Arrigo
Oct 12 2009, 07:12 PM
O.T.S. 10-12-09 (7:35pm pst):
I have heard that the Packers have had discussions with the following teams in regards to a variety of trades scenarios.
The Chargers for Shawne Merriman or Antonio Cromartie: I spoke to 2 people today (one with the Packers and the other from the Chargers) and they both said that Chargers G.M. A.J. Smith and Ted Thompson spoke a few times about a couple if different deals.
One deal would have Merriman going to Green Bay for a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011 or a player. The Packers want a window to get a new deal done for Merriman if they agree on compensation, but that appears far off right now.
The second deal they supposedly talked about was for CB Antonio Cromartie. He has fallen out of favor with Smith and some coaches (mostly head coach Norv Turner) and the Chargers are prepared to move on with 2nd year pro Antoine Cason as the starter. The price is higher for him then Merriman from what they said.
The Packers have talked to the Rams about Chris Long. This deal makes sense, but I am not sure how serious either side is. The Packers would trade Aaron Kampman and a 2nd round pick for Long and the Rams 3rd round pick in 2010. Long has not "fit in" in the 4-3 like the Rams have hoped and is not the starter while the same could be said for Kampman in the Packers 3-4.
The Packers have talked to the Panthers about Julius Peppers. Peppers wants out and to a team that runs a 3-4 and Kampman would be better suited in the 4-3, so again this seems logical. The problem is Peppers wants "Haynesworth" type money while the Panthers want a 1st or 2nd round pick. If the Packers deal Kampman they will not want to part with a high pick and then be forced to pay Peppers a ton of money.
The Packers have talked to Oakland about a variety of players. Michael Bush, Michael Huff and Darren McFadden. The Raiders want a 1st, Brandon Jackson and another player for McFadden, which is to rich for the Packers (and I don't think
Oakland, errr Al Davis wants to deal him). As for Huff I was told a 3rd or 4th could land him and the same price could possibly land Bush.
The Packers talked to Browns about Joe Thomas. The price for Thomas is a 1st, a 3rd, a pick in 2011 (a 2nd) and a player. I was told A.J. Hawk is the player the Browns really like, but would want to rework his deal. I also was told the Browns don't want to deal him but are willing to listen to offers for him because "you never know". (I don't see this deal happening at all to be honest.)
PLEASE remember these are just things I got told today and they are rumors, NOT facts.
Joe
jpackman
Oct 12 2009, 07:54 PM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 12 2009, 11:12 PM)
O.T.S. 10-12-09 (7:35pm pst):
The Chargers for Shawne Merriman or Antonio Cromartie: I spoke to 2 people today (one with the Packers and the other from the Chargers) and they both said that Chargers G.M. A.J. Smith and Ted Thompson spoke a few times about a couple if different deals.
One deal would have Merriman going to Green Bay for a 2nd round pick in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011 or a player. The Packers want a window to get a new deal done for Merriman if they agree on compensation, but that appears far off right now.
If it is doable ...I say this helps The Packers.. Gets a more aggressive LB...trade Barnett and give the 2011 pick
The second deal they supposedly talked about was for CB Antonio Cromartie. He has fallen out of favor with Smith and some coaches (mostly head coach Norv Turner) and the Chargers are prepared to move on with 2nd year pro Antoine Cason as the starter. The price is higher for him then Merriman from what they said.
No problem here either Woodsen and Harris are getting older... and he is proven with some better coaching up here it could work...even having him as Nickle Back...Give them Lee/Underwood amd 2011 pick...
The Packers have talked to the Rams about Chris Long. This deal makes sense, but I am not sure how serious either side is. The Packers would trade Aaron Kampman and a 2nd round pick for Long and the Rams 3rd round pick in 2010. Long has not "fit in" in the 4-3 like the Rams have hoped and is not the starter while the same could be said for Kampman in the Packers 3-4.
If a trade could work and not giving up the farm why not.... Long /Merriman/Bishop/ Mathews
The Packers have talked to the Panthers about Julius Peppers. Peppers wants out and to a team that runs a 3-4 and Kampman would be better suited in the 4-3, so again this seems logical. The problem is Peppers wants "Haynesworth" type money while the Panthers want a 1st or 2nd round pick. If the Packers deal Kampman they will not want to part with a high pick and then be forced to pay Peppers a ton of money.
This is one I would do ...Trogavic and Capers know him... I would look at them and see if he could add another spark that the D needs... if we get merriman and long... then where does JP fit... if we dont get Long.... then
Peppers/ Merriman/ Bishop/ Mathews
The Packers have talked to Oakland about a variety of players. Michael Bush, Michael Huff and Darren McFadden. The Raiders want a 1st, Brandon Jackson and another player for McFadden, which is to rich for the Packers (and I don't think Oakland, errr Al Davis wants to deal him). As for Huff I was told a 3rd or 4th could land him and the same price could possibly land Bush.
I have no issue on BJ for MCFadden or Bush... would be a nice Trade...and change of Pace with Grant....Adding Huff for some Picks...and Drop Bigby... No Issue on that Huff and Collins as Safeties...
Grant/McFadden nice change of pace Backs...
Woodsen/Huff/Collins/Harris
Woodsen/Huff/Collins/ Harris/ Cromartrie
The Packers talked to Browns about Joe Thomas. The price for Thomas is a 1st, a 3rd, a pick in 2011 (a 2nd) and a player. I was told A.J. Hawk is the player the Browns really like, but would want to rework his deal. I also was told the Browns don't want to deal him but are willing to listen to offers for him because "you never know". (I don't see this deal happening at all to be honest.)
Dont see why the browns do this but would welcome it.....if we have trade Hawk ..So Be It.... Get a A solid Tackle to build on with Spitz and I think Lang....and sutton could grow ...and colledge could be better at Guard....
Since I see this as a long shot... but what the hey...Clifton/Colledge/Spitz/Sutton/Thomas
PLEASE remember these are just things I got told today and they are rumors, NOT facts.
Joe
Understood Joe....
pkrjones
Oct 12 2009, 07:56 PM
I would LOVE a trade for Joe Thomas! A '10 #1, #3 and a #2 in '11 - would have cost us more than that to move-up to get Thomas in the draft, and he's proven to be a stud. IF they want Hawk as well, I think that's pretty steep, and TT should ask for a few picks back from them (#4 in '10, #3 in '11?). A stud LT isn't easy to find - I'd do that.
Huff for a 4th would be intriguing, but not sure if I'd go higher... would Al take a 6th and Bush?
Cromartie would be a great pick-up, but don't want to part w/ high picks if they'll get us a LT.
Thanks for the rumors, Joe... keep them coming.
Vots
Oct 12 2009, 09:18 PM
CLE probably isn't even serious about Thomas. But honestly, that would be to much anyways to give up.
If TT could land Bush for a 4th rounder, I think he should definitely do it. Bush is better then McFadden in my eyes and Bush has shown some real good things behind, what is an even worse O-line then ours. Bush could really give us that 2-back tandem so many teams want now, and would give defenses a "changeup".
As for Huff, I originally liked that idea. But as someone pointed out in another thread, he's being paid a lot of money for just average play.
When it comes to SD, I'd have to say no to the Merriman thing. Merriman isn't any better then Barnett, now that he doesn't cheat anymore. Merriman just isn't the same player. Before he got caught cheating, he was just a glorified 3-4 pass rusher. Now he doesn't even have that to offer anymore. Barnett has been improving and I'd like to give him time to adapt to the 3-4.
The Cromartie thing, REALLY interests me. But it sounds like they want a 1st-rounder for him, and even though I think Cromartie is a 1st round talent, I'd rather use that 1st round pick of ours on a more pressing need. Plus that would make us shuffle our lineup a bit.
And the Long trade I wouldn't even consider during the season.
PackerJB
Oct 13 2009, 04:18 AM
Doesn't this happen ALL THE TIME? GM's talking to plenty of teams in the league. It's common. I don't see ANY of these deals going down.
JimATX
Oct 13 2009, 04:21 AM
I agree, highly unlikely that any of the deals goes down. Everyone of these rumors has been floating around the web for the past week.
rpiotr01
Oct 13 2009, 05:09 AM
I can't imagine they would even put a price on Thomas. He's their one blue chip player, he's a guy who is top three in the league at his position. And he's young. How can you put a price on that? If someone called the Packers and asked for Aaron Rodgers, do you think they'd waste their breath rattling off a list of picks?
pilprin
Oct 13 2009, 05:45 AM
I like them all...it would be nice to see a deal...even if a small one.
Jeremy
Oct 13 2009, 06:35 AM
Yeah, it's probably mostly fantasy, but it's fun to think about. I especially enjoyed the pictures.
Heatseeker
Oct 13 2009, 06:40 AM
No.
packinatl
Oct 13 2009, 06:44 AM
QUOTE (JimATX @ Oct 13 2009, 06:21 PM)
I agree, highly unlikely that any of the deals goes down. Everyone of these rumors has been floating around the web for the past week.
I have seen them also Jim,
twilliamsen
Oct 13 2009, 07:11 AM
Interesting reads..
TT always calls around to see what he can get, just doing his due diligence.
I wouldn't take Peppers. Why would you trade one DE/OLB that cannot play in a 3-4 for another that has never played in it? Plus Pepper would cost a fortune... PASS
Merriman...
If he can be had for little compensation, do it, he is a beast. I think he is 265lbs. pretty big for a LB
Croamartie...
Really? Send a 3rd for him
Could use a running back, but it is hard to tell if it is the o-line not opening holes or if Grant gets touched and falls down.
All I know is I am a coach GM
zmanishere11
Oct 13 2009, 08:12 AM
The thing about Peppers is, if he ends up being terrible at OLB, at least there's a chance he could play DE in the 3-4. The biggest obstacle there is likely the money he wants, otherwise this seems like the most obvious trade of the century for BOTH teams (if it were Kampman for Peppers straight up - if we include a pick no thanks).
Franchise LT's do not get traded. Ever. Forget about Joe Thomas.
Surprisingly the only players listed that are likely availible and I'd be interested in are Michael Bush and Michael Huff from OAK.
I've had a man crush on Bush for some time - the guy would have been a first round pick had it not been for the broken leg. Watching this guy catch the ball out of the backfield (at 250 lbs!) is just amazing. My interest in Huff is driven more by the lack of talent currently at S on our roster and the fact that trading with OAK usually ends up in the other teams favor.
Packfan_Euro_Trash
Oct 13 2009, 08:39 AM
I have been advocating the Peppers trade for some time now. There is a bit of catch though in that it would take time for him to learn the OLB spot. GB would want at least another year to see if he is a fit, but that would prob come at too high a price. I hate to say it but may be better to see in Kampy comes around this year. Maybe Peppers and AK get tags at the end of the year and trade them then....
Jeremy
Oct 13 2009, 08:51 AM
I guess my two bit opinion on some of these guys:
Peppers-overrated and too expensive.
Merriman-Scares me. Too many examples of guys who are forced to get off the roids having a huge drop in production.
Bush and Huff- Yes please.
Thomas-No way will they let him go.
McFadden-not at those prices.
Don't know much about Chromartie or Long.
phanatic1
Oct 13 2009, 10:51 AM
First off, I have a hard time seeing any of these happening. I would be totally shocked. But anyway, here is my take.
Merriman - The asking price is steep. A 2nd or a 3rd rounder would have to be it for me. He is young and if he returns to his pre-injury production, would be a great addition.
Cromartie - No way does SD get a 1st for him. A 3rd round pick would be the highest I would go. Has a lot of potential and would be a good addition.
Bush - I would do a 2nd for him. He could be a very good back and with his size and speed, an every down player. Right now, would be an upgrade over Grant.
McFadden - Oakland will never let him go. Won't happen.
Huff - Just don't see Oakland letting him go for nothing less than a 1st. Getting paid well and not performing as a high 1st rounder should.
Thomas - A pipe dream to think Cleveland will ever let him go. A franchise LT that will be a pro-bowler for the next 10-12 years. No chance of him being traded.
Peppers - Nope. Wants to much money. Always seems like he will make a play in some meaningless games, but when it comes to the big games, disappears.
Long - Why would the Rams trade him? And where would we play him? Another experiment of moving a DE to OLB? Nope.
If anything, a small time trade for another back-up OL will happen. Don't see TT doing anything major.
The GM
Oct 13 2009, 10:57 AM
A 3rd or 4th for Huff is much too high. The Raiders were shopping him this past summer, and just about dumped him out right.
Vinnie
Oct 13 2009, 02:51 PM
The Pack should give up their first and his name is Harrell.
diesel
Oct 13 2009, 03:33 PM
QUOTE (Vinnie @ Oct 13 2009, 05:51 PM)
The Pack should give up their first and his name is Harrell.
Maybe if The Pack talks to Al early enough in the day he'd agree to Harrell for Seymour straight up.
Lambeau5
Oct 13 2009, 04:24 PM
If Huff is assignment sure lets do this NOW.
A big reason Capers cannot open up the flood gates and bring pressure is because we have weak links on the backside. Bigby will provide this help but honestly does anyone here feel comfortable that he will play the rest of the season once he comes back from this injury.
JimATX
Oct 13 2009, 04:57 PM
Thompson loved Huff when he came out of Texas. At the UT pro-day Thompson spent most of his time watching the Huff work-out... I though for sure he was going to be the Packers pick back then. I wonder if Thompson saw something he didn't like.
diesel
Oct 13 2009, 05:07 PM
QUOTE (JimATX @ Oct 13 2009, 07:57 PM)
Thompson loved Huff when he came out of Texas. At the UT pro-day Thompson spent most of his time watching the Huff work-out... I though for sure he was going to be the Packers pick back then. I wonder if Thompson saw something he didn't like.
Supposedly, he wasn't that interested in tackling, although I haven't seen enough to support that claim. Off hand, I think he makes 6-7 mil a year, which could scare off some teams.
Bluedog
Oct 14 2009, 04:51 AM
I find the rumore about Joe Thomas laughable. Franchise LT's are hard to come by, there is no way the Browns would entertain any trade offers for the best player on their already poor team. Whoever came up with this rumor had way too much time on their hands.
However the one I like the most is the Chris Long rumor. I would trade Kampman and a 2nd for Long and a 3rd in a heartbeat. Of course the Peppers rumor would be nice, but the cost seems like it'd be too much.
Interesting fodder.
Arrigo
Oct 14 2009, 10:25 AM
Keep an eye on S Clinton Hart who was cut by the Chargers today. There is interest on the Packers end. Also, the Chargers will be making more moves and the Packers are mentioned as a team of interest with a few of them.
pkrjones
Oct 14 2009, 10:46 AM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 14 2009, 01:25 PM)
Keep an eye on S Clinton Hart who was cut by the Chargers today. There is interest on the Packers end. Also, the Chargers will be making more moves and the Packers are mentioned as a team of interest with a few of them.
Hope this happens, as well as a move for Cromartie (if they REALLY want to shake-up the Charger's D). Don't care if he plays ST, just that he can play SS.
Vots
Oct 14 2009, 11:39 AM
For the sake of discussion...
Arrigo said Cleveland wants a 2010 1st round pick, 2010 3rd round pick, 2011 2nd round pick, and a player for the all-pro, Joe Thomas.
Using the trade value chart, I would say Thomas is worth 1st round, 1st overall. That's 3000 points.
If the Packers finish where they are now, in the middle of the pack. A 2010 1st would be worth 1050. A 2010 2nd would be worth 430. Assuming we're better in 2011, a 2nd round pick would be about 380. Plus a player.
Total points equal to 1860 points. Plus a player. And I'm just going to throw a random name out there...Aaron Kampman. If Cleveland was actually serious about this, I honestly believe this is a deal for the Packers.
Because Thompson probably uses a couple picks next year trying to find a lineman, why not trade those 2 away if you know you're getting a pro-bowler for the next 10 years?
If Cleveland is actually serious, if I'm TT, I get this done as quick as possible before they change their mind!
twilliamsen
Oct 14 2009, 11:43 AM
QUOTE (Vots @ Oct 14 2009, 12:39 PM)
For the sake of discussion...
Arrigo said Cleveland wants a 2010 1st round pick, 2010 3rd round pick, 2011 2nd round pick, and a player for the all-pro, Joe Thomas.
Using the trade value chart, I would say Thomas is worth 1st round, 1st overall. That's 3000 points.
If the Packers finish where they are now, in the middle of the pack. A 2010 1st would be worth 1050. A 2010 2nd would be worth 430. Assuming we're better in 2011, a 2nd round pick would be about 380. Plus a player.
Total points equal to 1860 points. Plus a player. And I'm just going to throw a random name out there...Aaron Kampman. If Cleveland was actually serious about this, I honestly believe this is a deal for the Packers.
Because Thompson probably uses a couple picks next year trying to find a lineman, why not trade those 2 away if you know you're getting a pro-bowler for the next 10 years?
If Cleveland is actually serious, if I'm TT, I get this done as quick as possible before they change their mind!
I like the Merriman and the Long idea. Long maybe more ideal for the future, but I wouldn't trade Kampman AND and a draft pick, if anything, Rams give the Packers draft picks.
I believe in TTs way of holding onto draft picks, I would not give up the future for any one person. I would say NO to that many 1st round picks. A 1st and a 3rd possibly.
Heatseeker
Oct 14 2009, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Vots @ Oct 14 2009, 02:39 PM)
For the sake of discussion...
Arrigo said Cleveland wants a 2010 1st round pick, 2010 3rd round pick, 2011 2nd round pick, and a player for the all-pro, Joe Thomas.
Using the trade value chart, I would say Thomas is worth 1st round, 1st overall. That's 3000 points.
If the Packers finish where they are now, in the middle of the pack. A 2010 1st would be worth 1050. A 2010 2nd would be worth 430. Assuming we're better in 2011, a 2nd round pick would be about 380. Plus a player.
Total points equal to 1860 points. Plus a player. And I'm just going to throw a random name out there...Aaron Kampman. If Cleveland was actually serious about this, I honestly believe this is a deal for the Packers.
Because Thompson probably uses a couple picks next year trying to find a lineman, why not trade those 2 away if you know you're getting a pro-bowler for the next 10 years?
If Cleveland is actually serious, if I'm TT, I get this done as quick as possible before they change their mind!
I agree. There's something to be said about drafting for quantity like Thompson does. There's also something to be said about how Minnesota got more value out of two players (Jared Allen and their safety) by giving away a ton of picks to K.C.
Everyone thought at the time the Vikes were crazy.
But as Steve Jobs said,
"Those crazy enough to change things, are usually the ones who do." The Vikings, I think you could say, have changed their team into a pretty good one by making, "crazy" moves.
GBP4EVER
Oct 14 2009, 02:35 PM
Long wont be traded. He pretty much can not be. The Rams would take a big cap hit in trading him now. He will stay a Ram.
phanatic1
Oct 14 2009, 03:39 PM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 15 2009, 12:25 AM)
Keep an eye on S Clinton Hart who was cut by the Chargers today. There is interest on the Packers end. Also, the Chargers will be making more moves and the Packers are mentioned as a team of interest with a few of them.
30 other teams probably will check him out, but I would guess that the Packers won't be one of them. While he is a solid player and would provide an up-grade over Bigby and would provide good leadership, he is 32 years old and as a result, TT won't pull the trigger. He may cut into the development of some of the younger players.
This is one of those frustrating times when a guy like this that has some skill will not be considered. He could come in and being a veteran - learn the defense and be up and ready in a few weeks. Instead, we will continue to watch Bigby and his roller coaster play - if he is healthy.
As time is going, I am begining to lose some faith in this build through the draft philosophy. It is beginning to cost us games and eventually, could cost TT his job.
diesel
Oct 14 2009, 04:47 PM
QUOTE (Heatseeker @ Oct 14 2009, 04:15 PM)
I agree. There's something to be said about drafting for quantity like Thompson does. There's also something to be said about how Minnesota got more value out of two players (Jared Allen and their safety) by giving away a ton of picks to K.C.
Everyone thought at the time the Vikes were crazy.
But as Steve Jobs said, "Those crazy enough to change things, are usually the ones who do." The Vikings, I think you could say, have changed their team into a pretty good one by making, "crazy" moves.
I also questioned the Allen deal at the time. A quarter way through the season he would have my vote for NFL Defensive Player of the Year.
Arrigo
Oct 14 2009, 07:05 PM
Keep an eye on Stephen Jackson to the Packers for Ryan Grant, a 2nd in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011.
I had 3 different people telling me that (and they didn't know that they all told me). I guess the packers do not feel Grant will ever get his "magic" back from 2007 and think this will be his last year in G.B.
Jackson has ties to Nick Barnett (they are really close friends) and is the type of RB McCarthy wants.
The OL help would then come via the draft/FA, which I was told Thompson has made clear to certain members of his personnel team, he would be more active in this year, in particualr with the OL.
firepack
Oct 14 2009, 08:18 PM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 15 2009, 10:05 AM)
Keep an eye on Stephen Jackson to the Packers for Ryan Grant, a 2nd in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011.
I had 3 different people telling me that (and they didn't know that they all told me). I guess the packers do not feel Grant will ever get his "magic" back from 2007 and think this will be his last year in G.B.
Jackson has ties to Nick Barnett (they are really close friends) and is the type of RB McCarthy wants.
The OL help would then come via the draft/FA, which I was told Thompson has made clear to certain members of his personnel team, he would be more active in this year, in particualr with the OL.
I be down with that trade.
twilliamsen
Oct 15 2009, 03:56 AM
QUOTE (firepack @ Oct 14 2009, 09:18 PM)
I be down with that trade.
Me too, a 2nd and Grant? DO IT TT!!
He makes holes, Grant falls down when some farts.
JimATX
Oct 15 2009, 04:06 AM
Why does a team cut a guy who has started 33 out of the 34 games he's played in since 2007 ? Because he no longer is starter quality.
ripped from another boardQUOTE
You can see some of his work here (He's #42):
nfl.com/video WK 1 Can't-Miss Play: JaMarcus goes deep JaMarcus Russell finds Louis Murphy on 4th and 15 to take the lead late vs. the Chargers. boltsfromtheblue.com San Diego Chargers' Bolts & Dolts: Week 1 by John (obviousman) QUOTE
Clinton Hart - 2 tackles. Just an atrocious game for Clinton. Once again, he showed that he is a below-average SS in the NFL without a good pass-rush to support him. He had countless missed tackles and couldn't defend Zach Miller if his life depended on it. He clearly missed the over-the-top coverage on the deep pass to Louis Murphy, and his finger-pointing while the play was going on was childish and selfish. I don't think he could've had a worse game if he tried.
bleacherreport.com Chargers Defenders on Hot Seat, Time for These Guys To Light a Fire by Mike Kranzler QUOTE
Clinton Hart
Having previously been put on notice after his disappointing season last year and the drafting of Kevin Ellison out of USC, Hart managed to beat out Ellison and several younger veterans for the starting role to open the season. However, he has recently been seen as more of a caretaker for the position until Ellison (or perhaps Steve Gregory or Paul Oliver) is ready to take over as the starter later in the season.
He tends to be out of position quite a bit, and suffers major lapses in concentration and communication that lead to plays like Louis Murphy's fourth quarter touchdown reception in the Chargers' narrow victory against a woeful Raiders squad.
nfl.com/video WK 4: Rashard Mendenhall highlightsthere's a whole lot of poor effort/arm tackling/bad angling by Hart(#42) on this reel, guy doesn't look interested in tackling at all. bleacherreport.com San Diego Chargers:
First Domino Falls As Hart Is Cut by Mike Kranzler QUOTE
A second-year starter, Hart received a large contract extension midway through 2008, making his release all the more surprising. However, his limitations in coverage and tackling struggles may have contributed to his release.
Hart has also struggled with injuries, as a neck stinger kept him out of the lineup for several games last season, during which time the Chargers' defense did not seem to skip a beat in his absence.
The guy would not be an upgrade over Bigby. And I'm not sure about him as depth. With his salary I expect he'll clear waivers (making him a FA) before someone gives him a shot.
sinatra
Oct 15 2009, 04:14 AM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 14 2009, 11:05 PM)
Keep an eye on Stephen Jackson to the Packers for Ryan Grant, a 2nd in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011.
I had 3 different people telling me that (and they didn't know that they all told me). I guess the packers do not feel Grant will ever get his "magic" back from 2007 and think this will be his last year in G.B.
Jackson has ties to Nick Barnett (they are really close friends) and is the type of RB McCarthy wants.
The OL help would then come via the draft/FA, which I was told Thompson has made clear to certain members of his personnel team, he would be more active in this year, in particualr with the OL.
Oh my god, I can't even explain to you how excited that would make me.
Rodgers, Driver, Jennings, Finley and Jackson? Ho-ly crap. How could you possibly stop that? Our offense has been one dimensional for three years, and we've still been top 5 or 10 every year in offense. Imagine if we actually had a legit run game. Jackson is the kind of guy that can produce behind any line, especially with a downfield threat opening things up some.
pkrjones
Oct 15 2009, 04:30 AM
QUOTE (Arrigo @ Oct 14 2009, 10:05 PM)
Keep an eye on Stephen Jackson to the Packers for Ryan Grant, a 2nd in 2010 and a conditional pick in 2011.
I'd be happy with this trade, as long as the conditional pick was a day 2 (4th -6th rounder). Grant still has something to offer, but needs a hole... Jackson creates his running room if it's not there - pull the trigger, TT.
Could info. on Hart, JimATX - thanks.
JimATX
Oct 15 2009, 04:30 AM
While Jackson would be a nice addition to the Packers I don't see it happening no matter what anyone has told anyone else.
QUOTE
8/21/2008: Signed a six-year, $44.805 million contract. The deal contains $20.5 million guaranteed, including an $11.395 million signing bonus. Another $4.495 million is available through incentives. He must average 1,200 yards rushing and 400 yards receiving over the first four years to void the final two seasons on his contract. 2009: $5.5 million, 2010: $6.105 million, 2011: $7.2 million, 2012-2013: $7 million (Voidable Years), 2014: Free Agent. Cap charge: $7.4 million (2009).
A little over a year ago the Rams gave him $11.4mm in SB. Trade him and they are on the hook for all of that, and the remaining prorated amount [about $9.5mm] gets accelerated to this years cap number. With the Rams approximate $5.9mm in cap space I don't think they could absorb that kind of hit.
It is somewhat fun to play
fantasy GM though...
twilliamsen
Oct 15 2009, 04:43 AM
QUOTE (JimATX @ Oct 15 2009, 05:30 AM)
While Jackson would be a nice addition to the Packers I don't see it happening no matter what anyone has told anyone else.
A little over a year ago the Rams gave him $11.4mm in SB. Trade him and they are on the hook for all of that, and the remaining prorated amount [about $9.5mm] gets accelerated to this years cap number. With the Rams approximate $5.9mm in cap space I don't think they could absorb that kind of hit.
It is somewhat fun to play fantasy GM though...
Depends on the language of the trade, maybe they re-do his contract to be cap friendly, who knows. You are also missing the other half of the trade, Grant. What impact on the cap to both teams if this trade happened?
sinatra
Oct 15 2009, 04:53 AM
I hate the way cap hits work in the NFL. I'm sure there's a reason for it though. Does anyone know what the benefit is in the league's eyes of a team taking a cap hit for a player they don't have anymore?
Bluedog
Oct 15 2009, 05:51 AM
These trade rumors border on the sublime and ridiculous. When was the last time top tier players were traded for each other? Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis is the last big one I remember and how long ago was that! There's no way Steven Jackson is getting traded. I know Joe posts these as rumors from his sources to inspire conversation and debate, but c'mon. If you throw everything to the wall something is bound to stick, that's all I'm sayin.
twilliamsen
Oct 15 2009, 05:58 AM
QUOTE (Bluedog @ Oct 15 2009, 06:51 AM)
These trade rumors border on the sublime and ridiculous. When was the last time top tier players were traded for each other? Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis is the last big one I remember and how long ago was that! There's no way Steven Jackson is getting traded. I know Joe posts these as rumors from his sources to inspire conversation and debate, but c'mon. If you throw everything to the wall something is bound to stick, that's all I'm sayin.
Another question, is how often is Joe right versus wrong?
Or are we all playing Madden?
sinatra
Oct 15 2009, 06:00 AM
I think the Steven Jackson trade is realistic.
Not to say it will happen, but it is a feasible scenario. A bad team looking to get draft picks to rebuild, and a good team looking to fill an area that's been a glaring hole for 3 years now.
maxman44
Oct 15 2009, 06:00 AM
If you don't like reading the rumors then don't click on the thread......just sayin'............
twilliamsen
Oct 15 2009, 06:18 AM
QUOTE (maxman44 @ Oct 15 2009, 07:00 AM)
If you don't like reading the rumors then don't click on the thread......just sayin'............
Because it is entertaining.
Jeremy
Oct 15 2009, 06:25 AM
QUOTE (sinatra @ Oct 15 2009, 07:00 AM)
I think the Steven Jackson trade is realistic.
Not to say it will happen, but it is a feasible scenario. A bad team looking to get draft picks to rebuild, and a good team looking to fill an area that's been a glaring hole for 3 years now.
Yeah, not taking into account the possible cap implications (some have suggested that would make it impossible), I think it's possible they would consider moving him. It would be difficult because he's about their only draw at this point. He's 26 years old and in his prime. But RBs who carry the full load and run with aggression like he does flame out by age 30. They are a bad team and it doesn't appear like they're the kind of bad team that can turn it around instantly as some have, though I suppose it's possible. If they feel they're 3 years away from contending, he'll be 29 at that point and nearing the end of his productive years.
But the cap issues might prevent it. I don't know.
Lambeau5
Oct 15 2009, 06:41 AM
My feeling is that bigger than the cap implications in this deal is the fact that apparently the Rams are for sale. In this scenario why would you trade away your franchise RB, only real ticket draw, bury yourself with the huge cap hit if you are trying to make your team attractive to potential suitors?
sinatra
Oct 15 2009, 06:45 AM
QUOTE (Lambeau5 @ Oct 15 2009, 10:41 AM)
My feeling is that bigger than the cap implications in this deal is the fact that apparently the Rams are for sale. In this scenario why would you trade away your franchise RB, only real ticket draw, bury yourself with the huge cap hit if you are trying to make your team attractive to potential suitors?
There's no need to make an NFL team attractive in order to sell it. It's a seller's market in the NFL - there's always someone wanting to buy a team.
Heatseeker
Oct 15 2009, 06:45 AM
QUOTE (JimATX @ Oct 15 2009, 07:30 AM)
While Jackson would be a nice addition to the Packers I don't see it happening no matter what anyone has told anyone else.
A little over a year ago the Rams gave him $11.4mm in SB. Trade him and they are on the hook for all of that, and the remaining prorated amount [about $9.5mm] gets accelerated to this years cap number. With the Rams approximate $5.9mm in cap space I don't think they could absorb that kind of hit.
It is somewhat fun to play fantasy GM though...
I don't think I've ever agreed with you more, Jim.
packinatl
Oct 15 2009, 06:48 AM
QUOTE (sinatra @ Oct 15 2009, 07:53 PM)
I hate the way cap hits work in the NFL. I'm sure there's a reason for it though. Does anyone know what the benefit is in the league's eyes of a team taking a cap hit for a player they don't have anymore?
The league does not want fire sales like MLB has in August so its basically discourages trades with the cap hit
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.