Comments on: Let The Marshawn Lynch Speculation Begin… And End

By: Lynch Talk Isn't Dead Yet | Total Packers

Lynch Talk Isn't Dead Yet | Total Packers — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:02:02 +0000

[...] The talk of the Green Bay Packers trading for Buffalo Bills running back Marshawn Lynch isn’t quite dead yet, despite reports last week the Bills would not move him. [...]

By: Abe Frohman

Abe Frohman — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:41:57 +0000

not so sure about this one. I think each trade, or potential trade, is based upon the deal: what will I get to make my team better versus what I have to give up to do so? You’ve pointed out some great trades that benefited the team, but it seems…inconsistent to suggest that the Packers are blackballed for trading purposes.

A better example is Tony Moll for Derek Martin last year. That was a big nothing.

By: Abe Frohman

Abe Frohman — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:27:50 +0000

but who wants Hawk? And at his salary? We all know he sucks in coverage (which is why he’s off the field for nickel and dime situations). I have to believe every other GM in the league knows he sucks in coverage, too. And so he’s a 1 down player. What value does that have? Just because he was a top 5 pick doesn’t mean anything.

Frankly, I think Jason Spitz has far more trade value. Donald Lee, too.

By: Daybreak Doppler: Bring on the Bills « PocketDoppler.com - A Wisconsin Sports Blog

Fri, 17 Sep 2010 11:10:25 +0000

[...] As a follow up to yesterday’s Marshawn Lynch love fest, Let The Marshawn Lynch Speculation Begin… And End [...]

By: jeremy

jeremy — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:58:17 +0000

I don’t understand your point. Are you arguing semantics or something? I’m sure most owners would like a better GM. The fact that they are very rich men probably indicates they have a preference for things that are “better”.

By: PackerFanInFL

PackerFanInFL — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 19:41:12 +0000

Unload Hawk and Fourth

By: Tyler

Tyler — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:19:23 +0000

@jeremy

You think that’s Packers GMs “burning” other teams?? How about instead of making trades that don’t benefit them, other teams just get better GMs?

If anything, the examples you gave just reinforced the truth that Ron Wolf and Ted Thompson are great evaluators of talent.

By: jeremy

jeremy — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:06:35 +0000

Personally I think teams don’t want to trade with the Packers. I tried to make a list of trades were other teams got burned by Packers Gm’s.

-Favre for a #1 pick 19th overall, that became RB Tony Smith, Southern Miss
-Eugene Robinson from the Seahawks for DE Matt LaBounty
-Ahman Green from the Seahawks for Fred Vinson
-Ryan Grant from the Giants for a 6th round pick that became LB Bryan Kehl
-The Clay Matthews from the Patroits for the pick that became CB Darius Bulter and web of subsequently traded draft picks that’s too hard to follow. (Bulter’s not a bad player, he’s just not close to Matthews)
-The picks that became Javon Walker and Aarom Kampman from the Seahawks for the picks that became DE Anton Palepoi and TE Jerramy Stevens.
- Al Harris and a fourth round pick from the Eagles for a second that became LJ Smith (two good seasons)
-Keith Jackson from the Dolphins for a second round pick that became OG Andrew Greene

Anyone else remember others? If I was GM I would not want to trade with the Packers.

By: Sonny

Sonny — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:19:37 +0000

Crazy Bills. Stacking three quality backs while they ain’t got anything else. It’s like a fantasy football team with 3 top backs and no WR and QB. Good luck getting more win than the Ram last season.

By: Backer

Backer — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:14:52 +0000

Well they surely won’t trade him the week before we play each other! Let’s let Jackson play a game and see what happens first. You can always scrape the heap of unemployed backs if you just need a backup down the road, Betts, Fargus, Green, etc. It’s not like we are going to run the ball all that often. I don’t mind Jackson, just don’t want to see him get running low on juice playing all three downs.