Griffith signs with Raiders

[b bulldog]

A good FB who can catch out of the backfield, a strong north, south runner and a strong blocker is a key to having a good running game in the system we are using. He would also be a good mentor for our rookie TB. Green's better days are behind him imo but we will see next season.

[retailguy]

A good FB who can catch out of the backfield, a strong north, south runner and a strong blocker is a key to having a good running game in the system we are using. He would also be a good mentor for our rookie TB. Green's better days are behind him imo but we will see next season.

Yeah, I agree with that too, but there's bigger issues. We need an RB. We need another WR. We need a Safety. We need a backup CB. A backup OT.

Not all of those can come from the draft and contribute in 2007. Just don't understand the plan. I question if there is a plan.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you feel Thompson hasn't done enough this FA period?

[HarveyWallbangers]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=insidedishmcgaheemovestr&prov=tsn&type=lgns

The Redskins, the league leaders in bad free-agent signings, have done it again. CB Fred Smoot was exposed in Minnesota for being a step slow and unable to play within the design of the defense. If CB Shawn Springs winds up leaving, Smoot hardly will represent an upgrade. The best thing that could happen to the Redskins is for them to re-sign Springs and use Smoot as the third corner. Still, Smoot, 27, didn't warrant the $7 million signing bonus Washington gave him. . . .

FA doesn't work for Washington because they suck at it--not because signing FAs is an all together bad thing.

[retailguy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you feel Thompson hasn't done enough this FA period?

I don't think he has. At least not to fill the roster with bodies that could help in 2007.


I have never wanted him to overpay. I did want him to be price competitive.

I thought two or three solid guys to fill out with some of the rookies, gave hope for 07. All rookies makes the team look a lot like 06.

The schedule is tougher next year, and O is not looking too good right now. Big holes at RB, WR, and TE. FB too I guess.

Looks pretty difficult to field a strong team.

I have no clue what's going on in his head. Too many risks to get a reward, I think.

Holes could have been patched. With green, a good WR, and another body at TE, the offense could've been special. Don't see it now.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Well, two of the big "clique" guys in here, Bretsky and I, have your exact same view, and have been spending the last several days defending our positions. I haven't defended you or supported anybody else because I generally try to stay out of those all together--although I haven't always been perfect doing so.

RG, I don't think there is a "clique," but if there was one, I'd consider you a part of it.

[Bretsky]

A good FB who can catch out of the backfield, a strong north, south runner and a strong blocker is a key to having a good running game in the system we are using. He would also be a good mentor for our rookie TB. Green's better days are behind him imo but we will see next season.

Yeah, I agree with that too, but there's bigger issues. We need an RB. We need another WR. We need a Safety. We need a backup CB. A backup OT.

Not all of those can come from the draft and contribute in 2007. Just don't understand the plan. I question if there is a plan.

You forget about WR; we need another starting Caliber WR as one of the top 3

[retailguy]

Well, two of the big "clique" guys in here, Bretsky and I, have your exact same view, and have been spending the last several days defending our positions. I haven't defended you or supported anybody else because I generally try to stay out of those all together--although I haven't always been perfect doing so.

RG, I don't think there is a "clique," but if there was one, I'd consider you a part of it.

there is a clique. perhaps I was a part of it. i won't be any longer.

My point was that NO ONE defended me. NO ONE. KYPack seemingly tried about a week ago, but followed his half hearted defense with "I'm sick of his crap too". Whatever...

[retailguy]

A good FB who can catch out of the backfield, a strong north, south runner and a strong blocker is a key to having a good running game in the system we are using. He would also be a good mentor for our rookie TB. Green's better days are behind him imo but we will see next season.

Yeah, I agree with that too, but there's bigger issues. We need an RB. We need another WR. We need a Safety. We need a backup CB. A backup OT.

Not all of those can come from the draft and contribute in 2007. Just don't understand the plan. I question if there is a plan.

You forget about WR; we need another starting Caliber WR as one of the top 3

? Look at my quote? It's there. I don't think we need it any longer. We don't have an RB. Money spent on a starting caliber receiver is WASTED without a credible running threat.

[HarveyWallbangers]

And he totally forgot about TE or three, and possibly a starting LB. Maybe another DL for the rotation. Can never have enough of those guys..

[gureski]

YOu said we don't have a RB and I've heard multiple people say that but I wonder how different you consider Morency to be then W.Dunn?

With the ZBS, you don't need a RB that is pile driving through guys. YOu need a quick RB with good feet and instincts that can recognize holes and burst through.

The reason Morency has real potential is his speed and quickness. He's in the W.Dunn mold. If Dunn can do it with his limited size then why is it unrealistic to think Morency can possibly be that kind of RB? He has flashed some positive things.

Morency has been in 3 different offense's in 2 years! He came to the Packers after a year in Houston under Capers and then had training camp under Kubiak's offense before finally getting traded to G.B. to learn McCarthy's offense! 3 different offensive schemes in 2 years is alot for a young RB.

Morency has flashed some ability. He's not a power guy but that's okay. You can get another RB to be the change of pace guy and power back. The key here is that Morency has real potential. He may ultimately flop but many have given up on him prematurely. What he brings to the table fits the ZBS.

Morency's biggest challenge is staying healthy. That's what I'm most skeptical about but he's not so often injured that he should be considered unreliable. The jury is truly still out on the guy. This coming year will be the biggest of his career. It will make him or break him.

He can't handle it all himself and he's not the kind of back that A.Green was but that's the hidden point that nobody is talking about. The offense changed. We don't need a RB that plays like A.Green did to succeed in the running game in McCarthy's offense. A Morency could fill the bill. YOu have to look at the scheme being run here and match the RB up with it. Some RB's transcend scheme and can play anywhere. I see Morency as a guy who is physically suited for the ZBS. He's a legitimate option to lead the team in rushing. He will need a mate who can handle the tough yardage but overall, Morency could be another W.Dunn type player. The potential is there. It's valid. You guys should stop saying there is nothing left. We have at least one valid option. It's not a sure-thing but it's a valid option.

[Bretsky]

A good FB who can catch out of the backfield, a strong north, south runner and a strong blocker is a key to having a good running game in the system we are using. He would also be a good mentor for our rookie TB. Green's better days are behind him imo but we will see next season.

Yeah, I agree with that too, but there's bigger issues. We need an RB. We need another WR. We need a Safety. We need a backup CB. A backup OT.

Not all of those can come from the draft and contribute in 2007. Just don't understand the plan. I question if there is a plan.

You forget about WR; we need another starting Caliber WR as one of the top 3

? Look at my quote? It's there. I don't think we need it any longer. We don't have an RB. Money spent on a starting caliber receiver is WASTED without a credible running threat.

OH crap I'm losing it; meant TE

[retailguy]

YOu said we don't have a RB and I've heard multiple people say that but I wonder how different you consider Morency to be then W.Dunn?

With the ZBS, you don't need a RB that is pile driving through guys. YOu need a quick RB with good feet and instincts that can recognize holes and burst through.

The reason Morency has real potential is his speed and quickness. He's in the W.Dunn mold. If Dunn can do it with his limited size then why is it unrealistic to think Morency can possibly be that kind of RB? He has flashed some positive things.

Morency has been in 3 different offense's in 2 years! He came to the Packers after a year in Houston under Capers and then had training camp under Kubiak's offense before finally getting traded to G.B. to learn McCarthy's offense! 3 different offensive schemes in 2 years is alot for a young RB.

Morency has flashed some ability. He's not a power guy but that's okay. You can get another RB to be the change of pace guy and power back. The key here is that Morency has real potential. He may ultimately flop but many have given up on him prematurely. What he brings to the table fits the ZBS.

Morency's biggest challenge is staying healthy. That's what I'm most skeptical about but he's not so often injured that he should be considered unreliable. The jury is truly still out on the guy. This coming year will be the biggest of his career. It will make him or break him.

He can't handle it all himself and he's not the kind of back that A.Green was but that's the hidden point that nobody is talking about. The offense changed. We don't need a RB that plays like A.Green did to succeed in the running game in McCarthy's offense. A Morency could fill the bill. YOu have to look at the scheme being run here and match the RB up with it. Some RB's transcend scheme and can play anywhere. I see Morency as a guy who is physically suited for the ZBS. He's a legitimate option to lead the team in rushing. He will need a mate who can handle the tough yardage but overall, Morency could be another W.Dunn type player. The potential is there. It's valid. You guys should stop saying there is nothing left. We have at least one valid option. It's not a sure-thing but it's a valid option.

your whole point is based on the OL being suitable. the OL did not play well until the final few games of the year. Not PROOF by my standard. Green gained those yards last year largely on his own.

Morency will not do that. EVER.

It MIGHT be a valid option or might not.... we'll see cause he's all we've got.

[the_idle_threat]

Re: Thompson

I have a BA in Managerial Accounting (after switching from an Economics/Political Science major (6 credits short)), I do have a minor in econ. I also have an MBA, and have taught macro and micro economics at the Community College level.

Geesh - do you want to measure pee pees?

No ... I'll bet he doesn't.

[Patler]

Re: Thompson

Patler, if you read my posts carefully, you'll see that the "loss" is that Ahman Green is gone. That doesn't have anything to do with money. Claiming that he could get injured is a "much different thing". Every team is succeptible to that.

You know what my point is, please don't try to distort it.

Losing a back with Green's ability is a loss, even if it becomes the right financial decision.

Well, Retailguy, if you would read my posts carefully, you would know that my point was addressing exactly what you now say that your point is. I suggested that Green being gone may be no loss at all, and could just as well be a gain.. There is no way we can know now, today, whether not having him during the 2007 season will be a loss or not. It may be a loss or it may be a gain.

For you to write,

whether Houston overpaid, or not, Green Bay still LOST in this deal, because Green was a good football player, and intrinsically, has more value HERE than anywhere else. Regardless of whether or not he was "overpaid", there is an unfilled HOLE in Green Bay, and any manner in which you choose to slice it, that's a LOSS.

is not a provable condition at the present time. It is no more a "defined fact" than is the position of others about whom you complain, that Ahman Green was paid too much. In case you've forgotten, you wrote:

I happen to agree with you, in his case, by thinking that Ahman got more than he should have, but disagree that this is a "defined fact" as most posters in this room claim. There is more to the story, and the "outcome" can't be judged until Christmas.

I would suggest that your statement that "Green Bay LOST in this deal" also is not a "defined fact" and the outcome can't be judged until Christmas.