what would you trade for Richard Sherman?

[Pokerbrat2000]

I think Davis not being able to participate in the combine or a Pro Day, thus no 40 time, as well as his after season ankle ligament surgery have some nervous. I hope nervous enough to have him fall to #29. He would be my top pick of potential top picks who could fall to the Packers (barring a bong video of another top pick being released between now and the draft). I think some might view him as a "luxury" pick for the Packers, but are the Packers going to find a defensive guy at #29, that will have the kind of immediate impact Davis could? I'm fine with Jordy, Cobb and Adams......but this could be the final year (if they all stay healthy) that AR has all 3 of them. Allison looks like he has potential, but beyond him, TT has kind of been striking out in the mid to late round WR's he has brought to Green Bay. I wouldn't even be upset if they got Davis and used Adams as trade bait to try and shore up the defense.

 

[brandon2348]

I don't want to get too excited about Davis because I seriously doubt he will be there at 29. If somehow he is I think the Packers have to take him.

 

[Pkrjones]

Sherman is sitting out the "voluntary" workouts into May, probably a smart move to avoid injury. I'd offer Don Barclay and our 4th rounder straight-up, with an off-the-table date of noon on 4/29. If a little pot-sweetening is needed include Goodson and if that's not good enough let the Seahawks live with a disgruntled Sherman.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Sherman is sitting out the "voluntary" workouts into May, probably a smart move to avoid injury. I'd offer Don Barclay and our 4th rounder straight-up, with an off-the-table date of noon on 4/29. If a little pot-sweetening is needed include Goodson and if that's not good enough let the Seahawks live with a disgruntled Sherman.

I think if you are ready to toss in Janis to REALLY sweeten the deal, Russell has himself a new RT and WR!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't want to get too excited about Davis because I seriously doubt he will be there at 29. If somehow he is I think the Packers have to take him.

Imagine if Davis IS there and TT selects Bowser

*steps back, plugs his ears and waits for Brandon to react*

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

 

[brandon2348]

Imagine if Davis IS there and TT selects Bowser

*steps back, plugs his ears and waits for Brandon to react*

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

What's really funny is all these "TT Lovers" would defend a move like that if it happened.

 

[Dantés]

So if I like Bowser before the draft, TT picks him, and then I defend the pick because I like the player, I'm just a "TT Lover" to be mocked? Got it. That's quite a system you've got there.

 

[brandon2348]

So if I like Bowser before the draft, TT picks him, and then I defend the pick because I like the player, I'm just a "TT Lover" to be mocked? Got it. That's quite a system you've got there.

This whole statement pertained to a situation where Davis was available and TT picked Bowser.

 

[brandon2348]

So if I like Bowser before the draft, TT picks him, and then I defend the pick because I like the player, I'm just a "TT Lover" to be mocked? Got it. That's quite a system you've got there.

Your taking this completely out of context. We're talking about the 1st round here where I see Bowser as a bit of a reach. Bowser does have value as situational pass rusher so I would be all for TT taking him if he was on the board in second rounds.

Or maybe TT trades out of 1st and Bowser is taken with there first pick in the second. I can handle those scenarios.

 

[Dantés]

Your taking this completely out of context. We're talking about the 1st round here where I see Bowser as a bit of a reach. Bowser does have value as situational pass rusher so I would be all for TT taking him if he was on the board in second rounds.

Or maybe TT trades out of 1st and Bowser is taken with there first pick in the second. I can handle those scenarios.

Yesterday he "had bust written all over him." Today you want him at #61.

 

[brandon2348]

Yesterday he "had bust written all over him." Today you want him at #61.

Once again your taking things out of context. I was talking about pick 29 where I see Harris as the right choice.

I have gone as far as comparing Bowser to Bruce Irvin. I just don't see Bowser ever being an all-star 3 down player. Therfore if he is drafted in the 1st round he could hit the bust meter based on how far he develops. If he stays where I project him throughout his first four years he won't be "1st round worthy"

 

[brandon2348]

Yesterday he "had bust written all over him." Today you want him at #61.

The Steelers will be "licking there chops" if we pass on Harris at 29.

 

[Dantés]

Once again your taking things out of context. I was talking about pick 29 where I see Harris as the right choice.

I have gone as far as comparing Bowser to Bruce Irvin. I just don't see Bowser ever being an all-star 3 down player. Therfore if he is drafted in the 1st round he could hit the bust meter based on how far he develops. If he stays where I project him throughout his first four years he won't be "1st round worthy"

You're constantly talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[brandon2348]

You're constantly talking out of both sides of your mouth.

So if Bowser is there which we know he will be and Harris is there at 29 who do you take?

 

[Dantés]

So if Bowser is there which we know he will be and Harris is there at 29 who do you take?

Very difficult choice for me.

I would probably go Bowser for a few reasons: I like his long term upside better, I think he would have the chance to come along as Matthews is almost certainly the starter regardless, and his skill set is a perfect compliment to what Perry excels at on the other side. Neither of them are going to be more than passing down specialists as rookies, so I lend more credence to the long view.

So that's my thinking. But I'd be happy with either. And if you or anyone else thinks Harris is the best choice because he's more refined as a pass rusher, that's fine with me.

 

[Curly Calhoun]

I've seen a few mocks where WR's Corey Davis and even John Ross are still on the board at #29. Do the Packers draft one of them if they are there? Everything I have read about both and have seen on film I love. But do you pass up defensive needs? Same kind of goes for McCaffery or Cook if they are still there when the Packers are on the clock.

Depending on how many QB's and OL are taken prior to the Packers pick, I expect at least one big name, originally a top 15-20 guy will fall to and be very tempting for the Packers to consider. There may even be a chance Red**** is there.

My first thought is we don't need a receiver and have a lot of other needs. Then I remember was the guy who drafted a quarterback at #24 when he already had Brett Favre because he thought that guy was the best available. So, yes, if someone like Davis drops and he's the best available, I could see Ted doing that. And some Packer fans would scream bloody murder, and Ted wouldn't care.

 

[GreenBaySlacker]

When Woodson signed with Green Bay, he had no other offers on the table. Plus, Woodson was a free agent, and Ted didn't have to compensate anyone for him - In essence, Ted got C-Wood relatively cheap.

That wouldn't be the case with Sherman, so I don't see Ted making a move in that direction. I've been wrong before though, so who knows?

I remember thinking woodson got a pretty big contract to come here?

My reference to woodson wasn't how Ted got him. More about the impact he had on the field for us. Or maybe more of what we lost when him, collins and Harris left. Sherman, Burnett, and haha would give us a lot of that back.

Considering the history of injuries. Signing woodson at the time who was injured all the time, vs trading for Sherman who has missed like 2 games his whole career... some might consider the Sherman trade safer, despite the price tag.

 

[OldSchool101]

I think what our scheme needs is a healthy dose of CBs that are able to play man aaaaaaand tackle...
.

This goes against everything our secondary stands for.
We've got House.. what is everyone so out of sorts about!!

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

My first thought is we don't need a receiver and have a lot of other needs. Then I remember was the guy who drafted a quarterback at #24 when he already had Brett Favre because he thought that guy was the best available. So, yes, if someone like Davis drops and he's the best available, I could see Ted doing that. And some Packer fans would scream bloody murder, and Ted wouldn't care.

While I think a lot of us THINK that TT has put the Packers in a position of only being able to draft for immediate needs in the first few rounds, I'm not convinced TT will approach the draft in that way. For one, I don't think what many of us perceive as immediate needs, TT perceives as immediate needs. CB and G are possibly two such positions where TT isn't planning early picks and thinks he has immediate solutions on the roster now. Second, I think TT understands that he probably won't be able to find immediate contributors to address any of these positions of perceived (by us) needs.

What I do see TT doing is looking a year or two out and trying to address what he sees as needs further down the road. One of those needs, in my mind anyway, is WR. The key to the Packers offense (besides AR) are productive receivers (including TE). Jordy is getting to the point of possibly only have 1-3 years of good productivity left in him, Cobb is underperforming on a contract that could be reasonably terminated next year and Adams is in his contract year. So snagging a WR the Packers covet in one of the early rounds, won't shock nor disappoint me.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I've seen a few mocks where WR's Corey Davis and even John Ross are still on the board at #29. Do the Packers draft one of them if they are there? Everything I have read about both and have seen on film I love. But do you pass up defensive needs? Same kind of goes for McCaffery or Cook if they are still there when the Packers are on the clock.

Generally I'm not in favor of the Packers selecting a wide receiver early but if Davis is still on the board at #29 and Lattimore isn't Thompson should draft him. I highly doubt it's going to happen though.

Considering the history of injuries. Signing woodson at the time who was injured all the time, vs trading for Sherman who has missed like 2 games his whole career... some might consider the Sherman trade safer, despite the price tag.

FYI Sherman hasn't missed a single game in his career.

 

[brandon2348]

While I think a lot of us THINK that TT has put the Packers in a position of only being able to draft for immediate needs in the first few rounds, I'm not convinced TT will approach the draft in that way. For one, I don't think what many of us perceive as immediate needs, TT perceives as immediate needs. CB and G are possibly two such positions where TT isn't planning early picks and thinks he has immediate solutions on the roster now. Second, I think TT understands that he probably won't be able to find immediate contributors to address any of these positions of perceived (by us) needs.

What I do see TT doing is looking a year or two out and trying to address what he sees as needs further down the road. One of those needs, in my mind anyway, is WR. The key to the Packers offense (besides AR) are productive receivers (including TE). Jordy is getting to the point of possibly only have 1-3 years of good productivity left in him, Cobb is underperforming on a contract that could be reasonably terminated next year and Adams is in his contract year. So snagging a WR the Packers covet in one of the early rounds, won't shock nor disappoint me.

This type of thinking is a problem for me as it shows absolutely no urgency to win now. If this is the case then I can put off going to a game a year or two down the road and pay the ridiculous prices.

Your either "all in" or your not and you can't have it both ways. Eventually even the most blinded TT supporters will figure it out.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

This type of thinking is a problem for me as it shows absolutely no urgency to win now. If this is the case then I can put off going to a game a year or two down the road and pay the ridiculous prices.

Your either "all in" or your not and you can't have it both ways. Eventually even the most blinded TT supporters will figure it out.

If you couldn't tell, I was trying to separate people's perceptions as to what they think TT and the Packers SHOULD do, from what I feel is more logical to expect TT and the Packers WILL do. I realize we are all here to post our opinions, talk about all things right or wrong with the Packers, but when you start solely relying on the Packers do only what you think they should do, you will be disappointed more times than not.

I realize your patience with TT is near its end Brandon, but I'm not so sure TT and the Packers are going to cave in to your "go all in now" and to hell with the future, just so you continue to go to games.

I am curious when people use that statement "All In", do they mean "throw everything at it this year, no matter what the cost is to the future"? Or do they somehow think that "going all in now"....is something you can do each and every year and not run out of "all in" opportunities?

 

[brandon2348]

If you couldn't tell, I was trying to separate people's perceptions as to what they think TT and the Packers SHOULD do, from what I feel is more logical to expect TT and the Packers WILL do. I realize we are all here to post our opinions, talk about all things right or wrong with the Packers, but when you start solely relying on the Packers do only what you think they should do, you will be disappointed more times than not.

I realize your patience with TT is near its end Brandon, but I'm not so sure TT and the Packers are going to cave in to your "go all in now" and to hell with the future, just so you continue to go to games.

I am curious when people use that statement "All In", do they mean "throw everything at it this year, no matter what the cost is to the future"? Or do they somehow think that "going all in now"....is something you can do each and every year and not run out of "all in" opportunities?

I understood your perspective of what your posting and I agree with it. Just like I agreed when you posted about TT most likely feeling were good at corner as he did nothing in free agency to show anything but that thinking.

For me addressing immediate needs is going "all in". I don't think by upgrading the cornerback position that your mortgaging the franchise. They were set to pay Shields a significant amount of money so I don't see the big deal here.

I understand that I am just one fan but Packer Nation needs to come together and get rid of this guy before it's too late.

 

[Mondio]

I also believe Rodgers' all in comment was speaking to the players and teammates every bit as much if not more so, than any message to the front office.

There were obviously guys that were all in, Jordy for example. And guys that weren't. Eddie for example. I'm sure there were some issues with film study and all the preparation in games this year. Issues with how some took care of themselves mentally and physically from week to week.

I'd much prefer that type of all in, than the type some are wishing for. All in and one blown knee and you're feeling the effects for 3 more years.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I realize your patience with TT is near its end Brandon, but I'm not so sure TT and the Packers are going to cave in to your "go all in now" and to hell with the future, just so you continue to go to games.

I am curious when people use that statement "All In", do they mean "throw everything at it this year, no matter what the cost is to the future"? Or do they somehow think that "going all in now"....is something you can do each and every year and not run out of "all in" opportunities?

I don't think a lot of posters want Thompson to go all-in, mortgaging the future of the team for several years. There are several fans advocating for him to address obvious positions of need in a timely fashion though.

There's a huge difference between those two approaches.