; yet he has a solid position in regards to the merits of TT trading up in this draft.

He's obviously a loyal Packer fan and therefore adding credibility to this submission.

Maybe 'this one time', you might reconsider your penchant for NOT reading ' FAN Take ' Articles.

This submission is good.

[woodbuck27]

Ohh Zool lovely to see you. Thanks for visiting.

Have a nice day.

[Zool]

Ohh Zool lovely to see you. Thanks for visiting.

Have a nice day.

Thanks posty posterson

[HarveyWallbangers]

Harvey:

This fans article is solid.

It's well researched, informative and relevant to our teams current situation RE: defensive woe's. The article is fair to the Green Bay Packers in terms of it's objectivity. I'm not going to imply that this writer has published perfection; yet he has a solid position in regards to the merits of TT trading up in this draft.

He's obviously a loyal Packer fan and therefore adding credibility to this submission.

Maybe 'this one time', you might reconsider your penchant for NOT reading ' FAN Take ' Articles.

This submission is good.

I won't waste my time. I'll read Packer Rats to get the opinion of fans that I trust. I have a history with people here, so I know whether the person has a clue or not.

[Freak Out]

Time for a nap Woody.

[pittstang5]

I'll bite even though I didn't read the article, but since TT does have alot of Ammo this year and problems to fix, I like the idea of trading up. However, I'm thinking in the middle rounds. Seems in order to move up in the first round, as it should be, costs too much.

[Brandon494]

I'm posting more than ' LINK's '.

Can you 'please' post a little less whining about my efforts here. Try to be more open minded and get off the 'picky attitude'. That negativity does nothing for the threads.

I know you can turn it around. I'd really appreciate that. Thank You Brandon494 .

No because Im not the only one tired of your links cluttering the board. Try being more considerate and less stubborn, I know you can do it. I'd really appreciate that. Thank You Woodbuck! Good Night Canada!

[Guiness]

I didn't read that stupid story the first time around, but saw the number of responses and decided to RTFA. Woe to me for doing so, that site is good at creating neat headlines and putting a lot of flash enabled garbage behind it, and nothing more. They're kings at turning 300 word essays into 20 page slideshows!

I do agree with one thing...I'm not sure how the hell the Pack could fit anywhere near 12 new bodies on the roster! Last year 10 were drafted, one was cut, one traded and one IR'd - seven made the squad.

The link in the OP led to an article from last year - the actual link is http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ycn-11174740