Buffalo's best LB, Paul Poluczny has a broken left arm and will miss significant time. Clearly Buffalo has to be happy with their performance last night and will likely be looking outside of the organization for help with this major loss.

Our coaching staff wants to find a way to get Bishop more PT and with the way all of our guys played on Sunday night.....


Would TT consider moving one of our backers to the Bills for a first day draft choice in 2010?

no, depth is a good thing, able to keep fresh legs out on the field

Depends what they'd be willing to offer. If it were say, AJ Hawk for a first round pick, then you do that in a heartbeat IMO.

IMO, the value of our LBs is only going to rise this year. I see no reason to trade any of them right now.

The one possible exception might be Barnett. But I don't think you consider moving him until he's played at least a few more games.

I second the trade of Hawk for a 1st rounder, and I think Buffalo's first rounder next year will be a pretty high pick, top 10 I'm guessing.

Barnetts value may also be limited since some could back off due to injury

Right, that's what I was sort of kicking around. For the record, I am not in favor of trading any of our LBs. But this sort of fits into TT's thinking that you could probably get away with having only 9 backers for the rest of the season (or promote Cyril Obiozor from the practice squad) and get good value from a "surplus" position (see: Corey Williams trade.)

I would pull that trigger also but Hawk does not have 1st round value

Why do people wanna get rid of Hawk so bad? He's not spectaculer but is a very solid LB and adds great depth. Be careful what you wish for.

I guess I'm in the minority - I don't believe I would trade Hawk for a first rounder.

If you can get a #1` yes, otherwse no

Let's see we build up the D line to be a position of strength and everyone wants to trade one of the players, that worked out well. Now we have the LBs as a position of strength and now everyone wants to trade a player. I'm not on-board with that

There was a reason we could get Cyril Obiozor onto the practice squad, he isn't ready for prime time yet. So no to your idea or TTs whoevers idea it is.

I wouldnt trade any of the LB's for anybody or anything at this point - and certainly not Hawk.
I sense he's going to be more aggressive in this new scheme and satisfy some of your "missed expectations."

You have to figure injury is going to become a factor at some time during the season so in order to maximize the success of this D unit, you dont want to become thin at the position.

Just my opinion.

It's nice that the Packers have a 'position of strength' - I've been wanting that to be a the LB position for years...

Trading from the 'position of strength' is only logical but nobody can evaluate trades without specifics

Honestly, what do the Packers need?

Offensive Linemen is about it and I'm not ready to throw them under the bus just yet.

Not to be contrary, but we've played one regular season game and there are many more to come.
We're certainly not "overloaded" at any one position or unit and injuries will become a factor at some point in time - so trading away "talented surplus" at this juncture isnt a wise way to win this year.

If we are loaded at some positions - good - I'll be eager to watch it play out, be greedy and want to keep it that way for awhile.

IF we could get a solid Right Tackle, I'd be all for it. But after witnessing MNF football, they need their RT's more than we do.

No, do NOT trade away a postiion of strength and debth right now for next year! Go for the title NOW!

RT maybe

First of all the Packers don't need extra picks next year. Keep the LB crew intact. If a key injury occurs somewhere else on the roster MAYBE use a LB to trade for a replacement.

No picks, we've had enough of those, Hawk for a solid RT, yes, imo

You trade for picks when you are rebuilding. You don't trade away players that contribute to your team when your trying for a title.

I really don't see what Buffalo could offer us that would do us any good. If they had a solid starting RT that they would be willing to give up then I could see a deal in the works. At this point this team looks like its a solid RT from being a Championship team. If Rogers just had one more second on several of his deep misses that Bears game would have been a blowout.

Why trade a known commodity for an unknown? A draft pick doesn't guarantee a player, see Harrell, Brohm, Lee, and many others. Keep your guys, we're only one game in.

Unless its fantasy football, then you have guys trading their team away after one week

You're right. There's a greater than 50% chance that a first round pick turns out to be a less effective player than Hawk.

Hawk is probably worth more to us than a first round pick would be, but the perceived value of a first round pick is higher, so no team would offer a first for him anyway.

The NFL is one of the screwier professional sporting leagues, in the way that they value current players vs. future draft picks.

I don't understand why everyone seems so quick to trade Hawk. Maybe he hasn't lived up to his #5 overall draft pick, but if he was instead picked in the middle of the 1st round instead of at the top, he'd be a very good pick.... he's started from day 1, been among the team leaders in tackles, been above average against the run, doesn't miss assignments very often, and he seems to fit well in the system they have. If they were to trade Hawk for a 1st round pick, it likely wouldn't be at the top end of the round, so ITS A BAD IDEA. I'd be much more willing (which still isn't very willing) to trade one of the backup linebackers who are all capable of starting and promoting a guy like Brad Jones or Cyril Obiozor to a backup role.

So is NE rebuilding? I am not just talking bout Seymour either. NE traded during the draft for next year... I don't see them as rebuilding and I don't see GB as rebuilding.

I don't advocate trading a LB, but maybe a FB...

At the end of the day, I don't see the value in trading anyone now... Unless the ransom is very, very high..... But it must have an extortion type level.

Agree, teams are constantly rebuilding; and Somolia Pirate type ranson we're talking about right?

OK, how about this scenario: Bishop for a 2nd round pick? Would you do it?

I also don't think Sanders was using our LB group effectively. Capers unleashed the raw talent in our LB corps against Chicago and boy did they look good. They were in Cutler's face all day. Hawk was all over the field and actually looked very solid in coverage again. I think its pretty silly to knock the guy for his performance last year. He was injured since Preseason and changed positions mid-season. All of our LBs were underperforming in Sanders system. Right away in the first game we turned in a more impressive defensive performance than I think we had all season last year under Dom Capers. I really can't remember us shutting down the run last year the way we did on Sunday night. Matt Forte averaged less than 3 YPC and the Bears just couldn't really get much going on the ground. There were quite a few tackles for a loss. The nature of Sanders defense prevented a lot of those plays from happening. It was a passive defense designed to react to the offense. We are supposed to be struggling defensively according to most media pundits. That was supposed to be a tough test for our defense. A talented RB and a hightly touted QB against a brand new defense. I thought they did a heck of a job. Other than the one big play to Knox, this defense kept the Bears in check all game. I think our entire defense is going to look better and a lot of the players that have underperformed to their draft status will start to blossom into impact players. I think the problem with Barnett and Hawk was that they always had assignments. They were rarely allowed to just roam the field and make plays.

Think Jeremy Thompson has any value? I kind of doubt it, but I guess it's all in the way you sell it.

This is going to sound horrible -- my stomach is rumbling just to toss it out for discussion -- BUT...in 3 weeks, if we don't see giant improvement, trade Kampman. Why?

If it looks like he's not going to excel in the 3-4, he won't entertain an offer from GB for a renewed contract...and he'll leave at the end of the season as a UFA and GB gets NOTHING for him.

While leaving GB a bit thin at LB, if AK's not excelling in the 3-4 another LB could play his spot and there won't be a huge, catastrophic dropoff. AND...GB could easily get a #1 and a medium quality LB (to replace Kampy in the 3-4) and again...no big dropoff in play level...considering you're picking up a #1 pick.

You could also trade straight for a 2010 #1 and a 2011 #2...and use Kampy's roster spot for another player (like maybe Tauscher -- ha ha!).

Doing this would not be unlike NE trading Seymour rather than letting him go to open market after this season. Look what they got - GB could get something comparable. Kampy's healthy, everydown player in a 4-3 and a top player in the league. Great value and a known commodity.

If Kampy suddenly excels in the 3-4, you still have to worry about signing him DURING THE SEASON and not let him get to open market - always risky.

I'd rather us get top value than get NOTHING for AK if he is disgruntled in 3-4 and goes to UFA. I don't want to hear the usual crap after the season ("well, we wanted to resign him...not enough money...blah blah blah"). Let's be proactive and either extend him or (in 3 weeks) consider trading him.

Geez, my stomachs turning over. I love # 74. Just start being a 3-4 stud and extend your contract by end of october, okay Kampy?

Question? What was wrong with Kampman's play?

He's a genuine team leader and one of the hardest working players in the game.

He was extremely active and solid in the run defense.

He was active in getting pressure on the QB even though he didn't register any sacks. (He absolutely owned Chris Williams and should have gotten several holding, hands to the face and facemasking penalties that weren't called.)

He wasn't a liability in pass coverage.

He gives the team a LOT more flexibility in what they can do in nickle and dime situations than any other LB on the team?

He and Cullen Jenkins on that side of the defense is going to be pretty tough to run on this year.

So again, why would we get rid of him?

He'll continue to improve and contribute to what will be one hell of a defense. I have complete faith in him and think that his transition is way ahead of schedule. I'm happy with how he played Sunday night.

Although I certainly like to entertain 'what if' scenarios as much as anyone, I sense that quite a few fans are starting to fall into that trap, where if a player isn't making huge plays in the highlight reel every week, that they are expendable. And further, there is a tendency to view our team's players as if they are made of gold as far as trade value goes. It takes two to tango, and there is only one Oakland Raiders, so I see the chances of trading any of our players for a nice fat draft pick very slim.

I would trade Poppinga, thats it. He is the most expendable, but it would week 6 @ the deadline, no time sooner.

I wouldn't trade Hawk. Has he lived up to his #5 overall pick billing? No. But if you remember to the post draft pod casty BIG LEGEND and I did, I said he would be a Brian Noble type, and that is what he is turning out to be. (If you remember right Noble was almost dealt to the Raiders for Marcus Allen in Holmgrens first year but Oakland backed out of the deal in the last minute).

The Packers are gonna have a really "super" season and I would like to think that having outstanding debth at the LB position would come in handy as the year goes on.

FIW, I thought Kampman had a really good game Sunday night.

I have to say, about Kampman, that the suggestion is worth thinking about. Not because he's not so good in the 3-4 - I agree that he's doing very well, will no doubt continue to start, is one of the best Packer players and also one of my favourites, a fantastic leader, workhorse, and student of the game.

Having said that, it makes sense for the Packers to work hard (and soon) to get him extended or else consider a trade. In the 3-4 he's not as indispensable for us as he is in the 4-3. And if there is a strong possibility of losing him to free agency, getting a first round draft pick for him seems quite reasonable. He might have more trade value than anyone else on the team outside of Rodgers.


That was very well said. I agree with you. And I agreed with you last year and the year before that, in spite of the 13-3. I was soundly lambasted for arguing that coaching could make such a difference and more especially, I was nearly lynched by some for daring such a suggestion during that outstanding 13-3 season (which, as it turned out, was not that different in thinking than McCarthy was doing). I can remember at least one poster coming down heavy on me for suggesting there was anything wrong with Sanders in 07 who then, during this summer gone, was making pronouncements about how Sanders was obviously not the man for the job with a straight face, without so much as a 'how do'ya do'. I have high regard for those posters among us who acknowledge a change in their position, even if only in passing - something I've seen a fair bit of lately - but less for the politicians. There's no question in my mind that you are right; that the coaching is facilitating the emergence of talent that was always latently there. At least for a few - but a few playmakers is really huge for any team. And for many others, it can bring mediocre or even weak play up to standards of solid adequacy.

Before the season, I loved the way Capers talked about talent and I loved the way Dave Redding talked about developing players. Regardless of how well it would turn out in terms of putting the ideas into practice.

No matter how well Kampman plays this year, if we can't get his contract extended before mid-season, it makes sense to consider moving him from a salary cap viewpoint. If we moved him this year (and got a #1), we'd free up a good portion of his 6M cap. We could then extend Chiller and Pickett for example (2 players we may lose next year due to cap) and land a #1 for Kampman to boot.

There's a fair chance we lose him at end of this season and get NOTHING...because some team will want to pay him starting DE money in area of 6M per year (which is reasonable). TT and the Packers could never pay him 6M per year to play LB -- it would be completely out of whack with the other LB'ers. Resign him in next 5 weeks or move him. I'm sure someone would like to get a ProBowl DE. None of this is a reflection or argument that Kampman is not playing well as a LB...it's looking at the bigger picture and what's better for the Packers over time.

Could Chillar play OLB in his place?

I'd like to see a lineup of Matthews, Hawk, Bishop and Chillar. That, I like.

I just don't know what or who we could get for Kampman. A high draft pick most likely.

Even then what is the point? TT hasn't really been brilliant with drafting first round picks now has he.

I think Kampman is doing an excellent job at OLB. He's had multiple QB pressures and hits and is currently leading the team in tackles. Him and Chillar are our best LBs right now, followed by Clay Matthews. Hawk and Barnett have been disappointing to say the least. As usual they just aren't difference makers. Barnett is understandable given that he is returning from an injury. Hawk needs to play better. He could have had Benson 3-4 yards in the backfield on one play and totally whiffed. A 250lb ILB has to make that tackle. He constantly slips every time a RB jukes. Its annoying already. I think Poppinga, Hawk and Barnett are all expendable. They aren't doing much.