My bet is that we stay at 9. If Mayock is right and teams are willing to take up to even half of the value for the pick, why would you want 9 when you can get 5 for the same amount?

Oher or Orakpo would be fine with me.

Packnic
I think teams will be interested in trading up because there is a pretty big drop (in the opinion of several NFL Network guys) between the top 10 or so and the next tier. I'm with Aaron that trading down always makes sense, but I don't agree that one can necessarily get equal talent 10 picks or so later in this draft.
I continue to wait for the draft and the rest of FA before I unload about the defense. Aaron and I are not on the same page at all on that topic. Bottom line, while trading down makes sense, I would be quite happy with Raji, Orakpo, Everett Brown or even Andre Smith at #9. Actually, I want Curry but he'll be LONG gone. Orakpo will be too I think. Anyway, those guys are elite at their positions and they fit what we need. Go ahead Aaron. I'm waiting

That's what I never understaood. Why pay the guy top 5 money? He wasn't drafted top 5.

So what if some talking head or idiot mock draft had him at number 3, he didn't get picked there, he doesn't deserve that money.

That's why I want to see a rookie salary cap with a depreciating scale. If you get picked in a certain spot, you get a certain predetermined amount of money.

It has the added bonus of not handcuffing someone with the first pick that they can't seem to trade away.

Cleveland Debacle? # 16 pick in 2007 for what turned into the # 22 pick in 2008 draft plus moving up 11 spots in 3 rounds (36 from 47, 67 from 78, 103 from 112). Plus Cleveland made similar offers to teams ahead of the Packers and teams after them until Dallas took the deal at # 26. If it was such a slam dunk, why didn't any of the other teams jump on it earlier than Dallas. I just don't see that as anything close to a debacle.

Cleveland wasn't offering the Packers the opportunity to "trade back" in the draft. Cleveland was wanted the Packer's number #1 in exchange for a #1 a year later and merely flipping positions in later rounds. I don't think avoiding that joke of a deal was a "debacle." The Cowboys got a decent offer (i.e., an outright second round pick plus the next year's #1).

The chance to have ZERO number one picks in 2007 and two number one picks in 2008.

Any team could do that at any time. The Packers can trade this year's number one for a number one pick next year to any team in the league. That's a suckers deal and any team in the league would take it.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

We can play "but what about this guy" all day. I think what I think (at least I think I do)

Thoughts on the draft:

I always come back to "timing is everything." We get Hawk at 5 om '06, which is fine......but Minnesota got AP at what...#7 the next year? Draft quality is so variable year to year...You gotta really pick your spot to be bad and reap the benefits. I think the consensus this year is the there is talent in the top 5 to 7 but that from there to 20 is pretty even, with the real value for the $ coming from 20 to 50.

What is interesting, and is never spoken of in the land of the purple packer haters, is that the Vikes Passed on Quinn that year to take Peterson. As good as AP is, Minnesota could be in year 3 with a pretty good QB and would have had a much easier time finding a good RB as opposed to a great one.

"Like how you completely threw away the pick swaps in your Tuesday/Burger analogy. As though the differences between where the two teams were picking was negligible."

Swapping picks? Whoopity-do.

Its still not worth it, and that is why no team took the deal until the Browns upped the ante with the Cowboys and actually agreed to give up a second round pick.

And even if it were *arguably* worth it, it's comically short of a "debacle."

Thomson trade down/ What makes you think he would do that?Not like he would trade down and get around 12 5th round players you never heard of, not Ted.

Whether Harrell was the right pick at 16, and whether trading the 16th pick in the draft away for the 22nd pick (a year later!) with a few swaps are two different questions.

Aaron, I think you misunderstand the situation. In your 2007 post you write "Cleveland GM Phil Savage called Thompson and offered **the same deal the Cowboys eventually took to the Packers.**"

This is simply wrong. The Cowboys got a second round pick outright, the Browns were only offering to swap picks with the Packers. There's a big difference.

In reality, the only way the Packers will even get a chance to trade down this year is for Sanchez to be there at #9. At best they would get the other teams' first and maybe a third for the switch.

Do you know that if you google cheeseheadtv and then click on the title, it brings you to a message that says your sight is under construction? what's up with that?

Come on Aaron, you can't be serious that just because Harrell is not panning out that deal was a good one.

Using that exact same logic, it would have been "worth it" for the Packers to trade away their first round pick for a second round pick straight-up. After all, that way the Packers would have avoided drafting Harrell.

BTW, I have been experiencing some quirks with Chrome, but Firefox works fine.

Aaron, I am getting an error message too. I use Firefox. It says something about InMotion or something like that. I have been getting it 1 or 2 times a day. Haven't run into it at home though and I have Explorer there.