The Packers Should Trade Down In Round 1 To Maximize Value
This year's draft board presents a strong case for the Packers to trade down on Day 1.
The Green Bay Packers won’t enter the 2025 NFL Draft with the same wealth of picks they had in 2024. After starting last year's draft with 11 selections, they will have only eight this time, with just three inside the top 100—down from five in 2024.
At pick 23, the Packers face a range of options. Their most pressing needs include cornerback, pass rush, and wide receiver. However, interior offensive line and off-ball linebacker are also sneaky needs that require attention. Given these various directions, the first round could be one of the most unpredictable in recent memory for Green Bay.
One factor contributing to the uncertainty is the lack of true first-round talent in this draft class. ESPN’s Matt Miller has graded only 12 players with a true first-round grade, and many players the Packers might target are likely to be off the board by pick 23. A potential name still available could be Texas defensive back Jahdae Barron, whose role is similar to that of Javon Bullard. If selected, it would be intriguing to see how Barron fits into Jeff Hafley’s defensive scheme.
Given the draft landscape, trading down seems to make the most sense for the Packers. With fewer high-value picks and a deep draft pool between picks 20 and 60, Green Bay could gain significant value by moving down. The talent gap between pick 23 and the mid-second round isn’t as steep as in past years, meaning the Packers could acquire additional assets without sacrificing much in player quality. This move would also provide general manager Brian Gutekunst the flexibility to target a prospect he covets on Day 2 if one falls unexpectedly.
However, trading entirely out of the first round is unlikely. The Packers would lose the opportunity to select a player with a fifth-year option, which provides future roster flexibility. Gutekunst likely values this option and would prefer to keep it in his back pocket.
Moreover, trading down would allow Green Bay to fill multiple needs instead of locking in on just one. According to Over The Cap, they’re projected to have $46.07 million in effective cap space, which means they can address some key spots in free agency before the draft. That flexibility would give them a much clearer picture of their biggest priorities when they’re on the clock. By adding extra picks, they could still go after premium positions early while keeping their options open. Given how many areas still need reinforcements, that kind of flexibility could be huge.
In summary, with fewer picks and multiple needs, the Packers would be wise to prioritize acquiring more resources through a trade-down. It would strengthen the roster across various positions and allow them to maximize the deep talent pool without overcommitting to any one area.
In a recent three-round mock draft, I traded down with the Baltimore Ravens. With three offensive tackles still available that I felt comfortable selecting, I opted to move back. The Kansas City Chiefs also expressed interest in moving up, but I didn’t want to risk all three tackles being off the board by pick 31. At pick 27, I selected Grey Zabel, an offensive tackle from North Dakota State.
In the second round, I addressed the pass rush by selecting Shemar Turner, a defensive lineman from Texas A&M. Then, with the third-round pick I acquired from Baltimore, I selected Isaiah Bond, a wide receiver from Alabama. To round out the draft, I added Azerehe'y Thomas, a defensive back from Florida, with Green Bay’s own third-round pick.
In this mock, I traded down four spots in the first round and still filled four positions of need with players who provided strong value at those picks. While real-life scenarios may differ from simulations, this draft class is particularly strong on Day 2. If there isn’t a player you’re 100% confident will start immediately, it makes sense to move down and accumulate extra capital.
Quantity doesn’t always equal quality, but the value between picks 20 and 60 in this draft suggests that trading down could allow the Packers to address both. With the team in need of depth across several positions, acquiring additional picks gives Green Bay the flexibility to fill multiple gaps without sacrificing talent. The Packers need both immediate contributors and long-term depth, making a trade-down approach an appealing option to strengthen the roster in a balanced way.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Felipe is a Brazilian Packers writer covering the #GoPackGo for CheeseheadTV, Zone Coverage, and Packers Talk. Additionally, he contributes to Cheeseheads Brazil. Follow him on twitter at @Aceti_Felipe.
__________________________
Comments (36)
Leatherhead
February 24, 2025 at 10:49 am
Normally, I'd be inclined to agree about trading down. This particular year, we might very well have a shot at a real good player at a premium position (DE/EDGE). I know that Gutekunst really values outside pressure, and he generally drafts defensive players, and he thinks it's easier to find small guys than big guys.
If THAT guy is still on the board at #23, we'll take him. In fact, the Packers don't move that first round pick very often, up or down.
dblbogey
February 24, 2025 at 05:44 pm
It's a deep draft for DL. With Slaton possibly gone, and Kenny Clark looking like 10 years of carrying a heavy load has caught up to him, there might be a good one at 23. Hopefully we fill at least 2 of the team's holes in free agency.
GregC
February 24, 2025 at 10:53 am
Trading down might be a good idea. I'm not so keen on taking an OT in the first round though. That's what they did last year, and the player did not even compete for a starting position at OT. Why would that be any different this year? I think you would end up with another player who is either a backup OT or is competing for a starting spot at guard and probably not offering much of an upgrade at that position. That's not a lot of impact for a first round player when the team has Super Bowl aspirations. You can get offensive line depth later in the draft.
T7Steve
February 24, 2025 at 11:24 am
I think if they trade down, they should trade down a couple times to add even more draft capitol. The More Gute has, the easier to trade up again to snatch someone he wants like he did before. Doesn't have to be in the first round either if there's no one there. Might get three picks or more trading out of the first and be right up top of the second, like with Watson.
I saw Spoff said today that Gute really cherishes the 5th year option, so it'd have to be a big deal to trade out of the first completely.
Packerpasty
February 24, 2025 at 06:03 pm
yup, lets go get a bunch of Jags...just what they need...more projects!!!
Alberta_Packer
February 24, 2025 at 01:22 pm
I understand the reluctance to draft another 1st round OT because of the Jordan Morgan experience. However how else is Gutekunst going to replenish the OT position? Free agency? Not likely - too costly. Trade? Who for who? Roster promotion? Andre Dillard - Kadeem Telfort - Travis Glover - Jordan Morgan? One has never popped (A.D.) - while the others do not seem to be on the verge of a "leap." So strictly through the process of elimination - this leaves the Draft as the best alternative.
GregC
February 24, 2025 at 02:53 pm
I already suggested how to replenish the O-line: by drafting, but not in the first round.
Alberta_Packer
February 24, 2025 at 03:12 pm
There are only about 5-6 OTs who are regraded as 1st round calibre. Afterwhich there is slim pickings. The IOL class seems to be a little better and deeper. So if the Packers want to pick a prime OT prospect - they likely will have to do it no later than the late 1st to early 2nd round.
Leatherhead
February 24, 2025 at 03:21 pm
Sign one starting caliber FA offensive lineman for $8M or less. Draft an OL in round 3/4. Hope that Glover and/or Monk has improved. That's the 9 offensive linemen on the 53.
dblbogey
February 24, 2025 at 05:52 pm
Morgan seems to be the unusual case of being a good tackle, but nothing special at guard. I wonder if they'll consider having him compete with Wallace at LT and see if he's an upgrade. Wallace has been solid at pass blocking and would make a great swing tackle, and we need one. I think they need more help at OL than most people seem to, with an upgrade at Center and RG. Having Wallace and Rhyan as our 6th and 7th O linemen would be great, because we can't expect to be as lucky with OL injuries as we were in 24.
Vachio
February 24, 2025 at 06:36 pm
Who is Wallace?
dobber
February 25, 2025 at 08:02 am
I keep having to correct myself on "Rasheed Wallace" --NBA--vs. "Rasheed Walker"--Packers.
Then there's the claymation guy with the dog. He's funny.
Alberta_Packer
February 25, 2025 at 12:31 pm
Wallace and Gromit?
WestCoastPackerBacker
February 24, 2025 at 02:09 pm
Isn't the whole point of the article that the picks available when the Packers are on the board at #23 aren't first round talent anyway, compared to other drafts? And the most talented player drafted in those spots would benefit the team the most regardless of position.
In terms of Jordan Morgan, his injuries kept us from seeing his worth. We simply don't know. And you know you can't draft for a player that will stay healthy the whole season, because there's no guarantee for that for anybody.
I doubt that they pick another tackle early, given that they have two obvious starters already.
Alberta_Packer
February 24, 2025 at 02:38 pm
What if one of the starters goes down? The Packers have no proven depth at T. What could happen - is what happened in Packers playoff game against the Eagles - when Glover was brought in to replace an injured Jenkins. The O-line was was compromised from that point on.
T7Steve
February 24, 2025 at 10:59 am
Felipe, you forgot to tell us who Baltimore got with the Packers' pick in your mock. You know how a GM has to live with that the rest of his career.
Savage57
February 25, 2025 at 06:20 am
The other issue with this scenario are all the other teams after the top 10 looking to do the same thing. There's going to be competition to move around and it's going to have a an effect on what teams are willing to give up to move, discounting the trade value for moving down.
dobber
February 24, 2025 at 11:01 am
Should the Packers trade down? Depends on who's on the board at 23.
We have no idea which and how many prospects GMs think have "first-round grades," and we have no idea how FA will shift perceived team needs ahead of the Packers. Every year, there's a handful of guys who go in the top 20 that befuddle us because the DIC didn't value them that highly (but GMs did!).
If the landscape is so tumbleweed-ridden in round 1, why will any GM really want to deal up? It takes two to tango, and doing a series of mock drafts pre-free agency is a laughable rationale.
Cheezehead72
February 24, 2025 at 11:05 am
Last year I read an article that the draft had about 15 first round talent. I wonder if that is the norm. I have no problem with them trading down but if they trade down to the 32nd pick they will get only a mid 3rd round pick. Not sure if it worth losing out on the player you might want.
If the player you want is there go get him.
splitpea1
February 24, 2025 at 11:09 am
That all depends on who is or isn't available by the time we pick, doesn't it? It does no good to speculate right now with so much happening between now and the time we make our first round selection. We might not be able to fill a need in free agency or a prospect's stock could fall due to a number of reasons, so the Packers could see a value that they can't pass up.
beerandbrats
February 24, 2025 at 11:16 am
I've been looking at a similar strategy because we have many wants, needs and holes to plug this year! Jacobs said we need WR, CB and Edge. We have 5 DEs on the roster but we only need 2 on the field of play. Do we 'need' more edge rushers or do we 'want' better edge rushers? Unfortunately, Edge is a want, not a need, so it has to be a lower priority. I say we need OC, WR, CB, and LB. Myers is gone and Ryan is weak. Watson is injured. Jaire is gone. Slaton and Clark could be gone after this year and we only have 3 LBs under contract for our 4-3 defense. We really need to pick up some solid 3 down defenders and jettison the one trick ponies!
I've been playing around with pro football network's draft simulator and I think I've found a strategy that produces fairly consistent results. Of course, this all depends on PFN's player rankings and how the draft plays out. If they are fairly accurate, this strategy could help us fill both wants and needs. Our draft order would be:
OL, WR, CB, LB, OC, DE/DT, WR, DE
In order to make this work, we have to start with OL and WR with our first 2 picks. We also have to pass over some very good players (wants) to fill all of our needs because needs take priority over wants. As an example, I keep seeing Shemar Turner available at 87 but we are out of CBs so we have to take the last, best CB at 87.
Now here's the tricky part. If we make Emeka Ebuka our first pick, it becomes very difficult to fill the rest of our needs because it sets off a run on OL; however, if we can trade down and get 1-2 more top-100 picks, we become much more flexible and we could draft both wants and needs! I believe Simmons would be a solid first pick. I also would expect some nice trade offers if Scourton, Simmons and Ebuka are still on the board at 23. I recommend we pass on Simmons so we can add both a good OL like Grey Zabel and a good DT like T.J. Sanders, Shemar Turner or Darius Alexander.
The way to get consistent results is to target Zabel (or your favorite OL in this range) with our first pick somewhere around 40. This seems to be a sweet spot for OL. We should also use pick 160 for a center so we come away with 2 potential starting OL in this draft. I expect Jenkins to move to center this year, Morgan and Zabel become our new guards and the better man potentially moves to LT next year. Again, trading our first pick would also allow us to add a very good DT or DE (or both) without sacrificing other needs. Notice that there is a serious drop off where I am picking OC, CB and LB. I recommend we shop for a proven commodity (CB or LB) in free agency to provide even more flexibility in this draft.
Without a trade, I think this might be about the best we could do with this draft:
23 OL - Simmons, Zabel, Ersery, Conerly, Savaiinaea, Milum, Jackson, Mbow
54 WR - Williams, Higgins
87 CB - Alexander, Strong, Hancock
123 LB - Stutsman, Knight
160 OC - McLaughlin, Majors, Monheim
200 DE - Batty
239 WR - Brooks
251 DE - Hassanein
PS: I hated the first round Morgan pick last year because offensive linemen are boring but the playoffs showed us how important the trenches are. You can't ignore them! I'm a believer now. I also believe those big nasties up front probably make everybody else's job easier!
HarryHodag
February 24, 2025 at 11:46 am
This isn't flag football. The 'big nasties' are the only reason the quarterback, running backs and receivers can be successful at all. This was shown clearly when Kansas City's line couldn't stop Philly.
If you have the NFL's top offensive and defensive lines you can be mediocre in other phases and still make the playoffs.
beerandbrats
February 24, 2025 at 03:43 pm
Thank you HarryH because you said it much better than I did! I'm picking CBs and LBs pretty far down the draft order. If we can put a big, mean and nasty DT on the line in front of them, those late round CBs and LBs suddenly look much better, yeah?
And if we add a couple more studs to our O-line, JL10 has more time to find the open receiver and Jacobs has better running lanes...makes sense to me!
dobber
February 25, 2025 at 08:20 am
OL isn't a sneaky need, it's a HUGE need. The bottom line is that of the five Packers' 2024 starting OL, four--Myers, Walker, Rhyan, Tom-- all up for contracts between the 2024 and 2025 offseason. Myers looks like he's already gone because I've heard nothing of contract talks with the Packers. The fifth OL starter, Jenkins, has his contract come up after 2026 (he'll be 31).
What's behind them on the depth chart right now?
Dillard finished his one-year deal, so he's gone (the Packers didn't seem to want him on the field, anyway).
Telfort is a big guy who is an ongoing UDFA project in the same vein as Caleb Jones and Yosh Nijman.
Glover is a big, athletic, non-power conference rookie who has a lot of growing up to do.
Monk is a C who had a reputation for being athletic and strong, but the Packers didn't want to put him on the field, either.
I like Donovan Jennings as a big body who played T in college and could be a good G, but an injury derailed his 2024 training camp and put him on the PS.
The Packers have a LOT of work to do here. First off--they need to decide what their identity is going to be in the Jordan Love era. Are they going to be a run-first team? Do they want to run more power concepts than they have in the past? That's going to dictate not just who they pay, but what kind of player they start to stockpile on the depth chart.
Yes, they'll pay Tom (they need to) and then they'll have hard decisions to make on how to rebuild the OL. Do they dole out second contracts to Walker and to Rhyan? I doubt they'll pay both. The first player of the next wave, Jordan Morgan, had issues staying on the field in 2024...hopefully his surgically-repaired shoulder holds up. I think they take at least 2 OL in this draft, and one will be on day 1-2.
beerandbrats
February 25, 2025 at 08:41 am
Well said dobber! Our backup O-linemen didn't inspire any confidence when Jenkins got hurt and they had to fill in. We most definitely need to invest in our O-line this year!
Alberta_Packer
February 24, 2025 at 11:46 am
What many are not seeing - is the obvious. The Packers are seriously thin at OT. The team is just one injury away from a catastrophe - having Andre Dillard as the next man up. Moreover Tom and Walker are just one year away from free agency - so currently no long term positional certainty. Nor does it appear that Jordan Morgan is ready to play either Tackle spots. So with their 1st pick of the 2025 NFL Draft - the Packers will select an OT (again).
I'm fine with Gutekunst trading down - if it means adding another 3rd/4th round pick - while being able to select one of the following:
1.Armand Membou
2. Kevin Banks Jr.
3. Josh Simmons (subject to medicals)
4. Josh Conerly Jr.
Grey Zabel had a great Senior Bowl showing but he's being projected as a Centre/Guard in the NFL. I liken him to Graham Barton in last year's draft - whom the Packers passed on for Jordan Morgan.
Shemar Turner in the 2nd would fit the Packers well. He should not be overlooked.
I don't see Gutekunst going 3 rounds without choosing a CB. Franky, I can see him drafting 2 CBs in rounds 2-4.
I am not of the opinion that WR is either a Day 1 or 2 target for the Packers.
dobber
February 24, 2025 at 12:52 pm
Remember Dillard was on a one-year deal. His deal is up...and I suspect the Packers are unlikely to bring him back.
Alberta_Packer
February 24, 2025 at 01:31 pm
So more thinner than before (if that was possible). Now what is the cost of a sound veteran backup OT? May have to pay a premium in today's market.
dobber
February 25, 2025 at 08:23 am
They are perilously thin across the OL depth chart.
HarryHodag
February 24, 2025 at 11:49 am
There is a key to trading down: you need another team who wants to trade up and there's no given that that will be the case.
Within 48 hours of the league's new year on March 12 the Packers strategy will become clearer depending on whether they make some free agent moves. It's premature to speculate on possible draft trades until we see how the Packers address free agency.
Turophile
February 24, 2025 at 11:52 am
I generally advocate trading down (if you can), particularly in the later part of round one, when the true blue chippers are long gone and the difference between pics (in this case) 23 and 43 are not huge, but that extra 2nd rounder or (if you don't trade down as far) early third, can really help. As HarryHodag said (see above comment), the toughest part of doing that is finding a team that wants to trade up. Later trade downs don't net the same kind of returns.
Since drafting is an uncertain business, having more day 1 and 2 picks is always valuable.
If you are drafting inside (say) the top ten picks, it is a tougher call, as you have a real chance at getting a difference maker. You MIGHT draft one anywhere in the draft, of course, but the odds are much better with a blue-chip pick who has great college production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for this foolish comment "ESPN’s Matt Miller has graded only 12 players with a true first-round grade", it is demonstrably stupid. There are always 32 first round picks (barring teams being penalised), so you SHOULD adjust the minimum grade (to rate as being a first round pick) accordingly, and then talk about the grade at the cutoff point (pick 32) in that year, rather than using some poorly-defined and imaginary bar which never, ever, manages to rise to 32 players.
This old idea of grading a small number of first round picks as having "a true first round grade" has hung around for far too long, when there are far better ways to describe the quality of the first round. It also demeans the other 20 picks that supposedly were not good enough to be 'true' round one picks. Does anyone here know off the top of their head how many picks Matt Miller graded as 'true' round ones in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 ? if you don't know that, how can you make any comparison ?
stockholder
February 24, 2025 at 12:14 pm
Most people have forgotten what Gute gave up:
A 30 # 114 and # 118 for Savage.
If Gute was TT I'd say trade Down.
But Gute isn't. He wastes picks.
And since the NFL is having the draft in GB.
I say he will have to make a rd 1 pick.
The opportunity to land a edge player
is too great. The Trade down is a Kevin King.
So those who wanted TJ Watt- Start Bitching.
Because Gute is likely to reach for a CB.
But that is the way the cookie will crumble.
Turophile
February 24, 2025 at 12:25 pm
Bold man to predict what Gute will do. The Packers have been a very tricky team to predict on draft day(s), going back all the way to the TT days.
packer132
February 24, 2025 at 06:01 pm
Its great playing woulda shoulda coulda, isnt it? I shoulda bought Apple stock in 2005 when it was 2.17. Now its 247. What was I thinking????
PhantomII
February 24, 2025 at 01:57 pm
No....Never trade down....Burn 2026 1st and 2nd rounder if need be if we don't get the right FA at WR or DE / DL and move up for quality for any of those 3 positions. I like adding a stud DE and Stud DL. but our WR group is keeping us back more than anything....GPG
SDPack
February 24, 2025 at 09:58 pm
If everyone in the NFL world knows that 1st round talent is thin, they all will want to trade down. That means that the value they get in exchange will deflate. Supply and demand. Lots of sellers and picky buyers. So the only way trading down works is if you can find a sucker!! Come on Jerry Jones!! I see a running back who you will absolutely love to trade up for! Do it!