My Official Green Bay Packers blog

In a move comparable only to something the Duke boys might try (not these Dukes, these Dukes) in the orange juice futures market, Kansas City Chiefs GM Carl Peterson pulled the rug out from under a deal with the Packers only hours before the trading deadline. Peterson had reportedly met with Gonzalez, told him he was looking for a 3rd rounder as compensation, and that the Packers were interested. Gonzo was liking the idea of wearing green, too. And then, with the Packer offer on the table and any credible sources saying a third rounder was fair compensation for a 32 year old tight end, Carl Peterson screwed the only marketable player in the Chiefs franchise. The only guy who put team above everything else for eleven-plus seasons and turned in HOF numbers year after year.

Some might hypothesize that Peterson just wanted to show the Packers what it might be like on the other side of the Favre deal. To be interested in the North Star of another storied franchise, their main guy, their franchise, and not be able to get the deal done.  And some might be stupid.

Some might say Peterson thought the Chiefs should get the same as the Giants got for Jeremy Shockey, namely a 2nd and a 5th. Four years (the difference in age between Shockey and Gonzalez) is a long time in the NFL.

Lastly, some are saying the last-minute deal the Cowboys pulled off for Roy Williams from Detroit, more or less giving up the entire 2009 class of draft picks in exchange for half a year of contracted time with a part-time player, made Peterson think he could get more for a guy who doesn’t take plays off. Maybe.

My hypothesis? Peterson’s just a prick. And the longest tenured failure, even above Matt Millen.

Technorati Tags: Green Bay Packers, Kansas City Chiefs, Tony Gonzalez, Turn Those Trading Machines Back On!

No preamble, just the picks. All picks are against the spread. Winners are bold:

CIN @ NYJ
MIA @ HOU
CHI @ ATL
DET @ MIN
CAR @ TB
BAL @ IND
OAK @ NO
STL @ WAS
JAC @ DEN
GB @ SEA
DAL @ ARI
PHI @ SF
NE @ SD
NYG @ CLE

Technorati Tags: NFL, Week 6, Picks

When you looked at the Packers schedule this year and mapped out their wins and losses, you marked this game as a win.  Admit it.  You’re among friends.  Well, at least until you leave the room.  Then we usually rip you to shreds.

I mentioned earlier in the week that the Green Bay Packers could have had Michael Turner for about 10% more than they paid for Ryan Grant.  Would it have been worth it?  We’ll find out on Sunday fer sher, but I thought we’d take a look at the tale of the tape for a definitive analysis:

—–Age—–

Michael Turner is 25.

Ryan Grant is 25.  Push

—–Height and Weight—–

Michael Turner: 5′10″, 244

Ryan Grant: 6′1″, 226 - They say that for every inch of height you should add 10 pounds.  That means Grant oughta weigh 274 pounds if he’s gonna match the load that is Michael Turner.  Being shorter, Turner can hide behind lineman a bit better, and being such a horse, he can move piles.  Advantage: Turner

—–Yards per Carry—–

Turner: 305 carries for 1679 yards (career), 5.5 yards per carry.

Grant: 243 carries for 1142 yards (career), 4.7 yards per carry.  Advantage: Turner

—–Against Detroit in 2008—–

Turner: 22 carries for 220.  A nice, even 10 yards per.  A first down with every touch.

Grant: 15 carries for 20 yards.  Take away the longest run of the day (5 yards), and you’d have a yard per carry.  And you know that wouldn’t be the 3rd and 1 yard, when we really need it.  Advantage: Turner

—–The 40—–

Turner: 4.4

Grant: 4.43  Advantage: Turner

Turner takes Grant in every relevant category.  And in a few days, we’ll get to see just how unequal these two backs are.  Just a few more million and we could’ve had The Burner.  *sigh*

Technorati Tags: Green Bay Packers, Atlanta Falcons, Ryan Grant, Michael Turner, Burnin’ Down Curly’s House