Not sure why the irrational response abobve. Doesn't really seem proportionate per what I was saying but oh well. 

 

Again, all the point was - was that if Cleveland took the same "we can't get this for player X" mindset, the Trent Richardson theft would have never been able to happen. 

 

Also, try not to be hypocritical. If you don't like being insulted - then don't insult others in the same exact post. 

LOL.  Don't be hypocritical???   HA!  You blabber on about being careful not to win a game all season and then call me "defeatist" for wanting to hang on to a good WR?   Pffftt.  Moron.  Look in the mirror sometime. 

 

If you put words in my mouth that insult and belittle me I will tell you how I feel about it  and I couldn't care less about proportion. Deal with it. 

---

The packers aren't foolish enough to fall for that

---

Gene's Myth

When you have Aaron Rodgers you don't trade for weapons.

---

When you have Aaron Rodgers you don't trade for weapons.

 

No, that's why you trade Aaron Rodgers. 

---

Live long and prosper \\// 

LOL.  Don't be hypocritical???   HA!  You blabber on about being careful not to win a game all season and then call me "defeatist" for wanting to hang on to a good WR?   Pffftt.  Moron.  Look in the mirror sometime. 

 

If you put words in my mouth that insult and belittle me I will tell you how I feel about it  and I couldn't care less about proportion. Deal with it. 

 

First of all, its not that I don't want to win a game all season. I just want to play it just like the Colts did in 2011 - they didn't go winless - they won games when they could - when there was a cushion between them & the next closest suitor for the #1 overall pick. 

 

Second of all, Yeah, I believe that the kind of thinking that you illustrated up there "theres no way we could get this for player X" is an example of defeatist attitude. I have seen enough bad trades in this league over the years to know that at any point theres a GM ripe for the picking. (usually those GM"s reside in Arizona/ Oakland/ Washington or Jerry Jones....but I digress....

 

You took offense to it and used it as an excuse to name call. 

---

No, that's why you trade Aaron Rodgers. 

 

Exactly his QB rating has been trending downward, they should get what they can for him now. 

---

Take a conditional 7th rounder if that's all anyone is willing to offer.

 

Marcedes is done after this season.  Another Gene Smith bad contract that will be off the books in 2014. 

---

No, that's why you trade Aaron Rodgers.

Rodgers for Lewis seems fair.

---

Exactly his QB rating has been trending downward, they should get what they can for him now.

Before it's too late!!!

---

First of all, its not that I don't want to win a game all season. I just want to play it just like the Colts did in 2011 - they didn't go winless - they won games when they could - when there was a cushion between them & the next closest suitor for the #1 overall pick. 

 

Right.  That's defeatist.  ^    "Make sure you lose enough to get the top pick. "   That's what you are saying.  That's a million times more defeatist than saying that no one will give up a second for a receiver who  currently can't  raise his arm over his head.   I'm just being realistic. You took it as an excuse to be condescending. 

I took offense to your condescension.  

---

Rodgers for Lewis seems fair.

 

If I were GM I could make it happen. NBD.

---

Live long and prosper \\// 

Poz is overpaid though. He's basically a 2 down LB at this point. 

 

Uche isn't very good. At all. 

Good points

---

Well, the above is what we SHOULD be doing.

 

We'll see by Oct 29 at 4pm if Caldwell is smart or not. 

 

This is why you are ridiculed so much. If the deal isn't done, nobody will know why. Yet you categorize it as if you have knowledge you could not possible possess.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

This is why you are ridiculed so much. If the deal isn't done, nobody will know why. Yet you categorize it as if you have knowledge you could not possible possess.

 

Sorry but I do expect at least ONE trade of current vets to add an additional pick. I'd like to see more than one, but -one trade- is not an unreasonable expectation for a team in our circumstances. 

---

Sorry but I do expect at least ONE trade of current vets to add an additional pick. I'd like to see more than one, but -one trade- is not an unreasonable expectation for a team in our circumstances. 

Monroe was one.  You want two. 

---

Monroe was one.  You want two. 

 

obviously I was speaking from this point forward...

---

---

---

Sorry but I do expect at least ONE trade of current vets to add an additional pick. I'd like to see more than one, but -one trade- is not an unreasonable expectation for a team in our circumstances. 

 

Again, what you want or expect is irrelevant. Just because they do not happen is evidence of nothing. You must have 2 willing participants, both of which have needs that must be met. It's not like it can be donw with a snap of the fingers.

 

If a trade doesn't happen, you are only guessing why. At some point you must admit ignorance of all the facts.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Haha. Jay Cutler is da bomb!

---