Aaron Rodgers / Picks Vs Randy Moss / Courtney Anderson - Page 4

Meta4 · 03-15-2007, 03:57 PM

Here's a report from Madison ESPN radio posted on packerforum.com
http://packerforum.com/index.php?nam......pic&t=10315
This just in....

They interviewed the Boston Herald reporter who broke the story on the Madison's ESPN affiliate. He said his source has never been wrong and he fully expects denials until the deal is officially announced. By rule, they must deny it because of tampering. He also said it could be announced as early as tomorrow or it could be after the draft. He was born and raised in Milwaukee and that is how he has the Wisconsin source who he would not name.

lod01 · 03-15-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheesehead10790

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.

It makes TOTAL sense for both sides. If Favre sticks around 2 years, Rodgers is a zero. Get something for him and that something is a deep threat WR. If Rodgers goes to the raiders, they grab Calvin Johnson. There is nothing written in stone that Russell or Quinn is the next Manning. However, there is a much better chance that CJ is the next great WR. He has no flaws. You get a WR that is head and shoulders above ANY Wr that has come out since Moss. Take Russell or Quinn and you don't get that.

Kurve · 03-15-2007, 04:14 PM

i dont know how i would feel if this trade went down being a raider fan. I would rather have a 2nd round draft pick, straight up track Rogers for Moss i dont know if that would give enough value for the raiders.

Caddy · 03-15-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglesalltheway

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.

A good story it was, certainly created a lot of publicity for both parties.

TitleTown088 · 03-15-2007, 05:46 PM

I'm going to be ******* furious is The packers trade rodgers for moss. I don't bu it anyways thpough.

Young Nasty Man · 03-15-2007, 05:56 PM

very ideal trade for both teams....Packers don't have to worry about him rotting on the bench and they get depth at WR. Randy Moss still is a great reciever even though he chooses when to play. That will change with Brett, he can make anyone a team player wtih that charm....

Raiders are making a pretty good trade...Dumping a reciever that hasn't produced for them for a QB that is from the area and has the potential to make it. They are taking the safest pick in the draft (even though thats a bad comment to make) wtih CJ becuase he is going to produce with anyone. Look who his QB was in college.

This now really makes the draft intruiging...

TitleTown088 · 03-15-2007, 06:00 PM

http://www.packersnews.com/apps/pbcs.../70315132/1989

"wild speculation"

Geo · 03-15-2007, 06:06 PM

LOL. Adam Schefter just shot the **** out of this "impending trade" down.

RaiderNation · 03-15-2007, 06:09 PM

sweet :) (10 characters)

jackalope · 03-15-2007, 06:24 PM

I sure hope the "Trade for Moss isn't close to happening" thing is true and not the one about the trade being about to be announced. I'm still really hoping this doesn't happen, especially for Rodgers.

And to whoever called Rodgers terrible, based on what?

Handel · 03-15-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ronnie23

http://patriots.bostonherald.com/pat...ticleid=188664

Could Be Anounced Soon...

Sorry to Make another Topic for this !

Funny that's a guy working for a Boston paper who found the story. I know heé,s member of ESPN Boston.

Empire · 03-15-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TitleTown088

I'm going to be ******* furious is The packers trade rodgers for moss. I don't bu it anyways thpough.

Why so we can have Rodgers waste his life on the bench for another reason? Rodgers hasn't proven anything to anyone yet. Moss is proven. Hmmm let's think about that for a moment.

Vince Lombardi · 03-15-2007, 08:09 PM

GB didn't draft Rodgers because they were extremely high on him, but rather because the upside was just too much to pass on. Think about it, a potential franchise QB and possible #1 overall draft pick falls all the way to the bottom of round 1, you have a veteran QB who may retire in a year and no one behind him. Any smart GM would make that call in the same situation. Even if you aren't completely sold on the player a #23 pick is well worth the gamble for a potential franchise signal caller.

People are making it out like GB spent a top 5 pick on Rodgers instead of #23. If these rumors are true then GB took a smart gamble, evaluated Rodgers for a few years and decided he wasn't their guy. If that's the case, then they have to trade him away now to get some return value. Trading for Moss is not that big of a loss in value, he still has the ability to be a big play threat when he's motivated, and knowing how much he respects Favre, he will be. I'm not saying that we haven't lost some value, just not as much as people are trying to make it out to seem. Of course anybody can look back in retrospect and find a better pick we could have made, but I stand by my opinion that it was a worthwhile gamble, and don't see how anybody can question TT for making it.

TheChampIsHere · 03-15-2007, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince Lombardi

GB didn't draft Rodgers because they were extremely high on him, but rather because the upside was just too much to pass on. Think about it, a potential franchise QB and possible #1 overall draft pick falls all the way to the bottom of round 1, you have a veteran QB who may retire in a year and no one behind him. Any smart GM would make that call in the same situation. Even if you aren't completely sold on the player a #23 pick is well worth the gamble for a potential franchise signal caller.

People are making it out like GB spent a top 5 pick on Rodgers instead of #23. If these rumors are true then GB took a smart gamble, evaluated Rodgers for a few years and decided he wasn't their guy. If that's the case, then they have to trade him away now to get some return value. Trading for Moss is not that big of a loss in value, he still has the ability to be a big play threat when he's motivated, and knowing how much he respects Favre, he will be. I'm not saying that we haven't lost some value, just not as much as people are trying to make it out to seem. Of course anybody can look back in retrospect and find a better pick we could have made, but I stand by my opinion that it was a worthwhile gamble, and don't see how anybody can question TT for making it.

Agree 100% well said

03-15-2007, 08:18 PM

The same agents represents all parties involved

Brett Favre
Randy Moss (participating agent)
Calvin Johnson

Whos' the agent? Bus Cook.

I wonder how much Bus Cook favors to make if Calvin Johnson goes #1 overall to the Raiders? Because CJ will be drafted #1 if Moss gets traded.

Interesting eh?

eacantdraft · 03-15-2007, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empire

Why so we can have Rodgers waste his life on the bench for another reason? Rodgers hasn't proven anything to anyone yet. Moss is proven. Hmmm let's think about that for a moment.

Moss is a proven cancer and quiter.

Empire · 03-15-2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eacantdraft

Moss is a proven cancer and quiter.

You are a proven idiot

03-15-2007, 08:22 PM

Haha, today is a good day. EA bashing is always fun... and easy.

marks01234 · 03-15-2007, 08:28 PM

I love some of these GB fans.

Moss isn't close to a top 5 WR right now. He wasn't even on top 15 level last year. Maybe he gets motivated and gets back there but I'm not sure. He isn't the youngest guy anymore and he might have a tenth of the work ethic of Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison.

Personally, I think this all a publicly stunt so that GB management can tell the fans "We tried to get Brett some help." while they continue to rebuild there franchise. It's obvious that they aren't anywhere near another Super Bowl berth and Moss isn't going to help that.

If the trade does go down, I have to think Rodgers is either garbage or GB management is just plain terrible.

eacantdraft · 03-15-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marks01234

I love some of these GB fans.

Moss isn't close to a top 5 WR right now. He wasn't even on top 15 level last year. Maybe he gets motivated and gets back there but I'm not sure. He isn't the youngest guy anymore and he might have a tenth of the work ethic of Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison.

Personally, I think this all a publicly stunt so that GB management can tell the fans "We tried to get Brett some help." while they continue to rebuild there franchise. It's obvious that they aren't anywhere near another Super Bowl berth and Moss isn't going to help that.

If the trade does go down, I have to think Rodgers is either garbage or GB management is just plain terrible.

Most Green Bay fans are the most knowledgable around. That is why 65% of Green Bay fans polled don't want him here. Many of these guys here clamoring for the Randy Moss trade aren't even Green Bay fans. They are either Raider fans who hope Green Bay is stupid enough to give up more than a mid round draft pick for Moss or they are Randy Moss fangirls.

Stash · 03-15-2007, 08:43 PM

As A Raider fan I love the fact that we are getting rid of Moss and Anderson, they both sucked big time. I like the Rodgers acquisition because we need a QB and it lessens the chance that we draft one. I don't know why the hell GB would bother throwing in an almost worthless 7th rounder, especially if its next years. If I were the Raiders I would be trying to get more than a 7th out of this.

Vince Lombardi · 03-15-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marks01234

I love some of these GB fans.

Moss isn't close to a top 5 WR right now. He wasn't even on top 15 level last year. Maybe he gets motivated and gets back there but I'm not sure. He isn't the youngest guy anymore and he might have a tenth of the work ethic of Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison.

Personally, I think this all a publicly stunt so that GB management can tell the fans "We tried to get Brett some help." while they continue to rebuild there franchise. It's obvious that they aren't anywhere near another Super Bowl berth and Moss isn't going to help that.

If the trade does go down, I have to think Rodgers is either garbage or GB management is just plain terrible.

I'm sorry dude but this whole post is garbage.

1. I don't know where any of us has said that Moss is a top 5 WR, and if someone has I can assure you that they're in the minority. That said, he played in the abyss the last few seasons before which he certainly was a top 5 WR.

2. A publicity stunt to save face with the GB fans? Do you realize how stupid that is seeing that the majority of GB fans despise Moss and don't approve of this trade?

3. None of us (except for a couple of our homers, and hey, every team has 'em) has predicted that GB will go to the Super Bowl next year. But regardless of that I'd like to know how you think adding Moss wouldn't improve our offense?

4. GB management has done a great job at rebuilding this team so far as anybody who understands football is well aware. There's still alot of work to be done but we're moving in the right direction.

Komp · 03-15-2007, 10:04 PM

I thought this might be true until I saw that Courtenay Anderson was involved...no way a team actually wants the "Dropsy Twins of 2006"....

If it did happen this would be great. I'd rather have a 2nd/3rd rd pick than get Rodgers, but whatever. We end up with CJ and that is all I need to sleep well at night. Taking a QB #1 in the draft scares me.

neko4 · 03-15-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marks01234

I love some of these GB fans.

Moss isn't close to a top 5 WR right now. He wasn't even on top 15 level last year. Maybe he gets motivated and gets back there but I'm not sure. He isn't the youngest guy anymore and he might have a tenth of the work ethic of Torry Holt or Marvin Harrison.

Personally, I think this all a publicly stunt so that GB management can tell the fans "We tried to get Brett some help." while they continue to rebuild there franchise. It's obvious that they aren't anywhere near another Super Bowl berth and Moss isn't going to help that.

If the trade does go down, I have to think Rodgers is either garbage or GB management is just plain terrible.

I'll build on what Vince said. We dont think Moss is a top 5, maybe top 15, but the only reason he didnt look the part last was because oh I dont know... Andrew Walter was QB w/ no o-line and no RB!! All we need Moss to do is be a deep threat.

And apparently you are just like everybody else who thinks we played beyond our true potential. How can anybody say that? Sure we have a harder schedule this year but we're a young growing team, give us a TE, HB and S and we havea chance at being dominate

Iamcanadian · 03-15-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Man_Of_Steel

How much better can it get for the Raiders right now. They have the first overall pick of the draft and now they are making one of tghe best trades ive seen. Theyre getting rid of Moss which they are thrilled about and bringing in a young qb who was drafted first round, almost first overall. Now the Raiders willhave their qb and can take Calvin. The Packers are screwing their franchise giving away farves succedor and bringing in a guy who give 75% at best. The Raiders must be commended and the packers fans must be sick.

The Packers have had 2 years working with Rodgers to see how he is developing. If they are considering trading him, it is very unlikely that they think he will ever amount to anything. Not one Tedford QB has ever had real success in the NFL, that is why so many franchises passed on Rodgers in the 1st place. I think Oakland woud have to be nuts to take Rodgers and pass on Russell, it would doom that franchise for at least a decade. Green Bay is just looking for someone to take Rodgers off their hands while getting Moss for practically nothing.