Why the Packers should trade for Le'Veon Bell· Page 2

Bigbyfan
Member

6 years ago

I wouldn't want to trade at least one 1st round pick to give out the richest RB contract ever. Especially to a RB who touches the ball almost 400 times a year...

There's a reason the Steelers don't want to sign him to that contract and prefer to keep giving him the tag. They understand they run him into the ground every year. Whenever it happens that Bell starts declining, its gonna happen fast.

Why do you think Bell is pushing so hard for a long time deal and is prepared to sit out til week 10?

blank

Dulak
Veteran Member

6 years ago

#12

IMO we dont need Bell, Ty is much better then him. If only we would use him correctly. Not a power back; but a scat back or wideout. Stick both williams and Ty out on the field and let the D try to figure out whom the ball is going too.

Oh remember that play in the bears game that got called back that Ty did ...

He is still one of my favorite players - just wish we would use him right.

sschind
Senior Member

6 years ago

#13

No way. Not for that money and the picks we'd have to give up and not with our O-Line. Especially with multiple credible run options. Bell will be an upgrade but his talents will be wasted with our line and the way the playcalling's gone so far in this extremely brief season. It'll get better.

Originally Posted by: Porforis

Is there an echo in here? I could swear I just heard that not too long ago? Maybe it was for some other player.

sschind
Senior Member

6 years ago

#14

Originally Posted by: Dulak

We don"t need Bell _ I agree we don't need him.

Ty is much better then him- I rarely use the "f" word but in this case you are Fucking crazy.

I like Monty as well but to think he is better than Bell you must be smokin some good shit.

wpr
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#15

Is there an echo in here? I could swear I just heard that not too long ago? Maybe it was for some other player.

Originally Posted by: sschind

There is a reason why teams don't want to pony up huge dollars for long term deals with players who are not franchise quality qbs. It's not a very good investment.

The player may well be great. He might even get HoF consideration. But that doesn't mean they should break the bank on him.

The additional wins he earns the club are minimal. Mack played lights out in the first half. (It might be argued he would do the same in the 2nd half in a few weeks. Maybe so maybe not.) Regardless how well he played the bares still lost. It gets the fans, media and even his teammates excited but in the end he was no more effective than Sam Acho or Bilal Nichols when it comes to getting the W.

Likewise Bell will get some team a few wins but 2,3 even 4 more wins for certain teams (I am not implying he would bring 4 wins to a team like GB. At most 1 or 2 for them.) it will probably not make much difference in the playoff run. A team that would sneak into the playoffs because of him would be outed in the first couple of rounds. Teams that would make it further probably don't need a high priced RB to begin with. In the long run every team would regret not having the draft picks to restock their team with less expensive options.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

6 years ago

#16

Well thought out WPR.
The more opinions I read here , the more I agree that it would be dumb to try to get him. It made me think a lot.

I think when Aaron Jones comes back, with Williams backing him up, our run game will do enough to keep the opposing D honest.
Of course none of that matters if Aaron Rodgers can’t play.

Zero2Cool
Elite Member

6 years ago

#17

No way. Not for that money and the picks we'd have to give up and not with our O-Line. Especially with multiple credible run options. Bell will be an upgrade but his talents will be wasted with our line and the way the playcalling's gone so far in this extremely brief season. It'll get better.

Originally Posted by: Porforis

Steelers might trade him outside AFC for less than inside AFC. Bell might accept a lower contract with a legit Super Bowl contender (I know, laugh, Steelers are just that) with an elite QB.

Would I want Leveon Bell? No, because we have Aaron Rodgers. All we need for our offense to be at its best is a RB who can do these few things.

A, pass protection
B, never fumble
C, consistently get 3 yards every carry
D, at least a threat to receive the ball out of backfield

We do not need Barry Sanders or Walter Payton for our offense to be best in the NFL. Our offense is at its best when Rodgers is being Rodgers.

The only deal I would do for Bell is the following.
Packers trade 1st rounder plus Clay Matthews.
Steelers trade Leveon Bell plus TJ Watt

And I would let Bell walk after his franchise tag is up.

gbguy20
Veteran Member

6 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: Cheesey

Unfortunately, no matter how well Aaron Jones plays he will be the backup. Not Williams, because Mike absolutely hates Fast/Talented RBs. Also one of many reasons we won't trade for Bell.

BAD EMAIL because the address couldn ot be found, or is unable to receive mail.

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 (24m) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (24m) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (24m) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (32m) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (33m) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (53m) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (2h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (2h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (2h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (2h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (3h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (3h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (3h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (3h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (3h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (3h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (3h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (3h) : 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 (3h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (3h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (3h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (3h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.

packerfanoutwest (3h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in

packerfanoutwest (3h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker

packerfanoutwest (3h) : if bucs win out they win their division

beast (4h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us

packerfanoutwest (4h) : falcons are already ahead of us

beast (4h) : Packers will get in

beast (4h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen

packerfanoutwest (4h) : they still are in the playoffs

packerfanoutwest (4h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7

Zero2Cool (5h) : We can say it. We don't play.

Mucky Tundra (7h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints

Mucky Tundra (7h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games

Mucky Tundra (7h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.

Mucky Tundra (16h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan

beast (17h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings

bboystyle (17h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Or ties, but let's be real here

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Other scenario was Falcons+Rams losses

Mucky Tundra (20h) : Needed a Falcons loss for a Seahawk loss to clinch

buckeyepackfan (20h) : Am I wring in saying if Tge Vikings beat The Seahawks, The Packers clinch?

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : Agreed; you stinks

Zero2Cool (21-Dec) : I'm not beating anyone. I stinks.

Mucky Tundra (21-Dec) : rough injury for tank dell. guy can't catch abreak

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