One rumor I hope has serious legs

[b bulldog]

It has the Saints giving us their first and second rounder in the draft for our 16th pick. They would than pick Hall or Revis to solidify their defensive backfield. We would than pick either Lynch,Ginn,Meachem,Olsen or Nelson at 27. The guy also stated that Moss will be a Packer by Saturday evening. I know it may be BS but I would do this deal.

[packers11]

It has the Saints giving us their first and second rounder in the draft for our 16th pick. They would than pick Hall or Revis to solidify their defensive backfield. We would than pick either Lynch,Ginn,Meachem,Olsen or Nelson at 27. The guy also stated that Moss will be a Packer by Saturday evening. I know it may be BS but I would do this deal.

I wouldn't mind this deal, but we won't get lynch at 27... I Don't think Nelson either... Those are the two players I would want the most in the first round :( ...

[b bulldog]

One never knows, I've seen draft boards where any of these players were available in the mid twenties.

[RashanGary]

Who is this "guy" and where can this rumor be found?

[b bulldog]

Some guy on Packer Chatters again :lol: but I do like it and the Saints moving up does make sense. Probably a bunch of garbage but I thought I'd post it.

[Bretsky]

Some guy on Packer Chatters again :lol: but I do like it and the Saints moving up does make sense. Probably a bunch of garbage but I thought I'd post it.

Love the ideas; maybe this guy will get his first roomer right after throwing them around for the past two months.

[ND72]

I'd take that trade. We might even find better "value" in a guy at 27 than where we are at, at 16.

[Bretsky]

I think for the most part we all agree we'd like to trade down this year enough spots to warrant a second.

The problem is finding a sucker to do it.

The only way we might find one is if somebody really slips....and then we might be tempted to take that player.

[falco]

i want revis

[b bulldog]

B, teams make wise and stupid moves every year in the draft.

[retailguy]

B, teams make wise and stupid moves every year in the draft.

That means we could be the ones to make the "stupid" move. :shock:

[Bretsky]

i want revis


No way do I want a CB in round one; Hall and Revis should be solid pros but I'm not convinced either becomes a star.

With all our needs I just don't want a CB that soon.

[b bulldog]

I'd take Revis over Hall. Revis sis much more physical and is good with his hands at the line of scrimmage.

[Bretsky]

I'd take Revis over Hall. Revis sis much more physical and is good with his hands at the line of scrimmage.


I could care less about either

[Bretsky]

[quote=b bulldog]I'd take Revis over Hall. Revis sis much more physical and is good with his hands at the line of scrimmage.


I'd take Reggie Nelson over both of them

[b bulldog]

Who the hell :P cares what you think :lol:

[retailguy]

i want revis


No way do I want a CB in round one; Hall and Revis should be solid pros but I'm not convinced either becomes a star.

With all our needs I just don't want a CB that soon.


You saying we need to NEEDS draft? :shock: Even I don't want that. I agree that we have more pressing needs than CB, but if that position is highest rated on the board, even I think we should take that...

[b bulldog]

nelson would be fine but I'm not crazy about having two very solid corners who happen to be in their thirties and than nothing behind them.

[retailguy]

nelson would be fine but I'm not crazy about having two very solid corners who happen to be in their thirties and than nothing behind them.

Me neither, but I like that a lot better than who we've got at safety... or RB... :wink:

[motife]

from Fox today.

http://www.benmaller.com/nfl_rumors_notes

"One NFL source said he thought that there was a good chance RB Michael Turner still would be dealt before or during Saturday's NFL draft, though no deal is close to the front burner. There still are any number of teams that need a running back -- Buffalo, Green Bay, Tennessee -- and not all will come away with a running back it trusts. Anyone that trades for him first will have to get permission from San Diego. But for the right price, the Chargers would be happy to oblige.

Posted April 24, by Ben Maller"

Uh... duh...

Any team that TRADES with San Diego, has to get permission to TRADE from San Diego?

Thanks Captain Obvious... :shock:

[Bretsky]

nelson would be fine but I'm not crazy about having two very solid corners who happen to be in their thirties and than nothing behind them.


As opposed to one starter at safety with question marks behind them. Heck, at least we have two competent CB's.

[b bulldog]

I do think Underwood, even off of injury will be a competent S at worst but I have no proof to back up my claim.

[retailguy]

I do think Underwood, even off of injury will be a competent S at worst but I have no proof to back up my claim.

I think Underwood and Culver are GREAT backups, but I question whether either is a good enough Safety to start.

I think Hamlin was clearly better than both of them and head and shoulders above Manuel.

[b bulldog]

Hamlin has had injury problems and obviously wasn't thought of real highly around the league.

[Bretsky]

Hamlin has had injury problems and obviously wasn't thought of real highly around the league.


Underwood tore an ACL; you just can't bank on that. Yes, reports have him ahead of schedule. For the most part every athlete is reported to be on or ahead of schedule.

I didn't pound the table for Hamlin, but he's certainly a better option than Manuel or the other projects

[MJZiggy]

So maybe we draft a safety?

[Bretsky]

So maybe we draft a safety?


I'm at peace with that if it occurs. There are some nice prospects that will be there in round one or two

[b bulldog]

That was why I posted that I thought Underwood will be a player this season but I have nothing to hang my hat on for proof.

[retailguy]

That was why I posted that I thought Underwood will be a player this season but I have nothing to hang my hat on for proof.

bulldog, I agree with you for the most part. I just have a problem "relying" that'll be the case. "relying" on a position or two, is also acceptable in my mind, but we've got like 7 positions where we're "relying" that some unproven guy will step up, or where say Bubba Franks will bounce back.

Do you know the odds of ALL this actually occurring? It just isn't going to work.

[Bretsky]

That was why I posted that I thought Underwood will be a player this season but I have nothing to hang my hat on for proof.

bulldog, I agree with you for the most part. I just have a problem "relying" that'll be the case. "relying" on a position or two, is also acceptable in my mind, but we've got like 7 positions where we're "relying" that some unproven guy will step up, or where say Bubba Franks will bounce back.

Do you know the odds of ALL this actually occurring? It just isn't going to work.


You've often referred to 7; what are the 7 you refer to. For the fun of it I'd say

S
OG (I'm not sold on Spitz or the other yahoos)
RB
#3 WR
TE
RB
#3 CB


Do I win the prize ?

[HarveyWallbangers]

You listed RB twice, dumbass.
:D

[ahaha]

Is our need for a starting safety that much greater than our need for a decent 3rd corner? I mean c'mon, the nickel back is out there for a majority of defensive snaps. We were awful, last year, on third down defense. And that was thanks in large part to our crap-ass nickel backs. If the Packers have Revies highly rated on their board, and he's there, they should grab him.

[retailguy]

You've often referred to 7; what are the 7 you refer to. For the fun of it I'd say

S
OG (I'm not sold on Spitz or the other yahoos)
RB
#3 WR
TE
RB
#3 CB


Do I win the prize ?


6 out of 7 isn't bad. I'm not enamored with the OL, but I think you gotta let the guys play another year. I really dislike our KR's and I consider that the "key" to improving our dismal special teams. I see that as more important that TE or FB. So, that's what I'd substitute.

I'm not fond of Miree either, but he's a FB.... so... that's why I thought that was a good position to fill with a Free Agent.

[retailguy]

You listed RB twice, dumbass.
:D

I totally missed that.... Thought he did say FB! He can't write, I can't read... :wink:

[Bretsky]

Is our need for a starting safety that much greater than our need for a decent 3rd corner? I mean c'mon, the nickel back is out there for a majority of defensive snaps. We were awful, last year, on third down defense. And that was thanks in large part to our crap-ass nickel backs. If the Packers have Revies highly rated on their board, and he's there, they should grab him.


Surely if Ted Thompson signed a free agent he must be competent
And Dendy wasn't that bad; Manuel was.

[Bretsky]

You listed RB twice, dumbass.
:D


For the challenged maybe I needed to write in Starting HB and 3rd Down HB
Or starting HB and FB

Or maybe I am a dumbass and it was an honest mistake :lol:

[retailguy]

Or maybe I am a dumbass and it was an honest mistake :lol:

:lol: :lol:

[ahaha]

Is our need for a starting safety that much greater than our need for a decent 3rd corner? I mean c'mon, the nickel back is out there for a majority of defensive snaps. We were awful, last year, on third down defense. And that was thanks in large part to our crap-ass nickel backs. If the Packers have Revies highly rated on their board, and he's there, they should grab him.


Surely if Ted Thompson signed a free agent he must be competent
And Dendy wasn't that bad; Manuel was.

Dendy sucked! He didn't look so bad because he wasn't as awful as Carrol. Manuel was bad too. It doesn't mean the Pack should reach on a safety when they might think they have a stud corner falling into their laps.

[Bretsky]

Is our need for a starting safety that much greater than our need for a decent 3rd corner? I mean c'mon, the nickel back is out there for a majority of defensive snaps. We were awful, last year, on third down defense. And that was thanks in large part to our crap-ass nickel backs. If the Packers have Revies highly rated on their board, and he's there, they should grab him.


Surely if Ted Thompson signed a free agent he must be competent
And Dendy wasn't that bad; Manuel was.

Dendy sucked! He didn't look so bad because he wasn't as awful as Carrol. Manuel was bad too. It doesn't mean the Pack should reach on a safety when they might think they have a stud corner falling into their laps.


Is Revis a stud corner ? I think he's the best of a weak group. He's a top 15 pick; I don't think he's that great of a value at 16 talent wise. That's about where he should go IMO. Reggie Nelson is a top 20 pick IMO.

I think they are comparable players; and given our need I'd take Nelson over Revis. Ditto for Lynch and a couple WR's.

[ahaha]

Is Revis a stud corner ?

That's the real question. If the Pack think so, and he falls, they should take him.

[packrulz]

I like Revis, he's big, fast, he can play man coverage, and he returns punts, he had two for TD's. Harris and Woodson are gwtting old and TT needs to draft competent backups for them. I think he has more upside than Hall. If TT took him at 16 I'd be happy.

[Guiness]

Interesting - I'd never even thought about drafting a corner. I don't want to 'need' draft either, but I think GMs would eliminate positions they're comfortable with. I.E. TT looks at his first round pick with the idea 'best player that isn't a CB, DE or QB'.

That doesn't limit him that much. Lots of time to grab a good value on those positions in rounds 3-5.

Although I agree that RB and WR are needs, I wouldn't be upset if a Tackle was drafted in the first. Unless Colledge is slated to eventually move over?

[wist43]

The Packers definitely need a corner on the first day, but I'm not sold on Revis...

From what I've read on him, he has a very choppy back pedal, and tends to slide and shuffle... guys that do that tend to be tight in the hips, and will struggle to turn and run in the pros.

They could get away with in college, but pro receivers eat the cushion up much quicker, so being able to flip your hips, turn, and run is critical.

There are some intriguing guys that can be had in the 2nd and 3rd round: Marcus McCauley, Eric Wright, Michael Coe, et al...

I think there is some decent depth there... Would rather have McCauley in the 2nd than Revis in the 1st.

[pack4to84]

If this trade go down. It could turn into M.Tunner for 27th pick, R. Moss with 1 of the 3rd rd picks. And Pack could have 2 2nd rd picks and a 3rd rd pick with filling 2 of there biggest needs.

[wist43]

Interesting - I'd never even thought about drafting a corner. I don't want to 'need' draft either, but I think GMs would eliminate positions they're comfortable with. I.E. TT looks at his first round pick with the idea 'best player that isn't a CB, DE or QB'.

That doesn't limit him that much. Lots of time to grab a good value on those positions in rounds 3-5.

Although I agree that RB and WR are needs, I wouldn't be upset if a Tackle was drafted in the first. Unless Colledge is slated to eventually move over?

I think the whole board is open... You can justify a pick at just about any position.

QB - Rodgers can't play... even if they won't admit it.
RB - They don't have an NFL calibur starter on the roster.
WR - K-Rob on the field would be great, but they definitely need more weapons.
TE - Franks runs like he has cement shoes on... Lee's hands are unreliable.
OT - Clifton isn't getting any younger, and his knees are bad.
OL (interior) - This and LB are about the only positions I would exclude from consideration in the 1st two rounds.
DE - If a difference maker fell.
DT - Ditto.
LB - 1st round pick on a 2 down player isn't a wise use of a 1st round pick.
S - I think Underwood is the answerl; but, if they had Nelson rated high enough, and he started right away, it would be a justifiable pick.
CB - Woodson and Harris are both over 30; Dendy was the nickel back; Blackmon will be back; and, Walker is penciled in as the new nickel, but they need to stock the position.

Like I said, I think you can justify just about any position except LB and interior OL.

[Partial]

That was a couple of excellent posts from Wist.

[wist43]

That was a couple of excellent posts from Wist.

Thanks Partial... I do have moments when acid flashbacks and senility don't get the best of me. :)

[Chevelle2]

It has the Saints giving us their first and second rounder in the draft for our 16th pick. They would than pick Hall or Revis to solidify their defensive backfield. We would than pick either Lynch,Ginn,Meachem,Olsen or Nelson at 27. The guy also stated that Moss will be a Packer by Saturday evening. I know it may be BS but I would do this deal.

Link?

[Bretsky]

It has the Saints giving us their first and second rounder in the draft for our 16th pick. They would than pick Hall or Revis to solidify their defensive backfield. We would than pick either Lynch,Ginn,Meachem,Olsen or Nelson at 27. The guy also stated that Moss will be a Packer by Saturday evening. I know it may be BS but I would do this deal.

Link?


My guess is it was another wild rumored guess by the Packer Chatter guy

[retailguy]

It has the Saints giving us their first and second rounder in the draft for our 16th pick. They would than pick Hall or Revis to solidify their defensive backfield. We would than pick either Lynch,Ginn,Meachem,Olsen or Nelson at 27. The guy also stated that Moss will be a Packer by Saturday evening. I know it may be BS but I would do this deal.

Link?


My guess is it was another wild rumored guess by the Packer Chatter guy

It was. I believe he disclosed it somewhere on page 1

[woodbuck27]

I certainly would be disappointed if Ted Thompson trades down that far in the first. I don't want him to trade down more than 6 spots.

Do you add water to beer? :)