Yes'em! Really! 🙂

I'd bet my left testicle that the Packers don't trade their first round draft pick for a pick this year. It just doesn't make sense, especially with the information we have on how Ted Thompson operates.

This is a good question. Did he ever trade a future 1st rounder while in Seattle?

---

What do those guys have to do with it? You were talking about trading next years 1st rounder to move up. You aren't just giving up those later guys (you forgot to mention guys like Bishop, Sitton, and Lang)you are also losing out on a 1st rounder next year that for all you know is going to be a player like Rodgers or Bulaga. That's why I hate trading future picks because there's no telling who you are passing up on.

The only way that scenario happens is if there's some incredible player there you don't just make a trade like that for the sake of having another 1st round pick.

---

Yes, trading a pick without any true clue of it's value isn't a wise decision. Let's hope it doesn't happen, but what if Rodgers goes down for the season during the first regular season game? Perhaps we wouldn't be able to recover with our backup QBs and cruise straight to a 2-4 win season. Is that player you traded up for worth whatever else was given up plus a potential "sure-fire" top prospect? For a franchise QB or a truly elite talent, maybe, but if I was a GM it wouldn't be something I would do unless I was truly desperate (Like the Redskins this season . . . and they BETTER be right). It's just not worth the risk.

Something that seems more realistic is trading the current first round pick because a front-office should have a pretty good idea of its value and a few players they could get with a move up. At least this way, the organization has a feel of how much value they are giving up to obtain a certain player.

Trading away future first round picks who are we the fucking Raiders?

This is a young talented team I don't see this team needing to gamble the future for a chance at Lombardi.

Ted Thompson always puts the long-term interests ahead of the short-term fix. Trading up for Melvin Ingram might help the pass rush, but Thompson won't do it if it means giving up too much. From his standpoint, giving up an extra first is probably too much. The Packers would be more inclined to move up five or six spots than make a jump similar to the one Atlanta made last year to draft WR Julio Jones. Frankly, the Packers would draft a two-year project before making a significant round one leap just to fix their pass rush.

---

Nope. Zero IS right. Cool!

---

the falcons completely fucked themselves to get julio

good lord that trade was awful

---

Agreed. They were a lot more away than Julio Jones from Lombardi. Bad GM decision from an organization that has been quite smart over the last few years.

I think when we went to their house that year and knocked them out, it got inside their heads. They really thought they had it all wrapped up that year. Not unlike us this year, except we already had a Superbowl win under our belts.

---

1. I never presumed to know "who" they might like enough to trade up, in any scenario. Simply stated we are in a position to move up, without hurting ourselves too badly. For all we know, none of the first 30 or so warrant such a move, which is fine.

2. Yes, I offered a number of trade up scenarios, even one out of the box-type. I did preface with that one with something like "I know he has never done this before" - its a simple discussion of the "options" available to us this draft.

3. What those guys have to do with it is pretty simple: we let one of the most important pieces of our front 7 walk to Philly, without trying to replace him until late in the 2011 draft, counting on Neal to come back from injury, with no insurance behind him.

4. I posted a link to article describing where the majority of All-Pro players are selected, by position 2007-2011, The jist of that being a very high percentage are selected R1. You like the Giants DL? Well, it's loaded with R1s.

5. Never said anything about trading next year's R1 to package with this year's for a single player. But, I guess that is an option too, if they deem a player to be that important. I generally don't like that idea, but trading 2013 R1 for an additional front 7 defender this year makes sense to me. If it doesn't to you, fine. It's just a discussion. No vitriol needed. I didn't think you comment was "cool," nor necessary.

6. Looking at our top needs for this year, we must add starters at 3 positions: OLB, DE and SS. If those guys are there, we have plenty of options to go and get them. Really simple. Players. Picks. We are loaded to maneuver through this draft a get those players we want. If that means an R1 next year traded for that legit R1 starter candidate this year, I am good with that. It's their call. A possibility that for some reason is causing some gnashing of teeth here. Not understanding why that would be so bad, if it would help us to win another SB.

7. None of us really knows what or who or how we can best get there, but we all want to get there, and this should be fun to talk about those possibilities and options available to our team.


Zero2Cool,

I should add I hope there are no hard feelings. I just wanted to find a forum that didn't involve the nonsense BS beat downs that are found in many others. I like exchanging ideas about what the future holds for our Packers. This is all pure fan speculation. I guess that's where I got a little bent. I respect Ted, and I'm clearly just a fan, like you.

There are no guarantees with any selection. Just hoping we load up - especially on pass rush, to make a more legit run at the Lombardi Trophy in 2012-2013.