Skip to main content

michiganjoe posted:

No Joe Thomas....

A late round draft pick?  WTF?  He might've been the one guy who showed up last year and he 's not a complete scrub.  Christ, he must've really ****ed up off the field.  

 

Henry posted:
michiganjoe posted:

No Joe Thomas....

A late round draft pick?  WTF?  He might've been the one guy who showed up last year and he 's not a complete scrub.  Christ, he must've really ****ed up off the field.  

 

Got caught with his dick in a pumpkin is my guess. Not Packer People.

chickenboy :Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on. Similar to Christian Ponder.

I agree.  But this move seems senseless to me.  You just traded a 1st round, defensive, starter for a player you hope never sees the field.  Taking away from an already week defense and adding virtually nothing of value.

If Rodgers goes down, Kizer isn’t leading them anywhere.

The packers reluctance to focus on an absolutely glaring deficiency is baffling.

There is a lot to like here. I am all in on cutting bait with Hunds, Kizer showed more promise and was a lot more green, plus cash and move up picks. Is anyone really that broken hearted to lose Randall? I can see him being fine without the Wiz there to scheme it up, but I would still like the potential in this move.

Last edited by "We"-Ka-Bong
Eye Heart Green & Gold posted:
chickenboy :Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on. Similar to Christian Ponder.

I agree.  But this move seems senseless to me.  You just traded a 1st round, defensive, starter for a player you hope never sees the field.  Taking away from an already week defense and adding virtually nothing of value.

If Rodgers goes down, Kizer isn’t leading them anywhere.

The packers reluctance to focus on an absolutely glaring deficiency is baffling.

Yeah, drafting King and Jones last year was baffling.  ****ing idiot. 

The point is you have a guy with the potential to be a starter who at minimum can develop under Rodgers.  Because as we all know, QB is the least important position on the team so why would you have a competent backup? 

 

Last edited by Henry
Henry posted:
Eye Heart Green & Gold posted:
chickenboy :Sometimes you just need to cut your losses and move on. Similar to Christian Ponder.

I agree.  But this move seems senseless to me.  You just traded a 1st round, defensive, starter for a player you hope never sees the field.  Taking away from an already week defense and adding virtually nothing of value.

If Rodgers goes down, Kizer isn’t leading them anywhere.

The packers reluctance to focus on an absolutely glaring deficiency is baffling.

Yeah, drafting King and Jones last year was baffling.  ****ing idiot. 

The point is you have a guy with the potential to be a starter who at minimum can develop under Rodgers.  Because as we all know, QB is the least important position on the team so why would you have a competent backup? 

 

Henry, what the ****? When the monkey insists on whacking off at the zoo, ignore it. It just wants attention.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×