Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 21

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#201

I'm a crazy idiot.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Now this is one of the first things you have said that actually makes sense! This deserves applause.

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#202

Did somebody finally realize that trading 2 1st round draft picks for Jimmy Graham was not a good move by The Packers?

Just wondering why this thread is now talking about Bill Bellicheck's football life?

Damn, this is turning into a place NOT to come to talk Packer football, seems all most end up doing is arguing with one certain poster.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

10 years ago

#203

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1

I think deep down, we all knew trading two 1st round picks for a TE would not be wise for the Packers. It was an entertaining topic while it lasted though. 🙂

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#204

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/266751611.html

Brought down from the news feed, seems to go along with the original topic.

Funny no mention of Jimmy Graham anywhere in the article.

Edit: whoops I misspoke(Lyerla's teamates at Oregon think he has the potential to be better then Jimmy Graham)....if he does we will probably not see it this year, but if the young man can keep his head on straight, who knows, guess that's why Ted took a chance on him.

Guess I was correct when I said Ted and Co. looked at what they had coming back, then adressed the position in the draft, and now are comfortable with what they have to go foward with.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#205

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/266751611.html

Brought down from the news feed, seems to go along with the original topic.

Funny no mention of Jimmy Graham anywhere in the article.

Edit: whoops I mispoke(Lyerla's teamates at Oregon think he has the potential to be better then Jimmy Graham)....if he does we will probably not see it this year, but if the young man can keep his head on straight, who knows, guess that's why Ted took a chance on him.

Guess I was correct when I said Ted and Co. looked at what they had coming back, then adressed the position in the draft, and now are comfortable with what they have to go foward with.

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1

I doubt that very much. Most unsettled position on the team per Jerry Fontenot. I don't think they're any more confident than they were with what they had at S or ILB heading into last year. It's a huge risk rolling into the year with no proven option and the most experienced one missing all OTA's.

This isn't over...here's an update:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/11/grahams-appeal-deadline-is-coming-quickly/

BTW, nobody is encouraging you to argue with anyone. This is a topic I started. If you didn't want to participate you didn't have to. You wanted to participate and have done so repeatedly. You could be posting unchallenged in multiple other threads. I'm not sure why if this isn't a fun topic for you why you would be here? Again, there are many topics that I haven't even looked at much less posted in.

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftology408_1.php

Earlier in this thread I showed it was right around a 10% chance the Packers would hit on a player as good as Jimmy Graham is at his position. One 1st for Jimmy is highly logical and stealing if you ask me. Two 1st's still favor you in that you have one superstar vs. the odds saying you get ONE out of TWO 1st rounders over the next two years being an actual player. The odds that one player out of the two is a stud like Jimmy is minute. I believe many hear two 1st's and instantly think it's a bad idea and stop right there. Doing some actual thinking and looking at data shows you it's actually not such a bad idea after all.

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."

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

10 years ago

#206

[quote=sschind;279503]I understand that but people still look at those stats per 100 targets and like to extrapolate them into "what if he had twice as many targets?" After week 1 last year did anyone really think Peyton Manning would throw 96 TD passes on the year

They may be more productive per catch but that does not mean either on of them is neccecsarily a better WR than the guy with 200 targets and 11 TDs. Also, when you compare two guys to 1 its not uncommon for them to have higher numbers.

on a side note, does this thread make anyone else feel like this

It is pretty simple. Doing something less effectively but more times doesn't make them better.

If a player is average 200 times, and someone else does it better 100 times, he is going to have higher totals. That doesn't make him better. Or Vinny Testaverde is a top 10 all time QB. Who put excessive amounts of mediocrity.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

StarrMax1
Registered

10 years ago

#207

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

This is like a bad accident on a highway, no matter how hard you try not to. you just gotta look.

😆 😆 😆

You can throw all the stats, studies, "talking head opinions" or anything else here.

It's not going to change the fact that TED THOMPSON has not and will not give up 2 1st round draft picks for Jimmy Graham.

I agree with Ted Thompson.

Doesn't matter if anyone else on this forum agrees with you, the only person opinion that matters is THE GM'S!!

DoddPower
Veteran Member

10 years ago

#208

I believe many hear two 1st's and instantly think it's a bad idea and stop right there. Doing some actual thinking and looking at data shows you it's actually not such a bad idea after all.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I don't think it's necessarily a horrible idea on the surface. It is however, not a very good idea for the Green Bay Packers. If they wanted to add another superstar, they should try to make it a linebacker, defensive linemen, or maybe even a safety. That would make much more sense to me. The Packers offense driven by Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, James Starks, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, and others will be very good already. That I am confident in. The Packers biggest weakness will be their defense. If they insisted on adding more offensive talent, it should probably be an offensive linemen, anyway.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

10 years ago

#209

Originally Posted by: StarrMax1

It is not a shock that you misunderstood the premise of this thread as you've misunderstood so many other things along the way. It had nothing to do with TT...it had everything to do with what would YOU do? Yes, the vast majority of educated NFL fans know Ted Thompson LOVES his draft choices.

I have challenged and will continue challenging that this idea is crazy. Yes, it's crazy for who Ted Thompson is...it isn't crazy in general. Nowhere in this thread, or elsewhere have I stated this had much of a chance of happening, in fact, I've said throughout this thread it doesn't...but in MY opinion it should. If Adam Schefter was in this thread my opinion and his opinion would be the same opinion despite March 3rd.

It's fun watching the situation unfold in New Orleans... that deadline for his appeal is here...and next Tuesday is the last day they can work out a long term deal.

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

#210

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Gonna tell you one time and one time only!!!

Don't come on here and act like you are superior to anyone else on this forum.

The so-called "premise of this thread was you and you alone saying Jimmy Graham was worth 2 1st rnd picks and 10 mil a year.

Nothing more nothing less,

It was only when almost everyone else disagreed with you, that you started spinning this thread into so many different directions, you ended up talking about Bill Bellicheck

You like to go back and check "FACTS", just go back and tell me how many times I have ended my posts with this statement.

JIMMY GRAHAM IS NOT WORTH 2 1ST RND PICKS TO THE GREEN BAY PACKERS!!!

If you can't figure out that means HELL NO I WOULDN'T GIVE UP 2 1ST RND PICKS FOR JIMMY GRAHAM.

Then whose the one who is misunderstanding??????

You have turned this thread, like most others you post in, into a joke!!!!

I know of 2 memebers who have left because of your clamoring/

Congratulations, soon you will be the only one left here.

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 (2h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (2h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (2h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (2h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (2h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (2h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (2h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (2h) : 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 (3h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (3h) : 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 (3h) : 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 (4h) : 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 (4h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (4h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (4h) : 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 (5h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (5h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (5h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (6h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (7h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (7h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (8h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (8h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (8h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (8h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (8h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (8h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (8h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (8h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (8h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (8h) : 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 (8h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (8h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (8h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (8h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (8h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (9h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (9h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (9h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (9h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (9h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (9h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (9h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (9h) : Packers will get in

beast (9h) : 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