Possible Trade with Packers on Draft Day?

[cchhdd25]

So I was on draftnasty.com the site hosted by former player corey chavous and in his mock he had us taking Russel Okung at #4. But later down the draft he had the Packers taking Charles Brown and wrote that the Packers might be a team that would try and trade up to get one of the top tackles available. Which got me thinking...

For those of you not on the Bradford bandwagon and wanting to address the need of offensive line with our first pick, how would you feel if the skins passed on Okung and traded with the Packers to move back and select a different tackle?

(preferably Charles Brown because imo he's the best fit for our zone blocking scheme and the tackle with the highest ceiling in this draft)

Of course with our trade back we would pick up probably the Packers second round pick. For a team that was a strong playoff contender without many weak spots, I don't see them as having a problem dealing a 2nd rounder away to solidify their line for the next 10 years.

This would allow us to possibly draft two offensive lineman and another player such as running back or corner or dt.

Also the key here would be with our 2nd rounder from the packers we could take our lineman, getting possibly the best center / 2nd best guard in the draft. For example I'm sure a guy like Matt Tenant would be there as a good fill in at center.

That would allow us to use our own 2nd rounder to take the bpa at a position of need. Each year first round guys drop out and are there for the picking for the teams picking at the top of the second round. Possibly a guy like ryan matthews (i personally don't think he'll be there in the second round, this guy is gonna rise very fast into the late first imo) jahvid best, terrance cody, kyle wilson at corner, or even nate allen to sure up our FS spot should be there.

I guess my main question is.. if the packers offer it, is Okung better than Charles Brown + 1 ?

[Morneblade]

Tha is what alot of us are hoping for. We need minimum 3 new starters on the O-line, and upgrading all 5 would be a dream. I'd trade down in a heartbeat.

[LD0506]

Interesting scenario, and you score extra points for a logical trade showing why both sides might be interested.

Personally I'd love to see us swing something along these lines if they devote resources to the line. I can't see Shanny drafting a RB high if at all. Work out a deal where we get three picks in the first two rounds? Where do I sign up?

[Veretax]

Tha is what alot of us are hoping for. We need minimum 3 new starters on the O-line, and upgrading all 5 would be a dream. I'd trade down in a heartbeat.

the later is a pipe dream, 3 new fresh rookie starters is more b elivable but less likely, but if we could add say three picks this year that definitly gives more bullets to try to fill wholes at LT, RG, C, in this draft, and possibly, a LB or QB. Question is how much do the packers give up and how many net picks do we end up with?

The packers, assuming the retain all their FA, have two huge holes, CB/DB, and OT right now. I don't know if they can fill both if they make such a move, and Thompson rarely makes moves up for guys he can live with later.

[bedlamVR]

I think this is one of the most sensible trades ... someone is bound to mention the points chart at some point and it really doesn't work for us something like 700 points shy but if the top tackle really shine in the Combine then it may be a trade that happens because personnel wise it kind of works for us .

[Morneblade]

the later is a pipe dream, 3 new fresh rookie starters is more b elivable but less likely, but if we could add say three picks this year that definitly gives more bullets to try to fill wholes at LT, RG, C, in this draft, and possibly, a LB or QB. Question is how much do the packers give up and how many net picks do we end up with?

I agree, no way we can draft 5 starters. Might be something on the FA market, but I dont expcet to overhaul the O-line in one year. 2 Year project for sure.

The packers, assuming the retain all their FA, have two huge holes, CB/DB, and OT right now. I don't know if they can fill both if they make such a move, and Thompson rarely makes moves up for guys he can live with later.

With Rodgers he might think he can get by without upgrading OT this year and pick up Berry, who could be a Pro Bowl Lock for years to come and solidify their secondary. And there are couple FA OT's out there that are decent. It's a plausable senario.

[acuratl1984]

With so much O Line Talent this year, I dont see the Packer's trading us...

Unless 2 OT is taken within the first 3 picks...

[Hitman21ST]

That makes a lot of sense, especially if we can get a second and hopefully a third with it too. If that works out, we can draft some stud o linemen, pick up a few savvy vets who are familiar with the Shanahan ZBS (Broncos anyone?), our line could be solid for the next few years, and then we can address lesser needs - RB (because even if he stays Portis only has max 3 more years), Safety, LB. Talk about off-season all-stars. Redo the entire o line, get depth at LB, grab a sleeper RB in the later rounds, and possibly get a FS. :drooley:

[[[ghost]]]

I don't mind trading out of the Top 10 in order to pick up an extra 2nd.

That way, we'll still be able to get Baluga, Iupati, or Campbell with the Top pick, and go from there.

[Wild West]

So...we could trade down and get a tackle that is just as good.

Meanwhile the Packers trade up to get a tackle that is better?

I don't get it. Either you think the Packers are stupid or you think we should take a lesser tackle....

[DiscoBob]

Turn our 1st into as many late 1st / 2nd round picks as possible and draft BPA for linemen. Dream scenario has us trading down twice in the 1st round and getting 3 2nd rounders. Then we load up on 4X linemen in the 2nd. Probably won't happen, but somehow the Pats make it happen every year....

[PlayAction]

I'm all for trading down with any other team as long as the Skins get approximately the pick value per the chart. When you trade down you can't assume that any particular player will be there when you get to select. The real question is whether Shanny wants to use a first or second round pick on the OL or whether he thinks he can get what he needs using a lower draft pick.

[PokerPacker]

I can see the plausibility of us trading up, but I highly doubt it'd be with you guys. I think we'd start looking into trading up if 2 or 3 of the top 4 tackles are taken. We have more positions we'd like to fill other than just OT. We're looking at another OLB to complement Matthews, and we're looking at a CB to provide depth and solidify our future in the position. I just can't see us trading ourselves out of the second round to improve one position when we've got a few positions of need on our minds.

If we trade up, I think we'd go up to maybe spot 15 or so, but nothing top 5

[Veretax]

With Rodgers he might think he can get by without upgrading OT this year and pick up Berry, who could be a Pro Bowl Lock for years to come and solidify their secondary. And there are couple FA OT's out there that are decent. It's a plausable senario.

The only way I see Green Bay going after Berry is if they don't feel they can keep Nick Collins at Free Safety. Guy was a monster out on the field this yaer. playd all 16 games, had 6 INTs, 53 Combined Tackles sacks. He I believe is a free agent this year, I could be wrong, or he might be a RFA. Unless yuo think Berry would be their Strong Safety?

According to PFT Nick Collins, and Atari Bigby the two starting Safeties from this year are both RFAs. He was a 2nd Round pick so hrms...

Word is they may have pickett signed soon??

[Brotherz]

Tha is what alot of us are hoping for. We need minimum 3 new starters on the O-line, and upgrading all 5 would be a dream. I'd trade down in a heartbeat.

I totally get the sentiment but I am curious what is your plan for the QB. I understand the whole OL v QB debate but I would like to hear what everyone's plan for the Qb would be if we trade down or take a tackle. There really isn't any free agent Qb out there to speak of outside of Michael Vick and I can't believe anyone would actually advocate a rebuilding project with Michael Vick at the Helm.

If your answer is Jason Campbell that's totally fine. I am curious about whether this is a "Jason is the guy" sentiment or a "I don't care who the QB is we need lineman" argument because they are quite different in my opinion.

[papaSkins27]

If Bradford makes it past the Rams I think we take him at #4, if the Rams take him off the board I'm all for trading down and picking up an extra 1st/2nd/or 3rd round pick to go along with our high 2nd.

In a dream scenario we get Bradford at #4 and Charles Brown at #36. If we trade back I'd like us to pick a LT/RB/LB with our first 3 picks, come out with something like:

Brian Bulaga/Charles Brown - Any of the top 5 OT prospects that Shanny thinks can anchor the LT position for us.

Cj Spiller/Jahvid Best - Some much needed explosiveness added to our running game and our special teams return game.

Brandon Spikes/Sean Weatherspoon/Sergio Kindle - Value, Value, Value! We already addressed our biggest need (OT) and rejuvenated our RB stable, with our additional pick from the trade down we could pick up a key addition to our new 3-4 D. Any of these LB's can play a rush OLB in a 3-4, and I think Spikes could play ILB in a 3-4 as well. This would immediately improve the D and give us the freedom to look at dealing Andre Carter if need be. Not to mention another solid LB with Rocky in his final contract year and London Fletcher being 35 the guy can't play forever.

[Laxpunk2006]

So...we could trade down and get a tackle that is just as good.

Meanwhile the Packers trade up to get a tackle that is better?

I don't get it. Either you think the Packers are stupid or you think we should take a lesser tackle....

Or the OP is taking the system into account and not simply player vs. player. If we're running a mainly ZBS, and GB run's mainly power-man (I don't know what they run) then the best OT on our board will likely not be the same as theirs.

With Rodgers he might think he can get by without upgrading OT this year and pick up Berry, who could be a Pro Bowl Lock for years to come and solidify their secondary. And there are couple FA OT's out there that are decent. It's a plausable senario.

I don't see GB going after a safety that high. Nick Collins is a Pro Bowler at FS and Atari Bigby put up 4 int's in less than a full season at SS. They're pretty solid with their starters there but could possibly use some depth. It might make more sense for them to address a CB like Joe Haden as Wilson and Woodson are getting up there in age. They could use another edge rusher as well.

[papaSkins27]

I totally get the sentiment but I am curious what is your plan for the QB. I understand the whole OL v QB debate but I would like to hear what everyone's plan for the Qb would be if we trade down or take a tackle. There really isn't any free agent Qb out there to speak of outside of Michael Vick and I can't believe anyone would actually advocate a rebuilding project with Michael Vick at the Helm.

If your answer is Jason Campbell that's totally fine. I am curious about whether this is a "Jason is the guy" sentiment or a "I don't care who the QB is we need lineman" argument because they are quite different in my opinion.

The way I see it is, if we take Bradford, then Bradford is the guy. Have an open competition this year (maybe, maybe not) but the future is Bradford. If we choose to start him right away look to deal JC to the Rams or Bills and keep Colt as the #2, if he's going to sit first let JC/Colt battle for the starting spot.

If we pass on Bradford and pass on a QB in general, its open competition between Brennan and JC with a better surrounding cast.

[PokerPacker]

Or the OP is taking the system into account and not simply player vs. player. If we're running a mainly ZBS, and GB run's mainly power-man (I don't know what they run) then the best OT on our board will likely not be the same as theirs.

GB runs a zone-blocking scheme.

I don't see GB going after a safety that high. Nick Collins is a Pro Bowler at FS and Atari Bigby put up 4 int's in less than a full season at SS. They're pretty solid with their starters there but could possibly use some depth. It might make more sense for them to address a CB like Joe Haden as Wilson and Woodson are getting up there in age. They could use another edge rusher as well.

The problem with Atari Bigby is that he has a tendency of getting hurt. Personally, I really like him as a starter. He has a good chemistry with the defense and has good play-recognition. However, as you mentioned, we could use depth at the position. Certainly don't need to expend a first rounder.

Oh, and who is this "Wilson" you refer to? Do you perhaps mean "Harris"? I do hope he can recover from that injury and bring back some depth to our CB squad.

For OLB, I'm hoping Brad Jones can step up even better next season than he did this season. He certainly was a pleasant surprise, but kinda disappeared in the playoffs.

[TheLongshot]

I can't see this happening unless the Packers were throwing in players to move up. Looking at what they got, it looks to just be their full compliment of picks. I don't think getting an extra 2nd rounder is really good value here considering how far back we'd have to move back.

For it to be a realistic option, it would have to be a team with more ammunition than the Packers.

[The Rook]

I can't see this happening unless the Packers were throwing in players to move up. Looking at what they got, it looks to just be their full compliment of picks. I don't think getting an extra 2nd rounder is really good value here considering how far back we'd have to move back.

For it to be a realistic option, it would have to be a team with more ammunition than the Packers.

Absolutely! Green Bay would have give us their 1,2,3 AND next year's 1 to get some measure of fair market value.

Say what you want about the draft value chart, it is a good starting point.

:helmet:The Rook

[DGREENHULK]

I like Brown at RT I'm hoping he is there early in Rd 2....

[Laxpunk2006]

Absolutely! Green Bay would have give us their 1,2,3 AND next year's 1 to get some measure of fair market value.

Say what you want about the draft value chart, it is a good starting point.

:helmet:The Rook

It's a good starting point but that's it. If we decide a player at #23 + a player availble at their second pick is more valuable to us than our #4 and no one else is interested then rejecting it simply because it doesn't match the chart would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

[PokerPacker]

It's a good starting point but that's it. If we decide a player at #23 + a player availble at their second pick is more valuable to us than our #4 and no one else is interested then rejecting it simply because it doesn't match the chart would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.

As a packers fan, I think that trade would be horrible for us. We have more needs than just OT, and with the depth of Tackle in the draft, I'd rather wait until no earlier than pick 15 to trade up. No way in hell would I trade two firsts, a second, and a third just so I can get a top two tackle when I can possibly nab a top 4 tackle with my first, or if need be jump up a couple positions.

[btwice]

IF this were to happen it would be our #4 pick and our 4th rounder for GB #23, 2nd round, 4th and 5th.

#23 overall(Packers 1st): Bruce Campbell, OT (Maryland) or

#37 overall(Redskins 2nd): Charles Brown, OT (USC)

#56 overall(Packers 2nd): Sergio Render, G (Virginia Tech)