Why not trade away from next year to get the help we need this year?· Page 3

musccy
Veteran Member

10 years ago

We can sit around and find the bad in any potential move and therefore not do it. Maybe it would be better for us to stay in our houses all day too.

No GM, HC or even player of any substance in any professional sport got to where they are by being afraid of the "what ifs."

The upside by going after a quality FA has more potential benefit than the downside.

Originally Posted by: wpr

The original question was whether you leverage some of next year's draft for a player you feel good about in the 2014 draft and the progression of my points was that no FA, trade, or draft pick, will guarantee you've filled a gap, and so I believe in Ted's cautious approach so you are prepared for contingency plans.

Non draft acquisitions seemed to work for the Chiefs with A. Smith, it worked with Woody, Reggie, Sean Jones, Eugene Robinson, and Pickett, but look what the Seahawks have gotten out of Harvin and Sidney Rice for 20 mil combined. I bet that's something they want to address this offseason, or at least bolster their WR depth.

Even if the Packers signed Byrd or any FA safety (which I'm not necessarily opposed to) it doesn't mean that we're in the clear, nor should we jeopardize future drafts for the sake of plugging a hole that we think is the last piece of the puzzle. It is inevitable that some other unforeseen gap will open up.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#22

I believe our window is smaller than most people think.
We all saw in 2013 what life is like without Rodgers. He's no ironman and he is approaching the ripe old age of 30 and has been sacked way too many times.
If we get 5 more years of Rodgers at the top of his game I'll be surprised..
IMHO Ted needs to make some major moves now to elevate the defense if we want a couple more Lombardis during the Rodgers era.
Only one would be a shame.

Originally Posted by: yooperfan

Peyton Manning was 37 last season. Why would you expect any less than Rodgers?

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

sschind
Senior Member

10 years ago

#23

Peyton Manning was 37 last season. Why would you expect any less than Rodgers?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

I don't want to put words into yoopers mouth (Oh hell, who am I kidding, if I didn't want to put words into his mouth why would say anything? I'd just let him come on here and explain it himself) I could be wrong but I don't think Manning took the pounding early in his career that Rodgers has. I think that is what he is referring to. Not that his skills won't hold up just that his body might not.

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#24

Originally Posted by: yooperfan

I also believe the window is smaller than some. Just not for the same reason. It is more about the cycle it takes to develop players, contracts to run their courses.

We have Major pieces locked up in contract. It will only be 2 or 3 years until we are going to need to address those contracts again. And about the same time until Lacy will be ready for a new deal.

We have youth on the team and that youth has considerable experience, we have veterans, and We have money. We have about 2 years to make a serious push at a SB before we will need to fall back and restock both cap and players for another couple years before being in position to make an other push again. I figure a cycle of about 5 years total where 2 should be serious contention. If we make the two years now, we should be able to get two windows before likely losing Rodgers to age.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

yooperfan
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#25

Originally Posted by: sschind

You took the words right out of my mouth.😆

I thought everyone was aware of the beating he has taken over the last 5 years or so.
Another 5 years of that kind of punishment would have to take it's toll.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#26

Originally Posted by: sschind

Rodgers doesn't seem to be any worse for wear. A freak collarbone break ain't generally chronic. I'd be the first to agree with you (or maybe second after Wade) if you're talking about our O-Line never giving Rodgers the protection it should. Just the same, if the comparison is to Peyton Manning, I think you have to consider that Rodgers had 3 seasons of clipboard holding, while P. Manning was on the field taking occasional hits from his first game. So the "early in his career" comment is kinda false.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Wade
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#27

Peyton Manning was 37 last season. Why would you expect any less than Rodgers?

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker

For one, Manning for most of his career had a better OL in front of him than Rodgers has ever had. For another, Manning throughout his career was less likely to hold on to the ball longer. For a third, Peyton Manning and a certain unnamed Rodgers predecessor are the exception,not the rule, for quarterback longevity, especially if you only count those quarterbacks who define their offense for their entire career the way Rodgers and Manning have.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

#28

We don't know how many years of "window" we have left. To me, that doesn't matter anyway.

We need to stop pissing these seasons away with injuries and Polish football.

“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.”

Wade
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#29

Don't forget where Rodgers is on the concussion clock. A lot of the injuries he is susceptible to at his position are not as nice and likely to completely heal without future risk as the one collarbone injury.

Quarterbacks get hit, and when they get hit they can (i) get (another) concussion, (ii) get a major knee injury, get a throwing shoulder injury; (iv) get a throwing elbow injury; (v) get an Achilles injury; (vi) get a debiliating (for a football player) back injury; (vii) get serious tendonitis, or (viii) get a serious neck injury, any and all of which have varying degrees of "career threatening/shortening/making ineffective" potential greater than that of a busted collarbone.

Quarterbacks may not wear out with the speed of a running back, but between the position they play and the manner of the hits they take, they are major injuries waiting to happen. For the Packers to act as if Rodgers will last as long as Manning has would be, IMO, irresponsible. The odds are seriously against it.

And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)

nerdmann
Premier Member

10 years ago

#30

Originally Posted by: Wade

He might want to start getting the ball out a little faster.

“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.”

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

beast (7h) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (12h) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (13h) : 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.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (23-Dec) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

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