Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 10

steveishere
Veteran Member

10 years ago

On the non- rope pusher side of things we have this...

---or is it subterfuge?

Those anti rope pushers should be happy with this commentary from someone indoctrinated to the Green Bay way. Yes, it's out of character for this team because of it's GM... those from the outside see the Packers as needing to go for it more. I also think most from the outside don't share the view of most Packers fans that this offense is going to be great. The outside view considers that Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley are gone, or basically the guys around Aaron when he started. The typical Packer fan thinks Boykin, Richard Rodgers, Davante Adams and Jared Abbrederis= Driver, Jennings, Finley, Jones I wouldn't begin to know where to start with that. I see it like the outside does... we've lost so much over the last few years and I don't view the rookies as on equal footing with proven very good players who have departed like some who already have our young bucks pegged for stardom.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Where are you coming up with this stuff? "most" outside people don't think the Packers will have a great offense? From what I've seen most people think GB will have a top offense next year. If by great you mean all-time great or something then sure that make sense but I would love to see all these people who think they won't be that good since it's apparently most of them. They were a top 10 offense last year overall and that's without Rodgers and Cobb half the year (or Finley either). I see no reason to think they'll be worse with Rodgers the full year.

And seriously stop with this condecending "typical packers fan" stuff. Everyone has there opinions and yours are no better than anyone elses. It's not unreasonable for a fan to object to what would likely be a swap of Cobb and two 1st round picks for Jimmy Graham, you may feel differently but who cares.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#92

Regardless of anything, there are probably several other teams out there more desperate for a player like Jimmy Graham than the Packers are, so I can't see any way the Packers could win the bidding war. Not to mention several of those teams will probably have higher picks than the Packers will have.

DakotaT
Select Member

10 years ago

#93

I wouldn't trade for Jimmy Graham or any other superstar player like him. Green Bay's offense has been functioning at a very high level for decades by spreading the ball around to good but not superstar players. When Green Bay players who think they are owed huge contracts because of very good production are cut loose, they quickly find out it is our system that makes them, not the other way around.

A player like Graham is a luxury in Green Bay, but a player like him will never be traded for under current management. A thread like this is futile, but in the offseason, probably necessary.

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#94

I've seen some terrible research in my day but this is up there. Here's a date for you to research...

1-14-2012... go take a look and please do the honorable thing and apologize that you missed this one badly. He tore up one of those teams and pretty good I might add. How many times has he faced almost every single one of those teams? My goodness. Dallas is brought up? Horrific defense. Horrific. As if Dallas has any relevance here at all as it's one of the worst defenses in the league.

The points not to do this are reaching more and more.

BTW, ESPN ran a piece mentioning the Packers potential interest. It wasn't a local guy, it was a national guy:

---Ol' Ed Werder obviously wasn't accounting for the salary cap rise. I do, however, agree that both Cobb and Nelson would not get extensions THIS season. One of them would have to wait until next off season when cap is purged and or cap goes up for new league year. Not a big deal...Randall and his people may choose to wait until after the season anyway.

EDIT: A picture is worth a thousand words...not sure how many a video clip is worth but this one might help dispell some brutal commentary about Jimmy Graham vs. top defenses. BTW, this wasn't his first one of the day...

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Woo2ooooooooo! Your TD King scored -1- TD against CAR in the playoffs in 2014. Again, you question my honor, when iI pulled my stats from ProFootballReference.com and missed that ONE TD.

and, I'm supposed to apologize to you for that? You are out of your freaking mind.

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#95

edit: 2012

The edit features on an iPad or iPhone here are now impossible.

BTW uffda, your main point was Graham's ability to rule the red zone. One fucking TD in 2012 is hardly making your case. But, clearly, that's all you got.

wow. Lets trade away two 1st round pucks and cripple our cap for THAT!!!

Hell NO!

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#96

Originally Posted by: play2win

Ummm... the highlight was from a playoff game vs. SAN FRANCISCO at SF where he posted TWO TD's and over 100 yards... even with the highlight, you still got it wrong. I'm not sure what else I can do, here.

I know you want to pounce on me with the ol' aha! I got ya, but you have to be more thorough. I will get things wrong as any of us will from time to time but I try extremely hard to post accurate information.

BTW, you're back to cherry picking...you really have to work harder on your research. Jimmy Graham put up NINE TD's in 2012...TWO vs. Carolina. You keep trying to obfuscate things...

JIMMY GRAHAM vs. CAROLINA in 2012

16 RECEPTIONS 186 YARDS and 2 TOUCHDOWNS... you come on here with your bravado about "Hell No" implying how dumb this is based on ONE stat you messed up. Ummm, you screwed up the SF stats and also the Carolina stats and his yearly total pretty badly.

EDIT: For Steve: Most people who follow the NFL realize Green Bay has lost Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones and Jermichael Finley over the last couple of seasons. Those same people who follow the NFL realize that plugging in Richard Rodgers, Jarrett Boykin, Davante Adams, and either an Abbrederis, Harper or Janis leaves a lot to be desired vs. what we used to trot out on the field. I see it on this board with people and their enthusiasm...they have guys who have proven less than Terrell Manning penciled in as either the best ever in Green bay at their position (Davante Adams) or guys who will make Finley and Jones and Jennings, Driver long forgotten. Heck, nerd said we'd only need Jimmy Graham for one season implying that in two years one guy on our roster is going to break out and be a heckuva player. Those are leaps. They may happen but they are wishful thinking. There is no wishful thinking or leap needed with Jimmy unless it's several into the Lambeau endzone bleachers.

I posted a blurb today from a reputable national sports source that brought up that Ron Wolf lamented he never gave Favre enough weapons. I also posted Adam Schefter's tweet saying Green Bay or Seattle should jump on giving the Saints two 1st's for Graham. Explain to me, if you would, why he would say something like that if we're such a juggernaut and in need of nothing at any position on O? Why? You have one of the most recognizable names in NFL media saying we should do it and there's a reason for it but you insinuate NFL observers are high on our offense. If they were that high they would not be advocating us adding Jimmy Graham. It is known we have a gaping hole at TE and have suffered many high profile losses in the receiving corps over the last two years. I honestly do think there is a huge chasm between the Packers fan and national media point of view. I try very hard to be as obective as a non Packers fan would be.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#97

Ummm... the highlight was from a playoff game vs. SAN FRANCISCO at SF where he posted TWO TD's and over 100 yards... even with the highlight, you still got it wrong. I'm not sure what else I can do, here.

I know you want to pounce on me with the ol' aha! I got ya, but you have to be more thorough. I will get things wrong as any of us will from time to time but I try extremely hard to post accurate information.

BTW, you're back to cherry picking...you really have to work harder on your research. Jimmy Graham put up NINE TD's in 2012...TWO vs. Carolina. You keep trying to obfuscate things...

JIMMY GRAHAM vs. CAROLINA in 2012

16 RECEPTIONS 186 YARDS and 2 TOUCHDOWNS... you come on here with your bravado about "Hell No" implying how dumb this is based on ONE stat you messed up. Ummm, you screwed up the SF stats and also the Carolina stats and pretty badly.

EDIT: For Steve: Most people who follow the NFL realize Green Bay has lost Greg Jennings, Donald Driver, James Jones and Jermichael Finley over the last couple of seasons. Those same people who follow the NFL realize that plugging in Richard Rodgers, Jarrett Boykin, Davante Adams, and either an Abbrederis, Harper or Janis leaves a lot to be desired vs. what we used to trot out on the field. I see it on this board with people and their enthusiasm...they have guys who have proven less than Terrell Manning penciled in as either the best ever in Green bay at their position (Davante Adams) or guys who will make Finley and Jones and Jennings, Driver long forgotten. Heck, nerd said we'd only need Jimmy Graham for one season implying that in two years one guy on our roster is going to break out and be a heckuva player. Those are leaps. They may happen but they are wishful thinking. There is no wishful thinking or leap needed with Jimmy unless it's several into the Lambeau endzone bleachers.

I posted a blurb today from a reputable national sports source that brought up that Ron Wolf lamented he never gave Favre enough weapons. I also posted Adam Schefter's tweet saying Green Bay or Seattle should jump on giving the Saints two 1st's for Graham. Explain to me, if you would, why he would say something like that if we're such a juggernaut and in need of nothing at any position on O? Why? You have one of the most recognizable names in NFL media saying we should do it and there's a reason for it but you insinuate NFL observers are high on our offense. If they were that high they would not be advocating us adding Jimmy Graham. It is known we have a gaping hole at TE and have suffered many high profile losses in the receiving corps over the last two years. I honestly do think there is a huge chasm between the Packers fan and national media point of view. I try very hard to be as obective as a non Packers fan would be.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

so, let me get this straight. you are somehow proud the guy scored a total of 2 TDs in those 12 games? I could give a fuck if the pfr.com stats only showed regular season stats and i missed his insanely good playoff stats...

Hardly the player you touted him to be. I also showed his Receiving %, to which you choose to ignore.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#98

You use a lot of untoward language when you feel cornered and I don't appreciate it.

Are you for real? Seriously for real? I linked a YouTube clip of Jimmy Graham taking a 66 yarder to the house at SF, in the playoffs, and you keep harping on Carolina stats? Graham goes to the house inside of two minutes trailing on the road vs. one of the NFL's best defenses, wracks up 100 yards receiving and TWO TDs in a playoff game and you're STILL prattling about CAROLINA? I don't get you at all. You really can't be...

WR%???? Oh my goodness. Okay, if I was to show you Aaron's numbers tail off considerably vs. better D's are you going to think he's no longer a superstar QB? If I show you that Clay Matthews feasts on poor NFL tackles but struggles vs. the really good ones are you going to think he's not a stud OLB? I really want to know... the answer is incredibly germane to YOUR case that you've made here. We can certainly take a look if you wish depending on your answer.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

play2win
Senior Member

10 years ago

#99

Whatever. The notion that Ted would part with two R1s is proposterous. Enjoy your Jimmy Graham circle jerk uffda.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#100

Whatever. The notion that Ted would part with two R1s is proposterous. Enjoy your Jimmy Graham circle jerk uffda.

Originally Posted by: play2win

I'm disappointed with this reply... tell Schefter, Werder, Florio, Nate Davis, etc. how preposterous this is. It would be nice to debate but if you can't debate...insult. I'll try making GIF's in the future so you can see the links I post to avoid future issues with confusing what I'm trying to say to you and have you misreply.

Oh, and I have enjoyed this topic a great deal...it's an interesting one. A few more days and these kind of discussions won't be necessary.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

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 (1h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (1h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (1h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (1h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (1h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (1h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (1h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (1h) : 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 (2h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (2h) : 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 (2h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (3h) : 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 (3h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (3h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (3h) : 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 (4h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (4h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (4h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (4h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (4h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (5h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (6h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (6h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (7h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (7h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : ok I stand corrected

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

Zero2Cool (7h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (7h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

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

Zero2Cool (7h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (7h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (7h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (7h) : 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 (7h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (7h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (7h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (7h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (8h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (8h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (8h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (8h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (8h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (8h) : Packers will get in

beast (8h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

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