lynch to the 'hawks

[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.