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 or

    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!
  2. Big Announcement Coming for 2015 Football Season!!

    Be on the look out for a big Packer Forum announcement when the schedule is released. Full details coming soon...

Thanks, Javon.

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

  1. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    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?!?
     
  2. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    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
     
  3. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    confusin sh.it huh! lol
     
  4. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +0

    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.
     
  5. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    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.
     
  6. longtimefan

    longtimefan Super Moderator Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    16,659
    Ratings:
    +2,966
    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..
     
  7. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  8. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +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.
     
  9. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  10. pyledriver80

    pyledriver80 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,391
    Ratings:
    +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.
     
  11. musccy

    musccy Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,854
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  12. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  13. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +0
    Damn straight..DePack..

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

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    Walker was a punk, we don't need punks. I'll enjoy him flopping in Denver!
     
  15. P@ck66

    P@ck66 Banned Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,207
    Ratings:
    +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...)
     
  16. GakkofNorway

    GakkofNorway Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    Messages:
    2,249
    Ratings:
    +0
    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.
     
  17. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    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.
     
  18. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8

    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.
     
  19. espnpack

    espnpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Ratings:
    +0
    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 prick, 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.
     
  20. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    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.
     
  21. Fizz

    Fizz Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2006
    Messages:
    14
    Ratings:
    +0
    Anytime the Packers get rid of a bum, they get the best of the deal!
     
  22. espnpack

    espnpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Ratings:
    +0
    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 piss around with a 20 something Pro Bowl calibur, game dominating WR?
     
  23. DePack

    DePack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,904
    Ratings:
    +1
    Good point.
     
  24. espnpack

    espnpack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Ratings:
    +0
    I guess "who the bum is" remains to be seen...
     
  25. Zero2Cool

    Zero2Cool I own a website

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    11,903
    Ratings:
    +8
    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.
     

Share This Page