You can debate the relative merits of trading (or not trading, as the case may be) until the cows come home, but I think the most interesting part of things like the trade deadline and draft day is the fork in the road they represent.
Recent Packers history has given us many moments like this. The Packers have clear choices between one course or another, and that moment of decision gives us discussion fodder for many years to come. T.J. Watt or Kevin King? Rashan Gary, Brian Burns, Montez Sweat, or someone else? Trade for Emmanuel Sanders? Trade for Will Fuller? These and many other decisions shaped and will shape the Packers for years.
Of course, we don’t know the ramifications of some of those choices yet, and if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll never truly know if trading for Will Fuller would have gotten the Packers to the Super Bowl or not. But yesterday the Packers had a clear set of choices, and they picked the course of action that did not end with a new wide receiver in a Packers uniform. Let the debate begin.
As it so often does, the question of trading for a player came down to a straight debate over cost.
Rob Demovsky writes that Matt LaFleur and Brian Gutekunst were in agreement about not trading for a receiver. I wonder where the idea that they weren’t may have come from?
Though both were open to the idea of trading for a receiver, Aaron Rodgers and Davante Adams don’t seem too broken up by it not happening.
NFL trade deadline winners and losers: Avery Williamson lands on a contender; no receiver help for Aaron Rodgers | ESPN
ESPN, however, names Rodgers one of the trade deadline’s biggest losers.
Amidst all the trade deadline news, it’s almost easy to forget the Packers have a game coming up -checks notes- oh it’s tomorrow? Well, whenever they kickoff, the situation at running back is going to be weird.
“The species is notoriously difficult to kill, as even a small fragment of its body can regenerate into a complete worm.” Welp.