Gaither could be available for less than first round pick· Page 4

dfosterf
Veteran Member

14 years ago

Last Year.. Oher was the starting Right Tackle and filled in for Gaither when he went down.

Cousins can also handle the left tackle spot.. so yes, if Gaither is moved, it is probably Oher and Cousins in some combination.

It also cracks me up to hear Foster admit he thinks Oher could be a dominate left tackle at 6-4 and 309 lbs.. but Lang at 6-4 and 312 couldn't be... lol. ;)

Oher's arm length 33.25.... Lang 32.75... but there is no way Lang can be a Left Tackle. ;)

There.. wind up the marine again.... damn I missed him.

I just had to throw the Lang thing in there.. all in jest and to enhance our little wager... lol.

"go.pack.go." wrote:

33 is the minimum unless you are named Joe Thomas. :tongue3:

At least you went with a confirmed weight on Lang this time around. :pottytrain2: (The shitbox bowl game he played in-I forget which one- they gave him a "weigh-in" weight of 312) Since you came off your 316 and went to 312, I'll come off my 307 and go with 311.

Let's call Lang 311.5 lbs. which is acceptable, if only his arms were long enough, lol

I can't really rag on Oher since he was my pick at 9 early in the pre-draft process last year until the lad go.pack.go convinced me to go with Raji.

(I still have no problem with that, but damn it's close in hindsight)

"dfosterf" wrote:

Wow, I had no idea that I convinced you to go with Raji! Haha. How did I go about doing this?

I forget, somehow. I do know that I kept posting on here about how much I wanted Raji, and how great of a pick he would be. He is still my favorite D-Lineman that we have, for some reason, haha.

"pack93z" wrote:

I can't find the exact thread, but I did go back and look at a lot of what we were saying last year at this time. (I was kind of back and forth with Raji and Oher, also throwing Brace in the mix as a 3rd rounder if we took Oher, and pissed about that concept, Brace-wise) Page 3 or 4 in draft thread is where your little speech lies, if I were a guessing man.

I think I made you defend your Raji, and you did a very good job of it.

warhawk
Senior Member

14 years ago

#32

IMO this trade will not happen unless certain moves are made during the draft. I think with Clifton signed the Pack will be looking at OT in the second round.

I laid out a scenario in another thread where Ted Thompson trades the #23 to NE for two second round picks. Now if that happened they could immediately call Baltimore and try to work a trade for a second.

That would be sweet. We end up with a LT that may be better than most if not all the guys picked in the first round paying out a second and still have two second round picks left.

Here is the problem with any scenario. Gaither is better than Clifton (if he is the 4th best OT as stated) and we just payed Cliffy a lot of money structured in a way that would be very costly if he's sitting on the bench in 2010. Also, what they would be paying for the LT position with what it would cost to add Gaither would amount to a huge pile of money.

"The train is leaving the station."

doddpower
Veteran Member

14 years ago

#33

"warhawk" wrote:

If we aquired Gaither do you think the Packers could then trade Clifton? I imagine someone would still take him if not immediately, at least before the trade deadline.

Would be interesting for sure.

Pack93z
Select Member

14 years ago

#34

Depth at tackle is imperative if we want to make a deep run into the playoffs.. and it isn't like we have money committed to Clifton past this season, not to mention he has a bonus clause per game tied to his contract this season.

To make a deep run in the playoffs... we need home field.. that means we need to take as many games as we can. Clifton's durability is tied to that.. so beyond Lang.. we have little options at tackle at the moment.. well ones that can play.

I think it would be the ultimate safety clause.

"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"

Mckennj3
Registered

14 years ago

#35

Warhawks trade down scenario is the best possible situation for the pack imo. Gives us tons of LT depth with an option of unloading clifton sooner or later, while still giving us 2 2nd rounders for the BPA at either CB, S, or OLB. then we can draft a RT project or whatever of the 3 we missed in the second later in the third.

We are born naked, wet and hungry. Then things get worse.

nerdmann
Premier Member Topic Starter

14 years ago

#36

Yeah, Cliffy's contract has a big per game incentive clause. Dunno if that's games in which he plays or games in which he is active. I think they were trying to protect themselves if he went on IR.

“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”

Since69
Registered

14 years ago

#37

I can't believe that no team has even contacted the Ravens yet about Gaither... what's the story here? Is there something I don't know? Is Gaither hurt? A miscreant? A nutcase?

Mckennj3
Registered

14 years ago

#38

They report he puts in a really lackluster effort off the field and in practice. I still think for the right price he would be a huge upgrade at our biggest need, plus he's young.

We are born naked, wet and hungry. Then things get worse.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

14 years ago

#39

They report he puts in a really lackluster effort off the field and in practice. I still think for the right price he would be a huge upgrade at our biggest need, plus he's young.

"Mckennj3" wrote:

Actually, PFT recently reported that word on Gaither is that he is into smoking weed.

That may not be all that bad relative to other offenses, but if he gets caught it'll be counted as a violation against the NFL substance abuse policy. That means very quickly he could go from being out for a quarter of the year (4 games) to being suspended for an entire year.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

isocleas2
Member

14 years ago

#40

They report he puts in a really lackluster effort off the field and in practice. I still think for the right price he would be a huge upgrade at our biggest need, plus he's young.

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:

"Mckennj3" wrote:

That's why a change of scenery to Green Bay could do this guy some good. Our weed sucks, forced sobriety.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (13m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (22m) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (33m) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (1h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (1h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (3h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (3h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs

Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (4h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (4h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (4h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (4h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (5h) : Packers will get in

beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (6h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (18h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (21h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (21h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS