Larry Johnson - Is he or isn't he ???

[Packers4Ever]

Sorry if this has already been posted, but....

I saw a blurp on TMJ-TV Milwaukee a little earlier that the

Pack may be seeing another player and Larry Johnson's

name was mentioned. But they never came back to

give the entire story about this. Anyone hear anything?

Or is this just another empty possibility? Packerchatters

were talking last week about someone new coming in too. :?:

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

I think its boredom.

[The Leaper]

If Thompson won't give up a 4th round pick for Randy Moss, he sure as hell ain't giving up whatever the Chiefs are asking for Johnson.

Give it up already.

[Carolina_Packer]

I heard it was either Larry Bird for a conditional 7th rounder in 2008 or Larrry Hagman for a case of Schlitz Malt Liquor.

[Tarlam!]

If Thompson won't give up a 4th round pick for Randy Moss, he sure as hell ain't giving up whatever the Chiefs are asking for Johnson.

Give it up already.

And why should he? We got Morency, Herron, Wynn, oh yeah, and Jackson. Aint no more room on the practice squad, even for Johnson! Fogotten already?

[ND72]

If Thompson won't give up a 4th round pick for Randy Moss, he sure as hell ain't giving up whatever the Chiefs are asking for Johnson.

Give it up already.

Considering I think giving up a 6th rounder is a stretch for Randy Moss....I'd say Larry Johnson would be a better bet.

[oregonpackfan]

Just another gossip item filling the off-season blahs.

[Packers4Ever]

Thanks for your input, guys,

Leaper - that was my first thought too...

CP - Which one do you want? :lol:

Tarlam - True, we are already loaded with help :wink:

Pack Fan & OPF - No wonder the sports guy never returned with
"the rest of the story"

ND - The Pats can keep RM :!:

[Brando19]

I found this on PFT:

A couple of weeks ago, former Packers linebacker George Koonce hinted on his way out of a front office job with the team that the Pack could be making a significant acquisition on offense.

The player in question could be Chiefs running back Larry Johnson.

WTMJ in Milwaukee reports that the Packers are "keeping a very close eye" on Johnson's situation. With one year remaining on his Kansas City contract, at a salary of $1.7 million, Johnson has made it clear that he wants a new contract before he endures another 400-carry season. The Chiefs discreetly dangled their Johnson (we couldn't resist) prior to the draft, but found no takers.

The problem is that anyone who wants L.J. will have to satisfy his contractual demands, and bow to the trade expectations of G.M. Carl Peterson. We think that, at a minimum, it'll take $25 million in guaranteed money to make Johnson happy, and a first-round pick and a third-round pick to get the Chiefs to bite.

If Johnson was worth that kind of a total investment, the Chiefs would be making it.

The reality here is that Johnson already has a lot of miles on the tires, and that it's still unclear whether Johnson is a truly great running back. Also, the fact that he carries the ball a lot puts him at greater risk of the kind of injury that would make the investment in his services look foolish in hindsight.

Absent a trade, there could be a nasty and protracted holdout. Johnson and Peterson have heads of solid rock, and we could envision both sides digging in, even if it's in no one's best interests to do so.

[Fritz]

I don't want Larry Johnson.

[b bulldog]

Too many miles on him and too much money for a 28 year old back. I heard that the Chiefs want and 1,2 and a 3rd rounder for him and TT will never do that.

[Bretsky]

I don't want Larry Johnson.


Then you'll by happy :lol:

[retailguy]

I don't want Larry Johnson.

I want Vernand Morency. He's the next Barry Sanders.

[MJZiggy]

Morency will do until Jackson bursts out...

[retailguy]

Morency will do until Jackson bursts out...

"IF" - We dont get no guarantees. It's not really about Morency or Jackson, sadly. Neither of these guys have shown that they can run behind a poor line. Green did, so did Barry Sanders. That's the difference.

Perhaps you missed my sarcasm? :wink:

The offense goes as far as the OL will take them. If they can't block better than last year, it wouldn't matter if Barry Sanders was in the backfield, because he'd be going nowhere except down.

I'd be completely behind young backs if I thought we had a line to give them a chance for success. We don't have that line, and it's a kool-aid google stretch to suggest otherwise at this point. I'm hoping they surprise me, but I am not holding my breath.

[Carolina_Packer]

CP - Which one do you want? :lol:

Larry Bird might have receiver's hands, but I think he's lost a step, or his legs altogether.

I'm thinking Larry Hagman, but only as Major Nelson, which might help make up for losing out on Reggie Nelson this year, and definitely if Jeannie comes with him...she's elusive, and let's face it, a stone cold babe.

[woodbuck27]

I don't want Larry Johnson.


Then you'll by happy :lol:

Isn't that the TRUTH. :oops:

Our running game will only go as far as our OL matures and proves successful.

TT knows that. TT will not speculate on another RB that will cost him big time in draft picks and CAP.

If he brought LJ in and our OL is, as we should realize it is, or not ready then he would place himself in nothing but a lose-lose situation. The question that has to be asked is . . how well can LJ be expected to run behind our OL?

If LJ can't be productive in GB, then where will the blame be placed but on TT.

TT is way too careful to allow himself to be open to any blame.This is a good and a bad thing,that has to be weighed for overall impact and direction.

The real measure this season will fall on our record. Then TT will have to bring out the medical kit or bandaids. :)

In LJ there is over the top too much risk. TT will be burnt for making a bad and costly deal that had no return and long term future in considering LJ. It comes down to cost and return.

LJ will cost big time with a high risk on return.

TT will also not be as able to make excuses for a poor OL. Given that LJ is one of the most respected RB's in the NFL. He's top 5.

The other risk he takes is the criticism that, his men (the Morency's and Brandon's) won't get their prime time. They are younger, hungry and ready to shine.

LJ would be the number 1 RB. LJ would get prime time and he's becoming an aging RB, and the youth not developing in liew of LJ's status, and TT's obvious huge commitment to bringing him in.

Larry Johnson won't land in Green Bay. Anything that suggests otherwise is poor postering. 8-)

[Packers4Ever]

I found this on PFT:

A couple of weeks ago, former Packers linebacker George Koonce hinted on his way out of a front office job with the team that the Pack could be making a significant acquisition on offense.

The player in question could be Chiefs running back Larry Johnson.

WTMJ in Milwaukee reports that the Packers are "keeping a very close eye" on Johnson's situation. With one year remaining on his Kansas City contract, at a salary of $1.7 million, Johnson has made it clear that he wants a new contract before he endures another 400-carry season. The Chiefs discreetly dangled their Johnson (we couldn't resist) prior to the draft, but found no takers.

The problem is that anyone who wants L.J. will have to satisfy his contractual demands, and bow to the trade expectations of G.M. Carl Peterson. We think that, at a minimum, it'll take $25 million in guaranteed money to make Johnson happy, and a first-round pick and a third-round pick to get the Chiefs to bite.

If Johnson was worth that kind of a total investment, the Chiefs would be making it.

The reality here is that Johnson already has a lot of miles on the tires, and that it's still unclear whether Johnson is a truly great running back. Also, the fact that he carries the ball a lot puts him at greater risk of the kind of injury that would make the investment in his services look foolish in hindsight.

Absent a trade, there could be a nasty and protracted holdout. Johnson and Peterson have heads of solid rock, and we could envision both sides digging in, even if it's in no one's best interests to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------
B19, I also heard the George Koonce story on another Forum a couple of weeks ago but didn't put much stock in it at the time. After reading all about LJ here, I don't think we want - or could even expect - to have Larry Johnson in our camp, not with his and his GM's expectations for a RB who is probably better than 'half worn.' None of this would fly with TT anyway.

[POLISHHAWK]

LJ is just a scheme RB. I don't see him being special on a team with mediocre run blockers.

It's obvious, LJ wants a contract THIS YEAR!!! You want to know why? Willie Roaf is gone. He sees danger in his production dropping. He knows if his production drops, so does his payday. He does not want to be exposed as a RB that is good because of his line. Just like Emmitt was behind the Cowboys line; he is no better than above average.

[Carolina_Packer]

TT is way too careful to allow himself to be open to any blame.This is a good and a bad thing,that has to be weighed for overall impact and direction.

Woodbuck, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. When is any GM not open to criticism? Someone will always have a problem with a GM's style. "He's too conservative!...He takes too many risks!...He drafts poorly" I'll give TT this; he seems to have a plan that he believes in and is sticking to it. He's not being swayed by whether or not it's popular. Like you and every other fan, I hope to hell he's right.

As for LJ...love to have his talent in our backfield, wished we had drafted him, but at this point in his career, and with the fact that many RB's peak at 30 (even though I know he was an understudy for a couple of years and didn't take the beating he does now). Besides, it would be completely out of character for TT to give up that much for LJ, and it's going to take a lot. I'd much rather go after a guy like Michael Turner if we are bent on a trade. I hope we are ok at RB this year.

[Tarlam!]

I'd much rather go after a guy like Michael Turner if we are bent on a trade.

My thoughts, too. If we are gonna give up a 1st and X, then only for Turner.

Still, I like a GM and a HC that are willing to play the hand they have been dealt. TT and M3 have my full respect for doing it how they are.

A lot of other porsters have likened TT's method to what the Pats did until this year, where they clearly have tried to purchse the Lombardi Trophy.

I agree totally with those posters.

The thing is, and Wisty points this out regularly, A-Rod is our big unknown. TT's whole house of cards will come crumbling down if A-Rod can't play.

As Wisty reently posted, the fun is in putting the puzzle together, so we have lots of fun times ahead!

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

TT is not going to spend a 1st on a running back when he spent a 2nd on one in the draft.