Would you trade for Jimmy Graham?· Page 13

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

Well, the good news, for me, is despite most of you being against this callling it stupid, there are several people who cover the NFL who think it makes sense like I do like Ed Werder, the guys at Profootballtalk.com and this guy...

Adam Schefter ✔ @AdamSchefter
Follow
If I'm the Seattle Seahawks or Green Bay Packers, I'm willing to sign TE Jimmy Graham to an offer sheet and to give up two 1's to get him.
7:40 AM - 3 Mar 2014

And then Nate Davis from USATODAY.com checked in with this:

--- Those ROPE pushers!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Every single time some veteran is cut somebody somewhere says we should consider him. There are lots of sports reporters out there so it is not surprising that some of them are going to think this is a good idea. That doesn't make it a good idea. Just for shits and giggles I asked about 20 Ppacker fans this weekend if we should tade for him and not a single one of them said yes. That means nothing of course but it does tell me that this is not somethingthat the majority of fans think is a good idea.

You keep brininging up the Packers past #1 draft pick history and that is all it is, history. It has absolutely nothing to do with what might or might not happen in the next two years. Something really bad could happen and instead of pick 25 or lower we could be 10 or higher. Instead of 2 busts we could get 2 studs. Would I trade a single #1 for him? Of course I would I might even consider #1 and a #3 but then you also have to figure the cap space.

Yeah we could cut a bunch of players making a bit of money but we ould have to replace them and to really save that money we would have to replace them with cheaper options which generally means rookies who are unproven or cheap vets who are cheap for a reason. Upgrading one position, even if it is by a lot, does not mean you will ahve a net gain if it means downgrading at other positions.

The bottom line is that the way our offense is designed (compared to the Saints) Graham would not be the force in Green Bay as he is in New Orleans. Yes, he would make our offense better but not significantly better as to be worth the price either in cap space or in draft picks.

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#122

The outside view considers that Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley are gone, or basically the guys around Aaron when he started. The typical Packer fan thinks Boykin, Richard Rodgers, Davante Adams and Jared Abbrederis= Driver, Jennings, Finley, Jones I wouldn't begin to know where to start with that. I see it like the outside does... we've lost so much over the last few years and I don't view the rookies as on equal footing with proven very good players who have departed like some who already have our young bucks pegged for stardom.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Aside from the typical Packer fan shot this is one thing I do agree with you on. I do think or pass catching game when you consider the WRs, TEs, and RBs has gone down a great deal over the last couple of years. The only position of the three where ist may have gotten better is at RB (it reamains to be seen with Lacy though it looks promising.) With the loss of Driver (though he was old and losing some of his game) Jennings, Jones and Finley (assuming) we went from arguably a top 3 pass catching unit in the league (some would say #1) to maybe top 3 in our own division (Chicago is better for sure and maybe even Detroit so its a good thing we do have Rodgers to make our guys better) The thing is if getting Graham would mean losing Nelson or Cobb I don't see enough of a net gain to offset the huge cost.

warhawk
Senior Member

9 years ago

#123

First of all Rodgers moves the ball around and the defense never knows where he's going with it. For Graham to pay off given the price he would need to become the featured guy meaning players like Nelson and Cobb would not get the ball as often. This would create a subtle change in how McCarthy game plans. Any given week depending on the defense you see him calling plays that offers more opportunity to a given receiver based on what the opposing D shows. I don't see McCarthy changing how he goes after defenses depending on what they give you and what they take away so I don't see Graham getting the kind of numbers here he would somewhere else.

Next problem I have is with giving up two 1st round picks Graham would have to not only produce in a huge way he would have to not get hurt over the next three years, otherwise, the team loses talent from the draft AND the go to guy. That's a lot of eggs in one basket. This along with the fact that with the kind of money he gets there will be contracts coming up that Thompson will not be able to do anything with. If the Packers signed him now what does that mean for Nelson or Cobb? I believe Thompson has positioned himself to keep both but if they sign Graham I don't know they can keep either one. How does this make the Packers better? So the cost will be higher than two 1st round draft picks.

The Packers will be a top three offense this year barring another barage of injuries. I don't see the NEED here to make a move like this and if anything I see the Packers weaker a few years down the road. Not better. For that you will never see Thompson make a move like this. He will NOT jeopordize the future. Just not how he does business.

"The train is leaving the station."

play2win
Senior Member

9 years ago

#124

Trading first round picks for any non QB is foolish, period. Quit trying to defend that, there is no defense! The Packers should be trading their 1st round picks for multiple 2nd and 3rd rounders.

Jimmy Graham has more drops than Jermichael Finley over the last two seasons and would cost the Packers 10-12 million a year. That means the Packers would losee Jordy Nelson and/or Randall Cobb.

The Packers need a blocking TE, not a receiving TE. The Packers have a solid running back now.

I am astonished anyone thinks Jimmy Graham is worth two 1's in the Packers offense. He's a cog in the system player for the Packers, not a system maker.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool

Why does this sound so incredibly disingenuous?

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

9 years ago

#125

Originally Posted by: sschind

The typical Packer fans probably thinks it is Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams and Quarless replacing Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley.

Not Boykin, Rodgers, Adams and Abbrederis. That is pretty ridiculous.

Nelson and Cobb made Driver and Jennings dispensable. The hope is that Boykin makes Jones dispensable and he kind of did by being more productive per target last year considering the 2 fumbles Jones had. Quarless is a faster, stronger version of Finley and we won a super bowl with him at TE. Given a full year as the starter, he might relace him adaquately. Then we have Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis strictly as depth if they even beat out Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. Which isn't a given.

Per target, I would rank Nelson in the top 5 and Cobb in the top 10. I would rank Boykin above Alshon Jeffery. I also don't think the Lions have enough depth to compete. The Packers have the best receivers in the North and are at or near the top of the NFC.

Per target, Graham is not more productive than and doens't carry the ball like Cobb. I agree that he will probably cost us Cobb and 2 first round picks at a minimum.

Rodgers also used 17 different targets in 2012. Last year Brees only used 13. And he also attempted 650 passes compared to Rodgers 550. Fewer opportunities to go around to more targets would cut Grahams opportunities. Would he be worth it at half the targets? How about less than half?

If Graham were the Packers best WR, I would not expect much more than 80 catches. Since I don't think he would be, I would expect closer to 60.

I agree, he isn't worth it.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

sschind
Senior Member

9 years ago

#126

The typical Packer fans probably thinks it is Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams and Quarless replacing Driver, Jennings, Jones and Finley.

Not Boykin, Rodgers, Adams and Abbrederis. That is pretty ridiculous.

Nelson and Cobb made Driver and Jennings dispensable. The hope is that Boykin makes Jones dispensable and he kind of did by being more productive per target last year considering the 2 fumbles Jones had. Quarless is a faster, stronger version of Finley and we won a super bowl with him at TE. Given a full year as the starter, he might relace him adaquately. Then we have Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis strictly as depth if they even beat out Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. Which isn't a given.

Per target, I would rank Nelson in the top 5 and Cobb in the top 10. I would rank Boykin above Alshon Jeffery. I also don't think the Lions have enough depth to compete. The Packers have the best receivers in the North and are at or near the top of the NFC.

Per target, Graham is not more productive than and doens't carry the ball like Cobb. I agree that he will probably cost us Cobb and 2 first round picks at a minimum.

Rodgers also used 17 different targets in 2012. Last year Brees only used 13. And he also attempted 650 passes compared to Rodgers 550. Fewer opportunities to go around to more targets would cut Grahams opportunities. Would he be worth it at half the targets? How about less than half?

If Graham were the Packers best WR, I would not expect much more than 80 targets. Since I don't think he would be, I would expect closer to 60.

I agree, he isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister

Ignoring their place on the depth chart for a moment because you will get arguments as to who was where. Its not enough for some guys (Nelson, Cobb. Boykin) to make others (Driver, Jennings, Jones) expendable, that happens all the time, you still have to replace the guys who made the others expendable and that is what I feel the Packers have failed to do at least with experience. Don't get me wrong, I love the potential that Adams and Rodgers and Abbrederis bring and hopefully in a year or two none of what we are talking about will matter. I have a lot of hope for these guys but right now not a lot of confidence. IMO Jennings, Nelson, Cobb, Driver, Finley was a much stronger puzzle than than Nelson, Cobb, Boykin, Adams, Quarless. You may disagree.

Then you throw these guys into the mix Rodgers, Lyerla, Abbrederis and Janis ... Taylor, Bostic, White, Dorsey and Gillett. That is 9 bodies with very little to show if anything besides potential. I'm sure pretty much every team in the league can list 9 guys like this. I have lots of hope for some of them but I am not banking on any of them.

As far as ranking Boykin ahead of Jeffery that's just crazy talk. Are you telling me you wouldn't trade Boykin for Jeffrey even if they were going to get the same number of targets? If so I don't know how to respond other than to say take off the homer glasses or the hater glasses whichever you happen to be wearing. I'm not sure about the Lions depth and you may be right about that. The Packers may have the second best pass catching team in division but I don't think they have the best recievers. That would go to the Bears.

At least we agree on Grahamm.

play2win
Senior Member

9 years ago

#127

sschind, I disagree on your statement on our receiving depth, as i believe very, very few teams could list that much talent 9 deep.

I totally agree that as it stands, we are talking about pure potential, as so few are NFL tested.

But, the raw talent we have, IMO is explosive, and rivals any group we have put onto the field to date in GB, throughout our team history.

I also agree on Jeffery, who is a supreme talent in CHI.

Boykin showed great potential last season with the opportunities he was given, but this season will be quite different, as Adams, Abbrederis and Janis all have the potential to push him for reps.

At TE, I personally feel we will be better than we may have ever seen here. I think Rodgers and Lyerla will make the final 53 and will contribute significantly as rookies.That is just my opinion and it is purely based on potential, and what I saw briefly in OTAs. This group will put up better numbers than Keith Jackson and Mark Chmura did here in GB, and I am willing to bet on that.

mi_keys
Senior Member

9 years ago

#128

On the topic of depth in our current receiving group vs. prior years.

On paper, our deepest period was 2011 and 2012:

Jennings
Nelson
Finley
Driver
Cobb
Jones

But you'd have to keep in mind that Cobb was just a rookie and second year player those years. He was budding potential but not yet a proven commodity. Driver's productivity had completely dropped off by that point. Finley was coming off and ACL tear. Nelson and Jennings both dealt with injuries in 2012.

It wasn't like we had all of those guys all healthy and performing at their best over concurrent periods.

Nelson and Cobb are one of the better duos in the NFL. I'd put Jeffery and Marshall, White and Jones, and Thomas and Welker as better duos for sure. Not that I think they blow Nelson and Cobb out of the water, but I would for sure put those groups ahead. There are others in the mix as well: Johnson and Tate (because Johnson is just so damn good), Boldin and Crabtree, Jackson and Garcon, and Fitzgerald and Floyd. I'd say Nelson and Cobb are potentially scratching top 5 duos, but certainly top 10. The fact that they are second, or maybe even third in the division is more a reflection of the depth at that position in the NFC North.

Boykin is a pretty good number 3 based on his production last year.

Quarless' production after Finley went out projects to 450-500 yards, 40-45 catches, and about 4 TDs. If Rodgers, Lyerla or Bostick don't beat him out, I can see him at 500+ yards and 4-5 TDs, which would be about average for a starting tight end. Nothing special, but something you could work with.

At that point, you look at Adams, Abbrederis, Janis, Harper, Bostick, Rodgers and Lyerla, and you should expect at least 1 or 2 of those to pan out and produce.

It's not the best receiving group we've had since Rodgers has been here, but it's really not too far off and it's still one of the better groups in the league.

Born and bred a cheesehead

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#129

from JSOnline.com: "I think we are pretty wide open at this point," Packers tight ends coach Jerry Fontenot said during minicamp in June. "I think guys have shown some progress, and those guys warrant a much bigger look. And I think once we get to training camp, we'll have an idea of a rotation, at least, and giving guys reps just to make sure they're ready to start the season."

Right now, though, Fontenot admits his positional group is the most unsettled on the team.

I believe if you can translate coach speak, the translation is we aren't very good at TE. Being wide open means they lost their guy (Finley) and have no clue who is going to replace him. "Shown some progress" means they're a long way from being ready to dominate at the TE position. Making sure they're ready...not really good but we have to trot someone out there. The non quote that is highlighted is the most ominous of all. Unsettled equals nobody's any good and his position group is weakest on the team.

It pains me but I would admit they'll never do this UNTIL they have completely moved on from Finley. If they think there is a real possibility he could return, why would they cough that much? If they know for sure he's finished, I think they realize just how gaping of a hole we have at TE. My view is we have next to nothing at the TE position for this year and maybe going forward, also. My hope rests on Lyerla straightening himself out and marrying his natural talent with hard work and dedication to be something down the road. Josh Huff thinks his guy Colt can be better than Jimmy Graham. I believe that more than I believe we have anyone ready on this roster to contribute but will Colt be able to hang in mentally. Thankfully, we have a guy I really like there at TE or I'd really be going cuckoo on here for Jimmy G. Less than a week until we find out whether Jimmy is extended or remains tagged.

On the 16th, if he hasn't been extended, we can really get this baby rockin.

As an aside... Graham should have more drops than Finley in the last two seasons...he's seeing it much more and Finley didn't have close to a full season last year. Jimmy's career drop % is less than 10.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

Dexter_Sinister
Registered

9 years ago

#130

Originally Posted by: play2win

Per target, Boykin's production is remarkably similar to Jeffery's. Minus Alshon's 3 fumbles of course. Which would cause me to drop him just below. Also considering Jarrett had to catch passes from 4 different QBs.

After his shaky start going 1 for 6 against Baltimore, Boykin was pretty good. Catching over 62% of his targets.

For the second half of the year, Boykin was as good as Jeffery, only he didn't fumble the ball as much.

I want to go out like my Grandpa did. Peacefully in his sleep.
Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

beast (13h) : Family? That's Deadpool's F word

Nonstopdrivel (13h) : Not THAT f-word.

Zero2Cool (13h) : fuck

beast (14h) : 49ers are Cap Tight

beast (14h) : Fuck

Mucky Tundra (14h) : Kanata, I will be when I'm on my lunch later

TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Love you NSD

Nonstopdrivel (15h) : Huh. I guess the F-word is censored in this fan shout.

Nonstopdrivel (15h) : Anyone who doesn't hang out in the chat probably smokes pole.

TheKanataThrilla (15h) : GoPackGo Thinking CB is the pick tonight

TheKanataThrilla (15h) : Anyone hanging out in the chat tonight?

Zero2Cool (15h) : whoa...49ers have had trade conversations about both Deebo Samuel and Brandon Aiyuk

Zero2Cool (16h) : I hope they take a Punter at 9th overall. Be bold!

Mucky Tundra (17h) : I may end up eating those words but I think they need a lot more talent then their 4 picks can provide

Mucky Tundra (17h) : I really hope they stand pat and Draft a WR

Mucky Tundra (17h) : @DMRussini

Mucky Tundra (17h) : The Chicago Bears are very open for business at 9 and telling teams they are ready to move for the right price, per source

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend Penei Soul 4yrs - 112mil

buckeyepackfan (24-Apr) : Lions extend St. Brown 4 years 120mil and

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : Now look, trading up to 13 to take a TE might not seem like a good idea later but it will be later!

dfosterf (24-Apr) : (Your trade up mock post)

dfosterf (24-Apr) : Mucky- The only thing fun to watch would be me flipping the f out if Gute goes up to 13 and grabs Brock Bowers, lol

beast (24-Apr) : DT Byron Murphy II, Texas... whom some believe is the next Aaron Donald (or the closest thing to Donald)

Zero2Cool (24-Apr) : What? And who?

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : *sad Mucky noises*

Mucky Tundra (24-Apr) : @JoeJHoyt Murphy said he’s been told he won’t slide past pick No. 16.

wpr (23-Apr) : Just about time to watch Sonny Weaver stick it to the seahags. I never get tired of it.

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : *game plan

Martha Careful (23-Apr) : IMHO, not even close. He is not a guy you game play around.

Mucky Tundra (23-Apr) : is Aiyuk worth a 1st rounder?

Zero2Cool (23-Apr) : 49ers are seeking a 1st round pick in exchange for WR Brandon Aiyuk

Mucky Tundra (22-Apr) : Based on Gutes comments, now I don't feel as silly having 13 picks in my mock the other day

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Zach Wilson to Broncos.

Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Gutekunst says he'd love to have 13 or 14 picks. He's trading back huh lol

beast (22-Apr) : Someday we'll have a draft betting scandal

beast (21-Apr) : Sometimes looking extremely amazing, sometimes looking extremely lost

beast (21-Apr) : I haven't looked into the QBs, but some have suggested Maye has some of the most extremely inconsistent tape they've seen

beast (21-Apr) : Well it also sounds like Patriots are listening to trade offers, not that seriously considering any, but listening means they aren't locked

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Maye needs to be AFC

Mucky Tundra (21-Apr) : Not liking the idea of the Vikings getting Maye

Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Vikings HC joked that he may or may not have sent flowers to Bob Kraft. That's where rumor came from.

beast (21-Apr) : Can't tell if this is real or BS, but some rumors about a possible Patriots/Vikings trade for #3 overall

dfosterf (21-Apr) : One playbook to my knowledge. I was shooting for facetious.

beast (20-Apr) : I'm not sure they have different playbooks for different OL positions, and Dillard run blocking is supposedly worse than his pass blocking..

dfosterf (19-Apr) : The only problem with that is he isn't a guard either.

dfosterf (19-Apr) : Put him at right guard. That is where he will be coached. That is where he will compete. He is not even allowed to look at the LT playbook.

dfosterf (18-Apr) : Kidding aside, I hope the best for him.

dfosterf (18-Apr) : Went to a Titans board. One comment there. Not very long. I quote: "LOL" They don't sound overly upset about our aquisition.

beast (18-Apr) : OT Dillard has been absolutely horrible... like OG Newman levels

dfosterf (18-Apr) : Suit him up and have him stand in front of the big board as a draft day cautionary tale.

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2023 Packers Schedule

Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM

Bears

38 - 20

Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM

Falcons

24 - 25

Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM

SAINTS

18 - 17

Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM

LIONS

20 - 34

Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM

Raiders

13 - 17

Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM

Broncos

17 - 19

Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

10 - 24

Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM

RAMS

20 - 3

Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM

Steelers

19 - 23

Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM

CHARGERS

23 - 20

Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM

Lions

29 - 22

Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM

CHIEFS

27 - 19

Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM

Giants

22 - 24

Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM

BUCCANEERS

20 - 34

Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM

Panthers

33 - 30

Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM

Vikings

33 - 10

Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM

BEARS

17 - 9

Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM

Cowboys

48 - 32

Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM

49ers

21 - 24