Ahh.. it is a trade.. Lynch has little to say about it..
And before defending Ted on that stance, he didn't want to be here.. this is the same Thompson that signed a Woodson that had little interest in GB either. So he has put millions on the line that a player can play for the Packers without at first liking the environment.
Not buying that as a defense.. that isn't saying I am throwing Ted under the bus for this.. but much like his tenure here.. we probably will not really know why. Even if we are that ones footing the bill in the end for this franchise.. someplace Ted has forgotten that the team exists because of this hungry plugged in fan base.. and he should be willing to explain hot button topics like this.
"pack93z" wrote:
I'd hate to disappoint your goal of getting an equally dick headed toned response from me...Ahh, no shit it's a trade.
Ahh players sometimes have a "no-trade" clause in their contract.
Ahh maybe the Bills said "we got the same offer from both teams, which do you prefer?"
Okay, I'm all "ahh'd' out now. š
I'm not sure who's defending whom, but I rather try to think of all scenarios instead of being one of those naive ignorant assholes who just blames Ted Thompson for everything that wasn't done their way on their time line.
Charles Woodson was a free agent. COMPLETELY different situations.
However, Ted Thompson felt he was worth the compensation. It turned out good, right?
So why not trust Ted Thompson now since he didn't overpay get Lynch in a Packers uniform?
The fact we don't have a number one running back doesn't sit well with me. I'm not too entirely upset we didn't get Lynch.
There's just too much we don't know to warrant getting upset over not landing Marshawn Lynch, in my opinion.