Dougherty Re-Visits Lynch Non-Trade

[Fritz]

I just finished a GBPG article on Thompson's refusal to give up a third round pick for Marshawn Lynch.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20111230/PKR07/111230136/Pete-Dougherty-column-Lynch-deal-missed-opportunity-Thompson?odyssey=mod|lateststories

Dougherty argues that Thompson would have been better off to give up the pick and have Marshawn Lynch running the football for the Pack right now. He believes that Lynch's presence could give GB the advantage over NO should it come to that game.

But I still think it was wise to keep the pick and invest it in the young RB Green. Lynch is good, no doubt, but he's 25 and with his hard running style it's hard to imagine he has more than a couple good years left.

But it's debatable. I don't know how well the guy blocks, and I don't know how having him here would've affected Grant and Starks. I don't know if he can catch a pass out of the backfield, either.

Whaddya think? Mistake by Ted, or good move to not pull the trigger?

[King Friday]

I thought it would've been a wise move last year. Fortunately, Starks was able to step up and offer enough in the postseason to get us over the top. I think that was fortunate for us, considering his relative inconsistency this year. I didn't consider Lynch much of a risk because he played with Rodgers at Cal. I think the two would've gotten along well and Lynch would've worked hard. I don't care how his presence impacts Grant and Starks...hopefully it makes them play better knowing their jobs are on the line. It allows Thompson to then potentially try to grab a pass rusher with that 3rd round pick instead of having to fill a need at RB.

I still think the move would've been worth it. Lynch is a far better RB than anyone we have as a pure runner, although he offers no real improvement as a receiver. His ball security is average at best, which is a concern...although RBs that play without the threat of a passing game are more likely to fumble. The Seahawks have no passing threat whatsoever, and Lynch is still churning out yards. Imagine how much better he'd be not facing 8 man fronts half the time.

I don't think of it as a major mistake by Thompson, but I do feel Lynch would've upgraded our roster at a position of need (esp last year) at a reasonable cost.

[hoosier]

I think they could have used Lynch at the end of last year more than this year. If Lynch had been on the roster this year, that would mean either Grant or Starks would have gone. I cannot imagine TT and MM keeping all three. So to keep Lynch you're basically giving up a 3 and Grant (assuming Starks stays b/c he has more long term potential). I wouldn't have done that trade back in August. Now that Starks is banged up, Green is out for the year and Grant is showing his age, sure, Lynch would look good in G&G. But that is hindsight.

[Fritz]

I thought it would've been a wise move last year. Fortunately, Starks was able to step up and offer enough in the postseason to get us over the top. I think that was fortunate for us, considering his relative inconsistency this year. I didn't consider Lynch much of a risk because he played with Rodgers at Cal. I think the two would've gotten along well and Lynch would've worked hard. I don't care how his presence impacts Grant and Starks...hopefully it makes them play better knowing their jobs are on the line. It allows Thompson to then potentially try to grab a pass rusher with that 3rd round pick instead of having to fill a need at RB.

I still think the move would've been worth it. Lynch is a far better RB than anyone we have as a pure runner, although he offers no real improvement as a receiver. His ball security is average at best, which is a concern...although RBs that play without the threat of a passing game are more likely to fumble. The Seahawks have no passing threat whatsoever, and Lynch is still churning out yards. Imagine how much better he'd be not facing 8 man fronts half the time.

I don't think of it as a major mistake by Thompson, but I do feel Lynch would've upgraded our roster at a position of need (esp last year) at a reasonable cost.

The only problem with your line of thinking is the underlined above. Thompson wouldn't have had a third round pick last year at all - it would have gone to Seattle for Lynch.

[Patler]

I'm not sure the grass is as much greener on the other side of the fence as Daugherty would have us believe. Separately in different seasons each Grant and Starks has provided very strong late season and playoff performances. I have no reason to believe that together this year they can't do the same.

The Packers O-line has been no great shakes in run blocking much of the time this year, and many of Grant's and Starks' running opportunities have been at the ends of games while running out the clock when the threat of passing was negligible. The Packers have been patching their O-line together all season.

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

I'm not sure Lynch would provide a big difference over Starks and Grant. Grant's contributions have been downplayed by writers ever since he took over in GB and it seems that Starks is now being given the same treatment. In past years, writers liked to compare Grant and the Packers running game to teams using two backs, and routinely found Grant and the Packers lacking. Now they compare the Packers two back system to Lynch as a single primary runner and still find the Packers lacking. Yet Lynch is not now nor did he in the past outperform Grants full seasons as a single back, nor the combination of Starks and Grant this year.

I'm happy enough with Grant, Starks and Saine going into the playoffs. I have no great wish to have Lynch instead.

[BobDobbs]

That whole article is a bunch of crazy talk.

"But if the Packers had Lynch, different story. With him as the No. 1 back and Starks the No. 2, the Packers might be almost unbeatable."

Yeah I think that's what 14-1 means.

"It’s easy to dispense advice when you don’t have to live with the consequences, and I’ve been wrong before. In 2008, I predicted the Packers would regret dumping Brett Favre for Aaron Rodgers because it cost them any chance of going to the Super Bowl that season. Couldn’t have been more wrong. Rodgers needed to get on the field to become the player he is today."

First of all, you're seriously going to work Favre into this story? Second you're wrong again.

The real take of this article should be that Thompson shouldn't have offered anything last year. We won the Super Bowl, so that's pretty good. This year we run about 25 times a game. That's including quarterback scrambles. McCarthy is dedicated to splitting snaps, so you're giving a draft pick for 15 carries a game. Lynch's contract is up this year. And even if he's not just making a push so that he can sign one last big one he's going to cost more next year than Starks, Green, and Saine combined.

I thought that Thompson should've grabbed Lynch last year, but I was wrong. And he was wrong to offer anything. There that was easy.

[Fritz]

Thanks for making it all so clear, BobDobbs!

[Lurker64]

It's always an error to assume that the same deal is offered to every team. There's no guarantee if Thompson had offered a third round pick for Lynch that Buffalo would have taken it.

[Bretsky]

I was wrong on this one. I wanted Lynch but TT won the Super Bowl without him so it's obvious it was a good move to sit tight.

[King Friday]

The only problem with your line of thinking is the underlined above. Thompson wouldn't have had a third round pick last year at all - it would have gone to Seattle for Lynch.

Stop making so much sense...it hurts my head.

I'm still fine with a straight up trade of Lynch for Green. Green is a complete unknown at this point. Lynch has arguable Pro Bowl credentials.

[Pugger]

It's always an error to assume that the same deal is offered to every team. There's no guarantee if Thompson had offered a third round pick for Lynch that Buffalo would have taken it.

Is Dougherty guessing or what it actually reported that TT offered Buffalo a 4th round pick or even if TT talked to Buffalo? It will be interesting to see how Grant with Starks and Saine will do in the playoffs.

[MJZiggy]

Lynch just got fined by the NFL for wearing Skittles-patterned shoes in last week's game. Apparently boy loves his Skittles...

[jdrats]

I saw that article too, and thought it was pretty ridiculous bit of hindsight mixed with speculation, more appropriate to a bar stool than supposed Packers news.

However, if you like speculation, the great intangible here is that if Seattle doesn't have Lynch, then likely no way they beat the Saints last year in the wildcard game. GB could very well have ended up having to go through the Saints in NO for the championship. The Packers might very well have been marginally "better" (which is all the article really could claim) and have found themselves losing to a hot Saints team and never reaching the Superbowl.

[pbmax]

With such a fearsome running attack, you would think the Saints would have a better road record.

The run to win meme is never going to die.

[Rutnstrut]

I think it was a mistake, Lynch is better on a bad day than Grant and Starks on their best days. That said, things seem to be working pretty damn good this way. But I do think lack of a real running game AND a real D will bite them in the ass eventually.

[Deputy Nutz]

This non-deal was so minor I can't believe this guy took the time to write an article on it. It should almost be an article found in the Onion. One Super Bowl title since the trade didn't happen, and a season after the Packers have the best record in football. Lynch is a 1000 yard rusher, but he isn't special.

[Zool]

I think it was a mistake, Lynch is better on a bad day than Grant and Starks on their best days. That said, things seem to be working pretty damn good this way. But I do think lack of a real running game AND a real D will bite them in the ass eventually.




Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.


So you're saying either the Packers O-line can run block substantially better than the Seahawks line, or fact is a non-issue.

Just curious which one it is.

[MadScientist]

This non-deal was so minor I can't believe this guy took the time to write an article on it. It should almost be an article found in the Onion. One Super Bowl title since the trade didn't happen, and a season after the Packers have the best record in football. Lynch is a 1000 yard rusher, but he isn't special.

It was a major point of discussion at the time, so it is worth looking at again if there isn't anything better. The real bottom line is Lynch would not have made last year any better for the Packers, and would not likely have improved their record this year. I doubt having him would make a difference in how the Packers do in the playoffs this year. With that in mind, the non-trade was the right call. Had the trade been the much discussed Hawk for Lynch, it would have been trouble for the Packers, given the injuries at LB last year.

[Upnorth]

If it were me I would take Grant and a third rd pick over Lynch.

[Brandon494]

I really don't care either way but its no doubt that Lynch would be the best running back on our roster this year. BTW those stats don't mean shit, look at Seattle passing game compared to ours. Teams stack the box against them, something they can't do with Rodgers at QB.

[Patler]

Lynch, Starks/Grant; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Lynch has his moments, just like Grant, just like Starks. I don't think the Packers would be appreciably different with Lynch in their backfield.

[denverYooper]

I really don't care either way but its no doubt that Lynch would be the best running back on our roster this year. BTW those stats don't mean shit, look at Seattle passing game compared to ours. Teams stack the box against them, something they can't do with Rodgers at QB.

He busted up San Fran's fronts a lil bit in their second meeting.

[denverYooper]

That said, it's hard to evaluate a running back in Green Bay's offense. They really only run to set up the pass or chew clock. Hard to blame them with Rodgers hitting 9.2 Yards per Attempt.

[Joemailman]

The Saints’ one edge, though, is running the ball. They have three quality backs in first-round draft pick Mark Ingram, Pierre Thomas and dangerous scatback Darren Sproles. Ingram and Thomas are probably a little better than Starks, and the Packers have no one as explosive and shifty on screens and swing passes as Sproles. Under any circumstances, but especially in winter at Lambeau, this difference in running games could be important.But if the Packers had Lynch, different story. With him as the No. 1 back and Starks the No. 2, the Packers might be almost unbeatable.

Does he really thing that Lynch and Starks would be that much better than Grant and Starks? Really?

By the way, should we tell Dougherty that Ingram was put on IR this week?

[Patler]

Ah, that green, green grass on the other side of the fence!!!!! If only it were ours!

[MJZiggy]

Ah, that green, green grass on the other side of the fence!!!!! If only it were ours! The crap they use to get it green can have a very foul smell...

[mraynrand]

Skittles are too hard to chew in the cold of a January Lambeau field.

[King Friday]

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

Perhaps, Patler.

But Grant and Starks have Aaron Rodgers taking the snaps, and the defense has to cover the entire field.

Who are you scared of that is tossing the ball in Seattle? I'd say the OLs are probably a push. Lynch routinely faces far more 8 man fronts than Grant and Starks do, so the fact he is producing the same tells me he is a better runner. I highly doubt either of our guys could play as well against SF.

[Brandon494]

Lynch, Starks/Grant; six of one, half a dozen of the other. Lynch has his moments, just like Grant, just like Starks. I don't think the Packers would be appreciably different with Lynch in their backfield.

Yea Grant and Starks have their moments but they don't even come close to when Lynch has his moments.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDOBejlx7Us&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4KY-yE1tT8&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w8M3lzsW9g&feature=related
Once again stats don't always prove everything, teams focus more on stopping the run against the Seahawks because their passing game is garbage. Its no doubt in my mind that Lynch would have a higher yards per carry playing on the Packers. Also I don't need his career stats either because he played for the Bills before Seattle with JP Losman playing QB.

[Patler]

Perhaps, Patler.

But Grant and Starks have Aaron Rodgers taking the snaps, and the defense has to cover the entire field.

Who are you scared of that is tossing the ball in Seattle? I'd say the OLs are probably a push. Lynch routinely faces far more 8 man fronts than Grant and Starks do, so the fact he is producing the same tells me he is a better runner. I highly doubt either of our guys could play as well against SF.

My response is actually the rest of my early post from which only a portion was quoted. See bold text below


I'm not sure the grass is as much greener on the other side of the fence as Daugherty would have us believe. Separately in different seasons each Grant and Starks has provided very strong late season and playoff performances. I have no reason to believe that together this year they can't do the same.

The Packers O-line has been no great shakes in run blocking much of the time this year, and many of Grant's and Starks' running opportunities have been at the ends of games while running out the clock when the threat of passing was negligible. The Packers have been patching their O-line together all season.

Lynch has 11 more carries (266) than Starks (133) and Grant (122) combined.
Lynch has for 29 more yards (1,118) than Starks (578) and Grant (511) combined.
Lynch has 26 receptions for 207 yards, Starks 29 for 216 and Grant 18 for 188.

I'm not sure Lynch would provide a big difference over Starks and Grant. Grant's contributions have been downplayed by writers ever since he took over in GB and it seems that Starks is now being given the same treatment. In past years, writers liked to compare Grant and the Packers running game to teams using two backs, and routinely found Grant and the Packers lacking. Now they compare the Packers two back system to Lynch as a single primary runner and still find the Packers lacking. Yet Lynch is not now nor did he in the past outperform Grants full seasons as a single back, nor the combination of Starks and Grant this year.

I'm happy enough with Grant, Starks and Saine going into the playoffs. I have no great wish to have Lynch instead.

[Tarlam!]

Yet, if Lynch was in the Packers offense, his numbers might be even better than in Seattle. He wouldn't face as many 8-man fronts, because Rogers would pick the opposing secondary apart. Also, M3 could tip the run-pass scales at will. At the end of the day, we'll never know.

[Patler]

Yet, if Lynch was in the Packers offense, his numbers might be even better than in Seattle. He wouldn't face as many 8-man fronts, because Rogers would pick the opposing secondary apart. Also, M3 could tip the run-pass scales at will. At the end of the day, we'll never know.

...or MM's clear emphasis on passing and minimal focus on running might have suppressed his numbers to less than the 4.2 yards/carry that he basically has been for his entire career so far.

I'm beginning to think that MM's creativity, maybe even basic team preparation, in the running game is not on par with that for passing, but it doesn't matter.

I can't get too excited about a trade not made that wasn't needed to win a SB last year, wasn't needed to get to 15-1 this year, and wasn't needed to be a favorite to win it again this year. I'm not sure things would change much even if he had Adrian Peterson.

[Tarlam!]

I can't get too excited about a trade not made that wasn't needed to win a SB last year, wasn't needed to get to 15-1 this year, and wasn't needed to be a favorite to win it again this year.

Totally agree. I am neither excited, nor disappointed. I am ambiguous at best.


I'm not sure things would change much even if he had Adrian Peterson.

I am. The guy is too good to ignore. The opposing teams have to account for him.

The thing about having either Lynch or All Day on the team is this: Controlling the clock becomes far more plausible. The Packers still struggle on short 3rd downs at times. Having that star back on the field simply makes it easier to keep the other teams defense on the field.

Still, I agree with you. The Packers won without a star back, or their star TE for that matter.Why use cap money on the star back if you don't need to?

[Patler]

The thing about having either Lynch or All Day on the team is this: Controlling the clock becomes far more plausible. The Packers still struggle on short 3rd downs at times. Having that star back on the field simply makes it easier to keep the other teams defense on the field.

I was being a bit facetious mentioning Peterson, but I'm not when I say that I'm not sure the upper middle tier of backs (like Lynch) would look any better than Grant/Starks if put into MM's offense. I don't think MM is very creative in using the running game, and I don't think he and his staff develop blocking consistency in the running game. But they are so good in using the pass that it doesn't matter.

[denverYooper]

Yea Grant and Starks have their moments but they don't even come close to when Lynch has his moments.


You forgot this one:

http://youtu.be/BpP2De1B_xs

[Tarlam!]

But they are so good in using the pass that it doesn't matter.

I am reminded of the movie Friday Night Lights.

A "near enough is good enough" running game is fine, so long as you have the QB upright. They should be set at QB this season, but what about next? Being almost one dimensional is begging for trouble.