Aaron Rodgers / Picks Vs Randy Moss / Courtney Anderson - Page 3

niel89 · 03-15-2007, 02:08 PM

i think it was just plain stupid for the packer to get rid of the future multi-MVP CRAIG NALL :D

P-L · 03-15-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meta4

Not if we get randy moss out of it then I have to say it worked out perfect. We would get rid of someone who is getting paid alot of money to carry a clipboard and in return get one of the best wideouts in the league. And yes he is still one of the best. The greenbay organization has done this so many times before, I really dont understand why so many people are shocked that it may happen.

That isn't the point. When the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers they didn't do it knowing that Moss would be available in a trade a couple years later. They did it for one of two reasons. Either they planned on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of the future or they did it because they are idiots. Tell me, why did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers if they never had any intention of him seeing the field?

lod01 · 03-15-2007, 02:10 PM

I'll tell you this, the Packers are taking the NFC North in 2007. That dude knows it too.

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Ok think about this.

You used a 1st round pick on a guy.

You got absolutely nothing out of him for two years.

You are now possibly trading him for a guy that has the value of a mid-to-late 2nd rounder.

How in the world is that working out perfectly?

Hass was drafted in the 6th round. Brunell and Brooks were mid-round picks. All three were traded because Favre wasn't going anywhere for many years.

There is a HUGE difference here.

If you go back and read my posts I said sometimes you have to take a loss and move on. How many times a year does that happen in the draft?? you take a player high and he doesnt work out. It happens all the time. OH WELL!

niel89 · 03-15-2007, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lod01

I'll tell you this, the Packers are taking the NFC North in 2007. That dude knows it too.

they're taking the north by trying to pick it up from the bottom

niel89 · 03-15-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meta4

you take a player high and he doesnt work out. It happens all the time. OH WELL!

he hasnt had a chance to not work out. he hasnt played signifigantly

lod01 · 03-15-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriots-Lions

That isn't the point. When the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers they didn't do it knowing that Moss would be available in a trade a couple years later. They did it for one of two reasons. Either they planned on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of the future or they did it because they are idiots. Tell me, why did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers if they never had any intention of him seeing the field?

It appears that they didn't know what I knew: Favre was sticking around until he threw TD pass #421. I said years ago that he wasn't going away until that record was his. Think what you want about what he said as far as that record is concerned. Fact is he wants it.

lod01 · 03-15-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niel89

they're taking the north by trying to pick it up from the bottom

??????

When did the Lions and Vikings franchises' dissolve?

niel89 · 03-15-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lod01

??????

When did the Lions and Vikings franchises' dissolve?

im just messing with ya, the pack should have a good year but i still feel the bears are entrenched

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niel89

he hasnt had a chance to not work out. he hasnt played signifigantly

He didnt play and he may get traded so therefore he didnt work out. It has nothing to do with on field production. Its a business move. I still cant believe people are bashing a a-rod for moss trade it makes no sense at all. A-rod may never see the field under his rookie contract so what should we do? Get a great talent now that plays lights out in lambeau field or let a-rod sit the bench his entire rookie contract and then loose him to free agency. I think this deal makes alot of sense.

03-15-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriots-Lions

That isn't the point. When the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers they didn't do it knowing that Moss would be available in a trade a couple years later. They did it for one of two reasons. Either they planned on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of the future or they did it because they are idiots. Tell me, why did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers if they never had any intention of him seeing the field?

False dichotomy.

Maybe they have watched him for 2 years and realize he isn't going to be the player they thought he was going to be coming out.

lod01 · 03-15-2007, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by niel89

im just messing with ya, the pack should have a good year but i still feel the bears are entrenched

No problem. That's why I came back with that reply....although it should be considered by the NFL.

bearsfan_51 · 03-15-2007, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meta4

If you go back and read my posts I said sometimes you have to take a loss and move on. How many times a year does that happen in the draft?? you take a player high and he doesnt work out. It happens all the time. OH WELL!

Right, and that's fine. If they don't like Rogers they should trade him and try to find another young QB to be the replacement, but to say that it is good value, it is not. If they trade Rogers it ends up being a bad pick for the Packers because they lost three years for nothing and a major drop in terms of trade value.

That being said, if they don't think he's worth anything they need to trade him this offseason while he still has some value.

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 02:22 PM

Its gonna be real funny if a-rod has nothing to do with this trade and we all just wasted our time for nothing. :)

PACKmanN · 03-15-2007, 02:22 PM

23 teams passed on him and all thoses 23 coachs know something.

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearsfan_51

Right, and that's fine. If they don't like Rogers they should trade him and try to find another young QB to be the replacement, but to say that it is good value, it is not. If they trade Rogers it ends up being a bad pick for the Packers because they lost three years for nothing and a major drop in terms of trade value.

That being said, if they don't think he's worth anything they need to trade him this offseason while he still has some value.

I agree and thats exactly what were trying to do. I understand your value point because we did just lose three years for nothing but at the same time we cant change that, we can only mask it by bringing moss in. Either way picking rodgers was a mistake. I personally have always thought that but thats what you have to deal with when TT is your GM. He drafts the best player available regardless of need.

cheesehead10790 · 03-15-2007, 02:40 PM

I dont even understand this argument. This is a trade that would benefit both teams. The Packers need a WR and the Raiders a QB. Both Rodgers and Moss were 1st round picks and both have had their value drop. They have about the same value and would both benefit from the trade. It makes perfect sense to me.

FLORIDA PACKER · 03-15-2007, 02:55 PM

I have Never been a Rodgers advocate I was a Charlie Frye guy in 04.

But this situation is totally different than the Hasselback, Brunell, and Brooks situations.

I believe all them were later round picks(Brooks 4th, Hasselback 6th i know for sure), Rodgers was drafted with our 1st round pick, as a BPA lets not forget he was mentioned in the same breath as the number 1 overall pick at one time. however the tedford legacy is what caused him to drop IMO. So if Thompson does decide to trade him he's admitting he made a mistake which just doesn't seem very TT to me.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of him for Moss, but we must have a back up plan ready. Were gonna need another Young QB to bring into the fold(Charlie Frye may even be potentially avaiable if Cleavland decides to go the Brady Quinn route but thats just a pipe dream of mine)

Moses · 03-15-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PACKmanN

23 teams passed on him and all thoses 23 coachs know something.

Every coach passed on Brady, multiple times.

Plus, Rodgers was the 2nd quarterback selected in the draft. The only real knock on him coming into the NFL was that he worked in the Tedford system.

GB12 · 03-15-2007, 03:02 PM

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch.../2007&id=20647

That says the exact opposite

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GB12

http://www.jsonline.com/watch/?watch.../2007&id=20647

That says the exact opposite

Its all a smokescreen. TT is notorious for things like this. He says one thing and does the exact opposite.

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moses

Every coach passed on Brady, multiple times.

Plus, Rodgers was the 2nd quarterback selected in the draft. The only real knock on him coming into the NFL was that he worked in the Tedford system.

Thats a big knock!

CC.SD · 03-15-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meta4

Thats a big knock!

Yeah it's basically the equivalent of "Hey guys, I banged this really hot chick...big tits, great hips, and oh yeah I forgot to tell you she was dead at the time."

TheChampIsHere · 03-15-2007, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriots-Lions

That isn't the point. When the Packers drafted Aaron Rodgers they didn't do it knowing that Moss would be available in a trade a couple years later. They did it for one of two reasons. Either they planned on Aaron Rodgers being the QB of the future or they did it because they are idiots. Tell me, why did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers if they never had any intention of him seeing the field?

well obviously when they drafted him they must have thought he was their QB of the future. Based on how they handled it on draft day I was led to believe they weren't high on Rodgers as a prospect but thought the value was too to pass up. And I also would have to guess that the coaches are not at all high on him after 2 years of him in practice.

eaglesalltheway · 03-15-2007, 03:50 PM

ESPN and NFL Network are saying this is false, and I will beleive them, I think someone either got confused, or bored, and wanted to start a good story.