Thanks, Javon.

[KGB94SACKEM]

Yup.

But are you hinting that GJ might turn into a jerk?

I doubt it. Even when JWalk was classy, he had that ********* of an agent, and that ********* of a friend\training partner, TO.

GJ just had Donald "Hard Work 24\7" Driver.

I'll take GJ and like the way things worked out.

I like GJ to, but he would look darn good with DD and J-Walk beside him. GJ had nothing to do with Javon anyway. Colledge did however. Now let's compare J-Walk with the stud that is Daryn Colledge

OK, how about this...neither J-Walk nor Colledge are contributing to the Packers right now. Good enough comparison?

yep, works for me

 

[Zero2Cool]

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.

 

[Cdnfavrefan]

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

 

[tromadz]

LOL you guys sound like politicians.

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

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

LOL you guys sound like politicians.

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

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?

 

[tromadz]

LOL you guys sound like politicians.

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

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?

A for Effort.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

A for changing the subject when pinned against the wall.

 

[tromadz]

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.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

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.

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!

 

[tromadz]

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.

Because Colledge was drafted when we gave up J-Walk, correct?

Then YOU and OTHERS brought up GJ.

Look where I re-joined this thread...it was during the GJ\Jwalk discussion. A for Effort, KGB. You're like a pitbull!

 

[Zero2Cool]

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.

 

[dhpackr]

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.

I beg to differ. TT drafted D. Colledge to replace M. Wahle, and it failed.

 

[NDPackerFan]

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.

I beg to differ. TT drafted D. Colledge to replace M. Wahle, and it failed.

diehardPackers,

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

 

[dhpackr]

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.

I beg to differ. TT drafted D. Colledge to replace M. Wahle, and it failed.

diehardPackers,

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

No

 

[longtimefan]

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.

I beg to differ. TT drafted D. Colledge to replace M. Wahle, and it failed.

diehardPackers,

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

No

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

 

[Zero2Cool]

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:

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

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:

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.

 

[Zero2Cool]

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:

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.

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

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

Link?

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

"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."

 

[dhpackr]

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!!!

 

[Zero2Cool]

DING ****

 

[dhpackr]

it is so simple

 

[Zero2Cool]

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!!!

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.

 

[KGB94SACKEM]

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!!!

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.