PFanCan
That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.
You meant to include yourself too, right? Or do you regularly hang out with a bunch of bored little old ladies?
Hey, don't knock it! There are worse crowds that one could hang out with...
You meant to include yourself too, right? Or do you regularly hang out with a bunch of bored little old ladies?
Yeah, because everyone thought Lacy would be this bad...Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.
I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.
I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
Why not revisit 2013? DeAndre Hopkins is still on the board, and we select Datone Jones. He would make a much bigger difference, as he could actually be a go-to guy right now and give defenses somebody to plan for.Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.
I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
How would the Packers look right now had they decided to pick Roddy White instead of Aaron Rodgers in 2005? We can play this game all day. I think a lot of teams were fearful of Gurley's torn ACL and not knowing how or if he would recover. Lacy was the right choice, we very well could have chosen Ball instead.
I think he already has.I did not foresee RB being such a weakness at this point of the season and I'd have to say that a guy like Gurley would really help, but then I really like Randall too. I wouldn't doubt if he wins us at least one game before this year is out from a big play he's going to make.
But do you like Burger King?Actually this discussion is absolutely pointless as Gurley was selected 20 spots before the Packers first-rounder.
Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
I like Randall a lot, but how would the Packers look right now with Gurley? Now that Lacy is faltering, Starks has not taken up the slack and our RB has gone from strength to weakness.
I think with Gurley carrying a big part of the load, Rodgers is playing better and our offense is as potent as ever.
I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.Add to all of this that as Captain pointed out, Gurley was taken with the 10th pick, someone we would have never had a shot at anyway without losing other picks/players (see TT's resume)
I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.
C'mon Amish, you just made a mistake:I dont know if you read this thread, but poster Eli Haugen proposed drafting a RB on the first page and was attacked for his views. It does not matter if Gurley was available or not. My only point is that I feel Eli was correct and his view was vindicated. I think the Packers could really use a good powerful RB right now.
Gurley was taken at #10 and Gordon at #15. No one in their right mind would have suggested the Packers trade up from #30 to secure either of those picks. Would you prefer Randall or T.J. Yeldon (#36) or Ameer Abdullah (#54) because they would have had to be taken instead of Randall with pick #30. So advocating for either Gurley or Gordon is not only using 20/20 hindsight, it's entirely unrealistic. Regarding hindsight, who on this board predicted Lacy's production would go from back-to-back 1,100+ yards per season and about 4.3 ypc to what he's done this season?Time to revisit the scenario. Packers are on the clock in the first round and Todd Gurley was sitting there. (I know I was touting Gordon, but the premise is still the same.)
This isnt second guessing hindsight because it wasnt an option.I did read the thread and Eli's desire to draft Melvin Gordon in the first round of the 2014 draft, a pick we still were not in a position to make. How has that worked out for San Diego taking him #15? Now we are talking about Gurley who was drafted #10 in the 2015 draft, yet another pick we didn't have access to.
I fail to see the relevance of the discussion, since Lacy was taken in the 2013 draft, had a great rookie year and a good second year. The guy has some injuries and people are throwing him under the bus AND then saying I told you so? Now had Todd Gurley been in the Lacy draft AND available when we picked Lacy and Gurley was performing better then Lacy at this point in their careers, someone might peak my interest with a post saying "damn we missed out on Gurley".
As I said Cherry picking decisions and using the rear view mirror to do it, makes for a GREAT after the fact fantasy football coach.
I am not advocating picking Gurley. I never advocated picking gurley. I advocated taking BPA even if it was a RB. I was told it would be a wasted pick because he would not play. Well, that was wrong. Gurley would be playing for us now and the packers would be better for it.C'mon Amish, you just made a mistake: Gurley was taken at #10 and Gordon at #15. No one in their right mind would have suggested the Packers trade up from #30 to secure either of those picks. Would you prefer Randall or T.J. Yeldon (#36) or Ameer Abdullah (#54) because they would have had to be taken instead of Randall with pick #30. So advocating for either Gurley or Gordon is not only using 20/20 hindsight, it's entirely unrealistic. Regarding hindsight, who on this board predicted Lacy's production would go from back-to-back 1,100+ yards per season and about 4.3 ypc to what he's done this season?
This isnt second guessing hindsight because it wasnt an option.
Moral of the story in my mind, is you always take BPA because you never know when a position of strength becomes a weakness.
I am not advocating picking Gurley. I never advocated picking gurley. I advocated taking BPA even if it was a RB. I was told it would be a wasted pick because he would not play. Well, that was wrong. Gurley would be playing for us now and the packers would be better for it.
I stated in this thread we should take BPA regardless of position.Explain the scenario of how Gurley is a Packer, I am lost.