Excellent choice JJSD!! 
Dammit, now I'm thirsty.
Careful, Ammo. O dark thirty comes early.
quote:I have emergency 12-packs stashed in several locations,
You hide your booze? That doesn't sound like a good sign.
It isn't very difficult to outsmart myself.
Seriously - What happens if the Big One hits tomorrow and I'm on San Diego Island? How crappy would that be if I didn't have any beer? You can never be too careful.
Seriously - What happens if the Big One hits tomorrow and I'm on San Diego Island? How crappy would that be if I didn't have any beer? You can never be too careful.
Don't you mean San Diego ocean floor?
I'd probably want some alcohol around too.
And also one reason why we'll likely never meet each other unless it's at Lambeau.
I'd probably want some alcohol around too.
And also one reason why we'll likely never meet each other unless it's at Lambeau.
Have I mentioned my ark? Where do you think the majority of the beer is stashed?
If you need an ark the only two words I would be interested in are "Wild Turkey".
Maybe I'll dock at Atlanta Beach and pour you one. Jerry's Ark has a satellite, so we can catch the GBP games. My wife has done a really good job so far building it.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
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).
I think that this is true. The Bills have no incentive to deal Marshawn until the deadline unless someone overpays. Their only risk is if Nance starts to tear it up behind Bulaga.
What I was happy to hear was former GM Lombardi talking about a 4th for Lynch. If somehow we got ML in here for a 3rd or 4th, I think 90% of the people on this board would be happy about that.
@Ammo, yes, if we lose Rodgers we're hosed. Agreed there.
Higher than 90% should that somehow end up being the cost, IMO.
It'll be interesting to eventually find out (it nearly always leaks) what the actual asking price was or wasn't regardless if a deal happens.
BTW, I was the one (and JJSD even moreso than me) that believes we're hosed if something unmentionable happens to #12.
It'll be interesting to eventually find out (it nearly always leaks) what the actual asking price was or wasn't regardless if a deal happens.
BTW, I was the one (and JJSD even moreso than me) that believes we're hosed if something unmentionable happens to #12.
I think everyone believes that. The loss of Grant can be overcome. Rodgers? Forget it.
quote: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 agree they gave away the game, and they should have beaten the Bears to put them at 3-0. After giving it some more thought, they did win in Philly which I had chalked up as a loss going into this year, and if they win against Detroit they are still in really good shape at 3-1.
Now, if they lose to the Lions all bets are off, but they weren't going to go 16-0 and just like they lost to an overrated Chicago team they also usually seem to come up win a win or two we don't expect against a good team so let's see what happens.
If Rodgers got hurt and we dealt that second, it could possibly be in the top 40 picks even though I have alot of faith in Flynn.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
BTW, I was the one (and JJSD even moreso than me) that believes we're hosed if something unmentionable happens to #12.
You two came up with that nugget first? I'm not sure what that has to do with Lynch but I'm not sure if there is a more obvious statement out there...
That's why if you believe in Flynn so much and he actually has that perceived value in the league, deal him for Lynch. You save the pick and you dump a guy who won't lead you to your preseason goals anyway. Harrell looks OK and M3 is a supposed QB guru, no reason he can't groom another.
AR gets hurt and you want to rely on a Rook for a couple of games? Really?
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
That's why if you believe in Flynn so much and he actually has that perceived value in the league, deal him for Lynch.
quote:Originally posted by LarseeBear:
AR gets hurt and you want to rely on a Rook for a couple of games? Really?
My response was mostly about if AR is done for the season, which then, IMO, they are done even with Flynn. So, sure, I'd roll with the rook for a couple of games. My belief is you groom guys like Flynn exactly for times like this. He is doing nothing on the bench and this team needs a back. If Flynn is what they want (and they believe reports like McGinn's deep throat guy), I'd do it. I'd make the trade for picks as well. Just get it done.
eh, i dont like the idea of robbing peter to pay paul for during the season. We have a 3rd round pick coming back for Kampman in the next draft. Spend a draft pick. If AR-12 goes down, this team still has a fighting shot at the playoffs with Flynn. The defense is decent and if you had a back like Lynch, the offense is balanced. It's not like Flynn would get in there and lay an egg. I'd expect him to be average at least.
What exactly is wrong with what chickenboy is saying?!
Do either, I don't care. Whatever Buffalo would prefer. I don't think as much of Flynn as others but if Buffalo insists on him instead of a pick, I'd do it. And I hope Flynn then becomes the next Jim Kelly (or at least Joe Ferguson)...
Trading Flynn for Lynch is just not prudent, IMO. I'm saying the season is done if Rodgers goes down for the entire season; not a really bold statement, but true all the same. If Rodgers goes down for two or three games, however? I bet Flynn could see us through a stretch like that. Harrell would be an absolute disaster, IMO.
If, and it's a big if, the Packers try to trade for Lynch, or whoever, I'd prefer they give up a draft pick (definitely not a 1st, preferably a 3rd or 2nd with performance escalators), or a player at a different position we could afford to let go (Spitz, maybe?...even that makes me a tad nervous, to be honest).
If, and it's a big if, the Packers try to trade for Lynch, or whoever, I'd prefer they give up a draft pick (definitely not a 1st, preferably a 3rd or 2nd with performance escalators), or a player at a different position we could afford to let go (Spitz, maybe?...even that makes me a tad nervous, to be honest).
quote:Originally posted by TD:
If Rodgers got hurt and we dealt that second, it could possibly be in the top 40 picks even though I have alot of faith in Flynn.
Or Lynch could get hurt, or monkeys could fly out of your ass.... OMFG NEVER MAKE A TRADE!!!!!!
If you think this is a Super Bowl year, make the trade with picks and keep your people because that's what you're basing your prediction on and just need to fill a hole. Don't be the Twins and sit on your hands always waiting for "next year". There's not a lot of "next year" with Woodson, Harris, Clifton, Tauscher, Jenkins or Driver and Rodgers, Collins,Jennings, Barnett are in their prime now.
WE'RE ONE GUY AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!
(mike sherman part deux)
(mike sherman part deux)
Trading Flynn for Lynch would be idiotic. I think Flynn is going to be a viable #1 in this league and he is a huge insurance policy for the most important position on our team.
So you're saying the team wasn't good enough to win the Super Bowl this year?
If they were good enough with Grant but lost too much with Jackson and Kuhn trying to be the main ballcarriers, yes, they are one guy away. Basic math.
If they were good enough with Grant but lost too much with Jackson and Kuhn trying to be the main ballcarriers, yes, they are one guy away. Basic math.
He didn't say that, and even if Grant was healthy right now that still wouldn't guarantee a Super Bowl.
The team absolutely still has a chance to get that far, but it's going to take solid play in all three phases, good health, as well as some luck along the way.
Who gets the playing time at running back the rest of the way isn't going to be the reason that does or doesn't happen.
In short, your simplistic "basic math" meme doesn't hold any water.
The team absolutely still has a chance to get that far, but it's going to take solid play in all three phases, good health, as well as some luck along the way.
Who gets the playing time at running back the rest of the way isn't going to be the reason that does or doesn't happen.
In short, your simplistic "basic math" meme doesn't hold any water.
Who gets time at RB most certainly does matter. Jackson and Kuhn aren't good enough and aren't enough of a threat to give them the best chance to win. The Packers were in the situation if they lose:
Rodgers
Grant
Woodson
Matthews
Collins
and maybe Barnett
...for the rest of the season they don't have a guy behind him that can properly fill the hole for a Super Bowl team. Sure there are no guarantees, but not giving yourself the most reasonably viable chance to win it all is stupid.
Rodgers
Grant
Woodson
Matthews
Collins
and maybe Barnett
...for the rest of the season they don't have a guy behind him that can properly fill the hole for a Super Bowl team. Sure there are no guarantees, but not giving yourself the most reasonably viable chance to win it all is stupid.
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
Who gets time at RB most certainly does matter. Jackson and Kuhn aren't good enough and aren't enough of a threat to give them the best chance to win. The Packers were in the situation if they lose:
I did not say who gets time at RB "doesn't matter", I said who gets the time the rest of the way isn't going to be the reason we do or do not reach the Super Bowl.
Your opinion is that Jackson and Kuhn aren't good enough for us to get that far, and I disagree with that opinion.
Which is fine, but your opinion appears based on a pair of false assumptions.
To start, Jackson/Kuhn aren't as good as Addai and Co. were, nor Parker/Moore or Dunn/Alstott. Those guy were much more of a threat than the current crew.
Also, not having to even worry about the run and going so pass-heavy (and not being able to run a decent screen) means all the defense has to do every play is tee off. It doesn't matter who your line is, it's placing them in an "unwinable" situation. It's also a recipe to get your QB beaten up. Rodgers is good, but he's not Manning nor is the offense the same.
In a 2-4 game stretch, sure, ride the guys you have but it's all but the entire season. In some ways the Packers caught a break. Grant went down early, before the trade deadline, and there are replacements out there available. One everyone knows is available who might be an upgrade over Grant himself and is younger.
To start, Jackson/Kuhn aren't as good as Addai and Co. were, nor Parker/Moore or Dunn/Alstott. Those guy were much more of a threat than the current crew.
Also, not having to even worry about the run and going so pass-heavy (and not being able to run a decent screen) means all the defense has to do every play is tee off. It doesn't matter who your line is, it's placing them in an "unwinable" situation. It's also a recipe to get your QB beaten up. Rodgers is good, but he's not Manning nor is the offense the same.
In a 2-4 game stretch, sure, ride the guys you have but it's all but the entire season. In some ways the Packers caught a break. Grant went down early, before the trade deadline, and there are replacements out there available. One everyone knows is available who might be an upgrade over Grant himself and is younger.
TT is smart to wait until the deadline. Buffalo is trying to hold us up. The only players we could afford to trade Buffalo isn't interested. The draft pick they are asking for is to high. Running backs last 4 years in this league. Average. Lynch could last 10 more years but history says his time is almost past. Give a 4th. Make Super Bowl make it a 3rd. Win Super Bowl make it a second. Take it or leave it. Just look at how smart TT is, we all thought he drafting Neal was the wrong position at the time. Then we thought insurance for Jolly. Now it looks more like insurance in case Jenkins walks! Wow give it to TT for his forward thinking. I'll trust in TT.
@ Hersh.
Incorrect.
I'm basing my opinion on my observations of the Packers (entire offense), and what other NFL playoff teams without strong running games have been able to accomplish.
To start, I've never once claimed that either Jackson and Kuhn are more talented individually then any of the backs you justed named (and BTW the 02 Bucs featured Pittman/Alstott...Dunn was already in Atlanta in '02).
The false assumption you're making is that just because you perceive them to be relatively less talented that means they (and the team) still can't be ultimately successful.
What's amusing to me is just how many seem to buy into the notion of the perceived importance of "threat" of a given offensive player regardless of the actual production of the offense that player is as part of. News flash: it's still possible to get the job done as a RB without being an explosive or flashy player.
Was Alstott really a true "threat"? Was Pittman? I wouldn't say so, yet the '02 Bucs still won it all. Yes, they had a dominant defense that year, but they also didn't have nearly the explosive offense that we (still) have either. And our defense is pretty good too, BTW.
What you appear to be ignoring Hersh, is that there is more to the RB position as part of a successful offense than just carrying the ball. Even though Kuhn and Jackson lack explosiveness in the running game, they both are very good receivers, excellent blockers, and neither has had any issues with ball security (much to your chagrin as it applies to one of them, I'm sure).
Is Kuhn Mike Alstott? I don't believe so, but I don't think Alstott is Kuhn either (Kuhn catches the ball better and doesn't appear to this point to have a fumbling issue). Could either of those two get tough yards inside. Yes. And in terms of picking up a blitz (very important in a pass heavy offense I'm sure you'd agree), I'd take Kuhn.
Is Rodgers Manning? No. But I don't think Manning is Rodgers either. Rodgers can and will actually hurt a defense with his mobility. From a pure passing standpoint they're (now) on similar if not identical levels, and I would say with the emergence of Finley our receiving group as whole is superior to what the Colts have. Even after the Bears debacle, the 2010 Packers are scoring at the same rate as the 2009 Colts.
Where is this beating that Rodgers is taking?
And this is with defenses "teeing off", both of our OT's struggling, and no
threat at the RB position. From a protection standpoint, Rodgers is actually better off with Jackson or Kuhn back there than he was with Grant.
A coach game planning the Packers obviously is going devote more defensive resources attempting to stop our passing game. After all, Rodgers is our best offensive player, and the receivers as a group are more explosive than the running back group. FYI, that was true even when Grant was still healthy.
The Bears did that Monday, yet Rodgers wasn't sacked, and we still moved the ball up and down the field on them all night long. If not for a historic amount of penalties we would've scored at least 24 (Finley' negated TD) and possibly even more than that (Quarless' drop).
And before some of you reading this blow a gasket, I'm not saying that it's not possible or desirable to upgrade the position (it is). What I am saying is that this team can be successful not just for a 2-4 game period with what we already have (barring other injuries) but for the long haul this year if that's what it comes down to. I do not anticipate everyone agreeing with me about this, and that's fine.
There also is still time before the deadline to make a move, and if there is a deal available that makes sense I'm confident we'll make it (which is how we got Grant in the first place).
However, should we not make a deal I am still of the opinion that the goal of this team (Super Bowl) would remain unchanged, and that we can win with what we currently have available at the RB position (again, barring another injury).
And I also predict that should we fail to reach our goal this year it will not be because of the RB position.
Incorrect.
I'm basing my opinion on my observations of the Packers (entire offense), and what other NFL playoff teams without strong running games have been able to accomplish.
To start, I've never once claimed that either Jackson and Kuhn are more talented individually then any of the backs you justed named (and BTW the 02 Bucs featured Pittman/Alstott...Dunn was already in Atlanta in '02).
The false assumption you're making is that just because you perceive them to be relatively less talented that means they (and the team) still can't be ultimately successful.
What's amusing to me is just how many seem to buy into the notion of the perceived importance of "threat" of a given offensive player regardless of the actual production of the offense that player is as part of. News flash: it's still possible to get the job done as a RB without being an explosive or flashy player.
Was Alstott really a true "threat"? Was Pittman? I wouldn't say so, yet the '02 Bucs still won it all. Yes, they had a dominant defense that year, but they also didn't have nearly the explosive offense that we (still) have either. And our defense is pretty good too, BTW.
What you appear to be ignoring Hersh, is that there is more to the RB position as part of a successful offense than just carrying the ball. Even though Kuhn and Jackson lack explosiveness in the running game, they both are very good receivers, excellent blockers, and neither has had any issues with ball security (much to your chagrin as it applies to one of them, I'm sure).
Is Kuhn Mike Alstott? I don't believe so, but I don't think Alstott is Kuhn either (Kuhn catches the ball better and doesn't appear to this point to have a fumbling issue). Could either of those two get tough yards inside. Yes. And in terms of picking up a blitz (very important in a pass heavy offense I'm sure you'd agree), I'd take Kuhn.
Is Rodgers Manning? No. But I don't think Manning is Rodgers either. Rodgers can and will actually hurt a defense with his mobility. From a pure passing standpoint they're (now) on similar if not identical levels, and I would say with the emergence of Finley our receiving group as whole is superior to what the Colts have. Even after the Bears debacle, the 2010 Packers are scoring at the same rate as the 2009 Colts.
Where is this beating that Rodgers is taking?
And this is with defenses "teeing off", both of our OT's struggling, and no
A coach game planning the Packers obviously is going devote more defensive resources attempting to stop our passing game. After all, Rodgers is our best offensive player, and the receivers as a group are more explosive than the running back group. FYI, that was true even when Grant was still healthy.
The Bears did that Monday, yet Rodgers wasn't sacked, and we still moved the ball up and down the field on them all night long. If not for a historic amount of penalties we would've scored at least 24 (Finley' negated TD) and possibly even more than that (Quarless' drop).
And before some of you reading this blow a gasket, I'm not saying that it's not possible or desirable to upgrade the position (it is). What I am saying is that this team can be successful not just for a 2-4 game period with what we already have (barring other injuries) but for the long haul this year if that's what it comes down to. I do not anticipate everyone agreeing with me about this, and that's fine.
There also is still time before the deadline to make a move, and if there is a deal available that makes sense I'm confident we'll make it (which is how we got Grant in the first place).
However, should we not make a deal I am still of the opinion that the goal of this team (Super Bowl) would remain unchanged, and that we can win with what we currently have available at the RB position (again, barring another injury).
And I also predict that should we fail to reach our goal this year it will not be because of the RB position.
Coach, that was a great post. And that's coming from a guy who'd like to see TT trade for Lynch. Very well thought out.
I still hope a move is made, but it does effectively illustrate that all is not lost as things stand now. I do believe an upgrade of talent at the position increases our chances at gettting to, and winning, a championship though.
I still hope a move is made, but it does effectively illustrate that all is not lost as things stand now. I do believe an upgrade of talent at the position increases our chances at gettting to, and winning, a championship though.
So, what are you saying, Coach? We can't give up or next 2 first round picks for Lynch? NO! 
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
News flash: it's still possible to get the job done as a RB without being an explosive or flashy player.
Would Edgar Bennett fall in this category?
Does Pierre Thomas or Mike Bell fall in this category?!?
Crap...I just blew a gasket
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:quote:Originally posted by TD:
If Rodgers got hurt and we dealt that second, it could possibly be in the top 40 picks even though I have alot of faith in Flynn.
Or Lynch could get hurt, or monkeys could fly out of your ass.... OMFG NEVER MAKE A TRADE!!!!!!
If you think this is a Super Bowl year, make the trade with picks and keep your people because that's what you're basing your prediction on and just need to fill a hole. Don't be the Twins and sit on your hands always waiting for "next year". There's not a lot of "next year" with Woodson, Harris, Clifton, Tauscher, Jenkins or Driver and Rodgers, Collins,Jennings, Barnett are in their prime now.
quote:Crap...I just blew a gasket
Yes, but you own the place, so you're the one person who gets to blow a gasket while the rest of us can't.
Not that I'm too wrapped up in whether or not the Packers make a trade; I'm just enjoying the ride.
quote:Originally posted by Coach:
@ Hersh.
Incorrect.
I'm basing my opinion on my observations of the Packers (entire offense), and what other NFL playoff teams without strong running games have been able to accomplish.
To start, I've never once claimed that either Jackson and Kuhn are more talented individually then any of the backs you justed named (and BTW the 02 Bucs featured Pittman/Alstott...Dunn was already in Atlanta in '02).
The false assumption you're making is that just because you perceive them to be relatively less talented that means they (and the team) still can't be ultimately successful.
What's amusing to me is just how many seem to buy into the notion of the perceived importance of "threat" of a given offensive player regardless of the actual production of the offense that player is as part of. News flash: it's still possible to get the job done as a RB without being an explosive or flashy player.
Was Alstott really a true "threat"? Was Pittman? I wouldn't say so, yet the '02 Bucs still won it all. Yes, they had a dominant defense that year, but they also didn't have nearly the explosive offense that we (still) have either. And our defense is pretty good too, BTW.
What you appear to be ignoring Hersh, is that there is more to the RB position as part of a successful offense than just carrying the ball. Even though Kuhn and Jackson lack explosiveness in the running game, they both are very good receivers, excellent blockers, and neither has had any issues with ball security (much to your chagrin as it applies to one of them, I'm sure).
Is Kuhn Mike Alstott? I don't believe so, but I don't think Alstott is Kuhn either (Kuhn catches the ball better and doesn't appear to this point to have a fumbling issue). Could either of those two get tough yards inside. Yes. And in terms of picking up a blitz (very important in a pass heavy offense I'm sure you'd agree), I'd take Kuhn.
Is Rodgers Manning? No. But I don't think Manning is Rodgers either. Rodgers can and will actually hurt a defense with his mobility. From a pure passing standpoint they're (now) on similar if not identical levels, and I would say with the emergence of Finley our receiving group as whole is superior to what the Colts have. Even after the Bears debacle, the 2010 Packers are scoring at the same rate as the 2009 Colts.
Where is this beating that Rodgers is taking?
And this is with defenses "teeing off", both of our OT's struggling, and no
A coach game planning the Packers obviously is going devote more defensive resources attempting to stop our passing game. After all, Rodgers is our best offensive player, and the receivers as a group are more explosive than the running back group. FYI, that was true even when Grant was still healthy.
The Bears did that Monday, yet Rodgers wasn't sacked, and we still moved the ball up and down the field on them all night long. If not for a historic amount of penalties we would've scored at least 24 (Finley' negated TD) and possibly even more than that (Quarless' drop).
And before some of you reading this blow a gasket, I'm not saying that it's not possible or desirable to upgrade the position (it is). What I am saying is that this team can be successful not just for a 2-4 game period with what we already have (barring other injuries) but for the long haul this year if that's what it comes down to. I do not anticipate everyone agreeing with me about this, and that's fine.
There also is still time before the deadline to make a move, and if there is a deal available that makes sense I'm confident we'll make it (which is how we got Grant in the first place).
However, should we not make a deal I am still of the opinion that the goal of this team (Super Bowl) would remain unchanged, and that we can win with what we currently have available at the RB position (again, barring another injury).
And I also predict that should we fail to reach our goal this year it will not be because of the RB position.
Disagree.