Would you trade Ferguson to the Eagles?

[agopackgo4]

I am with steel on this. Trotter would be a great pick up.

Would they really trade Trotter for Robert?

 

[Lare]

IMO, if they're going to trade Fergy to the Eagles, we need DL and DB help more than we need LB help. I know Simon is probably out of the picture, but maybe they have someone else of interest?

 

[DeusNova]

I don't see the eagles giving up more than a second round pick.

Ferguson is unproven so he's not worth a player at the level as Trotter.

Packers would take a cap hit at a little over a million if they trade him.

 

[packedhouse01]

I like the idea of Trotter playing in Green Bay, they could then move Barnet to the outside where he is better suited. I would especially do this if they believe that Murphy and the Braid kid can play.

 

[MikeLewis32]

Green Bay - The Philadelphia Eagles reportedly are looking to acquire a wide receiver by trade and there's little doubt that Robert Ferguson of the Green Bay Packers is someone they would be considering.

The Trenton (N.J.) Times reported Thursday that the Eagles are looking into which wide receivers could be available and what it would take to acquire one.

Obstinate wide receiver Terrell Owens might have played his final game in Philadelphia and the other starter, Todd Pinkston, is out for the season with a torn Achilles' tendon.

Coach Andy Reid's top three wide receivers are Greg Lewis, a thin-framed free agent with 23 receptions in two seasons; rookie Reggie Brown, a second-round draft choice; and Billy McMullen, who has four catches in two seasons.

It's likely that the Eagles will take their time. Their answer at wide receiver might be on their roster.

Then again, the Eagles are shooting for a return trip to the Super Bowl and aren't about to let one position undermine their season.

Among the players listed by The Times as possibilities for the Eagles were Ferguson and two other former second-round picks, Cleveland's Andre' Davis and Atlanta's Peerless Price. Both Davis and Price are regarded as disappointments by their teams.

Philadelphia has a pair of extra fourth-round selections in the 2006 draft and leads the National Football League in available cap room at $10.916 million.

Ferguson made the list for two reasons: he knows the West Coast offense and the Packers have a surplus at wide receiver. Plus, he destroyed Eagles cornerback Sheldon Brown for two touchdown passes in an '03 playoff game and made three catches for 68 yards against them in December.

If Ferguson were traded, the Packers still would have Javon Walker, Donald Driver, rookie Terrence Murphy, Antonio Chatman, Andrae Thurman and rookie Craig Bragg.

On Thursday night, offensive coordinator Tom Rossley indicated that the Packers couldn't afford to trade Ferguson, saying, "He's a big piece of our chemistry." But those decisions will be made by general manager Ted Thompson, and it

 

[PresidentBuck]

Sorry guys, you can forget Jeremiah Trotter or Lito Sheppard.

The rumor is DTs Hollis Thomas and Sam Rayburn and LB Mark Simoneau for Ferguson.

There's also talk that Davenport could be involved in the deal as well.

P.S. - This is all from a local Philadelphia news station that apparently has contacts inside the Eagles FO.

 

[ArizonaPackerFan]

This could actually be one of those rare trades that works out well for both sides. Because each team would be giving away some of their depth where they are stronger to get back in return an area where they are thin. So it makes some sense on both sides.

 

[ArizonaPackerFan]

There's also talk that Davenport could be involved in the deal as well.

On the one hand I'd hate to lose Davenport because he has a good combination of speed and power, but on the other hand he has been prone to fumble at times and sometimes has a hard time staying healthy.

The one good thing if the Packers trade Davenport, is that the Eagles would have to deal with Rosenhaus next year when Davenport's contract is up. Who knows, if Davenport is a free agent next year, maybe the Packers would even sign him back if the Packers don't keep Green.

 

[HenrikGKing]

No way does this trade make sense!

Fergie is way too good and the only reason his numbers are not as high as they could be on receiving, ist that he does returns too!

To me Ferguson is in for a great year and Brett needs all his weapons in place to get through the season with a shaky defense on his other side.

You need a stud stud D# player in order to make a Ferguson trade make sense!!!

 

[TOPackerFan]

We would never trade the poopster. Fergie for Hollis Thomas and a late round draft pick (the Eagles have 2 fourth rounders) makes the most sense IMO. I also think we'd like to see Murphy on the field with the bullets flying to see if he can handle the job before we trade our very talented #3 receiver.

 

[lonewolf]

I'm not sure I see the quality surplus the Packers supposedly have at WR:

J-Walk Keeper (even with Rosenhaus in tow)
Drivef Keeper (two-time Pro Bowler, fan favorite)
Fergie Keeper (but oft-injured)
Chatman Serviceable, not great, too short
Thurman Unproven, can return kicks, iffy hands
TMurf Rookie, hasn't played an exhibition game yet
Bragg Rookie, probably won't make the team

So, who would take Ferguson's place, if he were traded, not only as a WR, but as a valuable member of the special teams units? I don't see that guy...

 

[rabidgopher04]

No way does this trade make sense!

Fergie is way too good and the only reason his numbers are not as high as they could be on receiving, ist that he does returns too!

To me Ferguson is in for a great year and Brett needs all his weapons in place to get through the season with a shaky defense on his other side.

You need a stud stud D# player in order to make a Ferguson trade make sense!!!

Umm...hello, that's what most of the posts have been saying... :wink:

 

[Steel Wheels]

You do recall how well Trotter did outside of the JJ system haven't you? Remember him with I believe Redskins?

He's a system player, he works great in that system and I wouldn't trust him outside of it.

But Slick, wouldn't Jim Bates just have to wave his magic wand with Trotter?

 

[Zero2Cool]

You do recall how well Trotter did outside of the JJ system haven't you? Remember him with I believe Redskins?

He's a system player, he works great in that system and I wouldn't trust him outside of it.

But Slick, wouldn't Jim Bates just have to wave his magic wand with Trotter?

Possibly, but players who drop off with another team then go back an succeed again make me weary about them going to another team, not to mention I think he just signed a large contract, but I am not positive on that.

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

 

[GBXU]

The other day I read how the Eagles would be looking for a receiver with the season ending injury to Pinkston, and with the uncertainty of TO. The writer mentioned the Packers, Bucs, and I think Denver as possible trading partners because they all run a similar offensive system as Philly.


I think the teams he mentioned was just speculating on the writers part, but it got me thinking. The Eagles and Packers have made trades in the past. And if we were to trade a receiver, Ferguson might be the most logical candidate if the Packers wanted to make a trade. We have Driver and Walker as starters. Murphy is a rookie with potential. Chatman is dependable and can be used to return kicks. So we have some depth at the position to maybe trade one for some defensive help. It will probably never happen, but I was just curious what others thought about it.

No, Fergie's intangibles offer too much to the team. Plus, I have no sympathy for th Iggles' in their situation. They knew they were getting a potential cancer when they signed T.O. I'm perfectly content with the quality of our roster and letting someone else bail out the BirdBrains.

 

[Steel Wheels]

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

Whether you like it or not, the Packers are in need of a legit MLB. It's going to have to happen sometime.

If the Packers want to build a team that can compete with the best teams in the NFL, they have to start solidifying positions.

With Trotter @ MLB and Diggs and Barnett @ OLB that would be a good start. Packers would only need to add depth @ LB spot.

DB has some young talent that has to be looked at in 2005. DL is a mess.

 

[arrowgargantuan]

Trotter isn't coming here.



Arrow has spoken!

 

[Zero2Cool]

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

Whether you like it or not, the Packers are in need of a legit MLB. It's going to have to happen sometime.

If the Packers want to build a team that can compete with the best teams in the NFL, they have to start solidifying positions.

With Trotter @ MLB and Diggs and Barnett @ OLB that would be a good start. Packers would only need to add depth @ LB spot.

DB has some young talent that has to be looked at in 2005. DL is a mess.

Whether I like it or not? Don't be making this personal bubba. I am simply stating the LB position is not in dire need as we are for DB's. It's an opinion not a 'like' or 'dislike' please learn the difference before posting again, k thx.

 

[agopackgo4]

Of course Shepherd or Trotter were never comming to Green Bay. Although I wish they were.

 

[ORRELSE]

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

Whether you like it or not, the Packers are in need of a legit MLB. It's going to have to happen sometime.

If the Packers want to build a team that can compete with the best teams in the NFL, they have to start solidifying positions.

With Trotter @ MLB and Diggs and Barnett @ OLB that would be a good start. Packers would only need to add depth @ LB spot.

DB has some young talent that has to be looked at in 2005. DL is a mess.

Whether I like it or not? Don't be making this personal bubba. I am simply stating the LB position is not in dire need as we are for DB's. It's an opinion not a 'like' or 'dislike' please learn the difference before posting again, k thx.

I totally disagree with that. We have one of the weakest LB groups in the NFL. Diggs is the only capable player in the whole bunch. Barnett could be good if he was used right. He's no MLB.
DBs? Come on. We didn't draft 5 DBs in the last 2 drafts for nothing. We have some young, quality depth there. One pass rusher and 1 more LB and this defense is right back in the mix. To me, the main weakness on this defense is players being used wrong. The big one is Barnett. He is no MLB.

 

[ORRELSE]

Whether you like it or not, the Packers are in need of a legit MLB. It's going to have to happen sometime.

If the Packers want to build a team that can compete with the best teams in the NFL, they have to start solidifying positions.

With Trotter @ MLB and Diggs and Barnett @ OLB that would be a good start. Packers would only need to add depth @ LB spot.

DB has some young talent that has to be looked at in 2005. DL is a mess.

You nailed that.

Just because you may have a rep for being kind of negative, I like the fact that you don't let the green and gold glasses skew your reality.
This is a better team than last year (addition by subtraction: Sharper) but like it or not we have legitimate holes. DL and LB are the biggest.

 

[Zero2Cool]

This is a better team than last year (addition by subtraction: Sharper) but like it or not we have legitimate holes. DL and LB are the biggest.

Isn't that what we all have been saying? Packer fan or not, holes in our whole team are obvious and well documented. I don't know of anyone who is saying we are gonna be a sudden top 5 defense.

Your post puzzles me.

 

[ORRELSE]

Your post puzzles me.

I'm not surprised.

You are the one not making sense. Does this ring a bell?

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

I think LB is the weakest position on the team.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Your post puzzles me.

I'm not surprised.

You are the one not making sense. Does this ring a bell?

Basically I feel LB is are least needed position on D today.

I think LB is the weakest position on the team.

our oops

Good to see I'm not the only jerk here!



How come ya feel our LB are better than DB an DL? I guess I can see how you say the DL is better than the LB, but to say the LB is better than the DB? Hmmm. I'm not sure about that. Are you including the injury to Diggs or even with Diggs are you saying the LB needs more help than the DB?
Damn I think I just confused myself! lol
Putting more thought into it I think I can see your point though. Meaning if your point is the LB is the worst out of DB, LB and DL.


DL
Baja-Biamilla sp?
C.Williams
G. Jackson
Kampan
I think we'll be okay there if we can rotate someone in for Kampan who is a speedier pass rusher.

LB
Diggs?
Barnett
Thompson

Geez that does seem pretty rough there. But with this system that bates has implemented zach thomas who is similar in size has done fairly well for his team.

Zach
Height: 5'11''
Weight: 230

Nick
Ht: 6' 2"
Wt: 232 lbs
Hmm maybe not as similar as I previous thought.


DB
A. Harris
N. Collins
Roman
C. Johnson or J. Thomas or Hawkins

Damn that doesnt look good either though.



Man I just don't know.
I can see how a LB could make an impact maybe more so than a DB. Because really if you have a lot of pressure on the QB that makes him make bad throws in which makes the DB group look better, right?




Well hey I just thoroughly proved why I'm not a NFL Pro Scout.

 

[Ryan]

Well hey I just thoroughly proved why I'm not a NFL Pro Scout.

That should be everyone's signature here. That's why we talk about it online and not in conference rooms at Lambeau!