1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up/a> or Log In

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member! Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!

Moss now a Viking OFFICIAL THREAD

Discussion in 'All Other Team Discussions' started by News Bot, Oct 5, 2010.

  1. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    I think Thompson knows just a little bit more than your average fan. Yes, looking in from the outside some people bitched about Marshawn Lynch, but a lot of it was frustration with the way Jackson and the Pack in general have been playing when we all know they are better than that. Jackson will get better, and if he gets a lot better, everyone will be saying Thompson was a genius to pass on Lynch. Bellichick's system of building through the draft looks good to me.
  2. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    Yeah, but most fans are idiots who seem to think that just because a guy has a big name and is available, we should sell our souls to get him. The fact is Ted signs plenty of free agents. They just happen to be our own guys rather than someone else's cast offs.

    As for Lynch, the truth is Thompson DID go after him. He offered a 4th and a player who is ready to go, now, and would be a starter for them for years. Problem was our 4th round pick won't be worth as much as Seattle's, so that means we would have had to give up a higher pick. Not sure what Buffalo's take was on the player being offered, and not sure on who the player was, but the fact is Thompson DID make a play for him. Fans are just pissed that he didn't sell out to get the guy.

    Besides, who gives two shits about what fans think of our GM? If they could do better, they would be employed by someone in the league. But they're not.
  3. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,698
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975

    Hate people that dont know

    Look at the Packers rosters right now and off top my head there are at least 5 free agents he signed

    and he did pursue Lynch, offered a 4th a a player, with reports the player was James Jones
  4. jrpack
    Offline

    jrpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    289
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0
    And I don't believe Bellichick for a second that there was no friction at New England. I can hardly wait to see what happens when the Vikes start losing and both Favre and Moss start mouthing off. It's going to be a riot. I'd rather have any one of our receivers than Moss.
  5. Croak
    Offline

    Croak Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,018
    Location:
    New Cumberland, PA
    Ratings:
    +930 / 11 / -1
    Packer Fan Since:
    1965
    I read on PFT this morning that a condition of Moss coming to the Vikings was that they can't put the franchise tag on him. Thus, if he's there for one year, then Favre hangs it up and they don't make the Super Bowl, Moss could *theoretically* become a free agent and go back to the Patriots making that 3 round pick a total loss. Or he could go to some other team and still make the pick a loss.

    There are so many veteran players on the Vikings that are going to want good money who become free agents next year, that there is no way the Vikings will keep all of them. Childress even told them that next year "a lot" of them won't be there. Even Childress recognizes the dollars and cents of it.

    The Viking fans however don't want to see this. I'll give them this much. They love their team and are loyal to a fault. I'll bet they wouldn't jump ship and come over to the Pack if Adrian Peterson was traded to Green Bay.
  6. randymoonsthepacks
    Offline

    randymoonsthepacks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    The only thing about Zygi that I don't like is that I believe he gave Childress an extension too early. I think he should have waited until the offseason to do it, but what do I know, like all of us, I'm just another idiot fan ;)

    As for Thompsons decision to not go after Lynch (well someone posted that he did offer a 4th and a player, but I never heard anything about it), either way, it was a bad call. You can say, oh we're just fans what do we know, but anyone that watches the packers knows that they desperately need a running game other wise when they play teams with upper tier defenses like the Vikings, Jets, Cowboys, Dolphins, and maybe even the Giants it will be a tough game for them. I am a huge husker fan, and I watched brandon play for us out here, and while he may have some talent, he definitely isn't good enough to carry the load for the packers as a number 1 back. I think Kuhn is fun to watch, but again, not a number one back.

    That's what Lynch is and it seems pretty obvious to everyone (NFL commentators and analysts alike) that the Packers really screwed the pooch when it came to Lynch.
  7. randymoonsthepacks
    Offline

    randymoonsthepacks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I don't think our o-line is as horrible as people seem to think. I'll break it down by each position

    LT Bryant McKinnie - A fan favorite... to blame for our problems. Most people are not happy with his play, although he has been stepping it up recently and playing better than average (for him). He is an average/above average tackle and when he decides to play he can do it at a high level.
    LG Steve Hutchinson - I've been told he's a dick by my friend who has a friend that met him, but that's fine. I think he's been living off his name for a couple years, but despite playing with a back injury all year, he still is a top Guard in this league.
    C John Sullivan - This little hobbit is a smart player, but he definitely lacks size. I think he needs to bulk up and get some muscle if he wants to take on the NFL's best and succeed, but he definitely has the potential to be great, and I'm sure he will be as the years pass.
    RG Anthony Herrera - As evidenced by his Madden rating, he is arguably the worst o-lineman we have. He still has some versatility, but he is nothing special.
    RT Phil Loadholt - Showed a lot of promise last year, but this year he has struggled and is directly responsible for a couple Favre turnovers. Still he shows flashes of greatness and I think he will be our longterm solution at LT.

    So while our offensive line is over rated, at least in the past it has been, its not as bad as many people seem to think. Once the season goes on and they start gelling more, I think you will hear their names less and less, which is a good thing.

    As for the injury bug you seem to think we have, yah its a little frustrating, but I don't think its anything to worry about for the future. Cook is out for 2 weeks which will hurt us, but he will be back in time for the Packers game (which will be epic, again) and he has shown that we didn't make a mistake in taking him when we did. Our DBs are not as bad as some people think. Cedric Griffen is a good CB, Antoine Winfield brings a great physical presence to our defense, Lito Sheppard is a vet with some good experience, and Asher Allen played solid as a rookie and has filled in well this year when called upon.
  8. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    No, the Packers did NOT screw the pooch by not selling out to get Lynch. I don't care what talking heads, commentators and analysts are saying. Besides, they're just angling for something to talk about. More than enough evidence has shown that you don't need a top running game in this league to win championships. If you have an real interest in knowing why Green Bay will be fine without Lynch and why we're not stupid for not selling out to get him, check out the official "We need a running back" thread. No need to rehash all that here, except to say that the people who keep harping on us not getting Lynch obviously have no idea what they're talking about.
  9. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    I think Favre covers up a lot of your offensive line's flaws, but at the moment he's on pace to take 32 sacks and 80 hit this season. Compare that to Green Bay's offensive line, who is currently on pace to give up 19 sacks and 40 hits.

    NFL Stats: by Team Category

    Not factored into the stats are hurries, but so far I haven't been able to find anything showing how many times each QB has been hurried this season.

    I don't recall saying the Vikings had the injury bug. We, Green Bay have the injury bug. I really wish it would go somewhere else for a while. Three years of it is more than enough.
  10. randymoonsthepacks
    Offline

    randymoonsthepacks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You call giving up a 4th rounder or a 4th and 5th selling out? Are you the same guy that told me the Vikings don't have a future because we gave up a 3rd for Moss?

    The last 5 super bowl winners have been the Saints, Patriots, Steelers, Giants, and the Colts. All of those teams have had good running games. Whether the running game was the reason for the victories is up to debate, but it certainly helped. Look, I know the Packers are a good team and Aaron Rodgers is a good QB, but without a running game I don't see them being anything other than a "contender", and never someone that actually makes the SB. Obviously that only applies to this year as Ryan Grant is a solid back who will help a lot when he comes back next year, but right now, especially against elite d's, the Packers will struggle. Thats what happens when you are one dimensional.

    And as for the injury thing, i believe your quote was
    So maybe you didn't mean that we had an injury bug, but I don't think injuries are as devastating as they look to us. Cook will be missed, but we played without him AND Griffin for the first two weeks so I think we will be ok considering Cedric is back.
  11. longtimefan
    Offline

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    15,698
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings:
    +2,544 / 76 / -14
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    It appears Packer offered a 4th and a player, to beat Seattle they needed to offer a 3rd and player or better..That could be selling out to him..To me not really but that cold be his definition

    Last 4 SB winners you claimed had good running games?

    Saints- 6th in total rushing

    Pitts- 23rd in total rushing

    Giants- 4th in total rushing

    Colts- 18th in total rushing

    Sorry, but 2 had very good, and 2 had below average running games so your claim is false
  12. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    No, I'm not the same guy. And no, just giving up a 4th rounder isn't what I call selling out, nor is it what I meant.

    Fans here and everywhere think Ted should have given Buffalo whatever they wanted for Lynch. I absolutely disagree with this approach. Just because Seattle got him for a 4th doesn't mean that's what we would have gotten him for. Go back and read the posts on the matter. You'd find that because our 4th isn't expected to be as valuable as Seattle's, Buffalo likely wanted a 3rd from us. I know Seattle gave a 6th that will become a 5th as a compensatory pick, but I don't know if Buffalo would have taken that from us. Likely they would have wanted a better compensatory from us since we're supposed to be better.

    LMFAO! Are you kidding me with this?

    In 2009 the Colts were DEAD LAST in rushing. Saints were 6.
    2008- Cardinals were dead last in rushing. Super Bowl Champion Steelers- 23! Last I checked, that's not even in the top half! So much for your "All of those teams have had good running games."
    2007- Giants were 4th. The undefeated Patriots finished the year ranked 13 in rushing- Just above half.
    2006- Super Bowl Champion Colts- 18. The Bears? 15th.
    2005- Steelers #5, Seahawks #3.
    2004- Pats- #7, Eagles #24
    2003- Panthers were ranked #7 in rushing. Champion Patriots? #27
    2002- Raiders #18, Tampa Bay- #27

    I think I just proved there's NO CORRELATION between having a top running game and making it to or winning the Super Bowl. 8 of the 18 listed had running games ranked in the bottom half of the league. 6 of the 18 listed had running games ranked in the top 10.

    So please, can we stop with the nonsense that you won't win unless you have some top ranked, elite running game? Sure, it's great to have, but as I've just proven, it's just not mandatory to being successful. "Most" teams in the past 8 years who make it to the Super Bowl don't have a top 10 running game.

    Yeah, I did point out Cook's injury, and you're right you already did it without him. Albeit you lost both of those games, but it's not like you gave up a ton of points, so I'll concede this point.
  13. randymoonsthepacks
    Offline

    randymoonsthepacks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I never said you needed an elite running game to win a super bowl, but you at least need some semblence of one. Do you honestly think teams are going to worry about your running game with Kuhn and Jackson back there? I sure as hell know the Vikings wont, and I think we'll be able to stop the run and get plenty of pressure on Rodgers with just 4 d lineman, allowing everyone else to drop in coverage.

    Say what you want, but it makes it much easier to succeed if you have at least an average running game. Sure Peyton Manning has done it and so have some other teams, but theres a reason why everyone says the easiest way for post season success is to have a good defense and a good running game. Yah the leagues evolving into a passing league, but just like its easy to stack 8 in the box to stop AP or CJ, it is easy to drop those extra guys into coverage.

    And to those people saying we "sold our future" for moss, here is a bit from Kevin Seiferts blog on his weekend mailbag
  14. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    Teams don't have to worry about Kuhn or Jackson, though if I were them I would definitely worry about Kuhn. But I digress. Kuhn is more than capable of picking up those 2 and 3 yard gains to keep the chains moving. While not a huge threat to break off a big gainer, he's more than adequate to move the pile and pick up those first downs.

    As for Jackson, when given an opportunity, the guy has been able to break off some decent gainers. He broke off an 18 yarder vs. Philly and had a 12 yarder vs. Chicago pulled back because of a Finley penalty. It's just hard to get into any kind of rhythm when you aren't getting the ball very often.

    Let's not forget we still have two relative unknowns in Nance and Starks. Nance has taken some time to learn the playbook and the blocking scheme, but will likely see more action this weekend. Starks will be available for practice after next week. It's unknown whether either of those guys could be the missing feature back everyone seems to think we're so desperate for.
  15. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
  16. randymoonsthepacks
    Offline

    randymoonsthepacks Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    96
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Strahans fired up about trades, especially how the Packers didn't trade for Lynch.
  17. Croak
    Offline

    Croak Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,018
    Location:
    New Cumberland, PA
    Ratings:
    +930 / 11 / -1
    Packer Fan Since:
    1965
    I guess we saw today that running back is NOT our problem. Strahan was wrong.
  18. SpartaChris
    Offline

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +963 / 25 / -9
    Yup. 10 carries for 115 yards. even if you take away the 1 carry for 71 yards, he still averaged 4.8 yards per carry. Not his fault he doesn't get enough carries to build any kind of momentum.

    In related news, Bulaga got the start at right tackle today... Wonder if that had to do with anything?

Share This Page