lynch to the 'hawks

[sheepshead]

just heard

[sheepshead]

Jay Glazer of FOXSports.com is reporting that the Buffalo Bills have traded running back Marshawn Lynch to the Seattle Seahawks. In exchange for Lynch, Seattle will send a fourth-round pick in the 2011 NFL Draft, and a conditional pick in the 2012 draft.

[Freak Out]

Wow....did Forset get hurt or something?

[cheesner]

That was a good deal for the Hawks.

[steve823]

I'm not even mad because I wasn't expecting TT to make any big moves. Also, Lynch isn't all that, I think there are better options out there.

[packers11]

I would have guessed eagles or packers... but the seahawks?!?!?!?!? they came out of nowhere

[DannoMac21]

Unbelievable.

[Smidgeon]

I guess we'll have to wait for Russ Ball to be fired and start a website before we really know what happened, what TT was offering, and why Seattle could get him when GB couldn't...

[sheepshead]

I guess we'll have to wait for Russ Ball to be fired and start a website before we really know what happened, what TT was offering, and why Seattle could get him when GB couldn't...

Obviously TT didnt want him.

[Smidgeon]

I guess we'll have to wait for Russ Ball to be fired and start a website before we really know what happened, what TT was offering, and why Seattle could get him when GB couldn't...

Obviously TT didnt want him.

Possibly. But I was just making a play on the Andrew Brandt/Randy Moss story.

[Patler]

Interesting.

Assuming the Packers are really a contender, what would the Packers have had to offer to get ahead of the Seahawks offering a 4th and a conditional pick?

Last year the Seahawks were #6 per their record. How much do you expect that to improve this year, and where will the Packers be picking? There could easily be a 20 player difference between Seattle's 4th round pick and the Packers 4th round pick. To outbid the Seahawks, the Packers would likely have had to offer a third round pick.

[mmmdk]

...so Lynch wants to try out the NBA? :wink:

[packers04]

the reason why they didnt want lynch is cus they'd have to give him a big contract...
and with Ryan Grant as the long time starter, and then the packers probably drafting atleast one or two running backs this draft, it wouldve been pointless to pick up lynch and give away draft picks just to have him not happy after this year when we dont pay him what he wants.

[channtheman]

I'm thinking the coaches and TT really like Starks and feel comfortable waiting a few more weeks to get him in the lineup rather than giving up a draft pick.

[ND72]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

[mission]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

He considers everything. Does next to nothing.

[pack4to84]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?
http://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/statuses/26480470029
He has been released

[ND72]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

He considers everything. Does next to nothing.

Jones is a true zone runner...granted he has lost a few steps from where he was, but you have to bring in a vetran guy IMO. We need something.

I am as big a B-Jack fan as they come, but I also am aware enough to know he's a 3rd down back, but a pretty good one at that. I think Jackson would have had about 60 yards last week if not for a HORRIBLE holding call on Finley, but oh well.

[MichiganPackerFan]

I'm thinking the coaches and TT really like Starks and feel comfortable waiting a few more weeks to get him in the lineup rather than giving up a draft pick.

I think you're probably right - just inject fresh legs into the game. I've heard that it takes far less time for a rookie RB to adjust to the pro game and make an impact than a rookie at any other position.

[sharpe1027]

History says TT has no problems bringing in a Vet RB as a stop gap fill.

[TennesseePackerBacker]

I love Starks potential, but who is to say he can stay healthy once he does come back? The kid has a long list of previous injuries.

[pbmax]

Well, I guess he was available. :)

A current year fourth and a conditional 2012 pick. Traditionally, that pick would be lower than the known pick, it certainly looks reasonable. Even if the Packers would have had to go to a third.

Has anyone heard about whether there was a contract redo as well?

[mission]

seeing on twitter the conditional is a 5/6 depending

geee, pretty steep cost... we're good there.

[Brando19]

Alright Ted...a 2nd round pick for DeAngelo Williams...do it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Smidgeon]

Viewpoints like this really frustrate me because they assume that a trend is a mandate:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/17415/fact-and-fiction-of-the-packers-and-lynch

The "Blind Leading the Blind" excerpts:

But anyone with a realistic view of how Packers general manager Ted Thompson operates should not be surprised. ...Thompson has never traded for a starter since he took the job in 2005. ...[I]t's not how he does business. Thompson prefers to use his draft picks to select and develop his own replacements, not to acquire other teams' unwanted parts.

But if you thought Ted Thompson is going to drop his principles, jump out and trade for a starting tailback, you haven't been paying attention. I suppose it could still happen, but there is nothing in his history to suggest it's a real possibility.

Kind of like how TT never trades up in a draft? Or like how he never signs veteran players? This kind of assumption makes my skin crawl. Does he really think Thompson won't turn over every rock to make his team better? He would have had to give up a 3rd--not a 4th--to beat Seattle's pick. He obviously didn't value Lynch at that price. So why is it that "Thompson won't trade for a starter"? Gargh!

[pbmax]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

He considers everything. Does next to nothing.

Jones is a true zone runner...granted he has lost a few steps from where he was, but you have to bring in a vetran guy IMO. We need something.

I am as big a B-Jack fan as they come, but I also am aware enough to know he's a 3rd down back, but a pretty good one at that. I think Jackson would have had about 60 yards last week if not for a HORRIBLE holding call on Finley, but oh well.
I think I have seen Lynch twice in the pros (preseason and Week 2) plus maybe one game in college. Would he have worked in the ZBS? Would DeAngelo be that much better?

[ND72]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

He considers everything. Does next to nothing.

Jones is a true zone runner...granted he has lost a few steps from where he was, but you have to bring in a vetran guy IMO. We need something.

I am as big a B-Jack fan as they come, but I also am aware enough to know he's a 3rd down back, but a pretty good one at that. I think Jackson would have had about 60 yards last week if not for a HORRIBLE holding call on Finley, but oh well.
I think I have seen Lynch twice in the pros (preseason and Week 2) plus maybe one game in college. Would he have worked in the ZBS? Would DeAngelo be that much better?

My assumption would be yes. Truly MOST NCAA schools use a version of a ZBS, they just tend to have their own wrinkles...like for fact I don't like our wrinkle, because it is usually the backside DT/DE or OLB who is making the tackle in our ZBS...in a true ZBS, you are cutting those guys down, making it difficult for them to make a play. McCarthy prefers those OL guys try to get downfield to make a cut back block.

You'll see a difference sunday with Washington. Our backside OLB & DE's will be getting cut, vs. Washington's guy not being cut.

[Patler]

Viewpoints like this really frustrate me because they assume that a trend is a mandate:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/17415/fact-and-fiction-of-the-packers-and-lynch


The "Blind Leading the Blind" excerpts:

But anyone with a realistic view of how Packers general manager Ted Thompson operates should not be surprised. ...Thompson has never traded for a starter since he took the job in 2005. ... It's not how he does business. Thompson prefers to use his draft picks to select and develop his own replacements, not to acquire other teams' unwanted parts.

But if you thought Ted Thompson is going to drop his principles, jump out and trade for a starting tailback, you haven't been paying attention. I suppose it could still happen, but there is nothing in his history to suggest it's a real possibility.

Kind of like how TT never trades up in a draft? Or like how he never signs veteran players? This kind of assumption makes my skin crawl. Does he really think Thompson won't turn over every rock to make his team better? He would have had to give up a 3rd--not a 4th--to beat Seattle's pick. He obviously didn't value Lynch at that price. So why is it that "Thompson won't trade for a starter"? Gargh!

Not to mention that the statement is just wrong. In 2005 at the end of training camp, TT traded Chris Johnson for Robert Thomas, who had been mostly a starter in St. Louis, and who was immediately put in a starting spot for the Packers.

[Sparkey]

As long as Clifton and Tauscher are the tackles, it really doesn't matter who the rb is on the team.

[Ballboy]

My whole problem with this is that TT said you build with the draft....at what point do you finally realize that the team IS BUILT? Everyone from Santa Claus to Jesus himself is claiming that the Packers are favorites for the Super Bowl, that this team is ready to win now with younger players, getting into their prime and a QB near the top of his game.

Any sport sees that the window for a Championship opens and then closes as quickly as it opened. Our young core will be needing new contracts soon.

TT has failed in addressing the need at RB at this point...he still has time but a week ago many people here were willing to give up a 2nd for Lynch and then find out today he went for a 4th?

[Bretsky]

Viewpoints like this really frustrate me because they assume that a trend is a mandate:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/17415/fact-and-fiction-of-the-packers-and-lynch

The "Blind Leading the Blind" excerpts:

But anyone with a realistic view of how Packers general manager Ted Thompson operates should not be surprised. ...Thompson has never traded for a starter since he took the job in 2005. ...[I]t's not how he does business. Thompson prefers to use his draft picks to select and develop his own replacements, not to acquire other teams' unwanted parts.

But if you thought Ted Thompson is going to drop his principles, jump out and trade for a starting tailback, you haven't been paying attention. I suppose it could still happen, but there is nothing in his history to suggest it's a real possibility.

Kind of like how TT never trades up in a draft? Or like how he never signs veteran players? This kind of assumption makes my skin crawl. Does he really think Thompson won't turn over every rock to make his team better? He would have had to give up a 3rd--not a 4th--to beat Seattle's pick. He obviously didn't value Lynch at that price. So why is it that "Thompson won't trade for a starter"? Gargh!



In the articles defense, has TT ever traded a high draft pick 4th or higher...for a veteran ? That would have been more accurate.

TT traded a 6th for Ryan Grant so there is the starter to completely contradict the article

[pbmax]

So does TT consider signing Julius Jones who is being released by the Seahawks?

He considers everything. Does next to nothing.

Jones is a true zone runner...granted he has lost a few steps from where he was, but you have to bring in a vetran guy IMO. We need something.

I am as big a B-Jack fan as they come, but I also am aware enough to know he's a 3rd down back, but a pretty good one at that. I think Jackson would have had about 60 yards last week if not for a HORRIBLE holding call on Finley, but oh well.
I think I have seen Lynch twice in the pros (preseason and Week 2) plus maybe one game in college. Would he have worked in the ZBS? Would DeAngelo be that much better?

My assumption would be yes. Truly MOST NCAA schools use a version of a ZBS, they just tend to have their own wrinkles...like for fact I don't like our wrinkle, because it is usually the backside DT/DE or OLB who is making the tackle in our ZBS...in a true ZBS, you are cutting those guys down, making it difficult for them to make a play. McCarthy prefers those OL guys try to get downfield to make a cut back block.

You'll see a difference sunday with Washington. Our backside OLB & DE's will be getting cut, vs. Washington's guy not being cut.
Great read. It will give me something else to watch other than wishing our O line would make up its mind about being terrible or good.

[Smidgeon]

My whole problem with this is that TT said you build with the draft....at what point do you finally realize that the team IS BUILT? Everyone from Santa Claus to Jesus himself is claiming that the Packers are favorites for the Super Bowl, that this team is ready to win now with younger players, getting into their prime and a QB near the top of his game.

Any sport sees that the window for a Championship opens and then closes as quickly as it opened. Our young core will be needing new contracts soon.

TT has failed in addressing the need at RB at this point...he still has time but a week ago many people here were willing to give up a 2nd for Lynch and then find out today he went for a 4th?

How? He had a reliable, good running back who ranked in the Top 15 in yards for the last couple years. A) How is that failing? B) How many teams would be able to have their second RB put out the same production? Three? Four?

[gbgary]

sounds like seattle is willing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this year.

[Bretsky]

sounds like seattle is willing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this year.


sense of urgency

[Freak Out]

sounds like seattle is willing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this year.


sense of urgency

I'm not so sure....Lynch is still young...and they have a young QB waiting in the wings. I just think Pistol Pete saw an opportunity for a "franchise" RB and went for it. Building for the future and helping today.

[NewsBruin]

Carroll's been treating his roster like a fantasy team. I don't know if he's trying to keep the lockerroom on its toes or if he really does see "better" with each move he makes.

Now Lynch and Forsett were college teammates, and Lynch was in Forsett's wedding, so maybe Carroll sees a chemistry improvement as well.

[3irty1]

I was pretty dumbfounded when I saw Lynch went for a mere 4th. Makes me wonder what the Hell all the talks with the Bills were about. Thompson might have set the market as low as it was and prime this trade to happen for Seattle. Pretty weak. If I remember correctly Seattles GM was the Packers' head big cheese of scouting or something when Lynch was drafted. Perhaps his man crush is still there and Ted wasn't the one with the big hard on for Lynch in the first place.

Oh well I guess we'll just stick with our guys.

[packrulz]

Buffalo gave Lynch away because he's a head case, last year he did nothing. TT kept 3 FB's just in case Grant went down, the Pack is 3-1, so he's not going to piss away draft picks. I think BJack is steady, and Kuhn is the Alstott-type battering ram, they need to work on running plays though, blocking is the problem.

[packrulz]

Double post

[mmmdk]

sounds like seattle is willing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this year.

The mighty Rams says NO!

[Fritz]

I do think the run blocking is a bigger problem than the running back.

Yes, a really good back makes a line better. But is Lynch a "really good back"? I don't know. Maybe we'll find out with Seattle. Obviously Buffalo didn't think he was that spectacular.

I don't know.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Viewpoints like this really frustrate me because they assume that a trend is a mandate:

http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/17415/fact-and-fiction-of-the-packers-and-lynch

The "Blind Leading the Blind" excerpts:

But anyone with a realistic view of how Packers general manager Ted Thompson operates should not be surprised. ...Thompson has never traded for a starter since he took the job in 2005. ...[I]t's not how he does business. Thompson prefers to use his draft picks to select and develop his own replacements, not to acquire other teams' unwanted parts.

But if you thought Ted Thompson is going to drop his principles, jump out and trade for a starting tailback, you haven't been paying attention. I suppose it could still happen, but there is nothing in his history to suggest it's a real possibility.

Kind of like how TT never trades up in a draft? Or like how he never signs veteran players? This kind of assumption makes my skin crawl. Does he really think Thompson won't turn over every rock to make his team better? He would have had to give up a 3rd--not a 4th--to beat Seattle's pick. He obviously didn't value Lynch at that price. So why is it that "Thompson won't trade for a starter"? Gargh!

Didn't TT trade for Grant?

[denverYooper]

sounds like seattle is willing to do whatever it takes to make the playoffs this year.

The mighty Rams says NO!

You've got something there. The Rams look pretty peppy and Bradford is coming of age quickly.

[rbaloha1]

Not acquiring Lynch is a mistake.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Not acquiring Lynch is a mistake.
I'm not sold that he's all that. We won't know for sure for a while yet.

[sheepshead]

Report: Packers were in the bidding for Marshawn Lynch
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on October 6, 2010 1:22 PM ET
Packers G.M. Ted Thompson agreed with a lot of Green Bay fans: He thought Marshawn Lynch could improve the Packers.

Thompson just didn't want Lynch as badly as the Seahawks did.

Pete Doughtery of the Green Bay Press-Gazette reports Thompson was "in on the bidding" for Lynch before Seattle acquired him. The Seahawks ultimately gave up a fourth-round pick in 2011 and a sixth-round pick in 2012 that could escalate to a fifth-rounder.

I agree with Florio that the Packers should have made a play for Lynch, but it's not a devastating non-move. The Packers, like the Patriots, are a matchup-based pass-first team that will use a running back committee. They don't need to feed a back 20 times a game. Brandon Jackson can handle passing downs well and John Kuhn is a solid enough option on running downs.

Certainly the Packers could use more depth at running back and a spark at the position would be nice. But their troubles at running back matter less than finding some offensive line consistency and locating a pass rush outside of Clay Matthews.

Permalink 0 Comments RSS feed for comments Latest stories in: Buffalo Bills, Green Bay Packers, Latest News and Rumors, NFL Mobile Exclusives - Rumors, Seattle Seahawks, Top Stories
Previous: Moss has faced every team except the Vikings
0 Responses to "Report: Packers were in the bidding for Marshawn

[red]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

[Smidgeon]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

Really? a 4th and 5th would be better than Seattle's 4th?

[sheepshead]

Honestly, I dont recall seeing him play very much. Its hard to judge for sure. Obviously TT has tape and inside knowledge of the guys personal issues from the draft and scouts. TT had a price he was willing to pay it looks like and that was it. As Patler so astutely pointed out, Seattles 4th will likely be worth more than our 4th.

[red]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

Really? a 4th and 5th would be better than Seattle's 4th?

they offered a 4th this year plus a 6th next year that could go up to a 5th.

tt offers a 4th plus a 5th this year, or a 5th next year and our running game problems are solved

TT is just gonna trade down and pick up late round picks anyways so its not like we just won't have a 4th round pick

[sheepshead]

Plus he'll gain more yards in that offense, perhaps increasing that second pick.

[Smidgeon]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

Really? a 4th and 5th would be better than Seattle's 4th?

they offered a 4th this year plus a 6th next year that could go up to a 5th.

tt offers a 4th plus a 5th this year, or a 5th next year and our running game problems are solved

TT is just gonna trade down and pick up late round picks anyways so its not like we just won't have a 4th round pick

a 4th this year and a 5th next year is still worse than seattle's 4th this year and 6th next year. and if lynch is anything like people are claiming, a 5th next year as he'll hit his escalators. why would the bills take GB's 4th this year and 5th next year over seattle's 4th this year and 5th next year? seattle will probably be picking at least 8-10 picks ahead of the packers.

a 4th and 5th this year probably would have been enough to push ahead of seattle in terms of trade value. but to take yourself out of two consecutive rounds in the draft? not even seattle was willing to do that.

and trading down? TT's been trading up lately, not down. i think he knows there aren't a lot of open spots on his team and isn't stockpiling like he had to his first couple years.

[red]

seattle plays in the weakest division in nfl history. they already have 2 wins and they have 8 games left against some horrible team. they could be a 10+ win team easy this year

meanwhile we're playing like a big pile of crap, and in case you haven't seen the rest of our schedule, its brutal. plus we are a one dimensional offense unless starks shows up and is the real deal

what i'm saying is i wouldn't say for sure that we're going to be picking 10 spots behind them in the draft

[Freak Out]

I am willing to bet Lynch gets busted down in Pioneer and suspended before the seasons over. :)

[Bretsky]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

Really? a 4th and 5th would be better than Seattle's 4th?

they offered a 4th this year plus a 6th next year that could go up to a 5th.

tt offers a 4th plus a 5th this year, or a 5th next year and our running game problems are solved

TT is just gonna trade down and pick up late round picks anyways so its not like we just won't have a 4th round pick


come on Red

TT is like that first guy to throw out a bid in an auction; he sets the market and doesn't move from there :lol:

[superfan]

come on Red

TT is like that first guy to throw out a bid in an auction; he sets the market and doesn't move from there :lol:

Welcome back, Bretsky.

:hug:

(That's two fine young ladies above, not me and you. Use your extensive imagination.)

[red]

that's ridiculous

TT wanted him, but wouldn't part with a 4th and 5th round picks

this should have happened

Really? a 4th and 5th would be better than Seattle's 4th?

they offered a 4th this year plus a 6th next year that could go up to a 5th.

tt offers a 4th plus a 5th this year, or a 5th next year and our running game problems are solved

TT is just gonna trade down and pick up late round picks anyways so its not like we just won't have a 4th round pick


come on Red

TT is like that first guy to throw out a bid in an auction; he sets the market and doesn't move from there :lol:

and now up on the block, a 1962 ferrari 250 gto, in perfect condition. lets start the bidding

TT- ONE CENT

bidder #2- two cents

TT- i would like to retract my previous bid