Packers 1st Round - Jaire Alexander

[Ill-yasova]

accidental repost

[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.

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.

Thats why I said yes and no. The trade simply isn't as one-sided as fans think

[M-C-G]

It is getting confusing talking about us wasting valuable assets (when I think we have 11 picks left in this draft yet), the impossibility of trading up because our assets have no value, diminishing the value of future assets while saying that teams won't trade future assets, that future assets you have to pay a premium for because GM don't want to give them up, telling us that GMs only have four years so they can't be thinking about long term assets and according to GMs you'd rather have a 3rd round pick this year because it is better than a first round pick next year which is like a second round pick this year in terms of value.

Did I get all the arguments here that are trying to tell us that a third this year would be better than the value of a second round pick this year?

[trwi7]

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.

Thats why I said yes and no. The trade simply isn't as one-sided as fans think

If I could trade down 4 spots and give up a 3rd to get a 1st the next year, I would do that every time, which is basically what we did with some random late picks flipping around.

I think you're really underrating how good of a deal we got. Just look at what it took New Orleans to move from 27 to 14 and look what it took us to move from 27 to 18. Or even what it took the Bills to move from 12 to 7.

There's no way that isn't great value for us, even if we have to wait a year to get the pick. Hell, I know pretty much nothing ever happens during the trade deadline but what if a star player at a position of need comes on the market? Now we can offer a 1st and still have a 1st in the draft, we're one of the few (only?) teams that can do that. If New Orleans misses the playoffs, that's a really good pick. If both teams are good, we could package say 25 and 27 or something that could move us up quite a bit.

There are so many possibilities that we just wouldn't be able to do if we had just kept 14.

[M-C-G]

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.

Thats why I said yes and no. The trade simply isn't as one-sided as fans think

You can't keep using these trade charts to talk about value and then dismiss the giant disparity in value we received in this deal. A third round pick isn't better than a second round pick, which is kind of what you are trying to say.

[sdn40]

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.

Thats why I said yes and no. The trade simply isn't as one-sided as fans think

You can't keep using these trade charts to talk about value and then dismiss the giant disparity in value we received in this deal. A third round pick isn't better than a second round pick, which is kind of what you are trying to say.

Is a second round pick next year better than a third round pick this year ?
There is a gray area, but the answer isn't as definite as one would think. That's all I'm saying. Educate yourself on not only what you as a fan thinks, but the inner workings of what GM's and coaches are dealing with as well. Most GM's would view them as equal value. Again, I'm not making this stuff up. Either attempt to grasp it or mock it. Makes no difference to me

I know little about player control in baseball and have no clue what the Bird rule is in basketball, but I'm not gonna mock either

[emunney]

1) Getting a first next year is not as good as getting a first this year.
2) Getting a first next year is inadequately valued by the trade value charts. It's like predatory lending.

[trwi7]

This is literally like having your cake and eating it too. We not only got a guy that was in our 15-20 player tier but we also got a future 1st out of the deal and it only cost us a 3rd. That's insane value by Gutekunst.

[HaroldinGMinor]

Even if the 1st round pick in 2019 is "valued" as a 2nd round pick, GB still came out ahead. They traded 18 for 27 + 2nd (2019) + 5th round pick.

So hypothetically if that pick in 2019 is valued as the 45th pick, GB still fleeces New Orleans per the value chart.

[GBPackers47]

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.

But we did have a pick still last night. And we have our pick next year, plus the Saints pick. We aren’t delaying anything.

If Jaire is the guy, and you can get him plus a future first, who cares what a chart says?

[paulpressey25]

This is literally like having your cake and eating it too. We not only got a guy that was in our 15-20 player tier but we also got a future 1st out of the deal and it only cost us a 3rd. That's insane value by Gutekunst.

I tend to think their moves last night were fantastic.

However so much comes back to whether or not there is a performance gap between Derwin James and Jaire. If there is a massive gap in favor of James over the next few years then it doesn't look so good.

Feel the same about last years situations. Packers could have taken Watt but traded our and took King. If Watt ends up being a far superior player, it backfires.

They have to be right on their scouting.

[El Duderino]

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.

Yea, what's the obsession with moving back into the 3rd round?

The Packers have had plenty of success drafting in the 4th and 5th rounds, especially on the OL.

4th round

Jamaal Williams
Blake Martinez
David Bakhtiari
Mike Daniels
T.J. Lang
Josh Sitton
J.C. Tretter
Davon House
Dean Lowry

5th round

Aaron Jones
Corey Linsley
Micah Hyde

Here are our 3rd round picks in that time frame

Montravius Adams
Kyler Fackrell
Ty Montgomery
Richard Rodgers
Khyri Thornton
Alex Green
Morgan Burnett
Jermichael Finley
James Jones
Aaron Rouse
Abdul Hodge
Jason Spitz

The draft gets even more random once you get out of the first two rounds. I see no reason to package 3-4 picks to get back into the 3rd round. I'd rather have more darts to throw at the board and hope you hit.

[trwi7]

This is literally like having your cake and eating it too. We not only got a guy that was in our 15-20 player tier but we also got a future 1st out of the deal and it only cost us a 3rd. That's insane value by Gutekunst.

I tend to think their moves last night were fantastic.

However so much comes back to whether or not there is a performance gap between Derwin James and Jaire. If there is a massive gap in favor of James over the next few years then it doesn't look so good.

Feel the same about last years situations. Packers could have taken Watt but traded our and took King. If Watt ends up being a far superior player, it backfires.

They have to be right on their scouting.

Ehh, the Watt thing is a lot different because we only picked up a 4th. It's not just the difference between James/Edmunds and Alexander either. What we do with the Saints pick next year needs to be factored in. If we get an all-pro with that pick but Alexander is only "good", then we still come out ahead unless James or Edmunds turns into a HOF talent or something.

[WeekapaugGroove]

This is literally like having your cake and eating it too. We not only got a guy that was in our 15-20 player tier but we also got a future 1st out of the deal and it only cost us a 3rd. That's insane value by Gutekunst.

I tend to think their moves last night were fantastic.

However so much comes back to whether or not there is a performance gap between Derwin James and Jaire. If there is a massive gap in favor of James over the next few years then it doesn't look so good.

Feel the same about last years situations. Packers could have taken Watt but traded our and took King. If Watt ends up being a far superior player, it backfires.

They have to be right on their scouting.

Ehh, the Watt thing is a lot different because we only picked up a 4th. It's not just the difference between James/Edmunds and Alexander either. What we do with the Saints pick next year needs to be factored in. If we get an all-pro with that pick but Alexander is only "good", then we still come out ahead unless James or Edmunds turns into a HOF talent or something.

The tough thing with both of those deals is we just don't know who they would have picked if those trades never materialize. It's possible King and Alexander are the picks in those original spots had the trades not happened and not guys like Watt or James. If that's the case then they did get good value from an asset management perspective. Now you can do a great job with asset management yet still do a horrible job with scouting and ranking players; those two things are not mutual exclusive. Teams are always going to play it off like they got the guy they wanted all along but really only the GM knows the truth.

[sdn40]

Imagine if we had taken Watt and didn't have King.
Maybe they saw the writing on the wall with Randall

[dbrodz7]

Imagine if we had taken Watt and didn't have King.

I'm envisioning a world where we still have a large need for CB.

[sdn40]

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.

Yea, what's the obsession with moving back into the 3rd round

Greed. I don't want 56 spots between picks. Flexibility. Prep for many guys on the last year of their deal. Quality over quantity

[El Duderino]

The tough thing with both of those deals is we just don't know who they would have picked if those trades never materialize. It's possible King and Alexander are the picks in those original spots had the trades not happened and not guys like Watt or James.

That's the factor in this stuff. We have no idea who the Packers would have ended up taking had they not traded out of their original spot the last two years.

Like you say, they very well could have taken King and Alexander had they not traded out. We just have no clue.

[WeekapaugGroove]

Right or wrong I would say based on the fact that they traded out of their spot the last two years tells me they didn't view guys like Watt, James, or Edmunds as guys they had to have. They could be totally wrong with this view but you don't move the pick if you feel like the perfect guy fell to you.

Reading the tea leaves of what Gut was saying last night I do think their trade up target was Ward if he got to a certain point. I kind of wonder if Wolf and the Cleveland guys knew the Packers liked Ward so they didn't risk trading back from 4 and having the packers jump them for him. And if you like Ward it's logical that you would be higher on Alexander than some teams.

[RRyder823]

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

A Future first is devalued when compared to picks in the current year. They just are.

Why? Next April, the pick will be worth exactly what it would be worth if it was the Packers pick rather than a pick acquired in a trade.

After sleeping on it I'm much better with how the draft went down but I'm still not happy about passing on James. Probably will never be. But here's to Brees arm falling off and Alexander being more Shields then Buckley

Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app

The Buckley comparison doesn't make sense. Buckley wasn't just short, he was tiny. Shields was also light, entering the league at 184. Alexander weighs 196. That is right in line with all the other CBs on the roster. Kevin King is 5 inches taller and entered the league at 200.

Sure, he's an inch or so shorter than you'd like, but he definitely isn't small.

Because in a league where immediate results rule it's better to get that value now. It's not just the NFL. In any sport picks traded in future drafts inherently hold less value then picks in the current year when compared in a trade simply due to the fact that the value is kicked down the road.



Sent from my SM-G892A using RealGM mobile app