I'd trade down

[TW]

This is an interesting article on trading picks. I totally agree with it. Since there's so much potential to whiff on one of the early picks, why not add a little potential to your choices down the line? I've never believed that having that top pick was the best spot to be, to be honest, unless it's your intent to trade it away to really improve your team. You could add two, three, maybe even four players to your roster that could provide nearly instant help.

The idea that they put together these great draft boards is ridiculous. They whiff as much as they hit. Like they said, in the articles, the Patriots have followed this theory and if you think it doesn't work, look what they've done over the years.

Trading Down means building up

 

[GBP4EVER]

I said yesterday if all things go wrong for GB and you would see all the expected guys go along with guys like Oliver, Bush, Taylor off the board I would strongly consider a 3-5 spot trade down if possible. I would feel at that point the talent of players at 12 would be equal to what you could get moving down 3-5 spots. Though I would not want to move down past 3-5 spots unless the team got a trade offer so insane they could not pass it up. Though that being said if a player like Oliver, Bush or Taylor is there at 12 I am standing pat and taking them.

As for trading back from 30 you are not going to get anything more then a 4th round pick back if you slide back a few spots into the second round. You would have to be willing to drop way back into the second round to get more then a early 4th which I would have zero interest in doing. I would not even have interest in moving back from 30 to early second just for a 4th rounder. I would rather have that 5th year option on a player over a 3rd day pick. Packers already have 10 picks this year and really don't need more.

 

[Cheesedog]

You have to have someone willing to trade up. And if there is a player someone else is willing to trade up for why aren't you taking them at 12? GB needs help everywhere.

 

[57packer]

I'm always in favor of trading down if there isn't value at the spot for your team. Especially so if you have a number of guys equally ranked and can get similar value a few spots later. I'm not generally in favor of a massive drop because that means a drop in the quality of the player . . . unless you get blown away by what's being offered.

Mostly agree with GBP above. If Oliver, the two ILBs. and the top few pass rushers are gone I'm moving down if I can. I'm not enough in love with any of the OTs or TEs to take one at 12 because I think you can get similar talent down a little lower and probably even at #30.

A 5 spot drop from #12 will net you a third and those are high value picks. Agree that moving down from #30 is less attractive unless you again don't have great value or you have a bunch of similar value guys still on your board. If the Giants or Broncos for example want to move up to grab a QB at the end of Rd 1 and Gute still has a pair of safeties he likes, several OL, and a couple of TEs, he may want to take that 4th and still grab a guy he likes a little later.

Even though a 4th isn't all that valuable by itself, it does make trade ammo, Package that extra 4th with your 3rd and you can move into the back end of Rd 2.

 

[57packer]

You have to have someone willing to trade up. And if there is a player someone else is willing to trade up for why aren't you taking them at 12? GB needs help everywhere.

This is true. Sometimes you just don't have a partner so you take what you can get.

I agree this team needs help, which is why you don't make the deal if you have great value at the spot you are at.

As for why dump #12 when another team wants the player they can get there. It's the draft and no two boards are the same. One team's trash is another's treasure. If the Giants at #17, for example, want to jump above the Skins and Fins for a QB it's because they value a QB at that spot and the Packers don't have a player there that they really love.

 

[realitybytes]

last year, we traded down (and then back up) a net of four slots. the result was that we missed out on probably the best safety prospect in years by a single pick. if you could do it over, would you have stayed at #14 and selected derwin james, or would you still trade down? quality or quantity?

 

[Cheesedog]

last year, we traded down (and then back up) a net of four slots. the result was that we missed out on probably the best safety prospect in years by a single pick. if you could do it over, would you have stayed at #14 and selected derwin james, or would you still trade down? quality or quantity?

I would have stayed and got James. Who did they get with those other picks?

 

[realitybytes]

I would have stayed and got James. Who did they get with those other picks?

it's still an open book because we have the #30 pick this year, but we ended up with a lot of picks on the bottom of the draft. it's one reason that i do not have a lot of confidence in gute's drafting prowess. if we look at the first four rounds of last year's draft, only jaire alexander provided us with any return at all. round 2 - josh jackson - provided very little. he had ten starts, but i remember hearing a lot of complaints about the quality of his play. round 3 - oren burks - had four starts and did very little. round 4 - j'mon moore - played in 12 games and had two receptions for 15 yards.

i sure hope gute does a better job with the six picks we have in the first four rounds this year.

 

[GBP4EVER]

last year, we traded down (and then back up) a net of four slots. the result was that we missed out on probably the best safety prospect in years by a single pick. if you could do it over, would you have stayed at #14 and selected derwin james, or would you still trade down? quality or quantity?

Yes should have stayed put for James but Alexander not a bad player. Also if there is no James at 12 why not trade down is taking the 8th or 9th best defensive player on the board better then the 11th or 12th if you move down 3-4 spots? IMO after the first 3-4 defensive players (Bosa, Williams, Allen, White) you start going down into that 2nd tier group. Out of that second tier group likely the best is Oliver and Bush if they are gone by 12 I see not much difference in the guy you could get at 12 over the guy you get at 16.

 

[Scoremore12]

last year, we traded down (and then back up) a net of four slots. the result was that we missed out on probably the best safety prospect in years by a single pick. if you could do it over, would you have stayed at #14 and selected derwin james, or would you still trade down? quality or quantity?

I take Alexander and this 1st round pick over James. Alexander is a good cb and we have the chance to get another good player, so 2 good players over 1 James is an easy call.