Arod endorses Lynch.."Bring him on"

[Brandon494]

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

Bills not interested in trading Lynch.

[Lurker64]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/392033...s-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.

[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.