Arod endorses Lynch.."Bring him on"

[imscott72]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/102985794.html

[Tony Oday]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

[green_bowl_packer]

If we didn't play the Bills this week this may have happened already. No sense to trade the guy and then have him score a couple TDs on you the following week.

[Guiness]

True lol

I hadn't thought of the fact we're playing them this week. You're right, that would change things, and I'm sure MM is confident of us beating the Bills with or without a back. It gives him a chance to see what BJack can do, as well - if he doesn't perform (with a team having a chance to prepare for him).

[SkinBasket]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

[mraynrand]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...

[mraynrand]

I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

I doubt they would take that.

[Scott Campbell]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...


It was a stupid hypothetical question.

[Tony Oday]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...


It was a stupid hypothetical question.


lol I was kidding :)

[boiga]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

I don't think he has to be better than B Jack for a trade of this nature to be worthwhile. He just has to be better than Kuhn. I don't think that Jackson can be an every down back and stay healthy through a playoff run. Lynch would give us breathing room if nothing else.

The Bills are weak at linebacker, but have a strong corp of RBs. We need someone that can take some of the weight off B Jack and have a couple superfluous above average middle LBs. There has to be some sort of mutually beneficial arrangement that can be worked out here.

[ND72]

Everyone is so high on Chillar, yet he played like crap sunday, so why not offer him since we're doing the rest of the LB's to trade.

[mraynrand]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...


It was a stupid hypothetical question.


lol I was kidding :)

so was I.

[hoosier]

I would give serious consideration to offering up a 3rd for the guy. What are you really losing? A Jason Spitz? A Morgan Burnett? An Antonio Freeman? Or a Donnell Washington? By contrast, if Lynch can get his head right he could make the Packer's passing attack that much more potent, and their ability to grind out the clock all the more effective. In a year when most of the important parts seem to be in place for a deep playoff run I would be very tempted to take the gamble.

[gbpackfan]

This trade will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. No go. This isnt TT's style....we all know it....next!

[Scott Campbell]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...


It was a stupid hypothetical question.


lol I was kidding :)

I meant the question the reporter asked Rodgers.

[mraynrand]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

why toss in the third rounder? If you make that deal, it should be straight up.

Good thing arod is on board - after all, you need your QB/GM to approve these things, as we've learned...


It was a stupid hypothetical question.


lol I was kidding :)

I meant the question the reporter asked Rodgers.


That too. Rodgers answered it as best as you could possibly expect. If you think about it, it's kind of a trap question - you endorse Lynch and it could look like you don't like the back-ups on the team or you're OK with trading away a teammate. You say you don't want to sign Lynch and he gets insulted and you could look like you don't care to improve your squad.

Best answer: "I'm not the GM. I trust TT to take care of all that stuff. I know that whatever he does will be in the best interest of the team's success" (Ari Fleischer told me to say that).

[DannoMac21]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

You serious Clark?

How hasn't Lynch shown he's better than Jackson? He's a Pro Bowler. What the hell?

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

Wow no way. You under value Hawk.

I would have to think about a 3rd only. Lynch is not all that good in my view. Unless you talk to that one poster I remember from a couple years ago who was in love with the guy.

[Joemailman]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

[wist43]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

Lynch may be a disappointment, but that's to take nothing away from Fred Jackson... pretty damn good player. If we were going to go after a RB from Buffalo, I'd prefer it be Fred Jackson.

[gbpackfan]

Why are we still talking about this? :P

Did TT get fired? No, so Lynch is NEVER coming to GB.

In fact, if B. Jackson goes down they'd rather play Nance and Kuhn at RB then trade away a draft pick. That's just how it is.

[Lurker64]

Why are we still talking about this? :P

Did TT get fired? No, so Lynch is NEVER coming to GB.

In fact, if B. Jackson goes down they'd rather play Nance and Kuhn at RB then trade away a draft pick. That's just how it is.

Last April Ted traded away a third and a fourth to go up and get Morgan Burnett

The April before that, Ted traded away a second, and two thirds to go up and get Clay Matthews.

Ted Thompson clearly isn't some miser who values his draft picks above all else. He won't overpay for names, and so getting Lynch is unlikely since apparently Buffalo already turned down a third and a player for Lynch (which would have been highway robbery for the Bills, considering that Lynch is their #3 RB). But it's not unlikely because Ted refuses to part with draft picks.

[hoosier]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

I wouldn't describe myself as "so hot for Lynch." I see him as a gamble, but a gamble I would probably be willing to take if Jackson does not take the bull by the horns, so to speak.

Why isn't Lynch starting in Buffalo? Not because he's not talented. Mostly because he hasn't always been a very good boy. His off-field legal problems led to Fred Jackson supplanting him as starter last year. And now management has clearly decided that Spiller is the future. But despite the legal issues most reports paint him to be a decent person and a team player. Maybe a change of scenery and playing for a team with a winning culture would help him to maximize his talents.

[pbmax]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

Lynch may be a disappointment, but that's to take nothing away from Fred Jackson... pretty damn good player. If we were going to go after a RB from Buffalo, I'd prefer it be Fred Jackson.
I would prefer it be Adrian Peterson, but that's not happening either. What was the last NFL trade swapping current starters? Bailey for Portis, wasn't it?

[mission]

Why are we still talking about this? :P

Did TT get fired? No, so Lynch is NEVER coming to GB.

In fact, if B. Jackson goes down they'd rather play Nance and Kuhn at RB then trade away a draft pick. That's just how it is.

Last April Ted traded away a third and a fourth to go up and get Morgan Burnett

The April before that, Ted traded away a second, and two thirds to go up and get Clay Matthews.

Ted Thompson clearly isn't some miser who values his draft picks above all else. He won't overpay for names, and so getting Lynch is unlikely since apparently Buffalo already turned down a third and a player for Lynch (which would have been highway robbery for the Bills, considering that Lynch is their #3 RB). But it's not unlikely because Ted refuses to part with draft picks.

Correct, but the point remains the same. Your examples are all of TT's guys -- players he valued above all others, and that he could use to build his own legacy.

[retailguy]

Why are we still talking about this? :P

Did TT get fired? No, so Lynch is NEVER coming to GB.

In fact, if B. Jackson goes down they'd rather play Nance and Kuhn at RB then trade away a draft pick. That's just how it is.

Last April Ted traded away a third and a fourth to go up and get Morgan Burnett

The April before that, Ted traded away a second, and two thirds to go up and get Clay Matthews.

Ted Thompson clearly isn't some miser who values his draft picks above all else. He won't overpay for names, and so getting Lynch is unlikely since apparently Buffalo already turned down a third and a player for Lynch (which would have been highway robbery for the Bills, considering that Lynch is their #3 RB). But it's not unlikely because Ted refuses to part with draft picks.

Well, Lurker, I agree with your point, but I don't think it was gbpackfans point.

Ted doesn't have a history of trading draft picks for established players. I can think of Ryan Grant for a 6th, but that's about it.

If he had traded a 4th or 5th for Moss, then I think the comparison starts to go out the window, and it does sound like he was willing, which surprised me in a good way.

Let me be clear. I don't expect Ted to trade a draft choice for an established runner, and today I don't want him to do that. I'm leading the Nance fan club and I want the kid to do well.

I also want Jackson and Kuhn to step up. That's the direction this team should go right now.

But to gripe a little bit about Ted, draft choices and established NFL talent? I got no complaint with that one.... :P :wink:

[DannoMac21]

FWIW..

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237

[Brandon494]

This trade will NEVER, EVER, EVER happen. No go. This isnt TT's style....we all know it....next!

Yea so is not trading up in the draft yet he has down in two years in arow now.

[Joemailman]

FWIW..

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237

http://circleofcrones.co.uk/images/smilies/sarcasm.gif

[Brandon494]

BTW Marshawn Lynch would be a huge upgrade over Brandon Jackson. He is a better run, faster, better catcher out of the backfield. Brandon Jackson is only a better blocker. Marshawn Lynch rushed for over 1,000 his first two seasons in the league until last year when he fell off because of injuries. I don't know if the Bills would want Hawk but a draft pick should do the trick IF the Bills are interested.

[Brandon494]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39203364/ns/sports-player_news/

Bills not interested in trading Lynch.

[Lurker64]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/39203364/ns/sports-player_news/

Bills not interested in trading Lynch.

Theoretically, if they were interested in trading him, wouldn't "saying "we're not interested in trading him" be a way to try to drive up the price?

I mean, how many NFL players are unavailable for any price? Moreover, how many third string running backs are unavailable for any price?

[The Leaper]

BTW Marshawn Lynch would be a huge upgrade over Brandon Jackson. He is a better run, faster, better catcher out of the backfield. Brandon Jackson is only a better blocker. Marshawn Lynch rushed for over 1,000 his first two seasons in the league until last year when he fell off because of injuries. I don't know if the Bills would want Hawk but a draft pick should do the trick IF the Bills are interested.

I'm shocked at the number of people who don't think Lynch would be at least some kind of upgrade over Jackson. Jackson is not a starting caliber RB in the NFL. I think he's a great backup/3rd down back...he can block and is a reliable receiver. However, I doubt he'll have the durability to carry the rock 240 times in a season.

The drawback on Lynch is his character...he's a punk who is certainly on Santa Claus Goodell's "not nice" list. The Bills drafted Spiller because they are wary of Lynch getting into trouble. That said...the change of scenery would probably be enough to keep Lynch on the narrow for awhile, since he knows his on his 7th or 8th life in the NFL cat world.

As far as being a RB...he has better vision and power than Jackson as a runner...probably about equal in receiving (may give Jackson the slight advantage, but not enough to matter)...and I agree Jackson is a much better blocker.

Personally, I would strongly consider trying to obtain Lynch...but I wouldn't give up the farm for him. 3rd rounder...perhaps offer a conditional 2nd if he meets certain performance levels. That should be enough to get him from Buffalo.

The Bills can blab all they want that they aren't going to trade him...their selection of CJ Spiller in the draft is a clear sign that they aren't convinced Lynch is a franchise back. The Bills suck and need draft picks to improve. Sitting on Lynch doesn't improve their team for the future...and everyone knows it.

[Guiness]

don't know if I buy that. I would think Lynch (and maybe F Jackson?) would be available. Seems they've decided Spiller is the future there, he got the most touches week 1. That means they've got 3 starting caliber WR's, and an OL and LB corps in bad need of help. I can't see why they wouldn't trade their 3rd string RB, who should fetch a good price, for a starter!!!

[gbgary]

i said earlier that if tt really believes the superbowl talk about the Packers he should go for it and make a trade. i think lynch would be an upgrade to Jackson. you absolutely know tt won't over pay to get him though...he's tighter than a bull's ass.

[Joemailman]

I don't think there's anyway TT would trade a 3rd-5th round pick for a guy he may not have any use for next year. If Grant and Starks come back healthy next year, which they should, the Packers will be very talented at RB. As for this year, Jackson, if he can stay healthy, is good enough given the strength of the Packers passing game.

[Brandon494]

I don't think there's anyway TT would trade a 3rd-5th round pick for a guy he may not have any use for next year. If Grant and Starks come back healthy next year, which they should, the Packers will be very talented at RB. As for this year, Jackson, if he can stay healthy, is good enough given the strength of the Packers passing game.

Starks has yet to even take a single snap in training camp let alone a real game. 2nd we currently have 1 RB on the roster right who has taken a single snap in the NFL. 3rd a lot of teams use dual running backs so its not like we could not use Grant and Lynch next season. Last, we are fighting to go to the SB this season, we don't have time to wait for players to get healthy next year.

[Tony Oday]

I don't think there's anyway TT would trade a 3rd-5th round pick for a guy he may not have any use for next year. If Grant and Starks come back healthy next year, which they should, the Packers will be very talented at RB. As for this year, Jackson, if he can stay healthy, is good enough given the strength of the Packers passing game.

Starks has yet to even take a single snap in training camp let alone a real game. 2nd we currently have 1 RB on the roster right who has taken a single snap in the NFL. 3rd a lot of teams use dual running backs so its not like we could not use Grant and Lynch next season. Last, we are fighting to go to the SB this season, we don't have time to wait for players to get healthy next year.

Kuhn and B Jack both have carries ;)

[Brandon494]

Kuhn is a fullback. You guys need to get this fantasy of a white running back out of your system. :lol:

[woodbuck27]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

Why would that be a dumb trade? It makes perfect sense if TT can get there.

We would get rid of ' an underachieving AJ Hawk' and the potential cost of his upcoming salary to our CAP. WE would move a useless to our scheme, linebacker.

GO PACK GO!

[woodbuck27]

Rodgers on trading for Bills RB Lynch: 'Bring him on'

By Greg A. Bedard of the Journal Sentinel

Sept. 15, 2010 2:53 p.m.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/102985794.html

From the above LINK:


Yahoo!Sports columnist Michael Silver, another Cal grad (sensing a pattern here?), wrote a column about how much sense a Packers-Lynch union would make.

Any deal appears to be a long shot. Silver reported Lynch might not even be on the block. And that before the draft, the Bills turned down an offer of a third-round pick and a player for Lynch.

Even a third-round pick would likely be too rich for Ted Thompson.

GO PACK!

[Gunakor]

We would get rid of ' an underachieving AJ Hawk' and the potential cost of his upcoming salary to our CAP. WE would move a useless to our scheme, linebacker.

GO PACK GO!

Hawk is not useless in our scheme. He's only useless in our nickel package. We have nobody on our roster that can play Hawk's ILB spot in our base package better than Hawk himself. If that wasn't the case, Hawk would be gone already. They certainly aren't paying the man 5 million this year just to stand on the sidelines and watch our defense play nickel on every snap for the whole season. Hawk is a run stuffer, and a good one at that. He was very key to our top ranked rush defense last year. He most certainly has a role on this team. But when you sit in nickel for a full 60 minutes, your run stuffing specialists aren't going to see much playing time.

Why is everyone so worried about Hawk's salary? We are bottom third of the league in terms of team payroll. So it's not as if we can't afford Hawk, even when/if the cap is reinstated. I don't see a problem there. If we found ourselves in need of dumping salary to fit under a cap I could agree with you that Hawk would be an ideal choice, but we have no such need. Since it's not OUR money being spent, and since Hawk's salary does not cause a cap crisis, I say let Thompson pay Hawk whatever Thompson wants to.

[woodbuck27]

We would get rid of ' an underachieving AJ Hawk' and the potential cost of his upcoming salary to our CAP. WE would move a useless to our scheme, linebacker.

GO PACK GO!

Hawk is not useless in our scheme. He's only useless in our nickel package. We have nobody on our roster that can play Hawk's ILB spot in our base package better than Hawk himself. If that wasn't the case, Hawk would be gone already. They certainly aren't paying the man 5 million this year just to stand on the sidelines and watch our defense play nickel on every snap for the whole season. Hawk is a run stuffer, and a good one at that. He was very key to our top ranked rush defense last year. He most certainly has a role on this team. But when you sit in nickel for a full 60 minutes, your run stuffing specialists aren't going to see much playing time.

Why is everyone so worried about Hawk's salary? We are bottom third of the league in terms of team payroll. So it's not as if we can't afford Hawk, even when/if the cap is reinstated. I don't see a problem there. If we found ourselves in need of dumping salary to fit under a cap I could agree with you that Hawk would be an ideal choice, but we have no such need. Since it's not OUR money being spent, and since Hawk's salary does not cause a cap crisis, I say let Thompson pay Hawk whatever Thompson wants to.

AJ Hawk isn't going anywhere soon, Gunakor.

GO PACK GO!

[imscott72]

Sounds like Hawk is open to leaving..

The agent for Packers ILB AJ Hawk told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that his client would be open to a trade.
"If some team called and wanted him to play on all three downs, I think he’d be excited about that," said agent Mike McCartney. McCartney did say Hawk's "first priority is to be the best Packer he can," but Hawk didn't even play a non-special teams snap in the opener. The Bills did just lose ILB Paul Posluszny, and Green Bay needs a running back. Unfortunately, Hawk's massive base salaries make a straight-up trade for Marshawn Lynch impossible. Sep. 15 - 9:04 pm et
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

[Gunakor]

We would get rid of ' an underachieving AJ Hawk' and the potential cost of his upcoming salary to our CAP. WE would move a useless to our scheme, linebacker.

GO PACK GO!

Hawk is not useless in our scheme. He's only useless in our nickel package. We have nobody on our roster that can play Hawk's ILB spot in our base package better than Hawk himself. If that wasn't the case, Hawk would be gone already. They certainly aren't paying the man 5 million this year just to stand on the sidelines and watch our defense play nickel on every snap for the whole season. Hawk is a run stuffer, and a good one at that. He was very key to our top ranked rush defense last year. He most certainly has a role on this team. But when you sit in nickel for a full 60 minutes, your run stuffing specialists aren't going to see much playing time.

Why is everyone so worried about Hawk's salary? We are bottom third of the league in terms of team payroll. So it's not as if we can't afford Hawk, even when/if the cap is reinstated. I don't see a problem there. If we found ourselves in need of dumping salary to fit under a cap I could agree with you that Hawk would be an ideal choice, but we have no such need. Since it's not OUR money being spent, and since Hawk's salary does not cause a cap crisis, I say let Thompson pay Hawk whatever Thompson wants to.

AJ Hawk isn't going anywhere soon, Gunakor.

GO PACK GO!

I know that. Like I said, he'd be gone already if he were going anywhere soon. My biggest question is why Hawk's salary is at all significant, given our low team payroll.


We would get rid of ' an underachieving AJ Hawk' and the potential cost of his upcoming salary to our CAP.

Wasted money, maybe, but there isn't an audit sheet for any club in the league that doesn't have wasted money somewhere on it.

All I care about is wins. If the team can afford to pay Hawk 5 million to watch the games from the sidelines and still win football games, I have no problem with Hawk's salary. When his salary impedes our ability to resign other key players or bring in new ones to keep us competitive moving forward, then it's a problem. Right now there is no problem. We're 1-0 while Hawk hasn't played a single defensive snap yet. Good for AJ. Good for the Packers. Good enough for me.

[imscott72]

Rotoworld's view on Buffalo holding onto Lynch..

NFL Network's Jason La Canfora reports that the Bills are telling teams Marshawn Lynch "is not available."
Because he's such a key part of Chan Gailey's weekly game plans. Lynch had three carries in Week 1, and the Bills ran the ball 14 times combined as a team. Buffalo is missing out on a golden opportunity to secure a mid-round pick in exchange for a bit player. The whole operation is mind-boggling. Sep. 15 - 8:25 pm et
Source: NFL.com

[woodbuck27]

Well here 's the thing on 'a Buffalo Bills Board and

the Bills fans there, won't be happy if it's a reality:

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237&page=7

Its too good a deal and the kind TT will/should make? So it looks 'at least' very possible. We soon see after the next game Vs those same Bills.

GO PACK GO!

[Gunakor]

Sounds like Hawk is open to leaving..

The agent for Packers ILB AJ Hawk told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that his client would be open to a trade.
"If some team called and wanted him to play on all three downs, I think he’d be excited about that," said agent Mike McCartney. McCartney did say Hawk's "first priority is to be the best Packer he can," but Hawk didn't even play a non-special teams snap in the opener. The Bills did just lose ILB Paul Posluszny, and Green Bay needs a running back. Unfortunately, Hawk's massive base salaries make a straight-up trade for Marshawn Lynch impossible. Sep. 15 - 9:04 pm et
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

I would hope Thompson at least gives Jackson, Kuhn and Nance a look see before dealing our best run stuffing linebacker plus a draft pick for the #3 back on perhaps the worst football team in the NFL in 2010. Just my opinion, of course.

Then again, I wonder if the Bills would be interested in such a trade in the first place. Posluszny will be healthy again eventually, and I wonder where Hawk would fit in the Bills depth chart after Posluszny returns. Great depth, sure, but they'd be faced with the same questions we are faced with right now. Does Hawk's salary justify his role there any better than it would here? Are the Bills as well equipped to take on that salary as we are? I mean, after all, it's apparent they have a lot more work to do to build a contender than we do, so they have to watch their payroll a bit more closely.

[woodbuck27]

Sounds like Hawk is open to leaving..

The agent for Packers ILB AJ Hawk told the Green Bay Press-Gazette that his client would be open to a trade.
"If some team called and wanted him to play on all three downs, I think he’d be excited about that," said agent Mike McCartney. McCartney did say Hawk's "first priority is to be the best Packer he can," but Hawk didn't even play a non-special teams snap in the opener. The Bills did just lose ILB Paul Posluszny, and Green Bay needs a running back. Unfortunately, Hawk's massive base salaries make a straight-up trade for Marshawn Lynch impossible. Sep. 15 - 9:04 pm et
Source: Green Bay Press-Gazette

I would hope Thompson at least gives Jackson, Kuhn and Nance a look see before dealing our best run stuffing linebacker plus a draft pick for the #3 back on perhaps the worst football team in the NFL in 2010. Just my opinion, of course.

Then again, I wonder if the Bills would be interested in such a trade in the first place. Posluszny will be healthy again eventually, and I wonder where Hawk would fit in the Bills depth chart after Posluszny returns. Great depth, sure, but they'd be faced with the same questions we are faced with right now. Does Hawk's salary justify his role there any better than it would here? Are the Bills as well equipped to take on that salary as we are? I mean, after all, it's apparent they have a lot more work to do to build a contender than we do, so they have to watch their payroll a bit more closely.

Now there ! I agree with you. AJ Hawk to Buffalo straight up for Marshawn Lynch appears to be a real stretch. Funnier things have happened but can TT pull that one off? He never makes such a move unless he's darn sure he wins ' the deal '.

Will the Bills GM allow that? The Bills fans won't be happy. AJ Hawk would be a one year rental, unless he takes alot less salary for next season and all that. Worked out in advance of any actual trade deal.

My feeling on this is that it has to be (maybe) AJ Hawk and another player or draft pick to make a deal for a Bills RB. It's not necessarily Marshawn Lynch either, that's being offered to us, or even, who TT may desire.

GO PACKERS!

[imscott72]

Well here 's the thing on 'a Buffalo Bills Board and

the Bills fans there, won't be happy if it's a reality:

http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237&page=7

Its too good a deal and the kind TT will/should make? So it looks 'at least' very possible. We soon see after the next game Vs those same Bills.

GO PACK GO!

Interesting read on those boards. I have to wonder if they have a deal in place, but are just waiting until after this week's game.

[Patler]

Hawk won't be a Packer next year unless he is willing to renegotiate a lower salary. His contract calls for $10 million in 2011. That being the case, trading him this year could make some sense.

That said, it would also leave the Packers a bit thin at LB. They kept only 8. It would likely move Desmond Bishop into the starting lineup in the base defense, for however few plays that might be each week. I'm not sure that would be a significant downgrade for those plays. If Hawk's role is going to be that limited, not having him is not that big of a loss.

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece

Neither player appears to have much of a future where they are at currently, nor possible with the other team if traded. It could end up being a one year deal for each team, with the Bills not paying Hawk next year and the Packers jettisoning Lynch if Grant comes back, Starks shows anything, etc. However, it could help each team this year, shoring up a weakness by trading a player not having much impact currently.

[Patler]

Hawk won't be a Packer next year unless he is willing to renegotiate a lower salary. His contract calls for $10 million in 2011. That being the case, trading him this year could make some sense.

That said, it would also leave the Packers a bit thin at LB. They kept only 8. It would likely move Desmond Bishop into the starting lineup in the base defense, for however few plays that might be each week. I'm not sure that would be a significant downgrade for those plays. If Hawk's role is going to be that limited, not having him is not that big of a loss.

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece

Neither player appears to have much of a future where they are at currently, nor possible with the other team if traded. It could end up being a one year deal for each team, with the Bills not paying Hawk next year and the Packers jettisoning Lynch if Grant comes back, Starks shows anything, etc. However, it could help each team this year, shoring up a weakness by trading a player not having much impact currently.

[woodbuck27]

Hawk won't be a Packer next year unless he is willing to renegotiate a lower salary. His contract calls for $10 million in 2011. That being the case, trading him this year could make some sense.

That said, it would also leave the Packers a bit thin at LB. They kept only 8. It would likely move Desmond Bishop into the starting lineup in the base defense, for however few plays that might be each week. I'm not sure that would be a significant downgrade for those plays. If Hawk's role is going to be that limited, not having him is not that big of a loss.

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece

Neither player appears to have much of a future where they are at currently, nor possible with the other team if traded. It could end up being a one year deal for each team, with the Bills not paying Hawk next year and the Packers jettisoning Lynch if Grant comes back, Starks shows anything, etc. However, it could help each team this year, shoring up a weakness by trading a player not having much impact currently.

Good analysis Patler.

As we know TT it doesn't appear to me that he's after Marshawn Lynch but if I'm correct this whole rumor seems to me to simply ' blow up '. If that's the case. Where will he trade AJ Hawk? Hawk certainly appears to be set for a move as we see things developing at this time.

Reading the Bills fan board last night **, it does appear as if AJ Hawk himself believes he's bound for Buffalo.

** http://boards.buffalobills.com/showthread.php?t=288237&page=7

This is wild stuff. :lol:

GO PACKERS!

[bobblehead]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

Lynch may be a disappointment, but that's to take nothing away from Fred Jackson... pretty damn good player. If we were going to go after a RB from Buffalo, I'd prefer it be Fred Jackson.

I agree...was about to post the same thing when I reached the end of the thread. Truth of the matter is that a lot of guys can run in the NFL when the blocking is there. I think BJack will make all this talk of giving up decent picks go away.

[woodbuck27]

People who are so hot for Lynch might want to ask themselves why he isn't good enough to start for Buffalo. I'll assume Arod was just giving some support to a fellow Cal grad. :D

Lynch may be a disappointment, but that's to take nothing away from Fred Jackson... pretty damn good player. If we were going to go after a RB from Buffalo, I'd prefer it be Fred Jackson.

I agree...was about to post the same thing when I reached the end of the thread. Truth of the matter is that a lot of guys can run in the NFL when the blocking is there. I think BJack will make all this talk of giving up decent picks go away.

The way I see this is that no deal will be made before we play 'the Bills' on Sunday. It makes sense that TT and MM will want to see what they have already 'in house'. Having that as 'a given' makes this possible trade a moot point or just rumor.

The thing that is fascinating to me is that 'where there's smoke - usually there's fire', and AJ Hawk obviously wants to play full time. It appears that the Buffalo GM isn't going to be satisfied with a straight up deal for AJ Hawk and in return we get Marshawn Lynch.

So my guess is that given his age at 29 years the RB to come over fr. 'the Bills', for AJ Hawk, is more likely to be Fred Jackson. Given all the circumstance that involve AJ Hawk. Fred Jackson for AJ Hawk, straight up... looks more realistic.

GO PACKERS !

[Guiness]

Kuhn is a fullback. You guys need to get this fantasy of a white running back out of your system. :lol:

Mike Alstott!!!!

[Guiness]

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece



That's just weird, and potentially worrisome. Have to think it was some misguided pick-up attempt? He obviously doesn't need the $20, but put a few drinks in some guys and who knows?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hawk won't be a Packer next year unless he is willing to renegotiate a lower salary. His contract calls for $10 million in 2011. That being the case, trading him this year could make some sense.

That said, it would also leave the Packers a bit thin at LB. They kept only 8. It would likely move Desmond Bishop into the starting lineup in the base defense, for however few plays that might be each week. I'm not sure that would be a significant downgrade for those plays. If Hawk's role is going to be that limited, not having him is not that big of a loss.

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece

Neither player appears to have much of a future where they are at currently, nor possible with the other team if traded. It could end up being a one year deal for each team, with the Bills not paying Hawk next year and the Packers jettisoning Lynch if Grant comes back, Starks shows anything, etc. However, it could help each team this year, shoring up a weakness by trading a player not having much impact currently.

Good post. I think too many people (e.g. Hawk hater) fail to realize that the events of the first game were unique, and we'll play base a lot more in future games. There's no doubt that Hawk is good in base, and that he's better than what we have. We carried 4 DL into the Philadelphia game. Jenkins got injured early and when he came back, Harrell got injured. Thus, throughout the whole game basically we had 3 healthy DL. We went to the nickel, rotated the 3 healthy DL, and Hawk was the victim. Nothing has changed regarding his status with the team. Circumstances dictated that Hawk didn't get much playing time.

It's not out of the realm of possibility that Hawk gets traded though. If the Packers think Bishop isn't a huge dropoff, they made trade that for an upgrade at another position. Plus, Hawk is likely gone after this year. I almost hope he gets traded and kicks ass elsewhere.

[SkinBasket]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

You serious Clark?

How hasn't Lynch shown he's better than Jackson? He's a Pro Bowler. What the hell?

Oh God he's a Pro Bowler!?! Well, that must add at least 4-5 points to his strength and 6 points to his charisma! The other team gives you your first 50 yards free when you're a Pro Bowler, right?

The guy is Brandon Jackson with more playing time. Watch them play. Compare the players, not the fanboy dreams and expectations or their Madden numbers. If anything Jackson's proven himself (you know, through that pesky thing called production) to be a better receiving back.

All this retarded nonsense about how Lynch is such a better runner, receiver, and man tunnel lover are hardly more than unsupported fanboy ramblings.

[Freak Out]

If we end up trading a guy like Hawk I hope it's for a good DB. :)

Lynch sounds like more trouble than he"s worth right now.

Fred Jackson is available as a free agent pick in Division 4. :)

[retailguy]

Hawk won't be a Packer next year unless he is willing to renegotiate a lower salary. His contract calls for $10 million in 2011. That being the case, trading him this year could make some sense.

That said, it would also leave the Packers a bit thin at LB. They kept only 8. It would likely move Desmond Bishop into the starting lineup in the base defense, for however few plays that might be each week. I'm not sure that would be a significant downgrade for those plays. If Hawk's role is going to be that limited, not having him is not that big of a loss.

But, Lynch would bring a lot of baggage. He-said, she-said allegations of sexual assault, hitting a drunk pedestrian and leaving the scene, marijuana usage, gun charges, and this from last December:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article29267.ece

Neither player appears to have much of a future where they are at currently, nor possible with the other team if traded. It could end up being a one year deal for each team, with the Bills not paying Hawk next year and the Packers jettisoning Lynch if Grant comes back, Starks shows anything, etc. However, it could help each team this year, shoring up a weakness by trading a player not having much impact currently.

fixed link

[Fritz]

Keep Hawk.

[Pugger]

I would give serious consideration to offering up a 3rd for the guy. What are you really losing? A Jason Spitz? A Morgan Burnett? An Antonio Freeman? Or a Donnell Washington? By contrast, if Lynch can get his head right he could make the Packer's passing attack that much more potent, and their ability to grind out the clock all the more effective. In a year when most of the important parts seem to be in place for a deep playoff run I would be very tempted to take the gamble.

Morgan Burnett? I don't think so.

[Pugger]

Kuhn is a fullback. You guys need to get this fantasy of a white running back out of your system. :lol:

I might be wrong but Kuhn was a HB in college but switched to FB after coming to GB.

[Pugger]

3rd rounder and Hawk Lock it up

That would be one dumb trade.

As I've said before, Lynch hasn't shown he's any better than Jackson. About all he's got on Jackson is a bunch of people who think he's the player they thought he might be when he was drafted instead of the player he is.

Even given our situation, I still wouldn't give them more than a 5th and Bishop.

You serious Clark?

How hasn't Lynch shown he's better than Jackson? He's a Pro Bowler. What the hell?

Oh God he's a Pro Bowler!?! Well, that must add at least 4-5 points to his strength and 6 points to his charisma! The other team gives you your first 50 yards free when you're a Pro Bowler, right?

The guy is Brandon Jackson with more playing time. Watch them play. Compare the players, not the fanboy dreams and expectations or their Madden numbers. If anything Jackson's proven himself (you know, through that pesky thing called production) to be a better receiving back.

All this retarded nonsense about how Lynch is such a better runner, receiver, and man tunnel lover are hardly more than unsupported fanboy ramblings.

You have to wonder if Lynch is all that wonderful if he is 3rd on the depth chart on the BILLS. :shock: