Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Even worse, TT had the chance to get Adrian Peterson for 4 first rounders and a cute old gal name Doris. He passed. It cost us a Super Bowl, dammit!
Lynch is a pass rusher?
quote:Now ask yourself this: How much better off would they be if they had Lynch?
The answer is, significantly better.
Lynch is a pass rusher?
That 3rd round pick ended up being Alex Green who we have not seen much of yet due to being on IR. I'm going to wait until I see what Green can do before I 
or 
TT. And it might take a couple of years to see the final results. Pete Dougherty should do the same.
At the time, I thought the Lynch trade might be a good idea, but geez, the Pack has done pretty well without him.
And in 2010, Lynch and Brandon Jackson were both almost identical in terms of yards per carry average. If Lynch was in Green Bay, he just wouldn't get used anywhere near as much as he is in Seattle. I doubt he's a significant upgrade over Starks/Grant if he's an upgrade at all.
And in 2010, Lynch and Brandon Jackson were both almost identical in terms of yards per carry average. If Lynch was in Green Bay, he just wouldn't get used anywhere near as much as he is in Seattle. I doubt he's a significant upgrade over Starks/Grant if he's an upgrade at all.
Just think, they could be defending Super Bowl Champs and 14-1 if they had lynch.
If TT wasn't such an NTAC (no talent azz clown) the Pack could have won at least 4 Super Bowls last year. What a turd.
Maybe he is looking at trading for AP next year?.. 
The Packers would be 15-0 with Lynch
The real missed opportunity was Fred Jackson, who supposedly could have been had for a 5th.
If the Packers tried to run the ball more often they would be worse, not better. Even with a first class running back, the current formula of Rodgers passing most of the time is clearly the way to go. They won a superbowl and nearly went undefeated doing it this way. Put Adrian Peterson on this team and give him the ball 25 times/game, would they really score any more points or turn it over any less than they already do?
That is what I was thinking. Would a good back even like playing for the Packers? The only time they would get the rock is on passes or if the game was out of reach.
A back like Lynch is good in the passing game too, where a back like Peterson is not. Lynch can block some and is a good receiver, Peterson can't block you or I and has mediocre receiving skills. Against KC, more carries for a good back would have been a good thing but remember how many catches Ahman Green used to rack up. He caught 40-50 balls and one year IIRC he around 70 catches as well as being a good runner and became a pretty good pass blocker too.
I think it's an excellent article, including the introductory context, which was basically saying TT is the best GM in the business.
Some of the posts here are flat out logical fallacies. They seem intended to deflect the validity of the contention of the article.
They certainly do not refute it.
Who knows? Maybe in Green Bay, Lynch has a bad attitude because he would want to have a bigger slice of the pie. (He still seems kind of a potential head-case to me.)
No one knows 100% for sure. But, I think it is highly likely the premise of the article is spot on. That being, the Packers would have been better off had they given the 3 for Marshawn Lynch.
Some of the posts here are flat out logical fallacies. They seem intended to deflect the validity of the contention of the article.
They certainly do not refute it.
Who knows? Maybe in Green Bay, Lynch has a bad attitude because he would want to have a bigger slice of the pie. (He still seems kind of a potential head-case to me.)
No one knows 100% for sure. But, I think it is highly likely the premise of the article is spot on. That being, the Packers would have been better off had they given the 3 for Marshawn Lynch.
quote:Originally posted by 18c3v:
If the Packers tried to run the ball more often they would be worse, not better.
I disagree. Last year in the first half of the season, GB ran 20 or less times and AR was completing about 62% of his passes. In the second half, they ran more often for less ypc, but AR completed over 70% of his passes and the Packers scored more points. The same thing has happened this year. Run less, AR doesn't do as well. Run more, AR does better. And that holds true regardless of success in the running game. I did a study on this after the SB and have kept track of it this year.
quote:Originally posted by Ghost of Lambeau:
Run less, AR doesn't do as well. Run more, AR does better. And that holds true regardless of success in the running game. I did a study on this after the SB and have kept track of it this year.
*cough* Attempts *cough*.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
That being, the Packers would have been better off had they given the 3 for Marshawn Lynch.
And as I stated you can't possibly know this until we see what a healthy Alex Green can do.
Yeah, ammo, just going on the data that is presently in.
Subject to change with additional data.
Subject to change with additional data.
Too much baggage to give up a third for and I completely reject his assertion that the Packers would be "significantly better" with Lynch.
If he's such a great pass blocker, why does he come out on most 3rd downs?
Because they spell him with Forsett and Washington just like every other team in the league spells their backs and Washington is dynamite in space as a third down option.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
The Packers would be 15-0 with Lynch
This is true. (16-0 after the Detroit game) TT should have pulled the trigger on this one. It is hard to see how any third-round pick could have turned out well enough to be better than Lynch.
Still, Lynch has maybe 4 years left of tread on the tires. Maybe. If Green pans out he should be around 8 more. If.
Trades are an risky business, just like draft picks. Lynch could easily have turned out badly. TT still has a pretty pretty good trade/draft record. Same with the FA market.