Thanks, Javon.

musccy

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
Location
Lynchburg, VA
Packer's original draft order: 5, 36, 67, 104, 139, 165, 253 (7)

Packers order after NE trade: 5, 52, 67, 75, 104, 139, 165, 253 (8)

Packer's order after Javon : 5, 47, 52, 67, 75, 93, 104, 148, 165, 253 (10)

When it was all said and done: 5, 47, 52, 67, 75, 104, 115, 148, 165, 183, 185, 253 (12)

I think I did this right?!?
 

musccy

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
Location
Lynchburg, VA
no...I screwed that up...w/e...whether directly or indirectly...the 2nd pick, which was what we got, was then used to start the ball rolling to obtain a lot of additional picks/players. In EFFECT, we got about 4 additional draft picks for Javon
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
musccy said:
no...I screwed that up...w/e...whether directly or indirectly...the 2nd pick, which was what we got, was then used to start the ball rolling to obtain a lot of additional picks/players. In EFFECT, we got about 4 additional draft picks for Javon

confusin sh.it huh! lol
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Zero2Cool said:
musccy said:
no...I screwed that up...w/e...whether directly or indirectly...the 2nd pick, which was what we got, was then used to start the ball rolling to obtain a lot of additional picks/players. In EFFECT, we got about 4 additional draft picks for Javon

confusin sh.it huh! lol


Yeah, its no big deal. I am not saying that TT made a bad move but it was not as cut and dry as you state

I can't seem to get you guys to understand that the extra picks came from trading away the 2nd that we got for Javon and not for Javon.

All these extra trades came from Trading picks, and not a player. We got nothing more than a 2nd for Javon. What we did with the 2nd was a result of trading the picks, thus losing a potential player, to gain more picks.

Everytime we traded we gave away a pick. We did not trade Javon and a 5th for all those picks. We traded Javon, a second, a third, a fourth, a fifth and a sixth as well.

It's confusing, and I am glad he's gone but in reality we gave up more than Javon and a fifth for all those players because you are forgetting the 2nd that we packaged with the fifth.I am sure someone will break it down in the next few days and we can debate it then.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
See there lies the problem. You are not taking what I am saying...

I am saying the end result ... oh forget it. My fingers hurt.
 

longtimefan

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
25,356
Reaction score
4,086
Location
Milwaukee
Well Daunte Culpper was worth only a 2nd ( same as Walker as you claim) and Eric Moulds a 4th rounder..

So we got same value as D.C and a better value then Eric Moulds..
 

musccy

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
Location
Lynchburg, VA
The Packers went into the draft w/ 7 picks...but left w/ 12...so we added 5 picks through this whole ordeal. 1 of the net gains was from the NE trade (- 36, + 52 and 75)...the rest evolved from the Javon situation. Like you said, Javon DID NOT DIRECTLY lead to obtaining those additional 4 picks...we only got #37 from him...but #37 was then packaged, and the ball was rolling to get those other picks...

what zero and I are saying is that we doubt we would have obtained those additional 4 picks w/out the walker trade...so, although not LITERALLY...effectively we got 4 additional picks from the javon trade.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
It's no biggie Zero, I am just Irked.

Before the Packers trade Javon Walker 8 picks

Right after the Packers trade Javon Walker 9 picks

At this time Javon is gone for a 2nd round pick. At this time we could draft ANY PLAYER with this pick. Javon is no longer figured into the equasion. Atlanta sure had to get something out of this deal, and it was not Javon. They recieved a 2nd rounder and gave us the later picks, not Denver.

What we did after that was a result of trading the 37th and so on. Sure we might have gotten the 37 for Walker but we gave away the PICK for more Picks, Not Javon.


It's confusing, and there are 500 different ways to look at it. I hope someone writes about this soon as they can probably explain it alot clearer than you or me.
 

musccy

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
Location
Lynchburg, VA
btw...you seem less than pleased that we "literally" gave away Javon for cheap. Going into the draft, I didn't feel that it was necessary to trade him and would rather have Javon than some prospects (although you'd think w/ 3 wrs, at least one would produce).

Denver may have gotten a pretty good deal out of this, as you just described, but if one or 2 of the additional picks that we got following the javon trade work out, then I don't think we'll care too much about the technicalities of what we got for him.
 

pyledriver80

Cheesehead
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,391
Reaction score
0
Agreed Musccy, I am not really angry that we gave away Javon for a 2nd at all. I wanted him gone but I kinda wanted him to sit and pout at the same time.

Denver did probably get the better end of this deal I'm afraid. All they gave up was a 2nd round pick. Either way they probably win.
 

musccy

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
Location
Lynchburg, VA
yeah...I finally figured out what you were trying to say...it looks like Denver got a pretty easy/sweet deal...while the Packers had to do a bunch of wheeling and dealing to get their additional picks...in the end, we did get 4 extra picks, but hopefully, when all is said and done, a few of those will produce for us, and we won't care about javon, or what we could have done w/ the 37th pick.
 

DePack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1
Location
Newark, Delaware
I know it was not possible to do but I would rather have a Javon walker than all 5 of those guys. If Denver could do it again I bet they wouldn't trade Javon for those 5 guys.
 

P@ck66

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
0
Damn straight..DePack..

(TT should have addressed the Javon issue last year..imo)
 

P@ck66

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
0
Yeah..we don't need a guy with that kind of talent and mad skills at receiver in Green Bay....(we've got Ferguson..)

(I'm gonna save this quote..Gakk..)

(TT let the whole "Javon thing" snowball and get out of hand...)
 

GakkofNorway

Cheesehead
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
2,249
Reaction score
0
Location
the Northpole
I said we don't need punks in Green Bay, nothing about his skill and talent because that doesn't matter, as long as he's a punk I don't want him in Green Bay.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
P@ck66 said:
Yeah..we don't need a guy with that kind of talent and mad skills at receiver in Green Bay....(we've got Ferguson..)

(I'm gonna save this quote..Gakk..)

(TT let the whole "Javon thing" snowball and get out of hand...)

How was it Teds fault with the Javon 'thing' ?

No one said we didn't need that kind of talent, or did they, show me quotes of who said what about not needing Javon type talent.

Also, who said Ferguson is better than Javon? Quotes please.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
DePack said:
I know it was not possible to do but I would rather have a Javon walker than all 5 of those guys. If Denver could do it again I bet they wouldn't trade Javon for those 5 guys.


Yeah, it would have been good to keep Javon, but if he was holding true on his word to not play, I'm glad we got five (four picks minus the 139th we gave up) as the end result.
 

espnpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Indy
Broncos GM: JW has "one good year" and then blows his knee. BUT is willing to give him a six year contract extension (reportedly) top tier receiver type money.

Packers GM and some Packers Fans: Screw JW, he had one good year, he's not going to call the shots, he's a *****, he blew out his knee, he's a piece of shi.........

Why are we on this massive "giveaway" program?

Ten MAC all-stars do not equate one Javon Walker.

I love the Pack, but I'm siding with Denver on this one.
 

DePack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1
Location
Newark, Delaware
espnpack said:
Broncos GM: JW has "one good year" and then blows his knee. BUT is willing to give him a six year contract extension (reportedly) top tier receiver type money.

Packers GM and some Packers Fans: Screw JW, he had one good year, he's not going to call the shots, he's a *****, he blew out his knee, he's a piece of shi.........

Why are we on this massive "giveaway" program?

Ten MAC all-stars do not equate one Javon Walker.

I love the Pack, but I'm siding with Denver on this one.

I agree Denver got the best of that trade but it's not all black and white. We couldn't keep him. Apparently we got all we could. Five teams were bidding.
 

Fizz

Cheesehead
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Anytime the Packers get rid of a bum, they get the best of the deal!
 

espnpack

Cheesehead
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Location
Indy
DePack said:
...I agree Denver got the best of that trade but it's not all black and white. We couldn't keep him. Apparently we got all we could. Five teams were bidding.

I agree it is not all black and white...

But, my point is, it should have never gotten to this point. I think TT doesn't give a shi#, because JW isn't one of his guys.

If Mike Shanahan can see the greatness coming off nothing, why couldn't have TT assured JW prior to last season (coming off a Pro Bowl) that he would be a Packer for his career?

For goodness sake, we're paying a 30 something CB coming off a broken leg $10 million this year...Why did we just **** around with a 20 something Pro Bowl calibur, game dominating WR?
 

DePack

Cheesehead
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,904
Reaction score
1
Location
Newark, Delaware
espnpack said:
DePack said:
...I agree Denver got the best of that trade but it's not all black and white. We couldn't keep him. Apparently we got all we could. Five teams were bidding.

I agree it is not all black and white...

But, my point is, it should have never gotten to this point. I think TT doesn't give a shi#, because JW isn't one of his guys.

If Mike Shanahan can see the greatness coming off nothing, why couldn't have TT assured JW prior to last season (coming off a Pro Bowl) that he would be a Packer for his career?

For goodness sake, we're paying a 30 something CB coming off a broken leg $10 million this year...Why did we just **** around with a 20 something Pro Bowl calibur, game dominating WR?

Good point.
 
OP
OP
Zero2Cool

Zero2Cool

I own a website
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
11,903
Reaction score
4
Location
Green Bay, WI
You've got to be kidding me with this you guys.





What you are all saying is when a player goes to the pro bowl he deserves a new contract during the following off season regardless of how many years remain on his contract? No, I have to disagree. Javon listened to the wrong people and made a poor decision to bring his dissatisfaction with his contract public.

Personally I'd have liked to see Ted slip him half mil or so and re-do his contract with massive incentives that for a pro bowl type receiver would be easily obtained. Javon made his mind up after his injury he wasn't playing for the Packers anymore.

What could have Ted done when a man vows to never play for his team again?

Let him sit?

Trade him?


Honestly, I'd have rather seen the punk sit after his crap with the Donald Driver rumor, but I think Ted did what was best for the TEAM.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top