You are currently viewing the old forums. We have upgraded to a new NFL Forum.
This old forum is being left as a read-only archive.
Please update your bookmarks to our new forum at forums.footballsfuture.com.


 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Why trade down?

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
LeRoy36


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 1243
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:27 pm    Post subject: Why trade down? Reply with quote

I dont get why everyone wants to trade down. We have a shot at Mario or Hawk. If you guys want an elite defense and for the packers to get better for the long term than we want Mario or Hawk, probably Mario seeing how Sims or Howard will be at the #37 pick. Lets face it Kampman isnt a playmaker, at best he gets 6 sacks. We need pressure and Mario is the best in the draft. So i dont see why we should trade down when we finally can get an elite draft pick. I mean the one bad thing about winning is that we always get late 1st rounders which can be hit or miss.

I hope Ted doesnt trade i want either Hawk or Mario. We only have Barnett and Harris as playmakers on defense. Collins hasnt proved he is a game breaker yet and KGB dissappears. I want either Mario sacking and forcing early throws or Hawk forcing fumbles, getting INTs, and being a hard hitter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spilltray


Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 12051
Location: Green Bay, WI
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would trade down if I thought I could get Huff (hopefully between 8 and 12) or LenDale White (15-20) I personally think those are the safest picks along with Hawk and Mario Williams, in the 1st round this year. If GB can target a player they have rated in the same category as whats available, and trade back and still get him, it makes sense from a value position. It depends on the offer, but there is pretty good depth at some of the packers need positions through the first 3 rounds. If they could stock up on picks it could fill more holes and have a much bigger impact than Reggie Bush.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
LeRoy36


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 1243
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2006 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes and no. GB has good depth right now, they just dont have starters and playmakers. Mario or Hawk would add a whole new level to the defense. We have playmakers on offense, Favre, Green, Walker, Driver, Franks, Henderson and thats why for a long time they where always in the top 3. With two early picks or Mario, Sims/Howard would add two players that could be game breakers. We have the depth in Manning, Poppinga, Hawkins, Underwood, and Peterson. The problem is that they are getting alot of reps when we should have guys like Barnett, Harris, Mario, Sims, and Collins taking alot of reps with Manning and Poppinga spotting them.

We have the depth we just need the starters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Barnett56


Joined: 04 Feb 2006
Posts: 12611
Location: Gone
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nick Barnett, Collins, Harris, Nate Clements, Mario Williams or AJ Hawk, and Will Witherspoon will all be making plays for us next year on defense. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RatedT


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 1173
Location: Madison, WI
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Barnett56 wrote:
Nick Barnett, Collins, Harris, Nate Clements, Mario Williams or AJ Hawk, and Will Witherspoon will all be making plays for us next year on defense. Very Happy


Dude, I don't care if there is some humor in the forum but doing the same joke over and over again people will get sick of it. You're not funny any more.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
perrynoid


Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Posts: 4255
Location: Bismarck, Norse Dakota
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One reason I would want the Pack to trade down is the salary cap figure for a 5th overall pick will be extrememly high. Trading down allows the team to take much less of a risk, since the probability of several players not panning out/staying healthy is very low.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
msmre


Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Posts: 20292
Location: Chicago, IL
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

perrynoid wrote:
One reason I would want the Pack to trade down is the salary cap figure for a 5th overall pick will be extrememly high. Trading down allows the team to take much less of a risk, since the probability of several players not panning out/staying healthy is very low.


Several players cost as much as 1. It is a zero sum game.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
MadWisconian


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1685
Location: Washington, D.C.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Mario or Hawk would add a whole new level to the defense.


Maybe.

Quote:
We have playmakers on offense, Favre, Green, Walker, Driver, Franks, Henderson


Favre's going to retire, Green wont be resigned, Walker may or may not recover from his knee injury, Driver's solid, Franks is overated, and Henderson is definitely less effective than he once was.

Quote:
We have the depth in Manning, Poppinga, Hawkins, Underwood, and Peterson.


That hardly qualifies as depth.

I do agree with you that we need starters, just a whole lot more than you recognize. Ted Thompson needs to do something in free agency this year, and not just rely on the draft to build a team.

But I do believe that trading down provides us with the opportunity to find more starters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
planc33


Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 138
Location: Barnes, Wi
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it isn't Hawk, you trade doen to take Huff. You do not spend the number 5 pick on a guy who is known for taking plays off (Williams). We already have a DE that fits that bill (KGB)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MadWisconian


Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 1685
Location: Washington, D.C.
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
We already have a DE that fits that bill (KGB)


Amen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gbmurphy


Joined: 30 Dec 2005
Posts: 397
Location: Dallas
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

planc33 wrote:
If it isn't Hawk, you trade doen to take Huff. You do not spend the number 5 pick on a guy who is known for taking plays off (Williams). We already have a DE that fits that bill (KGB)


If San Francisco is going to take Huff at #6 or #7, who are we gonna trade down with to take Huff?
This is called DreamWorld.
_________________


1979 Rookie Joe Montana, 6-2, 197
1985 Rookie Steve Young, 6-2, 215
1991 Rookie Brett Favre, 6-2, 227
2005 Rookie Aaron Rodgers, 6-2, 223
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
planc33


Joined: 01 Jul 2005
Posts: 138
Location: Barnes, Wi
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="gbmurphy"]
planc33 wrote:
If it isn't Hawk, you trade doen to take Huff. You do not spend the number 5 pick on a guy who is known for taking plays off (Williams). We already have a DE that fits that bill (KGB)


If San Francisco is going to take Huff at #6 or #7, who are we gonna trade down with to take Huff?
This is called DreamWorld.[/quote


So, Dreamworld, Who said that San Fran is takin Huff at 6 or 7. Like I said in my post, If we don't trade down, take Hawk. If we do trade down and Huff is not there, thats our bad. It is not far fetched that we trade down with Arizona (they neeed a QB, Cutler???) and have Huff be there for us at AZ's pick. As long as we do not draft a RB or Super Marior I will be OK. I can not wait until the NFL draft party '06 in Two Harbors, MN.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mgcc1949


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 3360
Location: Appleton, WI
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am currently tracking 22 sites for Mock Drafts. I load their updated mocks into a spreadsheet and calculate average draft number and also most common draft number. Here the top of the order:
1 Reggie Bush RB USC
2 Matt Leinart QB USC
3 Vince Young QB Texas
4 D'Brickashaw Ferguson OT Virginia
5 AJ Hawk LB Ohio State
6 Mario Williams DE North Carolina State
7 Jimmy Williams CB/S Virginia Tech
8 Haloti Ngata DT Oregon
9 Mathias Kiwanuka DE Boston College
10 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis
10 LenDale White RB USC
11 Vernon Davis TE Maryland
11 Michael Huff S Texas

My original trading partner was Arizona. But if they can sit at #10 and get DWilliams or LWhite, they won't trade w/Green Bay.

St. Louis at #11 might be interested in Huff, but would probably take TE, Vernon Davis.

That leave Cleveland at #12 who could be tempted to trade up to get Hawk and keep him in state. If TT could squeeze Clevelands #12, 2nd #51 and a 4th.... I take it!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Packersshame


Joined: 03 Jan 2006
Posts: 897
PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mgcc1949 wrote:
I am currently tracking 22 sites for Mock Drafts. I load their updated mocks into a spreadsheet and calculate average draft number and also most common draft number. Here the top of the order:
1 Reggie Bush RB USC
2 Matt Leinart QB USC
3 Vince Young QB Texas
4 D'Brickashaw Ferguson OT Virginia
5 AJ Hawk LB Ohio State
6 Mario Williams DE North Carolina State
7 Jimmy Williams CB/S Virginia Tech
8 Haloti Ngata DT Oregon
9 Mathias Kiwanuka DE Boston College
10 DeAngelo Williams RB Memphis
10 LenDale White RB USC
11 Vernon Davis TE Maryland
11 Michael Huff S Texas

My original trading partner was Arizona. But if they can sit at #10 and get DWilliams or LWhite, they won't trade w/Green Bay.

St. Louis at #11 might be interested in Huff, but would probably take TE, Vernon Davis.

That leave Cleveland at #12 who could be tempted to trade up to get Hawk and keep him in state. If TT could squeeze Clevelands #12, 2nd #51 and a 4th.... I take it!


Kiwi will likely not be taken in top 10. After the senior bowl he had, he showed he is not worthy of the top 15 pick, much less a top 20.

These teams have secondary needs in picks 6-10

SF (They need DB, DT, DE)
Buffalo (they need DT, OT, DB)
Lions (DB, QB, OL)

The Lions are the Key if you are looking to get Huff. Huff fills major need for them and their new coach will likely be looking for defense. Cutler going to Lions, while possible, is not likely since they have two young QB's on their roster.

We might be able to trade down with Buffalo who wants to get Ngata very badly (the Raiders are interested in him too).

I think we will need some luck to get Huff 10 or higher....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mgcc1949


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 3360
Location: Appleton, WI
PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2006 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We'll know more in a coupla weeks after the Combine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group