Trade Up For Peterson?!?

[Partial]

If I had a choice of trading up to the top 10 at the price of our 1st rounder I'd say no. This is a deep draft and we need depth more than playmakers, IMO.

It'd be swap firsts and give a second this year, or swap firsts and give a first next year.

[Partial]

Personally, I would sit there for Dwayne Bowe. I would add him in the first if Okoye isn't available. I'd add a TE in the second if Olson from Miami or the ASU guy is available. I'd look to add another running back later on in the draft, and try and get a safety later on as well.

[billy_oliver880]

Wasn't Cedric Benson the next Walter Payton for da Bears? Look at the huge accomplishments he has had with the bears. I don't think we need someone like him that bad.

[Charles Woodson]

I dont know, id rather wait for reggie nelson than trade up for AP.

Only way id want us to trade up is if we do this


Give up pick 16, KGB and fergy

for


pick 8th

then in the
and our draft look like

1. Adrian Peterson
2. Greg Olson
3. Brandon Merriweather

[wist43]

There is the school of thought that says the Packers are young across the board (cept QB), and that at some point they have to target "blue blood" type talent.

However, despite being young virtually across the board, there are plenty of holes to fill, and anticipated holes to fill, that I think staying put makes more sense.

It's not as if trading up for the one special player will put them over the top...

1) They're not even close to being a true contender;

and,

2) They're more likely to take a major step back when Favre retires, than they are to take a major step forward - hence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that they'll be drafting in the top 10 again - probably immediately after Favre retires.

At that point, their greatest need will be QB...

Other long term considerations - Green isn't getting any younger; Clifton's knee's will eventually fail; Harris, when he does hit the wall, will probably become completely useless b/c he simply doesn't have a step to spare; they have no TE; they're OK along the DL, but there's nobody special; and, it isn't as if the WR position is stacked...

Stay put, take the best player available, keep drafting QB's in the hopes of hitting on one... and go from there.

[Brando19]

There is the school of thought that says the Packers are young across the board (cept QB), and that at some point they have to target "blue blood" type talent.

However, despite being young virtually across the board, there are plenty of holes to fill, and anticipated holes to fill, that I think staying put makes more sense.

It's not as if trading up for the one special player will put them over the top...

1) They're not even close to being a true contender;

and,

2) They're more likely to take a major step back when Favre retires, than they are to take a major step forward - hence, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect that they'll be drafting in the top 10 again - probably immediately after Favre retires.

At that point, their greatest need will be QB...

Other long term considerations - Green isn't getting any younger; Clifton's knee's will eventually fail; Harris, when he does hit the wall, will probably become completely useless b/c he simply doesn't have a step to spare; they have no TE; they're OK along the DL, but there's nobody special; and, it isn't as if the WR position is stacked...

Stay put, take the best player available, keep drafting QB's in the hopes of hitting on one... and go from there.

I don't agree with everything you just said...however...I'll throw in something they need to work on...SPECIAL TEAMS!

[Partial]

Wist hit it on the head. No sense in throwing away a second for an injury risk, when there is plenty of talent at the positions that would really help the Pack. Safety is DEEP this year. Very, very deep. You guys are nuts thinking Merriweather will be there in the 3rd ( he probably won't be there when we pick in the second ) , but there is some definite talent available in round 2-3 for safety. Same can be said for receiver. Tons and tons of receiving talent in this draft.

[LL2]

Come on guys! You know TT will never do this. The guy is too injury prone to do it anyways. There will be 100 more rumors between now and the draft.

[Partial]

Come on guys! You know TT will never do this. The guy is too injury prone to do it anyways. There will be 100 more rumors between now and the draft.

Gary said it was from a source inside lambeau that he considered extremely accurate and trustworthy.

[PackerPro42]

I highly doubt that the Packers would trade up to get a RB like Peterson when he doesn't fit the system and is injury prone. If they're going to get a RB in the first I would rather see Lynch.

[Partial]

I highly doubt that the Packers would trade up to get a RB like Peterson when he doesn't fit the system and is injury prone. If they're going to get a RB in the first I would rather see Lynch.

Doesn't fit there system??!?!?????

He is extremely fast and powerful with amazing agility and vision. How does that not fit the system.

I would MUCH rather have Peterson than the rapist. Much, much, much, much more. But, I wouldn't want Peterson more if it required giving up the farm. As a matter of fact, I don't really want either of them.

[Joemailman]

The most important qualities for a running back in a ZBS are vision and cutback ability. Certainly Peterson has those abilities, but I just don't see TT making the move to get him. Nor would I want him to. It will be inyeresting to see what happens with Lynch in the draft if sexual assault are still hanging over him come draft day.

[superfan]

Not every team follows the much referenced "trade value chart", but for now let's look at the chart to get an idea of trade values.

#8 overall = 1400 pts.
#16 overall = 1000 pts.
#48 overall = 420 pts.

From a trade value perspective, GB trading its first and second round picks for #8 is a pretty fair trade.

However, I would prefer to get best player available at #1 and #2 over Peterson. Assuming Ahman is resigned, RB doesn't appear to be a great need and I would prefer to plug two other holes.

The chart can be found near the bottom of this article:

http://www.nfl.com/draft/story/6330687

[Partial]

I would also like to see them not make the deal. I think Green, Morency and a rookie back will be good enough to get the job done.

There are oodles of wideouts, safeties and ends this year. If only it was deep in tight end it'd be a draft catered to the Packers!!

Receiver, Tight End, Safety, OT/RB, OT/RB. Those should be the first 5 rounds right there unless a player drops to them that is quite talented.

[motife]

Re: Trade Up For Peterson?!?

Rumor has it Packers are in love with Peterson and are going to trade up to #8 to get him. WSSP was talking about it all day Friday afternoon.

How would you feel about this?

It would probably be like trading up for Cedric Benson. btw. Ahman Green had more yards than Cadillac Williams this year.

Drafting RB's in the top 10 has rarely paid off.