Should we trade KGB?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Just trying to change the subject and the mood........


With Brett gone now, I don't believe that we are going to win the superbowl, so why not trade a guy who still has some value and who is not in our long term plans? With Brett here I would definitely say that we should keep KGB because we would need every good player we have, but with Brett gone now I think we should try to get what we can for him. Hell the Raiders just gave Walker 55 million, I bet some team is dumb enough to give us a 3rd for KGB who is only 29 or 30 and has some good years left.

Also, this would clear a lot more money that could then be used to extend all of our young raising stars.

Just a thought, what do you think??

[The Leaper]

For the 1,259th time...

WE DON'T NEED MORE FUCKING CAP SPACE!!!!

Why cut or trade someone who is going to be a key contributor in 2008...especially when they won't bring much of anything in return?

KGB is impossible to move anyway...no one will want to accept his current contract.

[PackerBlues]

I agree with Leaper, no point to it now. Thompson actually needs to spend money now, because he has to much cap room. Ironic I know :lol: .

I don't know about KGB's salary being to high for another team to take on though. Especially since the cap keeps getting bigger every year. KGB's salary may actually look kind of small in comparison to some of the contracts dished out in Free Agency this year.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Shit, with Favre's 12M off the books, we might need to spend some money to get over the cap floor.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

For the 1,259th time...

WE DON'T NEED MORE FUCKING CAP SPACE!!!!

Why cut or trade someone who is going to be a key contributor in 2008...especially when they won't bring much of anything in return?

KGB is impossible to move anyway...no one will want to accept his current contract.

But now that Brett's gone would you not rather have a decent pick (say even just a 4th) for a guy who is not going to be here long term? Is has 8 sacks really going to make that much of a difference. And its really not about cap space, it’s about getting something for a guy now before he leaves in a couple years anyways.

I would have agreed with you a week ago, but now I would rather have more picks and young guys.

Also, I wouldn't say it’s impossible to trade him. It may be difficult, but not impossible.

[SkinBasket]

it’s about getting something for a guy now before he leaves in a couple years anyways.

Hahaha. Where's he going to go in a couple years? It's not like he's a young budding star. He's an aging edge rusher. He'll command twice the vet minimum at best.

[The Leaper]

I would have agreed with you a week ago, but now I would rather have more picks and young guys.

Our team was the YOUNGEST IN THE LEAGUE last year...and that included grey beard.

Now without grey beard, we will probably STILL be the youngest team in the league in 2008.

How many kids do you want on this team??? Honestly.

You don't win Super Bowls with a roster full of guys with less than 5 years of experience.

[Zool]

WE DON'T NEED MORE FUCKING CAP SPACE!!!!

When did they institute a cap on fucking? Skin and Nutz might have to hire Andrew Brandt to help them out of the mess they are going to be in.

[LL2]

KGB is worth keeping. Even if he only gives 7-8 sacks.

Does anyone know how Hunter has been progressing. He seems like to small speedy edge rusher on passing downs that would be perfect to eventually replace KGB in a year or two.

[KYPack]

No.

We still need a 3rd down edge rusher.

Unless somebody plays into the job, we need that pressure to make our D effective

[Deputy Nutz]

WE DON'T NEED MORE FUCKING CAP SPACE!!!!

When did they institute a cap on fucking? Skin and Nutz might have to hire Andrew Brandt to help them out of the mess they are going to be in.


Brandt is still available, right?

[Deputy Nutz]

Just trying to change the subject and the mood........


With Brett gone now, I don't believe that we are going to win the superbowl, so why not trade a guy who still has some value and who is not in our long term plans? With Brett here I would definitely say that we should keep KGB because we would need every good player we have, but with Brett gone now I think we should try to get what we can for him. Hell the Raiders just gave Walker 55 million, I bet some team is dumb enough to give us a 3rd for KGB who is only 29 or 30 and has some good years left.

Also, this would clear a lot more money that could then be used to extend all of our young raising stars.

Just a thought, what do you think??

This post makes it sound like Favre was the team, that this team revolved rested squarely on Favre's shoulders. I don't think they are quite Super Bowl contenders without Favre, but a capable Rodger makes this team a North Division Champion, and a Playoff caliber team. The defense is hopefully going to be a notch better in 2008, and the Packers interior line will be another year experienced. The running game was showing signs of not only improvement but dominance. The Wide Receiving corps led the league in yards after the catch with Greg Jennings becoming an NFL super star in 2007.

KGB plays a significant role on this team, and that is an edge rusher that teams still have to game plan for. He is still more than capable in recording double digit sacks, and that will net any defensive linemen 7 million dollars a year on the open market.

This team is not in bad shape, Favre is gone, and believe me that sucks, but Thompson has prepared this franchise for life after Favre.

[Harlan Huckleby]

KGB is a good pass rusher, but he wears-down when they try to play him every down.

Whups! Sorry, wrong thread. Had a pre-2007 flashback.

[The Leaper]

The running game was showing signs of not only improvement but dominance.

When did the running game look dominant?

Grant busted off some big runs, which often skewed the numbers. The running game couldn't convert in short yardage situations. The running game came up small in many of the biggest games of the year.

I don't think there were any signs of dominance from the running game in 2007. Improvement, yes...dominance, no.

[twoseven]

This team is just going to have to play it out in 08' as best as they can and figure out just what they have and who they actually are without Favre. If Rodgers plays well and they look playoff bound I see no reason to deviate from the plan they had with Favre still there. But if things go south quickly then you can start deciding what to do with older guys like KGB, Clifton, Harris, and Driver.

I am wondering how much, or if, the draft strategy changes knowing AR is the man now. How much higher or lower on the priority list is an OT, a power RB, a guard, a QB, a TE, a CB, a LB? I don't think you can approach things exactly the same way, especially if you believe we are not likely to challenge for a playoff spot this year. My guess is with AR at the helm strengthening the OL and running game just got that much more important.

[Scott Campbell]

The running game was showing signs of not only improvement but dominance.

When did the running game look dominant?


Seattle, after the two fumbles. We ran at will. In a playoff game. In the snow.

[The Leaper]

Seattle, after the two fumbles. We ran at will. In a playoff game. In the snow.

Against Dallas, we got stoned.

Against NYG, we got stoned.

Yeah, we had one huge game against Seattle...who everyone knew had inflated defensive statistics due to their enormous HFA. They were a completely different defensive team away from Seattle.

Against strong defensive fronts, our interior OL was manhandled numerous times.