Trade James Jones for Steven Jackson?· Page 10

doddpower
Veteran Member

12 years ago

I understand there's not much the Packers could do to improve the offensive line run blocking at this point in the season, but as many others have said, that's a higher priority for me. Regardless of the reason, be it scheme, talent, execution, etc., if the offensive line blocked better, the running backs currently on the roster would do a sufficient job, at worst. With this blocking, I really don't think anything other than an elite talent at RB would make a substantial difference. I don't consider Blount, Jackson, or even D. Williams an elite talent. As a result, I can't see them being worth much money at all (or especially a nice draft pick).

If for some reason the Bucs were really interested in trading Blount for a 7th, of course I'd love that. I really can't imagine why in the hell the Bucs would trade him for that, but if so, the Packers should jump all over it.

wpr
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#92

I've been rethinking my position on trading for a RB, and I think I am all for it now. Getting a top tier RB in our backfield right now with Rodgers would help both the offense (to extend drives), and the defense (to keep them off the field as much as possible).

Ted, make the trade! I would prefer either of Blount or Jackson. Do it!!!! Trade a #3. Go for it. The one you didn't trade for Lynch got us Green. Don't make the same mistake twice.

Originally Posted by: play2win

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

12 years ago

#93

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

Originally Posted by: wpr

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

beast
Select Member

12 years ago

#94

Looking back on it... it might of been nice having Lynch instead of Green. Though that's the short term... long run it could be different. But Lynch hopefully would of been able to do more and so teams could focus so much on the passing game making it even better.

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.
And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

So I'd say late 4th and mid 5th.

So according to the "Value-Chart" which is outdated and never was totally correct though two combined would be about "88" points or high 4th round pick.

So Green's 3rd round pick by it's self should of more than covered it... even if they threw their 7th round pick with Lynch.

http://www.draftcountdown.com/features/Value-Chart.php

Buffalo got a 4th from Seattle in 2011 and a 5th in 2012. That would be trading Lynch for House and Manning. Not Green.

Originally Posted by: wpr

Those picks were lower than the Ones Seahawks offered, also House was picked with a compensatory spot... can't trade compensatory picks... can't trade Compensatory pick.

Plus Lynch and Green are both RBs so it's apples to apples, and the vales were pretty close, from Green draft pick spot to Lynch traded value he got the Bills.

wpr
Preferred Member

12 years ago

#95

It would have taken the Packers late 3rd round pick to better Seattle's early 4th rounder. And then the Packers late 4th round pick in 2012 to better Seattle's early 5th round pick.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Just saying that they got a 4th and 5th for Lynch and then who GB selected in those rounds.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

12 years ago

#96

It wasn't an early 4th round pick... it was the 25th pick in the 4th round.
And the 5th round pick was the 12th pick in the round.

Originally Posted by: beast

You sure think you're smart with that hindsight in your back pocket huh lol. This isn't your fault, its mine. Okay, fixing my error that I assumed others were following along with, AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE, the Packers were presumed to be selecting later in the round than Seahawks, who btw, played so poorly their coach was fired.

At the time of the trade.
Seahawks 2 - 2
Packers 3 - 1

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

I believe 2010 was the year the Seahawks were 7 - 9 and won a playoff game (that I predicted they would btw) that actually put them so late in each round.

I hope I've explained myself and my pea brain thinking much better than I did before. 😊

play2win
Senior Member

12 years ago

#97

All I'm saying is: make the freaking trade Ted! ;-)

I think a 3rd is worth what he would now add to the team. Figure, we trade for him tomorrow. We play both Starks and Green Sunday v. AZ, then Jackson has two solid weeks to get up to speed with our O.

Imagine how excited the rest of this team would be adding another talent like that to our backfield. Without the trade, we seem pretty thin at RB. I think a move like that would add to our chances at a Super Bowl win. I think not making this trade could have the inverse effect.

beast
Select Member

12 years ago

#98

So, what the picks ACTUALLY were, is not relevant as at the time, no one knew. Thus, the perception was, the Packers would be selecting LATER in each round than the Seahawks, meaning the Bills would want a perceived Packers late 3rd to beat out the Seahawks early 4th.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Good point. It was early in the year.

Originally Posted by: play2win

Looking back on it I think Lynch might of been good. But Jackson is 29 and seems like RBs drop off around 30... so I don't know... also depend on what are the Rams asking for in return and what is Jackson looking for to sign a 3 year or so deal...

zombieslayer
Registered

12 years ago

#99

But Jackson is 29 and seems like RBs drop off around 30...

Originally Posted by: beast

How many RBs at 30 are in the NFL who are active and actually decent? Anyone have that list? I'm assuming it's very short. It's about as long as a Vikings fan is happy.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

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 (6h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (6h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (7h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (14h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

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

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS