Im really starting to think we will trade down, unless someone falls to 32 that they don’t anticipate to. Kingsley is the only one I think could make it that they would stay out and pull the trigger.

Adding another pick in the top 100 in this draft by sliding down a few spots would probably be worth losing the advantage of the 5th year option.

It’s going to be maddening once we get to pick 20 or so and a couple guys we all expected to go top 10 are still there and we know nobody’s going to let us move up to get them.
[Reply]

Don't see it happening that we can move down and pick up a top 100 pick. You gotta drop to like 40-ish and the teams there don't have too much incentive.

I think your hope would be more like a team like WAS moving up from 36 to 32 and swapping us 78 for 95 in the 3rd. If they did, I'd have to think it's taking an OT off the board.
[Reply]

No one is trading up.
[Reply]

Yeah, you're banking on a team loving Penix or Nix and wanting the 5th year option. If that doesn't happen, the deal isn't getting made.

So what teams may be sitting high in Rd1 with an unsettled QB situation? You'd be looking between 4 and 10 because just about anyone else is likely to just take a QB with their 1st rounder.

So that's Cardinals, Giants, Titans, Falcons, Jets, Vikings and Broncos? Most of them don't have the firepower in the middle rounds to make it worth our while.

Maybe Arizona? 35 and 71? They'd probably want 32 and 95 to make that move.

What about the Giants at 47 and 70? Anybody willing to fall back THAT far? That's a damn long way. And we'd probably have to include 131 to get that deal done.

Tennessee for 38 and 106 seems like a path of least resistance. I just don't think I'd bother. I'd rather have the 5th year option on whoever we draft at that point than the extra 4th rounder.

Atlanta for 43 and 79? If we could do that for 32 and 131 I'd probably pull that trigger. 32 and 159 would almost certainly get my attention depending on the draft board.

Bottom line is that the kind of deal you'd be looking at is giving up our 1 and 4 for some teams 2 and 3 in the low 40s and 70s. I might be willing to do those deals but those teams would have to be willing to 'lose' a trade by a little bit for me to do so.

Most teams aren't.
[Reply]

Those moves don't strike me as very Veach-y. Last year would have been a prime year to trade down - although maybe we didn't have a partner to trade with. We ended up taking FAU when our other targets were already gone, and we had attempted to trade up.

I think that probably chapped Brett's ass a little bit (purely speculating). I think we are more likely to trade up than we are to trade down this year.
[Reply]

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]

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

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]