Ultimately this is why I prefer trade-ups within or into the 2nd round, especially in this draft. You get more 'bang for your buck' in terms of movement and in this draft, I think the talent drop off is both before 32 and around 75. So that's where I'd want to be operating within and can get the most movement in.

If I could maybe move from 32 to 36 and get 106 back from TN, then package that with 95 to get up to say 68, I might consider it.

Now I've turned 32 and 95 into 36 and 68. I'd probably have to throw in that 173 in one of those deals to get it done. Maybe 159 in another though.

I think that would be worth exploring, though I'd probably want something like 227 back from TN and 231 back from NE?

It's doable. And might make sense. But i don't think there are any homeruns to be hit here.
[Reply]

The Packers have 11 total draft picks and 5 in the top 100. That’s one team I think will want to move up due to a myriad of assets. I would be incredibly happy to trade back from 32 to 41 if the tackles we like are gone.

32 for 41 and 91 would be excellent
[Reply]

Who are they trading for though? You can't just say "oh this team would trade up because they have the picks that I would want".
[Reply]

Right - that's the issue.

If they're trading up, it's for an OT. They're gonna beat up OUR board. And frankly our need is as critical at that position as theirs is.

So the Packers might make some sense in a vacuum but won't make any sense in reality.
[Reply]

Jordan Love got a small extension through 2025 that gave him enough money to be more than comfortable for life but it also protected GB in case he didn’t work out.

As we all saw, he was awesome down the stretch. He’s the guy and they know it. They’ve already talked about a big extension and it’s pretty much consensus that he’ll get that big extension this time next year.

To me a move up is about the 5th year option. They’ll probably get Guyton (ugh) or Latham with 25 and I’d guess they come back up for a good value player like Nate Wiggins, Ladd McConkey, Troy Franklin, Braden Fisk, Kool-Aid McKinstry etc. one of them will be there.

And why not? You just hit it big last year on a number of picks from Rodgers and now you have a ton. 5 in the top 100 and 11 overall? Hell if I was Veach I’d do that to get 2 players with the 5th year option
[Reply]

Veach is far more likely to trade up then down. It's not happening.
[Reply]

Agree. I think the Packers are a perfect trade down candidate if that’s the way they want to go.

And at this point I’d bet on 2 players Veach would look to trade up for: Bryan Thomas Jr and Tyler Guyton.
[Reply]

I'm interested to see if there's a McDuffie-type shocker where they can't believe the guy is there that they go up and get.

Like, maybe somehow one of the big 3 WR's slips to 12-15 range, or Bowers slips to 18-21 range. Or one of the big tackles is within striking distance.
[Reply]

I don't hate the idea of calling the bears if Odunze is there at 9. Poles needs more draft picks this year, maybe a bargain can be struck. Offering 32, 64 and next years one for 9 and next years 2 might be intriguing to Poles.
[Reply]

I pull the trigger on he or Nabers for that deal, pretty damn quick.

Does that align with the trade charts?
[Reply]

I think it's more likely the Bears trade up for Nabers than it is that they trade down.

Pairing Nabers and Moore w/ Williams would sure give them a hell of a foundation to work with.
[Reply]

Why would they?

Even if Rice is suspended...we can still grab a WR in the 2nd or 3rd round.
If there isn't a LT there...we can bring back Donovan Smith.
And I'm not so sure that CB is this huge need. If one falls or is the value pick there....then sweet.
[Reply]

It's high time we consider punter at 32.
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

It's likely the Bucs or Packers if we do.

I don't know why you're so certain that the Packers won't trade back simply because they have 11 picks, yet you are also so sure that the Cardinals, with their 11 picks, trade back from 4 and miss out on an elite talent. Makes zero sense. It makes more sense for the Pakcers to trade back considering their needs are low valued positions.
[Reply]