Jump to content

Round 3: Pick 85; Amari Rodgers, WR, Clemson


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, packfanfb said:

Not sure if you're purposely using hyperbole here or just butchering the argument. Either way, I'm glad Gute at least appeased me (and 12) by drafting his first pre-Day 3 WR. 

Just ribbing you about your obsession with the idea that the Packers are trying trade up every year in the 1st round to draft a WR, but for some reason just can never get it done.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Lodestar said:

I'm finally listening to Gute's presser from after day 2 so apologies if this has been posted already — but I found it interesting he said they were picking between Myers and Rodgers in the 2nd round, and as soon as they made the Myers pick they started trying to trade up for Rodgers. He even explained why they seemingly gave up so much draft capital — because they really liked Rodgers. Based on his comments, it sounds like Myers and Rodgers were both high on their board for the 2nd round.

Edit: Listening further, he actually goes on to compare the situation to TT trading up for Clay Matthews. They really, really like Rodgers.

I'm still haunted we drafted Trever Davis over Tyreek Hill who went 4 picks later. I don't mind giving up capital for the right player. He looks like a great prospect.

Edited by St Vince
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, R T said:

Just ribbing you about your obsession with the idea that the Packers are trying trade up every year in the 1st round to draft a WR, but for some reason just can never get it done.  

Hey, nobody disputes that you're the 4th wheel in the packers front office. Your never-ending stream of authoritative comments on all their machinations prove it beyond a doubt. You can put all of this nonsense to rest by giving us a glimpse of the draft boards you and Gute have put together. I'm sure not one of them had a single WR with a 1st round grade, but there are still some non-believers out there. Close this case already so you can get on with 'splaining to all the know-nothings what they should be thinking about managements current motivations. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Les Punting said:

Hey, nobody disputes that you're the 4th wheel in the packers front office. Your never-ending stream of authoritative comments on all their machinations prove it beyond a doubt. You can put all of this nonsense to rest by giving us a glimpse of the draft boards you and Gute have put together. I'm sure not one of them had a single WR with a 1st round grade, but there are still some non-believers out there. Close this case already so you can get on with 'splaining to all the know-nothings what they should be thinking about managements current motivations. 

Yes I would love share that with you, but that is double top secret information and anyone outside of the war room that laid eyes on it would need to be killed immediately. Now we don't want that kind tragedy on our hands do we? It is nice that you understand my brilliance though, thank you for that.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Les Punting said:

Hey, nobody disputes that you're the 4th wheel in the packers front office. Your never-ending stream of authoritative comments on all their machinations prove it beyond a doubt. You can put all of this nonsense to rest by giving us a glimpse of the draft boards you and Gute have put together. I'm sure not one of them had a single WR with a 1st round grade, but there are still some non-believers out there. Close this case already so you can get on with 'splaining to all the know-nothings what they should be thinking about managements current motivations. 

So let's get this straight...

We have one viewpoint that suggests GB has targeted a 1st round WR

We have a second viewpoint that suggested GB has not

The evidence is such that GB hasn't drafted a 1st round WR and that Gute WILL trade up (including in the first round) for players he really likes

And your conclusion is that the side with evidence that supports their stance is the side that should be subject to ridicule and has the onus of providing additional "proof"? The burden of proof realistically lies with the side making claims that have not actually come to fruition methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...