Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Leader

Recommended Posts

I love Jones, but if there is a legit chance to trade for Taylor at a reasonable cost I'm all for it.  Dillon and a 3 is the most I go though ( I'd toss in Nieman if I had to), and even then only if I can negotiate a reasonable long term deal with him ahead of time.  Otherwise get our own Taylor and Wilson ready to play because you have to be prepared for injury to key players and I don't think Dillon can carry it in that role.

Edited by 15412
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 15412 said:

I love Jones, but if there is a legit chance to trade for Taylor at a reasonable cost I'm all for it.  Dillon and a 3 is the most I go though, and even then only if I can negotiate a reasonable long term deal with him ahead of time.  Otherwise get our own Taylor and Wilson ready to play because you have to be prepared for injury to key players and I don't think Dillon can carry it in that role.

Why? We would be idiotic to extend Taylor? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why? We would be idiotic to extend Taylor? 

Why?  It's the only way he goes anywhere.  As I said, the extension would have to be reasonable.  Oh you're going to have to pay him, but he's going to have to get real if he wants to be on a contending team and the structure is king.  He is an elite player and along with Jones puts us over the top in skill and depth.  I don't think the Packers front office thought they were idiotic for trying to get him.  It's all about compensation, team wise and player wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 15412 said:

Why?  It's the only way he goes anywhere.  As I said, the extension would have to be reasonable.  Oh you're going to have to pay him, but he's going to have to get real if he wants to be on a contending team and the structure is king.  He is an elite player and along with Jones puts us over the top in skill and depth.  I don't think the Packers front office thought they were idiotic for trying to get him.  It's all about compensation, team wise and player wise.

What is reasonable in your mind? 

If we have 10 million to burn, we need Safety help long before we even look at RB. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

What is reasonable in your mind? 

If we have 10 million to burn, we need Safety help long before we even look at RB. 

Yes, we need safety help.  If Jones would go down we would need RB help.  JT with Jones makes a dynamic combo, that is why the Packers were in talks to begin with.  What is reasonable in the Packers mind is the question, you and me don't matter.  There is no doubt they had a deal in mind, JT is not playing without a better deal.  With a team like the Packers, quality organization with a chance for post season play, he might agree with a reasonable deal structured with favor to the team.  Possibly even shorter term real money, less than 4 years.  Again, if not, it doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Packerraymond said:

Was it idiotic to extend Jones? Don't normally like the RB extension but it's becoming more of a value. You can lock up the best RB in the league long-term for the price of Courtland Sutton, OBJ or Hunter Renfrow. 

Yes, extending Jones was idiotic. 

We have this discussion every year when our running game dies in the playoffs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 15412 said:

Yes, we need safety help.  If Jones would go down we would need RB help.  JT with Jones makes a dynamic combo, that is why the Packers were in talks to begin with.  What is reasonable in the Packers mind is the question, you and me don't matter.  There is no doubt they had a deal in mind, JT is not playing without a better deal.  With a team like the Packers, quality organization with a chance for post season play, he might agree with a reasonable deal structured with favor to the team.  Possibly even shorter term real money, less than 4 years.  Again, if not, it doesn't happen.

Why do you assume the Packers were in talks with the Colts?

If they were in talks with the Colts, how do you know it wasn't a due diligence thing? 

Why the **** would I want a dynamic but expensive combo at Running Back? They're not going to play a bunch of snaps together. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why do you assume the Packers were in talks with the Colts?

If they were in talks with the Colts, how do you know it wasn't a due diligence thing? 

Why the **** would I want a dynamic but expensive combo at Running Back? They're not going to play a bunch of snaps together. 

I don't assume they were in talks with the Colts, it was reported everywhere that they were.  As they were with the Fish.  It was reported what the Colts were asking for player wise in the least from those two teams.  When numerous reputable agencies report that it becomes believable.  It was likely leaked by the Colts, and Colts are not going to name teams if it was all made up.

All trade inquiries are due diligence, pending compensation player and team.  I don't believe the team was skating, they knew what would be involved, just hoping for less return to the Colts is my guess.  

Why would the Packers want a dynamic and expensive combo at RB?  Why would the Packers want another elite player on the team, why would they want quality depth.  Does that really need to be answered?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Yes, extending Jones was idiotic. 

We have this discussion every year when our running game dies in the playoffs. 

You lost me here. You could make an argument that extending Jones has been one of best extensions Gute has given out in his tenure compared to some of the other guys. The guy is a top 2-3 player on the team every single year. 

We probably don't beat the Bears two days ago without him. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Yes, extending Jones was idiotic. 

We have this discussion every year when our running game dies in the playoffs. 

Our OL has been hobbled last 2 years we were in the playoffs. No Bakh in 2020 and no Bakh or Jenkins in 2021. Our offense when we feature Jones is dynamic

 

14 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Why do you assume the Packers were in talks with the Colts?

If they were in talks with the Colts, how do you know it wasn't a due diligence thing? 

Why the **** would I want a dynamic but expensive combo at Running Back? They're not going to play a bunch of snaps together. 

Lafleur could definitely get creative with moving Jones around and using him as a receiving threat with JT on the field. 

This offense opens up completely when the run game gets going.  JT could make us a legit super bowl contender in 2024.  I offer Nijman and a 3rd and see if they bite. 

 

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...