Jennings is a classy Packer and if he doesn't retire a Packer then Green Bay did something wrong. He's been a phenomenal player on and off the field, and showed that when he gets the ball, he still has it, still going for more yards, always moving forward. To say that we need to trade him away... I'm not saying I have all the answers, but that just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that hasn't had time to fully play out.
Ha! Wouldn't that be niceAaron Rodgers? is it really you haha. jk..... i agree 100%.
We would definitely trade him to the AFC. I would ask Jennings for his top 3 teams he'd like to go to. At least trade him to a respectable team. Maybe NE after Brady retires. NE is out of the questionHmmm? well i love Jennings but i had a strange dream he went to Chicago if we were going to trade him it would have to be to the AFC! maybe to New England?
a Packers beat reporter made the comment the Packers should explore trading Jennings, what do you guys think? What could we get for him?
I would assume it would be a 2nd and 3rd rounder. IMO it should be for a 2nd rd pick
I would prefer to keep Jennings..he's a great guy and player...but if he costs too much where it'll hurt the team in the long term...well I'm willing to let him go
We would definitely trade him to the AFC. I would ask Jennings for his top 3 teams he'd like to go to. At least trade him to a respectable team. Maybe NE after Brady retires. NE is out of the question
TT: So Greg we are going to trade you, but to the AFC. Since you are one of our greatest and beloved Packers we will let you choose the AFC team of YOUR CHOICE. What 3 teams would you be interested in?
Jennings: I understand it's a bussiness sir, but i will always be a Packer in my heart. My top choices are New England......
TT: Now hold on Greg It can't be New England...not until Brady retires.Trying to be respectful to Jennings & not send him to a crappy team. Someone mentioned NE & I wouldn't send him there b/c of Brady. Of we can keep him great even though the Eagles traded McNabb to Wash. they were respectful enough not to send him to Oakland.
Lol!!!!
Hmmm? well i love Jennings but i had a strange dream he went to Chicago if we were going to trade him it would have to be to the AFC! maybe to New England?
If the salary cap simply cannot afford to keep him along with the future contract extensions that need to be signed - Rodgers, Clay, and Raji, then I think trading him would be smart.
Love to keep him for all the reasons you cited, but TT's task is not to make players happy but to have a winning football team.Jennings is a classy Packer and if he doesn't retire a Packer then Green Bay did something wrong. He's been a phenomenal player on and off the field, and showed that when he gets the ball, he still has it, still going for more yards, always moving forward. To say that we need to trade him away... I'm not saying I have all the answers, but that just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to a situation that hasn't had time to fully play out.
At this point if I were TT I would be thinking Raji is going to have to take a pay cut if he doesn't get things in gear. He is not the same guy as 2 years ago, constantly blowing up the offensive line. I would be looking at NT very closely in the coming draft.Preface: I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but:
Given the abysmal state of our defense over the past 18 games or so, why start with the assumption that Matthews and Raji must be retained?
At this point if I were TT I would be thinking Raji is going to have to take a pay cut if he doesn't get things in gear. He is not the same guy as 2 years ago, constantly blowing up the offensive line. I would be looking at NT very closely in the coming draft.
Matthews is the rarest of NFL players on defense: A consistent pass rusher. He's a "must keep" even for the devil! IMO he's the second most important Packer at this point after Rodgers. (Woodson's age eliminates him for this spot and I'll bet he retires when his deal is up after the 2014 season.)Preface: I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but:
Given the abysmal state of our defense over the past 18 games or so, why start with the assumption that Matthews and Raji must be retained?
If you watched the CHI game, I think you might have your answer.Preface: I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but:
Given the abysmal state of our defense over the past 18 games or so, why start with the assumption that Matthews and Raji must be retained?