Packers should have traded down

Wade
Veteran Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

I'm probably not (quite) as negative as Foster, but I'm not a great fan of the pick.

To my mind, Perry has some to offer, but he's mid- to late-second talent. If he was the best available at 28, they should have traded down. (And Tampa trading their 36 to Denver after the Packer's pick says there was an opportunity out there.)

Oh well. At least its not Ahmad Carroll or John Michels.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Wanna join the discussion?! Login to your PACKERSHOME forum account or Register a new forum account

evad04
Member

12 years ago

I'm probably not (quite) as negative as Foster, but I'm not a great fan of the pick.

To my mind, Perry has some to offer, but he's mid- to late-second talent. If he was the best available at 28, they should have traded down. (And Tampa trading their 36 to Denver after the Packer's pick says there was an opportunity out there.)

Originally Posted by: Wade

Honestly, what does Green Bay have to gain from trading down in a draft that they have 12 picks? I suppose it gets them more ammunition to move up in later rounds. Outside of them not getting the player you want, I don't understand trading down (on the basis that stockpiling picks is unnecessary when you have a truckload of picks already).

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

lolleren
Member

12 years ago

Originally Posted by: evad04

In the end i guess its about value, the chances of the pick being a pro bowler, starter, rotational player drops throughout the rounds, if you look at your board and say:" this guy is the one we ratest highest, and we think he is the best bet we have of getting a pro bowler, but in the end we believe his value is around one round too early" so if we trade back one round we will get extra shots at the crapshoot that is the draft, and we will be able to draft a guy where the value, ei chance of succes fits the pick we have.

Is there any chance he comes in as a 3-4 D-End to replace Cullen Jenkins? What made us successful in 2010 was the fact we had a great pass rushing 3-4 DE (he was a good all-round player). All he needs to do is add some weight.

Originally Posted by: stevegb

I dont believe so, he might put his hands in the dirt on passing downs, but i doubt he will from our base. I dont know if he has that inside pass rush ability that made Jenkins so valueable.

blank

Wade
Veteran Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

Originally Posted by: evad04

IMO, trading down means the ability to get more picks in rounds 2, 3, 4, and early 5, either directly or by packaging later picks to trade back up. And IMO rounds 2-early-5 is where this draft is going to be made.

If you think that Perry is truly first round material, which you and Ted Thompson and most people do, then that benefit is not important. But I don't. I think he's second round quality, and mid- to late-2nd at that. If they miss on Perry by trading down, IMO there are lots of players still on the board that are going to give equivalent value in the early- to- mid-second. Especially since there are also lots of intriguing possibilities for pass rush help between rounds 2 and early 5.

To me, putting the pass rushing eggs in the Perry basket is akin to saying Mike Neal is going to fill Cullen Jenkins shoes. Or, in another context, thinking Daryn Colledge will be sufficient to solve the problems the Packers had at OG before his arrival.

Perry at this point is like multiple players still on the board -- "serious potential plus some questions." If you're drafting at #28, that's likely what you have to choose from. And when you are limited to "serious potential plus questions," better to seek more early/mid-round picks.

Especially when, as IMO this draft is, the draft is strongest especially in those early- to mid-rounds.

That's why I wanted a trade down. Not because Perry in particular is worse than the alternatives (though I liked Branch better) -- but because I didn't think there was a 28-quality pick left. (Well, I thought Doug Martin was 28-quality; but IMO the Packers' needs are sufficiently serious that it would have been dumb to spend 28 on a RB.)

If you use $35 to buy a $25 steak, you don't get to have that $10 shrimp cocktail,

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Wade
Veteran Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

Denver picks higher in every round than the Packers, therefore, it's not certain there was an opportunity for the Packers to trade back. Perhaps the Buccaneers didn't want to trade back with a NFC team?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

No, the fact that Denver made a trade meant there was an opportunity. The particulars of draft position only meant that there might not have been an opportunity "good enough" from the Packers point of view. The Packers have picks before the ones Denver used. If Tampa was willing to trade with Denver for what they did trade, they likely would have been willing to take one of those higher Packer ones. I doubt "NFC partner" is as worrisome as "Division partner" in a potential trade.

Trade was possible.

And IMO any trade enabling an extra late fourth (or even maybe early fifth) would have been enough IMO to make the trade a good idea in this particular draft.

Because to me, Perry was no better than mid-2nd value. And based on what's available right now, I think getting mid-2nd pass rush/OLB/DE value is going to be possible mid-2nd value regardless of whether Perry goes earlier to someone else. Indeed, I think there's a real good likelihood that that mid-2nd pass rush/OLB/DE value will still be available at 59.

Add an extra late fourth to the ability to grab not just one, but two, of these and IMO you ensure yourself (with 2 2's, a 3, and 4 4ths) a better draft than spending #28 on Perry:
Ta'amu, Kendricks, Reyes, R. Lewis, Silatolu, Josh Robinson, Markelle Martin, Curry, Konz, Brandon Thompson, Glenn, Branch. And starting with Tyrone Crawford,the Utah State guy, and Wolfe, there's lots of real 3rd-4th possibilities for substantial pass-rush help out there. (Not to mention my person super-sleeper candidate, Adrian Hamilton, who will probably be available outside my "2nd-mid-fifth" requirement.)

The Packers need substantial help with pass rush, absolutely no doubt about that. So I'm not going to whine forever about the Perry pick. That "potential" does have a high ceiling, after all.

But I do think the Packers could have done more another way.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

12 years ago

The fact Denver traded means nothing to the Packers. You think Denver wanted to trade back for the sake of trading back or more so trading back to find a partner that helped them? Don't be silly!!!

I'm glad pass rush was addressed in round one. I think the Packers need a Center as well. HOWEVER, I am of the belief that you can find a solid Center easier than a solid Pass Rush specialist in the later rounds.

BTW, Packers are discussing with the Cleveland Browns regarding acquiring my boy Colt McCoy.

Wade
Veteran Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

Dudes.

Things don't always work out the way you want and there's no guarantees. But if Ted Thompson took him, there was a reason. And that is good enough for me. Godspeed, Perry. Get to those fuckin' QB's and give our corners a chance this year!

Originally Posted by: TwinkieGorilla

Oh, gee. What the fuck's the point of paying attention to the draft if we don't grump from time to time.

I mean, come on, Ted always does things for a reason. And yes, that ring means we should trust him to make the right decisions most of the time.

But most is not all. He can, and has, made mistakes. He can, and will, make more mistakes. And just because we are "just fans", doesn't mean we should lay off when we think he is doing so.

Should Ted Thompson give a rat's ass about what I think? Of course not. And I completely trust him to care less about what I says.

But I'm still going to grump. IMO he should have traded down this time.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Wade
Veteran Member Topic Starter

12 years ago

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Of course what Denver did means nothing. All I said is that the fact that Denver traded means that there was likely an opportunity for the Packers to trade.

I understood you to say that "maybe there was no possible trading partner for the packers out there." My opinion is that Tampa being willing to trade with Denver means there was very likely someone (Tampa) willing to trade with GB at terms *I* would have found "worth it".

Obviously, there was no one willing to trade at terms Ted Thompson found worth it. If there were, there would have been a trade. There wasn't.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

12 years ago

Originally Posted by: Wade

I'm saying the Packers (obviously since they used the pick) felt that the 28th overall selection was better served to them being used on Nick Perry than trading.

As for you not caring what Ted Thompson thinks about what you think, how dare you? Who the hell you think you are, a fan or something??

evad04
Member

12 years ago

#10

To me, putting the pass rushing eggs in the Perry basket is akin to saying Mike Neal is going to fill Cullen Jenkins shoes. Or, in another context, thinking Daryn Colledge will be sufficient to solve the problems the Packers had at OG before his arrival.

Originally Posted by: Wade

Thanks for the detailed response. I see where you are coming from now. That said, I personally wouldn't liken Perry at OLB to Mike Neal filling Jenkins' shoes. All Perry has to do to make an impact is take snaps from the likes of Erik Walden and Frank Zombo. Most of us had a pretty good idea of what we'd be losing when Jenkins went to Philly. I think, likewise, most of us know what we have in Walden/Zombo -- and it's not much. Serviceable at best, but weak enough to make pass-rushing OLB arguably our greatest area of need going into the draft. That's why Perry has me excited.

William Henderson didn't have to run people over. His preferred method was levitation.
"I'm a reasonable man, get off my case."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (3h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (4h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (11h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS