So You Want To Trade For (Insert Player Here)…

ALLGBP.com All Green Bay Packers All the Time

Every draft season, there are a couple of players that Packers fans and media members gravitate towards.  This year for instance, there was a lot of love for Ohio linebacker Ryan Shazier, safety Deone Bucannon and wide receiver Jordan Matthews.  Last year there was a lot of hope that the Packers could land either safety Kenny Vaccaro or Giovanni Bernard (mostly drummed up by our own Marquise Eversoll).  Some fans will always claim that the Packers should have traded up to grab the player of their eye, but in reality, trading up in the early rounds is prohibitively expensive and more importantly, it’s not like Ted Thompson actually knows which teams are going to draft which players; Thompson might have a pretty reasonable and logical guess but I don’t think anyone would have predicted the Eagles drafting Marcus Smith with the 26th pick this year for instance.  This of course snowballs and makes it harder and harder to predict picks as more players come off the board in unexpected ways.

But what if he did?  Let’s play a hypothetical game where we find out that Ted Thompson has acquired a football crystal ball and knows exactly which teams are going to pick which players before it happens.  In this scenario of perfect clarity, Thompson knows exactly how much it would take to nab the player he covets the most, how much would it take for the Packers to get the player you want? Let’s set some ground rules:

  1. For the sake of argument lets limit the game to the first 3 rounds
  2. Let’s assume that Thompson would have to “steal” the selection, meaning he would have to hop in front of the team who ultimately selects the player Thompson wants; for instance Eric Ebron was selected with the 10th overall pick, but Thompson would have to trade to the 9th overall spot in order to draft Ebron.
  3. Let’s also assume that the Packers trading partner would be happy with a relatively fair deal, while they obviously aren’t going to take less that true value, they also aren’t unrealistically asking for 3 first round picks like the Texans purportedly were for the 1st overall pick.
  4. Let’s assume that the higher the draft pick, the more the other team is going to want before accepting the trade; there might be only a couple of players that a certain team wants in the 1st round, but probably many in the 7th, hence the difference in value needed to make a trade in the 1st round will naturally be higher as well.
  5. Compensatory picks cannot be traded and therefore have no value; hence Richard Rodgers and Jared Abbrederis are locks to make the team.
  6. I will be using the Jimmy Johnson trade value chart as a reference, this metric has come under scrutiny recently as not being very accurate (I’ve written about my own misgivings about the trade chart), nevertheless it’s a easy and well established guide that can give a rough estimate of the value of specific picks.

 

Pick 10: Eric Ebron (draft value: 1350)

  • The deal: pick 21 (draft value: 800), pick 53 (draft value: 370), pick 85 (draft value: 165), pick 121 (draft value: 52), pick 161 (draft value 27) = total value: 1414
  • The trade: Eric Ebron for Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, Davante Adams, Khyri Thorton, Carl Bradford and Corey Linsley
  • The verdict: This is a terrible trade, no matter how good Eric Ebron ultimately ends up; tight end isn’t a vital position of importance in the NFL and the Packers can make up for the loss of a good tight end somewhat with good wide receivers (which they have).  Trading essentially all the picks from round 1 to round 5 just to select one player is a pretty foolhardy proposition, especially when it includes losing one presumed starting safety, maybe the starting center and likely a rotational wide receiver.  Simply put there’s just no way for a team that picks late in the draft like the Packers to really move up to the top 10 without decimating their draft.

Pick 15: Ryan Shazier (draft value: 1100)

  • The deal: pick 21 (draft value: 800), pick 53 (draft value: 370), pick 161 (draft value: 27) = total value: 1197
  • The trade: Ryan Shazier for Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, Davante Adams and Corey Linsley
  • The verdict: Moving up from 21 to 15 is a lot less insane than moving up to 10; but you still run into the same sort of problems, just less severe.  Again the Packers likely lose the 3 players most likely to make an impact early in their careers, namely their starting safety, probable starting center and major role player in Adams.  Presumably Shazier wouldn’t play outside linebacker for the Packers and it’s questionable whether or not it’s really worth a mid round draft pick to pick a inside linebacker, which again isn’t the most important positions in a 3-4 defense (see AJ Hawk and Brad Jones).  The falloff between AJ Hawk/Brad Jones to Shazier is a lot less steep than from Ha Ha Clinton-Dix to “empty spot on the field” so ultimately this is still a poor trade.

Pick 17: CJ Mosley (draft value: 1000)

  • The deal: pick 21 (draft value: 800), pick 85 (draft value: 165), pick 121 (draft value: 52), pick 161 (draft value: 27) = total value: 1044
  • The trade: CJ Mosely for Ha Ha Clinton-Dix, Khyri Thorton, Carl Bradford and Corey Linsley
  • The verdict: The Packers manage to keep their 2nd and 4th round picks with this trade, but still lose out on Clinton-Dix and Linsley.  Again arguably inside linebacker is not as important to a 3-4 defense as it’s safeties and again the difference between production from the inside linebackers and safeties still favors keeping the Packers original picks. Keep in mind the Packers did select another inside linebacker in Carl Bradford so the question becomes is CJ Mosely worth a starting safety, a likely starting center and an inside linebacker? Mosely comes in with the same concerns of injuries and hype playing on a Alabama defense like Clinton Dix, but I would personally stay put.

Pick 38: Austin Seferian-Jenkins (draft value: 530)

  • The deal: pick 53 (draft value: 370), pick 85 (draft value: 165), pick 236 (draft value: 2) = total value: 537
  • The trade: Austin Seferian-Jenkins for Davante Adams, Khyri Thorton and Jeff Janis
  • The verdict: This is perhaps the first trade that makes some rational sense.  In this situation, the Packers choose to take a receiving tight end instead of a wide receiver but also lose a defensive lineman and another wide receiver.  Considering that the Packers take Jared Abbrederis in the 5th round, this actually makes some sense.  the defensive line has a lot of options with the signing of Letroy Guion, Julius Peppers, the recovery of Jerel Worthy, and the potential resignings of Johnny Jolly and/or Ryan Pickett.  Personally I would have taken this pick as Davante Adams likely starts out as the 4th wide receiver at best but Seferian-Jenkins likely becomes the starting tight end.

Pick 42: Jordan Matthews (draft value: 490)

  • The deal: pick 53 (draft value: 370), pick 85 (draft value: 165) = total value: 535
  • The trade: Jordan Matthews for Davante Adams and Khyri Thorton
  • The verdict: This trade mostly revolves around Khyri Thorton, which is the pick that most fans disagree about this year from the sounds of our comments.  As mentioned before, the Packers have a lot of options on the defensive line and losing Thorton probably wouldn’t be that bad and in return you get one of the better wide receivers in the 2014 draft.  Of course, Davante Adams is also one of the better wide receivers in the 2014 draft so is Matthews better than Adams by the value of Thorton?Again personally I would take this trade.

Pick 65: CJ Fiedorowicz (draft value: 270)

  • The deal: pick 85 (draft value 165), pick 121 (draft value: 52), pick 161 (draft value: 27), pick 197 (draft value: 12.6), pick 236 (draft value: 2) = total value: 258.6
  • The trade: CJ Fiedorowicz for Khyri Thorton, Carl Bradford, Corey Linsley, Demetri Goodson and Jeff Janis
  • The verdict: the Packers simply aren’t in much of a position to move that far up, basically trading all their picks from the 3-7th round to move up, and even then then the Seahawks aren’t getting equal value.  In this case, the Packers likely have a better shot of trading directly with the Texans as the Seahawks don’t need the volume of picks.  However, keep in mind that this is the 1st pick of the 3rd day, which likely holds higher value than normal since every team gets the night to re-evaluate their boards and they also can spend the entire night trying to make a deal (or holding out for a better one).  Personally, I don’t think the Packers have the ammunition to pull of this trade at this point.

Pick 77: Chris Borland (draft value: 205) 

  • The deal: pick 85 (draft value: 165), pick 121 (draft value: 52) = total value: 217
  • The deal: Chris Borland for Khyri Thorton and Carl Bradford.
  • The verdict: Again this trade hinges on Khyri Thorton, which again makes it seem like a good trade at the moment since no one really knows all that much about Thorton (kind of like when Mike Neal was drafted).  With so many Packers fans also being Wisconsin fans, I’d wager a guess that a lot of people would approve of this trade.

Of all the trades, I’d guess that trading for Austin Seferian-Jenkins or Jordan Matthews make the most sense for Thompson; neither would destroy the rest of your draft and you are in essence trading for players of similar roles, which makes the rationale behind the trade a lot more straight forward.  Of course Thompson doesn’t have a crystal ball (nor does anyone else, for all you Bill Bellichick apologists) and perhaps more importantly, no one knows how these players will ultimately turn out.  For all we know, Khyri Thorton might be the steal of the draft.

——————

Thomas Hobbes is a staff writer for Jersey Al’s AllGreenBayPackers.com.

——————

  • BradHTX

    Key words in this: “For all we know…”. Which is, at this point post-draft (and for most of us, ever), almost nothing.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Sure, but it’s still fun to speculate about “what if”. It should be noted that I’m not really criticizing or applauding Ted Thompson’s draft, if anything I’m more trying to point out really how difficult it is to move up in the draft.

  • Since ’61

    Nice work Thomas. You have presented a very rational approach to the idea of trading up or down in the draft and what it takes to make a trade plus potential implications of the trade. This clearly illustrates that the TT critics who assert repeatedly, endlessly and mindlessly that the Packers would have another Super Bowl or 2 if only TT drafted this player or signed that FA are purely speculating and not accounting for the loss of other players or offsetting transactions that would result from their speculative moves. “For all we know”, says it all. I’m just hoping that we can stay healthy in 2014, get some contributions from this draft and finally see how far this current Packers team can go. Go Pack! Thanks, Since ’61

    • Scheny Schen

      I love the term “rational approach” it is such a refreshing concept and one that too many on this site neglect. Well stated. GoPack!

      • Thomas Hobbes

        I dunno if I would really call this a rational approach, after all I had to rely on Thompson having a crystal ball that can see into the future. But I think purely from a post-draft analysis perspective, I feel like it does highlight really how difficult it is to trade up in the draft. Add to that the pressure and the short amount of time teams have to actually make transaction and I’m not surprised that Thompson chooses to stay put more often than not.

    • pat

      great breakdown Thomas. I agree that “for all we know” is less than the experience of TT and staff. Every draft is a crap shoot. Some hits and some misses. By using the Draft & UDFA’s TT has filled the pipeline. The more options the better. Now the coaches earn their pay.

      GB knows more about Mathews WR Vandy than anyone. I suspect they feel that he is an NFL ready WR but that GB selected 3 other WR’s to make sure they have at least a fourth guy. I also suspect MM to use Abbrederis as an option QB for a play or two in Seattle. Seattle loads the box and showing them a successful option will open the Seattle “D”. It will cause head aches for the rest of the year for opposing “D”s.

      Maybe they feel the upside for an extra “DlineMan” is the right move to not allow certain other teams his services. We will find out in the fall.

      IMHO – I think Ha Ha clinton-dix is the best Safety in both this years and last years draft. He will be the steal of the draft (again – IMHO).

      • Thomas Hobbes

        This is the first I’ve heard of Abbrederis being used as a quarterback; from what I know, Abbrederis hasn’t played QB in a long time, which makes this option less likely. Secondly, if any wide receiver is going to pass the ball, it’s most likely Randall Cobb, who lines up in the backfield sometimes anyways. Finally, when you have Aaron Rodgers as quarterback, I don’t think the benefit of trickery really outweighs the brutal efficiency of Rodgers; why dance around the issue when Rodgers can just kill a team by himself?

        • pat

          Yes, Rodgers can kill a team but it will help to open the box for the running game. That is why they used Cobb.

          The point I was trying to make is that each player has special talents (in addition to just WR). Punt return, ST, blocking) – Abbrederis was a State HS champion as an option QB. He brings some unique qualities to the roster.

          We don’t know what the TT Team has for a vaule, especially about the intangibles.
          The other thing is that Abbrederis will likely want to stay in GB – where Matthews of Vandy may want bigger money in a few years… just IMO

  • Razer

    What?! The season can’t get here soon enough.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Training camp is coming up.

  • Stroh

    Looking back I might have been willing to trade up for Shazier. Giving up #21 and #85 to get him. I thought he would be the best, biggest playmaker for the Packers D.

    Not a chance I would have been interested in anyway of getting Bucannon, Matthews, Borland or Abbrederis. IMO Bucannon was way overdrafted by the Cards. But the cards are known to reach.

    • BradHTX

      I don’t disagree that Shazier is a player who could have helped the Packers immensely and might have the highest ceiling of all the D players linked to them before the draft. But there are several other factors at play here.

      I don’t have a trade chart in front of me, so I don’t know if #21 and #85 is equal to the #21, #53 and #121 that Thomas lists above. But these equations are also based on trading up for the spot the players were picked at, and we have the benefit of hindsight there. On draft day, TT and MM didn’t know that Shazier would be picked by the Steelers at #15. And even if they did, the Steelers might not have been willing to trade that pick. So to be certain of getting Shazier (or any of the players Thomas lists) the Packers would have had to trade even higher, costing more picks yet. You might make the trade to #15 for Shazier, but how high would you go? Would you go to #10 to be certain you’d get him if you really loved him?

      Furthermore, as Thomas points out, there’s not just the cost, there’s also the players you couldn’t take because you made the trade. And I would argue that of all the picks the Packers made or could have made, Clinton-Dix is at the position where the biggest impact can be made. Shazier would be great, but is he a bigger upgrade at ILB over Jones/Hawk than Clinton-Dix would be at FS over… whoever? I’d argue not. I wouldn’t make that trade for that price.

      • packett

        well said.

        • pat

          Yes, well said. More players usually means better chances of success.

          It is possible that Bishop is brought back at the NFL minimum on a prove it year. Trust in TT & MM to have a plan.

          • Thomas Hobbes

            I’d say the chances are slim outside of a major injury spree in during the season (which knowing the Packers is probably likely). Thompson has typically avoided resigning former players, especially during the offseason. I feel his rationale is likely that if he didn’t find it necessary to keep them in the first place, then it’s not worth bringing them back.

            • Oppy

              Not so fast.

              There is at least three players I can think of off the top of my head who were released by Ted Thompson and then brought back to the Packers after they played for another team.

              Evan Dietrich-Smith
              Matt Flynn
              Charlie Peprah

              could be more, but those three immediately came to mind.

              • Anonymous

                Ryan Grant anyone ?

              • Thomas Hobbes

                Matt Flynn and Ryan Grant were a mid-season signings caused by a major injury spree; I said Thompson typically avoids resigning former players, not that he never does it. Two players is probably on the low end in this regard.

      • Thomas Hobbes

        To answer your question:

        #21 and #85 is worth 965 points

        #21, #53 and #121 is worth 1222 points.

        I’d also point out that in the above scenario Thompson has to “steal” the player so for the instance of Shazier, Thompson actually has to trade up to pick 14, one spot ahead of the Steelers in order to draft Shazier.

      • Stroh

        Hey Brad… Thanx for the reply. I too am Well aware that there is always a lot more in play than just saying that a trade could have been made. Have to have 2 teams willing, etc… Trust me, I’m VERY well aware. I threw it out there only as something I might have considered in hindsight, nothing more.

        Maybe the steelers wouldn’t have wanted to trade Shazier or the pick. I understand that more picks is better than fewer picks. It might very well have taken more than just #21 and 85. I don’t really need all the variables explained, I Completely understand them all!

        I considered ILB as much a need as Safety and feel that Safety was a deeper position that could have been addressed in the 2nd. I like Clinton-Dix, he was my top Safety in the draft.

        I’m happy w/ the draft overall, even tho Most complain about the 3rd round picks, personally I didn’t like the Abbrederis pick, even tho most consider it a value at that spot. He does NOTHING for me as a WR or a return man.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Personally, I think the Clinton-Dix was the correct choice. It’s hard to say the difference between Patrick Willis and Brad Jones is greater than Clinton-Dix and “empty spot on the ground”.

      • Stroh

        I too think was the right choice. I considered ILB about as much a need as Safety. And I though Safety was a position that could have been addressed in Rd 2. Hyde is also in play at Safey so Safety wasn’t “empty” to use your word!

        • Thomas Hobbes

          Hyde could but reports seem to indicate that the Packers aren’t too keen on using him as a safety (when he was drafted they also stated he was going to play corner). Maybe the Packers don’t feel like he would be a good safety or they really want him as a cornerback, I don’t know but having Hyde back at safety was not the Packers first choice from the looks of it.

  • http://www.lyrictrumpet.com Bearmeat

    Nice work Thomas.

    The middle trades (for ASJ and Matthews) make sense – and if TT had a serviceable FS (which he doesn’t) then the one for Shazier makes sense too.

    But we all know TT – he LOVES him some draft picks. No way he pulls a Spielman (Vikes GM) and guts an entire draft board for a handful of 1-3 round picks.

    Ultimately, this post (and many comments including mine) revolve around the “reaches” for Thornton and Rodgers. If other picks play up to expectations and even one of those two booms rather than busts, this will have been a GREAT draft. If both bust – then meh.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I would argue to avoid using Rodgers as a criticism at least for this article since he was a compensatory pick and thus operates under a different set of rules than normal picks. I would say that the majority of fan griping that I’ve seen so far revolves around Thorton, who know one had ever heard about. Again I go back to my belief that if a fan has heard of a player, it was a good pick, if they haven’t it was a reach and they are going to bust.

      • http://www.lyrictrumpet.com Bearmeat

        Fair. But using your point of “if you get this guy that means you can’t get that guy at that spot”, then Rodgers DOES still count IMO. Even w/o trading that pick they could have had a multitude of other players there that would have contributed as well…

        Just my .02

        • Thomas Hobbes

          It’s quite possible that the Packers trade up to get Seferian-Jenkins and still draft Rodgers. From all account Rodgers is a more complete tight end while Seferian-Jenkins would likely be used more as a big wide receiver. Also the Packers depth at tight end isn’t the strongest, I’m not sure how they feel about Quarless or Bostick.

    • Anonymous

      Looking back at all of TT’s drafts – his worst was after they won the SB. He just sat there and took whatever fell to him. No maneuvering for trades. He did the same thing this year. He said in the post draft interview that ” a number of times we were just anxious to make a pick.” In other words – let’s not even discuss the trade offers and player options. WTF? That’s pretty lazy. Then you pick a guy at 85 & a guy in the 6th that could have gone undrafted ? Did the same thing last year in the 6th when they took Nate Palmer. Geez… Think TT is getting old and tired.

      • Thomas Hobbes

        Keep in mind that winning the Super Bowl means you have the least amount of ammunition to trade as you have the lose value of any team (before factoring in trades). Also the Packers did trade a lot, just not in the early rounds; DJ Williams, Caleb Schlauderaff, DJ Smith and Ryan Taylor were all picks that came from trades.

        Finally, I wouldn’t trust anything that Thompson says during a press conference, the man is famous for being tight lipped, he does however have a dry sense of humor so I think often times he is just messing around with the reporters.

  • Bedrock

    A pass catching TE that stays in-line doesn’t really offer much in terms of disguise. Splitting him outside is in essence treating him as a big WR. If we draft a TE, then he should be able to be an in-line TE, not a big-bodied WR. I like the TE we picked.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      It can work because you aren’t expecting a pass catching TE to stone off a pass rusher by himself; however, if he can chip before going out on a route or even just mess the pass rushers timing enough it can cause problems for a defense. For instance if the defense knows a quick pass is coming (like on 3rd and short), and they assign one defenders to speed rush the QB, as long as TE can tie up the pass rusher for a second or so might allow the QB to get off the pass.

  • Packett

    Nice work to show the cost incurred for the Trade-em-up critics. But us other critics could say..just pick differently. Fiedorawiecz in Rd 2, Barrow early rd 3, Then go get a DT late rd 3, and resume picks 4-7. Anything wrong with that? Still get quality WR in late rounds.
    But I agree with your article….the cost of trading up is significant. Nice work.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I’m not sure I believe Fiedorowicz is worth a 2nd round pick, actually I’m not even sure he’s worth it at the top of the 3rd. I would have been interesting to see what the Packers could have done if they knew Arizona was going to pick Nicklas one spot ahead of them. Also the Packers don’t have a 3rd round pick early, they had a 3rd round pick late and a 3rd round pick really late.

  • FourEyesBrewing

    Scenario 1
    Pick 82: Louis Nix III (draft value 180)

    The deal: 3rd (85) and 6th (197) round picks to the Bears for their 82nd pick. Total value = 184

    The trade: Kyri Thornton and Demetri Goodson for Louis Nix III.

    The verdict: An unknown in Thornton and a long-shot to make the team are given up to nab a sliding Louis Nix III, who many thought may go as high as the first round. Nix might have issues with a consistent motor, but he’s a bargain replacement for Raji.

    Scenario 2

    Pick 1: Troy Niklas with 51st selection (draft value 390)

    The deal: Packers 2nd round (53) and 6th round (197) for Bears 2nd round (51). Trade value: 389

    The trade: Troy Niklas for Davante Adams and Demitri Goodson.

    Pick 2: Donte Moncrief (WR) with 89th selection

    The deal: Packers trade down in 3rd round with Chargers, giving up their 3rd and 6th round picks (value of 184) for the Chargers 3rd and 5th round picks (value of 175).

    The trade: Kyri Thornton and Demitri Goodson for Donte Moncrief and Ryan Carrethers (NT, 5th round selection).

    In scenario 2 (with the two above trades) the Packers pick up a versatile TE in Niklas that can line up in-line to block for Eddie Lacy or can go up the seam as a big receiving TE. They lose out on Davante Adams but still get a good deep-threat larger receiver in Moncrief. Trading down allows them to pick up a NT project in Carrethers to make up for the loss of a D-line body (Thornton). Finally, by picking up Niklas in the 2nd, the Packers could use their 3rd round compensatory pick on someone else (a couple centers and d-linemen went early in the 4th).

    • Ed Schoenfeld

      Nice math.

      Do the Bears and Chargers want to make those deals?

      Does TT have Niklas rated that much higher than Adams?

      Or Nix rated that highly at all? (Remember we are making some changes on D. A junior version of Pickett may not be the player we want.)

  • Razer

    Hindsight and the certainty of where a prospect eventually went (knowledge of who else was interested) makes many of you guys savvy GMs. I am sure that some of you would have had us trading up to pick up ILB Shane Skov (UDFA). As Donald Rumsfeld said “you don’t know what you don’t know”.

    Aside from moving up and down in a fluid draft, you also need to consider that you don’t really know how a pick is going to translate into a pro. Is Donte Moncrief going to be better than Davante Adams? Apparently, some of you guys know this. Some would have us trading up for Louis Nix who fell to the middle of the 3rd. In hindsight, would that have been good value in the second?

    Assuming other people’s reality and second guessing their decisions is both fruitless and cheap. TT and his team put in countless hours and travelled ridiculous miles to investigate these players. They know what you don’t know and they were in the breach on draft day. Appreciate that we keep refreshing a talented team and taking care of our salary cap.

    • FourEyesBrewing

      I’m not saying I’m some fantastic GM that knows better than TT. I am saying that while fruitless, this is a fun and cheap game. I strongly disagree that “I don’t know what I don’t know.” I readily recognize that no one knows how these players will pan out, but that hasn’t stopped all of us from making projections and mock drafts for the past few months. I’m not second guessing Ted Thompson or his picks or discounting all the effort that went into them. I’m simply having a little fun playing the “what if?” game.

      • Razer

        Sorry, I’m having a tiresome day.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I think you misunderstand the point of the article, I’m not saying that I would make a better GM (cause I wouldn’t) nor am I criticizing or applauding Thompson’s draft. I’m more trying to point out that it’s actually really difficult to trade up in the draft, especially when you are picking late like the Packers. Really, this is just an interesting thought experiment with more analysis being on the value of the draft picks compared to how players actually turn out.

      • Ed Schoenfeld

        Double like.

        The points you make are the ones all of us have trouble remembering during all of our ‘fun’ speculation.

        I’ll add two more:

        1) It takes two to tango. writing up these potential trades is one thing, but we also have to wonder it the other teams involved in the trade would be willing to give up the player *they* drafted with the pick. Other teams don’t necessarily fall all over just to say they made a trade with the Packers.

        2) There are follow on effects in FA *next year* (2015). If we don’t draft Adams do we have to give big contracts to both Nelson and Cobb just to keep the receiver corps intact? I know we would like to keep both, but what is the negotiating process like without a likely replacement in talent level (Adams) already on the team? What does over paying the WRs do to the rest of the salary structure over the **5-6** prime years left for AR?

        The second point is why I don’t like your trade for Seferian-Jenkins (well that, plus the the fact I didn’t think all that much of Seferian-Jenkins as a prospect.)

        Not that I am saying you should have somehow evaluated these additional issues (other teams draft boards and effects of FA) — that would have been a lot more than can reasonably fit into a short article, more like a book. But they are still considerations before we say TT ‘should’ (or even ‘could’) have made a given trade.

        • Thomas Hobbes

          I can’t think of a decent way to judge another teams interest in doing business with the Packers; I do know that the Thompson does tend to trade with teams with a Packers connection; the Eagles were a common partner when Reid was still there for instance. The Patriots were also another common team, though I don’t know the connection there.

    • Sven

      Great point about “other people’s reality”. Most of what we know is based on what the media has told us. I don’t think that many media outlets are actually sending scouts out across the country, visit small and unpopular schools to find the top players. I beleive that they generally base their evaluation of talents on what is the most visible, televised games.

      Even great media evaluators, I believe, fall far short of a good GM. First the GM has Scouts to fully gather the right info. second i supect that the truly great evaluators put there skills into practice.

      TT and Co. scour the country looking for the best players, and deeply evaluate their potential. So do other teams, though maybe not all to the same extent.

      • Thomas Hobbes

        I think another issue that many people forget is that media outlets rank based on a holistic approach while teams rank on a very specific approach. In other words, a player that might be ranked very highly by certain media outlets might not be for a specific team or vice versa because that team has certain preferences, philosophies or body types that they prefer. Hence Khyri Thorton might not be a very good overall player, but if he’s the perfect 3-4 DL for the Packers then that’s more important.

  • Jay

    Ok so what all would we have to have given up for Leon Sandcastle?

    • Thomas Hobbes

      Every pick this year and every pick next year. And throw in Ricky Williams.

  • BRinMilwaukee

    What a great article, well-researched and FUN. Really lays out the options and consequences of each potential move.

  • http://jersyal.com tim

    A well made point and lesson for arm chair GMs like me. Next time I’m feeling especially brilliant regarding such matters I hope I can:1) remember that TTs job isn’t all that easy. 2) appreciate the job he has done, 3) shut my pie hole 4) take a deep breath, and last, but not least 5) sit back and enjoy the ride. It looks like another good one! Thanks Thomas! Love this site and the characters who hang out here!

    • SchenySchen

      Love it. Enjoy the ride is right. The Bears game last year to make the playoffs was about as exciting as it can get. Looking forward to fewer near heartattacks and a little more joy in the ending for 2014/15.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      The point of the article is to get people to really think about the value of trading up; I’m not going to try to convince anyone that one player is better than another because I don’t have the experience to really know. But when you actually sit down, do the math you start to realize how expensive it is to move up in the draft.

  • WKUPackFan

    An interesting and fun article, and well researched, thanks Thomas.

    There was an excellent post to another article agreeing with you about the declining value of the ILB position, especially in the 3-4 defense. Colleges simply aren’t pumping out ILB prospects these days, as the better players are gravitating to the OLB/DE hybrid position. Also, with two competent safeties, GB will not have to expose AJ and Jones in coverage as much this year (exposing AJ was my biggest criticism of Capers last year, there’s no way he should have asked to cover Davis on a deep route or split out to cover Reggie Bush).

    Having said that, the weak link on D after the draft certainly appears to be Brad Jones. Perhaps Lattimore can make the leap, Bradford can be a stud, or one the UDFAs can compete. Have to think the best UDFA ILBs were available to GB, seeing the possibility of making the team. Should be some excellent competition in camp.

    • Thomas Hobbes

      I think you are starting to see the OT-transition effect somewhat with linebackers; by that I mean players who played left tackle in college often times get moved into guard and you are starting to see that outside linebackers are getting moved to inside linebackers for the same reasons, maybe athletic enough to get away with it in college but would be a better inside player in the pros.