doddpower
11 years ago

I believe that Talib is a UFA now. So NE traded a 4th rd pick for someone that would give them 6 games. And you think that is a good justification to make trades?

Vontae Davis- basically the same thing only it is a 2 yr deal. They gave up a 2nd rd draft pick to have Davis for 2 years. But not even 2 full years as he missed 6 games this year. The Packers used a #2 for Casey Heyward this year. Would you rather have Casey Heyward for 4 years or Vontae Davis for 2? Because that's the choice when trades are made. In 1 year, the Colts will have nothing to show for that #2 pick. We will have Heyward heading into his 3rd year.

Marshall's been traded twice. He has put up big numbers everywhere he has been. But for some reason, teams are willing to part with him. You say Carolina stole Olsen, but the 3rd rd pick the Bears got for Olsen was half of the trade cost of Marshall. Would you rather have Marshall or Olsen?

Trades can work. We got a QB named Favre in a trade. ATL was excited to get rid of him. Most of the time, the team trading off a player is happy. Why is that?

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



Are you assuming that those teams won't resign the players? I would have to think the Patriots and Colts will be trying to resign both Talib and Vonte. I thought teams had a chance to resign their own players before they hit the open market, although perhaps I'm mistaken.

QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

Are you assuming that those teams won't resign the players? I would have to think the Patriots and Colts will be trying to resign both Talib and Vonte. I thought teams had a chance to resign their own players before they hit the open market, although perhaps I'm mistaken.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



I guess I don't see much $ value to having the opportunity to resign your own FA as opposed to open market FA's. I don't see many players resigning for significantly less than they would probably get on the open market. So in my opinion, you have to base the return on the trade on the years you got in performance directly related to the trade. Not the potential resigning.

Just my weird way of looking at things, I guess.
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

NE saw the value of trading a R4 pick for a starting calibre CB midseason to carry them through to the playoffs after an injury. That is entirely reasonable.

Vontae Davis is a decent, young CB, a team need to start the season, and they got a 3 year starter who amassed 9 INTs over those first 3 years. Ted struck gold with the Hayward pick at the end of R2.

I'd rather have Olsen, but Cutler probably felt differently. The larger point there is CHI swung TWO trades. Your statement was a BS jab, but that's OK I guess. Ignore away on the Samuel and Clemons trades.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



Not sure which part you thought was a jab, but ok.

Chicago has made some interesting personnel moves the last few years. Ok, they made 2 trades. Actually more because they traded for Cutler also. How is that working out for them? Good enough that the GM that made the first 2 trades was fired. The 2nd GM just fired the Coach and staff. Turmoil. No playoffs.

Samuel was probably a decent payoff for the Falcons. But they traded a pick for an 10th year vet that cost 3M this year. That is not a viable long term strategy, physically or financially.

Clemons is your best example of a trade working out. Ok.

But if you want to look at the successes, let's not forget some recent failures. Some are epic disasters.

2008- Dallas trades a #1, #3, and a #6 for Roy Williams.
2010- Washington traded a #2 & #3 for Donovan McNabb.
2011- OAK traded a #1 & #2 for Carson Palmer.
2011- STL gets Brandon Lloyd for a 5th rd pick. He played 11 games for the Rams and signed elsewhere after season.
2011- NE traded a 5th for Albert Haynesworth. He played 6 games for them, before being cut.
2011- NE traded a 5th & 6th for Ochocinco. 15 passes and 1 TD for 6M.
2012- SEA trades for Kellen Winslow. Released before he plays a game. Cost a 7th rd pick.
2012- NYJ get Tebow!!! For a 4th and 6th rd pick.

I won't even get into the disposition of most of the traded players. Many/ most are traded because their current team doesn't want them in the clubhouse due to distractions. Based on talent, Marshall was worth maybe 2 #1 picks. He is a stud. HOF like stats at this point in his career. Miami parted with him for 2 #3's. Why?
Pack93z
11 years ago
How can one really compare trades? The variables and circumstances are so wide ranging that it makes it almost impossible to quantify the value of one trade to another across different years.

What I do believe, is with the new CBA and the salary caps in the draft, I think it is going to increase player trades because picks at the top of the draft become more valuable.. all picks become more valuable as there is little risk of holdout and capped salaries. You can gamble a bit more in the draft because most of the variables in terms of contracts are known going in... thus moving veteran players for picks is only going to pick up allowing teams with specific needs to acquire veteran talent to fill those needs.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
doddpower
11 years ago

I guess I don't see much $ value to having the opportunity to resign your own FA as opposed to open market FA's. I don't see many players resigning for significantly less than they would probably get on the open market. So in my opinion, you have to base the return on the trade on the years you got in performance directly related to the trade. Not the potential resigning.

Just my weird way of looking at things, I guess.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



There's value in that a team secures a player for the duration of the current season and gets the first opportunity to resign them; before 31 other teams. Sure, the player could refuse to resign with the team that traded for them and hit the open market, but I seriously doubt that will happen with a player like Talib. If anything, he is probably thrilled to be a member of the Patriots. He was a significant contributor to that team this season, and without him, perhaps the Patriots wouldn't have made it as far as they did. He was, after all, their #1 CB, covering opposing teams #1 WR most of the time. I think he was injured in the AFC Championship game and that likely hurt the Patriots even more. I don't think it's fair to judge trades in Super Bowl wins. The Talib trade made the Patriots better for a very reasonable draft pick in the 2012 season, and will likely do so for the next several seasons. They were hurting at CB, and made a somewhat risky move to hopefully improve themselves, and so far it has worked out. No deal is without risks. But when a team understands it's organizational structure and has done their research, risks can sometimes pay off and are worth the chance. In the case of Talib, I think it worked out well both for the player, the Patriots, and the Bucs. It's not so much about resigning a player for less than they might get in the open-market, but it's about a strong likelihood of resigning them before they ever hit the open market. I'm sure the Patriots were and are very confident they will resign him and as a result, the remainder of his career with the Patriots should be viewed as a result of the trade, not just this past season, imo. If they thought they would not be able to resign him, they probably wouldn't have made the deal. I understand there are always exceptions, but like I said, sometimes risks yield substantial rewards.

If they decided to wait until IF and/or when he hit the open market, there are no guarantees they would have gotten him (although the Patriots always seem to have a good chance of landing free agents). Sometimes it pays off to be aggressive. Even if it doesn't with the case of someone like Albert Haynesworth, at least they tried to make their team better. There are no guarantees that 5th round draft pick or whatever would have been any better, anyway. Although that situation did make way less sense than the Talib trade, which I thought was a great trade.

QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

There's value in that a team secures a player for the duration of the current season and gets the first opportunity to resign them; before 31 other teams. Sure, the player could refuse to resign with the team that traded for them and hit the open market, but I seriously doubt that will happen with a player like Talib. If anything, he is probably thrilled to be a member of the Patriots. He was a significant contributor to that team this season, and without him, perhaps the Patriots wouldn't have made it as far as they did. He was, after all, their #1 CB, covering opposing teams #1 WR most of the time. I think he was injured in the AFC Championship game and that likely hurt the Patriots even more. I don't think it's fair to judge trades in Super Bowl wins. The Talib trade made the Patriots better for a very reasonable draft pick in the 2012 season, and will likely do so for the next several seasons. They were hurting at CB, and made a somewhat risky move to hopefully improve themselves, and so far it has worked out. No deal is without risks. But when a team understands it's organizational structure and has done their research, risks can sometimes pay off and are worth the chance. In the case of Talib, I think it worked out well both for the player, the Patriots, and the Bucs. It's not so much about resigning a player for less than they might get in the open-market, but it's about a strong likelihood of resigning them before they ever hit the open market. I'm sure the Patriots were and are very confident they will resign him and as a result, the remainder of his career with the Patriots should be viewed as a result of the trade, not just this past season, imo. If they thought they would not be able to resign him, they probably wouldn't have made the deal. I understand there are always exceptions, but like I said, sometimes risks yield substantial rewards.

If they decided to wait until IF and/or when he hit the open market, there are no guarantees they would have gotten him (although the Patriots always seem to have a good chance of landing free agents). Sometimes it pays off to be aggressive. Even if it doesn't with the case of someone like Albert Haynesworth, at least they tried to make their team better. There are no guarantees that 5th round draft pick or whatever would have been any better, anyway. Although that situation did make way less sense than the Talib trade, which I thought was a great trade.

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



I don't disagree that Talib worked out well for the Patriots this year. But when they traded for him, they knew they were only guaranteed to get 6 games. Yes, they may have hoped for a long term possibility. But since they didn't work out an extension prior to the deal (which often happens), the Patriots were only guaranteed 6 games. Just my perspective though.

Many, many late round picks are wasted. I agree. As good as Ted Thompson has been, think about Schlauderaff, Elmore, Guy, and Meredith, all late round busts with the Packers. But I would prefer to waste it on someone 22 yrs old, making $400k/ year than a 30yr old head case making 3M.
doddpower
11 years ago

But I would prefer to waste it on someone 22 yrs old, making $400k/ year than a 30yr old head case making 3M.

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan 



And who did that?
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

And who did that?

Originally Posted by: doddpower 



I believe that is the Haynesworth deal. Ochocinco didn't make that much, but I believe he is older. I would refer to both of those players as a headcase, certainly a team cancer, based on their reputation.
play2win
11 years ago
I hadn't forgotten anything about the trades that don't work. I prefaced my comments with: "Trades don't always work. Only a few really do."

What we are currently faced with is a defensive roster in need of upgrades, after spending 6 picks there last April.

We found our R2 investment from 3 years ago, Mike Neal, looked to be improved, but his play was inconsistent. We also saw that our best DL on the roster was 33 year old Ryan Pickett, followed closely by BJ Raji, and that neither had an adequate backup behind them on the depth chart. We found Erik Walden to be the same player he was the previous year opposite Clay Matthews, calling for his replacement with R1 selection Nick Perry, who was lost for the season after week 6 v. HOU. Perry contributed 2 sacks in 5 games played, and looked promising. I won't forget his sack of Wilson in SEA - clean hit that drew an errant roughing penalty. That was an awesome hit, and I continue to have high hopes for his return from injury. Our R2 selection to help bolster the DL was Jerel Worthy, who piled up 14 Tackles, 2.5 sacks and 1 FF in 14 games played before blowing out his knee. -sarcasm alert -Not great totals, but he was a rookie, and there are questions as to whether or not he will be able to play at all in 2013.

I do like how Hayward and McMillian both played as rookies, and I think both can improve. We did see that we are still deficient at S opposite Bennett with MD Jennings, who took over for Charlie Peprah. We could stand an upgrade there.

We also saw Bishop go down, exposing the middle of our defense even further than it was in 2011. Brad Jones played better in the middle than he did off the edge, but that is not saying a whole lot. Hawk's play improved greatly this past season, yet he was still exposed against TE's in the passing game, and wasn't blowing up a lot of runs at the line of scrimmage.

What kind of a defense were we running out there? Look at the pieces, and it looks more like a 2-2 (Pickett, Raji, Matthews, Hawk). Nobody else really did much. Certainly, no one else needed to be game planned for by our opponents. That's bad.

Do we continue to rely on rookies via the draft as our only means of upgrading this defense? Personally, I look at this as a huge mistake by our front office. I hope they change course this offseason and add some quality, veteran talent to help insure a more successful upgrade. Whether that is through trade or FA, I don't really care. Just do the job. I see a lot of holes to fill.
QCHuskerFan
11 years ago

What we are currently faced with is a defensive roster in need of upgrades, after spending 6 picks there last April.

Originally Posted by: play2win 



I think the roster is just fine and not in need of major upgrades. Just the normal draft and free agents.

Let's think back to the start of camp. What did our starting lineup project?
Pickett
Raji
Wilson/ Neal(After suspension)
Matthews
Hawk
Bishop
Perry
Williams
Shields
Woodson
Burnett
Backups: Smith, Walden, Jones, Daniels, Worthy, Heyward, Jennings, McMillian, Bush, House

The defense improved greatly over 2011. If that lineup had been used all season, we might have had a top 10 defense. The roster of starters was sound. Young depth with Daniels, Worthy, Heyward, Shields, Mcmillian, Jennings, Smith all 1st or 2nd year players.

So what went wrong? Too many backups were depended on for starters roles. No team in the NFL has a 2nd string that is as good as the first string.

Let's look at the starters projected from Camp that did not miss a game due to injury.
Pickett
Hawk
Williams
Burnett

The 49ers 4 starting LB's all started 16 games. Only 1 Packer LB did. So is their roster more talented based on 2012 results? Imagine if Bowman had been lost before the season, Brooks lost after 6 games, and Aldon Smith misses 5 games during the season. Do you think the 49ers finish with a better record than the Pack? I don't. Because their backups are not significantly better than ours. In my opinion.

Does the roster need normal annual upgrades? Yes. We need 2 DL, 1 LB and maybe a S? This years draft is deep with DL. LB's and S are not hard to find in the draft. So I do not see trading picks for someone else's rejects.

I would trade some picks if it would guarantee some health, though. If I could get a guarantee of starters only missing a total of 40 games next year, I might trade a 2nd Rd pick for it.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (15h) : Maybe
Mucky Tundra (15h) : Yes
Zero2Cool (16h) : No.
Mucky Tundra (19h) : End of a Degu-era
dhazer (19h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
Zero2Cool (22h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
Zero2Cool (23h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2023 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
Bears
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
LIONS
Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
Raiders
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
RAMS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
CHARGERS
Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
CHIEFS
Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
Giants
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
Panthers
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
Cowboys
Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
49ers
Recent Topics
29m / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

15h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.