Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Official Randy Pole...er I mean Poll
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kmac" data-source="post: 139996" data-attributes="member: 541"><p>More from our buddy Florio</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>POSTED 1:27 p.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 1:59 p.m. EDT, March 18, 2007</p><p></p><p>THOMPSON CONTINUES TO BLOW SMOKE</p><p></p><p>Packers G.M. Ted Thompson claims that backup quarterback Aaron Rodgers has not been offered to the Oakland Raiders for receiver Randy Moss, and that the possibility of such a deal has never come up.</p><p></p><p>"It's never been discussed inside the building or outside the building," Thompson told the Green Bay Press-Gazette.</p><p></p><p>It's a bunch of crap, in our opinion. We're heard from too many people that Rodgers was included in trade talks. Mike Felger of the Boston Herald reported on Thursday that a deal involving the two players was imminent. Even though the trade has yet to go down, the notion that Felger's report was so far off base that the possibility of trading Rodgers has never even been discussed is ludicrous.</p><p></p><p>As we've been told, quarterback Brett Favre is pushing hard for the Packers to get Moss. As of Wednesday, we heard that trade talks involving Rodgers hit a snag. So if a Moss-for-Rodgers deal has fallen through, it doesn't mean that the Packers won't thereafter put together another package for Moss.</p><p></p><p>Indeed, while Thompson claims that Rodgers won't be dealt, Thompson has to date not said that acquiring Moss is out of the question. And even though several readers have suggested that Thompson is merely steering clear of the league's anti-tampering rules, there's no prohibition on Thompson saying something like, "We are pleased with the group of receivers that we currently have on the roster. Although we won't rule out adding any receivers through the draft, we will not be attempting to acquire any veteran receivers via free agency or trade."</p><p></p><p>And if the Packers tried to send Rodgers to the Raiders and if the deal fell through, the last thing that Thompson should do is acknowledge this development. To do so would be the equivalent of announcing to the world that the Packers think they blew it when they drafted Rodgers with the 24th overall pick in 2005.</p><p></p><p>Bottom line -- we don't believe anything Thompson has to say on the matter. That's not a specific knock on the Packers G.M. They all lie at this time of the year.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kmac, post: 139996, member: 541"] More from our buddy Florio POSTED 1:27 p.m. EDT; LAST UPDATED 1:59 p.m. EDT, March 18, 2007 THOMPSON CONTINUES TO BLOW SMOKE Packers G.M. Ted Thompson claims that backup quarterback Aaron Rodgers has not been offered to the Oakland Raiders for receiver Randy Moss, and that the possibility of such a deal has never come up. "It's never been discussed inside the building or outside the building," Thompson told the Green Bay Press-Gazette. It's a bunch of crap, in our opinion. We're heard from too many people that Rodgers was included in trade talks. Mike Felger of the Boston Herald reported on Thursday that a deal involving the two players was imminent. Even though the trade has yet to go down, the notion that Felger's report was so far off base that the possibility of trading Rodgers has never even been discussed is ludicrous. As we've been told, quarterback Brett Favre is pushing hard for the Packers to get Moss. As of Wednesday, we heard that trade talks involving Rodgers hit a snag. So if a Moss-for-Rodgers deal has fallen through, it doesn't mean that the Packers won't thereafter put together another package for Moss. Indeed, while Thompson claims that Rodgers won't be dealt, Thompson has to date not said that acquiring Moss is out of the question. And even though several readers have suggested that Thompson is merely steering clear of the league's anti-tampering rules, there's no prohibition on Thompson saying something like, "We are pleased with the group of receivers that we currently have on the roster. Although we won't rule out adding any receivers through the draft, we will not be attempting to acquire any veteran receivers via free agency or trade." And if the Packers tried to send Rodgers to the Raiders and if the deal fell through, the last thing that Thompson should do is acknowledge this development. To do so would be the equivalent of announcing to the world that the Packers think they blew it when they drafted Rodgers with the 24th overall pick in 2005. Bottom line -- we don't believe anything Thompson has to say on the matter. That's not a specific knock on the Packers G.M. They all lie at this time of the year. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Firethorn1001
Latest posts
Christian Watson signs a 4 year 110m extension
Latest: milani
40 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Josh Jacobs facing charges…
Latest: milani
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Why I Love The 2026-2027 Green Bay Packers
Latest: CarryTheG14
42 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Valuation of NFL Teams
Latest: milani
47 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2026 Roster Thread - Semi-Live
Latest: DoURant
Today at 2:58 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
The Official Randy Pole...er I mean Poll
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
