Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

My take.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
incognito_man


Joined: 11 Jan 2007
Posts: 32008
Location: Madison
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depending on how things progress through this offseason, and if they do how I suspect they will, I would be ready to give Tramon's money to Neal.

I think it would be a mistake to let Neal walk and keep Tramon on the books. Even if it means losing Tramon THIS season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MNPackfan32


Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 8175
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

incognito_man wrote:
Depending on how things progress through this offseason, and if they do how I suspect they will, I would be ready to give Tramon's money to Neal.

I think it would be a mistake to let Neal walk and keep Tramon on the books. Even if it means losing Tramon THIS season.
I don't want to cut Tramon this season, but there are some money issues to figure out. Tramon isn't worth his check, and Finley isn't worth his. Neal and Shields are guys who need to stick around IMO. I want to see Neal 1 more year, healthy before I hand him a big check.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
svp


Joined: 11 Sep 2011
Posts: 1165
Location: I took a football shaped pill and felt better.
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As much as I like micah hyde he wouldn't replace Jared bush on STs.
He would replace the opposite gunner, whoever that is. Jeremy Ross?
_________________
svp wrote:
Who cares?


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13910
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

svp wrote:
As much as I like micah hyde he wouldn't replace Jared bush on STs.
He would replace the opposite gunner, whoever that is. Jeremy Ross?


Not so sure about that. You can only keep so many DB's on your 53. Bush would be a tough cut though IMO. But I always lean on the side of young and cheap when it's close. If Hyde comes to play that could make for a fun watch come cut day.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13910
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reading my mail/PM's here and think I need to clear something up that might have come off my keyboard the wrong way.

I DO NOT FEEL TT MADE A MISTAKE WITH THE TRADE/LACY PICK. I disagree with it and feel they should have stayed right where they were and picked Ball. That's not a mistake by the Packers camp though. Clearly TT new the risk and made that trade with the mindset of having like value still on his board at the later pick. If he felt Ball was a much better prospect he would not have made that trade. Big difference between a mistake and the disagreement of value though.

Many teams make at least one mistake on draft day looking back at it a day or two later with 20/20. I feel the Packers did so this year but it was the Tretter pick not the Lacy thing. There was a run on centers there and IMO TT jumped the gun on Tretter because he did not want to be left behind. Got a good prospect there but IMO a round(at least) too early with good players still on the board.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deathstar


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 746
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Am I right in saying that Lacy vs. Ball is contingent on the medical? So that could be a wash. Tretter I can not say either way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3306
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deathstar wrote:
Am I right in saying that Lacy vs. Ball is contingent on the medical? So that could be a wash. Tretter I can not say either way.


My guess was that some teams did not pass Lacy on the medical, but TT did, and sitting at 55 TT was thinking "we have really close grades on Ball, Lacy, and maybe even Michael" and if we trade back 5 spots one of those three will still be there (and in fact, two of them were.)

Palmy has a clear preference for Ball over Lacy, but perhaps the Packer FO did not (perhaps they even preferred Lacy to Ball), so you can't blame them for the move (personally I didn't like Lacy or Ball, but the Steelers got my guy, and I'm unsure about the locker room stuff with Michael.)

Whether or not Tretter was taken a round early, that sort of mistake is perhaps less problematic when you're holding ten day 3 picks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13910
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spot on, Cabbage!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PossibleCabbage


Joined: 25 Apr 2011
Posts: 3306
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
Spot on, Cabbage!


Do you have a feeling about the trade back in round 3? Was it more of a "the board is in shambles" or more of a "we have the same grade on a dozen prospects right now"?

Do you think they were targeting one of the guys they went between 88 and 93, and were chagrined when he was selected (Possibly Bailey? I can't see Brennan Williams, Duron Harmon, or Kayvon Webster as GB targets) so traded back further, or was TT telling the truth when he said they felt great about how the board was stacked up?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13424
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW:
"We liked Montee Ball a lot. We kind of had them in the same range."-Brian Gutekunst

"I personally thought he was the top back in the class."-Alex Van Pelt (on Lacy)
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13910
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PossibleCabbage wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
Spot on, Cabbage!


Do you have a feeling about the trade back in round 3? Was it more of a "the board is in shambles" or more of a "we have the same grade on a dozen prospects right now"?

Do you think they were targeting one of the guys they went between 88 and 93, and were chagrined when he was selected (Possibly Bailey? I can't see Brennan Williams, Duron Harmon, or Kayvon Webster as GB targets) so traded back further, or was TT telling the truth when he said they felt great about how the board was stacked up?


Good chance they just liked the way the board was setting up later on and I can see why.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
palmy50


Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 13910
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

justo wrote:
FWIW:
"We liked Montee Ball a lot. We kind of had them in the same range."-Brian Gutekunst

"I personally thought he was the top back in the class."-Alex Van Pelt (on Lacy)


I have little doubt they liked Ball in the fit. I might be wrong. But LIS, I do feel they would have taken Ball had they not made that trade. I can see why TT made the trade though also. I'm just not so sure I agree with it. That's all.

I can clearly see why someone from Van Pelt's POV would love Lacy though also.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HawaiiFan808


Joined: 04 Jan 2009
Posts: 3014
Location: Honolulu, HI
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

palmy50 wrote:
justo wrote:
FWIW:
"We liked Montee Ball a lot. We kind of had them in the same range."-Brian Gutekunst

"I personally thought he was the top back in the class."-Alex Van Pelt (on Lacy)


I have little doubt they liked Ball in the fit. I might be wrong. But LIS, I do feel they would have taken Ball had they not made that trade. I can see why TT made the trade though also. I'm just not so sure I agree with it. That's all.

I can clearly see why someone from Van Pelt's POV would love Lacy though also.


Between Lacy and Ball who has better hands and pass blocking ability? Also, did Ball's volume of carries raise any flags?
_________________
Nnivolcm wrote:
Ugh... Avoid Green Bay's GDT. There is so much stupid in there that I felt dumber reading some of it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
justo


Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 13424
PostPosted: Thu May 02, 2013 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HawaiiFan808 wrote:
palmy50 wrote:
justo wrote:
FWIW:
"We liked Montee Ball a lot. We kind of had them in the same range."-Brian Gutekunst

"I personally thought he was the top back in the class."-Alex Van Pelt (on Lacy)


I have little doubt they liked Ball in the fit. I might be wrong. But LIS, I do feel they would have taken Ball had they not made that trade. I can see why TT made the trade though also. I'm just not so sure I agree with it. That's all.

I can clearly see why someone from Van Pelt's POV would love Lacy though also.


Between Lacy and Ball who has better hands and pass blocking ability? Also, did Ball's volume of carries raise any flags?
I didn't look too much into Ball's passing routes, but Lacy really just ran a bunch of dump off passes. Screens and stuff. I thought both were solid blockers.
_________________
Webmaster wrote:
The difference is that this is a FOOTBALL forum. Heated debates about FOOTBALL are expected and encouraged. If you want to discuss your cure for Ebola, try ebolasfuture.com or any other appropriate forum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
AtariB20


Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 3735
Location: The Real Titletown, USA
PostPosted: Fri May 03, 2013 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What makes me feel amazing about the RB situations (tell me if I am wrong) is that we traded 55 (Ball possibly??) for 61 (Lacy) and pick number 173. We then used that 173rd pick and number 146 to trade up to 125. The spot that we took Johnathan Franklin. Who knows who we would have taken at 146, but the way I see it is that it was Lacy and Franklin or Ball and 146.

Personally, Ill take Lacy and Franklin any day
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Green Bay Packers All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 9 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group