Mike Lombardi must read X4
quote:Originally posted by PackerRuss:
But you wouldn't go a 2nd?
I guess you could include that as the maximum, but for me it would have to be like what Favre had to do for the Packers to get a 2nd from the Jets. What was it like start 90% of the games, the Jets had to make it to the AFCC, and something else. If Marshawn Lynch ran for 1200 yards with a 4.0 average then yes I would gladly give the Bills a 2nd round pick. At most he would be able to start 10 games in my opinion so that would be a pretty amazing feat.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRuss:quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
I would definitely do a conditional 4th for Lynch that would go as high as a 3rd if he reached statistical and playing time marks...900+ yards and starts 10 games maybe?
But you wouldn't go a 2nd?
Starting as a conditional 4th would be ideal. Personally, I'd allow that pick to improve to a 2nd with a strong enough performance, but there has to be a flip-side to that. If ML turds out, then the pick drops to a 5th or even a 6th rounder.
If he gets injured, the pick stays a 4th, because that isn't the Bills fault.
I could also see the baseline being set as a conditional 3rd, especially if there are other teams interested in Lynch.
A conditional fourth sound pretty good, and I'd even be willing to give up a second if TT sets the bar real high, like a SB victory. Other than that, a third is about as much as he should give up for him.
I can't see the Bills dealing him for a conditional 4th, with the possibility of getting a 3rd, with performance. Why would the Bills accept that? If that is the best deal, I would just hold on to him. If I were the Packers, and many in FL believe I am 
, I'd start at a 3rd to a conditional 2nd.
, I'd start at a 3rd to a conditional 2nd.
quote:Originally posted by The GBP Rules:quote:NFL Network's Mike Lombardi predicted on Around the League Wednesday that the Bills will "pull the pin" and deal Marshawn Lynch before the October 19 trade deadline.
Analysis: Lombardi, a former NFL general manager, has a good feel for situations like this. He concedes that the Bills will require a quality draft pick, but it sounds like a deal could get done for something like a conditional fourth-rounder that would escalate based on playing time and performance. Green Bay is the most hotly rumored landing spot, but other teams will suffer running back injuries before mid-to-late October and could enter the mix."
quote:Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Mike Lombardi must read X4
Apparantly joe arrigo reads Mike Lombardi.
quote:by joe arrigo @ packerchatters
Lynch Update: September 30th 12:20am (pst):
I have learned through a source that the Bills are starting to get antsy about dealing Lynch. The reason is DeAngelo Williams being talked about in a couple of deals with at least 3 other teams, one of whom is the Packers. He said that the Bills will deal Lynch by the October 19th deadline and the Packers are the front runners to land him. The price tag could be as low as a conditional 4th in 2011 or as high as a player and a conditional pick in 2011 (most likely a 4th).
quote:Originally posted by Iowacheese:spot onquote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Great point, except you completely solidify our position. The line was in disarray at the time. Clifton was hurt I believe and Tauscher was not even in the fold yet. What happened.... Ted made the move to (reluctantly) to Tausch.
It worked out great. The line codified and the bleeding stopped.
We have a similar situation today. We have suckage in the backfield.... it needs to be upgraded. I'm sorry, but very few here think John Kuhn is the answer. It just wont work consistently. We are looking at a lot of 60 yard rushing games if this is the strategy.
No, actually it doesn't (solidify your position).
Unfortunately, we started slow running the ball the two years before that too (with Tauscher).
Tauscher was indeed re-signed (and you're projecting the "reluctantly" part) before he was even 100% physically ready to play. If he had been signed weeks earlier he still wouldn't have gotten him on the field any faster.
John Kuhn isn't "the answer", but he can be part of the equation. So can Jackson, so can Nance and Starks. Or possibly someone else (almost three weeks to the deadline).
And again, the actual rushing yards do not matter if the offense is moving the ball (and the chains) and putting up points.
And it will, just watch.
Some of you guys are really, really off-base on this. I think the fact that a lot of the normal suspects usually trying to tear me apart are silent on this should send you smoke signals that you are probably wrong. It's actually quite bad you've taken your argument so far to the realms of a part-time FB, a guy on the PUP list, and a guy that was inactive last week. I actually have faith that Ted will make a move here. If not, I believe he is making a mistake. I just don't see us doing what we want this season without a running game. The KuJaxarkance headed monster is a puppy dog at best. We need to run the ball. It gives us a change of pace to our lethal passing game, it gives us another dimension to gain productive yardage, and it is one less play AR-12 has to drop back and potentially get sacked, or worse - done for the year.
The 4.8 ypc that Kuhn has is a sample size of less than 1 game of a normal HB work load. What does he have, 18 carries through 3? You're basing your argument on that, but you omit the several seasons where he averaged under 3 prior to this year?
That would be like me saying Carlos Gomez is the answer on April 10th after he went 7 for 14 on a homestand. Or.. Eric Farris in AA is the savior to our season. He isnt here yet, but when he is that low round talent is going to lead us to the promised land.
BTW - the addition of Tauscher and Clifton coming back from injury saved our bacon last season. We were 4-4 at the midway point with our QB going down at record rates. It's not a coincidence that things improved once they got back into the fold together. Also, the reluctant part about Ted going back to Tausch is real. It's been linked here on the forums before. I can't remember who wrote it, but I think it was Andrew Brandt. I could be mistaken, but it has been on the forums here before.
quote:Originally posted by The GBP Rules:
[QUOTE] NFL Network's Mike Lombardi predicted on Around the League Wednesday that the Bills will "pull the pin" and deal Marshawn Lynch before the October 19 trade deadline.
Analysis: Lombardi, a former NFL general manager, has a good feel for situations like this. He concedes that the Bills will require a quality draft pick, but it sounds like a deal could get done for something like a conditional fourth-rounder that would escalate based on playing time and performance. Green Bay is the most hotly rumored landing spot, but other teams will suffer running back injuries before mid-to-late October and could enter the mix."
Me feeling giddy...
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14: I think the fact that a lot of the normal suspects usually trying to tear me apart are silent on this should send you smoke signals that you are probably wrong.
The silence has been deafening.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:quote:Originally posted by PackerRuss:
But you wouldn't go a 2nd?
I guess you could include that as the maximum, but for me it would have to be like what Favre had to do for the Packers to get a 2nd from the Jets. What was it like start 90% of the games, the Jets had to make it to the AFCC, and something else. If Marshawn Lynch ran for 1200 yards with a 4.0 average then yes I would gladly give the Bills a 2nd round pick. At most he would be able to start 10 games in my opinion so that would be a pretty amazing feat.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Some of you guys are really, really off-base on this. I think the fact that a lot of the normal suspects usually trying to tear me apart are silent on this should send you smoke signals that you are probably wrong.
Diggr14,
You are wrong.
Signed,
The Normal Suspects
Who are the normal suspects that try and tear you apart Diggr?
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
Instead of a new RB, why don't we try and acquire better Olinemen?
Or maybe play the better one(s) that are already on the roster?
quote:Originally posted by PackerHawk:
Or maybe play the better one(s) that are already on the roster?
I doubt someone on the roster has better ypc than Logan Mankins.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
You just wanted to hand Buffalo a 2nd round pick based on nothing. I think the performance indicators would have to relate to performance plus where the Packers end up.
Signed, Normal Suspect #1
quote:Originally posted by TD: You just wanted to hand Buffalo a 2nd round pick based on nothing. I think the performance indicators would have to relate to performance plus where the Packers end up.
They would be trading for a guy who has as many 1,000 yard seasons in the NFL as Ryan Grant.
And Buffalo was so impressed they started Jackson over him last year and drafted Spiller.
I am not sure that anyone can agree with anything Buffalo has done in that past few years.
Again, does this guy magically know the offense? How long till he can contribute? Is he going to come in and run for 100 the first game? Why do people act like it is a sure thing?
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
@Coach I don't disagree that the offense will move the ball. We moved the ball against the Bears plenty. We also scored a mere 17 points (due in large part to penalties and a dropped pass by Quarless). We'll also move the ball just fine against the Lions. But I won't be thinking we're fine on offense even if that happens.
What concerns is me not the short run. It's the end of the season and the playoffs when we'll play teams far better than the Bears & Lions. This Packer team is good right now. A team needs to be great in order to win it all. The '96 Packers are the type of team we want to aspire to be. They were a dominating team in as many phases of the game as possible. Our offense is not dominant, nor will it be until the running game is fixed.
@ CJS: You actually alluded to a portion of my response in your statement. One of those penalties also literally wiped out Finley's TD.
I know some of you don't enjoy stats very much, but right now we are currently averaging 26 PPG which is exactly the same as the 2009 Colts that started the year 14-0, reached the Super Bowl, and have have finished at or near the very bottom of the league in rushing in both of the last two full seasons. In addition we also have a defense that is every bit as good as theirs (and I would argue better).
Last year we averaged 28.8 ppg. I'll be very surprised if we don't approach/match that again this year.
What did the '96 Packers average?
28.5 per game.
Actually CJS, our offense is dominant/elite. The only team that has stopped us this year is us (even after Grant's injury when we scored 24 of the 27 points against Philly after he went down).
I have no illusions that I'm going to convince you that I'm right about this, and I have little doubt this is going to continue to get kicked around until at least the trading deadline if not longer (definitely longer if Thompson doesn't make another deal).
All I can say (and I've said it before) is just watch.
GB, I think the Packers make the move for a proven RB with the thought of it paying dividends later in the season leading up to the playoffs, not so much in the short term. If a trade happened today, I wouldn't foresee him starting for the next few games, minimum. Maybe get him a few touches every game, kind of like the way they did it with Grant in 2007.
Who knows, maybe that's their master plan with Nance.
Who knows, maybe that's their master plan with Nance.
By reading this thread you wouldn't get that impression. It appears to me that it would solve World Hunger, Bring peace to the World and gain at least a 100 yards every game.
quote:Originally posted by Diggr14:
Some of you guys are really, really off-base on this.
I agree. IMO, you for example.
quote:
I think the fact that a lot of the normal suspects usually trying to tear me apart are silent on this should send you smoke signals that you are probably wrong.
That's a bit paranoid isn't it? Regardless, my takes are not affected by who here does or doesn't agree with me.
quote:
It's actually quite bad you've taken your argument so far to the realms of a part-time FB, a guy on the PUP list, and a guy that was inactive last week.
You continually using the perjorative "part-time FB" does not make that a true statement. Kuhn was RB in college (over 4500 yards), and he showed me in the pre-season he was worthy of reps as the #3 tailback. I do not yet know what we do or do not have in Starks (neither do you) nor Nance (too small of a sample size). TJ Lang was inactive last week, that doesn't mean the guy can't play. There are only 45 game day slots after all.
quote:
I actually have faith that Ted will make a move here. If not, I believe he is making a mistake.
Then I don't see what your problem is. Your take has been abundantly clear for a while now.
quote:
I just don't see us doing what we want this season without a running game. The KuJaxarkance headed monster is a puppy dog at best. We need to run the ball. It gives us a change of pace to our lethal passing game, it gives us another dimension to gain productive yardage, and it is one less play AR-12 has to drop back and potentially get sacked, or worse - done for the year.
We have a running game (just not the one you'd prefer....there are elements to the RB position that you are downplaying for the sake of your argument that I simply don't agree with you about).
We will run the the ball, and we will run the ball more effectively when the blocking improves just as it has every year under MM. Would I like it to be better than it is, earlier for once? Definitely. I've already outlined what I would do to improve it and feel free to re-read that post if you'd like to know specifically what I mean when I say that.
As far as the "one less play AR-12 has to drop back...." is ridiculous. Unlike last year, the pass blocking has been at least adequate in spite of the struggles of the vet OT's, and Rodgers is in no way shape or form taking a beating like he was last year at this time. That couldn't possibly be because Jackson and Kuhn are both excellent pass blockers could it? Of course not.
quote:
The 4.8 ypc that Kuhn has is a sample size of less than 1 game of a normal HB work load. What does he have, 18 carries through 3? You're basing your argument on that, but you omit the several seasons where he averaged under 3 prior to this year?
I'm basing (a portion of) my argument on what I saw him do with my own eyes in the pre-season, that he has/had productive collegiate experience carrying the rock (to the tune of 4500 yards), and that the 2002 Bucs won a title without a breakaway back (nor our explosive passing game) splitting time between a large downhill tailback hammer (who averaged 3.8) and an unspectacular smaller back (who averaged 3.5). Not only can it be done, it has been done.
quote:
That would be like me saying Carlos Gomez is the answer on April 10th after he went 7 for 14 on a homestand. Or.. Eric Farris in AA is the savior to our season. He isnt here yet, but when he is that low round talent is going to lead us to the promised land.
That's a ridiculous analogy (as well as a hypocritical one). You criticize for the use of a small sample size when you're doing exactly the same thing with your take on the group as a whole which includes Starks/Nance neither of whom have even gotten an opportunity yet (and they may not even need to if another back is brought in). The only real difference is that I'm of the belief that it can work, and you are already of the belief that it can't. It really is as simple as that.
quote:
BTW - the addition of Tauscher and Clifton coming back from injury saved our bacon last season. We were 4-4 at the midway point with our QB going down at a record rate. It's not a coincidence that things improved once they got back into the fold together. Also, the reluctant part about Ted going back to Tausch is real. It's been linked here on the forums before. I can't remember who wrote it, but I think it was Andrew Brandt. I could be mistaken, but it has been on the forums here before.
I agree about the importance of Tauscher's return and Clifton's relative return to health being crucial to turning around the season last year. Obviously, so did Thompson because he re-signed both of them, didn't he?
However, this year the QB isn't going down at a record rate, and the running game has also struggled early on each of the last three seasons, not just last year.
As far as the alleged reluctance of TT to sign Tauscher goes, I'd love to see a link to that effect. I simply don't recall that at all. Even after the decision was made to go with Barbre initially (a miserable failure), the door was never completely closed on his return (although if Barbre had flourished it most likely wouldn't have happened). Again, don't forget he was re-signed even before he had completely recovered. It was a necessary move, it was the right move at the time, and I'm also glad he re-upped again this year.
In all candor, this is discussion has been going in circles for a while. I've posted my take, and the reasoning behind it. It's perfectly fine with me that you (and others) don't agree with it.
Time will tell.
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Possible? Sure. Out of all of the Super Bowl victors over the years, you've been able to come up with a couple that showed it's "possible".
Limiting any metric to Super Bowl victors is kinda silly, isn't it? The argument really boils down to can you make a playoff run without an above average running attack.
And, much as old school thinking would have you believe otherwise, the answer is clearly, yes you can go to (and deep in) the playoffs without an above average running game.
Indy in 2009 was 32nd
San Diego in 2009 was 31st
Arizona in 2009 was 28th
Pittsburgh in 2008 was 23rd
Arizona in 2008 was 32nd
Indy in 2008 was 31st
Philly in 2008 22nd
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
I have no illusions that I'm going to convince you that I'm right about this, and I have little doubt this is going to continue to get kicked around until at least the trading deadline if not longer (definitely longer if Thompson doesn't make another deal).
All I can say (and I've said it before) is just watch.
I'm not averse to changing my opinion when proven wrong, I've done it before. I don't hate stats, but we all know they don't tell the whole story - i.e., Kuhn's YPC doesn't mean much, IMO (and I like the guy!). I also don't think our opinions are that different when it comes to the asking price for Lynch. We're essentially one round off.
Where we differ is that you feel the team can win a Super Bowl as is and I feel it's rather unlikely. Without an acquisition, we still have a chance for fixing the running game with Nance or Starks or even just a permanent change to Bulaga, it's just not as a great of a chance as it would be with Lynch here. TT has always maintained that he looks at ways of improving the team at every position, all the time. IMO, this is a time where he could drastically upgrade a position and improve the team.
Regardless of whether the offense is actually "elite" or just "good", I don't think an argument can be made that says Lynch is NOT an upgrade over our current stable of RB's. I also think that an injury could happen elsewhere on the roster, which would probably necessitate an improved running game. If TT is buying into his own philosophy, he pulls the trigger and improves the team. I'd rather the Packers be a great team with room to spare, than merely "good enough" and an injury or two from having no shot at all.
Fair enough CJS. But what if, God forbid Rodgers goes down for the season after trading a second for Lynch? Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn. Now what has happened to the 2011 draft? You got nothing and probably no Super Bowl win this year either and lack of depth for 2011 and beyond.
Yes, the days are growing fewer to make a trade, but we need to exhaust all present options, improved blocking, more touches by Jackson and Kuhn, using Nance before using a valuable draft choice, a #2 for Lynch.
Yes, the days are growing fewer to make a trade, but we need to exhaust all present options, improved blocking, more touches by Jackson and Kuhn, using Nance before using a valuable draft choice, a #2 for Lynch.
Iiiif Green Bay would make a play for Lynch they also may be waiting until literally the 19th to make the deal.
If the Bills really want to unload him they'll tend to be more open to negotiations the closer they get to the deadline. I'm sure TT is well aware of that.
If the Bills really want to unload him they'll tend to be more open to negotiations the closer they get to the deadline. I'm sure TT is well aware of that.
If the recent reporting is indeed correct and he is in fact on the market there is still no incentive whatsoever for the Bills not to take negotiations right down to the deadline in the hopes another late bidder could possibly get involved (as well as protect their own depth at the position).
If they're concerned about him suffering an injury in the meantime they can simply bury him on the depth chart once again very easily.
If they're concerned about him suffering an injury in the meantime they can simply bury him on the depth chart once again very easily.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn.
Why??
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Fair enough CJS. But what if, God forbid Rodgers goes down for the season after trading a second for Lynch? Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn. Now what has happened to the 2011 draft? You got nothing and probably no Super Bowl win this year either and lack of depth for 2011 and beyond.
Yes, the days are growing fewer to make a trade, but we need to exhaust all present options, improved blocking, more touches by Jackson and Kuhn, using Nance before using a valuable draft choice, a #2 for Lynch.
They feel they have a solid backup in Flynn should Rodgers. Why would they trade for a QB and also who is going to trade them one? RB is probably the most interchangeable part on a team. No other position do you see guys go in as rookies and contribute so quickly. I doubt Lynch would have much trouble picking up the offense.
2nd round picks while valuable, are no sure thing either. You could get a Greg Jennings. You could also get a Brandon Jackson or Pat Lee. Or, you could draft Jordy Nelson and pass on Ray Rice, DeSean Jackson and Matt Forte.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Fair enough CJS. But what if, God forbid Rodgers goes down for the season after trading a second for Lynch? Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn. Now what has happened to the 2011 draft? You got nothing and probably no Super Bowl win this year either and lack of depth for 2011 and beyond.
Yes, the days are growing fewer to make a trade, but we need to exhaust all present options, improved blocking, more touches by Jackson and Kuhn, using Nance before using a valuable draft choice, a #2 for Lynch.
If Rodgers (KNOCKING ON WOOD repeatedly) were indeed to go out for the year our SB aspirations would leave with him (unlike Grant IMO). I could see us still making the playoffs with Flynn, but I don't see us winning it.
Were it to happen, another QB would likely be brought in (if Harrell wasn't simply promoted), but I actually doubt it would involve a high (3rd or above) pick.
I agree with the 2nd portion of your post (as I'm sure you can tell). On top of everything else already nearly discussed to death, the locker room would see that the current RB's received a multi-game opportunity to show what they could do. If the results aren't up to standard even after the traditional in-season improvement in run blocking occurs, any move to bring in another player would be received more positively team wide (IMO) than it would have if TT had immediately panicked like a portion of the fan base has and overpaid for a back in the interests of doing something NOW.
Which he has not, and will not do despite the furrowed brows among us.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Fair enough CJS. But what if, God forbid Rodgers goes down for the season after trading a second for Lynch? Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn. Now what has happened to the 2011 draft? You got nothing and probably no Super Bowl win this year either and lack of depth for 2011 and beyond.
Yes, the days are growing fewer to make a trade, but we need to exhaust all present options, improved blocking, more touches by Jackson and Kuhn, using Nance before using a valuable draft choice, a #2 for Lynch.
If Rodgers (KNOCKING ON WOOD repeatedly) were indeed to go out for the year our SB aspirations would leave with him (unlike Grant IMO). I could see us still making the playoffs with Flynn, but I don't see us winning it (IMO).
Advancing this hypothetical at the risk of picking nits and assuming that they'd do nothing with the RB's, there's no way they'd make the playoffs with that running game and a backup for a majority of the year. They've got a brutal schedule. I could see them doing it with a 2007-type schedule, but not this year.
/shudders at the thought/
It would quite possibly depend upon how late in the year it happened, and it's still not yet been established what our post 10/19 RB situation will look like.
No guarantees by any stretch of the imagination.
2nd the /shudder/.
No guarantees by any stretch of the imagination.
2nd the /shudder/.
quote:Originally posted by Snorton:quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Now you have to use a draft pick( a 1st or 3rd) for a QB to start or at least back up Flynn.
Why??
If you think you are still a deep playoff team even if Rodgers goes down it will cost you a 1st to 3rd draft choice to get a good enough QB. If you just want to throw the season away so be it. While I like Flynn, I'm not sure he could lead us all the way. But you may be able to get a QB that is good enough.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
It would quite possibly depend upon how late in the year it happened, and it's still not yet been established what our post 10/19 RB situation will look like.
No guarantees by any stretch of the imagination.
2nd the /shudder/.
Agreed, but I thought this wouldn't include a new RB. Regardless, it's bad karma to even touch that.
That's what pisses me off about Monday, though. Those AFC East games are all gonna be tough from here on out, they've got a game against Dallass that I think they'll win but will still be tough - not easy. Even Washington won't be an easy win on the road, the dump is always difficult and Detoilet in the dome will be frisky.
That's one of the reasons I can't go above B+ for MM. He's done an unbelievable job of developing the youngest roster in the league over the years to where it's primed for huge things, but they give away games. 1-2 times a year, they drop one that just makes no sense. Hopefully it's one this year and it was Monday, but they can't be giving away games against this schedule.
I think both CHI and MN will get hammered by those same AFC East teams (Miami already won in the dump), so I'm really not worried about the division, but I am thinking about seeding and HFA.
/hopes that tangent scrubbed the board of the bad talk/
Light some incense and chant just to make sure.
Just poured some whiskey, actually. That's rare for this beer lover, but the month is over and that's a huge burden lifted work-wise, so this booze is serving two purposes.
Not to blow this off-topic, but what kind (if you don't mind)?
Jameson. The only reason it's even in the house is because my father-in-law drinks it. I didn't even know what was in the cabinet until I looked. The beer fridge is always full, though. I have emergency 12-packs stashed in several locations, such as when it looks like GB or Bucky may be going to overtime, and you've had too many beers already to drive to the store. Just felt like a belt tonight.