Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

First Round Trade Scenarios in This April's Draft

By Category

First Round Trade Scenarios in This April's Draft

With this years' NFL combine in the books, players stocks are beginning to become a little more clear.  The Packers find themselves in an interesting position going into the draft as they possess a significant amount of draft capital which could allow them to make some bold moves that could significantly improve their outlook as we approach the 2019 season.  With two first-round picks, a little creativity, and a little imagination, the Packers could pull off a blockbuster draft-day trade that could potentially shape the future of their team for the next decade.  

Here are six trade scenarios that the Packers could pull off on draft night: (draft pick values in these trade scenarios are provided by's draft value chart)

  • Scenario 1- The Packers trade the 12th pick to the Browns for the 17th pick, 80th pick (3rd round), and the 95th pick (3rd round).  Under this scenario, the Packers would move down five spots and accumulate an additional two 3rd round picks giving them a total of three 3rd round selections.  With the 17th selection, the Packers select Jachai Polite, Edge Rusher, Florida.  
  • Scenario 2- The Packers trade the 44th (2nd round) and 75th (3rd round) picks to the Los Angeles Chargers for the 28th and 200th (6th round) selections.  Under this scenario, the Packers would have three first-round selections and three sixth-round selections.  With the 12th pick I would select either Brian Burns or Montez Sweat and with the 28th and 30th picks, I would select Noah Fant (28th) and Clelen Ferrell (30th).  This trade would allow the Packers to draft two talented edge rushers in the first round as well as Jimmy Graham's eventual replacement at tight end.  Fant would be able to integrate into the offense and still receive valuable tutelage from Graham this season which would positively impact his career moving forward.      
  • Scenario 3- The Packers trade the 12th pick and the 75th (3rd round pick) to Oakland for the 24th and 27th picks.  This scenario would again give the Packers the opportunity to address multiple areas of need with three first-round selections that should make an immediate impact on multiple position groups of their roster in 2019.  With the 24th pick selection, the Packers should select tight end, T.J Hockenson. Hockenson will give Aaron Rodgers another dynamic young target that will help in both third down and red zone situations who will also significantly upgrade the Packers pass protection.   Hockenson's style will compliment Jimmy Graham's skill set and give the Packers a viable dual tight end threat that will help open up their offense.  With the 27th pick, the Packers should select either OG, Cody Ford, OG, Erik McCoy, or OT, Dalton Risner. Finally, with the 30th pick, the Packers should address their front seven and select Edge Rusher, Clelin Ferrell from Clemson.  These selections would instantly upgrade the edge rusher position as well as the entire offensive unit by providing Aaron Rodgers with protection and a dynamic target. 
  • Scenario 4- (A March 13th trade involving draft picks) The Packers could use the 30th or 44th pick as the headline of a package to trade for Chiefs Edge Rusher Dee Ford.  It appears that Gutekunst is, in fact, working the phones again, this time with the Kansas City Chiefs about a trade for their star edge rusher who was recently franchise tagged.  Gutekunst could look to use some combination of his extra first and fourth-round picks to get a deal done to bring Ford to Green Bay and finally acquire that cornerstone edge rusher that the Packers defense has lacked for the last few seasons.     

Alright, here are the 2 draft day trades that would send the Packers universe off of its axis:

  • Blockbuster Trade Number 1: Green Bay trades the 12th, 30th, and 44th (2nd round pick) to the Jets for the 3rd (selection overall) and 105th (4th round) picks.  With the 3rd pick in the NFL draft, the Green Bay Packers select......Josh Allen, Edge Rusher, Kentucky.
  • Blockbuster Trade Number 2: Green Bay trades the 12th, 30th, 2020 first round pick, 114th (4th round), and 194th (6th round) pick for the 2nd overall pick.  With the 2nd pick in the 2019 draft the Green Bay Packers select.....Nick Bosa, Edge Rusher, Ohio St.

I know a lot of you detest giving up multiple draft selections for a single player, however, Nick Bosa and Josh Allen have a very good chance of not only becoming perennial pro bowlers but they may be able to reshape the Packers defense for the next decade.  When faced with the opportunity to draft the anchor of your defense for the next 10 years, it is important to attempt every measure to acquire that player.

Sound Off:

Let me know if you think the Packers should look to trade some of their picks on draft night and either move up the draft board or accumulate more selections to address multiple areas of deficiency on their 53 man roster.  I also want to hear if you aren't a fan of the Packers trading any of their first round picks.   Maybe you think that they should stand pat and look to move up the draft board in the 2nd and 3rd rounds to accumulate more premium round selections in a more cost-effective manner.  Let me know who your favorite draft prospects are and what your ideal trade/non-trade scenarios are.  

As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts and opinions on our discussion board.            


David Michalski is a staff writer for Cheesehead TV. He can be found on Twitter @kilbas27dave 

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 3 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (80) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

porupack's picture

Nicely done David. Scenarios 2-4 are all solid. I personally see the rationale to trade picks (they're all simply bets), for a proven vet such as Dee Ford. NE consistently gets talent that way.

I'm not opposed to blockbusters, but law of percentages on bets for first rounders should still weigh in GB favor to roll the dice with 2 firsts and 1 second, than to put all chips into a high first. Maybe if GB didn't have so many holes, and if it felt one difference maker would get us to the elite 4....then ok, maybe a bet worth taking.

Old School's picture

I'm generally always in favor of trading down and getting more picks.

The author is really in love with the Edge position. Me? Not as much.

Jersey Al's picture

It's the strongest defensive front 7 draft in many many years and the Packers will likely be without Clay Matthews and Nick Perry. But you're not in love with the edge position? ok...

Swisch's picture

Jersey Al, do you trade up for Bosa or Allen; or do you go with Burns or Sweat or someone else at #12; or do you take Hockenson at #12 with the hope that there's still a potential star at edge rusher at #30; or do you trade for Dee Ford with #30 (plus another pick or two) and then pick Hockenson at #12 and an offensive lineman at #44.: or do you say to just buy the draft guide ;-).

Jersey Al's picture

I don't trade up. There will be excellent defensive talent at #12 and a top-3 TE, or top-5 OL available at 30.

carlos's picture

Agree Al. I’d prefer to hang tight with picks- especially this year. Not that an opportunity can’t arise suddenly on draft weekend, I just like having all the picks to fill some areas of need.

Guam's picture

Looking at many of the 2019 mock drafts, there seems to be a fair amount of unanimity about the top ten, but slots 11 through 30 are all over the place. I have seen both of the Iowa TE's as high as 12 and as low as 30 and that seems to be true of other players as well. If the Packers believe there is a large block of players that are approximately equal from 11-30, it may make sense to trade back and get more players since we have a number of holes to fill. Of course the issue will be finding a trading partner if other teams believe the same.

Holecrap's picture

This year the first is loaded with d talent. One analyst said even the pats get talent at 32. Thus why move, you take the bpa that you have a need for. No reason to screw around with trying to amass late round picks. Ted did that and gave up talent for bodies thus the dumpster fire we have now.

Old School's picture

I think we finished In the Top Ten in sacks last year without a big contribution from either of them. If it’s the strongest class in years then why do you need to spend a first round pick on somebody to give us 6 sacks?

There are some very good Front Seven defenders who are NOT edge rushers.

And if we’re stupid enough to pay Perry $11mil to not play for us, then that’s not really something that should compel us to fill a hole we created, is it?

Better options early than Edge, better values for one later.

leche's picture

I think your evaluation of this draft and the need for edge rushers is just way off... The drop off after the first rounders is HUGE and everyone after is going to be a developmental project. With Rodgers getting up there in age, drafting guys who need years to develop needs to not be the idea.

Assuming the first 11 go more or less as expected, the best value at 12 is going to definitely be an edge rusher

Swisch's picture

leche, who are the top edge rushers ready to go right away for the Packers, and who are the projects?

Jersey Al's picture

leche, you are 100% correct. 100%.

Old School's picture

Jersey Al. You overvalue edge rushers. You're not alone.

If it's me, I keep Perry because it's stupid to pay him $11 million to not play. I hope he produces more than 1.5 sacks. I keep Fackrell and hope that he does as well as he did last year. I keep Gilbert because he's vet minimum. And if I can't find anybody in FA, I draft two edge rushers, but not in round one.

I'd look to Front Seven defenders....DEs and ILBs...….to improve the team. Martinez, Daniels, Lowry, and Fackrell are all in their contract year....that's four starters. Perry will be gone after this year because of the way his contract is structured. We currently have no starter at the ILB spot next to Martinez in the base.

But by all means, let's get a guy who can improve our ability to get to the QB when we're already above average at it. I understand the reasoning, I just think it's really flawed.

Old School's picture

Fine. Let's take a brief stroll through recent history.

Last year Marcus Davenport was taken at #14....he got 4.5 sacks. And truly, once you're out of the Top 10, the VAST MAJORITY of DE/EDGE guys taken in the first/early second aren't much better. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.

For every player like Watt, or Matthews, who has a great rookie season, you've got three guys who give you 5 sacks a game or less.

And, we're already GOOD at getting to the QB....Top 10. Why not address some of the areas where we AREN'T Top10 with our earliest picks?

If you want to use pick #12 on a front seven defender, there are definitely guys that will be available at #12 that will pay more dividends in the long, and short, run than another edge player.

leche's picture

So it seems you're mostly ignoring the strengths of this class vs past classes when making this assessment. The entire point is that the top group of edge rushers in this class, even after Bosa and Allen, all project to be much better and more productive than Davenport last year. Davenport was the second edge rusher in the class last year; yet in this current class he'd be sixth or seventh. But every class has different strengths or weaknesses. This class is stronger at the Edge and TE, but it's much weaker at QB. You need to adjust your analysis to each specific draft instead of taking them uniformly consistent.

The other thing you keep focusing on is just the amount of sacks... Edge rushers offer way more value to a defense than just the number of sacks generated. This Packers team had only 7 interceptions, tied for 29th in the league and was 28th in opponent passer rating. The defense just needs to do more to put pressure on a quarterback to force mistakes.

You're honestly just way off on your last part. The edge is the position of greatest weakness on the team and the position that one of the top players at one of the best and deepest positions in the draft will provide the greatest amount of impact and improvement.

Old School's picture

You and I both see a defense that ranked 22nd in scoring.

I see a defense that has no starting safety, no starting strong safety, no starting ILB next to Martinez in the base. You see a need for an edge Drusher.

I see a team that couldn't put 5 healthy DBs on the field who can cover and tackle. You see a need for an edge rusher.

I see a team that has two starting OLBs under contract, Perry and Fackrell. You see a need for an edge rusher.

I see a team that is very average at stopping the run, and you see a need for an edge rusher.

I see a team that finished in the Top Ten in sacks, you see a need for an edge rusher.

I see that if I draft an OLB/Edge, the greatest likelihood is that he'll appear in about 11 games and he'll get us 0.5 sacks/game. And some pressures, because people with the most sacks generally have the most pressures.

Now, we could draft a 3 down linebacker, or a starting caliber strong safety, or a starting caliber FS...….or we could get an edge rusher who will influence 2-3 plays per game...if we're lucky. If you want to get rid of Perry so that the draftee gets more snaps, then that'll mean paying Perry $11 million to not play for us.

You think that's the smart play; I do not. IMO, the smart play is you keep Perry, keep Fackrell, resign Gilbert, try to get a reasonably priced guy in FA and draft a guy on the second day. If we can't get the guy in FA then draft another OLB early in the 4th.

There are other people at other positions available to us on the first day that would help the team more, IMO.

Holecrap's picture

I see a team with so many holes to fill and dead wood to get rid of, an edge may be a start but its going to take two drafts to fix this dumpster fire Ted created.

xTHE_WEEx's picture

I see your point, but I still believe it comes down to taking the best player available. If the board goes:
Kyler Murray
Joey Bosa
Quinnen Wiliams
Josh Allen
Montez Sweat
Dwayne Haskins
DK Metcalf
Clelin Ferrell
Jonah Williams
Jawaan Taylor
Drew Lock (trade up from a team)
And now you're on the clock with the #12 pick. Who do you take?
Brian Burns/Devin White/TJ Hockenson or someone else? Please share your logic with your selection. Thanks!

David Michalski's picture

I think the issue with that argument is you see Nick Perry as a starter. If he’s your main edge rusher going into week 1 that’s a serious issue. There’s a few easier options at safety, you can move Josh Jackson to safety and play Tramon as a hybrid and then sign Thomas, Matthieu, or Collins. That would allow you to be in on an edge rusher in the first round in some capacity as well as sign Houston or Ansah on a prove it team friendly contract. And possibly see where the Dee Ford sweepstakes take you.

Also, it’s better to just cut Perry now, you still save around $4 million. At worst he needs to take a pay cut bc he isn’t worth $15.5 million coming off of a dreadful season.

Old School's picture

He was our main edge rusher going into last season, he got hurt and contributed little, and we still were a good team at getting to the QB. So I'm not sure how serious that issue is.

Tramon is a 36 year old cornerback. Jackson is a promising CB....why would you want to move him to the less important safety spot? If you fix the safety spot, via FA or the draft, then Tramon and Jackson are our 3rd and 4th corners.

Fix the safety spot. We carry 5 on the 53 man roster. Right now, #1 on that list is Josh Jones.

I think it's stupid to pay Nick Perry $11 million to not play for us in order to "save" $3.4 million.

Keep Perry and Fackrell, Resign Gilbert for the vet minimum. Try to acquire a REASONABLY priced OLB in FA and if you can't get one, draft an OLB on Day Two and another one on the last day.

David Michalski's picture

Perry is dead wood, he's had 1.5 solid seasons, and 1 pro bowl caliber season. Injuries have slowed him down and there's no sign of that improving with age. I'll compromise with you and would be open to a reasonable restructuring of his contract but if he turns it down he can find the door. Part of the Packers getting to the quarterback was through some of Pettine's exotic blitz packages and Fackrell emerging, let's not pretend that Nick Perry had anything to do with the Packers getting to the QB.

Tramon was playing reps at safety last year and could profile better as a hybrid at 36. Jackson could see a move to free safety if he doesn't make the jump during the offseason here in year 2.

FYI, I'm not the only one floating the Tramon and Jackson idea which would have them play safety. (Like hypothetically you could sign Landon Collins to play strong and move Jackson to free safety)

leche's picture

So you're falling in the Sunk Cost Fallacy. We already paid Perry. That's done with. It's over. Move on.

Again you're ignoring that pass rush is about more than just sacks. It's about pressure. It's about forcing panic and causing mistakes. This Packers team, despite putting up good sack numbers, doesn't do that well enough and this draft is LOADED with top end pass rushing talent who can make an impact on any team. Let's be one of those teams... What else would you do with #12?

elisbona's picture

100% right, imagine a world in which we either trade up to get one of the premium edge rushers at 3 or 4; or Burns or Sweat at 12 and then trade 44 for Dee Ford. Instant upgrade! Plus bolstering the front seven makes our young secondary that much better.

TheBigCheeze's picture

leave it as is......pick Devon White at #12.....and Hock or Fant at #30......

stockholder's picture

Agree with you on this. I too , say leave as it is. Most people compare Alexander to others they could of had. But We got Alexander with the #18 of Seatle, thrown in was @7 #248. The Packers Gave up a lot. #27 from NO. #76 3rd overall and #86 6th overall. While Alexander showed Promise. The Soph. Jinx can still happen. Was Alexander worth trading 3 picks? The other trade brought Burks. Was #88 3rd rd. from Carolina for #101 4th and #147 5th. Lets compare the picks to what we could of had. Lets say we kept Randall! If the Packers kept their extra picks: They could still have got Burks. But what they gave up could have filled holes. Like MVS and StBrown Did. I understand Gute needed to set his draft by taking a CB early. But if were going to make trades and go back up. I question how many have worked in the last few years. Spriggs, Worthy, Hayward, Alexander now, and Burks. How many of those selections were better picks for the opposing teams. I don't see value if they can't get on the field. If were in a complete overhaul??? Stop the giving away of draft capitol. Gute gave away picks last year. We had a deal that was to good to refuse from NO. I understand that. But lets look at the roster he had before Alexander was selected. House, T. Williams, and King were you CBs. That deal would not have been made if they kept Randall. Did the packers have to give away so much. Last Year? I believe they did. 2 Losing years say it all. The Depth still has to many questions. So hopefully Gute does leave it as is.

Bert's picture

Hmmmmm. I'm not convinced that Dee Ford is going to provide the production that would warrant giving up either the #12, 30 or 44 picks. May as well just use the pick on an edge rusher actually. Ford is OK but not a difference maker.

David Michalski's picture

Ford had 84 QB pressures this season including the playoffs, Clay Matthews, Nick Perry, Kyler Fackrell, and Reggie Gilbert had 87 quarterback pressures combined. Translation, Dee Ford is and would be a difference maker for the Packers.

jww061356's picture

I think if they can get Ford for a 2nd and say, a 7th, you grab that deal and run like hell.

holmesmd's picture

And 13.5 sacks in 2018. That’s not a “difference maker”?

Rak47's picture

Ford was not only motivated by a contract year but also had pro bowlers Chris Jones and Justin Houston playing next to him that defenses had to account for. He will have none of that in GB, no contractual motivation and no pass rushing pro bowlers the defense must account for to leave Ford one vs one anymore. If you think Ford is going to be the main focus and take on double teams waay waay more and still get 84 pressures you're kidding yourself. Packers will spend 15-16 million for 8-10 sacks and less than half the amount of pressures he had in 2018.

JonR005's picture

The bigger knock on ford in my eyes is that their offense scored so many points. He got so many more opportunities to pin his ears back and rush the passer without regard for the run game.

In GB, you'd expect kenny clark/mike daniels/edge @ 12/mo wilk to be more than competent enough to keep him away from constant doubles.

Packer Fan's picture

Most everyone looks at sacks. Pressures are more important. It hurries the QB into making inaccurate or too soon throws. Pettine got a good number of sacks, but as you note, not enough pressures. Good stat.

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Exactly. We saw what Ford CAN do in the NFL.
Sweat or Polite or Burns have a chance to be Aaron Maybin, Vernon Gholston, Everett Brown, Barkevious Mingo or Deion Jordan. Jacksonville got burned by Dante Fowler in the top 5.

Getting Ford for a 2nd rd pick would be like Merry Christmas to me! Just stay onside in late playoff games!

xTHE_WEEx's picture

I agree! The question in my mind does not come from whether Dee Ford would make a difference, but rather what it would cost to acquire him. My primary concern is that I believe edge players (DE/OLB) perform better on their first contract rather than their second contract (unless they are elite players). I'm a fan of giving up our 2nd, but would prefer to give up our 3rd and 4th (#118) for him instead. I believe there's a significant talent drop off beyond the Packers 2nd round (#44) pick making trading one of our top 3 picks an expensive and somewhat risky trade. I'd also like to see if the Chiefs would entertain a package of our 3rd, 5th, and Josh Jones as they are looking for Safety help and he is still a young player. What are your thoughts?

porupack's picture

Another point I would like to make, rather than focus on which draft pick should GB be making (has been the dominant topic over the past 2 months of draftfans), and even your article, regarding where in the draft order should GB position itself; we don't hear enough about priority and cluster strategy.

I think not enough focus on synergy and cluster of pics and focus. A strategist Has to make priorities.
Either do a lot marginally better, or a few things very much better.

If GB wants the best chance of getting to elite 4, what cluster of picks, infusion of talent will have the most synergistic effect?
We know CBs make OLBs better and vice versa. So along that logic, if GB wants to get way better, not incrementally better, then eschew BPA. Focus on clusters. Whatever scenario you present above, then go all out on talent around 1 or 2 clusters, for example:
OLB, CB, S with 3 of top 4 picks (or DWhite if available). Another OLB in 3rd or 4th.
Argument is that a top pass D gets 3 and outs, and ball goes back to Rodgers and Offense. Pressure causes errors and turnovers. Less wear and fatigue, and less injuries. Better field position for offense.
WR (perhaps Metcalf), TE (Fant/Hock), OG with 3 of top 4 picks. OT in 4th round. RB in late round.
Argument: the best defense is a strong offense that can move the chains, control the clock, and score at will. Pressures opposing offenses to match points, and makes mistakes.

Clustering is better than piecemeal improvement. Clusters of somewhat better players synergize each other and the net performance of all, are likely to increase the success of one rookie over to the other rookie.
I'm curious, if you or others accept my theory of draft strategy on clustering the draft pick, toward how each pick helps the other pick, and the units. If you do, then would the focus on O or D have the most chance of getting GB to the elite 4.

rtuck80's picture

Many said the same about Nick Perry several years back (whose career at the time looked very similar to Ford's now). I like Dee Ford too but making such definitive assumptions about his potential in Green Bay is unwise.

NitschkeFan's picture

porupack , that "clustering" is an interesting and creative idea. If you also cluster the free agency money on the other side of the ball, you may get the most improvement. For example with your draft picks focusing on the offense

"WR (perhaps Metcalf), TE (Fant/Hock), OG with 3 of top 4 picks"

And then next cluster, spend most of the free agency cap space on CB and Safety.

But we could almost say the Packers were "clustered" for many years with a top 5 offense and a bottom 10 defense. That gave us many regular season wins, lots of fun, but fell short of championships. I think you are more likely to win a SB with both offense and defense being above average (and special teams not being absolute garbage).

Minniman's picture

The only problem that I can see with that theory is that it doesn't take into account season or career ending injuries or regression.

It also depends on being able to get all of the players that you target - which is unlikely.

In truth I see this offseason being able to potentially provide the Packers with 4 of the 5 following "needs" Safety, Edge, IDL, IOL and TE....... probably boding better for defenders than offense.

If the Packers nailed 4 of these 5 this year I'd be deliriously happy.

crayzpackfan's picture

Holy smokes those are bold scenarios. However, they are intriguing like taking part in a blind date kind of intriguing. Is she gonna be fat sally who smells like a slim Jim or is she a super model? My sense is telling me to stay at 12, move up or down with 30, and stand pat with the rest. I certainly do find your scenarios extremely fun to think about though. Maybe the one where we move up to the 3 spot gets me the most drunk with interest. Good read either way.

Dzehren's picture

Interesting post. Based on this logic, prioritizing the OL (Lindstrom & 4th rd OT’s &a blocking TE) would improve the running game & would benefit AROD & the D.

Solid CB( Breeland) and Safety (Juan Thornton & Adrian Amos) play would complement the front 7 getting off the field.

Boneman's picture

Great scenarios! It may be difficult to get those teams to trade with us but if things don't fall right in the top 11 picks and Gutey doesn't like the value left at 12 I'm all for trading back a bit, though I'd shy away from Polite. I think QB's will go early leaving a top talent D guy for us at 12. Wouldn't mind D tackle if Ed Oliver is still there. I'm a little afraid Gutey will make a move just to make a move and would kind of like to see how the draft falls.

56 Packfan's picture

Trading back a few spots cost us Derwin James last year, a Pro Bowl selection. Alexander is not quite in that category. If Burns is better than Polite, I don't see why the Packers should do that. The argument is that you get more swings. Sure, but I believe you can do that later than at 12, which is a bit uncommon for the recent Packers. Take advantage of the position when in this this situation. Moving up to get Burks did not exactly pan out. Two swings just a bit later may have been more productive, presumably at least down to round 4.

Old School's picture

So you would have rather had Derwin James than Jaire Alexander and whoever we pick with #30?

Look, I liked James, but Alexander is a very good player and we have a chance to get a very good player at #30 this year. I don't regret that trade down at all.

Demon's picture

2 years ago trading back a few spots got us ironman Kevin King and Biegel That worked out so well for us we had to use another 1st round on a CB and still need a pass rusher. Good job Ted

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Exactly. And TJ Watt was a no-brainer, gift on a silver platter. Senile Ted thought he had already been selected?

CheesyTex's picture

All for Ford IF Gute can get him for #114 and a 6th or 7th, and can sign him to a deal that fits his wallet.

Packerpasty's picture

interesting...of course some would make more sense once we see what free agents they may acquire...but please don't pull a Ted and drop back and get a bunch of jag's in the 3/4/5 rounds...lets for once go quality over can it be and worse than Brices, Kings and Beigle's of the draft world...I know..King "may" turn out great...Ted took guys that he knew would be cheaper cuz of injury situations and not many of them worked out....thats my take...MOVE UP FOR ONCE...GO FOR THE GUSTO...

Demon's picture

Once again, the over the horse apple.

J0hn Denver's Gavel's picture

Brice wasn't involved in "the draft world," whatsoever.

sam1's picture

Hope we stay put and take best young guy available if for position or need great! Just no projects, pick at position played and will play in NFL!

Handsback's picture

If I was down for more picks is better than bundling them for a higher pick. The draft is never a sure thing. By getting fewer picks, you limit your chances that they work out, opposite if reverse. Green Bay needs to hit on a lot of players in the draft and FA. Let's just hope they do.
BTW...I doubt you see Polite picked before the middle of 2nd round. He shot himself in the foot with his attitude and performance.

sonomaca's picture

Pack should trade for Rosen. Dump Kizer. You improve your backup situation and acquire your future starter.

lowcsp's picture

I would love min. to get polite in the first round and we get hock. then we can watch hock pancake him every running play we run at him he would do the same to burns would not take burns before #30 and probably take winnovich before him and wouldnt take polite at all.

Rak47's picture

That could be a game changer for the Packers future depending on how many quality years Rodgers has left in the tank. I would be ok giving up that second rounder for Rosen.

EddieLeeIvory's picture

Absolutely no on Rosen.
But I agree Kizer cannot be our #2 this season.

sonomaca's picture

Rosen is much more likely to become a high level starter as a Rodgers apprentice than going from one bad team to another.

Slim11's picture

I'm all for keeping the #12 and #44 picks. Trading the #30 pick for another early #2 (#33-40) and an early #3 (#65-72) with a team wanting to trade back into the first round is a move worth making.

Players with a first round grade always fall into the second round and the same applies to the players with a second round grade. I believe there will be some players at those positions who will provide almost immediate help to the Packers.

Holecrap's picture

No one is biting on a 30 pick and giving up multiple picks. By 30 the big dance is over.

Slim11's picture

My scenario only works with a team wanting to regain a first round pick because of what they traded away or with a team wanting back into the first round to pick a specific player at #30. Given the needs of the Packers, they can hold onto the #30 pick or trade it away. If they trade it away, it becomes a matter of how badly another team wants the #30 pick.

I don't agree that the "big dance is over" at #30.

leche's picture

Yeah that can still happen, though it's likely not an early 3rd that gets added... In 2017 the Packers traded down from #29 to #33 and all we got back was the 1st pick in the 4th. Trading down from #30 into #33-40 is more than likely bringing in a late 3rd or early 4th; but it could all depend on how the draft goes and how desperate a team in. Teams reaching for QBs late tend to be a bit more desperate to make a move back up.

PatrickGB's picture

Good work! Most any of those options are fine with me. This is a talented class. So whatever Gute picks is ok with me. Yet all in all I prefer more picks with BPA. IF this class is a talented as reported then more is better. The radical picks at the end of the article are ok but today I would think that more is better. GPG.

Swisch's picture

One thought is that Dee Ford has already proven himself at the NFL level, and yet is still only 27. To get him for #30 and a 4th-rounder seems a bargain.
I'd do the same deal to move up for Bosa or Allen if either is really perceived to be a pro-bowler. I wouldn't give up any other first or second round picks, however.
I'd keep #12, #30, and #44, for example, rather than trade them for #2 or #3.

Duneslick's picture

Packer Greg says : Each pick you trade for as you move up the draft gets increasing expensive. Wait until 2 of the top 3 are gone at edge Bosa , Allen or Sweat and then trade up or wait and hope burns makes it to 12

BoCallahan's picture

Enjoyed the article! This is what I love about the draft - the anticipation, the hope, the twists, the turns, the risers, the falls, the booms, the busts. All of it, I can’t get enough!

4zone's picture

The trade with Oakland is realistic I think, although the players selected are not. It's one thing to want someone to be where you want them to be, but an entirely different thing in real life.

The other intriguing trade is with KC for Ford. Not sure what it is going to take to get him but you better get a contract agreement worked out BEFORE you pull the trigger. Hate to give up those picks for a one year contract.

stockholder's picture

If we don't trade. Were still going to get good players. 2 years of losing. We've taken to many Cbs. The packers have made bad choices. BPA regardless of Position;= Thats reloading!!! Isn't that what good teams do. Live for the future.

AgrippaLII's picture

Gutekunst would do well to sit on the picks he has and take the talent that falls to him...moving up in the draft has not worked especially well for the Packers. I like the idea of moving back to accumulate more picks but just how many more do you really need in this year's draft?

crayzpackfan's picture

Off topic: Rumors have GB in talks of a trade for Ford. What r your thoughts? Should we acquire him and draft another edge and hopefully solidify our pass rush and then go offense, safety, and OL with the next 3 picks?

Doug Niemczynski's picture

We only need to trade down 3-5 Spots for the #12 pick down to #15-17 for maybe a 3rd and 5th rounder and that's it.

stockholder's picture

We need to stay there for Oliver.

KnockTheSnotOutOfYou's picture

One of my favorite dream drafts through round 3.
Draft Oliver preferably, Sweat, Burns, or White at 12.

Should some talented front 7 defensive player like Burns (not happening) fall to 30 I'd snap them up in a heartbeat at end of round 1. My dream scenario would then be packaging our 3rd round along with #44 in second round to move up to first 3 or 5 spots in round 2 and draft Simmons. I am certain Simmons would last to early 2nd round but would not be available to Packers at #44.

I can only imagine how spectacular the defense would be in coming years.

stockholder's picture

Try this Oliver @12 Simmons @30 Dee Ford for @44. Keep Perry. If you trade up. You take the guy at #30 instead.

fthisJack's picture

no to Ford. way too costly in draft capitol and salary. i like the first trade scenario except not selecting Polite at 17. there would be better options and having 3 third round picks would be great. lots of good players left in that area.

Archie's picture

Two Fords are better than one?

Trade down from 12 and up from 30 and land:

Cody Ford OT/OG
Hock TE

Then trade #2 for Dee Ford.

Then get another RB.

Now you have a run game and you have added pass rush. Not to mention 12 has more protection and an excellent new target.

stockholder's picture

Cody Ford is a Bust.

crayzpackfan's picture

I don’t see Hockenson there. He’ll be gone within the first 14 picks.

xTHE_WEEx's picture

I believe that they should stay with the #12 pick because I believe that there's a chance that either Brian Burns or Devin White will be available. If not then I'm in agreement with moving forward with scenario #1 trading with Cleveland and selecting TE T.J. Hockenson out of Iowa. I believe he will be a perennial pro bowl player. Furthermore, I agree with scenario #4 and would be willing to trade our #44 pick (preferably our 3rd round #75 and a 4th round pick and Josh Jones instead) for Dee Ford.

As much fun as Blockbuster #1 trade seems review of past NFL Drafts going back to 2002 looking at where defensive linemen were taken show better odds around the #12 pick for elite players than at #3. Here's my comparison: #3 DE Tyson Jackson (2009), DT Gerald McCoy (2010), DT Marcel Darius (2011), OLB Dion Jordan (2013), OLB Dante Fowler (2015), OLB Joey Bosa (2016), DE Solomon Thomas (2017).

Compared to between #11 and #13: DE Dwight Freeney (2002), OLB Terrell Suggs (2003), DeMarcus Ware (2005), Shawne Merriman (2005), Haloti Ngata (2006), Patrick Willis (2007), Brian Orakpo (2009), Brandon Graham (2010), J.J. Watt (2011), and Aaron Donald (2014).

Interestingly Josh Allen best comparison is probably Dion Jordan who ran a very similar 40 time, had nearly identical broad jump, three cone drill, and 20 yard shuttle. They are similar height, arm length, and build (Jordan admittedly weighed 14 lbs less).

I don't expect the Packers to stay at #30. They'll either move up to take someone they like (offensive lineman perhaps) in the mid to late 20's or trade down to the 2nd round and pick up another 3rd or 4th round pick (depending on who their trade partner is).

It's going to be a fun draft to watch. Brian Gutekunst has a tremendous opportunity to shape the future of the Packers for years to come.

xTHE_WEEx's picture

Is it just me or does this draft class remind you of the 2011 draft? That class was loaded with Defensive Line talent too: Von Miller, J.J. Watt, Robert Quinn, Marcell Darius, and Aldon Smith.

More importantly for the Packers it was loaded with potential QB's who got taken much higher than they deserved to go by QB needy teams: Jake Locker #8, Blaine Gabbart #10, and Christian Ponder #12. I'm confident at least one team will trade up for a QB. The point being, Brian Gutenkunst should exercise patience and watch teams trade up for Drew Lock and Daniel Jones which will push blue chip defensive players further down allowing the Packers to have more options.

ILPackerBacker's picture

It is pretty easy to make up garbage scenario's where Hock is there at 30 but I have not seen a reliable source have him drop like that. Oliver or White MIGHT drop to 12.

Funny that a 2d round pick for Ford is fine but the bear steal of Mack was not.

sherrmann1806's picture

Hey there! Thanks very much for this article! Love your imaginative and creative draft trade ideas for the packers!!
I have a couple of ideas myself that i would like to run by everybody! My first idea is the concept of trading up in getting two players in particular! Devin white being the the first one and ..........Christian wilkins from Clemson being the second!. If white by some miracle falls to the packers at 12....GRAB HIM!!!!!............or else trade up if possible by packaging their Fourth round pick and perhaps a 5 and 6th round pick to try to move up to 7 or 8 or 9 to try to get him!
then i would try to trade up using the 30th pick by offering the other 4th round pick and an additional later round pick to around 22nd pick or where ever u have to go to get Wilkins!.

i very much believe that the two of them will be perrenial (forgot how to spell it lol)....probowlers with white possibly one day becoming a hall of famer! thus........massively upgrading your team with these two players and the free agents they got a few days ago!
i have more trade scenarios that i will try to bring up soon!

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"The Bears still suck!"
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "