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 or
Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions.

Thanks, Javon.

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by Zero2Cool, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    yep, works for me
  2. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Needs more time to evaluate, but thought it'd be nice to check in on it.

    You can't compare Javon to one of the picks we got, you have to compare it to the four or five that we got. I like Javon a lot, but I am not ignorant enough to understand that with Javon we'd have a better passing O, but less depth on the team. We must remember that before players are hurt and put on IR, they were hurt because they PLAYED and in some cases made a difference.
  3. Cdnfavrefan Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Message Count:
    1,624
    Location:
    the unknown province
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    LOL you guys sound like politicians.
    The only thing I know is if we didn't trade away Javon we probably wouldn't of picked Jennings and that's all I need to call letting him go a success
  4. tromadz Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Certainly you don't mean me.

    But yeah, if Jwalk stayed, we woulda had little reason to draft GJ when we did. I'm happy with my 11-2 team
  5. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why, we could have easily drafted Jennings. I thought TT drafted the 'Best Player Available" and not on need? Why would that have changed if we kept J-Walk?
  6. tromadz Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    A for Effort.
  7. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    A for changing the subject when pinned against the wall.
  8. tromadz Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    well you changed the subject from GJ to Colledge, and back to GJ, so its hard to keep up. Each one met with solid responses from me or other folk.

    I'm just a simple man. My apologies.
  9. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Because Colledge was drafted when we gave up J-Walk, correct?

    Then YOU and OTHERS brought up GJ.

    I simply pointed out we could have had both based on your theory?

    For someone who wants to be a mod, you'd think you'd be more observant to what's going on!
  10. tromadz Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,000
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings Received:
    +3 / 0 / -0
    Look where I re-joined this thread...it was during the GJ\Jwalk discussion. A for Effort, KGB. You're like a pitbull!
  11. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Those who say we drafted Greg because we traded Javon... or what not. We drafted Greg because the Packers felt he was the best player available at that draft slot. Packers don't draft for need, they draft for best player available.
  12. dhpackr Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,635
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    I beg to differ. TT drafted D. Colledge to replace M. Wahle, and it failed.
  13. NDPackerFan Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2005
    Message Count:
    2,253
    Location:
    North Dakota
    Ratings Received:
    +4 / 0 / -0
    diehardPackers,

    Didn't TT bring in Adrian Klemm to replace M. Wahle?
  14. dhpackr Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,635
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    No
    • Super Moderator

    longtimefan Super Moderator

    Member Since:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Message Count:
    13,927
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    Ratings Received:
    +1,780 / 50 / -5
    Packer Fan Since:
    1975
    http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2005/03/17/1/

    3-17-2005

    The Green Bay Packers Thursday signed unrestricted free agent guard Adrian Klemm to a multi-year contract. Ted Thompson, Executive Vice President, General Manager and Director of Football Operations, announced the addition.

    Klemm, 27, is a mobile, versatile athlete expected to compete for a starting guard position on the offensive line.


    http://hawaii.scout.com/a.z?s=219&p=8&c=1&nid=2432141


    Pro
    2005: The former Patriots' second-round pick attempted to replace standout left guard Mike Wahle, but only lasted eight games as the starter before he was replaced by Scott Wells
  15. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    Colledge was NOT drafted to replace Wahle. He is a LT playing LG. The Packers have stated they see him as their future at LT.

    My gosh. I have the same access to Packer articles as you do.

    :shrug:
  16. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    They were playng him at G however. He failed at G so now they think he may be better suited at T. If he fails there he may be better suited at WR.
  17. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
    You failed at hooked on phonics-how to be thorough edition, maybe you would be better suited as slapnuts?
    * DING * DING * DING *



    psst, he was said to be the future LT before he failed at LG .. nice try though, appreciate the effort
  18. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
  19. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    "I think he's smart and wants to be a player," general manager Ted Thompson said. "But you never know. Going from tackle to guard, sometimes it's easy for guys and sometimes it's not. I would still expect him to be a good player for us."
  20. dhpackr Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,635
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    First thing I want to know longtime. do you ever post an opinion from what you have seen in a game. I mean your thoughts and view points about the team from your own perspective. all i ever see you post is old articles that someone else wrote.

    what is so focking hard to comprehend. The Green bay Packers had an awesome offensive line from 2002-2004. TT decided to let Wahle go. The line sucked as did the team in 2005.

    2006, TT drafted Colledge b/c he was "A mobile O Linemen", that could "supposedly" do well in the ZBS and play G where the team was awful in 2005 b/c Klemm stunk, and Wahle was let go.

    I think even my 10 year old nephew can comprehend this. seriously!!!
  21. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989
  22. dhpackr Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,635
    Location:
    SE Wisconsin
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    it is so simple
  23. Zero2Cool Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Message Count:
    11,901
    Location:
    Green Bay, WI
    Ratings Received:
    +5 / 1 / -0
    Packer Fan Since:
    1989

    Thompson admits not retaining Wahle was a mistake.

    Colledge sucks at G, I agree, who wouldn't?

    Does that make him a wasted or bad pick? Not in the Packers eyes because they drafted him HOPING he could fill LG and in the future would take over LT. Clifton is still here, Colledge hasn't had significant playing time at LT, so I don't see how can be a wasted pick or bad pick or whatever some idiots want to proclaim a 2nd year draftee.
  24. KGB94SACKEM Cheesehead

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2007
    Message Count:
    334
    Ratings Received:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There is no question Colledge was drafted to play G. He failed there so now they are tring to salvage him and hoping he cuts it at T. I would possibly think about dealing the guy while you might get a team to still bite, if any team is dumb enough to take him.

Share This Page