Packers Huddle

Heck, the professional writers do it. Why don't we do it too!

I was pondering the prospect of the Pack trading for DK Metcalf. So then, I wondered, "Is a 1st round pick EVER worth an elite player who probably/maybe still has 3-4 years of elite play?"

I know full well that teams to it. (See the Jets and AR8 among others.) But is that trade WORTH giving up a 1st?

Please discuss this and/or other hypo trade scenarios. Give them as much or little current truth as you want. Thanks all!

Scott4Pack wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 18:15

Heck, the professional writers do it. Why don't we do it too!

I was pondering the prospect of the Pack trading for DK Metcalf. So then, I wondered, "Is a 1st round pick EVER worth an elite player who probably/maybe still has 3-4 years of elite play?"

I know full well that teams to it. (See the Jets and AR8 among others.) But is that trade WORTH giving up a 1st?

Please discuss this and/or other hypo trade scenarios. Give them as much or little current truth as you want. Thanks all!

Worked for the Eagles.

go pak go wrote: ↑

28 Feb 2025 18:17

Worked for the Eagles.

And the Rams.

I heard speculation of a 2nd or 3rd and a player. Would love to seem them do something at that position if the price is right.

I'm not giving them a first for Metcalf. For every Rams and Eagles there are 10 other teams it sets back. And even those 2, the Rams were legit before but also made a number of other moves besides having Donald and Ramsey on D they added a center and Whitworth at Tackle. Got out from Gurleys contract the year before. picked up FA Beckham, Traded for Von Miller, etc. There was a lot more than just a couple firsts and getting Stafford.

The Eagles have a couple things we don't. #1 offensive line #2 defensive line and we're not close. I don't care what PFF or some ranking says, I watched the games. AJ Brown was a huge trade. One of the few WR deals that really made a difference IMO. But without the offensive and defensive lines and then adding Barkley, would it really have mattered? You could argue we have our Barkley, and He's definitely enough, but we still dont' have the lines.

We'd give up a first and player for Metcalf and still need a center, guard, tackle and a few DL's to get up to snuff. But we'd have gained a mercurial WR with definite talent but also a bunch of other issues I don't want to invest in long term and I wouldn't doubt he'd want a new contract before even reporting to camp if a trade was made.

Yes we need WR, but IMO we still need to improve our lines on both sides of the ball before we think about some pie in the sky trade to put us over the top.

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 05:39

I'm not giving them a first for Metcalf.

Word is the Packers have a high draft pick and a player on the table. I agree. I don't think that high draft pick is or should be a 1st. For the DK contract situation, I also believe the Packers would not make the trade without first agreeing to a new deal with DK that would keep him in GB for years.

A 2nd and Doubs for DK and a 5th or 6th would be a good looking trade by my eyes.

NCF wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 08:16

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 05:39

I'm not giving them a first for Metcalf.

Word is the Packers have a high draft pick and a player on the table. I agree. I don't think that high draft pick is or should be a 1st. For the DK contract situation, I also believe the Packers would not make the trade without first agreeing to a new deal with DK that would keep him in GB for years.

A 2nd and Doubs for DK and a 5th or 6th would be a good looking trade by my eyes.

our first is practically a 2nd in most draft classes, this one has some attractive DL prospects though into the 3rd round, so our 23 slot could give us a very good prospect, normally under the Guty ras draft process I'd say give two first rounders before even considering giving up even one 2nd or 3rd rounder, Guty's hit rounds ( chuckle)

can't figure out why fans dis Doubs, that guy gets sneaky separation more than anyone else on this roster, and IMO is Loves favorite target, plus with 3 concussions, 2 in 3 weeks or so, I don't see a lot of trade value.

starting to agree with CD, our only player with trade value is either a guy like LVN, Brooks, or Willis

I like Doubs, I don't like the recent concussions. I hope he's well first and foremost, but it does worry me. My preference is he's healthy, stays healthy and plays for us.

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 11:06

I like Doubs, I don't like the recent concussions. I hope he's well first and foremost, but it does worry me. My preference is he's healthy, stays healthy and plays for us.

Because of his concussion history I have a hard time believing we'll get any takers from another team in a trade. If I were an NFL GM I don't know if I'd be willing to take a chance on him.

I think Doubs has 0 trade value. Only 1 year on his deal and the concussions. No one is looking to trade for that or extend him.

The only WR we have with trade value is Reed and Seattle already has JSN. I also wouldn’t want to trade Reed. Musgrave might also have some value and since Kraft has emerged is expendable IMO.

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 05:39

I'm not giving them a first for Metcalf. For every Rams and Eagles there are 10 other teams it sets back. And even those 2, the Rams were legit before but also made a number of other moves besides having Donald and Ramsey on D they added a center and Whitworth at Tackle. Got out from Gurleys contract the year before. picked up FA Beckham, Traded for Von Miller, etc. There was a lot more than just a couple firsts and getting Stafford.

The Eagles have a couple things we don't. #1 offensive line #2 defensive line and we're not close. I don't care what PFF or some ranking says, I watched the games. AJ Brown was a huge trade. One of the few WR deals that really made a difference IMO. But without the offensive and defensive lines and then adding Barkley, would it really have mattered? You could argue we have our Barkley, and He's definitely enough, but we still dont' have the lines.

We'd give up a first and player for Metcalf and still need a center, guard, tackle and a few DL's to get up to snuff. But we'd have gained a mercurial WR with definite talent but also a bunch of other issues I don't want to invest in long term and I wouldn't doubt he'd want a new contract before even reporting to camp if a trade was made.

Yes we need WR, but IMO we still need to improve our lines on both sides of the ball before we think about some pie in the sky trade to put us over the top.

Yeah and there's risk in the opposite approach too. Draft & Develop can get you close-but-not-close-enough, guys will not pan out or take too long to do so while you are in a window and need impact players more quickly.

Sure, you can do the Rams/Eagles thing and fail, but they have shown us that it is at least a viable model to win a title. But like all other viable models, it needs to be done right, and you need a little luck. Rams got lucky that SF beat DAL bc of McCarthy not managing the clock right, then going onto beat us in the divisional round, because that Packers team in Lambeau probably ends their run and goes onto play CIN in the big game.

And neither team has even experienced the collapse that has been predicted. Rams had a poor year in 2022 but already got back to the playoffs last season. Eagles had lots of key players from the previous SB appearance hit FA while having Hurts on a big contract, but returned just two seasons later.

I say this despite myself because, as a fan, it's more "fun" and exciting to me for us to keep the draft pick and use them on new players than give them away for established guys who we already know what they are. But the goal is winning titles, and with the situation that GB is in now, I think there's a very compelling argument that the SEA/LAR/PHI approach makes more sense while we're competitive (but also very young and inexperienced) than more D&D.

Id gladly give a first or two my Myles Garrett, but metals at WR just doesn’t seem with it to me.

musclestang wrote: ↑

01 Mar 2025 19:13

Id gladly give a first or two my Myles Garrett, but metals at WR just doesn’t seem with it to me.

Pretty sure autocorrect changed "Metcalf" to "metals" there

Not sure if it’s my fat thumbs or the damn AI thinking it knows better. But yes, that should say Metals


It did it to me again, and it’s the damn AI

M e t c a l f

musclestang wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2025 08:56

Not sure if it’s my fat thumbs or the damn AI thinking it knows better. But yes, that should say Metals


It did it to me again, and it’s the damn AI

M e t c a l f

musclestang wrote: ↑

02 Mar 2025 08:56

Not sure if it’s my fat thumbs or the damn AI thinking it knows better. But yes, that should say Metals


It did it to me again, and it’s the damn AI

M e t c a l f

AI = Agitating and Irritating. Go ahead and trademark it.