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.