James Jones on the trade block

[Joemailman]

Can we trade our FIRST RD PICK we drafted over Brooks Reed AND James Jones for Brooks Reed ?????????????????????????????????????????????

Why would you trade a future Pro Bowl LT and James Jones for Brooks Reed?

[Lurker64]

Can we trade our FIRST RD PICK we drafted over Brooks Reed AND James Jones for Brooks Reed ?????????????????????????????????????????????

Why are you trading our LT of the future for a guy to back up Nick Perry?

[Fritz]

The idea mentioned above is intriguing...if Houston has a plethora of wide bodies, how about a decent nose tackle in exchange for JJ? Someone who could eat up some snaps every game?

But I'm not necessarily in favor of trading Jones, actually. It's just the offseason, and the slow time at that...

[Tony Oday]

JJ is a decent WR but not elite. partial starter for partial starter

[Deputy Nutz]

Anyone that gives a damn, look up the stats for James Jones last season when Jennings went down with an injury. I don't remember him being really productive where I actually remembered how well he played. The guy plays in an offense that spreads the field and has a qb that can pick the best match up 8 out of 10 times. Jones is not special enough to be given a roster spot. I agree that no one will be traded until the end of training camp when players have proved themselves and there are holes on other teams' rosters. Basically Driver is a lock unless he gets hurt, Cobb is a lock, Jordy is a lock, and Jennings are a lock. Jones, Borel, Gurley, and Smith are all going to be final decisions or trade bait.

When the Packers have five receivers on the field in most packages #88 is staying on the field. so the Packer will keep 5 receivers, but not 6 unless the 6th is a monster on special teams.

[Patler]

Anyone that gives a damn, look up the stats for James Jones last season when Jennings went down with an injury. I don't remember him being really productive where I actually remembered how well he played.

10/139 in the last two games against Chicago and Detroit. 2 TDs against the Bears.

I suspect he is better than many (most?) teams' 3rd receivers, perhaps a fair number of teams 2nd receivers. Yes, he drops too many balls, but he also makes a lot of tough catches. In that way, he is a frustrating player. If Nelson or Jennings goes down for an extended time, we will be glad we have him.

Why would teams trade for him now when they did not sign him last year? Last year was a bad year to be a free agent, but more importantly he has two years remaining on his existing contract at a very, very affordable cost. Had teams realized he could be signed that cheaply, they probably would have. Not unlike the Packers and Jenkins. Shoulda, woulda, coulda...

[Patler]

When the Packers have five receivers on the field in most packages #88 is staying on the field. so the Packer will keep 5 receivers, but not 6 unless the 6th is a monster on special teams.

When they kept 3 FBs, the third one didn't play ST's, couldn't catch and was very inconsistent as a blocker. He was kept strictly on potential at a position where there are never 2 on the field, and often not even 1. The 5 TE's last year? Beyond Finley it was a little of this, a little of that.

I think they should keep 6 WR's if one of the young ones is truly worthy. It is doubtful Quarless will be ready to start the season, so that will likely free a spot from last year's distribution of WR/TE types anyway. At Driver's age, many players have injury after injury, and Driver has shown a little vulnerability in that area the last few years. Cobb will be returning kicks and punts, and runs without consideration for his own health. At his size, injuries can be a problem. Finley has shown vulnerability since coming into the league. For as much as the Packers want 4 and 5 receivers on the field, 4 TEs, 6 WRs would make some sense.

[pbmax]

When they kept 3 FBs, the third one didn't play ST's, couldn't catch and was very inconsistent as a blocker. He was kept strictly on potential at a position where there are never 2 on the field, and often not even 1. The 5 TE's last year? Beyond Finley it was a little of this, a little of that.

I think they should keep 6 WR's if one of the young ones is truly worthy. It is doubtful Quarless will be ready to start the season, so that will likely free a spot from last year's distribution of WR/TE types anyway. At Driver's age, many players have injury after injury, and Driver has shown a little vulnerability in that area the last few years. Cobb will be returning kicks and punts, and runs without consideration for his own health. At his size, injuries can be a problem. Finley has shown vulnerability since coming into the league. For as much as the Packers want 4 and 5 receivers on the field, 4 TEs, 6 WRs would make some sense.

The more I think about it, 6 seems like a very likely outcome. Its not a lock any team will even offer Jones' original draft round as compensation for a trade, unless a team is hobbled at WR in camp.

Jones would be invaluable if Jennings or Nelson got hurt. But I do think Nutz has it right that ST ability will be the test for the 6th spot. They might all fail out, but if one is to stick as #6, they have to be able to play teams. Unlike Q Johnson at FB, the WR position doesn't have two players who regularly play ST. Cobb is it. That doesn't guarantee it, but it would make the roster work better. I think Nelson's future on ST is like Woodson's, only in emergency and only for ball handling.

[Patler]

The more I think about it, 6 seems like a very likely outcome. Its not a lock any team will even offer Jones' original draft round as compensation for a trade, unless a team is hobbled at WR in camp.

Jones would be invaluable if Jennings or Nelson got hurt. But I do think Nutz has it right that ST ability will be the test for the 6th spot. They might all fail out, but if one is to stick as #6, they have to be able to play teams. Unlike Q Johnson at FB, the WR position doesn't have two players who regularly play ST. Cobb is it. That doesn't guarantee it, but it would make the roster work better. I think Nelson's future on ST is like Woodson's, only in emergency and only for ball handling.

I think there is an extra slot available for the #6 WR even if he doesn't regularly contribute on ST, for several reasons. Obviously, it will be better for him if he plays STs; however,
- GB will again have a boatlaod of LB's, and all the backups will play ST's.
- They are likely to have 2 or 3 ST players from the TE spot.
- It looks like a few of the new DBs will be ST-types.
- Most significantly, the 6th WR will most often be a game day inactive, so his ST contributions will mean little anyway. It will only become a factor if other ST players get hurt.

There are always 1 or 2 throw-away positions on a 53 man roster, at least to start the season. So you can keep a second punter, a Breno Giacomini or other O-lineman who won't be ready to play regardless (as a rookie), etc. No reason it can't be used for a backup WR kept strictly for depth at a critical position for the Packer offense. ST play is not important for those spots, since they will rarely be active anyway.

[Brandon494]

I think it's a no brainer to keep six WRs, especially with Quarless not beig able to return.

[Lurker64]

I think it's a no brainer to keep six WRs, especially with Quarless not beig able to return.

Plus, you definitely keep 6 WRs active over, say, a 3rd QB or a 6th DL, when that guy is a special teams stud (c.f. Gurley's ability to block kicks.)

[Joemailman]

Plus, you definitely keep 6 WRs active over, say, a 3rd QB or a 6th DL, when that guy is a special teams stud (c.f. Gurley's ability to block kicks.)

6th WR over a 3rd QB is fine. No way though would I keep less than 6 DL. One injury and that could be a real problem. And how often do you get through a season without injured players on the DL?

[Lurker64]

6th WR over a 3rd QB is fine. No way though would I keep less than 6 DL. One injury and that could be a real problem. And how often do you get through a season without injured players on the DL?

You keep 6 DL, but you don't dress all of them on game days (most of the time.) Considering the Packers average about 2.25 defensive linemen per play, you only need a 5-man rotation in a given game in order to keep people fresh. 7 guys are inactive on every game day, and generally one of them is a DL.

[woodbuck27]

If Jones didn't garner any interest as a FA what team us gonna want to give up a draft pick for him now? Talk about creating rumors so you have something to write about...

This isn't a 'trumped up no value rumor' rumor:

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/6/13/3083476/james-jones-trade-rumors-packers

It just makes sense given that DD will be back and we have three developing talents. James Jones will be competeing with Randall Cobb for playing time. Who wins that battle?

a) I'd love to see him traded for a decent RB ((FS/SS) or get some real value for him now. He was born: 1984/03/31 and now 28 years old.

b) Even if we got a fifth round pick for him we trade his age for 'a potential rookie prospect' by using that fifth round pick to trade up in that draft.

GO PACKERS !