Packers 1st Round - Jaire Alexander

[trwi7]

I'm confident because I'm not making things up
In order to trade back into the third, near we were, it takes about 210 'points' per the value chart. Per the value chart it takes both 4ths and all 3 of our 5ths to accomplish 210 'points'

Why do we have to get near where we were to get back into the 3rd? We could go to pick 90 which would cost us our two 4ths value wise.

Like someone else said, we could trade down from our 2nd to pick up a 3rd. For example we could trade 45, 138 and 172 for 60 and 92.

Personally I don't really see the need to move back into the 3rd with the first pick in the 4th but there are several ways we could do it if we wanted to.

[sdn40]

I'm fine with the Alexander pick.

Getting a first next year sucks. Just ask Ron Wolf. It's devalued a full round, so could end up being actually worth a late second.
Worse yet, we have to give up a 3rd this year. In case you are wondering 56 players will come off the board between our pick at 45 and our pick at 101. Totally unacceptable. Gute seems to like collecting garbage picks at the end of the draft just as much as TT. Good luck filling the numerous holes on the roster with late round picks.

And before you say we can just trade back into the 3rd, it would take all of our 4ths (2) and 5ths (3) to get us back to near our original pick and you have to find a team willing to fall for it. That leaves us with a 6th and (2) 7ths.

On the surface, it seems like a win, but I think the trades were horrible

What does that even mean?

When GM's make trades, any future picks are downgraded one full round (at least) in value. Call it interest for having to wait to use it. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have both made it clear they don't like trading for future picks very often. Other GM's as well

[Ron Swanson]

A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick. I don't know what weird analytic semantics people are getting into when they say otherwise. You wanna know who else blindly "trusts what the chart says" over divergent thinking and evolving logic?

[trwi7]

I'm fine with the Alexander pick.

Getting a first next year sucks. Just ask Ron Wolf. It's devalued a full round, so could end up being actually worth a late second.
Worse yet, we have to give up a 3rd this year. In case you are wondering 56 players will come off the board between our pick at 45 and our pick at 101. Totally unacceptable. Gute seems to like collecting garbage picks at the end of the draft just as much as TT. Good luck filling the numerous holes on the roster with late round picks.

And before you say we can just trade back into the 3rd, it would take all of our 4ths (2) and 5ths (3) to get us back to near our original pick and you have to find a team willing to fall for it. That leaves us with a 6th and (2) 7ths.

On the surface, it seems like a win, but I think the trades were horrible

What does that even mean?

When GM's make trades, any future picks are downgraded one full round (at least) in value. Call it interest for having to wait to use it. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have both made it clear they don't like trading for future picks very often. Other GM's as well

This is so dumb.

[sdn40]

A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick. I don't know what weird analytic semantics people are getting into when they say otherwise. You wanna know who else blindly "trusts what the chart says" over divergent thinking and evolving logic?

32 GMs ?

[HaroldinGMinor]

And for the record, I am guessing the trade value chart has no basis in math, economics, or reality. But it's what GM's use for the most part.

[sdn40]

What does that even mean?

When GM's make trades, any future picks are downgraded one full round (at least) in value. Call it interest for having to wait to use it. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have both made it clear they don't like trading for future picks very often. Other GM's as well

This is so dumb.

Not sure why it's so hard to comprehend. Would you rather have a 2nd round pick tonight or a 2nd round pick next year ?

[trwi7]

When GM's make trades, any future picks are downgraded one full round (at least) in value. Call it interest for having to wait to use it. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have both made it clear they don't like trading for future picks very often. Other GM's as well

This is so dumb.

Not sure why it's so hard to comprehend. Would you rather have a 2nd round pick tonight or a 2nd round pick next year ?

I'd rather have a 1st round pick next year, which is what we have.

[GBPackers47]

What does that even mean?

When GM's make trades, any future picks are downgraded one full round (at least) in value. Call it interest for having to wait to use it. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson have both made it clear they don't like trading for future picks very often. Other GM's as well

This is so dumb.

We still had a first round pick this year though. The only way I can understand this logic is if we traded our first this year for a first next year straight up.

[trwi7]

The Browns didn't actually use the 4th overall pick from the Texans last night. It's actually a 2nd round pick tonight.

[sdn40]

Make fun of it all you want. You guys are the ones that had no clue about a trade value chart that all GM's have used for years. And they are the fools ?

[emunney]

If a chart or whatever is telling you that a 1st round pick is actually worth a 2nd because reasons, that's a really good indicator of huge flaws in logic. Enough that I would never take it seriously.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'm sure you're right. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson are wrong

Still waiting for my explanation please.

It is true that in trades, future picks are worth less. I think where you're coming from is that their actual value is a lot more than what their trade value is, which is absolutely true. I'd trade a 2nd for a future first every damn year and you probably could find a taker every damn year, because football is still full of **** cavemen.

[Reddeye]

I see McGinn’s crotchety attitude has rubbed off

Read on Twitter

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dorsey (and Wolf) took Ward at 4 and he is under 6 ft

[bizarro]

Make fun of it all you want. You guys are the ones that had no clue about the trade value chart that all GM's have used for years

Perhaps. It's still faulty logic. Twirlz drew this out for you previously: the value of the pick is a 1st round pick next year. That's 2 first round picks. Even if New Orleans wins the Super Bowl (which they most likely won't), the value is in our favor. Offering some type of arbitrarily defined decay or half-life on next year's 1st round pick because it isn't now is just plain a faulty system if that is indeed what they are using.

Let's put it another way: What if Aaron Rodgers suffered a Peyton Manning like neck injury this season? Hmmmmmm. I sure as hell would like 2 1st round picks - most likely the Packers being in the top half again. There are just so many reasons to like the trade.

[sdn40]

I'm sure you're right. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson are wrong

Still waiting for my explanation please.

It is true that in trades, future picks are worth less. I think where you're coming from is that their actual value is a lot more than what their trade value is, which is absolutely true. I'd trade a 2nd for a future first every damn year and you probably could find a taker every damn year, because football is still full of **** cavemen.

Yes and no. Most GM's and head coaches have a 4 year deal. Waiting a year for the pick, and then waiting another year or two for the pick to reach his potential, is not something they are interested in for obvious reasons. New Orleans gave up a first, but got a guy they would never have gotten at their original pick, and have him for a full year before having to pay the price. One year is 25% of their contract time. Put a price on that

[sdn40]

Make fun of it all you want. You guys are the ones that had no clue about the trade value chart that all GM's have used for years

Perhaps. It's still faulty logic. Twirlz drew this out for you previously: the value of the pick is a 1st round pick next year. That's 2 first round picks. Even if New Orleans wins the Super Bowl (which they most likely won't), the value is in our favor. Offering some type of arbitrarily defined decay or half-life on next year's 1st round pick because it isn't now is just plain a faulty system if that is indeed what they are using.

Let's put it another way: What if Aaron Rodgers suffered a Peyton Manning like neck injury this season? Hmmmmmm. I sure as hell would like 2 1st round picks - most likely the Packers being in the top half again. There are just so many reasons to like the trade.

Fans can choose to view it any way they like. I'm just telling you how GM's and coaches, who have 4 year contracts view it. And for fans to strut around like they know what the Packers should do, but not know about the value chart, and then make fun of it when they do find out, as if it should be disregarded because of their own ignorance, is hilarious to me. And typical all at the same time

[HaroldinGMinor]

Gutekunst has a five year deal.

[sdn40]

Gutekunst has a five year deal.

Hence the word 'most'

[Aaron It Out]

If a chart or whatever is telling you that a 1st round pick is actually worth a 2nd because reasons, that's a really good indicator of huge flaws in logic. Enough that I would never take it seriously.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I'm sure you're right. Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson are wrong

LOL. This literally made me spit out water. Thanks for that.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[emunney]

Make fun of it all you want. You guys are the ones that had no clue about the trade value chart that all GM's have used for years

Perhaps. It's still faulty logic. Twirlz drew this out for you previously: the value of the pick is a 1st round pick next year. That's 2 first round picks. Even if New Orleans wins the Super Bowl (which they most likely won't), the value is in our favor. Offering some type of arbitrarily defined decay or half-life on next year's 1st round pick because it isn't now is just plain a faulty system if that is indeed what they are using.

Let's put it another way: What if Aaron Rodgers suffered a Peyton Manning like neck injury this season? Hmmmmmm. I sure as hell would like 2 1st round picks - most likely the Packers being in the top half again. There are just so many reasons to like the trade.

I think you're going too far in this argument, though. It would certainly be better to have the pick this year. It's like buying a bond that you know is going to mature in a year with an insane yield. You'd rather have the insane yield now if possible, but still, that yield is insane.