|
On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk.
I'd have to do research when I'm not at work, but it didn't gut anything since there's no guarantee that draft picks pan out, esp anything outside of the 1st and 2nd. Realistically, if they had not traded for Cutler, one of those first probably would have gone towards a qb. Furthermore, considering that every qb from 09 or 10 was a pretty much a turd save Stafford, it's a pretty shrewd move in retrospect. They got a proven, solid but unspectacular franchise qb rather than rolling the dice on a rookie.
On November 19 2014 06:30 DannyJ wrote:
I must admit I was surprised they didn't use Blount last night. I mean why even have him on the team if you aren't going to use him to bruise out some clock time? Then again they probably didn't use him because he's a butthead and his hissy fit and not playing go hand in hand...
I figured it was part that and part Bell playing so well.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk.
Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too.
Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones.
|
United States97276 Posts
That makes Gray the first 200 yard rusher of the season and Bell the second I think
|
Yeah the score keep counted a -2 yards run where he got face masked, and thus not counting.
|
This week he will get 5 carries for 15 yards probably.
|
On November 20 2014 01:26 DannyJ wrote:
This week he will get 5 carries for 15 yards probably.
Oh you bet your sweet ass it'll be a Shane week.
|
yeah im not particularly sold on him
Crowell's value just went up though.
|
On November 19 2014 06:34 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk. Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too. Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones.
Trading a mid-round pick for a problem child or a player with an injury history can work out well. Trading firsts and seconds, especially multiple ones, usually ends badly.
In the long run, the draft is a crapshoot. The best teams are the ones that are able to trade down and hoard draft picks.
|
I mean, a first round pick for a QB who is not on (or soon will be up for) a big contract isn't bad. Like if someone traded a first round pick for Bortles this offseason (if you really like him). But A lot of those examples are from the old CBA which made first round picks much less valuable.
The classic bad trades are Seattle for Harvin, Indy for Richardson, and Tampa for Revis. Seattle/Tampa because the player was getting paid a competitive salary, and Richardson because it was for a low-value position for a player that already looked mediocre and was 1 year closer to "getting paid" (although another thing against it is that Richardson was taken high enough to have a non-negligible salary).
|
On November 20 2014 02:06 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2014 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk. Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too. Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Trading a mid-round pick for a problem child or a player with an injury history can work out well. Trading firsts and seconds, especially multiple ones, usually ends badly. In the long run, the draft is a crapshoot. The best teams are the ones that are able to trade down and hoard draft picks.
the Pats do this every year and end up with zero playmakers on offense somehow xD
|
On November 20 2014 02:16 URfavHO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 02:06 andrewlt wrote:On November 19 2014 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk. Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too. Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Trading a mid-round pick for a problem child or a player with an injury history can work out well. Trading firsts and seconds, especially multiple ones, usually ends badly. In the long run, the draft is a crapshoot. The best teams are the ones that are able to trade down and hoard draft picks. the Pats do this every year and end up with zero playmakers on offense somehow xD
That's sarcasm right. Are you saying the Pats are a bad model to follow? The team that is consistently one of the best in the NFL?
|
I think it can be argued that the Pats system hinges on Belichick and would therefore be an ill-advised model for other teams to imitate.
|
On November 20 2014 02:35 Craze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 02:16 URfavHO wrote:On November 20 2014 02:06 andrewlt wrote:On November 19 2014 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk. Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too. Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Trading a mid-round pick for a problem child or a player with an injury history can work out well. Trading firsts and seconds, especially multiple ones, usually ends badly. In the long run, the draft is a crapshoot. The best teams are the ones that are able to trade down and hoard draft picks. the Pats do this every year and end up with zero playmakers on offense somehow xD That's sarcasm right. Are you saying the Pats are a bad model to follow? The team that is consistently one of the best in the NFL?
it's just an observation. additional valid examples of what you are trying to illustrate would be the bill walsh 49ers or maybe the 90's cowboys with their trade-rape of the vikings.
also, one of the reasons that i think teams don't hoard early first round picks is the contracts associated with them. I am sure the current CBA isn't enough to mitigate the issue.
|
I thought he's talking about using a mid rounder pick to gamble on a player, not the system?
|
On November 20 2014 02:16 URfavHO wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2014 02:06 andrewlt wrote:On November 19 2014 06:34 Souma wrote:On November 19 2014 06:15 cLutZ wrote:On November 19 2014 05:58 QuanticHawk wrote:
I don';t think trading picks is necessarily bad for long term planning. That's a case by case thing
that being said, trading a first for a rb who wasn't all that impressive to begin with when your main issues lie on the other side of the ball Where has it been a case by case thing? The bears traded for cutlet and it gutted their defense and depth, falcons for Jones, same, skins for rg3, same. Maybe if you trade basically nothing for a problem child ala pats getting moss, but that is still a short term move and a gamble that both teams know its a risk. Steve Young? Marshall Faulk? Favre (from Atlanta to Green Bay)? More recently, how about Palmer being traded to the Cardinals? Although he's injured, it was a good move for them overall and he still has a few years left in him. Cowboys getting Rolando McClain seems like it's gonna pay off too. Saying it's not a case-by-case thing is quite silly. Sure there are a lot of bad trades - doesn't mean there aren't good ones. Trading a mid-round pick for a problem child or a player with an injury history can work out well. Trading firsts and seconds, especially multiple ones, usually ends badly. In the long run, the draft is a crapshoot. The best teams are the ones that are able to trade down and hoard draft picks. the Pats do this every year and end up with zero playmakers on offense somehow xD
Belichick has fucked up many picks in recent years. They still have a top team because he manages to get so many additional picks he can fuck up some of them.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B20ViVhCQAEjrgz.jpg:large)
People going to pick up Bills or Jets defense?
|
The Jets will still find a way to give up +30
|
On November 20 2014 02:37 farvacola wrote:
I think it can be argued that the Pats system hinges on Belichick and would therefore be an ill-advised model for other teams to imitate.
Keep in mind Belichick is the one who is imposing this system on their drafting process, so I think you can't look at it without looking at him. I doubt every coach wants to draft like this, but Bill does and if there's one thing I know as a Pats fan it's "In Bill we trust".
But BB and TB12 are definitely both washed up and won't ever win anything anymore. Please don't think the Pats are any good.
|
|
|
Well that's a "we don't think AD is going to be playing this year" if I've ever seen one.
|
Let's see LeSean McCoy turn it up now that the snow has started falling 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
