This proves what I have been saying for years. Trading up for a stud player is better than trading down to get 2-3 average quality players.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

Actually, it depends on your situation. Trading away picks to move up helps your starting team at the expense of your depth.

Mike Sherman was a poster boy for the former (trading up), and Ted Thompson is a poster boy for the latter (trading down for additional picks).

Sherman left us depleted--as long as our starters were healthy, we were OK, but the minute somebody got injured there was a big drop off to their replacement. It also relied on him hitting a larger percentage of his picks, since he had fewer picks overall.

Thompson's approach was exactly what we needed after Sherman. The additional picks allowed us to regain depth quicker.

But once you have good depth again, you can afford some trading up to improve your starters. Which is where Thompson has impressed me the most--he adjusted his normal approach to trade up and take CM3 because of his player evaluation, and hit a home run.

Overall, I've been impressed with Thompson--he's kept us toward the top of the NFL, got us a Super Bowl championship, and had us surviving the loss of Aaron Rodgers to make the playoffs. He's had a few misses, but that's the nature of the beast--it's going to happen.

Originally Posted by: macbob 

Wow man, so you know ahead of time that Clay was gonna pan out like he did.

Perhaps you'd care to name the top 5 pro bowlers in this years draft? I'm gonna be putting together my board soon, could use the insight.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

🙄


Yep that is what I said wasn't it? I said I called Uncle Teddy on his private line and told him CM3 was worth what he gave and and 5 times as much.

I got more than the next 5 pro bowlers but why would I want to give them to you?

Originally Posted by: wpr 

🙄


Yep that is what I said wasn't it? I said I called Uncle Teddy on his private line and told him CM3 was worth what he gave and and 5 times as much.

I got more than the next 5 pro bowlers but why would I want to give them to you?

Originally Posted by: wpr 

In order to prove you know wtf you're talking about.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Ted's best pick was trading back into the first the pick up CM3. The players that were taken with GB's picks were Darius Butler, Derek Cox and Brandon Tate. Now if NE selected Jairus Byrd and Mike Wallace instead of Butler andTate maybe we would grade the deal differently. (Cox drafted by Jacksonville in a trade with NE.) This proves what I have been saying for years. Trading up for a stud player is better than trading down to get 2-3 average quality players.

Originally Posted by: wpr 

I get what you are saying with a lot of your post but I disagree with this. One instance doesn't prove anything. It's all about the situation and who is available, and trading back doesn't always result in average players.

For example, in 2006 New England traded up with Green Bay in the second round. They took Chad Jackson, a receiver who ended up with 14 career receptions. With the picks we got from New England we ended up with Greg Jennings and Jason Spitz. Yes, Spitz was an average player. But Jennings was a multi-pro bowler and a key piece of our most recent Super Bowl team. He is decidedly well beyond average (except for his career choice decision making ability; that is subpar).

We also traded back for Jordy Nelson.

More good to elite players are found in the earlier rounds; but depending on what your scouting has dug up and what the board shows, your sometimes better off trading back, not just with regards to depth, but even finding top-end NFL players. It varies widely by situation.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys