Pack offers Rodgers for Moss....

[Walter34 3]

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.

 

His point is clear and circumstances do change, but the fact is favre's waffling or the packers inability to get some clear understanding of his future caused them to waste a 1st round pick. At the time, their D was atrocious and they could have secured a solid player that would be entering his prime about now. Instead they took what they perceived was a value pick that they were not able to take advantage of to this date.

[swamp dog 0]

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.

 

then every bust pick ever made has also been a "good pick at the time." exactly my point. things *change* all the time. if a high pick doesn't figure in a team's future--either because he can't play, won't play, or can't get off the bench, it's a "bust" pick even though it was a "good pick at the time."

[listen2me 23 1,542]

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...

 

I understand and agree that trading him now and getting something out of him rather than waiting a few years and letting him go as a FA is better. And actually getting SOME value out of him. But overall it would be a bust or at least a bad pick, when your first rounder cant even see the field and is traded with a 3rd round value then it was a bad pick. Many Packer fans knew that Favre would have been around at least 2 years after that draft. They should have brought in a vet QB for insurance and not wasted a 1st round pick on a QB who MIGHT play in the future. During that draft I hated that pick for these reasons, drafting someone else would have helped the team much more. In the end we didnt even use our 1st rounder on the field and now he is worth a 3rd rounder. Not exactly what is expected out of 1st round picks each year. Although trading him for whatever we can get is better than letting him rot on the bench you have to agree that in the end it was a loss for us.

 

To maybe refresh everyones mind I am somwhat for this deal(rumor) as I dont like Rodgers or Moss. It will all come down to the contract of Moss for me.

[swamp dog 0]

I understand and agree that trading him now and getting something out of him rather than waiting a few years and letting him go as a FA is better. And actually getting SOME value out of him. But overall it would be a bust or at least a bad pick, when your first rounder cant even see the field and is traded with a 3rd round value then it was a bad pick. Many Packer fans knew that Favre would have been around at least 2 years after that draft. They should have brought in a vet QB for insurance and not wasted a 1st round pick on a QB who MIGHT play in the future. During that draft I hated that pick for these reasons, drafting someone else would have helped the team much more. In the end we didnt even use our 1st rounder on the field and now he is worth a 3rd rounder. Not exactly what is expected out of 1st round picks each year. Although trading him for whatever we can get is better than letting him rot on the bench you have to agree that in the end it was a loss for us.

 

 

good analysis

[football_scooter 0]

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

 

And any way you slice it, it still cost them a 1st round pick. Why do you keep disregarding this as though it's worthless?

[Sho Nuff 719]

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."

 

Everyone? You have yet to refute a thing I have said...just make things up about what you think I said....

 

Listen brought up points I have already addressed...his points are noted...but not the end all be all...his opinion vs. mine...nothing more. No shock that you would take that opinion over mine...given it would paint the Packers in a more negative light...does not make it any more valid than what I have said though.

 

Classic sho is that I countered it with logic that you cannot refute...nor would you even try...

 

 

 

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.

Backpedaling? Not at all...stating the truth is more like it...don't believe me...post some actual quotes from me...prove me wrong. Im quite sure you will be unable to do so...because I have been pretty consistent in this...

 

 

 

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.

 

The other person being swamp...will never comprehend...

 

His point is clear and circumstances do change, but the fact is favre's waffling or the packers inability to get some clear understanding of his future caused them to waste a 1st round pick. At the time, their D was atrocious and they could have secured a solid player that would be entering his prime about now. Instead they took what they perceived was a value pick that they were not able to take advantage of to this date.

 

Agreed that Favre's going back and forth forced that pick...that and Rodger's supposed ranking at the time and falling to that pick.

And I would not call it a waste yet...like I said...if they trade him for Moss and Moss pans out...not much of a wasted pick.

If they keep Rodgers and he ends up being decent...again...not a waste.

 

Too much is being made of this rumored offer...

 

then every bust pick ever made has also been a "good pick at the time." exactly my point. things *change* all the time. if a high pick doesn't figure in a team's future--either because he can't play, won't play, or can't get off the bench, it's a "bust" pick even though it was a "good pick at the time."

 

The point is...you have no clue whether it was a bust pick...because you are going off of a rumor.

 

he is still a Packer...still Favre's successor at this point.

 

And if the trade is made...and Moss does well...they got something out him...so how was it a waste or a bust?

 

I understand and agree that trading him now and getting something out of him rather than waiting a few years and letting him go as a FA is better. And actually getting SOME value out of him. But overall it would be a bust or at least a bad pick, when your first rounder cant even see the field and is traded with a 3rd round value then it was a bad pick. Many Packer fans knew that Favre would have been around at least 2 years after that draft. They should have brought in a vet QB for insurance and not wasted a 1st round pick on a QB who MIGHT play in the future. During that draft I hated that pick for these reasons, drafting someone else would have helped the team much more. In the end we didnt even use our 1st rounder on the field and now he is worth a 3rd rounder. Not exactly what is expected out of 1st round picks each year. Although trading him for whatever we can get is better than letting him rot on the bench you have to agree that in the end it was a loss for us.

 

To maybe refresh everyones mind I am somwhat for this deal(rumor) as I dont like Rodgers or Moss. It will all come down to the contract of Moss for me.

 

 

If Moss comes out and plays well if the rumored deal goes down...is that night like using a 3rd rounder on a WR who ends up playing quite well. Sure, the last 2 years are wasted...and they already are at this point. But getting something out of it...makes it from a total bad pick...to making the best of it and actually getting something.

 

And not to just bring up the Lions because of swamp...but making it a much better pick than 2 WRs ...one which is already gone...and one which stinks. Now those are considered bad and bust picks. Because they really got little to nothing out of him.

 

 

 

And any way you slice it, it still cost them a 1st round pick. Why do you keep disregarding this as though it's worthless?

 

and if Moss plays well...is it not worth a former first pick...a first round pick from 2 years ago...3 drafts ago by the time this next draft is over?

 

And people...quit talking like it was a high first rounder...it was in the bottom of the 1st. How many of those guys work out each and every time?

 

All I am saying is that it can be considered a good pick still...even with a trade...if what they get for him contributes and helps the team win. Pretty simple logic that is lost on a few of you.

[Snoopy1 0]

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.

 

 

Only if Rodgers turns out to be an above-average QB. Starting QB's are tough to find in the NFL, if he turns out to be one, then it would be a mistake to trade him. If he's nothing more then a spot-starter, then in does nothing to the long term prognosis of the Packers.

[listen2me 23 1,542]

Everyone? You have yet to refute a thing I have said...just make things up about what you think I said....

 

Listen brought up points I have already addressed...his points are noted...but not the end all be all...his opinion vs. mine...nothing more. No shock that you would take that opinion over mine...given it would paint the Packers in a more negative light...does not make it any more valid than what I have said though.

 

Classic sho is that I countered it with logic that you cannot refute...nor would you even try...

Backpedaling? Not at all...stating the truth is more like it...don't believe me...post some actual quotes from me...prove me wrong. Im quite sure you will be unable to do so...because I have been pretty consistent in this...

The other person being swamp...will never comprehend...

Agreed that Favre's going back and forth forced that pick...that and Rodger's supposed ranking at the time and falling to that pick.

And I would not call it a waste yet...like I said...if they trade him for Moss and Moss pans out...not much of a wasted pick.

If they keep Rodgers and he ends up being decent...again...not a waste.

 

Too much is being made of this rumored offer...

The point is...you have no clue whether it was a bust pick...because you are going off of a rumor.

 

he is still a Packer...still Favre's successor at this point.

 

And if the trade is made...and Moss does well...they got something out him...so how was it a waste or a bust?

If Moss comes out and plays well if the rumored deal goes down...is that night like using a 3rd rounder on a WR who ends up playing quite well. Sure, the last 2 years are wasted...and they already are at this point. But getting something out of it...makes it from a total bad pick...to making the best of it and actually getting something.

 

And not to just bring up the Lions because of swamp...but making it a much better pick than 2 WRs ...one which is already gone...and one which stinks. Now those are considered bad and bust picks. Because they really got little to nothing out of him.

and if Moss plays well...is it not worth a former first pick...a first round pick from 2 years ago...3 drafts ago by the time this next draft is over?

 

And people...quit talking like it was a high first rounder...it was in the bottom of the 1st. How many of those guys work out each and every time?

 

All I am saying is that it can be considered a good pick still...even with a trade...if what they get for him contributes and helps the team win. Pretty simple logic that is lost on a few of you.

 

I understand where your coming from, but if it does somehow happen and we do get Moss, it would be about 2 or 3 years of a fading #2 WR for us. Everyone agrees to some extent that Moss has lost quite a lot of ability over the past few years. Some people think more than others. This being said our 1st round pick that year would result in 2 maybe 3 years of a already fading talent at WR. This trade would just make it worth something and not a total waste of a 1st rounder. But to me its definatly a loss to come away with 2 or 3 years of a #2 WR with your 1st round pick. If we were to draft a WR that year and he was our #1or2 WR and play decent for 2 years than sucked or just went away it would be a bust. That is basically what we are getting out of Moss. So getting Moss out of this makes the Rodgers pick a let down and basically a waste rather than a total bust with no worth. Maybe you think Moss will come here want to play and be good for 5 years and not age(as it already looks like he has a little bit) but I happen to think he's a 2 or 3 year WR that can only run deep routes. Added in what he's willing to take as a contract. Maybe thats where this thing is all opinion. If Moss comes in and plays real well with no problems for 4 or 5 years(in the post Favre era) then the Rodgers pick would turn out to be solid with what we would get out of Moss. But I just dont see anything near that with Moss. This is not saying the Packers shouldnt do this, I think Rodgers was a bad pick and that he doesnt have a great future at starter. This is only saying what Moss would do here makes the value we get out of Rodgers minimal and a waste of our #1 pick that year.

[Snoopy1 0]

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

 

 

I think this post illustrates more clearly then anything how far from reality you are... There is not a singular dominant team in the NFC right now. Heck there are two dominant units, Bears on D(head & shoulders above the rest of the conference) & the Saints on offense(very good but not great). The Saints went from 4 to 10 wins last year and were a game from the SB. The entire conference is up for grabs...

 

You are delusional.

 

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.

 

 

Completely disagree, the risk of QB becoming good is statistically very small. I don't think, even if this rumor is on the up and up, TT expects Moss to dominate.

[Walter34 3]

And any way you slice it, it still cost them a 1st round pick. Why do you keep disregarding this as though it's worthless?

 

Are you sure you meant me?

 

but the fact is favre's waffling or the packers inability to get some clear understanding of his future caused them to waste a 1st round pick. At the time, their D was atrocious and they could have secured a solid player that would be entering his prime about now. Instead they took what they perceived was a value pick that they were not able to take advantage of to this date.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I understand where your coming from, but if it does somehow happen and we do get Moss, it would be about 2 or 3 years of a fading #2 WR for us. Everyone agrees to some extent that Moss has lost quite a lot of ability over the past few years. Some people think more than others. This being said our 1st round pick that year would result in 2 maybe 3 years of a already fading talent at WR. This trade would just make it worth something and not a total waste of a 1st rounder. But to me its definatly a loss to come away with 2 or 3 years of a #2 WR with your 1st round pick. If we were to draft a WR that year and he was our #1or2 WR and play decent for 2 years than sucked or just went away it would be a bust. That is basically what we are getting out of Moss. So getting Moss out of this makes the Rodgers pick a let down and basically a waste rather than a total bust with no worth. Maybe you think Moss will come here want to play and be good for 5 years and not age(as it already looks like he has a little bit) but I happen to think he's a 2 or 3 year WR that can only run deep routes. Added in what he's willing to take as a contract. Maybe thats where this thing is all opinion. If Moss comes in and plays real well with no problems for 4 or 5 years(in the post Favre era) then the Rodgers pick would turn out to be solid with what we would get out of Moss. But I just dont see anything near that with Moss. This is not saying the Packers shouldnt do this, I think Rodgers was a bad pick and that he doesnt have a great future at starter. This is only saying what Moss would do here makes the value we get out of Rodgers minimal and a waste of our #1 pick that year.

 

Sure a slight loss...and part of that is what comes from Favre staying longer than expected at this point.

 

Im thinking getting anything out of Rodgers...whether it is a capable WR through a trade...or production from Rodgers himself would be fine be me at this point.

 

Sure its a loss taking a guy of Moss' age for a guy of Rodger's age. But what I am getting at is getting something for a pick that is long gone. Like you said..minimizing the loss.

 

Trust me...Id rather leave this deal....trade a pick for Darrell Jackson and hope Rodgers ends up being a good QB for the Packers at some point.

[football_scooter 0]

Are you sure you meant me?

 

actually I was talking to Sho Nuff.

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

John Clayton said that this trade was never offered and is just a rumor this morning on mike and mike.

[donhaas 18]

John Clayton said that this trade was never offered and is just a rumor this morning on mike and mike.

 

I heard it, too.

Nice thread, though

 

 

Driver, Jennings, Horn

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

You are delusional.

 

Ouch. When Cyric calls you delusional...

[BMoney 0]

anyone whos been to a few training camps can see that Rodgers future lies in the CFL...arena football..or the raiders...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

its ok for the packers to leap into the stands..but not ok for moss to playfully moon them? i dont get why they wouldnt want moss...most people i talk to in town dont want him...the north next year is up for grabs and this would make the packers a serious contender...

[t.j 35]

Four pages and you lame brains are still arguing about whether Moss should be a Packer? How about one of you take a timeout and explain to me what the Packers are going to offer in exchange for Randy that is worth it to the Raiders. Because Rodgers sure as hell isn't worth trading Moss for.

[Swagger 0]

Does not make sense... the deep ball from Favre?

 

Oakland no QB worth talking about but with the # 1 where is Russell figure in? Do they expect Rodgers and Russell to play out a mini camp battle.

 

Russell and Rodgers are completely different QBs I do not see this happening. Just more trade rumors

[swamp dog 0]

anyone whos been to a few training camps can see that Rodgers future lies in the CFL...arena football..or the raiders...

its ok for the packers to leap into the stands..but not ok for moss to playfully moon them? i dont get why they wouldnt want moss...most people i talk to in town dont want him...the north next year is up for grabs and this would make the packers a serious contender...

 

just from a personality perspective, moss and green bay, wisconsin seems like a bizarre marriage. the historical rivalry thing? that part can easily be overcome, though. red wing fans love chris chelios now. but when he played for the blackhawks we DESPISED that s.o.b. and i'm willing to forgive-and-forget concerning bertuzzi, too

 

so for me it's not so much that--a hated former rival joins the team--as much as it is a wingnut like randy moss running around green bay, wisconsin. that plus i really do think he's toast.

 

but to each his own

[Sho Nuff 719]

just from a personality perspective, moss and green bay, wisconsin seems like a bizarre marriage. the historical rivalry thing? that part can easily be overcome, though. red wing fans love chris chelios now. but when he played for the blackhawks we DESPISED that s.o.b. and i'm willing to forgive-and-forget concerning bertuzzi, too

 

so for me it's not so much that--a hated former rival joins the team--as much as it is a wingnut like randy moss running around green bay, wisconsin. that plus i really do think he's toast.

 

but to each his own

 

 

Basically you are right...I think many have realized over the years that it is a business, and owners and GMs will bring in whoever they can who they think can help the team.

 

In time, when fans see the guy play and do well for their team...much is forgiven.

 

If the trade ever went through, first TD moss would catch, many that disagreed with the move would be the first out of their seats to cheer. Not because Moss scored...but because the Packers scored.

 

Its not about the players...its about the team.

 

There are only so many Favre type guys out there...that play that long for the same team.

[cdogge 17]

All I know is Aaron Rodgers sucks....and Randy Moss doesn't....

 

Rodgers is not the future in Green Bay...they can get another guy just like him in the second round of any draft....

 

Trade this bum and get somebody who can catch a ball....Randy Moss may have lost a step...but he can still outrun about 97% of the league even if he had only 1 leg....

 

Annnnnnd.....the reason his production dropped off the last couple of years is pretty obvious to me...He played for OAKLAND! ....It doesn't matter how many games they ended up winning last year...that was seriously one of the worst teams of all time....

[LunaTick 29]

I have not read all of Sho posts.

 

But it appears he has gone from a Packer homer to having more vision of what is what.

 

 

On Packer QB's. Packers have cycled through backups either through the draft or FA to backup Favre.

See Matt Hasselbeck for one example of a qb they drafted.

 

 

On Rodgers, Favre had already been waxing and waning on retiring for a couple of seasons before that draft.

Ask you who they had on the team at that point to take over for Favre. Know that he is not with the Packers anymore, but with Buffalo.

And yes he is just a backup, not a starter.

 

 

NFL isn't fantasy football, is the real deal. real business. You cannot afford to run thin. Teams that run thin are 1 injury away from playing golf in January.

 

 

On Moss, Moss has speed, leap, and hands. He gives you deep threat and endzone ability. His mid range game blows for he does not have patience. His other knocks are he is not a media savey personality, nor does he care about the media. Reality is his legs have miles, and you need to utilize what he brings intelligently. Something the Raiders (with what they have) do not have time for.

If you can have Moss as your #2 receiving threat, as your #3 receiver (thinking season long) and you sit him during the game (that is right, sit him during parts of the game) you can have a happy Moss.

 

 

Final thought, perhaps they should have kept Walker when they had the chance.

 

On idea of trading Rodgers, I would not consider him as having such value that you would not consider trading him.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

Final thought, perhaps they should have kept Walker when they had the chance.

 

On idea of trading Rodgers, I would not consider him as having such value that you would not consider trading him.

 

Perhaps...but that bridge was burned the year before when he threatened holding out for more money, with 2 years left on his deal...in a year when the team had no money to spend and cut 2 probowl guards and let Sharper go. 3 probowlers gone and he wanted more money?

 

The next year, when he was traded...they got decent value for a guy coming off of a major knee injury.

 

Sure would have been nice to have kept him...but so much happened to prevent that...part of it on Thompson and part of it on Walker himself.

 

Agreed with your last line...and that was what I was getting it...it was only a rumor anyway...but his value is not high enough to have to keep him instead of trying to make the team better.

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

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.

 

[gocolts 300]

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.

[donhaas 18]

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.

 

 

So many parts of this sentence don't make sense...

 

A true Sampdogian masterpiece if I ever saw one....

 

 

You are rapidly making me forget such gems as "Matt Millen is a draft guru" and "Joey looking confident; ready for break out season" and "M. Williams slimming down ......" etc. etc.

[donhaas 18]

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.

 

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

Packers would be a legitimate canditate to lose the superbowl to an AFC team if they would of made this trade.... Hindsight is always 20/20 though.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Packers would be a legitimate canditate to lose the superbowl to an AFC team if they would of made this trade.... Hindsight is always 20/20 though.

 

Not so sure.

Have you seen the Packer's Oline?

[MTSkiBum 1,594]

Not so sure.

Have you seen the Packer's Oline?

Yes i watched both packers games with interest because I started BJax both weeks

[donhaas 18]

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.

 

 

:dunno:

[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.

 

440 and 3TD vs. 730 and 10 TD

 

I'll make that trade

[Uncle Leo 16]

Just think of all those teams that had a chance to land Moss for a freaking forth round pick. I'm sure they fill like I do. I took Lee Evans instead of Moss in the forth round of our draft.

[muzz 0]

yeah, and moss has soooo much gas left in the tank.

 

Looks to me like he has ALOT of gas in the tank, he still can't be covered 1 on 1, and he STILL outjumps, and outplays defenders on a weekly basis....

[muzz 0]

first pac man, and now moss. you've had a very full week defending the nfl's "best." good work, counsel

 

moss doesn't have it anymore--his second gear is gone and his attitude has always sucked. not worth a day 1 pick, which the packers would be giving up in essence.

 

Good analysis...........

[Tusekan Raiders 0]

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.

 

Watching the game tonight reminded me of this thread.

 

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.

 

I base it on, and back it up with, my peerless football acumen. Tom Brady and Bill Belichick agree with me.

[donhaas 18]

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.

 

[Mooseknuckles FF 0]

As a Vikes fan, I would kill to have Aaron Rodgers. That is desperation.

[Mad Brad 0]

Sure its a loss taking a guy of Moss' age for a guy of Rodger's age. But what I am getting at is getting something for a pick that is long gone. Like you said..minimizing the loss.

 

Trust me...Id rather leave this deal....trade a pick for Darrell Jackson and hope Rodgers ends up being a good QB for the Packers at some point.

 

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

None of it happened...but does not seem to hurt GB any.

They are doing quite well right now without Moss.

Sure, Moss would put up flashy stats...but would he be as happy in a game like last week where Favre hit 10 different WRs?

Hindsight is always 20/20.

 

When GB was going after Moss...the talk was about how bad he was and would be for them. When NE got him, all of a sudden, more people jumped aboard the Moss is back bandwagon.

 

now everyone wants to look back and act as if they knew he would be lighting it up like that.

And we know there was only a small percentage who believed that...look at his FF ADP for proof of how many people doubted him.