Fant has yet to play a down in the nfl. Every year there are “insane” talents that never materialize. The assumption of certainties such as this has killed many a GMs career.

If we trade down to 20, and got Fant, that would itself indicate that 19 teams valued 19 other players more highly. Let’s assume some teams pick for need and you are still not taking a top 10 or 15 pick.

And there lies the real nub. If we rate Fant as the first to 12th best player and can pick him up and more picks by trading down, then trading down may make sense IF there isn’t a player we rate more highly that we would end up passing on by doing so.

Whether for Fant or another, a trade down that gets your best man per your evaluation and extra picks is a steal. A trade down that bypasses a higher rated pick to get more picks is, on day one, precisely what we need to move away from.

Probably a nicer way to get your point across

A) Aside from RG, I don't think the Packers' OL has been that bad.

B) I don't think this OL class is that great. This class is so weak that one writer at CBS Sports has Dalton Risner as the #2 "Franchise LT" prospect. He's a fine player but calling him a franchise LT prospect is a bit silly.

I think the value is elsewhere. We've seen too many years where the Packers chased marginal picks at their draft position to fit a need. They need to use that #12 pick on BPA, and the same at #30. More likely than not I don't think that will include an OL.

I totally agree. My frustration is that so few people share this opinion and the related opinion that moving down makes the most sense in this year's draft. OL should absolutely be our priority (both of our Aarons depend upon a dominant OL) but we also have other pressing needs at LB, S, TE and elsewhere. To me the natural solution is to trade down in Round 1, and trade up from Rounds 4-5 so we get as many bites of the apple that we can in Rounds 2-3. I don't care what Ted Thompson did, and I'm not advocating trading down as a principle that applies every year. But this year, with #12 being problematic for a lot of reasons, and the draft being as good as it is in Rds 2-3, trading into those rounds makes perfect sense to me.

Packers are picking high in the draft and I see no need to move up. Don’t get rid of valuable picks.

Spot on Eddie Lee.

Of all the players in this whole draft, I feel these are the guys who could (or would) help "improve" the team the most, and soonest:

ILB Devin White
ILB Devin Bush
Edge Josh Allen
Edge Bosa (but I don't know exactly how Pettine would fit him in)
Interior Q Williams

I fear that Guty still believes Oren Burks can be a great ILB since he took him in the middle of Rd 3.

Despite adding the versatile Smith Bros., I believe Allen could add an immediate boost off the edge a la Clay Matthews in 2009 or even like the freak Jevon Kearse did 2 decades ago for Tennessee, helping get that D to the top and them to a Super Bowl. Just imagine, if you will, a defense that is consistently ferocious getting to QBs. A defense with a reputation for sacking QBs as much as any team. That would automatically make the DBs look better too.

I trust Pettine 100%. Give the guy some blue chip talent!

Agreed, the window built for needs to be 3 to 4 years. If Rodgers doesn’t make it that far his current contract was a disaster and we are not positioned for a one year push to be credible. No longer are we teetering on the edge of a SB roster: those years were allowed to pass some time ago.

I agree Nicky..... #12 should still be great for the next 3 or 4 years so it's time to restock those weapons.
But bear in mind: even his best WRs he has had (Jordy, Adams, Cobb, Jennings, Driver) weren't great right away.
They usually took until year 3 or later to become studs.

And tight ends take just as long or longer.

Rookie RBs can have immediate big time impact (see Saquon, Kamara, Kareem Hunt, Fournette, Zeke, etc).

This is why I was one of the few here (it seems) who was glad we brought back Graham & Marcedes, and why I wanted to add a veteran WR to be Rodgers #3 or 2 WR. Kind of like what the Patriots always and the Saints have done a lot of recently.

Defense wins championships... that is proven over and over again. I agree that we need a top notch Safety. We also need another CB since we let Breeland walk away. We need another DL too. I think Pettine is creative enough with his schemes that ILB is a more distant need, particularly if we get another good Safety.

The O talent, aside from the 2 TE's will be stronger next year.

I also think we can get some offensive talent in round 4 and later. RB, Wr, and TE are positions where we already have the starters just need some depth with potential.

Taking offense will not produce wins? SERIOUSLY?
If AR isn’t in the game because he’s hurt or is running around like a scared deer you will have wished we would have taken OL because we can’t win like that no matter what defense we have

Spot on Stockholder! The NFL is still an offensive passing league with rules designed to score points. The Pack has young weapons at RB & WR, with a good starting 5 OL. An aging but still great QB to be recharged by new schemes and designs by a new offensive system. A TE is needed for sure, but this draft is DEEP at TE. It is Option #1 Defense. If Rodgers & company put up 24 points per game, which they should do, but still lose, that is a problem. We need defense! Safety is a must #1. ILB is needed at the premium pick at 12. This year's draft class for LB's is not good. We need to trade back (a few) not up if we have several options we like at 12. If a stud is there at 12, no brainer we win. Get Thornhill at 30 or 44 Please. My wish is not wasting a defensive draft. That is where the talent is this year. Gary

I kinda disagree Guam. I think there are always "needs to fill". The key is getting more blue chip players on your roster. Let's take advantage of getting a shot at a top tier player while we can. I'm guessing (hoping) this will be the last year for a while where we will drafting in the top 20.

I’m okay with trading out of #30 if ... IF(!)... there’s a team wanting back into the first round and willing to pay a premium to do so. To me, that means another second round pick in this draft or VERY early third round in this draft plus a #4 or #5 in this draft.

Trading out of #12 would likely cost the Packers a quality player on offense or defense who can make an almost immediate contribution in 2019. With Rodgers having a diminishing window for another SB, moving from the #12 choice seems a poor choice.

I don't think its fair to compare Hock or Fant to Gesicki. They are both much better prospects.

I agree with the idea of D first and O next. Can get TE in later rounds 2 - 5.
Would prefer filling ILB first w/Bush only if he grades similar to Oliver, Burns, or Sweat. If similar grades take need or trade down a few. We could possibly get two Safeties and two OL in the next 4 picks and still have TE options like Mack and Warring. Of course trades will alter all of this which is what makes it exciting to watch.

Lare,

I have to agree on this one, Obviously, as I have said the same in other threads. None of us have anything more than a vague guess about Guty's board or all the variables he has to consider and account for.

His board gave us our extra 1st rounder this year. Exceptional, I will say. Was it first year luck? I don't think so.

So I trust Guty and his board.

But this is the draft nicks time. Fun and excitement for them. A couple will guess right.

If if was after generational talent he would have stayed put for Derwin James. He hit on Alexander, but the juries still out on his propensity to miss time with injuries. The #30 will be a key guy to balance to move away from Derwin.

EddieLeeIvory,

Chances of a rookie coming in and getting it from day 1 in the NFL is pretty rare. Pack need some guys that are the most ready.

I am hoping our 2nd year WR talent take the next or double next steps. The pack needs their experience, such as it is.

Our T Davis is also pretty quick.

Too bad he just had lisfranc surgery.

"the previous regime never had a deep enough sense of urgency"

This statement is so against the NFL pointedly and in general. Each team has 16 games, that is urgency. The Pack goes so far as to play a less than 100% Rodgers in meaningless game. That shows some urgency.

Their paychecks depend on it, now and into the future (like McCarthy). I have seen players get paid and basically quit, but that is the exception.

Bad coaching, bad play and mistakes are not lack of urgency.

Josh Allen

Fordham Ram,

How does the pack not get a "blue chip player" at 12? At least the 12th best in the country!! Why lose picks?

Handsback

You say ....... "Two scouts have said... ".

Are these scouts Packer scouts?

If not just noise. So are they from the Pack? I bet not, because the biggest, most highly held secrets are NFL boards. (don't know how they keep them secret in our world today)