Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 15

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

Why does this comment not surprise me. I hear a lot of the same kind of talk from many Packer fans. Jeffery puts up a fantastic year and he is a little over rated and Boykin puts up a decent year and he is very under rated. I just don't see it but then again I don't have my glasses on. Only Boykin's momma would take him over Jefferey and she would have to think about it.

Originally Posted by: sschind

Who is Jefferey? As for taking him over Jarrett Boykin, it depends on the other weapons and the cost and what the acquisition would impact other positions financially.

If this is Alshon Jeffery, I would have to choose Boykin with the assumption BOTH Randall Cobb and Jordy Nelson remain with the Packers. It doesn't make sense to deposit all those financial resources into one position. You only have one ball to play with.

If I were a team like say the Raiders, I would take Jeffery instantly over Boykin.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#142

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Not suggesting we trade... no one is. It was seemingly implied that Jarrett Boykin was as good as Alshon Jeffery.

The above notion is being countered by pointing out the belief that there is not one GM in the NFL who wouldn't prefer Alshon Jeffery to Jarrett Boykin. It's numbing always hearing the exaggeration of Packer talent just because they wear the "G" and we love our Packers.

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."

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#143

There is a reason Adam Schefter directly stated that Seattle or Green Bay should cough two 1's for Graham. It is twofold... Graham is that good and the Packers need is that great. That tweet wasn't some deadline piece where the accusation is some guy is out there and the media just pairs up who they think could use that player. BTW, there is also a reason the media pairs certain players with certain teams. These articles didn't list more than 4 teams who should/could pursue Graham. The writer has recognized that those teams he's linked to Graham would benefit the most above all the others. To read about how stacked we are and how unnecessary Graham would be for us is bizarre. Yes, we can get by with what we have...always do... every team does. To me, it's like saying Marshall Newhouse or MD Jennings were good enough because they were Packers and you just trust Ted Thompson that he knows what he's doing. You did not have to be an NFL GM or scout to realize the Packers needed upgrades at safety and Marshall's role at the two tackle positions. The same can be said for TE coming into this season. Ted Thompson selected Richard Rodgers and added Lyerla and Perillo. Maybe, maybe, maybe one of those guys pans out. Maybe. It isn't a done deal guarantee like some have all but written in stone around here.

I really do wonder what would happen if we had a real superstar at WR or TE.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Adam Schefter
March 3
If I'm the Seattle Seahawks or Green Bay Packers, I'm willing to sign TE Jimmy Graham to an offer sheet and to give up to 1's to get him.

Shefter's FB post was March 3rd, and you are using it today to try and make a point?

Try again.

Edit: Even on March 3rd, Shefter was blasted by Packer fans responding, which I am sure he really didn't care as long as his FB page received the posts.

Not sure what you mean by "superstar", but if that means 1 guy who is not happy unless he is being fed the ball all the time, well then by all means Ted make the deal and by 2015 The Packers will have become The Saints.

I'd rather The Packers stay The Packers.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#144

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

No, Boykin is not as good of a WR as Jeffery.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#145

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1

So, the fact we now have Richard Rodgers, Colt Lyerla and Perrillo invalidates Schefter's tweet, because they were added after March 3rd? I'll tell you something else that happened after March 3rd. Our nominal starter, Andrew Quarless, missed ALL of the off-season program. As long as we drafted a guy in the late 3rd and added a few UDFA's we're stocked and don't need Jimmy Graham? He is linked to us because people who aren't on the AQ or Richard Rodgers bandwagon like many here realize we SUCK at TE and lost a big component to what we do on O in Finley with no one close to being able to do for us what he did.

Andre Johnson wants out of Houston...it is said 4 teams want to make that trade. I will bet you we don't see one reputable media source write that the Packers should pursue Andre Johnson. Yet, we have that same logic used against the idea of Graham that the media just always links players to teams for a story or hits. Explain why there is a difference in why Andre Johnson won't be linked to the Packers but Graham will and you'll have to finally realize that maybe we aren't as good as TE as you believe we are.

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

#146

I'm afraid before long we will have Boykin compared to Sterling Sharpe and some mysterious stat will be used to validate he's better than Sterling.

We now have a #3 who is better than our #2 or #1 and we have a rookie who is better than our 1, 2 or 3. On top of that we have a rookie 3rd rounder and UDFA who are already better players than Jermichael Finley. Our talent is so off the charts at TE that the reason we're "unsettled" isn't because we've got nobody, it's everybody is so talented it's going to be hard to just pick one to be the starter? The old saying if you have two quarterbacks you don't have one applies quite nicely to our TE situation. We couldn't say, right now, who is the starter because we don't know if Richard Rodgers is good enough to beat out a JAG like Quarless. Maybe, it's Brandon Bostick? I like the little I've seen of him.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

There is a reason Adam Schefter directly stated that Seattle or Green Bay should cough two 1's for Graham. It is twofold... Graham is that good and the Packers need is that great.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

WAS ...the need WAS that great, two months prior to the draft! You continually fail to acknowledge this fact, while throwing this out there time and time again.

I really do wonder what would happen if we had a real superstar at WR or TE.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Jordy Nelson ring a bell? What, he's not superstar enough for you? Because he didn't pad his TD stats on substandard opponents like MIA, BUF, NYJ, and TB???

Get over it. Ted Thompson trading for Jimmy Graham? Not gonna happen.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#147

Whatever. Dispense with all the BS. You make it sound as if we have no receiving talent whatsoever, and that couldn't be further from the truth. If Boykin had Aaron Rodgers throwing to him all of last season, he could have easily gone over 1000 yds. I'll add, Boykin is in a contract year too, just like Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb. Boykin will be a Restricted FA after the 2014 season. Think he will have something to play for?

WAS ...the need WAS that great, two months prior to the draft! You continually fail to acknowledge this fact, while throwing this out there time and time again.

Jordy Nelson ring a bell? What, he's not superstar enough for you? Because he didn't pad his TD stats on substandard opponents like MIA, BUF, NYJ, and TB???

Get over it. Ted Thompson trading for Jimmy Graham? Not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by: play2win

BJ Raji was in a contract year last year and had the same thing to play for as Jordy, Randall and Jarrett do this year. Your point? Boykin could've easily had 1000 yards if Rodgers was there? Does this assume Finley and Cobb were or weren't there?

Irony is that the March 3rd thing was addressed before your post. It is irrelevant UNLESS you're trying to imply that Finley has now been adequately replaced by drafting a late 3rd rounder and two UDFA's? I assume this is what you meant because after one OTA practice you said Richard and Colt were better players than Finley. Adam Schefter knew our #1 TE was Andrew Quarless and he was in need of being upgraded in a big way. What Adam Schefter didn't know on March 3rd was that our nominal starter was going to miss all our OTA's making our need even greater than when he tweeted on March 3rd...again, this only makes sense to those who don't think Richard and Colt are ready to impact opposing D. coords the way Finley did.

I hate to break it to you but Jordy Nelson is not a superstar. He is a very good WR. I'm thrilled he's a Packer. Go ahead and list all the prowbowl honors he's received and I'm not speaking to being an alternate when the real stars don't want to go to Hawaii. You have a strong bent for overstating our players abilities. That is you and your way. My way is to get myself out of the mindset that anything in a Packer uniform must be good. It is not a premise I operate under. It is an aim to have no blindspots when it comes to assessing and discussing my favorite football team of over 30 years.

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."

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#148

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Get a clue, Schefter is going to post anything to get a reaction from the fans.

Also, I believe Ted Thompson, did his job and weighed the options and if he thought Graham was worth it he would have made an offer back in March.

Since he didn't I am going to believe Ted and company knew what they had talent wise in March, decided to address the TE position in the draft, and are happy with the players going into the pre-season.

BTW No Where will you find me jumping on anybody's bandwagon.

Quarless, Taylor, Bostick, Stoneburner and the 3 rookies are going to battle it out for roster spots, may the best men win.

Ted and Company know a hell of lot more than me, you and Adam Shefter!

Congratulations, you have now stretched this into 10 pages of "I am right, everyone else is wrong, and I can show you 37 different articles proving absolutely nothing"

Not even going to adress the Andre Johnson comment, just another of your ettempts to fly off in a direction that has nothing to do with the topic.

EDIT: Final time, Jimmy Graham is not worth 2 1st rnd picks and the 5-10 mil a year he is going to want to The Green Bay Packers.

mi_keys
Senior Member

10 years ago

#149

So, the fact we now have Richard Rodgers, Colt Lyerla and Perrillo invalidates Schefter's tweet, because they were added after March 3rd?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

And Adams, Janis and Abbrederis. We're looking at this from a total number of receiving threats perspective. Jimmy Graham, by all sources had over 140 targets last year, placing him somewhere between 10th and 15th most in the NFL amongst all players. Taking a quick glance, Graham is probably top 10 in targets over the last 3 years.

Since then we also signed Shields to a big deal as well as Peppers (at least it's big after this year). Our salary cap situation is different now. You've not addressed this in relation to cap space for Jimmy Graham. You've also been happy to cite Schefter and a few others that we should go for Graham, but you just dismiss their opinion when they state that we will have to let either Jordy or Cobb walk.

I'll tell you something else that happened after March 3rd. Our nominal starter, Andrew Quarless, missed ALL of the off-season program.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Which was disappointing. Let's see how he does come training camp. Jimmy Graham didn't attend OTAs either, which also happened post March 3rd.

As long as we drafted a guy in the late 3rd and added a few UDFA's we're stocked and don't need Jimmy Graham? He is linked to us because people who aren't on the AQ or Richard Rodgers bandwagon like many here realize we SUCK at TE and lost a big component to what we do on O in Finley with no one close to being able to do for us what he did.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Finley was out most of last year. He was out most of 2010 when we won the Super Bowl with Quarless starting. That didn't stop our offense from functioning at a very high level during those periods (while we still had Rodgers). As for no one else being able to do for us what Finley did, lots of Packers players get injured every year.

We don't need Jimmy Graham at the price.

And don't blanket all of us with play2win's optimism (which you exaggerate anyway). He's entitled to such; but, that doesn't mean the rest of us are on the exact same page as him. I happen to think tight end is a question mark. I believe Quarless can be an average level NFL starter based on the fact that his production last year post Finley's injury projects to about 450-500 yards and 4 TDs for a full year starting. He's basically had 2.5 years of play time due to injury and played better towards the end of the year. That tells me it's not unreasonable to suggest mid 500s yards and 4-5 TDs, especially with Rodgers at the helm. The rest have nice potential. Hopefully, it pans out for at least one of them.

Andre Johnson wants out of Houston...it is said 4 teams want to make that trade. I will bet you we don't see one reputable media source write that the Packers should pursue Andre Johnson.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Because he's labelled as a wide receiver (and is a wide receiver, so you don't confuse my meaning).

Yet, we have that same logic used against the idea of Graham that the media just always links players to teams for a story or hits. Explain why there is a difference in why Andre Johnson won't be linked to the Packers but Graham will and you'll have to finally realize that maybe we aren't as good as TE as you believe we are.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Because the stories pander to very rudimentary logic. That's already been pointed out. The Packers depth at wide receiver is better than it is at tight end. On its face, the Graham story makes more sense due to him being labelled a tight end. The labels belie the fact Graham's role has been very similar to that of a wide receiver. He takes the hybrid tight end just that one more step closer to being a wide receiver.

And regarding the opinions of Schefter, where in his career has he played football at a high level or been part of a coaching staff or a backroom staff? He studied journalism in school and his entire career has been journalism. You're mistaking being respected for having inside information and breaking stories with a pretty good track record for being an expert on assessing team needs and the cost-benefit analysis GMs and their staffs go through to make personnell decisions. I see no reason to take any journalist's opinion as gospel.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#150

Cite a couple of the implied many examples Adam Schefter throws out on his Twitter feed. Show me the money.

What you claim as "proving absolutely nothing" is just something you can't refute or produce a well reasoned response to. Where did I say I was right? Do I think I'm right? Do you? Of course you think you're right. Probably no less than I do but you'll use what you do, as well, to slam me. The pinnacle of hypocrisy, I might add. This topic isn't about me which is what those who can't hang try to make it. I've had several insults and charges of "BS" hurled at me from someone who as often as a full lunar eclipse makes a well reasoned response to things that I post. Calling something "BS" with absolutely nothing counter to it other than your insults an inaccurate information reflects nothing on me and accomplished the opposite of it's intentions.

The Andre Johnson comment is extremely germane to this topic. You choose not to respond to it because you can not respond to it with anything that helps your point. All it does is remove another leg from the flimsy reasons offered in response to points that have been detailed.

Jimmy Graham is going to want a heckuva lot more than 5 million. This shows how little attention has been paid to this topic but we've already been down that road. Graham is upset because the arbitrator ruled he's a TE which drops his one year compensation from 12.3 million (which is WR tag price) to 7 million which is the TE tag price. He is upset about 7 million, and hasn't signed an extension that would pay him 9.5 million so I don't know why you ranged him from 5-10...he's pissed at 7, so far has rejected 9.5, so he ain't taking 5. He would likely command the 12 and possibly more as a FA but before you rush to respond to that figure...he isn't in that position.

This is coming to a head. The 15th is almost upon us and he hasn't been extended which is the deadline if tag stays on which it should to New Orleans benefit.

Michael Rodney of Packer Update has stated it will take a lot more to sign Randall than it will Jordy. The Packers simply may not want to pay what Cobb is seeking. They may be in the Graham boat that New Orleans is in right now. Maybe, we can deal Randall to New Orleans straight up for Graham or with an additional later pick thrown in. I'd rather have Graham than Randall but the age difference gives me some pause. Hey, this way Boykin, who is ready to be our #1 can move up. 🙂 (that is good natured sarcasm who missed a post from another poster earlier)

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

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (9h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (9h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (9h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (9h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (13h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (13h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (13h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (16h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (16h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (16h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (16h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (16h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (16h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (16h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (16h) : 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 (17h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (17h) : 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 (17h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (18h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (18h) : 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 (18h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (18h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (18h) : 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 (19h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (19h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (19h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (20h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (21h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (21h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (22h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (22h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (22h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (22h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (22h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (22h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (22h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (22h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (22h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (22h) : 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 (22h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (22h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (22h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (23h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (23h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (23h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

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