Thanking the Pack for worse trade then ours

**digital420** · 02-07-2006, 10:54 AM

Matt Hasselbeck and Steve Hutchinson are Pro Bowl players for Seattle. Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall aren't playing football.

Thanks Packers

Matt Hasselbeck and Steve Hutchinson are Pro Bowl players for Seattle. Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall aren't playing football.

And Green Bay Packers fans are grinding their teeth.

In 2001, the Seahawks traded their first-round choice (No. 10 overall) and their third-round pick to the Packers for Hasselbeck, a third-year backup, and Green Bay's first-round pick (No. 17 overall).

The Packers were trading up seven spots to improve their chances of drafting Reynolds, a defensive end out of Florida State. In the third round, Green Bay used Seattle's choice to take Marshall, a linebacker from Oklahoma. Both were often injured and were huge busts.

Hutchinson, a guard from Michigan drafted by the Seahawks at No. 17, will be in his third Pro Bowl, and Hasselbeck will be in his second.

hehehehehehehehehe

DiGiTaL

(at least our bad trade didin't end up in the S.B.

**hailtocarter** · 02-07-2006, 11:18 AM

"digital420" wrote:

Matt Hasselbeck and Steve Hutchinson are Pro Bowl players for Seattle. Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall aren't playing football.

Thanks Packers

Matt Hasselbeck and Steve Hutchinson are Pro Bowl players for Seattle. Jamal Reynolds and Torrance Marshall aren't playing football.

And Green Bay Packers fans are grinding their teeth.

In 2001, the Seahawks traded their first-round choice (No. 10 overall) and their third-round pick to the Packers for Hasselbeck, a third-year backup, and Green Bay's first-round pick (No. 17 overall).

The Packers were trading up seven spots to improve their chances of drafting Reynolds, a defensive end out of Florida State. In the third round, Green Bay used Seattle's choice to take Marshall, a linebacker from Oklahoma. Both were often injured and were huge busts.

Hutchinson, a guard from Michigan drafted by the Seahawks at No. 17, will be in his third Pro Bowl, and Hasselbeck will be in his second.

hehehehehehehehehe

DiGiTaL

(at least our bad trade didin't end up in the S.B.

Unless you're talking about the Walker trade, cuz that pretty much led to like 3 superbowls for the cowboys...

**BigEasyViking** · 02-07-2006, 12:12 PM

yeah, that's what i was going to say! Nobody has or ever will beat us for the worst trade ever. All that we did was hand the Cowboys the 90's. And the worst part is that 2 years after we got Walker he ended up back with the Cowboys. It's really kind of comical when you think about it! OK, it's not. I'm going to go cry now!

**digital420** · 02-07-2006, 12:39 PM

i am in denying that someone named HersyWalkingSquirt ever played in the purple + gold.. and what we gave up for said figment of my imagination...

DiGiTaL

**singersp** · 02-07-2006, 12:42 PM

"BigEasyViking" wrote:

yeah, that's what i was going to say! Nobody has or ever will beat us for the worst trade ever. All that we did was hand the Cowboys the 90's. And the worst part is that 2 years after we got Walker he ended up back with the Cowboys. It's really kind of comical when you think about it! OK, it's not. I'm going to go cry now!

Wrong!

First off, we did give up way to much for Walker.

Walker was here for almost 3 years & in that time averaged 4.0, 4.2 & 4.2 yards per carry.

While he was here, our brilliant offensive coordinator made Hershel change his running stance from 3 steps back to two steps back, which IMO greatly hindered his performance.

From here he went to Philly for 3 years & then to the Giants for another.

He didn't return to Dallas until 5 years, not 2, after he left Minnesota.

It wasn't Walker that was the bust in that trade, but rather it was the amount of players & draft picks that we gave up for him.

**BigEasyViking** · 02-07-2006, 01:19 PM

correction appreciated, but the whole point is that I would rather have Aikman, E. Smith, M. Irvin and three super bowls. :thumbleft:

**singersp** · 02-07-2006, 01:22 PM

"BigEasyViking" wrote:

correction appreciated, but the whole point is that I would rather have Aikman, E. Smith, M. Irvin and three super bowls. :thumbleft:

I understand. I just wanted to clear that up.

Like I said, we gave up way to much for him.

**stjmnsota** · 02-07-2006, 03:26 PM

"singersp" wrote:

"BigEasyViking" wrote:

yeah, that's what i was going to say! Nobody has or ever will beat us for the worst trade ever. All that we did was hand the Cowboys the 90's. And the worst part is that 2 years after we got Walker he ended up back with the Cowboys. It's really kind of comical when you think about it! OK, it's not. I'm going to go cry now!

Wrong!

First off, we did give up way to much for Walker.

Walker was here for almost 3 years & in that time averaged 4.0, 4.2 & 4.2 yards per carry.

While he was here, our brilliant offensive coordinator made Hershel change his running stance from 3 steps back to two steps back, which IMO greatly hindered his performance.

From here he went to Philly for 3 years & then to the Giants for another.

He didn't return to Dallas until 5 years, not 2, after he left Minnesota.

It wasn't Walker that was the bust in that trade, but rather it was the amount of players & draft picks that we gave up for him.

I agree. It wasn't Walker. The Vikes gave up way too much for him. Then didn't build around his strenghths. The Vikes management have a way of screwing up. Even without trading for Walker, the Vikes more than likely would have pissed up over the next several years anyway.

IMO, Walker showed signs of being a big playmaker for the Vikes. Then they would sit him down. Not his fault. The Vikes made a bad trade worse.

**snowinapril** · 02-07-2006, 04:12 PM

Those guy were too good to keep as backups. They could have used Hutch last year when they got rid of their Vets on the line, but that would have been a long time for him to ride the pine. Sometimes you just have to take the chance. Hasselbeck would still be riding the pine and would be inexperienced on the field.

It does look bad if you look at it like that, GB took a chance and lost. Oh well! Thanks for bringing it up, it was definitely something to ponder.

**cajunvike** · 02-07-2006, 04:29 PM

"BigEasyViking" wrote:

correction appreciated, but the whole point is that I would rather have Aikman, E. Smith, M. Irvin and three super bowls. :thumbleft:

\

We NEVER would have had Aikman (he was the first overall pick that they "earned" by having that 1-15 record in JJ's first season as coach)...nor would we have gotten Irvin (who wants him anyway, we had better with CC, AC, etc.). Now we could have gotten Emmitt, since he was chosen with the first rounder that we gave Dallass...but there is no guarantee that we would have chosen him anyway. The fact of the matter is that Mike *I walk around with my head in my a$$* Lynn gave away the farm for a player that was totally misused by Jerry Burns and his staff...and gave the Cowboys the foundation to win their SBs in the 90s!