To the people that really wanted Marshawn Lynch few years back

Half Empty

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
4,474
Reaction score
604
A Clown is a clown.

Wasn't sure how to rate this one as I'm not sure what it means. Are you saying that Packer fans would feel the same way about Lynch if he was 'ours' and had meant as much to the Packers as he has to Seattle? If so, I can go back a pick the appropriate negative rating for the post. Wasn't Sharpe our own anti-media guy?
 

MplsPackFan

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 26, 2014
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
He's a very good player who other than not talking to the media hasn't been in any real trouble for awhile. He did have a DUI but seems to have turned the corner. The rest of the league stuff is just so much noise. Not wanting to do an interview makes you a bad person? C'mon, I think the guy genuinely does not give a f@$& what people think one way or the other and it's a bit refreshing. Would it be how I acted? No but most of what we hear and see out of these guys is fake and canned so at least he doesn't bother with that crap.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
and their a difference between not wanting to do fake, canned crap, and just acting like a disrespectful clown rather than someone that doesn't want to put on a show and is still a professional about it.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,360
Reaction score
1,742
I personally didn't want the Packers to get Lynch. I don't like his act and think he would be a poor fit.

That being said, with Peterson gone, he's become the best running back in the NFL. He's a good fit in Seattle. Lacy is a good fit in Green Bay.
 

Sunshinepacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
5,766
Reaction score
896
and their a difference between not wanting to do fake, canned crap, and just acting like a disrespectful clown rather than someone that doesn't want to put on a show and is still a professional about it.

He and his teammates have fun with it. The NFL has legislated most of the fun out of the game,I have zero problem with players making fun of pointless media sessions that do nothing but spawn ridiculous questions. His teammates love it, that's what matters.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,796
I'm glad him and his teammates have fun with it, there's more than one disrespectful clown on that team, that much is certain
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
Really, you're arguing that the Packers might have done better had we gotten Lynch in 2010....the year we won the Super Bowl?

How did we do in 2011 and 2012. We made the playoffs but got beat. Maybe having Beast Mode would have been enough to put us over the top in any one of those seasons. I won't put up 2013 and 2014 as arguments because we had Lacy and I like him a lot and he is younger and, so far, a lot cheaper but even so, if we have Lynch instead of Lacy maybe we have another SB or two in the last 4 years. Maybe not but I'm just sayin.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
J

Spot on ace. That was the deal Lynch for Hawk. The trade should have been made.


Was that really the deal? I know its what all the fans were talking about but did the Bills GM ever say to TT "give us Hawk and you can have Lynch"?
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
Really? Even if I told you that not trading for him guarantees a super bowl? But trading for him doesn't guarantee anything?

First of all I'm not sure how you could guarantee that not trading for means a super bowl. Second you can guarantee me super bowl victories for the next 10 years if we trade Rodgers for Johnny Football and I still won't make the trade because your guarantees aren't worth the pixels they take up and it would be a stupid trade.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
You change a variable in the equation and you don't get the same result.

You can't guarantee we win with lynch, because it didn't happen as you can guarantee we did with hawk.


You can guarantee everything after the fact the problem is we can't go back and make decisions based on what happens after they are made.

the decision to trade Hawk for Lynch (supposedly) came up and Ace says he would have made that trade 100 times out of 100 and you are saying you would have guaranteed a SB win if the trade wasn't made. Can't be done my friend.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
you would risk the guaranteed championship to trade for a player that you don't know will result in the same thing if you don't trade? Wow.

Lots of people think it's just about assembling a pro bowl named roster, but it's so much more than that. I'm anti hawk before being so was in vogue around here (shout out to GnG angel for once calling me a racist for it), but that doesn't mean he hasn't contributed as a quality locker room presence. Lynch has been at best controversial in his role as just recently it was reported he was on his way out of Seattle for his antics.

Plus such rumored trade was not a straight up trade.


Please explain to me how we were guaranteed a championship when the chance came up to trade Hawk for Lynch or whatever the trade was supposed to be about. Or how making such a trade would have risked a championship that hadn't happened yet.

You are trying to mix the past with the future and you can't do that.
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
This is all just so laughable, if this guy was on the Packers and produced for the Packers exactly what he has produced for The Seahawks, not one of you would have a single bad thing to say about him. Period, don't even try to deny it. Stop being butt hurt over the loss with Lynch making our defense look like the chumps that they are in the last few minutes of the game and thinking the Packers players are superior to every other player on the planet. They are not now, they never have been, nor will they ever be. The Packers have had numerous players of questionable "moral" character on their teams over the years. Get over your fake moral outrage already.


I agreed with you but with one caveat. Packer fans would still not like the things he does they just wouldn't care.
 

NelsonsLongCatch

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 7, 2008
Messages
2,808
Reaction score
270
Location
Chi-Town
He's a total ***-clown, but he's a hell of a running back. I love Eddie Lacy and wouldn't want to replace him.

The Packers didn't draft Justin Houston because he was a clown in college and all did was have 22 sacks this year.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Please explain to me how we were guaranteed a championship when the chance came up to trade Hawk for Lynch or whatever the trade was supposed to be about. Or how making such a trade would have risked a championship that hadn't happened yet.

You are trying to mix the past with the future and you can't do that.

I'm not sure why you posted 3 times in a row. It came across as a bit rambling so I will try to address your comment(s) to the best of my understanding of what you are getting at

Someone says we should have traded for lynch. I say no, bc we accomplished what we wanted to, winning a super bowl. If we had traded for him we might not have won a title. Does that make sense? I'll take the super bowl over acquiring a talented but troubled player, as winning should be the ultimate goal.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
14,305
Reaction score
5,691
I think many winners and measurements of success are judged most accurately in the long term.. A 95 year old man told me when I asked him what he had learned as the fundamental rule of business relationships was?... He said "Son, you will never remember the specifics of the deal or the transaction from years ago.. but you will ALWAYS remember how the person made you feel" That was special advice I have cherished.
Then I moved to Texas and the famous quote here is "You may all go to hell.. I'm going to Texas!" lol
 

sschind

Cheesehead
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
4,996
Reaction score
1,264
I'm not sure why you posted 3 times in a row. It came across as a bit rambling so I will try to address your comment(s) to the best of my understanding of what you are getting at

Someone says we should have traded for lynch. I say no, bc we accomplished what we wanted to, winning a super bowl. If we had traded for him we might not have won a title. Does that make sense? I'll take the super bowl over acquiring a talented but troubled player, as winning should be the ultimate goal.

I posted three times in a row in response to your three different posts but apparently when you do it it isn't rambling. I'll try the multiquote next time just to make it easier for you.

to answer your question no it doesn't make any sense. They are saying we should have traded for him back in 2010 before we even got to the super bowl. We had no idea we would win the super bowl at the time so it doesn't even come into play. Yes if we had traded for him we may not have won the SB in 2010 but we may have won it in 2011, 2012, 2013 and I'd take 3 SB wins over 1 any day. You can't use something that happened after the potential trade as evidence that we shouldn't have made the trade in the first place. That makes no sense.
 

Raptorman

Vikings fan since 1966.
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
438
Location
Vero Beach, FL
Really, you're arguing that the Packers might have done better had we gotten Lynch in 2010....the year we won the Super Bowl?
Yup, they probably would have. After the trade, Lynch had 6 rushing TD's for the Seahawks. During that same time period the Packers RB's had 4. Since the trade, Lynch has 62 TD's in Seattle. All of the Packer RB's combined since the trade, have 56.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
I posted three times in a row in response to your three different posts but apparently when you do it it isn't rambling. I'll try the multiquote next time just to make it easier for you.

to answer your question no it doesn't make any sense. They are saying we should have traded for him back in 2010 before we even got to the super bowl. We had no idea we would win the super bowl at the time so it doesn't even come into play. Yes if we had traded for him we may not have won the SB in 2010 but we may have won it in 2011, 2012, 2013 and I'd take 3 SB wins over 1 any day. You can't use something that happened after the potential trade as evidence that we shouldn't have made the trade in the first place. That makes no sense.

You essentially said the same thing in 3 posts, but its fine, I think it just could have been summed up in 1 post. Each their own.

Correct we may have. Or might not. We are changing a variable and thus we dont know. If we dont change a variable (the trade) we know the outcome. You sound like you would be willing to risk that 1 title for the possibility of more. I am not in that camp.
 

ivo610

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 13, 2010
Messages
16,588
Reaction score
2,250
Location
Madison
Yup, they probably would have. After the trade, Lynch had 6 rushing TD's for the Seahawks. During that same time period the Packers RB's had 4. Since the trade, Lynch has 62 TD's in Seattle. All of the Packer RB's combined since the trade, have 56.

I think one of the key elements of arguing in favor of the trade would actually be not what he did for the packers but what he wouldnt do for the seahawks. He is the key to that offense in my opinion. When he isnt going that team isnt producing.
 

Members online

Latest posts

Top