**Glazer Reports Lynch traded to Seahawks**

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Mort: "There are some unhappy folks in the Packers building that Ted Thompson wouldn't pull the trigger"...."Practically giving away Marshawn Lynch who was the 12th pick in the 2007 draft"


Ted should look into trading himself. This is inexcusable.

peestain

So we do we think Seattle will play in the Super Bowl? Baltimore? New York?

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:
As for the trade, no ones even brought up Marshawn wanting to be here. For all we know, TT makes the same offer to Buffalo. Lynch's agent now has two offers to present to Lynch.

If that was the case, TT should have then upped to a third, IMO...

Like someone said earlier, TT would have more than likely had to offer a higher round pick due to the fact they most likely will be picking lower. I think I read somewhere they have an extra third anyway next year due losing Kampy to FA (not 100% sure of that). I sincerely hope there is more to this story than just not willing to part with draft picks.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:

quote:

Originally posted by beef:
2011 4th and a conditional 2012 pick (either 5th or 6th according to Schefter).

Oof... I would have paid that price for sure.

Yep. Me too. If that's actually the price paid, then I would want that deal to be done.

i don't want to come off as anti-TT but this is unforgiveable.

Seattle cuts Julius Jones

Do we bring him in for a look?

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:
mortreport‎: And there are some disappointed Packers with news that Marshawn Lynch is now going to Seattle.


Fans, mort, disappointed fans.

Which players did you talk to?

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Or maybe Lynch didn't want to come to Green Bay.

What choice does he have? Play or don't get paid it's really that simple. He'd have been foolish not to. He is goign to another RBBC team and here he would have been the main ball carrier, 15-20 touches a game.

For what it cost it was definitely worth it. If they didn't want a GB 4th then a late GB 3rd would have been fine as well. Let's face it the guy they pick with that pick may or may not help the Packers 3-4 years down the road.

It is not like they'd have been mortgaging the future to get the guy and he could have paid instant dividends. Do people really want to count on a guy who has not played football in 2 years who is actually older than Lynch is?

Not really.

I have been a stern supporter of Thompson. But I'll go on record as saying he's an idiot -- as he was in not getting Randy Moss -- for now not making this exact same deal for Lynch that Seattle did. Unless he trades for someone in the next two weeks as good or better than Lynch, he's really let us down big time.

quote:

Originally posted by packerboi:

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
Remember that Rodgers wanted them to add Lynch.

Kind of.

Rodgers was specifically asked if we would want Marshawn and his response was "why not?" then went onto to say how they played together and he'd welcome a guy like him on the team. That's a far cry from Favre who out and out campaigned to get Moss and drolled onto any reporter would listen, texted Moss, etc.

Rodgers never brought up Lynch on his own.

As for the trade, no ones even brought up Marshawn wanting to be here. For all we know, TT makes the same offer to Buffalo. Lynch's agent now has two offers to present to Lynch.

Seattle's a big city. Much larger then GB and has clubs, nightlife, and warmer weather then we do. It might have been a factor we just don't know.

None of which TT has much control over. Playing and living in Seattle in January is a far cry from playing in Green Bay, WI.

And Lynch doesn't need to worry about what happens when GB's franchise RB comes back in 2011. Another factor he might have considered if the teams offers were indeed similar.

Do you have info suggesting that LYNCH actually made the final decision? Seems to me that, absent a consent/no-trade clause or other unique circumstances (e.g., the deal being contingent on Lynch agreeing to a deal), Lynch doesn't have a say. Seahawks make the call. Best deal for them wins.

I understand the desire to think positive and give TT the benefit of the doubt, but TT is not beyond reproach. If the trade deadline comes and goes with TT making an adequate move to address the RB situation, it will be a major disappointment.

quote:

Originally posted by sschumer:
I have been a stern supporter of Thompson. But I'll go on record as saying he's an idiot -- as he was in not getting Randy Moss -- for now not making this exact same deal for Lynch that Seattle did. Unless he trades for someone in the next two weeks as good or better than Lynch, he's really let us down big time.

You're assuming that the same deal was offered to GB. A GB 4th is not = to a SEA 4th.

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is a good team without any additions, but if we want to become a GREAT team (read: Super Bowl caliber), I think we're going to have to make a move.

I hope TT knows what he is doing.

Who were the Super Bowl caliber RBs on New Orleans last year?
Or Indy last year?
Or Pittsburgh in 2008?
Or Arizona in 2008?
Or New England in 2003?
Or New England in 2001?

The delta between Lynch and Jackson has little to no bearing on whether this is a Super Bowl team. Our injuries in DB, DL, poor LB play, and our aging OL has significantly much impact than Marshawn freaking Lynch.

This is a passing team. Like it or not. McCarthy doesn't run the ball. And, guess what, when they needed to run the ball vs a team that knew we were running the ball, we ran the ball successfully and sealed the game. Even with Grant, we are a passing team first and foremost.

Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

If Seattle and GB both offered a 4th +, whose would you choose ?

quote:

Originally posted by Packy:
Seattle cuts Julius Jones

Do we bring him in for a look?

Pretty good summation in the article. Seattle now has 3 quality backs. Pete Carroll knows a little something about Marshawn having coached against him for years. Paying a 4th and a future 5 or 6 is highway robbery for Seattle. So, in the short term they win and the long term they win as well. As Brinson also mentioned in the article, the Packers are the losers in this deal for staying with Jackson and Kuhn.

gonna be a lot of washing machines working tonite with all this bed wetting...
keeeriste.

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
Do you have info suggesting that LYNCH actually made the final decision? Seems to me that, absent a consent/no-trade clause or other unique circumstances (e.g., the deal being contingent on Lynch agreeing to a deal), Lynch doesn't have a say. Seahawks make the call. Best deal for them wins.

That's why this is all speculation isn't it? "For all we know.."

You have to realize this is a malcontent with multiple arrests who is one arrest away (depending what it is) from being bounced from the league for a full year or perhaps for good.

IF I'm a GM worth my salt, I'm going to want to know this player:

A.) Truly wants to be here. Play in crap weather conditions. And live in the smallest city (with less then 4% black) in the NFL.

B.) Will keep his nose clean, out of the clubs, and content with focusing on football which at this time of year that's essentially all there is to do. Lynch doesn't strike me as a Deer hunter type how about you?

Granted yes. If a team pulls the trigger for a player he really has no choice. But this is not just any player with a clean slate behind him. There are other majort factors in his history that goes into this.

The last thing I want is a player with that kind of history pissed off that he's here or feeling his situation isn't much better then it was in Buffalo.

That does no one any good.

And that may have factored into this. With TT we'll probably never know.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is a good team without any additions, but if we want to become a GREAT team (read: Super Bowl caliber), I think we're going to have to make a move.

I hope TT knows what he is doing.

Who were the Super Bowl caliber RBs on New Orleans last year?
Or Indy last year?
Or Pittsburgh in 2008?
Or Arizona in 2008?
Or New England in 2003?
Or New England in 2001?

The delta between Lynch and Jackson has little to no bearing on whether this is a Super Bowl team. Our injuries in DB, DL, poor LB play, and our aging OL has significantly much impact than Marshawn freaking Lynch.

This is a passing team. Like it or not. McCarthy doesn't run the ball. And, guess what, when they needed to run the ball vs a team that knew we were running the ball, we ran the ball successfully and sealed the game. Even with Grant, we are a passing team first and foremost.

Here's some support for your contention from our pal Greg Bedard:

"Here is a look at some recent Super Bowl teams and how the run game played into their offense (most recent first):

SUPER BOWL XLIV

Saints: Pierre Thomas ran for 793 yards and Mike Bell 654 during regular season. Each caught at least 39 passes during the season. In the Super Bowl, the Saints ran 16 times for 59 yards.

Colts: Joseph Addai ran for 821 yards and caught 51 passes. In the Super Bowl, the Colts ran 19 times for 99 yards (Addai 26-yard run).

XLIII

Steelers: Willie Parker ran for 791 yards, Mewelde Moore 588 with 40 receptions. As a team, ran 22 times for 59 yards in the Super Bowl.

Cardinals: Edgerrin James had 514 yards, Tim Hightower 399 with 34 catches. Ran 11 times for 33 yards in the Super Bowl.

XLII

Patriots: Laurence Maroney had 835 yards during the regular season, Sammy Morris 385, and Kevin Faulk 265 (he caught 47 passes). Patriots had 15 carries for 43 yards against the Giants.

Giants: Brandon Jacobs had 1,009 yards and 23 receptions in nine starts. Derrick Ward had 602 and 26 receptions. Ahmad Bradshaw only had 190 yards. In the Super Bowl, Giants rushed 23 times for 87 yards. Jacobs led with 14 for 42.

XLI

Bears: Thomas Jones had 1,210 yards and 36 receptions. Cedric Benson 647. Jones had 15 carries for 112 yards in the Super Bowl.

Colts: Addai had 1,081 yards and 40 catches. Dominic Rhodes had 641 yards and 36 receptions. Colts ran 40 times for 190 yards in the Super Bowl.

-----

So I submit to you that what the Packers are banking on is some run mixed into McCarthy's high-powered passing offense and the decision-making of Aaron Rodgers will be what wins a title, not how great their running game is.

They're not the only team that has gone far believing that.

I'm not saying the Packers were right to not acquire Lynch -- I think personally it was worth the risk -- but to say the Packers are doomed or Thompson doesn't know what he's doing because they didn't get Lynch is just reactionary and wrong.

At least until we see how the season plays out."

Rest of blog post here.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

It's his job to put a roster together win Superbowl's and from what I have seen he hasn't accomplished that, yet.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

It is Ted's job to put a competant run game on the field. At the expense of a 3/4 and a future 5/6.. he failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Satori:
If Seattle and GB both offered a 4th +, whose would you choose ?

no one is really arguing this. it would have taken a 3rd from GB.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
As Brinson also mentioned in the article, the Packers are the losers in this deal for staying with Jackson and Kuhn.

In your opinion and some writer on a websites opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRuss:

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

It's his job to put a roster together win Superbowl's and from what I have seen he hasn't accomplished that, yet.

The season is over?

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
the Packers are the losers in this deal for staying with Jackson and Kuhn.

I think there are more losers than the Packers...

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

No one answered the question

I think if you say "lets see how the season plays out" you completely ignore the fact that wouldn't we be in a better position with Marshawn Lynch?

Would you be more comfortable with him on the team or not?


This is a fireable offense. Thompson is not ready for primetime.

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is a good team without any additions, but if we want to become a GREAT team (read: Super Bowl caliber), I think we're going to have to make a move.

I hope TT knows what he is doing.

Who were the Super Bowl caliber RBs on New Orleans last year?
Or Indy last year?
Or Pittsburgh in 2008?
Or Arizona in 2008?
Or New England in 2003?
Or New England in 2001?

Bedard makes your same point...

But I will say it again, the talent at RB on those pass first teams was heads and shoulders above what the Pack has now. Guys that needed to be respected. Also don't forget most of those guys were also decent receiving threats out of the backfield. I don't classify the Pack's twosome as that.

No one ever said Lynch was the missing link to the Bowl. He however would have dramatically upgraded a very weak position for minimal bounty. A major gaffe, IMO...

quote:

Originally posted by CAPackFan95:

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: this is a good team without any additions, but if we want to become a GREAT team (read: Super Bowl caliber), I think we're going to have to make a move.

I hope TT knows what he is doing.

Who were the Super Bowl caliber RBs on New Orleans last year?
Or Indy last year?
Or Pittsburgh in 2008?
Or Arizona in 2008?
Or New England in 2003?
Or New England in 2001?

The delta between Lynch and Jackson has little to no bearing on whether this is a Super Bowl team. Our injuries in DB, DL, poor LB play, and our aging OL has significantly much impact than Marshawn freaking Lynch.

This is a passing team. Like it or not. McCarthy doesn't run the ball. And, guess what, when they needed to run the ball vs a team that knew we were running the ball, we ran the ball successfully and sealed the game. Even with Grant, we are a passing team first and foremost.

I don't care about those teams. I'm talking about the 2010 Packers. But for the record, every one of them had a better RB situation than the Packers' duo of Jackson/Kuhn.

I know that we are a pass-first team. That is obvious. If you aren't willing to acknowledge that an upgrade to Lynch at RB would help this team win the Super Bowl, I can't help you...you're living in denial.

this thread should be quite entertaining four months from now.
Lynch is not a RB savior. I feel quite confident in that.
The running game, per usual, is just in its infancy this season.
The sky is not falling.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
I think if you say "lets see how the season plays out" you completely ignore the fact that wouldn't we be in a better position with Marshawn Lynch?

Would you be more comfortable with him on the team or not?


This is a fireable offense. Thompson is not ready for primetime.

Is that "we" as posters on a message board?

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
I think if you say "lets see how the season plays out" you completely ignore the fact that wouldn't we be in a better position with Marshawn Lynch?

Would you be more comfortable with him on the team or not?

To a degree, yes. But at what cost and will he be there considering his history?

quote:

This is a fireable offense. Thompson is not ready for primetime.

Yes, you really have a grasp on the NFL and what it takes to succeed. Truly a "STFU" moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Henry:

quote:

Originally posted by PackerRuss:

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

It's his job to put a roster together win Superbowl's and from what I have seen he hasn't accomplished that, yet.

The season is over?

Of course not, but I was just pointing out that TT's job IMO, is to put a roster together to win the SB. That has not happened in his time here, and many believed (as I do) that we are entering the "window". With the addition of a RB (Lynch) it would help acheive TT (the collective) goal IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

No one answered the question

The answer is no. However, it's not like the fans are clueless that our run game blows pole. It is quite evident. So your feel good question that implies that "ted is always right" is ludacris.

I feel good about 2011 and 2012 though, we are in good position to rebuild and rebuild and rebuild.

quote:

Originally posted by NJWIS:

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:

quote:

Originally posted by beef:
2011 4th and a conditional 2012 pick (either 5th or 6th according to Schefter).

Oof... I would have paid that price for sure.

Yep. Me too. If that's actually the price paid, then I would want that deal to be done.

i don't want to come off as anti-TT but this is unforgiveable.

yeah, i'm pro-TT, but definitely questioning him here. obviously a potential deal with green bay would have to require higher picks. seattle's 4th may only be a few picks later than our 3rd. but even swap out that 4th with a 3rd and i'd be in favor of it. it would come as a risk with lynch being a stupid move away from being out for a year, but if he wises up it could be a cedric benson like deal.

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:
this thread should be quite entertaining four months from now.
Lynch is not a RB savior. I feel quite confident in that.
The running game, per usual, is just in its infancy this season.
The sky is not falling.

you don't know this. if thompson doesn't get someone who is going to step up?

in 2007 he had 3 new players to figure it out. grant/wynn and bjax.

now who do we have nance and starks? they aren't even willing to let nance play against the lions. what does that tell you?

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Is it Ted's job not to let down the fans?

No one answered the question

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes.

quote:

Originally posted by Tdog:
this thread should be quite entertaining four months from now.
Lynch is not a RB savior. I feel quite confident in that.
The running game, per usual, is just in its infancy this season.
The sky is not falling.

Dude! There is no way two guys changing up their roles in the offense will get better as they play the position week in and week out. Never heard of such a thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
I think if you say "lets see how the season plays out" you completely ignore the fact that wouldn't we be in a better position with Marshawn Lynch?

Would you be more comfortable with him on the team or not?


This is a fireable offense. Thompson is not ready for primetime.

Fired for not f*cking tradin for Marshawn freakin Lynch. Always with the ridiculous reactionary comments

I'm not happy about it, and by the price, I would have done the deal in a heartbeat, but fired over not pulling the trigger on freakin Marshawn Lynch? Get out of here with that crap

quote:

Originally posted by beef:
but if he wises up it could be a cedric benson like deal.

Benson was signed off the free agent scrap heap with no guaranteed money by Cincy. There was no risk. Hardly the same as trading away picks for Lynch. Need a better analogy, Beef.