With an article in the Press Gazette this weekend highlighting the fact the Packers may be relying upon Alex Green a lot this season, I knew some Marshawn Lynch trolls would come out. Sure enough, the only comment on the PFT post suggested the Pack should have gotten Lynch when they could have. Even in the forums here, the occasional Lynch troll will appear.
From a production standpoint, both sides to the argument have a point. The Pack won SB XLV with James Starks being productive enough to get us some yards and keep the defense honest on play-action passes. He never fumbled and was reliable. Of course, last season, the running game was dormant and having a beast in Lynch probably would have helped in the playoffs.
But, what never gets mentioned and, to me, really solidifies the reason why TT was smart not to get Lynch is that getting Lynch was not the right play for the long-term well-being of the team. Lynch just signed a 4-year, $31M deal, with $17M guaranteed. The Packers have Rodgers, Jennings, Clay, Raji all deserving of new deals in the next few years. If the Packers had to pay Lynch that kind of money, it is doubtful the Pack could also keep those four key players, and potentially others (maybe JMike for instance). And if the Packers just had Lynch for the two-year rental, that was going to cost them the 3rd round pick they used to select Alex Green (Seattle paid a 4th rd., but to better that trade, the Pack would have had to give up the 3rd). If Green can produce as a 3rd-down type back and at the price of a 3rd rd. selection, TT absolutely made the right move in not getting Lynch. Plus, if Starks can stay healthy, I really like what he brings to the team - but that's another thread.
