Rodgers: Bring him ON!!

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
If Lynch is on the block and if you feel this is the year for a Super Bowl, and by all accounts it is, you make this deal even if you need to overpay.

See that bolded comment? That's where you are off track. This is the short term thinking that Vikings fans live in today, and it's this exact short term thinking that coach Mike Sherman had that enabled GM Mike Sherman to continually look for that "final missing piece" to win the Super Bowl. It explains BJ Sander. It explains Robert Ferguson. It explains Joe Johnson. It explains resigning vets to huge contracts that in the future cripple your cap. And it explains the belief that you and many have that playing for A (notice the key word A, indicating one) Super bowl is the goal.

The goal that I have as a fan is that I want my GM to be playing for the Super Bowl every year.

You're easy comeback is "well duh", but you said it yourself above, you believe we overpay for an average at best RB in order to compete for THIS year's Super Bowl. That impacts talent elsewhere or in future.

Here's reality. The Packers are as built today in the running for the Super Bowl. They are clearly in the conversation, and they are clearly in the running for this, saving an injury to Rodgers. That's what you want.

The belief that you can play for 1 year kills you long term, and unfortunately, nothing is assured. Some guy that will never catch another pass in the NFL catches a ball off his helmet. A facemask penalty that everyone saw isn't called. Your idiot QB decides to throw a pass while rolling left across his body to the middle of the field late. Your idiot QB throws to the only guy on a pattern that was covered in OT. Your DL wakes up and can't play. Stuff happens. Luck/karma is required. Going "all in" and impacting your long term outlook to play for one year sounds good to certain fans and coaches, for sure. Not so much for those that want to be in the hunt every year.

Indy is in the hunt every year. They aren't trading draft picks and starters to backfill Bob Sanders. Green Bay will be in the hunt every year as long as Rodgers is healthy. I'd rather be in the hunt every year vs damaging long term by trying to go for broke once. Joe Johnson wasn't the final piece of the puzzle. Neither was BJ Sander. Neither was T.O in Dallas. Or Roy Williams in Dallas. Dallas spent how much on those 2 guys? And it bought them nothing.

You want to shoot for being in the hunt 1 year, so be it. I want to be in contention every year. Thompson gets this. Sherman didn't, and the bottom fell out in talent, youth, and salary cap. He "went for it" by signing aging veterans, expensive free agents, and trading picks like nickels, including 2 to move up and draft a punter because that was our biggest weakness. 2 years later? 4-12, a roster of Favre and little else and in salary cap hell.

I for one welcome our new GM overlord.

CAP nailed it.

I'm not opposed to Ted trading for ML, or anyone else in season for that matter. If he feels he can trade from a position of strength (Hawk, Lee) that won't cripple the team for the right price, I'm certain he'll pull the trigger. I don't want him panicking when every good GM knows injuries are part of the game.

He's just not going to do the silly fanboy stuff arrigo comes up with.

Great post CAP! I completely agree with your and the current administration's philosophy. Look no further than the 07 Patriots to prove this point. Great undefeated season and playoff run but in the end they didn't bring home the bacon. With current rules that strive for league parity it also takes some luck, (Especially with injuries.) and getting hot at the right time to win it all. You're chances are much better if you stay competitive on a yearly basis instead of rolling the dice and going all in for one shot.

Great post CAPackFan!

I've always found it strange that despite such a recent, tangible example of the 'go all in every year and get that missing piece' approach and where it left the franchise that people still scream for that model. It's as if the previous era never existed. That approach left GB on the edge of the cliff of a potential for another Dark Ages like the 70's and 80's, and obviously one of the reasons Harlan thought TT was right for the job was because he takes the opposite approach.

GB's window of contention is open now and will be for several years. The Queenies went all in last year and we're already seeing where that's left them as they desperately spackle holes and continue to get older. Where will they be in a year, two years, etc.? Think the 2005 Packers, that's where. Oh, and they'll be in LA too.

I agree. CAPackFan, that is a great post. One disagreement though. Nothing explains BJ Sander!

CAP is on point. If you cave on one deal as a bandaid to fill an injured position, it can quickly become a slippery slope, as CAP presented in Sherman's case. I'd be in support of bringing in Lynch provided the price is right, but if the talk is anywhere near accurate the Bills are just off the hook in their asking price.

Besides, TT's modus operandi is plug from within, and if he gets production from BJack and anything from Nance it may not slow down this offense one bit.

One thing to keep in mind- in the 2nd and 3rd qtrs on Sunday, when GB was gaining their substantial lead, the o-line got settled down. Philly had to know MM would be looking to run some clock, yet 3rd qtr is when Jackson and Kuhn and the line started wearing down the Philly front 4. In the most likely of running situations the Pack was able to do damage with the run game. Now granted Bradley was gone by this point, so the LB corp was depleted of a run stopper. But that D was nothing less than gassed by the time Kuhn walked into the endzone.

I think this team is now built to withstand losses like Grant, within reason of course. The scheme is sound, and once the players found their groove on Sunday they looked quite solid and efficient.

If the front office did their homework, which I believe they do diligently, and Lynch would be a good fit, help you win games and not be a detriment in the locker room, then pull the trigger. But if those jokers in WNY want Brad Jones and Lee plus a draft pick? Forget it- GB can still win games and I believe be highly productive enough to get the job done.

CAPackfan95. Your entire post should be in Bold and I should lock & archive this thread.

Great post and I believe you nailed it to a "T".

It always comes out over time. Always

quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
Nothing explains BJ Sander!

Hard-headed stubborn-ness explains it. I swear to Christ I'll never forgive Sherman for....

• 1) Trading up then drafting BJ Sander (instead of Matt Schaub)
  
• 2) Keeping a 2nd punter on the roster

Admit your mistakes and move on like a real GM or go to sleep at the combine and have fun finding a job in the NFL

New Orleans won a SB without having a RB gain over 800 yards. Their top 2 RBs combined for a little over 1400 yards and like over 2000 yards as a team. They don't have a star RB or even a big name RB. Their #2 RB from last season didn't even see the field for Philly I don't think.

Jackson is on pace for 1000 yards right now. If we can get 1000 yards out of him (which is like 63 yards a game which is possible even for Jackson IMO), 200 out of Rodgers (he rushed for 300 last year) and even 750 from Kuhn and Nance (that's like 25 yards a game per player which isn't unrealistic), that's over 1900 yards which is better than we did last season.

Wow, CAP. That was some good readin'.

We don't have to look any further than the 2007 Patriots. Feelings for the team and coach aside, that was clearly the greatest regular season team ever. And it clearly didn't matter come February.

No more Sander talk. I wanted Schaub so bad after watching him in Virginia's bowl game. He had the size, arm, and ability. Watching him slide until that 3rd round gave me huge goose bumps. But we know now that Sherman possibly had a gun to his head by TOG on not drafting any early round QB's. As much as I would like to bag on Sherman, I still think BrInt was a huge part of the passing on Schaub.

CAPackFan95's post needs to be sent to every Packer BB on the internet. These are the exact thoughts I've had on Sherman. While I thought at the time most were the right moves, I realize now they were done for the wrong reasons. And that is why Harlan went with TT and in turn TT went with MM.

Sherman believed BJ Sander and Robert Ferguson were the "final pieces?" Joe Johnson turned out to be a terrible signing and I am in full agreement with TT avoiding the mega deals in free agency. However, giving up a third rounder (and even another player, depending on who that is) to help with a weak and depleted important position on offense is not mortgaging the future.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
However, giving up a third rounder (and even another player, depending on who that is) to help with a weak and depleted important position on offense is not mortgaging the future.

And who is this team that is willing to take a 3rd rounder for the important position on offense?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
However, giving up a third rounder (and even another player, depending on who that is) to help with a weak and depleted important position on offense is not mortgaging the future.

How good is Lynch in pass protection?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Sherman believed BJ Sander and Robert Ferguson were the "final pieces?" Joe Johnson turned out to be a terrible signing and I am in full agreement with TT avoiding the mega deals in free agency. However, giving up a third rounder (and even another player, depending on who that is) to help with a weak and depleted important position on offense is not mortgaging the future.

Glad you continue to prove that you miss the big picture here.

Sherman in 2004 traded 2 picks and end up with only 6 picks that year. That draft was a grease fire. And that draft played a huge role in being talented deficient in 2005/2006. And, yes, Punter was considered the weakest spot going in and that was Sherman's justification to trade 2 picks to move up and draft a punter.

And, really, you're going to deny that Robert Ferguson was not picked as "another final weapon" for Favre?

But, regardless you continue to miss the bigger point.

Here's the other issue you ignore.

Bigger picture here, so keep up... Using your, and others, fondness for experience vets to play for A Super Bowl THIS year - TT picks up a "veteran" LB to backup Jones or whatever. Guy can play maybe one year. Is average at best. Is a backup and you hope you won't need to depend on him anyway. TT has to cut a young player to keep said experienced veteran. Then next year when experienced veteran can't play anymore, guess what? No young guy with another year of experience can step in. Now, TT is forced to to do same thing or bank on a green rookie. Wash, rinse, repeat. Band aid after band aid, and no development of talent. That's why "experienced vets" is yet another meme that doesn't do jack.

Want a better example? Hardy Nickerson. Hunter Hillenmeyer.

Now, specific to ML. I have no qualms about a low end draft pick if TT doesn't think BJax solves the problem. I would never trade a draft pick and a player for a guy that's injured a lot and was beaten out by the immortal Fred Jackson last year, and I'm glad TT believes the same.

BTW - I find it hilarious that one of your knocks on BJax is that he gets injured, but ML is just as injury prone, and you admitted as such.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
Hawk, Flynn and Bishop for Lynch. Nothing is too much. The time to win is now. If someone else on the team gets injured at whatever position, you keep trading until it hurts.

What does make some sense is Hawk for Lynch straight up though.

I like Lynch and think he'd probably be the best RB on the roster in GB if he were added. He's got some baggage though and for whatever reason his career is stalled to the point where he's the #3 RB in Buffalo in his prime. There's some talent there though and he might just need a change of scenery and a winning organization to get his **** together.

That said, he's not worth over-spending for and Brandon Jackson will most likely get the job done. The problem is if Jackson goes down... Nance, Starks, Kuhn and whoever is on the PS won't be good enough.

The Packers: Where troubled players go to revive their career and life.

I'm surprised that no one has noticed that Lynch's troubles began after he left the presence of Rodgers. Just being around him will heal him, cleanse his soul and make him an All-Pro back.

fer sure!

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
I don't get Buffalo's position here. RB depth is important but unlike WR, DL, CB, LB or OL depth, only one RB can be on the field at a time (realistically). If we had Spiller, Jakcson and Lynch, I guarantee this entire forum would be screaming for a trade, especially if our team was as bad as Buffalo. You just wonder what Lynch brings to the team as the #3 RB. Furthermore, this team is going no where this year and next, so why not stockpile draft picks?

We have 4 TEs and 3 FBs we are in no position to question their affinity for 3 Tbs. They probably will trade one, but they are being smart... they'll drive up the price on a former 1st round pick who has had very good season and is only 24 years old. If we got rid of Lynch for less than a 3rd, people here would be upset too - in their position as a bottow-dweller.

As I said before, as a "superbowl team" (definition: a team that has a decent shot at going to the game - it doesn't matter if I pick them or not) - as a superbowl team, if you have a glaring hole like we have at tb early in the season and you can bring in a guy of proven calibur to help carry the load at a certain position, you need to sacrifice a draft pick to get it done. This is one of my main problems with Ted Thompson. He is unwilling to make a move for a guy that could potentially be a difference maker and instead wants to preserve "next year". He is a perpetual rebuilder and not focused on the big prize.

quote:

He is a perpetual builder

more like it.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:
http://blogs.buffalobills.com/...gs-changed-on-lynch/

quote:

Despite the myriad of reports out there that have tried to connect the dots between the Packers, who lost RB Ryan Grant for the season, and the Bills, who have a stable of talented backs, Buffalo’s stance on Marshawn Lynch has not changed.

Many reports have speculated that Lynch could be traded to Green Bay, but that’s simply not the case. The Bills have maintained a consistent stance on Marshawn Lynch, which is that they plan to keep him on their roster.

“Our intention is for Marshawn Lynch to be here,” said Bills GM Buddy Nix the weekend of the draft. “He is under contract and we think he is a good back. All this trade talk is not coming from us. He is ours and we intend for him to be here.”

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
He is unwilling to make a move for a guy that could potentially be a difference maker and instead wants to preserve "next year". He is a perpetual rebuilder and not focused on the big prize.

So, again, I ask. Marshawn Lynch. The guy that's 3rd on the depth chart for one of the worst offenses in the NFL, a guy that was beaten out by the immortal Fred Jackson, and a guy that Buffalo had so little confidence in, that they ignore all the other glaring hole at OL, LB, QB, WR, DL that they spent a #9 pick on yet another RB is "potentially a difference maker"?

Based on what exactly?

We are in contention for the Super Bowl this year, we were last year, barring serious injury to our QB and our GM listening to armchair GMs on the internets, we should be in contention for the Super Bowl for the next several years.

Your belief that Thompson isn't focused on the big prize is (and I apologize here) freaking stupid. Period. You are braindead if you truly think that. I'm not trying to namecall here, but this is insanity to thank that.

Granted, he isn't spending money on over the hill FAs (BTW, what were Adalius Thomas's stats from week one? I can only assume 3 sacks, 9 TFL, and 2 FFs) and trading picks and players for a RB that AT BEST is possibly marginally better than what we have in place right now.

We have a team many predict to win/go to the Super Bowl. At worst, we are clearly in contention. We have a nucleus in place to achieve that every year.

Mortgaging even a 3rd round pick for a slight upgrade at best at RB makes no sense to me, and it clearly isn't TT's MO, and sorry to spoil your day, but this is a team in contention for the Super Bowl without Marshawn Lynch today. And, Marshawn Lynch doesn't improve those odds materially.

People bitch about BJax's speed and 3.9 yd/rush. ML? 4.0 career yd/rush.

HOLY CRAP GET HIM IN HERE!

quote:

We have 4 TEs

Have you ever heard of Goalline sets when you put in 3 TE's? Obviously, you haven't commented when New England ran this a few times this past weekend resulting in TD catches.

The problem you are missing is that you don't put in 3 RB's at one time whereas Kuhn can carry behind Johnson or Hall. It's like puttig 3 first basemen in the outfield, no?

quote:

Originally posted by TD:

quote:

We have 4 TEs

Have you ever heard of Goalline sets when you put in 3 TE's? Obviously, you haven't commented when New England ran this a few times this past weekend resulting in TD catches.

The problem you are missing is that you don't put in 3 RB's at one time whereas Kuhn can carry behind Johnson or Hall. It's like puttig 3 first basemen in the outfield, no?

No, it's not.

Optimally, you carry 1-2 FBs / 3 TEs. It is more than enough for goaline sets.. ect.

I think you are missing the point. The tailback in this offense sees the ball quite a bit. You need to rely on him to 1. hold on to the ball 2. stay healthy 3. be productive. Nothing Brandon has done so far exhibits he can do these things. Hopefully he can do these things, but it would be nice to bring in a quality back that can share the load with him. Because what happens if Brandon goes down? Kuhn at tb? Nance a guy that knows zero about the offense?

I keep seeing this gorilla logic on here that since Marshawn Lynch is a #3 in Buffalo that automatically says he wouldn't be any good here. Their 1st two backs are CJ Spiller and Fred Jackson (ran for 1000 last season). You think Jackson, our #2, is better than either of those guys? I have a hard time justifying him as better than Lynch. Im equating them at this point.

Even AR12 wants his former teammate here, he realizes we lost a big piece in Grant. While I dont condone giving in to player wishes... this happens to make sense from a depth chart solidifying sense. Especially in a year where you can win it all. If we were the Cleveland Browns or the Buffalo Bills.. yes, a trade like this would make zero sense.

1. protect the QB

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
yes, a trade like this would make zero sense.

If the asking rpice is too high, then yes it would make zero sense on the Packers end. It's not necessary. It's a "nice to have" but it is not necessary

Another thing. Lynch has a 4.0 ypc average. Jackson has a 3.9 ypc average.

Cool. They are similar. But equating them based on this is misguided. For example, Emmitt Smith has a 4.2 ypc average. Is he only slightly better? Dumb logic.


Lynch has in 1 less year as a pro over 2000 yards more rushing yards than Jackson. He also fumbles about 1 time out of ever 110 times he rushes the ball. Jackson is somewhere around 1 out of 75. Lynch caught 48 balls out of the backfield in 2008.

If you are conviced that Jackson is better, past statistics and performance do not bear out your argument. Lynch would be a great 2nd back in this system and would provide the competition that Jackson needs to stay sharp - and spell him in the times that he needs rest to keep him fresh.

quote:

Originally posted by Boris:

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
yes, a trade like this would make zero sense.

If the asking rpice is too high, then yes it would make zero sense on the Packers end. It's not necessary. It's a "nice to have" but it is not necessary

Oh for sure.. if they are asking for a 1 or a 2.. then, I dont mind the Pack declining the offer. But if it takes a 3, or AJ Hawk and a 5..

I think it's a no-brainer because of the situation we are in.

But if they are trying to get a 1,2 or a 3 and another pick.. then it's too much. But, based on recent trends of trading guys with his history.. i can't imagine he'll go for more than a 3.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Another thing. Lynch has a 4.0 ypc average. Jackson has a 3.9 ypc average.

Cool. They are similar. But equating them based on this is misguided. For example, Emmitt Smith has a 4.2 ypc average. Is he only slightly better? Dumb logic.


Lynch has in 1 less year as a pro over 2000 yards more rushing yards than Jackson. He also fumbles about 1 time out of ever 110 times he rushes the ball. Jackson is somewhere around 1 out of 75. Lynch caught 48 balls out of the backfield in 2008.

If you are conviced that Jackson is better, past statistics and performance do not bear out your argument. Lynch would be a great 2nd back in this system and would provide the competition that Jackson needs to stay sharp - and spell him in the times that he needs rest to keep him fresh.

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-AhmanGreen:
1. protect the QB

Bryan Bulaga for tb?

Diggr, if someone came to Packers offering a 4th round pick for our #3 FB or #3/4 TE, pretty sure TT takes it. For whatever reason, Buffalo refuses to give up their #3 RB for even a 3rd rounder. So yeah, i still think the Bills are crazy.

Regarding trading for Lynch, what do you guys not get about the Bills GM saying he has no plans to trade him? Yeah he could be lying, but he could also be telling the truth. Considering he hasn't traded him yet, I assume he is being honest about keeping Lynch. TT can't trade for a guy that isn't available. By all accounts, Lynch is not available. So what's the issue?

quote:

Originally posted by El-Ka-AhmanGreen:
1. protect the QB

2. Catch the ball out of the backfield.

I would take the GMs comments with a grain of salt. Also, the fact that they play each other this week probably would hold up the deal (if in fact there is one being discussed). If there is any smoke to this fire, I would suspect we will know next week.

Just seems like a perfect fit. Lynch's running style and familiarity with AR, add in the fact the Bills are obviously rebuilding, spent a number one on a franchise back this spring and should be stockpiling picks.

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
By all accounts, Lynch is not available. So what's the issue?

Message board fodder??

A great many people think a trade is easy. It takes two willing participating parties to trade. Each side must believe they are receiving a good deal, otherwise why do it?

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
If there is any smoke to this fire, I would suspect we will know next week.

Keep your eye on the inactives. If Lynch is deactivated for the game on Sunday, then a trade has been completed. Not necessarily with the Packers either.

quote:

Originally posted by chickenboy:
Just seems like a perfect fit. Lynch's running style and familiarity with AR, add in the fact the Bills are obviously rebuilding, spent a number one on a franchise back this spring and should be stockpiling picks.

Uh oh, I agree with C-Boy. Please don't judge me.

But in all honesty, it is a great fit. The Packers are very thin at RB and B-Jax does have a history of being knicked up and not at 100%. I just wish the Buffalo GM would come to his senses, realize Lynch isn't helping the Bills behind Spiller and Jackson, and trade him to the Packers for a reasonable price.

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Even AR12 wants his former teammate here,

And you know this for a fact? Just because he made a comment to a reporter that asked a question?

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Lynch has in 1 less year as a pro over 2000 yards more rushing yards than Jackson.

Apples to Oranges. When has Jackson had the opportunity? We should probably wait and see if he can produce when he actually gets to play more than a 3rd down back.

quote:

Originally posted by GBFanForLife:

quote:

Originally posted by Diggr14:
Even AR12 wants his former teammate here,

And you know this for a fact? Just because he made a comment to a reporter that asked a question?

Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers was asked Wednesday what he would say to the Packers if they asked for his opinion about a possible deal for disgruntled Bills running back Marshawn Lynch, Rodgers' former Cal teammate.

"Bring him on," Rodgers said, without hesitation.

Not even with his character knocks? "He's a great player," Rodgers said of Lynch. "And any character issues the team might see, I think in a situation like that, and I think you've seen that with other players across the league, when you give a guy a change of scenery and a guy like that who feels he might have something to prove, and surround him with two guys, (Desmond) Bishop and myself who played with him...I think that can only help him feel comfortable and see a lot of production."