Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Most Dangerous Division in Sports

With the 10th Pick (Insert Team Name Here) Selects...

Disclaimer:  If the validity of this post depends on the likelihood that the Packers, exclusively, will trade two first round picks to move the the number 10 pick, than this post should be considered a failure and you'll find the premise dumb.

But if you're like me and generally interested in the events and happenings preceding the NFL draft:

Washington, according to John McClain of the Houston Chronicle:

I don't know what they have to offer, but I hear the Redskins are trying like crazy to trade up to get one of the quarterbacks, Blaine Gabbert, I imagine. Some mocks have them taking quarterback Jake Locker if they stay at 10. What a reach that would be, but Mike Shanahan loves mobile quarterbacks who can throw on the run.

Check in with Hog Haven for Parks Smith's write up.

Earlier this week word spread that the Redskins were interested in trading out of the number 10 spot, possibly looking to add picks in rounds 2-4.  Again at Hog Haven, Steveo26 discusses how he see's the Redskins trading out of the first round.

We've discussed the talent surplus the Packers will face with couple drafts worth of players returning from injury and 8 projected draftees.  One thing the Packers might choose to do is to trade up higher into the first round to acquire an elite athlete.  When the Packers last traded in the first round, we hit gold (literally) drafting Clay Matthews III and his flowing locks.  And if you remember correctly, the Patriots went to the media with their desire to trade down and the Packers responded quickly.  The Redskins seem to be going to the media with their desire to trade down, so the 10th pick of the draft is attainable for the right price, and there should be some pretty exciting prospects left on the board that the Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round will have access to if the Redskins decide to trade down.

Here is another article by Bill Williamson at ESPN: Could Elway, Shanahan be trade partners?

Williamson discusses Washington's obstacles separating them from a top QB draftee. 

Comment 97 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I should mention

That no players can be traded without a new CBA, and Washington is unlikely to trade until the day of the draft because they want to see which players will be available to the 10th pick.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 4:02 PM CDT reply actions  

Are you willing to give up 32, next years 1st to get to #10?

Just to get a player like Cam Jordan, Watt, Tyron Smith or maybe Amukamara? I Don’t see the value of doing something that drastic! Nothing against those players but they aren’t worth 2 1st round picks! Sorry epic fail…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 4:19 PM CDT reply actions  

I think...

You’re being a jerk. I didn’t write about the Packers being inclined to to this, I wrote about the Packers and other teams in the late 1st having an avenue into the top 10.

And where did you get the impression that Washington was asking for two 1st round pick?

Don’t epic fail my post. You fail, in your attempt to fail.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

To move

From the bottom of the 1st to #10 is going to cost any team 2 1sts… Thats a rough estimate judging from the draft trade chart… Why would Washington do it for less? When the picks that high are generally more valuable that what the chart says. Especially after the new CBA will have a rookie wage scale for the 1st… I don’t find any players at or around #10 that would be worth trading that much to get!

What do you want? I apologized beforehand! Again Sorry epic fail, IMO… Is that better?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nothing was epic.

And there was no failure.

You’re just being a negative Nancy. You’re not special, or smarter, or more likely to have the answers. We’re just fans speculating. Don’t go around commenting failure on others’ fanposts, it’s rude.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Just pointing out facts...

You still haven’t said… Who at or around #10 would be worth giving up 2 1st round picks for?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

Uh Der?

I don’t HAVE to suggest a player. This doesn’t HAVE to work by your logic or expectations.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

Well if someone is gonna move from bottom of 1st

to the 10th overall spot they aint doing it on a hope that there is a player worth it. They are giving up 2 1sts for a difference maker don’t you think?!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not being negative...

I’m being a realist… Sorry you find that rude.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

Still, "epic fail" is uncalled for.

he was just posting an idea.

Go Suns, Packers, Jays, and Huskers!

Green Bay Packers: Super Bowl XLV Champions!!!!

by Omaha Sun on Apr 15, 2011 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Realism?

You don’t get it, do you? You weren’t right, it wasn’t real. It was your opinion, which you seem to be confusing with reality.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 8:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nevermind

That others and the draft trade chart agree w/ me! I guess real isn’t in your vocabulary!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

Listen here Professor

This is what you don’t get: You’re still arguing over the fact that in some imaginary world…

… in this imaginary world the following things took place…

…I suggested that the Packers are certainly interested in and in the position to acquire the 10 pick…

… my post was a failure, eloquently pointed out by yourself…

… I’m responsible to provide a list of player they Packers must be targeting…

… for two first round draft picks….

… and your not a big jerk, being ugly and mean for no good reason….

…. and you’re opinion is reality.

Wake Up! Those are all false.

We not arguing over whether or not the Packers are going to jump to the 10th pick. I’m telling you that your opinions don’t make my post a failure, and you were wrong when you attempted to label it a failure. You’re in no position to do so anyways.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 8:33 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

I live in a real world

Where if you trade up in a draft from late 1st to #10 overall its for a playmaker. Sorry you can’t understand the logic of that… My entire premise is based on that! Your suggesting making a costly trade w/o giving any real reason why someone would do such a thing…

Thats lining in fantasy land if anything! Sorrry again that you don’t like the truth.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm sorry...

that you have your head so far up your own behind, you cannot see what was plainly laid out for you. You are arguing with me on a stance I never took, and you keep calling it the truth.

I think you might just be ignoring that your arguments are erroneous, because you can’t handle it or your pride won’t let it sink into your thick skull.

You tried to contribute to the discussion, but instead arrogantly labeled it an “epic fail”. You were wrong. And it has nothing to do with two 1st round picks. There is no “truth” that I need to like.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:50 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'm argumentative?

I’m sticking up for myself. I didn’t seek out Strohman to pick a fight.

How can you criticize me for being argumentative on my FanPost? I didn’t create the conflict, but I did author the post and I shared it with my friends. I don’t have to accept Strohman’s criticisms and bad mouthing without resistance. I do have a right to contest them on my own Fanpost.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 2:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

He meant that with sarcasm but....

though perhaps the “epic fail” was uncalled for, I don’t think Stroh was being any more argumentative than usual. He made some valid points about value, available players, tendancies, etc.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 16, 2011 3:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

I certainly agree with this
I don’t think Stroh was being any more argumentative than usual.

13.

by Wiedmann on Apr 16, 2011 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions  

wiedmann

You just don’t know when to keep out of it do you? I would think you would know to keep out of it by now… Don’t worry I’ll be the bigger man for both of us!!!!!!!!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions  

What?

Show me what I made up! I’ve read every one of my posts from the top and made NOTHING up. Pointed out obvious flaws in your article that for the Packers and To quote you… " Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round" would be cost prohibitive and not worth the talent at #10.

Sorry you can’t see that!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your idea

That you created, and keep trying to attribute to me. Doesn’t make sense, you’re right.

My idea for creating fanpost about Washington and the number 10 pick makes sense though, that’s what I’ve been arguing.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

Created?

What did I create?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Should've gone with this font, Wiedmann...

Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!

by mike_o on Apr 16, 2011 2:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

Didn't say you took a stance...

Just pointed out some obvious major flaws in the idea! And that if a team is trading that far up, they want to get a playmaker, not just a good player! At #10 There aren’t really any real playmakers available that someone would trade 2 1st round picks for… That is the ONLY thing I ever had a problem with!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 4:36 AM CDT up reply actions  

You keep saying THAT far up.

Don’t teams that are drafting at positions in the teens have the ability to trade into the top 10?

You keep talking about two 1st round picks, but it is possible that a team moves up a handful of spots to ensure they get the prospect they covet.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

teams that are drafting at positions in the teens

And I quote from your article… " there should be some pretty exciting prospects left on the board that the Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round…"

Don’t know about you but later 1st to me means 20’s and down, teens are basically mid 1st. And every sentence for the 2nd paragraph talks about the Packers moving… Not teams in the mid or teens.

A team in the teens would most likely have to give up at least a 2nd to get to #10… Sorry but what your article say and what your saying now about the teens isn’t the same. Your article says about the Packers and other teams later in the 1st…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

And as I asked before

What are these “exciting” prospects you talking about in your article?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Later

This is a perfect example of you turning my words into your reality. Later is a term that compares. The 11th pick is later than the 10th.

And I included the Packers because this is a blog about the Packers, and it was appropriate to mention where the Packers relate to the topic.

And it doesn’t matter that you don’t think the Packers are in a position to do this. You’re not the authority on FanPosts. It doesn’t matter if they are, or are not.

GET IT? The post is valid because it’s purpose was to discuss Washington’s 10th pick and their interest in trading out of that spot.

Can I be any more clear to you? Do you see why you were wrong yet? Are you capable of wrapping your mind around this?

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

My advice in that case

Is to explicitly make it about the Redskins trying to trade. You mentioned the Packers quite often on a Packers site. This would cause a lot of people to think you’re suggesting the Packers should trade with the Redskins. (seems like a decent assumption) Don’t try to connect the Packers so much to this fan post if you weren’t suggesting they trade up.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I'm a Packers fan on the Packers blog

Trying to share information about the draft that the Packers will be participating in during the upcoming weeks.

You’re perspective is that if the post doesn’t directly and exclusively speak to what the Packers will certainly do, it shouldn’t be on the Packers blog?

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

No, not what I'm saying.

It doesn’t have to relate directly to the Packers. The thing is, you did relate it to the Packers. In your own words:

The Redskins seem to be going to the media with their desire to trade down, so the 10th pick of the draft is attainable for the right price, and there should be some pretty exciting prospects left on the board that the Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round will have access to if the Redskins decide to trade down.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

I related it becaues it's a Packers blog

Again, my problem is with the invalidation of the article.

It’s still worth talking about among friends, but I didn’t find anyone to discuss how interesting it would be, and what might come if Washington trades up or down with their pick.

I just found someone labeling my idea a failure and telling me that it’s a dumb premise.

Way to go.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not turning your words into anything.

Just reading it and using it in context… Context being “Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round”. That isn’t turning your words… I realize later could mean the 11th pick, but you can’t exactly make much of a reasnable connection between the Packers at 32 and the 11th pick!

Nice try changing the argument from the “Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round”, to include the 11th pick or the teens tho…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nice try

You’re impossible. I’ve lost any respect I had for you. You’re doing a good job of discouraging participation in this blog. I’m usually not one to back down from a battle, but it’s clear you are the biggest prick.

I wasn’t trying to change the argument, that was my attempt to walk down your logical path to reconcile (maybe) and find common ground. I thought that if I satisfied you by discussing your argument you’ve been having with yourself about whether the a team was going to trade up to the 10th pick, that we could eventually find ourselves some friendly common ground.

My post is not invalid. It discusses the 10th pick, and Washington’s desire to trade. Your criticism was ugly and uncalled for. We’re different kinds of people. You’re concerned with being right and looking smart. I just didn’t want to be bullied by a jerk who thinks he’s an authority.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

Sorry I called it a failed post...

Even tho it pretty much was in most eyes. Thats my 4th and last apology, give it a rest… I haven’t bullied anybody, just pointed out some facts as they related in context to the article.

If it was only about Wash trading then why are the Packers mention so much more than any other team?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your apologies are meaningless

Because you always have more to say.

Sorry, BUT it pretty much was? Wow. In most eyes? Because you speak for everyone else in the world?

Sorry, BUT you still think you’re right. (But you don’t see, you can’t be right, because it’s a relevant article whether YOU like or appreciate it or not)

Sorry but, I, StephanL, still think your opinions are worthless forevermore because people who do things for no other purpose than to be a jerk and make themselves feel big are not worth listening to anyways.
(I only put my own name in there to emphasize the change in subject)

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Sorry you feel that way!

Apparently you can’t take criticism and don’t like facts…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Having the last word seems to be his number one priority.

It’s like when your training a dog with an aggression/dominance problem. That dog seems intent of asserting his dominance by keeping their head or paw on top. It’s a primal instinct, and not surprising that the same habit rears it’s head in human social interactions.

It’s because being right is a part of his identity. The situation doesn’t have closure for him unless he feels he’s on top.

That’s why he’s always gotta have the last word: insecurity.

by StephanL on Apr 17, 2011 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions  

It seems a bit ironic....

that this comment coincides with the new disclaimer on the post itself.

I thought the post was valid and could warrant some reaction, which it did, and it wasn’t what you were looking for. You did sort of mislead us in thinking that it was exclusively talking about Packers trading to Number 10. If you’re going to make a fanpost, there will be criticism.

And on this website, Stroh will give you his honest feedback, whether its tactful, argumentative, contemplative, fact-filled, or just opinion as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 17, 2011 1:25 AM CDT up reply actions   3 recs

Well said...

And a rec’d comin…

Interesting that he feels the need to add a disclaimer AFTER the discussion…

BTW- Glad you and Sam got well acquainted! LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 3:13 AM CDT up reply actions  

I added the disclaimer

Before that comment even sparked synapsis in my noggin. Trying to end a the argument about the post being a failure unless it was exclusively about the Packers.

by StephanL on Apr 17, 2011 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm still a bit confused about what exactly the post was about

Was it more to talk about who would trade with the Redskins for that spot, and brought up GB as a possibility?

Or is it more about how far could GB trade up and what could we get?

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 17, 2011 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

It's about the Number 10 pick

And Washington’s desire to trade, more specifically: with hopes of acquiring a QB.

Just like the Title says: With the 10th pick…. and all of the links connect to stories about Washington and their pick.

by StephanL on Apr 17, 2011 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree with those

who have said that it looked like it was as much about the Packers, as anybody, as the team to trade up to that spot.
And, the disclaimer looks to me like an attempt at an after-the-argument revision of that.

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."

THE BEARS STILL SUCK!

by NorthStarr on Apr 17, 2011 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

Strohman didn't approach the conversation well.

But his points were valid. You highlighted the Packers as possible trade partners with Washington, Strohman and myself lower down pointed out the cost of that, and said that it wasn’t going to happen. I’m sorry, but it is a pretty dumb premise. There is no way TT is trading two first round picks for anyone at that spot.

If you wanted to just talk about the fact that the skins were looking to trade, that would have been a legitimate point. But, you mentioned the fact that the Packers might be interested in trading up to that spot.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

Look again
But, you mentioned the fact that the Packers might be interested in trading up to that spot.

I’d suggest you look again. I never said that the Packers were going to trade two first round picks.

Did you even read the Post?

The Redskins seem to be going to the media with their desire to trade down, so the 10th pick of the draft is attainable for the right price, and there should be some pretty exciting prospects left on the board that the Packers and other teams drafting late in the first round will have access to if the Redskins decide to trade down.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Please don't be JUST like Strohman and miss the point.

The point of the article is that there will be an avenue into the top of the first for teams drafting later in the first. The point was to keep an eye on the Redskins and the number 10 pick.

Is this a pretty dumb premise?

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

We’ve discussed the talent surplus the Packers will face with couple drafts worth of players returning from injury and 8 projected draftees. One thing the Packers might choose to do is to trade up higher into the first round to acquire an elite athlete. When the Packers last traded in the first round, we hit gold (literally) drafting Clay Matthews III and his flowing locks. And if you remember correctly, the Patriots went to the media with their desire to trade down and the Packers responded quickly. The Redskins seem to be going to the media with their desire to trade down, so the 10th pick of the draft is attainable for the right price, and there should be some pretty exciting prospects left on the board that the Packers and other teams drafting later in the first round will have access to if the Redskins decide to trade down.

This seems to imply that the Packers would be interested in trading for the number 10 pick. I realize you weren’t speaking only about the Packers, but you did mention them as a possibility and since this is a Packers blog, I think we are within our right to criticize your post as it relates to the Packers.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

Packers were mentioned in EVERY sentense of that paragraph!

Not to mention teams drafting “later in the 1st”

And we’re supposed to assume he’s talking about teams in the teens?!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Exactly!

and this was posted on a Packers blog!

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

Right

That’s not contested. I’m not worried about whether or not the Packers are going to pull any trades. My beef was with claim that my post has a “dumb premise” or that it was an “epic fail”. Both of which would be opinions, and not fact anyways.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

I didn’t have a problem with you objecting to the idea of the packers doing and stating your reasons but you did cross a line with the epic fail stuff. I hate when people do that…as to imply the person is an idiot for even suggesting it.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Apr 17, 2011 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions  

Do you object to Wieds

Fixed that for you thing? Pretty much the same, IMO… both suggest the same thing or take the same approach! Can’t say I’ve ever seen you post anything about his doing that.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah that type of "FTFY" thing can be used two ways...

1) as a joke to further illustrate the main point or add exaggeration/hyperbole to it
or
2) to alter the original post in a condescending manner towards the original poster

Depends how its used.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 17, 2011 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions  

One thing to correct an easy spelling mistake or minor factual thing.

Thats only mildy annoying, cuz really who cares! But when you say exactly what you meant to say, and it happens its extremely condescending!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

If it's the same in your opinion

And it gets on your nerves…

… why do you do it to other people?

by StephanL on Apr 17, 2011 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

I was pointing out to Trevor

That he never called Wied on it, but he is me…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

We should all just try to treat each-other with respect.

I’m guilty of being disrespectful, but I feel like I was provoked. Regardless, we’re all here because we love our team.

Let’s be encouraging and positive instead of hypercritical and negative.

by StephanL on Apr 17, 2011 5:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Fair enough.

Would like to point out that after I used the epic fail, I don’t think I’ve said anything negative or argumentative.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions  

And I would encourage you to keep fanposting and not be discouraged at all

because it takes some guts to do that. I still am not comfortable doing it, you put yourself out there, and there is always criticism from someone, so don’t read too much into this whole reaction from people. It was a fair topic and certainly will be interesting to see what Washington does if the Top QBs are gone by #10 which is what a lot of mocks are starting to say. They may have nothing at #10 that they really want and would prefer a higher 2nd round to take a later QB or something and trade out.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 17, 2011 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

You seem a bit sensitive.

"It's a great day to be great, baby!"

"Here I am, brain the size of a planet,
and they ask me to pick up a piece of paper.
You call that job satisfaction?
'Cause, I don't."

THE BEARS STILL SUCK!

by NorthStarr on Apr 15, 2011 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

You can just stand on by

 when someone tries to invalidate your work. But I’ve got enough of a backbone to stick up for myself, especially when someone is being so arrogant and dull.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 2:01 AM CDT up reply actions  

Not to mention how annoying and dated

that phrase is getting. There was hardly anything epic about my post anyways, so nice try.

by StephanL on Apr 15, 2011 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

I dont see it happening either but...

with the lowest first round pick and probably one of the lowest next year, it may be worth it to them if they have a guy the know could be a starter and impact player right away this year.

by supertrooper15 on Apr 15, 2011 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nothing against the post....

I think its a fair point looking at the Packer’s possibility in moving up or down but…

I have to agree with Stroh here. This proposition, for GB at least, is almost absurd. The cost would be exorbitant. For Matthews we moved from low 2nd to High 1st, not quite 2o spots if I remember correctly. In this we would be jumping 22 spots in teh first round for a Top 10 pick. And who is there?

It would need to be someone who: we loved, could make an immediate impact, Teddy T would be willing to pay Top 10 money to with possible Cap space issues this year, and all in a potentially shortened offseason with lots of talent coming back. Most of the to players projected are D LInemen, Q backs and maybe an OT.

I don’t like the top OT, and I don’t think Thompson would either. We probably won’t take a QB unless we move Flynn and that is just speculation with the CBA hanging at this point and changes the whole game, and though we could use D Line help with Jenkins leaving, there is nobody close to someone like Suh who would be about the only thing you would give up that much for to get to #10. That is a huge leap for something that will not get you immediate results more likely than not, and is simply way to drastic an action for Thompson considering what will probably be there.

THe only player I would make that move for (even though I’m sure Thompson wouldn’t) would be Von Miller and he won’t be there.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 16, 2011 3:39 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

All I ever said!!

But he went completely off the deep end!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 4:40 AM CDT up reply actions  

Agreed.

Miller seems to be the top player in this draft. I’d move up for him, but it’d still be really expensive and all mock drafts show him going to Arizona at 5, if not before then.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 16, 2011 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

You can agree with Stroh

That the Packers wouldn’t try to trade into the top 10 because there are no player worth it.

The problem is, that’s not at all what the argument/ discussion was about.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

It was in your article

Every sentence in that 2nd paragraph mentions the Packers… Or teams later in the 1st. Now you’ve switched to the teens… Your changing your argument as you go along.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 16, 2011 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

No

I’m not arguing the same thing you are…

… you continue to argue why the Packers wouldn’t trade up. That’s fine!

… I’m arguing that it doesn’t matter and you were WRONG when you discredited or devalued the post. It’s so simple.

by StephanL on Apr 16, 2011 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I mean it would really take Von Miller to be there at 10

 for me to even begin to like the idea and he’s really the only one. I don’t really think Peterson is worth it and I’m sur ehe’ll be gone. Not really any other stand outs that I think GB would be willing to pay top money for because most of the D Linemen have some kind of issues personally or had suspensions or whatever and thats risky.

But either way, I think that moving to Number 10 is wayyyy carries wayyyy too much cost for Ted’s liking. He loves to have players upon players with talent that can be groomed and built up, and trading away basically the entire top of your draft class for one pick would be very out of character for him.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 16, 2011 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I am kind of with Stroh here. This is a packer board, why would we want to discuss all the teams the could want to trade. If you wnat to discuss that, head over to the Skins site and participate in their discussion about it.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Apr 17, 2011 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions  

or at least don't mention the Packers every other sentence

It’s pretty easy to assume he’s specifically talking about the Packers when he mentions them so often.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 17, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions  

Eh...

Love to see it, but the Packers don’t have the picks to do it. They have to make up 710 points according to the trade value chart from 590 to 1300. The rest of this year’s draft picks don’t equal 710 points. If the Packers were able to trade players and could unload Flynn and maybe Barnett as a part of the deal it might work, but in the absence of a CBA there is no way to do it without trading a future number 1 as well. And we all know how TT feels about his draft picks….

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 15, 2011 4:19 PM CDT reply actions   3 recs

Bingo and Rec'd

Our hands are basically tied behind our back with the last pick in almost every round. At best, we can move up just a couple spots in the 1st Round. Flynn and Barnett is the key for giving us the opportunity to trade up. It really depends upon what Washington values Flynn and Barnett as. I plugged them into the calculator though valuing Flynn as a Mid 2nd and Barnett as a Mid 3rd along with our 1st Round Pick. That gives us 1,280 points. The 10th Overall Pick is worth 1,300 points, so it’s fairly close. Obviously, not everyone is going to value Barnett that high though. So we’ll likely have to throw another pick in there. All in all though, it’s doubtful we’ll ever trade up that high in the draft. Washington wanting to trade down has little to do with us. Especially with the CBA not being signed yet.

Superbowl Champs Baby!!!!!

13 World Championships, soon to be 14 after next season...GUARANTEED!!!!!

Nuff said....

by Jabooty on Apr 15, 2011 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah

I’d probably value Barnett as a mid to late 4th due to his recent injuries and age. It’s just a shame there isn’t a CBA in place, because we have some players that are valuable trade pieces this year.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 15, 2011 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hopefully when a CBA is in place Thompson can get something for Barnett.

As for Flynn, I still favor keeping him unles we can get a mid 2nd!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 15, 2011 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

I have tremendous confidence in TT getting us a impact player wherever were drafting

I don’t see us moving up that high but if someone falls that’s of Value according to the Packers ranking he’s not afraid to go get them. After the draft some said according to the value chart he overpaid New England. When TT was asked about this he said not according to where we had Matthews ranked.

I would pay a lot of money to see everyone’s draft board just to satisfy my own curiousity on how varied teams opinions are on players.

by the yooper on Apr 15, 2011 4:47 PM CDT reply actions  

I like the idea of the Packers trading up in this draft to get a guy they like. We have tons of talent so I would rather see is draft 4 guys that we really like than 8 guys in the positions we have right now. Basically after the preseason there is going to a bidding war to get all our castoffs so lets move up and get the guys TT is pumped about and just concentrate on quality vs quantity.

All of that said, moving from 32 to 10 is a pretty huge move…not sure but we WOULD have to give up quite a bit to do it. If wea re going to move up, I think I’d rather see it be something like 32 to 24 or 25 or something like that. Give up our 3rd or something like that.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Apr 17, 2011 10:23 AM CDT reply actions  

Exactly

I kind of hope TT moves up into the mid 20s. If he doesn’t, I have a feeling that the top players IMO (Houston, Pouncey, Carimi, etc) will all be gone. In that case, I’d actually like to see TT trade back in the draft. Maybe pick up some draft picks for next year.

"I'm tired of pretending I'm not a rock star from Mars."

by Kuhl on Apr 17, 2011 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

I'm all in for trading up in the 1st...

IF, a top 15 player falls into the 20’s… Kinda like Thompson did for Matthews. Say an OT he has rated as the 17th best on his board falls to #25… By all means go get him!! Thats really what it would take for THompson to do it… If that happens and he sees the value of it, go for it.

Beyond that I would try to keep as many picks as I can tho…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 17, 2011 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah I don't mind getting the guy you really want as opposed to keeping quantity in draft picks

just for the sake of quantity.

But I really don’t like the idea of trading half of a draft away. Those guys aren’t for this year, they are for a few years from now, depth for the team.

WHo knows who gets hurt, traded, released, retires, or leaves in FA over the next few years. We can speculate but you hate to have an “empty” year as far as stocking late round talent just because you won the Super Bowl and looked good on paper the year before.

For example, maybe we get a RB in Rd 6, Grant plays his usual mediocre first half of the season and they go to Starks and let Grant go after this year. That Rd 6 guy might be our new #2 or 3rd Down back 2 or 3 years from now that we might throw away by trading up for a high pick that may not help us as much as we think.

by PhoenicianPakFan on Apr 17, 2011 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

Jon Schneider of Seattle declared he wants to trade down from the 25th Pick

That would be in the range of where GB could trade up to. I can see TT trading up to #25 to make sure he gets Justin Houston if Houston is still on the board. Would you be willing to make this trade? Comparing the 2 picks, Seattle’s #25 pick is worth 931 points. Green Bay’s #32 pick is worth 804 points. If we throw in another 3rd, we’d be overpaying. If we throw in only a 4th, we’d be underpaying. Some swaps will likely happen if this trade were to happen, but in all likely hood, we’d give up at least our 3rd Round Pick. Would you be open to that trade?

Superbowl Champs Baby!!!!!

13 World Championships, soon to be 14 after next season...GUARANTEED!!!!!

Nuff said....

by Jabooty on Apr 19, 2011 5:29 PM CDT reply actions  

I would be, if it got the Packers a player like Justin Houston.

He has the benefit of playing IN a 3-4 D. So it’s not like he’d be a scheme mismatch.

Editor at BT Powerhouse, a Big Ten Basketball blog.
Author at Acme Packing Company, a Green Bay Packers blog

by OBrienSchofieldismyHero on Apr 19, 2011 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

For Houston?

Send that 3rd rounder their way!

Super Bowl XLV Champions, the Green Bay Packers!

by mike_o on Apr 19, 2011 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

Probably

It just depends on the players available.. Thompson IMO, won’t do it just to get the 25th rated player. He would want to get a player he has rated in the teens and at a position of need. Otherwise I don’t see Thompson trading up! Personally, I would do it to get Houston, Castonzo or Pouncey! Probably not anyone else that has a chance to be there at 25.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Apr 19, 2011 6:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed



Manager

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley

Editors

Texbucky_small texwestern

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Fallout-3-1010_small PackApologist

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Linkedin_picture_small Zack Ward

Carson-palmer-hot-dog_small MatthewJStein