Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

My Mock Draft 2.0

By Category

My Mock Draft 2.0

During the last few days, I have decided to give up on my lofty dreams of trading up into the top 7 and have pretty much lost hope of the Packers trading up at all.  I promise you, I'm not angry or upset.  The reality is, this franchise, in past years, has often let tradition and close-mindedness cripple them from being innovative which often leaves them years behind other franchises.  

However, this offseason has done a lot to change that perception.  It saw a complete departure from the ways of McCarthy and Thompson as Matt LaFleur was brought in with a fresh, new philosophy and Brian Gutekunst was finally able to take over the reins of this franchise.  

LaFleur is a change from the stringent and stubborn Packer coaches of the past who embraces the challenge of melding innovation with tradition and Gutekunst has shown the ability to throw caution to the wind and go all in on players who fit the Packers new system and culture.

The 2019 NFL Draft signals endless possibilities for this new regime.  With ten picks in next week's draft, Brian Gutekunst will look to continue to move this franchise in the right direction and put a solid team infrastructure around Aaron Rodgers.

In order to continue the rebuild of this roster and replenish the franchise with a stable infrastructure, the Packers must focus on drafting the best players available who will address their main areas of deficiency and will provide them with the most well-balanced roster.

With this philosophy in mind here is my latest 2019 Green Bay Packers mock draft.

My Mock Draft Version 2.0:

Round 1 Pick 12: Trade!!! The Packers trade the 12th pick overall to Oakland for the 24th and 35th picks.

Round 1 Pick 24: Devin Bush LB, Michigan

Round 1 Pick 30: Trade!!! The Packers trade the 30th overall pick to Indianapolis for the 34th, 135th, and 164th picks.

Round 2 Pick 34 (From Indy): Juan Thornhill S, Virginia

Round 2 Pick 35: (From Oakland): Kaleb McGary OT, Washington

Round 2 Pick 44: Irv Smith Jr. TE, Alabama

Round 3 Pick 75: Chase Winovich Edge, Michigan

Round 4 Pick 114: Trade!!! The Packers trade picks 114, 150, and 185 to Washington for the 96th overall pick.

Round 3 Pick 96: Oshane Ximines Edge, Old Dominion

Round 4 Pick 118: David Long CB, Michigan

Round 4 Pick 135 (From Indy): Ryquell Armstead RB, Temple

Round 5 Pick 164 (From Indy): Armon Watts DT, Arkansas

Round 6 Pick 194: Stanley Morgan WR, Nebraska

Round 7 Pick 226: Derwin Gray OT, Maryland


1. Pick 12 to Oakland for picks 24 and 35.

2. Pick 30 to Indianapolis for Picks 34, 135, and 164. 

3. Picks 114, 150, and 185 for Pick 96. 

Takes and Highlights:

1. Trades: In this version of my mock draft, I saw three trade partners who have draft capital inside of the top 100 and beyond.  In the cases of Oakland and Indy, I see a situation where they do not want the best player on their draft board to slip away.  Conversely, for the Washington Redskins, I see a situation similar to the Packers, in which they need to accumulate as many draft picks to build their team infrastructure so they are ready to win when/if Alex Smith is ready to return.  

I see the 2019 NFL Draft as a foundational draft for the next 5 years.  The Packers have to rebuild their infrastructure and try to address as many positions of weakness on their 53 man roster.  Trading back in the draft to accumulate picks helps them accomplish this goal.    

Although this rebuilding process will most likely take two years, (2019 and 2020), the Packers have given themselves a head start by addressing three areas of need in free agency by adding four players who will contribute in 2019.  

This year's draft will focus on trying to complete the rebuild of the defense as much as possible while adding a few offensive pieces around Aaron Rodgers and the offense which will fit Matt LaFleur's style of play.  I believe this mock draft addresses areas of weakness and adds depth at key positions which the Packers were lacking last season.  

2. Top 100 Selections:  The proposed trades in this mock draft had one thing in mind, accumulate as many premium top 100 selections as possible.  NFL draft studies show us there are around the same number of second and third round selections who become starters as there are first-round selections who become starters.  

With this in mind, this mock has the Packers bringing in two defensive players who could very well become day 1 starters at key positions of need (Bush at ILB, and Thornhill at Safety) and two versatile, high motor players (Chase Winovich and Oshane Ximines), who will add depth to the front seven while providing Mike Pettine an endless amount of options.  

On offense, we see the Packers bringing in two potential 2020 day 1 starters who would still receive a considerable amount of playing time during their rookie campaigns in 2019.  Kaleb McGary is a player who could challenge Billy Turner for the starting right guard position and would add depth to the right tackle position in the case Brian Bulaga misses multiple weeks of action.  

Make no mistake about it, Irv Smith Jr. will see a lot of repetitions in two tight end sets during his rookie campaign, but his value is also more with a focus towards 2020 when the Packers could release Jimmy Graham to free up more cap space.  In the interim, drafting Irv Smith would give the Packers a dynamic two tight end set which could resemble the days when Aaron Hernandez and Rob Gronkowski were on opposite sides off the field for the Patriots.

3. Finding Value in Rounds 4-5:  From a scouts perspective, there is certainly a lot of mid-round talent in this year's draft.  In these spots, I looked for the Packers to add depth at key areas which would leave them with plenty of player personnel options in 2019.  David Long, Ryquell Armstead, and Armon Watts are all players who produced in college and had solid senior seasons that would add rotational depth at key positions.

These kinds of players allow a positional group not to miss a beat when a starting player inevitably goes down with an injury at some point in the season.  These are the kinds of players the Packers have not had on their roster in years past which often times was the difference between winning and losing.    

Sound Off:

Let me know how you feel about my latest mock draft board.  What would you change, what would you add, and what would your 2019 Packers Mock Draft Board look like?  I'm looking forward to the debate and discussion from all of you draft experts out there.  


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

NFL Categories: 
  • Like Like
  • 4 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (120) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Bure9620's picture

Very nice draft, Thornhill is a bit high for me in the 2nd, he is essentially Josh Jones 2.0 IMO, but definitely fits the Packers Athletic requirements. Love Stanley Morgan. He finally had a QB that could throw last year, remember when he torched the Badgers?

jannes bjornson's picture

Thornhill may go higher. What motivates Gruden to move up to #12?
He has his choice of QBs or Q.Williams/Allen at #4. Then he has fair value with his other two ones. He has a scope out for Fant there and EDGE. He already has top WRs on board and picked up his safetuy in free agency.
I like your trade up scenarios better.

Rak47's picture

I'm personally happy he's given up on the trade up scenario's. I think they're ridiculous as there is no one you can draft in the top 5 who is guaranteed to be better than who's available at 12. Can you guarantee even reasonably that Bosa, Allen, or Q Williams is going to be a better pro than Sweat, Oliver, Wilkins, or Bush? Don't bother to answer, I'll do it for you, NO you can't. So what would be the point of trading up? Just to give away picks to gamble on a player who is no surer thing than who's available at 12? If anything you want to trade back in this draft and grab as many quality players as you can because there are quite a few in this draft. To throw all your chips in on one guy, and then hope with all your might he turns into an All-Pro is a fools mission imho.

SpurgeonsCigar's picture

I am with Rak47. Let it come to you or trade to go DOWN a few if the "Guy" Gutey has in mind is not there. I am hoping for a couple of guys to be available at 12. Montez Sweat or Devin Bush would be great picks and an Iowa TE later in the first would also be awesome. I do NOT want Oline in the first. That position can be addressed in the fourth or later. I also think a CB in the first few rounds may be a good choice to allow Josh Jackson the opportunity to move to Safety. I think he is our safety so get some help for the very, very fragile Kevin King.

holmesmd's picture

Why are you riding Chucky’s rocket? Why here? SMH

GBPDAN1's picture

I highly doubt that Bush falls that far, but, maybe? I personally wouldn't trade back that far. Maybe trade back to 15-16 pick max, but only depending on how the first 11 picks transpire. We could have a very elite player fall to us at 12 .

Rak47's picture

Agree 100% Dan!

mrtundra's picture

Many mocks have Bush taken at pick #5. I doubt he will last as long as you predict. But who knows? It's the draft, after all.

jannes bjornson's picture

That is Devin White mocked to #5, not Devin Bush. If this trade took place you would still go Dline/Edge at the #24 with Farrell, Wilkens or Lawrence over an ILB.

Packer Fan's picture

I like the idea of getting four picks in the top 50 and you have made good choices. But two edge players in round three is too much. And edge and a WR would be my picks. Then what you have done in rounds 4-7 is to add depth at need positions. OL, RB, CB and DT. i would swap the WR with an Edge. And I would say the DT be better selected in round 4. But what you have suggested is what I would desire for Gute to do with the draft. Good job!

OnWisconsinGoPack's picture

To each their own, but doesn't seem that realistic. If you did this through a website, I'd like to see who was drafted where.

Bush at 24 is great, don't see him getting past the Steelers however.

Not a Thornhill fan, at least at 34. Rather have Adderly, assuming gone in your mind, or CGJ at 34 or Hooker later (3rd).

McGary and Irv are solid choices in 2nd and realistic.

Winovich in 3rd would be a shock, probably early to mid 2nd IMO.

Don't like Oshane in the 3rd, guessing a WR (Isabella or someone) would have dropped or even Sternberger as a 2nd TE.

After that it's a crapshoot and anyone's guess or personal favorite at that point

EdsLaces's picture

Hooker over thornhill? No..

stockholder's picture

Bush to low. Maybe Fant . Thornhill S Like. But don't like the trade. Doubt Arnstead and Watts make the club. McGary No.( Jersey doesn't even like him.) IRV SMITH IS TO SMALL FOR ME. NO! WINOVICH IS 2ND RD. TAKE OL \HERE. 114 TRADE. NO 4 TH RD IS VALUE OF OLS XIMINES EDGE NO! OLB ROLLINS IS BETTER. LONG NO! BUSH AND THORNHILL WOULD START. BUT the problem is DT. You have major reaches, and the value won't work after the FAs we hauled in. You do know Thornhill will be 24. Burn IT.

Gman1976's picture

I appreciate your work and agree that the Packers had become stale and needed to innovate while maintaining tradition, but if I am GM, I either am holding the 12th pick or just sliding down 2 or 3 spots in a trade. Why? We need impact players and I think we can get one early in the draft. Sliding down to the 24th will probably not land us one of the blue chip players. Quality over quantity. While I agree the more shots a GM has in the draft, the more chances of getting a good player; but in general, the top 10-15 picks or so can really make a difference. Let's Go Pack!

jannes bjornson's picture

#15 is the low point of the turning world. If Washington wants a QB that has fallen or if they think Jones is their guy( doubtful) the trade may come in play, but is an extra three pick worth missing a a bonafide player at #12?

Zebra 3's picture

I agree, quality is what you are looking for.
What I would like is two defensive players in the first round.
DL and SS to compliment the new off season pickups with the result being an improved defense. I want to see a tough and physical defense.

stockholder's picture

Quality is the word. Need is the other. Burks is our ILB. @12 Burns @30 Adderley Fs @44 Polite. It's been said you never can get enough edge rushers.

Rak47's picture

Polite won't be around at 44 I guarantee it. If he falls out of the first round he won't make it past the Raiders at 35 who are absolutely starving for edge rushers after trading Mack. Mayock will go edge with his first pick then double down at 35 if Polite is there. Mayock raved about Polite before he became GM in Oakland. He has four of the top 35 picks to play with, so he can be super flexible. Teams love Polite's film but won't want to give him that guaranteed 1st round money after his display of immaturity and unprofessionalism at the combine.

fthisJack's picture

i wouldn't mind a trade down as far as 17 to the Giants. this draft is deep and a very good player can be had with that 3rd round pick. unless Oliver slides to 12, all these so called impact players have warts and there is zero guarantee they will be any better than a guy at 17 if your board stacks up that way.

Cubbygold's picture

Completely agree Gman. This mock has GB taking 11 guys in the draft. Thats too many. They'll end up cutting 4 of em because theres no room on the roster. Trading down for lower quality, just for the ability to bring more guys into camp, is not what this team needs. I'd rather go the other way, looking to get 5 excellent prospects into camp

leche's picture

Eh, even late round draft picks can be small improvements over current players. Writing them off entirely seems foolish as improving the roster should always be encouraged.

But like has been said many times already, the entire point is kind of tier based... If you can trade down to another pick that will still fall in the same tier of player while adding another pick in a better position, there's value in that. If it requires you to forego a player on that top tier to get one at a lower tier, that's a different story... But it kind of all depends on where the Packers value certain players that are available at the time we pick at #12.

PatrickGB's picture

Too many trades. My head is spinning. But it’s always fun to talk about possibilities. I guess it would be ok if we did that. But there are a lot of unknowns when you drop down that far. I could see this kind of thing if we were in full rebuild mode.

stockholder's picture

Seriously! I would not trade the @12 @30 @44 picks. Dropping down gets you offense. Watch and see what goes 24 to 35. If they want OL that would be the pick @24. @35 you still get offense. @ 34 a safety possible. But Wr would be better. Just big question marks! @ 44 the draft just became BPA. Your trading down is not the answer for the defense. But it is if you want Offense. Doubt you get any starters taking offense.

jannes bjornson's picture

The multi-trade scenario is a good idea if you are rebuilding from scratch, but Gutekunst already added four from the upper tier of free agency. If anything I would move up to ten if your guy is in sight.

stockholder's picture

Stay put! Nobody dislikes Burns or Bush. After just seeing Kiper and Mcshay. I would Take Burns @12. Knowing Wilkins will go to Buffalo. @30 Lawrence and Simmons were Gone. Risner,and Fant are there. But take Adderley!

Bert's picture

Kiper and McShay? Hope you're not taking them too seriously.

blondy45's picture

Key to whole Packers draft is who is at #12. I have looked at all your mock players, like all but Derwin
Gray. My big sleeper pick for round 7 would be:

Trey got rave reviews at the East-West All Star game. He was voted 3rd in the Upshaw award (DII lineman of the year), 1st team Associated Press, & 1st team teams. Graded out in 2018 at 91.7% ( positive reps in 710 plays), 90.5 knockdowns in 2018, 234.5 in his career, gave up one sack in 2018, and TWO in his ENTIRE CAREER! I know USF is a division 2 school, but a good one. I like em!
In defense of David, it is impossible to predict trades, but the more picks in the top 118, the better. I also do not really want to hop back too far at pick 12. An enjoyable and not too off the wall piece. Nice job David.

jannes bjornson's picture

Derwin has a fourth round grade and Pipkins is a sleeper with a fifth rating on scouts boards to sixth.

Irish_Cheesehead's picture

No way Gute trades both first round picks. I just don’t see it happening.

jannes bjornson's picture

A bird in depends on how they see value in this draft but I would go Defense.

CheesyTex's picture

"Although this rebuilding process will most likely take two years..."

Like your idea of trade downs this year. There are so
many holes to be filled that trade-downs do seem likely -- the more picks on days 1 and 2 the better odds of drafting foundational players ready to play this year.

With just a little good luck for a change, Pack will get a jump from 1 & 2 year vets, and will have success with this year's FA and Draft (can't wait).

Go Pack!

David Michalski's picture

Just to put the pick values in perspective, my guy Lance Zierlein has all of these evaluations within the range of possibility. He ranks every prospect using the NFL scouts key for projecting the players careers.

Obviously, to each their own when it comes to prospect preference and your preference of the scouts you chose to follow. But bottom line is that this is a crap shoot when trying to project who will be available since I like to do my mock drafts the old fashioned way.

Demon's picture

I'll never support any mock draft that has the Packers trading down in the first 2 rounds. The Packers need impact players not a bunch of guys.

Id much rather see if we can move up a few spots with both 1st round picks.

Turophile's picture

Utter nonsense. Trading down is often the best policy. If Gute hadn't traded down last year, we wouldn't have the extra 1st round pick this year.

It's all about tiers, where the talent levels are grouped. If you have say, 8 players that you like equally, then you could trade down 6 spots, get an extra pick and STILL get an equal talent player.

Just as valid is doing what the Packers did to acquire Clay Matthews, they gave up more than the pick where they took him was worth, but they valued him as a much higher value than where they took him, so for them he was worth it.

Trading up or down or staying put is SITUATIONAL. The best strategy depends on the board......... and you would be stupid to abandon any one of your three choices (up/down/stay) arbitrarily.

Demon's picture

So youre saying Derwin James was equal to Jaire Alexander last year?

Youre Also saying that Kevin King was equal to TJ Watt the year before?

The Packers lost out on both trades down.

fthisJack's picture

the question is not if James is better than Alexander. the question is James better than Alexander and pick no. 30 this year......and i would say we need to wait and see. i would

ThxJackVainisi's picture

Completely agree with Turophile: As I hope we (and they) have learned, not using one of the three options available for picks would be as foolish as largely abandoning free agency to fill holes in the roster.
I agree about tiers too. If they think they can get a special player (tier 1).. at #12 they should take him. If they don’t, adding two extra picks in the top 100 makes a lot of sense to me.
Demon, there is a difference between draft strategy and the ability to evaluate talent. For example, they clearly missed on their evaluation of Watt. That doesn't mean the strategy is wrong.

canadapacker's picture

Totally agree - you always go in picking where you are allotted. Then scenarios change and people pick against the so- called experts. Like Chicago stunning all the experts and taking Trubisky. So you need to be prepared for everything especially if somebody comes a calling for your spot. But as of right now be prepared to take the guy off of your board when your spot is on the clock.

Qoojo's picture

At least you didn't pick a TE at #12

optimisticfan's picture

I like the idea of trading down whether it is this double down scenario or other scenario.

Would Oakland rather stay at 24 to have a chance to get Simmons before the Eagles or Colts can?
If we do trade (and likely Bush doesn’t fall to 24 would you rather take the risk on Simmons or get someone like Risner or Dillard (if they fall that far)?

How would this be:

24) Simmons or premium OT that falls
34) Dillard, Risner, Lindstrom McGary (OL whomever falls that low unless taken at 24 then take best TE left (Irv Smith likely)
35) Thornhill (or preferred S)
44) BPA (Winovich though he likely goes sooner than this) or best dual TE, or Debo Samuels etc
75) BPA...

optimisticfan's picture

or something like this:

24) Simmons
34) OT/top OG left
35) Winovich
44) Thornhill
75) BPA onward with a 3rd/4th round RB, ILB, another S developmental prospect, WR, 5th OT, punt return specialist, punt gunner etc

EddieLeeIvory's picture

If u can get Devin Bush at ALL I'm happy.
If this were to magically play out like that Awesome.

Turophile's picture

David. I think you are so wedded to the idea of trading up, you aren't looking at whether the trade makes sense from the other teams perspective.

The Oakland trade doesn't make much sense from Oaklands point of view (plus they lose out by 90 points on J.J.'s chart). The Indy trade is giving up three picks to move up just four spots when they already have another pick 4 spots BEFORE GBs 30th.
The Washington trade makes no sense at all, from their perspective. They already have 2x5ths a 6th and 2x7ths), so getting more lower picks for the loss of a much higher pick seems unlikely..

If you want a trade (up) to make sense from both sides, I'll give you a better example. Green Bay wishes to move up from their 3rd round (#75) pick. They target KC at #61 (worth 292 points on the J.J. trade value chart).

Packers give up their #75, a 4th (#114) and a 6th (#194), a total worth of 294.4 points. After the trade they still have 4th and 6th round picks left. With the trade KC spreads out it's picks better (they had #61 AND #63 before they traded), they get a 3rd rounder a full 17 picks before their own pick, they get a 4th rounder, which they don't have, and the extra 6th is just to balance value. It all makes sense from both sides.

Given the 2x 4ths and 2x 6ths the Packers have, moving up SOMEWHERE is very possible, but my 'most likely' scenario is that they trade back using one of their first round picks, then use that extra ammo gained along with the extra 4th and 6th picks to move up a good distance either from round two (#44) or most likely, round three (#75).

stockholder's picture

Kiper and McShay are so screwed up. @12 Lindstrom? Lindstrom @12 was Kipers pick. With Wilkins, Bush, and Burns on the board. Even Williams would have been the better pick. Also Smith Te going @24. Before Fant @30. WE need to keep the picks!!!!!

jannes bjornson's picture

They are both irrelevant.

Turophile's picture

The more one learns about the draft, the more picky you get about who you listen to. Gone are the days I felt that the Lindy's projections were gospel, same applies to the CBS board. Many of the best known draft pundits are, frankly, rubbish.

I still like the Bleacher report guys, I like Thedraftnetwork, like Pigskin Paul on Great Blue North, like the job PFF does (though I don't always agree with them). I love Andy Herman's work here. Bob McGinn has done some nice work on the draft in the past, though he was another guy I didn't always agree with.

Ultimately, you are best off doing some work yourself. Then supplement that with whichever guys out there you have some trust in.

stockholder's picture

I still trust Great blue North for matching up players on their big board. Ourlads has been the best at positional rankings. SI was so good on the draft. And Espn use to be accurate on trades. Bleacher report stinks. Not a Miller fan.

jannes bjornson's picture

Over the years Pauline's grades and where guys end up have a strong correlation.

Demon's picture

I now can tell who all the "in Ted we trust" fans are. Ted has you all so programmed to trade down thats all you guys can see.

Teds the kind of guy that drives onto the Ford/Lincoln dealership but drives away in a 1974 Ford Pinto. Yup got a great deal on it. Then as soon as he leaves the lot the transmission falls out and all 4 wheels fall off. But she runs like a dream!

Are you going to be happy with 12 rookies that have to develop for 2 to 4 years? Are you going to be happy with no rookie starters? That was Teds way. Im tired of Teds way!!!!

Look at the best defensive players starting today. Chances are most are from the top of the 1st round. Yet nearly everyone wants to trade down a few or more spots.

Id like to see them trade up into maybe the #9 or 10 pick. Then also trade #30 up in somewhere in the low 20's if that means losing out on the next Josh Jones, Josh Jackson, Jason Spriggs or Quinton Rollins I guess I could live with that.

If we could get a true difference maker on defense and another significant game 1 contributer the Pack could realistically be a play offs force again in 2019.

BradHTX's picture

Without defending TT’s decisions In his last years with the team, your basic premise — trading down is always bad because it’s what Ted always did — is flawed. Sometimes trading down is beneficial. Here’s why.

There’s no guarantee a given player is going to be better (or more valuable to a team, a subtle difference in meaning) than another player taken later than him. GM’s make their draft board and put the players in order of preference, but really, they break them into “tiers” of players that are of similar value.

This year, the top ten players on the Packers’ board might be the first tier, and they pick at #12. Potentially then, they are choosing high in the order of second-level players who they consider to all be of relatively equal value. One or more of their Tier One players might drop to them, but if not, they might be able to trade down a few spots and get a player they consider just as valuable at, say, 16 as at 12. And they’d pick up a later pick in addition, potentially in a later round where the value is better. A lot of analysts say this draft is deep in the third and fourth rounds, meaning those players are likely to be as valuable as those chosen in the late second round, let’s say. That’s a move that would make sense for the Packers.

I would not advocate trading down willy-nilly to just collect a bunch of late picks. That would be stupid; the Packers need a few really solid players, not a bunch of bodies. But if they can gain value in the early-mid rounds by trading down a few slots in the first and still getting a player they value as much as they would the player they’d take at #12, that’s just thinking strategically.

porupack's picture

excellent comment BradHTX, excellent comment.

blondy45's picture

Totally with you Brad!

ThxJackVainisi's picture

I too agree with Brad (and would like to read a reasoned post by the poster not named Demon who disagrees). Whenever posters use straw man arguments you know they’re having problems advancing their point of view. Demon posted he will “never support any mock draft that has the Packers trading down in the first 2 rounds”. So no matter how favorable the deal is to the Packers and no matter if they get one of the players they were targeting with the pick they traded it’s a mistake. IMO that’s foolish on it’s face. That assumes that a player picked at #30 will be a better pro than every other player still available and no reasonable person would agree with that. When challenged he “accuses” those who disagree as being programmed by Ted Thompson and by doing so, he diminishes his argument.

Packerpasty's picture

your reading my mind...did these people forget or what...when scouts say the roster is full of holes and too many jags...thats from constant trading down with TT...come on can strike it rich here if you have done your homework...

fthisJack's picture

the draft is the supreme crap shoot. who are you to say that trading down is a bad thing? the Patriots have lived by this! you do realize that guys in the second, third, fourth, fifth rounds become great players don't you and players in the top 10 are busts. to have that "no trade down" mindset is ridiculous. why didn't you mention Driver, Lang, Jones, Williams, Bahk, Lindsley, Taylor, Daniels, Martinez, just to name a few Packers?

Demon's picture

I never said trading down is always bad. Yes players drafted after the first round often do turn out to be good to very good playees.

Im saying trading down this year is a bad idea. We have not had a pick this high in a decade. After years or having a piss poor defense this is our chance to get a premium defender in a draft that is loaded with defensive talent.

PeteK's picture

It certainly is a crap shoot , these comments ripping TT are getting old, especially 4 days before our future draft. His OVERALL record speaks for its self. That's the past, lets worry about the future.

sonomaca's picture

Get the sense that many more teams are looking to trade down than the opposite. If so, trade ups might be done on more favorable terms than usual.

Interesting that Bosa stuck a thumb in the eye of SF. If the Niners get the message, they may opt for Quinnen, which means the Pack could trade up to #3 for Bosa. Price? #12 + #30 + a fourth rounder. Worth it?

Demon's picture

Not a chance. Price way too steep!

jannes bjornson's picture

Bosa has hit his top end. I would much rather move on Allen.

albert999's picture

I totally agree Allen is a beast

blondy45's picture

I Really am not a fan of Bosa. He Quit on Ohio State, wants to make big bucks in the NFL. I pass though it is irrelevant anyways.

Samson's picture

Interesting approach but I'm not sure GB needs 11 more out of this draft. -- I'd rather see that original 10 picks reduced to about 7 or 8. --- Again, as many have said, quality over quantity.

Somehow, someway, the Pack need to pick up another WR early (my choice - Parris Campbell) & also another RB somewhere on day 2 if not earlier. -- I actually wish both Jones & Williams were BUs at RB.

Swedish Chef's picture

I zeenk zee-a Peck shuould keep zee-a 12t pick.. Teke-a zee-a best pleyer ifeeleble-a. Vit pussibly 3 quoerterbecks guing beffure-a zee-a Peck pick, zeey vill hefe-a ilut ouff chucees fur a deefference-a meker it 12. Zee-a trede-a up frum 30 intu zee-a teens iff zeey see-a sumeune-a zeet cuon help right ivey it a pusitiun ouff need. 10 picks is tuo muony unyvey. Bork Bork Bork!

Demon's picture

That was the worse way I can think of to waste the last 5 minutes of my life Chef.

David Michalski's picture

You guys are funny, most times I suggest trading up I am considered an outcast by the draft and develop people, the one time I suggest to accumulate picks the few trade up people in the group go off. This is why this fanbase is the can’t win. Lol

porupack's picture

Yup, David we fans split up into 2 groups; the first one was to bait you, and now the second pops up to just foil your market research.

Thegreatreynoldo's picture

If it makes you feel any better, I don't like the players you took with the extra picks you got. So, up, down or sideways, we readers can find something to criticize.

Rak47's picture

Well David I'm sure you already know you can't please everyone.

Handsback's picture

So your two number 1s you get Bush and Thornhill in lieu of staying put and getting a top 10 player and maybe another guy graded 1st round...which is iffy, but could be there.
It's not a bad scenario, I'll give you that. The roster would be improved, but no difference makers.
I see the 12th pick, top ten player cornerstone at some position for years. Bush isn't that kind of player. The 30th pick, yeah that could be trade bait. The 12th could be IF the QBs selections are in the 3 to 4 numbers and the trade down is still in the teens.
But what the heck do I know?

fthisJack's picture

who is a surefire cornerstone guy for years at 12? who will be a difference maker at 12? you might as well throw darts at a board cause nobody knows! Bush could very well be that kind of player.

Titletown tremor's picture

I haven’t seen one mock draft in the last month that had devin bush last beyond #20. I have seen him go even before the packers pick at#12. Mocking him to us at#24 is unrealistic.

McGary is not an athlete. He cannot block in space and has a problem with speed edge rushers (Khalil Mack?)

Winovich would fit in as a 3rd down rush specialist right aware, but can’t see him getting out of the 2nd round.

Ximines cannot set an edge and is not special as a pass rusher. Not worth a 3rd rd pick.

For all the trading, not enough immediate help. In the later rounds I’d rather take my chances with guys with high upside I can get cheap depth by signing guys after the draft that went undrafted.

A for effort. C-on results

Packerpasty's picture

trade down trade Ted T. is still alive and well and running the draft..

albert999's picture

God help us if he is

Demon's picture


Ferrari Driver's picture

We don't often get to pick in the top one third of the draft and I want difference makers when we get the chance. Just filling out the roster is fine if you have enough Blue Chip players, but the Packers have Clark and Rodgers when uninjured, but we have a chance to land another one at pick 12 and I want one.

4zone's picture

I think our best trade partner for #12 that makes the most sense is with Carolina at #16. The cost of the pick for them isn't that high and for us, will leave us someone in the same range that we could get at #12. This is of course if some top 5-7 pick doesn't drop to us at #12.

That trade should land us pick #77 in the 3rd round while costing us maybe a 6th rounder which is nominal at best. In the end, we end up with 5 picks in the first 77 which should translate into 5 instant starters and key backups for the coming year. I think we could get Bush or a starting OT/G at #16 not much different than want we could get at #12.

ThxJackVainisi's picture

I like the trade down to 16 better than David’s trade down to 24. And I agree that it only makes sense if they determine the player available to them at #12 isn’t a tier 1 talent. But I disagree 5 picks in the first 77 “should” translate into 5 instant starters and key backups for the coming year. That’s a hope, not a reasonable expectation. As an example, Spriggs was picked #78. I think getting more picks early is a good strategy depending upon who is available at #12 but talent evaluation is still key and they can miss if they trade up from #12, stay at #12, or trade down.

gary g's picture

With this years draft being the strongest at positions of need for the Pack. Trying to acquire quality not quantity should be the goal. We need impact players on both sides of the ball. Hopefully Gute can find those players.

Duneslick's picture

No way trade up to 96. Keep the picks

IceBowl's picture


We have picked at the bottom of the draft for years. (Not complaining) But now we have a chance to double down and get the 12th, 30th, and 44th best players in the country (1st 3 picks). This is a sure fire team builder. 3 immediate studs and studs into the future. We do not need more average players.

To me this is a windfall. We have gold, we do not want to trade gold.

3 blue chippers! What a haul.

Demon's picture

Seems everyone here wants to trade our gold for manure.

LibertyFreeman's picture

Agreed.... Getting more of average is not good for me. Get a beast while we have a chance as hopefully we will be better so not drafting this high again.

fthisJack's picture

gold is not always found on top. sometimes you have to dig.

fthisJack's picture

just out of curiosity....who are these blue chippers you speak of so you are on the record?

Demon's picture

And wait 3 or 4 years to smelt it right? We waited 8 years for uncle Teddys 5 year rebuld plan to bear fruit. How did that work out for us? We sat back watching senile Ted trade down year after year and accumulate a roster with 4 good players and 49 guys.

Our QB is widely considered as one of the top 5 ever. He has been to 1 superbowl. He also is now 35 years old. Do you think he wants to wait another 5 years for all your low picks to develop? After giving AR the contract they did I have to assume Gute is in more of a win now mode.

mamasboy's picture

We could get 2 VERY good players at 12 and 30, not just rotational guys. We may not draft this high again, hopefully for a while, due to a better record. So, I say we take advantage of it. Maybe even move up in the first round.

Demon's picture

Im ok with staying put at 12. But cant we package #30 and a couple low rounders and maybe a 3rd round next year to move up a few spots?

LibertyFreeman's picture

I would NOT trade that @12 pick that far. With various mock drafts having 20-25 players going in the top 10, there will be someone of star quality there. I would not be opposed to trading down slightly to get more picks, but not that far. I also would not trade completely out of the first round. Just my opinion.

Swisch's picture

What is the date for Thursday, and what day is the 25th?

Bure9620's picture

Round 1 Pick 15 (WASH): Brian Burns, DE, Florida St. (A)
Round 1 Pick 30: Kaleb McGary, OT, Washington (A-)
Round 2 Pick 12: Drew Lock, QB, Missouri (A)
Round 2 Pick 22 (HOU): Nasir Adderley, CB/FS, Delaware (A)
Round 3 Pick 11: Chase Winovich, DE, Michigan (A)
Round 3 Pick 22 (HOU): Andy Isabella, WR, Massachusetts (A)
Round 3 Pick 38 (BALT): Miles Sanders, RB, Penn St. (A+)
Round 4 Pick 16: Miles Boykin, WR, Notre Dame (A+)
Round 6 Pick 12: Alize Mack, TE, Notre Dame (A+)
Round 7 Pick 12: Dontavius Russell, DT, Auburn (A+)

EdsLaces's picture

Chase isnt falling to the 3rd round though...

Bure9620's picture

I can see Winovich falling as many teams see him as a tweener and maybe not a 3 down player in many schemes. Can he play 5 tech? We don't know, OLB?

EdsLaces's picture

Hes climbing draft boards to the low 1st high 2nd round . If you think hes slipping anywhere near the 3rd you must be smoking the devils lettuce lol.

Bure9620's picture

No, just regular nuggets

Swisch's picture

I don't think we should Chase Winovich, but if he falls to us at the right place in the draft, it could be a Win-Winovich situation.

stockholder's picture

You won a Gute Bobblehead.

Spock's picture

I'm okay with trading down one or two spots if the Packers have essentially equal players at that time (i.e. none of the "can't miss, lol" top 5 players fall to them), but trading down as far as the 20's makes the team somewhat drafting "the same guy" in the 30's. Don't like that at all. The Packers need GAME CHANGERS not just okay players. We haven't drafted this high (let alone have two 1st rounders) in forever. This is not the year to waste that capitol. I'm fine with trading the 30th up or down if the Draft falls that way, but no way should the Packers get too far away from that #12 (that number has been good on the field for us, lol) first pick. Gute will do what Gute will do. I'm much more confident in his likelihood of nailing this draft (we need to) after having seen how he handled his first draft last year. Go, Pack, Go!!!!

ReaganRulz's picture

There are so many players in the draft yet the same guys keep coming up over and over. You never know when a name from Kansas State or Bethune-Cookman get called and they end up being leaders and studs for years to come. But the first reaction is always WTBlank. That’s what makes this process fun. Lets hope that we find a few Easter eggs that have the best prizes!!

LambeauPlain's picture

David stated something I totally agree with:

"I see the 2019 NFL Draft as a foundational draft for the next 5 years."

For that reason, IF and a big IF, Gutey is on the clock at #12 and he has 3-4 BAP on his board at several positions like TE, OL, ILB, Edge, or S...I could see him trading back to say #15 or #16 and get another 2nd rounder.

Then trade his 2 second rounders to get back into the First round at say #19 or #20.

#15, #20, and #30 prospects, potential starters, in the first round, all on FIVE YEAR contracts.

That would be "foundational"!

Nononsense's picture

I will not except any mock draft that doesn't have Simmons or Isabella in it for GB, I have sinned and fallin in draft love with these 2 guys, lol.

I like 2 trade scenarios that are very plausible. 1st trade back to 15 with Washington for their 3rd (76). Trade up to 21 with Seattle from 30 using that 3rd and a 7th. Last year we traded up from 27 to 18 with Seattle for a 3rd and a 6th, got a 7th back.

At 15 there should still be a blue chip guy especially if several QBs go in the top 14. At 21 they can take Simmons or Hockenson or Bush or Fant or Adderley or Greedy and so on.

So here it goes...

15 Christian Wilkins DT
21 Jefferey Simmons DE
44 Andy Isabella WR
75 Jace Sternberger TE
115 Max Sharping OL
119 Michael Dieter OL
150 Trayveon Williams RB
1?? Andrew Wingard FS

I would package both 6ths for another 5th and take best Free Safety available. (Amos was a 5th rounder)

8 picks in total and only really missing ILB which we have Burks and Josh Jones to play there.

That is officially my last mock, cant freakin wait till Thursday. Happy Easter all.

stockholder's picture

The names are perfect!!! Scharping is going @75 now. He's that good!

Doug Niemczynski's picture

I agree. But, still stuck on Hockenson at #12

optimisticfan's picture

Like your ideas on trades better than the scenario in the article. However it likely would take our 3rd and a 6th to move up to 21 as Seattle may be fielding a bunch of offers for that spot. Anyways I like the move but am not fond of the choices you have with 2 DT/DE in the first 2 picks and getting stuck on Isabella (though all good players).

If GB was hoping to land Simmons at 21, why not take BPA at 15 (which could be Bush, Burns, maybe Jonah Williams though doubt he falls that far).
15) Bush/Burns
21) Simmons
44) FS (Thornhill)
75) BPA (could be TE, OL, Edge, WR)
BPA rest of the way...

We need to draft a starting level FS (likely around the 44 pick). Unless great BPAs fall at every slot, not getting a quality safety will assure that we have to spend the remainder of our cap space on a FA even less capable than Tre Boston which would limit flexibility to make moves next year. We need to smartly prepare for the future as you never know what holes need to be replaced due to some season ending injury or bust prospect.

PAPackerbacker's picture

Stay the course and keep the pics they have and I'm still convinced that a top TE like Hockenson is a great choice at #12. A good blocking TE that can help with blocking schemes on the OL and also has a great set of skills in receiving. Or get help with a top ranked defensive player at #12. And take a good TE at #30. I really don't care who they select as long as it is one who possess the skills needed to fill holes on the roster and can compete for a starting position. Won't be long now. It will be an exciting draft to follow for sure.

Bryan Chisholm's picture

It would take a lot for me to move down from #12!! Depending on who's left on the board, I just won't do it. I'm tired of looking back on drafts in the earlier parts, and seeing star players in the NFL now, that we didn't have a chance in hell to get because we were sitting in the late 20's early 30's. Even if we didnt make a single trade, we're sitting in great shape. If another team offers their soul for #12, #30 or #44 and it makes sense.. then yeah. The idea of Oliver, White, Burns, Hock, Sweat, Taylor being there (not all, but any of them at #12) and we trade back, and they go on to be the next Donald, Kelce, or Zack Martin and we end up with another Nick Perry/Datone Jones.. I'm going to be hurt!!

Nononsense's picture

GB has picked some good OL in the 4th so I stayed with that. We also drafted our best TE Finley in round 3 and our latest best RB in the 5th in Jones, Micah Hyde was also a 5th rounder and even though we didnt draft Amos he was a 5th rounder I believe.

Trying to use the good juju we've had in those rounds to find more good players. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but that was part of my logic anyway for who I took and where.

Doug Niemczynski's picture

Don't like it.

shinglesmcfanny's picture

So on board! Love the trades!

shinglesmcfanny's picture

So on board! Love the trades!

RCPackerFan's picture

I just did the mock draft simulator on
I have been having fun with it.
This was the latest mock I had.

Not going to lie, if they got these first 3 players, I would be estatic. I really don't see anyway all 3 of these guys would be available to them when they pick at these spots, but can always hope and never say never right?

I thought I'd share this.

12-Quinnen Williams, IDL Alabama

30-Devin Bush Jr., LB Michigan

44-Dalton Risner, OT Kansas State

75-Amani Hooker, S Iowa

114-Josh Oliver, TE San Jose State

118-Justice Hill, RB Oklahoma State

150-Jakobi Meyers, WR NC State

185-Donnie Lewis Jr, CB Tulane

194-Alec Ingold, RB Wisconsin

226-T.J. Edwards, LB Wisconsin

SterlingSharpe's picture

LOL at Quinnen Williams lasting til 12.
Do fans have to be legally drunk to participate? Let's get the other NFL GMs that hammered!

RCPackerFan's picture

This was done in a simulator meaning it is automatically picked up until I chose the Packers picks. If only the GM's would pick this way...

The one I'm doing now had Oliver at 12, so I took him, and Hockenson lasting until 30. So I took Oliver and Hockenson in the first round.

zeroluv's picture

That would be a dream will never happen

draftpete's picture

Like the discussions, options, ideas that are presented here. A lot of fun.

There are 3 things I would look for at each selection time. #1 BPA, #2 immediate need, #3 future need. (Granted I've simplified this greatly) At pick 12 if there are 2 players with similar BPA then look at #2 & #3. If one of them fills all three take that one, or If only one fills #1 & 2 take him. If there are more than a couple who have similar BPA then look at trading down a few to get more picks and still be able to get a player of that BPA rating.

Nobody will be a sure thing and who can predict the future. No one thought BJ Raji was going to leave football behind like he did. Hope his decision worked well for him. But you just never know how it will all play out.

zeroluv's picture

The only way this scenario works is if Devin Bush falls to 24. I would take him at 12 to be honest....but him slipping won’t happen so I’d never make this move. Greenbay doesn’t need more needs quality players.

Harold Drake's picture

This is perhaps the worst mock draft I have thus far seen. Your trading down has simply increased the number of middle-tier players. The Packers need impact players and if anything should try to perhaps trade up so add another second round pick. I hope you have a productive day job.

Ustabeayooper's picture

The draft for the pack will hinge on how many QBs are taken in the first 11 picks. The more taken, the better the options for the pack. So let's hope for an early run on QBs.

Mark S's picture

Best mock I've seen all year, no BS. Of course you need to really be able to pull off the trades & have the board fall your way. That may be the Achilles heel of this mock. Very interesting approach though. It's kinda counter cultiral

Mark S's picture

Cut me off lol. Was about to say most gurus think you gotta take the highest, most impactful player you can at the premium positions only. Your most premium picks in top 100 since 1s,2s &3s all pay off at same rate makes more sense actually. Good job

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



"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"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."