Pack offers Rodgers for Moss....

[Sho Nuff 719]

chuckie and mike have about 8 nfl tds between them. what does rodgers have? your pick hasn't gotten off the bench yet. period. yeah, you've got favre--which means it was even more a dumb pick at the time.

 

like mike williams, the rodgers pick was called DUMB at the time and has proven to be dumb if the packers are already jettisoning him without having ever played. who the fock dumps a round 1 qb without ever having him play?! and don't give me the tired line of "oh, well, favre's going to be here 2 more years." so focking what! how old will rodgers be in 2 years? he should be primed and ready to go at that time *if* he's the guy, which he's clearly not.

 

so please: no more of this "he's expendable because favre is playing longer than we thought" bullshiat. he's expendable because he blows.

 

Yeah...that is a valid comparison....Chuckie and Mike had nothing in front of them...Rodgers had a 3 time MVP first ballot hall of famer.

 

At the time, like any time recently, you have to be prepared for when Favre leaves.

 

For years people whined that the Packers had not been addressing life after Favre...they finally do...and people thought it was stupid...the same people. Wanting to have it both ways.

 

Hindsight the pick looks dumb now..a.t the time the pick was not dumb...it was very wise actually, which is why I supported it then.

Who dumps one? A team that has the luxury of not needing that first rounder for several years after he was drafted...thats who.

 

Actually, I said Favre could be here for 2 more years. In 2 years Rodgers will end up a free agent...and then you have to figure out his worth...or cut bait for nothing. Why not get something out of him is all I am saying. Yet you don't understand that simple concept....must be the years of ineptness you are used to from the Lions.

 

But Favre playing longer is exactly why he is expendable. Sorry that you don't accept that though...

[swamp dog 0]

Yeah...that is a valid comparison....Chuckie and Mike had nothing in front of them...Rodgers had a 3 time MVP first ballot hall of famer.

 

At the time, like any time recently, you have to be prepared for when Favre leaves.

 

For years people whined that the Packers had not been addressing life after Favre...they finally do...and people thought it was stupid...the same people. Wanting to have it both ways.

 

Hindsight the pick looks dumb now..a.t the time the pick was not dumb...it was very wise actually, which is why I supported it then.

Who dumps one? A team that has the luxury of not needing that first rounder for several years after he was drafted...thats who.

 

Actually, I said Favre could be here for 2 more years. In 2 years Rodgers will end up a free agent...and then you have to figure out his worth...or cut bait for nothing. Why not get something out of him is all I am saying. Yet you don't understand that simple concept....must be the years of ineptness you are used to from the Lions.

 

But Favre playing longer is exactly why he is expendable. Sorry that you don't accept that though...

 

you can't have it the argument both ways: either rodgers was a good pick or he wasn't. if he was a good pick and he's all that and a bag of chips, the packers hang onto him because of favre's age and his annual "gee will i or won't i" soap opera. you don't trade away your next franchise qb because brett wants to play another 1-2 years.

 

and if you're willing to part with him, he's not what you thought he was and he's expendable. which makes him a bad draft pick--especially if all you're getting for him is someone who has no future and rotting skills.

 

no need to spin wildly like you normally do. it's black and white.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

he's obviously proven to the packers he's a bust if they're trading him away for a guy with nothing left in the tank and no future. my point. thanks for agreeing.

 

LOL. Do you really think Moss has nothing left in the tank? Moss is still one of the top talents at WR in the league. His attitude in tough times has always been poor, but he was in a complete debacle last year in Oakland. If you had any intellectual honesty to your football acumen you'd recognize that. However, as usual, your SOP is the need to heap any kind of criticism on any division rival w/o any kind of objectivity in some bizarre pattern that we can only conclude helps ease the pain of being a Lions fan.

[swamp dog 0]

LOL. Do you really think Moss has nothing left in the tank? Moss is still one of the top talents at WR in the league. His attitude in tough times has always been poor, but he was in a complete debacle last year in Oakland. If you had any intellectual honesty to your football acumen you'd recognize that. However, as usual, your SOP is the need to heap any kind of criticism on any division rival w/o any kind of objectivity in some bizarre pattern that we can only conclude helps ease the pain of being a Lions fan.

 

he's getting up there in age and has failed to crack 1000 yards 2 of the last 3 years--and the 1 year in there he did crack 1000, it was barely (1005). this from a guy who even when he did do well admitted he didn't put in 100 percent all the time and has been a lightning rod of controversy and negativity.

 

for you to ignore all the relevant data, signs, and red flags is bizarrely subjective on your part--randy must be your cousin or your sister's baby's daddy for you to stroke him like that. he's a loser and he's toast.

 

i guarantee if the lions got him i'd be here doing a million of these and cursing to high heaven.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

he's getting up there in age and has failed to crack 1000 yards 2 of the last 3 years--and the 1 year in there he did crack 1000, it was barely (1005). this from a guy who even when he did do well admitted he didn't put in 100 percent all the time and has been a lightning rod of controversy and negativity.

 

for you to ignore all the relevant data, signs, and red flags is bizarrely subjective on your part--randy must be your cousin or your sister's baby's daddy for you to stroke him like that. he's a loser and he's toast.

 

i guarantee if the lions got him i'd be here doing a million of these and cursing to high heaven.

 

He also missed 3 games in 2004 when he failed to get over 1K, but also had 13 TDs, fourth in the league. In 2005 his 16.8 ypc was third in the league for players w/50 or more catches and having "only" 8 TDs is still as many as Roy Williams has ever had in a single-season. He was hardly toast or done, show me more "data". LOL.

 

Of course if the Lions got him people would be laughing, not b/c he's done, but b/c he's a WR.

[Phurfur 70]

LOL. Do you really think Moss has nothing left in the tank? Moss is still one of the top talents at WR in the league. His attitude in tough times has always been poor, but he was in a complete debacle last year in Oakland. If you had any intellectual honesty to your football acumen you'd recognize that. However, as usual, your SOP is the need to heap any kind of criticism on any division rival w/o any kind of objectivity in some bizarre pattern that we can only conclude helps ease the pain of being a Lions fan.

 

I also think Moss' tank is approaching empty. I base that on his performance over the last 4 years. What do you base your opinion on? What backs up your statement that "Moss is still one of the top talents at WR in the league". You sure can't be basing it on performance.

[swamp dog 0]

He also missed 3 games in 2004 when he failed to get over 1K, but also had 13 TDs, fourth in the league. In 2005 his 16.8 ypc was third in the league for players w/50 or more catches and having "only" 8 TDs is still as many as Roy Williams has ever had in a single-season. He was hardly toast or done, show me more "data". LOL.

 

Of course if the Lions got him people would be laughing, not b/c he's done, but b/c he's a WR.

 

might be a better stat than what roy has (ypc) but i dare you to find one person on planet earth who would today trade moss for roy.

 

and the reasons they wouldn't have a lot to do with the points i've made

[Sho Nuff 719]

you can't have it the argument both ways: either rodgers was a good pick or he wasn't. if he was a good pick and he's all that and a bag of chips, the packers hang onto him because of favre's age and his annual "gee will i or won't i" soap opera. you don't trade away your next franchise qb because brett wants to play another 1-2 years.

 

and if you're willing to part with him, he's not what you thought he was and he's expendable. which makes him a bad draft pick--especially if all you're getting for him is someone who has no future and rotting skills.

 

no need to spin wildly like you normally do. it's black and white.

 

He was a good pick at the time...so yes...I can have it both ways...saying at the time it was a good pick...given the circumstances of the team.

In the past 2 years, those circumstances have changed...Favre is still around...making it a poor pick now.

 

It is not as black and white as you are claiming...and requires no spin.

[swamp dog 0]

He was a good pick at the time...so yes...I can have it both ways...saying at the time it was a good pick...given the circumstances of the team.

In the past 2 years, those circumstances have changed...Favre is still around...making it a poor pick now.

 

It is not as black and white as you are claiming...and requires no spin.

 

tony mandarich was a good pick at the time. charles rogers was a good pick at the time. joey harrington was a good pick at the time. nope, you can't have it both ways.

[donhaas 18]

might be a better stat than what roy has (ypc) but i dare you to find one person on planet earth who would today trade moss for roy.

 

 

 

Why are you comparing him to williams?

 

You said he was old, has no future, and rotting skills.

He just turned 30 a couple weeks ago.

 

He is still fast as hell and 6'4". With the right attitude and a quarterback with a great arm opposite a stud WR who gets a lot of attention, he could be very good.

 

 

I don't like Moss, but you can't deny his talent.

[swamp dog 0]

Why are you comparing him to williams?

 

You said he was old, has no future, and rotting skills.

He just turned 30 a couple weeks ago.

 

He is still fast as hell and 6'4". With the right attitude and a quarterback with a great arm opposite a stud WR who gets a lot of attention, he could be very good.

I don't like Moss, but you can't deny his talent.

 

the point is you don't trade a young guy who's good for an old guy that WAS.

[Sho Nuff 719]

tony mandarich was a good pick at the time. charles rogers was a good pick at the time. joey harrington was a good pick at the time. nope, you can't have it both ways.

 

Its not having it both ways.

Circumstances change.

He is not a bad pick now because of ability...he was a bad pick now in hindsight because Favre is still around.

[football_scooter 0]

Its not having it both ways.

Circumstances change.

He is not a bad pick now because of ability...he was a bad pick now in hindsight because Favre is still around.

 

I'm sorry Sho, but that's preposterous. If Rogers was good enough to eventually replace Favre, they'd keep him on the roster. Bank on that.

 

Favre has what, 1, maybe 2 years left in him? You don't deal away your QB of the future. Period.

 

So far you've held your own pretty well in here, but this is total denial. If Rogers was 3/4 the QB they thought he could be, he'd be backing up Favre as the #2 ready to take the reins when Favre hangs 'em up.

 

Face facts man: Rogers was a bad pick because Rogers is not a capable NFL QB. If he were, he'd remain a Packer. Nothing you say could convince me otherwise, because it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I'm sorry Sho, but that's preposterous. If Rogers was good enough to eventually replace Favre, they'd keep him on the roster. Bank on that.

 

Favre has what, 1, maybe 2 years left in him? You don't deal away your QB of the future. Period.

 

So far you've held your own pretty well in here, but this is total denial. If Rogers was 3/4 the QB they thought he could be, he'd be backing up Favre as the #2 ready to take the reins when Favre hangs 'em up.

 

Face facts man: Rogers was a bad pick because Rogers is not a capable NFL QB. If he were, he'd remain a Packer. Nothing you say could convince me otherwise, because it's as obvious as the nose on your face.

 

Perhaps...I just don't think they know totally what they have in him...that he has not shined enough. Does that mean he will never play? Or do they think they can get something for him...rather than having to figure out his value in 2 years? Too much at play here to just say he sucks. If he just sucks...you think any team would give up any player at all for him?

 

Right now...he is backing up Favre as the #2...rumors of this trade are so far just rumors with nothing actually confirmed.

 

Face the facts...Rodgers is still the #2 QB of the Green Bay Packers. Whether he will end up playing for the Packers is not yet known. As of now, the only thing making it a bad pick is they could have waited possibly til this year to draft a QB with their pick and have taken a player to contribute in the past 2 years and be hitting his stride in this his 3rd year...rather than a QB who is still backing Favre up.

[football_scooter 0]

Too much at play here to just say he sucks. If he just sucks...you think any team would give up any player at all for him?

 

thus far, none have. I'm not convinced any will.

[Sho Nuff 719]

thus far, none have. I'm not convinced any will.

 

Thus far, none of us know if Green Bay has really tried to get rid of him....

[Timinator 0]

My goodness... Scooter, Swampy, even listen2me... You guys are just plain goofy on this.

 

There are unknown variables for both Aaron Rodgers and Randy Moss. Both are crapshoots. And, if GB wants to win in the next two years with Brett Favre, Randy Moss is 100% more valuable to the Packers than is Aaron Rodgers no matter how good or lousy you (or either of the teams involved) think either are. Green Bay has a need for an offensive playmaker that's not a QB. The Raiders have more need at QB than at WR. Both would be rolling the dice here on needs.

 

At this moment there are not 32 "starting quality" QBs in the NFL. So arguing whether Rodgers is starting quality is kind of funny. In GB, he's not a starter. But he might be for 15 other franchises. Does that make him a bad pick? Good question. Either answer might be correct.

 

Is Moss still a foregone-conclusion as a game-changer? Probably not. But the chance that he might be on occasion or only in the red zone makes him worthy of a looksee. That's something GB needs right now so a Back-up QB or a third-round pick is a very cheap way to add a one-time-proven and now potential game-changer. It's cheap enough, that if Moss is garbage, you're just glad you got to sell his new Packer jersey for a few months.

[swamp dog 0]

My goodness... Scooter, Swampy, even listen2me... You guys are just plain goofy on this.

 

There are unknown variables for both Aaron Rodgers and Randy Moss. Both are crapshoots. And, if GB wants to win in the next two years with Brett Favre, Randy Moss is 100% more valuable to the Packers than is Aaron Rodgers no matter how good or lousy you (or either of the teams involved) think either are. Green Bay has a need for an offensive playmaker that's not a QB. The Raiders have more need at QB than at WR. Both would be rolling the dice here on needs.

 

At this moment there are not 32 "starting quality" QBs in the NFL. So arguing whether Rodgers is starting quality is kind of funny. In GB, he's not a starter. But he might be for 15 other franchises. Does that make him a bad pick? Good question. Either answer might be correct.

 

Is Moss still a foregone-conclusion as a game-changer? Probably not. But the chance that he might be on occasion or only in the red zone makes him worthy of a looksee. That's something GB needs right now so a Back-up QB or a third-round pick is a very cheap way to add a one-time-proven and now potential game-changer. It's cheap enough, that if Moss is garbage, you're just glad you got to sell his new Packer jersey for a few months.

 

therein lies the fatal flaw thinking of packer fans: green bay is nowhere near a super bowl team. it's a team rebuilding. you don't make this kind of trade if you're a rebuilding team.

[Sho Nuff 719]

therein lies the fatal flaw thinking of packer fans: green bay is nowhere near a super bowl team. it's a team rebuilding. you don't make this kind of trade if you're a rebuilding team.

 

Therein lies the flaw of your thinking...they are "hopefully" on the upswing of rebuilding. Young players in their 2nd and third years...parts improving here and there...some parts veteran.

 

Are they a contender now? No...could they be in 2 years?

Sure...in today's NFL they most certainly could be.

 

Especially in the mediocrity which is the NFC.

[football_scooter 0]

Therein lies the flaw of your thinking...they are "hopefully" on the upswing of rebuilding. Young players in their 2nd and third years...parts improving here and there...some parts veteran.

 

Are they a contender now? No...could they be in 2 years?

Sure...in today's NFL they most certainly could be.

 

Especially in the mediocrity which is the NFC.

 

Right - and in 2 years, how good/bad will Moss be? How much will Moss contribute with another 2 years of wear & tear on his body...playing in the cold of GB, facing tough defenses in CHI & MIN 2X a year...and at 9 million a year? How much do you realistically think Moss will be a part of the offense in the future when you project the Pack to be a contender?

 

2008-9 Moss will be 2005-6 Joe Horn.

 

Terrible trade for the Pack.

[swamp dog 0]

Therein lies the flaw of your thinking...they are "hopefully" on the upswing of rebuilding. Young players in their 2nd and third years...parts improving here and there...some parts veteran.

 

Are they a contender now? No...could they be in 2 years?

Sure...in today's NFL they most certainly could be.

 

Especially in the mediocrity which is the NFC.

 

the 2004 draft got the packers squat. i suggest you take the "3rd year" phrase out of the "players in their 2nd and third years" statement. and in two years moss isn't going to be around helping the packers *if* they're a contender.

 

his contract is just ghastly. even in a re-do he's going to be wayyyyy overpaid.

[Melissa Stark 1]

swamp dog Today, 04:05 PM Post #89

 

 

FF Geek

 

 

Group: Members

Posts: 16262

Joined: 8-May 01

Member No.: 5185

 

 

 

QUOTE(Sho Nuff @ Mar 3 2007, 04:03 PM) 3031443[/snapback]

 

He was a good pick at the time...so yes...I can have it both ways...saying at the time it was a good pick...given the circumstances of the team.

In the past 2 years, those circumstances have changed...Favre is still around...making it a poor pick now.

 

It is not as black and white as you are claiming...and requires no spin.

 

 

 

tony mandarich was a good pick at the time. charles rogers was a good pick at the time. joey harrington was a good pick at the time. nope, you can't have it both ways.

 

 

And who is still a starting Wr in the league? (Joey may still land somewhere)

I do agree he may have lost a step, but can be very productive on the right team

How can you bring up these guys names who never did anything and compare themto Moss?

[swamp dog 0]

And who is still a starting Wr in the league? (Joey may still land somewhere)

I do agree he may have lost a step, but can be very productive on the right team

How can you bring up these guys names who never did anything and compare themto Moss?

 

this was in reference to rodgers, and the debate of whether he was or wasn't a good pick. this particular exchange had nothing to do with moss. just an fyi...

[listen2me 23 1,538]

Its not having it both ways.

Circumstances change.

He is not a bad pick now because of ability...he was a bad pick now in hindsight because Favre is still around.

 

How is he not a bad pick because of ability?....If the Pack thought he was going to be solid why would they trade him? We really dont know how good he is because he hasnt played. All we can go by is the fact that the Packers are willing to trade him, meaning they have given up on him.

 

It was a bad pick at the time because the Packers should have thought that Favre would be playing at least a few more years. Just becuase he slid to us at 20 whatever doesnt mean you have to take him, you dont just settle for players.

 

In the end it was a bust pick if he does get traded before we even see him play. What good would he have done us? He was a 1st rounder and now is the equivalent to about a 3rd rounder in a trade, thats a bad pick with the huge drop in value.

[football_scooter 0]

How is he not a bad pick because of ability?....If the Pack thought he was going to be solid why would they trade him? We really dont know how good he is because he hasnt played. All we can go by is the fact that the Packers are willing to trade him, meaning they have given up on him.

 

It was a bad pick at the time because the Packers should have thought that Favre would be playing at least a few more years. Just becuase he slid to us at 20 whatever doesnt mean you have to take him, you dont just settle for players.

 

In the end it was a bust pick if he does get traded before we even see him play. What good would he have done us? He was a 1st rounder and now is the equivalent to about a 3rd rounder in a trade, thats a bad pick with the huge drop in value.

 

Is it even possible to win a thread twice?

 

Somehow listen2me has done so. Bravo, I say. Bravo.

[Guest Black Label Society]

The long and short of it is this.....IMO

 

I'm a lifelong vikings homer.....and to me, there's NO WAY that if GB traded for Moss that he wouldn't play with every ounce of his ability. He's been to the crap team...and he knows his time is short (ala Favre).

 

I think we all agree that Moss has lost a step, but he's still a very good WR, and IMO if he's motivated could be a HUGE threat.

 

The Pack went 8-8 last year(I believe) on a team that EVERYBODY thought would do about 5-11 at best.

Favre's still got it...and he KNOWS he's got MAYBE 2 years left.

 

If they wanna make another run...then getting rid of Rodgers for a bonafide (albeit..."once") stud at WR, then I think it's a very smart move.

 

And I HATE the pack.

[football_scooter 0]

The long and short of it is this.....IMO

 

I'm a lifelong vikings homer.....and to me, there's NO WAY that if GB traded for Moss that he wouldn't play with every ounce of his ability. He's been to the crap team...and he knows his time is short (ala Favre).

 

I think we all agree that Moss has lost a step, but he's still a very good WR, and IMO if he's motivated could be a HUGE threat.

 

The Pack went 8-8 last year(I believe) on a team that EVERYBODY thought would do about 5-11 at best.

Favre's still got it...and he KNOWS he's got MAYBE 2 years left.

 

If they wanna make another run...then getting rid of Rodgers for a bonafide (albeit..."once") stud at WR, then I think it's a very smart move.

 

And I HATE the pack.

 

They will not be the same team. Ahman Green is a big part of their surprise 8-8 season, and he's a goner, almost a certainty.

 

If they trot out Marshawn Lynch or another rookie back if he's taken before their pick, do you still see teams respecting their rush enough to make Moss effective?

 

 

All that said, my biggest fear is that Moss will be a Niner. :shudder: It makes way too much sense for me to be at all comfortable about it.

[Walter34 3]

How is he not a bad pick because of ability?....If the Pack thought he was going to be solid why would they trade him? We really dont know how good he is because he hasnt played. All we can go by is the fact that the Packers are willing to trade him, meaning they have given up on him.

 

It was a bad pick at the time because the Packers should have thought that Favre would be playing at least a few more years. Just becuase he slid to us at 20 whatever doesnt mean you have to take him, you dont just settle for players.

 

In the end it was a bust pick if he does get traded before we even see him play. What good would he have done us? He was a 1st rounder and now is the equivalent to about a 3rd rounder in a trade, thats a bad pick with the huge drop in value.

 

Correct. Favre's waffling the past few years directly caused the Pack to waste this 1st round pick. If they had known qb was still locked up for another 3+ years, how would Mankins or Heath Miller look at that 1.24 pick today?

 

They will not be the same team. Ahman Green is a big part of their surprise 8-8 season, and he's a goner, almost a certainty.

 

If they trot out Marshawn Lynch or another rookie back if he's taken before their pick, do you still see teams respecting their rush enough to make Moss effective?

All that said, my biggest fear is that Moss will be a Niner. :shudder: It makes way too much sense for me to be at all comfortable about it.

 

Moss in GB is one of the few places where I think it would click. He would be motivated back in the Norris and have Favre's long balls to catch. Driver on the other side would also be a bonus. This move would raise the pack to the 9-10 win plateau with a decent shot of competing for the division.

[swamp dog 0]

Correct. Favre's waffling the past few years directly caused the Pack to waste this 1st round pick. If they had known qb was still locked up for another 3+ years, how would Mankins or Heath Miller look at that 1.24 pick today?

Moss in GB is one of the few places where I think it would click. He would be motivated back in the Norris and have Favre's long balls to catch. Driver on the other side would also be a bonus. This move would raise the pack to the 9-10 win plateau with a decent shot of competing for the division.

 

i don't buy "the new leaf" moss in this scenario. not for a second. the culture of green bay and moss aren't a mix; that city will turn on him in a heartbeat--the first time the packers lose a game and the fans in the stands see him loaf on a couple of plays during said game, he's toast.

 

and there is no gurantee of linear movement upward for the packers. there are red flags in that 8-8 record last year, namely them being 1-7 in games against winning teams and getting absolutely throttled (outscored 2-1) in those games.

 

while it was a nice surprise for them to win 3 more games than most people predicted, i think there is evidence they overachieved just a tad. will there be a market correction this year? i don't know. guess we'll see.

 

How is he not a bad pick because of ability?....If the Pack thought he was going to be solid why would they trade him? We really dont know how good he is because he hasnt played. All we can go by is the fact that the Packers are willing to trade him, meaning they have given up on him.

 

It was a bad pick at the time because the Packers should have thought that Favre would be playing at least a few more years. Just becuase he slid to us at 20 whatever doesnt mean you have to take him, you dont just settle for players.

 

In the end it was a bust pick if he does get traded before we even see him play. What good would he have done us? He was a 1st rounder and now is the equivalent to about a 3rd rounder in a trade, thats a bad pick with the huge drop in value.

 

 

heed this post, sho. it's logical and makes sense

 

then again, something tells me you won't heed it. getting ready for the spin...

[Dagger 0]

I don't want Moss on this team, I don't care who we trade to Oakland. If this was 3 years ago? Sure, why not, I could deal with his character issues as long as he was producing. But the guy is not the same as he once was. And he is a 1 trick pony, albeit he was pretty darn good at that. He used his freakish size/speed/leaping ability to run by defenders and catch bombs from Culpepper. Now, with injuries, he is not the same. THrowing a boat load of cash at him would be foolish. Sign a Brandon Stokley and/or Kelly Washington for veteran depth and save the $$$$ and headaches.

 

I want the Packers to be Super Bowl contenders, not playoff contenders. They are still at least a year away. TT needs to not break the bank and bring in cheap veterans and focis on the draft.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Right - and in 2 years, how good/bad will Moss be? How much will Moss contribute with another 2 years of wear & tear on his body...playing in the cold of GB, facing tough defenses in CHI & MIN 2X a year...and at 9 million a year? How much do you realistically think Moss will be a part of the offense in the future when you project the Pack to be a contender?

 

2008-9 Moss will be 2005-6 Joe Horn.

 

Terrible trade for the Pack.

 

Find me anywhere where I have said take him on at his current salary....just once...I bet you cannot find it.

 

I have been very consistent in saying no more than a 3rd rounder...and now willing to deal Rodgers...but it has always come with a restructure of Moss' salary.

 

 

 

the 2004 draft got the packers squat. i suggest you take the "3rd year" phrase out of the "players in their 2nd and third years" statement. and in two years moss isn't going to be around helping the packers *if* they're a contender.

 

his contract is just ghastly. even in a re-do he's going to be wayyyyy overpaid.

 

Yes...2004 got them squat...2005 got them some decent guys...as did 2003 with Barnett.

 

 

In 2 years Moss will not be around? Really? You have a crystal ball? Funny, if you knew the future so well, I doubt you would talk as much trash as you have in the past about the Lions.

 

 

 

How is he not a bad pick because of ability?....If the Pack thought he was going to be solid why would they trade him? We really dont know how good he is because he hasnt played. All we can go by is the fact that the Packers are willing to trade him, meaning they have given up on him.

 

It was a bad pick at the time because the Packers should have thought that Favre would be playing at least a few more years. Just becuase he slid to us at 20 whatever doesnt mean you have to take him, you dont just settle for players.

 

In the end it was a bust pick if he does get traded before we even see him play. What good would he have done us? He was a 1st rounder and now is the equivalent to about a 3rd rounder in a trade, thats a bad pick with the huge drop in value.

 

I have explained this...if they think Favre will play 2 more years...they will then have to decide on Rodgers...4 years into the league...no playing experience...and a free agent. What is he worth...what should they pay him?

Will they let him go for nothing and start over? Or will the younger guys be good at that point and they need to make a run at a veteran QB to try and keep winning.

 

I have no clue...but I cannot say it is about ability for the same reasons you are saying...we dont really know how good or bad he is.

 

And right now...the Packer's willingness to trade him is a rumor. Nothing confirmed at all.

 

And at the time, how could they have known Favre was going to play a few more years given how he waivers each off season.

 

If he gains us a WR that can contribute...I think he would have done us some good, wouldnt you? Better than letting his contract run out ...never play...and never get anything for him.

 

Is it even possible to win a thread twice?

 

Somehow listen2me has done so. Bravo, I say. Bravo.

 

Somehow listen2me has failed to read the explanation I have given several times now.

 

I will make it simple.

 

Here are your choices of how things could play out...

 

A. Rodgers stays...Favre stays for 2 more years...Rodgers is a free agent...the Packers have to figure out what he is worth.

 

B. Again both stay...the team is very competetive and instead of giving the reins over to an unproven QB...they let him go and sign a free agent veteran QB.

 

C. They trade him for Moss....Moss is a bust.

 

D. They trade him for Moss...Moss proves to be a decent pick up...playing a strong #2 WR role with Driver and provides a deep threat the team needs.

 

Out of all of those options...B and C make the pick back in 2004 very bad...because you never saw the guy play, and never got a thing for him.

 

Yes, there are other possible options...but just calling it a bad pick because they got something for the guy...rather than letting him go...is not quite the same thing.

 

 

heed this post, sho. it's logical and makes sense

 

then again, something tells me you won't heed it. getting ready for the spin...

 

 

No spin needed...just the same logic I have used to explain myself the entire thread...

[swamp dog 0]

Find me anywhere where I have said take him on at his current salary....just once...I bet you cannot find it.

 

I have been very consistent in saying no more than a 3rd rounder...and now willing to deal Rodgers...but it has always come with a restructure of Moss' salary.

Yes...2004 got them squat...2005 got them some decent guys...as did 2003 with Barnett.

In 2 years Moss will not be around? Really? You have a crystal ball? Funny, if you knew the future so well, I doubt you would talk as much trash as you have in the past about the Lions.

I have explained this...if they think Favre will play 2 more years...they will then have to decide on Rodgers...4 years into the league...no playing experience...and a free agent. What is he worth...what should they pay him?

Will they let him go for nothing and start over? Or will the younger guys be good at that point and they need to make a run at a veteran QB to try and keep winning.

 

I have no clue...but I cannot say it is about ability for the same reasons you are saying...we dont really know how good or bad he is.

 

And right now...the Packer's willingness to trade him is a rumor. Nothing confirmed at all.

 

And at the time, how could they have known Favre was going to play a few more years given how he waivers each off season.

 

If he gains us a WR that can contribute...I think he would have done us some good, wouldnt you? Better than letting his contract run out ...never play...and never get anything for him.

Somehow listen2me has failed to read the explanation I have given several times now.

 

I will make it simple.

 

Here are your choices of how things could play out...

 

A. Rodgers stays...Favre stays for 2 more years...Rodgers is a free agent...the Packers have to figure out what he is worth.

 

B. Again both stay...the team is very competetive and instead of giving the reins over to an unproven QB...they let him go and sign a free agent veteran QB.

 

C. They trade him for Moss....Moss is a bust.

 

D. They trade him for Moss...Moss proves to be a decent pick up...playing a strong #2 WR role with Driver and provides a deep threat the team needs.

 

Out of all of those options...B and C make the pick back in 2004 very bad...because you never saw the guy play, and never got a thing for him.

 

Yes, there are other possible options...but just calling it a bad pick because they got something for the guy...rather than letting him go...is not quite the same thing.

No spin needed...just the same logic I have used to explain myself the entire thread...

 

classic sho

 

and when the packers don't trade rodgers, i'm sure you'll resume your nutsack munching of him. why? because it's possible to always have it both ways in sho's world.

[Phurfur 70]

Correct. Favre's waffling the past few years directly caused the Pack to waste this 1st round pick. If they had known qb was still locked up for another 3+ years, how would Mankins or Heath Miller look at that 1.24 pick today?

Moss in GB is one of the few places where I think it would click. He would be motivated back in the Norris and have Favre's long balls to catch. Driver on the other side would also be a bonus. This move would raise the pack to the 9-10 win plateau with a decent shot of competing for the division.

 

 

The problem with all of you pro-Moss people is that you are thinking of Moss and Favre 5 years ago. Neither of them is what they were so don't get too excited. Bringing Moss to GB is just a bad idea.

[Walter34 3]

classic sho

 

and when the packers don't trade rodgers, i'm sure you'll resume your nutsack munching of him. why? because it's possible to always have it both ways in sho's world.

 

How is that different than "swamp's world"?

 

 

The problem with all of you pro-Moss people is that you are thinking of Moss and Favre 5 years ago. Neither of them is what they were so don't get too excited. Bringing Moss to GB is just a bad idea.

 

A couple of caveats

 

- they shouldnt break the bank on him. It should be an incentive based deal under 5 mill and with an easy out option after 2 years. If Moss doesnt want that, then so be it, move on

 

- I see it as a good short term move for a 1-2 year window while favre hangs around. Neither are what they were 5 years ago, I agree, but for one more run, they could make some noise if things fall into place. It would be a poor long term move for the overall quality of the team 3-5 years from now.

[Sho Nuff 719]

classic sho

 

and when the packers don't trade rodgers, i'm sure you'll resume your nutsack munching of him. why? because it's possible to always have it both ways in sho's world.

 

Classis sho is right...logically defending my opinion to the point where you have no real retort except to lie about how I have been about Rodgers from the start.

 

What nutsack munching of him have I ever done?

 

Yeah..real nutsack munching...saying it was a good pick for that spot of the draft given where he was projected and how it looked like Favre would be gone by now....that he may one day be decent.

 

Damn...Im all over his jock right?

 

The problem with all of you pro-Moss people is that you are thinking of Moss and Favre 5 years ago. Neither of them is what they were so don't get too excited. Bringing Moss to GB is just a bad idea.

 

Im warm to the Moss idea...not because of them 5 years ago...but because I think he can be a solid #2 WR with Driver. Huge expectations to some I guess...

 

How is that different than "swamp's world"?

 

Very different...because I have never been all over Rodger's jock...

 

A couple of caveats

 

- they shouldnt break the bank on him. It should be an incentive based deal under 5 mill and with an easy out option after 2 years. If Moss doesnt want that, then so be it, move on

 

- I see it as a good short term move for a 1-2 year window while favre hangs around. Neither are what they were 5 years ago, I agree, but for one more run, they could make some noise if things fall into place. It would be a poor long term move for the overall quality of the team 3-5 years from now.

 

Exactly.

[swamp dog 0]

Classis sho is right...logically defending my opinion to the point where you have no real retort except to lie about how I have been about Rodgers from the start.

 

What nutsack munching of him have I ever done?

 

Yeah..real nutsack munching...saying it was a good pick for that spot of the draft given where he was projected and how it looked like Favre would be gone by now....that he may one day be decent.

 

Damn...Im all over his jock right?

Im warm to the Moss idea...not because of them 5 years ago...but because I think he can be a solid #2 WR with Driver. Huge expectations to some I guess...

 

gee, another thread where everyone refutes sho yet he thinks he's right and the rest of the free world is wrong. yeah, that's what i mean by "classic sho."

 

nice backpeddaling, btw. you're already positioning yourself well for when the packers don't trade him.

 

How is that different than "swamp's world"?

A couple of caveats

 

- they shouldnt break the bank on him. It should be an incentive based deal under 5 mill and with an easy out option after 2 years. If Moss doesnt want that, then so be it, move on

 

- I see it as a good short term move for a 1-2 year window while favre hangs around. Neither are what they were 5 years ago, I agree, but for one more run, they could make some noise if things fall into place. It would be a poor long term move for the overall quality of the team 3-5 years from now.

 

or walter's world? please spare us the tone of some objective statesman now and in the future. very old--and thinly, if at all, covers your own raging homerism.

[Walter34 3]

gee, another thread where everyone refutes sho yet he thinks he's right and the rest of the free world is wrong. yeah, that's what i mean by "classic sho."

 

nice backpeddaling, btw. you're already positioning yourself well for when the packers don't trade him.

or walter's world? please spare us the tone of some objective statesman now and in the future. very old--and thinly, if at all, covers your own raging homerism.

 

You can only dream of one day having my objectiveness you raving lunatic.

[swamp dog 0]

I don't want Moss on this team, I don't care who we trade to Oakland. If this was 3 years ago? Sure, why not, I could deal with his character issues as long as he was producing. But the guy is not the same as he once was. And he is a 1 trick pony, albeit he was pretty darn good at that. He used his freakish size/speed/leaping ability to run by defenders and catch bombs from Culpepper. Now, with injuries, he is not the same. THrowing a boat load of cash at him would be foolish. Sign a Brandon Stokley and/or Kelly Washington for veteran depth and save the $$$$ and headaches.

 

I want the Packers to be Super Bowl contenders, not playoff contenders. They are still at least a year away. TT needs to not break the bank and bring in cheap veterans and focis on the draft.

 

the worst thing for the packers was winning those extra couple of games last year and have everyone thinking how close they are to turning it around. if they had won 5 games last year, would they be considering this stupid idea of trading the future for the "now"? no, they wouldn't.

 

 

You can only dream of one day having my objectiveness you raving lunatic.

 

yes, i'm well aware how highly you think of yourself. if you think you've been hiding that with any pious tone over the years, you haven't. glad to see i struck an honest nerve. an indication of that is when the name calling starts--always first for you and others, i might add

[GhostofMeanMachine99 1]

IMO, the risk v. reward is just not good enough. The risk? That Rodgers goes to another team and becomes a solid NFL QB. The reward? That Moss goes back a few years and becomes the dominant WR that he was.

 

The possibility that Rodgers becomes good far outweighs the chance that Moss can dominate. Moss' showing a downward trend in his talent.

[dominus florenzus 0]

He was a good pick at the time...so yes...I can have it both ways...saying at the time it was a good pick...given the circumstances of the team.

In the past 2 years, those circumstances have changed...Favre is still around...making it a poor pick now.

 

It is not as black and white as you are claiming...and requires no spin.

As an outside observer, I gotta say you've made this point obvious. If the other guy doesn't comprehend that circumstances change, then he doesn't, so be it, but at least you made a clear point that the rest of us can understand.