**Glazer Reports Lynch traded to Seahawks**

quote:

Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:
Have everyone fill one of these out and leave it at the door.

We haven't upgraded to that fancy futuristic documentation stuff yet. We're still medieval.

Just thought I would check in to see if anyone jumped yet?

Funny that those people who bitch at TT proclaiming Belicheater better is trading Moss.

quote:

Originally posted by PackerHawk:
They threw a lot of cash at TJ Whosyourmamma, too.

And don't forget the great move they made with the poison pill contract and Nate Burleson to get even with the Vikings. Man, they sure showed them!

And they made the big splash of acquiring Deion Branch. He's the Jordy Nelson of the West!

How about Thompson's contracts to Joe Johnson and Cletidus Hunt?

For that price, TT dropped the ball. If you want to look at Super Bowl backs, even a washed up Edge was better than Jackson (and Hightower is a better runner than Kuhn, as much as I like Kuhn). The combo of Pierre Thomas, Reggie Bush and Mike Bell were better than Jackson/Kuhn, etc., etc.

All teams have weaknesses now, the key is minimizing them. With Burnett down, another weakness has been added and none subtracted. That significantly lowers your chances of winning a Super Bowl. TT had a chance to shore up a weakness and didn't.

My lord this thread has gotten long. Are the four pages in between worth reading?

It would've taken not one, but two picks.

And for us to get him (in order to outbid Seattle), at least a 3rd AND another pick.

No way.

Unless Lynch could also play a decent safety you're FOS.

*Edit* Scratch that...you're FOS regardless.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

For that price, TT dropped the ball.

Only if you make the assumption that compensation was the deal-breaker

The Packers turd-avoidance system is state of the art

How's Jolly playing these days?

Is Underwood still on the team?

That "Packer People" garbage is nonsense. The Packers have their turds just like other teams, they just don't try to collect them like Al Davis.

Yeah, we seem to only draft ours from time to time (just like other teams do).

Guys like you advocate trading multiple picks for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:
It would've taken not one, but two picks.

And for us to get him (in order to outbid Seattle), at least a 3rd AND another pick.

No way.

Unless Lynch could also play a decent safety you're FOS.

*Edit* Scratch that...you're FOS regardless.

So what? The price was not very high really.

Lynch was available for a good price and would have shored up a weakness. What safety meets that criteria?

Do you know for a fact he was available to the Packers? Do you have an inside source or maybe a bug in Ted's office?

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:

So what? The price was not very high really.

Lynch was available for a good price and would have shored up a weakness. What safety meets that criteria?

In "Hershworld" it wasn't very high.

It would've taken us a #3 and another pick to beat Seattle.

BTW, do you really need a "sarcasm" smiley all the time, or are you bright enough to figure that out by yourself every now and then?

How do you know we didn't offer the same package? Seattle's picks are probably going to be higher than ours so that was Buffalo's choice.

Because the Bills would rather take less from the Seahawks for Lynch why? Name one legitimate reason why Lynch would be available to the Seahawks and not Green Bay?

(assuming Green Bay would make the offer of a very low 3rd vs. the Seahawks' likely very high 4th, although in that division one never knows sheesh)

Because they're more likely to pick earlier in the draft (if the offers were the same), numna.

Again, the assumption Green Bay gives up the low third which is higher than the fourth. Gee, math is hard.

It isn't like TT hasn't shown the ability to get more picks when he wants them.

Ted could have traded for Seattle's 4th round pick and used that to get Lynch.

That would have been rather hilarious, Bong.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Ted could have traded for Seattle's 4th round pick and used that to get Lynch.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Ted could have traded for Seattle's 4th round pick and used that to get Lynch.

For fleecing Breno and Barbie from us, the least they could do is ship us a 4th.

quote:

Originally posted by Herschel:
Again, the assumption Green Bay gives up the low third which is higher than the fourth. Gee, math is hard.

It isn't like TT hasn't shown the ability to get more picks when he wants them.

And gee, Hersh is dense. It would still require a higher round pick on our part, dumbass.

You're arguing that the same deal was available, and then you're turning around and conceding it wouldn't (because it would've taken our third).

And another pick.

Which IMO wouldn't have been worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by Fond Du Arrigo:

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-Bong:
Ted could have traded for Seattle's 4th round pick and used that to get Lynch.

For fleecing Breno and Barbie from us, the least they could do is ship us a 4th.

We're fortunate they didn't ask for a 7th for taking them.

Yes, I'm kidding.

Cheer up bleak world.

quote:

Originally posted by JJSD:
Not sure how it's possible to misinterpret or slant this...

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
I'd rather be collecting Lombardi's than draft picks, but maybe that's just me. If the Packers somehow win the Super with what they have at RB, I'll eat my share of crow, but I highly doubt it will happen.

At least we have established at least two facts now:
1. The Bills were showcasing Lynch and looking to move him.
2. The compensation was right there in that 3rd round pick range.

So, unless GB wins the SB, you'll retain your right to be pissed. What did I miss?

Ah yes, I can see how that comment is the equivalent of Marshawn Lynch = Super Bowl Victory.

Bottom line, if you can significantly upgrade at a position for the price that Lynch was traded for, I personally would have made that trade. Yes, I realize I'm not an NFL GM and you're glad I'm not, blah blah blah.

cjs, any way you'd concede that possibly we (and by we I mean you too) don't know all of the facts. Maybe, just maybe, you might change your mind when you do?

Yes, I will concede that we don't know all the facts. As we also know, TT will take them to his grave - but I am always open to new information.

I guess I just don't see why the Bills wouldn't accept a better offer than what the Seachickens made.

If I were the GM, I'd SB bound this team automagically!

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Ah yes, I can see how that comment is the equivalent of Marshawn Lynch = Super Bowl Victory.

That's kinda/sorta the implication of that sentence, CJS.

Not to put you on the spot, but can you name one poster that is (not "was" because the deadline still hasn't yet passed) 100% against trading for a RB at any cost?

I don't recall one, and if you can post a link to one I'll gladly concede the point.

There are moves during a season that can (arguably) strengthen part of a team (by an undetermined amount). The question is whether or not the possible reward of that move justifys the cost, and at least in this instance I personally don't believe it would have (since it would've taken our 3rd AND a 2012 conditional pick in order to outbid Seattle).

Which also would've done nothing to address the (IMO) more pressing needs of the back end of our secondary and/or a cover ILB.

Well, that's the part we don't know about. (as far as if other teams are dangling players in the secondary or cover ILB's) We did have a pretty good idea that Lynch was available and was being showcased. My point is that if you can improve an undetermined amount, (but IMO, a significant amount), and you feel the cost is worth it (which we disagree on), then a team should do that.

Obviously TT didn't agree that the price was worth the upgrade. I know he's a Pro and he's forgotten more football than I'll EVER know, I still disagree that Lynch wasn't worth a bit more than the Seahawks price. I've been wrong about hating some of his draft picks, I've been right about some, but more often than not, he of course is right. And he better be, because he's dedicated his life to this schit.

And I know I will get railed for disagreeing with the Master of Packers, but honestly, it takes a lot more balls to form your own opinions, get flamed, defend your position, get flamed again, etc, than to just say, "whatever Ted says and does is my opinion too". [and as I've said before, I don't think you're in that category Coach, but there are plenty here that are quite simply Ted Thompson's sheep.]

As far as naming one poster who was dead set against a trade, not everyone here puts their cards on their table. Many just enjoy ripping on people for not agreeing with the consensus. You're pretty much the only one in that crowd who even put a definitive opinion out there and stood by it.

Anyway - this is all water under the bridge now.

quote:

Originally posted by barrister:

quote:

Originally posted by The GBP Rules:

quote:

Where does it say Ted is always right?

Read the board some time. While I do believe TT has done a fine job in GB he is not above criticism. However, when someone criticizes him on this board they are more often than not ripped. If he had a resume' with 3 SB appearances and a couple victories I could understand. But, the fact remains they've won 1 playoff game in his 5+ year tenure in GB.

+1.

It is amazing how far some will go to make excuses for every move that TT makes (or doesn't). One can have confidence in TT and appreciate his work in GB, but still acknowledge when he makes a mistake or question a specific move. It does not make one a bad Packer fan. TT is not beyond reproach.

Nope, he sure isn't. But you're the last person he gets to yap about it after hoisting yourself on your own petard.

I would like to see more activity in FA at times as well. But Lynch is a stinkin' turd that does not match the philosophy of TT's team building. I think he's earned the right for a little respect on that front.

I've been one of the people that wanted to see them go after a guy like Lynch, and on the surface it doesn't seem like Seattle gave up a lot to get him. However, I don't know all the details of what GB offered, nor do I know what was discussed (or not discussed) with the Bills about Lynch.

Hopefully GB is still looking at other options at RB- time will tell.

They probably wanted a third from GB and it's not surprising that TT wouldn't pull the trigger if that was the price. Draft picks are like gold to him and Lynch carries significant baggage that he probably didn't want to assume at that price.

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~ssa...gi-bin/eightball.cgi

Brand new day today.

All that's been said in 26 pages is pretty much all that can be said.

We're moving this to the archives.

By the end of the season, this will be an interesting thread to review.

Happy Wednesday.