PDA

View Full Version : Aaron Rodgers to Oakland/Randy Moss to Green Bay?


HemiEd
03-01-2007, 12:30 PM
Has anyone else heard this. I just picked up some discussion about it on Sirius at Lunch time. They sounded like there was some reason to believe it might happen. I did not have very long to listen, just curious if anyone else has heard.
I sure hope Oakland does not get a decent QB prospect.

Wa-Z
03-01-2007, 12:32 PM
Randy Moss a Packer?? LMAO

noa
03-01-2007, 12:32 PM
Randy Moss sucks and Aaron Rodgers sucks, so I guess it makes sense.
I also heard the Jaguars were interested in Moss.

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 12:34 PM
Randy Moss a Packer?? LMAO

That was some of the conversation, the fans may not forgive him. They were saying that it is Favre pushing for it.

Woodrow Call
03-01-2007, 12:38 PM
It works for both teams.

The Packers need offensive weapons and Farve wants him.

The Raiders only have Walter on the roster and this move could free them up to take Thomas, Calvin, or even AP instead of a QB.

Brock
03-01-2007, 12:43 PM
Rodgers is crap.

chief52
03-01-2007, 12:43 PM
Randy Moss sucks and Aaron Rodgers sucks, so I guess it makes sense.
I also heard the Jaguars were interested in Moss.

Just curious as to what you base your analysis of Rodgers on. He has a lot of ability. The Packers have never given him a chance to show anything. They would be stupid to get rid of him without ever finding out what he has. He may or may not make it, but there is nothing to rate him on at the moment.

Who is going to QB the Pack after Favre?

I am sure Rodgers would be all for it a trade back to California and a chance to play football.

CupidStunt
03-01-2007, 12:50 PM
I'd take either. F*ck Moss' attitude, if we have character players (which I'm not sure about) they stink. And Rodgers is better than anything we have.

Brock
03-01-2007, 12:52 PM
And Rodgers is better than anything we have.

Based on what?

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 12:52 PM
It works for both teams.

The Packers need offensive weapons and Farve wants him.

The Raiders only have Walter on the roster and this move could free them up to take Thomas, Calvin, or even AP instead of a QB.


That is what bothers me, I prefer the Raiders not to do anything that makes sense.
Like chief52 said, how could anyone possibly know how good Rodgers can be?
I personally hope this deal does not happen.

bringbackmarty
03-01-2007, 01:03 PM
I heard Favre said he was gonna play til he was 50

Chiefs Pantalones
03-01-2007, 01:05 PM
If Rodgers is any good, this would be a good deal for Oakland in that they won't have to draft a QB high.

PunkinDrublic
03-01-2007, 01:13 PM
I think Moss could come back into form if he played with a good QB. I'm not saying Moss doesn't have his faults, but if you put him on a team with a QB who can get him the ball, he can still be one of the best recievers in the game. I think that when Moss gets stuck with a bad QB he tends to stop giving a shit and loses his motivation. I hope he does well in Green Bay because he is fun to watch when he is at the top of his game.

Pushead2
03-01-2007, 01:17 PM
KC better step it up.... , Broncos just got Dre Bly and if this is true the Raiders will definitely have a descent QB and most likely will take Calvin Johnson with the 1.

Rooster
03-01-2007, 01:18 PM
That is what bothers me, I prefer the Raiders not to do anything that makes sense.

I agree.

If this does happen, and that's a big if, the draft could become really interesting.

Woodrow Call
03-01-2007, 01:23 PM
KC better step it up

Why? We are the only fan base in the NFL that wants to lose.

Chiefs Pantalones
03-01-2007, 01:27 PM
Why? We are the only fan base in the NFL that wants to lose.

We don't want to lose, we are just used to losing.

noa
03-01-2007, 01:39 PM
Just curious as to what you base your analysis of Rodgers on. He has a lot of ability. The Packers have never given him a chance to show anything. They would be stupid to get rid of him without ever finding out what he has. He may or may not make it, but there is nothing to rate him on at the moment.

Who is going to QB the Pack after Favre?

I am sure Rodgers would be all for it a trade back to California and a chance to play football.


IMO, the fact that the team keeps Favre as their starter is enough of an indication. He has given a lot to the franchise and is an NFL icon, but if Rodgers was really a stud, I think they would kindly ask Favre to step aside in the greater interest of the franchise. In the past two seasons, Favre has thrown 38 TDs and 47 INTs. If the Pack are still sticking with him, I seriously question how much faith they have in Rodgers as the QBOTF.
Also, I know its hard to judge a guy who is just thrown into action for a few plays every season, but when Rodgers has seen action, he hasn't been impressive.

Brock
03-01-2007, 01:40 PM
Rodgers has a 43.9 career QB rating, color the Raiders retarded if they do this.

Kerberos
03-01-2007, 01:48 PM
Rodgers has a 43.9 career QB rating, color the Raiders retarded if they do this.

Like they need to do this to be colored RETARDED.

It would just put icing on a cake that is already baked and ready.

:p

.

CupidStunt
03-01-2007, 01:48 PM
Based on what?

Talent. Rodgers > Croyle.

Fruit Ninja
03-01-2007, 01:49 PM
This happens, and Calvin Johnson to the Raiders.

Brock
03-01-2007, 02:01 PM
Talent. Rodgers > Croyle.

If you can't quantify it just say so. That is a horseshit answer.

chief52
03-01-2007, 02:02 PM
Talent. Rodgers > Croyle.

I think that is a definite.

Brock
03-01-2007, 02:04 PM
I think that is a definite.

A definite guess maybe.

chief52
03-01-2007, 02:07 PM
A definite guess maybe.

You think there is some doubt as to which QB has more talent? I may be wrong, but I saw them both play college QB. Did you? Rodgers was extremely talanted...much more so than Croyle. Not a guess there. Just a fact. Maybe Croyle will go on to be the better QB, although I do not think so. But talent...not a debate.

Brock
03-01-2007, 02:13 PM
You think there is some doubt as to which QB has more talent? I may be wrong, but I saw them both play college QB. Did you? Rodgers was extremely talanted...much more so than Croyle. Not a guess there. Just a fact. Maybe Croyle will go on to be the better QB, although I do not think so. But talent...not a debate.

There is some doubt as to whether Rodgers can play in the NFL, just like Brodie Croyle. Isn't that obvious?

You can't quantify as to how Rodgers is better than Croyle, so you're throwing out the old "I saw them both play" BS.

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 02:14 PM
You think there is some doubt as to which QB has more talent? I may be wrong, but I saw them both play college QB. Did you? Rodgers was extremely talanted...much more so than Croyle. Not a guess there. Just a fact. Maybe Croyle will go on to be the better QB, although I do not think so. But talent...not a debate.


Wasn't Rodgers going to be the #1 overall choice (like the kid down in Houston, Carr) and then slipped on draft day for some reason? That was the same draft that we picked up DJ at 15.

chief52
03-01-2007, 02:21 PM
There is some doubt as to whether Rodgers can play in the NFL, just like Brodie Croyle. Isn't that obvious?

You can't quantify as to how Rodgers is better than Croyle, so you're throwing out the old "I saw them both play" BS.

No one can "quantify" that...and I am not "throwing out" any BS. Read the damn posts. I hate it when people are too lazy to read before they react. Come on!!! Pick it up.

Rodgers was thought to be a possible first pick and slid in the first round to Green Bay. No one ever thought Croyle had the ability to be a first rounder. There is a reason Croyle went in the third round. Like I said, who knows how it is going to end up...but I do not think I am really stepping out on a ledge saying that Rodgers has more talant than Croyle.

Brock
03-01-2007, 02:26 PM
No one can "quantify" that...and I am not "throwing out" any BS. Read the damn posts. I hate it when people are too lazy to read before they react. Come on!!! Pick it up.

Your posts don't say anything, other than "Rodgers is more talented than Croyle". If you can't back it up with anything meaningful, just say so.

Simply put, Rodgers was a panic pick by the Packers, and if they didn't take him in the first round, nobody else was going to.

Baconeater
03-01-2007, 02:31 PM
I think Moss could come back into form if he played with a good QB. I'm not saying Moss doesn't have his faults, but if you put him on a team with a QB who can get him the ball, he can still be one of the best recievers in the game. I think that when Moss gets stuck with a bad QB he tends to stop giving a shit and loses his motivation. I hope he does well in Green Bay because he is fun to watch when he is at the top of his game.
I totally agree, he was one of the most feared recievers in the league when he was in Minnesota. I seriously doubt he has forgotten how to catch a football in the last couple years. As far as his attitude, I'm not going to say he doesn't have some issues, but it's hard to condemn someone for having a bad attitude when they're stuck in an organization such as the Raiders.

chief52
03-01-2007, 02:43 PM
1. Your posts don't say anything, other than "Rodgers is more talented than Croyle". If you can't back it up with anything meaningful, just say so.

2. Simply put, Rodgers was a panic pick by the Packers, and if they didn't take him in the first round, nobody else was going to.

1. No one can "back up" a statement like that. It is not that kind of statement and was not meant as such. I did not state is as "fact by the NFL" or anything. That is what I think...just like if you said the other way you would not be able to "back it up". What is this shit with you and "back it up"? That could be the root of your difficulties. Get over it.

2. "Panic Pick" Your opinion and yours only. Based on no fact at all.

Let's make a little gentleman's bet that I hope I lose, but do not think I will. I will bet you that Rodgers has a better career than Croyle. I just do not see how it could work out any other way. Hope I am wrong, though, as Croyle is a Chief. I will remember this, just not who I was discussing it with I would imagine.

CupidStunt
03-01-2007, 02:48 PM
Get real. If you're trying to say that Brodie Croyle is more TALENTED than Aaron Rodgers, you're an idiot. There's no debate. And it isn't close.

F'in homers.

CupidStunt
03-01-2007, 02:48 PM
Your posts don't say anything, other than "Rodgers is more talented than Croyle". If you can't back it up with anything meaningful, just say so.


And what the shit do you have to say otherwise?

Thig Lyfe
03-01-2007, 02:48 PM
I think if Moss were with Favre he would have a QB worth respecting. It would definitely work for the Packers.

Brock
03-01-2007, 02:49 PM
1. No one can "back up" a statement like that. It is not that kind of statement and was not meant as such. I did not state is as "fact by the NFL" or anything. That is what I think...just like if you said the other way you would not be able to "back it up". What is this shit with you and "back it up"? That could be the root of your difficulties. Get over it.


Well, it's like this: When you make a statement like "Rodgers is more talented than Croyle", and you make it such a way that you seem to think it's laughable to even doubt it, you shouldn't be surprised when someone says it's bullshit and asks you to support it with some kind of data.

Eric
03-01-2007, 02:50 PM
This new coach is making some good moves.

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 03:13 PM
I totally agree, he was one of the most feared recievers in the league when he was in Minnesota. I seriously doubt he has forgotten how to catch a football in the last couple years. As far as his attitude, I'm not going to say he doesn't have some issues, but it's hard to condemn someone for having a bad attitude when they're stuck in an organization such as the Raiders.

I have a problem with him signing a huge contract and not honoring it by giving his best. Of course it doesn't bother me quite so much when it is the Raiders. I am fairly confident, the Raiders would have beat us at Arrowhead this year if Randy Moss had not taken the last play off.

Woodrow Call
03-01-2007, 03:28 PM
Get real. If you're trying to say that Brodie Croyle is more TALENTED than Aaron Rodgers, you're an idiot. There's no debate. And it isn't close.

F'in homers.

What has Rodgers ever done other than look like crap in limited time? No one knows who is better or more talented because neither one has done anything.

Lets say Rodgers was in last years draft class with Croyle. Would he have went before Leinart, Young, or Cutler? I doubt it; probably a 2nd rd guy. It was a weak QB class the year Rodgers came out therefore he was overvalued.

Halfcan
03-01-2007, 03:54 PM
I think if Moss were with Favre he would have a QB worth respecting. It would definitely work for the Packers.

Brett won't let him take plays off.

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 04:07 PM
Brett won't let him take plays off.


But the real question is, can RM get by with the "simulated moon" that he did to the Packer fans last time he was there.

Dave Lane
03-01-2007, 04:25 PM
I think getting more than a grilled cheese sandwich for Moss is robbery.

Dave

Count Zarth
03-01-2007, 04:52 PM
Did someone seriously throw out QB rating? What a joke.

DaWolf
03-01-2007, 05:00 PM
You think there is some doubt as to which QB has more talent? I may be wrong, but I saw them both play college QB. Did you? Rodgers was extremely talanted...much more so than Croyle. Not a guess there. Just a fact. Maybe Croyle will go on to be the better QB, although I do not think so. But talent...not a debate.

Yeah, and I also saw Kyle Boller play college ball in the same system for the same coach. Lots of talent.

Point being, so what? Joey Harrington was extremely talented in college. So what? David Carr had an amazing college career. So what? Jake Plummer was clutch in college. So what?

This is the NFL...

chief52
03-01-2007, 05:03 PM
Yeah, and I also saw Kyle Boller play college ball in the same system for the same coach. Lots of talent.

Point being, so what? Joey Harrington was extremely talented in college. So what? David Carr had an amazing college career. So what? Jake Plummer was clutch in college. So what?

This is the NFL...

Pretty much what I said in the post you quoted isn't it? Who knows...

DaWolf
03-01-2007, 05:06 PM
Pretty much what I said in the post you quoted isn't it? Who knows...
Well in that sense yes, it can be a crapshoot, so definitely you are right.

I will say this: The Packers have had Rogers for a few years now and have never seemed very high on him. Considering Favre's year to year status, if he was in their minds a legit QBOTF I highly doubt they'd be getting rid of him for a turd like Moss...

HemiEd
03-01-2007, 05:13 PM
Well in that sense yes, it can be a crapshoot, so definitely you are right.

I will say this: The Packers have had Rogers for a few years now and have never seemed very high on him. Considering Favre's year to year status, if he was in their minds a legit QBOTF I highly doubt they'd be getting rid of him for a turd like Moss...

1) Rookie contract is probably going to run out before they have a chance to use him.
2) Favre is God in Wisconsin, he gets what he wants and that is not a successor but a receiver.

doomy3
03-15-2007, 09:15 AM
Here's what rotworld has up today:


Report: Packers on verge of acquiring Moss


The Boston Herald's Michael Felger reports that the Packers and Raiders are "on the verge" of announcing a trade that will send Randy Moss to the Packers.
It's odd a Boston writer is breaking the story, but he's also an ESPN radio host. We heard rumblings Wednesday night it was close and profootballtalk.com pegged most of these details days go. The deal will reportedly include Aaron Rodgers, Raiders TE Courtney Anderson, and a conditional Oakland pick in 2009 based on Rodgers' production. Moss will reportedly restructure his deal to catch passes from Brett Favre. While this will help Moss' numbers, don't assume either Favre or he will be elite fantasy starters. Rodgers' presence makes it more likely, though far from certain, that Oakland will draft Calvin Johnson with the first overall pick. Donald Driver and Greg Jennings owners can't be happy. Mar. 15 - 10:34 am et
Source: Boston Herald

Woodrow Call
03-15-2007, 09:18 AM
I hope to god they don't draft Calvin Johnson. The last thing the Chiefs need is that beast in the AFC West. Then again with that line and QB situation he might not be a threat for awhile.

Tuckdaddy
03-15-2007, 09:25 AM
No way is this a bad deal for Oakland. Rodgers has been in the league a few years now. They could start him this year and not have to spend the bucks on Russell and get the GT WR to replace Moss.

doomy3
03-15-2007, 09:31 AM
I hope to god they don't draft Calvin Johnson. The last thing the Chiefs need is that beast in the AFC West. Then again with that line and QB situation he might not be a threat for awhile.


I completely agree. Looks like they would upgrade huge at WR with Johnson over Moss, and they would have their QBOTF. Some reports say that Green Bay would send 1 or 2 draft picks to Oakland as well.

noa
03-15-2007, 09:32 AM
The Packers know that Brett Favre is going tor retire soon and they will need a replacement. If they are trading their current replacement away, they must have no faith in him. I wonder what the Faiders see that the Packers don't.

OnTheWarpath58
03-15-2007, 09:33 AM
I hope to god they don't draft Calvin Johnson. The last thing the Chiefs need is that beast in the AFC West. Then again with that line and QB situation he might not be a threat for awhile.

Kinda like any WR we draft in R1?

htismaqe
03-15-2007, 09:34 AM
What's the difference between Rodgers and Andrew Walter?

BIG DEAL.

htismaqe
03-15-2007, 09:36 AM
This is Chiefsplanet.

Brodie Croyle sucks!

Woodrow Call
03-15-2007, 09:37 AM
What's the difference between Rodgers and Andrew Walter?

BIG DEAL.

Good question. If anything I like Walter's arm better and he has more experience.

OnTheWarpath58
03-15-2007, 09:41 AM
This is Chiefsplanet.

Brodie Croyle sucks!

Dammit.....(not sure if you were directing your comment at mine or not...)

I was trying to bait someone into the WR issue, not the QB issue.....

I'm looking forward to the Croyle era.

I'm not looking forward to us taking a WR in R1.

Coogs
03-15-2007, 09:48 AM
I wonder if Russell's workout yesterday will have any bearing on this trade. I saw some of it on NFLNetwork yesterday, and Russell looked very good.

Woodrow Call
03-15-2007, 09:53 AM
I wonder if Russell's workout yesterday will have any bearing on this trade. I saw some of it on NFLNetwork yesterday, and Russell looked very good.

After hearing the guy from Scouts Inc on NFL Live rave about Russell's pro day I figured it was a lock that the Raiders would take him but maybe Calvin is too good to pass up.

HemiEd
03-15-2007, 10:30 AM
The Packers know that Brett Favre is going tor retire soon and they will need a replacement. If they are trading their current replacement away, they must have no faith in him. I wonder what the Faiders see that the Packers don't.

Rodgers is probably getting close to the end of his rookie contract. I suspect the Packers don't want to re-enlist him without knowing what they have.

crazycoffey
03-15-2007, 11:17 AM
How do you back up an opinion?


Just curious.

Brock
03-15-2007, 11:27 AM
What's the difference between Rodgers and Andrew Walter?

BIG DEAL.

Rodgers was taken in the first round, like other greats such as David Carr and David Klingler. That means he can't miss. Plus he has never played for KC.

Brock
03-15-2007, 11:36 AM
How do you back up an opinion?


Just curious.

Uh, facts, data, convincing arguments. Simple things that most high school graduates know.

Hound333
03-15-2007, 11:40 AM
So I know that the logical thing is to take CJ. What if they bait people into thinking they are taking CJ and get someone to panic and trade up so they can take Peterson plus end up with most likely Peterson and a second first round next year plus a few more.

htismaqe
03-15-2007, 11:42 AM
So I know that the logical thing is to take CJ. What if they bait people into thinking they are taking CJ and get someone to panic and trade up so they can take Peterson plus end up with most likely Peterson and a second first round next year plus a few more.

Adrian Peterson?

They have Jordan and signed Rhodes.

Sounds like a perfectly (stupid) Raider thing to do.

Hound333
03-15-2007, 11:44 AM
Your right Htismaqe. I have been working in the yard all week and have not kept up with the trades. I missed the Rhodes trade. My bad there.

I was talking sports out of my "ignorance"

htismaqe
03-15-2007, 11:48 AM
Your right Htismaqe. I have been working in the yard all week and have not kept up with the trades. I missed the Rhodes trade. My bad there.

I was talking sports out of my "ignorance"

It's ok man, I've been out of the loop for a few days too and had to read about 10 pages of threads to get caught up.

Besides, I like your scenario. The Raiders might just be dumb enough to pull it off. :)

Hound333
03-15-2007, 11:56 AM
Ya I liked my situation because I never really liked Jordan much. Of course Thomas might be a better option for them. As long as their line sucks like it does I doubt it will matter who the hell they put in the backfield.

Basileus777
03-15-2007, 12:05 PM
Personally, I think trading for Aaron Rodgers and passing on JaMarcus Russell would be the biggest mistake the Raiders could possibly make. I'd try and trade Moss for a draft pick straight up. I'm not a believer in Aaron Rodgers, although I readily admit its far too early to write him off.