sheppard hughes trade

[Dustin]

Dustin, that may be todays assertion....(by some) I don't think you could find a single human on this planet that was saying that at the time all of this went down.

Obviously, the whole point of this thread is the decision in hindsight.

[Superman]

At that point in time, if I was playing GM.....and who doesn't want to be GM for a day LOL....I would look at Hughes body of work to that point, and say...here is guy who was a non factor on special teams and will be a 3rd string pass rush specialist (because of Mathis and Werner) making first round draft pick money...or here is Sheppard, he may never make a starter, but he could fill in, in a pinch. His cap # is lower which is also a plus........and maybe he can be serviceable in special teams. So I would cut Hughes, however in your scenario Superman it now brings salary cap into play....so without the specific numbers for each, I might be forced to keep Hughes in that scenario based on how bad his cap hit is for cutting him.

 

The cap penalty for cutting Hughes would have been the same as the penalty we currently have for trading him, about $1.5m. Not really a major consideration if you ask me. We have that same hit now (and it's slightly higher than it would have been if we had kept Hughes).

 

But I really don't understand how you reach this conclusion. As a reserve and situational pass rusher last year, Hughes had 4 sacks and 32 tackles. As a fill-in inside backer with six starts, Sheppard has 1 sack and 38 tackles. Our ILB play has still been underwhelming, overall, and Sheppard has contributed to that poor rating. He's also been a non factor on special teams. So even based on Hughes prior performance (he wasn't a 3rd stringer last  year; he even started a few games), assuming you only get the production he gave us last year, how would you rather have Sheppard?

 

To me, Sheppard has been an extra body at ILB. We could have signed any number of guys right around camp time to do what Sheppard has done, and eventually give way to McNary (we also still had Hickman at the time, who if healthy might have made Sheppard a scratch from the 53 man roster anyway). I'd rather have 2012 Hughes than 2013 Sheppard. I'd MUCH rather have 2013 Hughes, and it's not even close, even if you cut 2013 Hughes production in half.

 

It's easy to determine that we lost this trade. It's not a major deal, but we could use an extra pass rusher (especially when Werner was out), and we haven't been any better at ILB because of Sheppard. To me, this is much worse than the AQ Shipley trade that people found so revolting and still complain about. 

[Dustin]

Sheppard's biggest contribution this season was getting a penalty for taunting that ended any chance we had of a comeback vs the Bengals.

[MaoBerry]

Hughes' playing time would have been probably half if not less than he's getting at Buffalo. HE wasn't going to play ahead of Mathis and he can't play the run like Walden or even Werner can, so how did we lose so bad to Buffalo in this trade when he wasn't going to play anyways?

 

 

Even if you slice hughes stats in half according to lack of playing time...he still out performs shep in every imaginable way.

[Superman]

Sheppard's biggest contribution this season was getting a penalty for taunting that ended any chance we had of a comeback vs the Bengals.

 

[Franklin County]

Was that Hughes that pulled Hasselbecks feet out from under him when he tried to get up in Tennessee last year.

That's probably why we traded him. Big H said he has to go. :wave:

[John Waylon]

Whoops

[dw49]

The cap penalty for cutting Hughes would have been the same as the penalty we currently have for trading him, about $1.5m. Not really a major consideration if you ask me. We have that same hit now (and it's slightly higher than it would have been if we had kept Hughes).

 

But I really don't understand how you reach this conclusion. As a reserve and situational pass rusher last year, Hughes had 4 sacks and 32 tackles. As a fill-in inside backer with six starts, Sheppard has 1 sack and 38 tackles. Our ILB play has still been underwhelming, overall, and Sheppard has contributed to that poor rating. He's also been a non factor on special teams. So even based on Hughes prior performance (he wasn't a 3rd stringer last  year; he even started a few games), assuming you only get the production he gave us last year, how would you rather have Sheppard?

 

To me, Sheppard has been an extra body at ILB. We could have signed any number of guys right around camp time to do what Sheppard has done, and eventually give way to McNary (we also still had Hickman at the time, who if healthy might have made Sheppard a scratch from the 53 man roster anyway). I'd rather have 2012 Hughes than 2013 Sheppard. I'd MUCH rather have 2013 Hughes, and it's not even close, even if you cut 2013 Hughes production in half.

 

It's easy to determine that we lost this trade. It's not a major deal, but we could use an extra pass rusher (especially when Werner was out), and we haven't been any better at ILB because of Sheppard. To me, this is much worse than the AQ Shipley trade that people found so revolting and still complain about. 

 

 

Yeah.. I mean you win some and you lose some. There is no doubt we lost this one and I can't imagine 3 pages of dicussion and still going....

[esmort]

It's not an argument.

Semantics ... you were attempting to make a particular point in a debate.

 

If you read carefully I've taken no position on how "good" or "bad" the trade is.

You don't have to come out and state your position for it be obvious which side of the debate you are coming down on.

 

What I will take a position on is trades like the Hughes trade, the Cam Johnson trade, the Cesar Rayford trade, along with the wavier wire acquisitions like Rogers, and UDFAs like McNary (who had to arrive here late yet still made the practice squad) make it's own argument that Grigson and staff have improved what was the bottom 1/3 of our team with so many good pick ups that He/They are allowed to miss on a trade without all the hand wringing from the fans on this thread.

What Grigson has done when with UDFA's is irrelevant when discussing his trades, especially when the OP was referencing one trade in particular.

His trades are definitely not above reproach or debate.

 

As Hillary said "What difference does it make". We have  a very good young player coming forward from the bottom of our roster at ILB in McNary (Sheppard will soon be irrelevant), that's because Grigson keeps working and churning the roster to our teams betterment, fans should be thankful for that.

This actually makes the trade look worse ... Translation: Grigson traded a Top 10 3/4 OLB for a scrub that will be "irrelevant" at the end of the season. Should fans be thankful for that??

 

Have your esoteric debate about the two players and enjoy winning your argument……I apologize  for trying to bring the discussion to the larger view, clearly that's a mistake on this thread.

There are plenty of threads that discuss Grigson's performance overall and the "larger view" ... this thread was about 2 players or one trade specifically.

[Superman]

 

This actually makes the trade look worse ... Translation: Grigson traded a Top 10 3/4 OLB for a scrub that will be "irrelevant" at the end of the season. Should fans be thankful for that??

 

 

That's too far...

[basketballsteve]

Semantics ... you were attempting to make a particular point in a debate.

 

You don't have to come out and state your position for it be obvious which side of the debate you are coming down on.

 

What Grigson has done when with UDFA's is irrelevant when discussing his trades, especially when the OP was referencing one trade in particular.

His trades are definitely not above reproach or debate.

 

This actually makes the trade look worse ... Translation: Grigson traded a Top 10 3/4 OLB for a scrub that will be "irrelevant" at the end of the season. Should fans be thankful for that??

 

There are plenty of threads that discuss Grigson's performance overall and the "larger view" ... this thread was about 2 players or one trade specifically.

OMG, you forgot to include a clever dissection of my apology for daring to comment on your thread  from a bigger perspective, again I'm sorry sir, back to your narrow reproachment and debate. 

[esmort]

That's too far...

 

I know you don't take PFF (I don't necessarily either) as the last word in the NFL, but they currently have him ranked 8th overall.

 

Also if you look at his individual stats:

 

sacks: 11 = tied for 5th among 3/4 OLBs

QB Hits: 9 = #8

QB Hurries = #7

Batted passes = tied for 7th

 

Tackles he is #25 with 23 tackles in 596 snaps, but that is on par with many of his pass rushing peers ... for instance Mathis has only has 32 tackles, but with over 200 more snaps; Hali has the same number of tackles, but with 370 more snaps.

 

I think Hughes in the discussion for being a top 10 - 3/4 OLB this season.

[MaoBerry]

I know you don't take PFF (I don't necessarily either) as the last word in the NFL, but they currently have him ranked 8th overall.

 

Also if you look at his individual stats:

 

sacks: 11 = tied for 5th among 3/4 OLBs

QB Hits: 9 = #8

QB Hurries = #7

Batted passes = tied for 7th

 

Tackles he is #25 with 23 tackles in 596 snaps, but that is on par with many of his pass rushing peers ... for instance Mathis has only has 32 tackles, but with over 200 more snaps; Hali has the same number of tackles, but with 370 more snaps.

 

I think Hughes in the discussion for being a top 10 - 3/4 OLB this season.

 

 

 

He's played great this year. He just needed PLAYING TIME, which we didn't provide.

[House]

Didn't care then. Don't care now.

Life is simple.

[braveheartcolt]

Didn't care then. Don't care now.

Life is simple.

You see, sometimes less is more. House 'brings it to the house'. All we need is Nobody saying 'nobody cares' and we can close our weekly Jerry was a stud' thread down.

[wordofmouth]

I know you don't take PFF (I don't necessarily either) as the last word in the NFL, but they currently have him ranked 8th overall.

 

Also if you look at his individual stats:

 

sacks: 11 = tied for 5th among 3/4 OLBs

QB Hits: 9 = #8

QB Hurries = #7

Batted passes = tied for 7th

 

Tackles he is #25 with 23 tackles in 596 snaps, but that is on par with many of his pass rushing peers ... for instance Mathis has only has 32 tackles, but with over 200 more snaps; Hali has the same number of tackles, but with 370 more snaps.

 

I think Hughes in the discussion for being a top 10 - 3/4 OLB this season.

As an upstate NY native, the Bills have always been my second team. I rewatch most of their games, that is why I was surprised we went after Shepard in the first place. He did nothing to distinguish himself in Buffalo, that is for sure.

 

Having watched Hughes this season I am  truly amazed at the overall quality of his play. If he doesn't qualify for top 10 he is definitely in the top 20. And believe me, it feels very weird saying that.

[Gavin]

You see, sometimes less is more. House 'brings it to the house'. All we need is Nobody saying 'nobody cares' and we can close our weekly Jerry was a stud' thread down.

"Hughes was terrible, and a liability. Just moving him on was a win for Indy."

 

 

Sounds you have no middle ground here, you either read people as "Jerry was a stud" or Hughes was terrible, and a liability. Just moving him on was a win for Indy."

 

Logical reasoning would be neither is correct.

[rock8591]

Hughes was and is terrible. Manages to get 9 sacks in a good year, in a situational pass-rush role, when you constantly Have Mercelle Darius, Kyle Williams, and Mario Williams taking on double-teams.

 

Hughes would not have gotten any minutes ahead of Walden or Werner.

 

Colts win the trade.

[indyagent17]

Ummm, no. It doesn't take three years to see the value of a trade like this. It was a veteran player for a veteran player. One has given his team excellent production at a premium position, the other has been very inconsistent and has done little to make a difference for his team. The Bills won this trade six ways to Sunday.

 

Might take longer to see the value of a draft day trade, or a trade involving younger prospects that can't or don't contribute right away. Or if it's a vet for vet trade and both players perform well to begin with (like Champ Bailey for Clinton Portis.) But for something like this, the proof is clear right away.

Seriously?  So If Hughes has a has a injury or does not play well next year  and Sheppard becomes a starter and improves his game and becomes a pro bowl the Bills still win??

 

I still think it takes 3 years to see who won the trade. Hughes is on a losing team and Sheppard is on a playoff team. Hughes didnt work in the 3-4 and we got a solid LB in trade how did we lose????

 

Its apples and oranges folks. Show me 10 Colts fans that were unhappy to see Hughes go

 

We wanted him gone so he was traded, now everybody wants him back in a format he is not solid at?

 

I know we all have opinions but I am allowed to have mine right?

 

Go Horse

[Dustin]

h

 

 

 

I still think it takes 3 years to see who won the trade. Hughes is on a losing team and Sheppard is on a playoff team. Hughes didnt work in the 3-4 and we got a solid LB in trade how did we lose????

 

Except Hughes is playing in a 34 now and Sheppard is far from soild. He probably won't even be on the team next year. 

[indyagent17]

h

 

 

Except Hughes is playing in a 34 now and Sheppard is far from soild. He probably won't even be on the team next year. 

But for heavens sake who cried when he was shipped out. He DIDNT work out here end of story

[Dustin]

But for heavens sake who cried when he was shipped out. He DIDNT work out here end of story

 

Yes he did. Maye he didn't live up top the the 1str ound billing, but he was making a ton of progress. He had 4 sacks in a rotational role and showed promise as a pass rusher in his natural position (34 OLB). He didn't work in his first 2 years because he was playing out of position and never got experience because he was playing behind 2 HOF DEs who never came off the field. He made huge strides in his first year as an OLB.

[House]

But for heavens sake who cried when he was shipped out. He DIDNT work out here end of story

People cry about literally everything here. People cried when Hughes was traded, and I'm sure still continue.

[Gavin]

h

 

 

Except Hughes is playing in a 34 now and Sheppard is far from soild. He probably won't even be on the team next year. 

were wasting our time, Much of Indy fans are and always will be anti Hughes

[House]

were wasting our time, Much of Indy fans are and always will be anti Hughes

Us against the world.

[Dustin]

were wasting our time, Much of Indy fans are and always will be anti Hughes

 

I just find it funny that the people bashing Hughes are the same people who will point at Werner's struggles as a rookie because of him having to learn a new position. Hughes was not built to be a 43 DE in the NFL. He was shoehorned into that role.

 

Werner has already played more snaps in his first season (11 games) than Hughes did in his first 2 years combined. IMO he was never given a fair shot. Drafted out of position, raw, and being developed by an awful coaching staff.

[Gavin]

I just find it funny that the people bashing Hughes are the same people who will point at Werner's struggles as a rookie because of him having to learn a new position. Hughes was not built to be a 43 DE in the NFL. He was shoehorned into that role.

 

Werner has already played more snaps in his first season (11 games) than Hughes did in his first 2 years combined. IMO he was never given a fair shot. Drafted out of position, raw, and being developed by an awful coaching staff.

Im noticing (watching the All 22 now) he is much more consistent with his hands, Got a sack off of Joe Thomas, He looked to get a little crafty on that sack, He gave a little fake turn as he was charging which cause Thomas to stop moving his feet just long enough for Hughes to beat him around the edge, really a craft move, He has looked to improve his tackling technique

[braveheartcolt]

were wasting our time, Much of Indy fans are and always will be anti Hughes

And vice versa. It works both ways. Aren't opinions funny...

[esmort]

Seriously?  So If Hughes has a has a injury or does not play well next year  and Sheppard becomes a starter and improves his game and becomes a pro bowl the Bills still win??

Anyone can have an injury - irrelevant

Even if he only gave us what he is giving the Bills this year we would be ahead ... Sheppard has a better shot of being out of the league than he does going to a pro bowl. 

I still think it takes 3 years to see who won the trade. Hughes is on a losing team and Sheppard is on a playoff team. Hughes didnt work in the 3-4 and we got a solid LB in trade how did we lose????

So you are taking the 3 year window that typically is used for a rookie draft class because of everything involved in transitioning from college to pro and applying in to a veteran trade? That makes no sense.

He's still in a 3/4 on the Bills

We have far different opinions of "solid"

Its apples and oranges folks. Show me 10 Colts fans that were unhappy to see Hughes go

There are probably 10 Colts fan on this thread alone who were unhappy to see Hughes go ... but regardless even if there was no one who was unhappy to see him go it does not make the trade any better.

We wanted him gone so he was traded, now everybody wants him back in a format he is not solid at?

Who is this "We" you are referring to. I know myself and several others were vocally opposed to the trade as soon as it was announced.

"Everybody" doesn't want him back, but a lot of people do because they realize it was a bad trade.

You mean the "format" he started doing decent in last season which was his 1st in the new position?

[indyagent17]

This is priceless with people praising Jerry Hughes.  There must have been hundreds of posts and thousands in agreement that Hughes was a bust and needed to go.

 

You are all great Colts fans like I am. its time to quit this and move back to more relevant conversations about our team

 

Lets hope Sheppard gets better because he is the player we got and he wears the horseshoe

 

Lets not bash the kid, lets root for him

[wordofmouth]

Maybe the problem is the question: Who "won" the trade?

You don't seek to "win" trades, you seek to improve your team. It is good when the guy you get rid of

has success. A team wants to develop the reputation as one that is good to do business with.

If you "win" too many trades other teams are not going to trust you.

This is not my opinion by the way, I have heard GM's say this, and it makes perfect sense.

 

So, with that said, all the people who are trying to spin this as we didn't "lose the trade" are comically wrong.

Just as we won the game last week against the Chiefs, the Bills "Won" this trade. Hands down.

We have mediocre backup, and they have a legitimate playmaker. End of story.

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

We got fleeced, simple as that. Hughes is showing some damn good levels of production and as pointed out by a fellow Colts fan he could arguably be top 10... 

 

Don't come at me with "We have Sheppard now, so blah blah blah". That is irrelevant because I'm looking at their production and who won the trade. 

[indyagent17]

Goodbye

[K-148]

If Redding (a-la Kyle Williams) has had 10,5 sack, Franklin (a-la Dareus) has had 7,5 sacks, Freeman (a-la Alonso) has had 4 sacks and Mathis has had his 16,5 sacks, Walden would be a 10-sacks player also. It's not about how good Hughes is. It's about how good Hughes' teammates are.

[Gavin]

If Redding (a-la Kyle Williams) has had 10,5 sack, Franklin (a-la Dareus) has had 7,5 sacks, Freeman (a-la Alonso) has had 4 sacks and Mathis has had his 16,5 sacks, Walden would be a 10-sacks player also. It's not about how good Hughes is. It's about how good Hughes' teammates are.

Ya lost me on that one  

[K-148]

Ya lost me on that one

My English is so bad?

[Gavin]

My English is so bad?

No your english is pretty good, I just mis read it. I got it now

[YOUR GM]

To me, Grigson's trades this year show he doesn't really have a grasp of what are considered assets or comidities in today's league. You don't give up 1st rounders for a plug and play position. You don't give away pass rushers, situational or not, for "depth" at ILB. You ask most GM's in the league and they'll tell you, you can always find a place for a pass rusher on the roster. Grigson needs to sit down somewhere. His trading rights should be revoked for a year. Just stick to digging in the junkyard for UDFA's and CFL gems. That's what you do best

[braveheartcolt]

With all the experts on here praising Hughes to the rooftops, I have decided to change my opinion of him, even although he was really poor when he wore the horseshoe. Well played everyone.

Jerry for the Pro-bowl, and a future HOF'er.

[BleedBlu8792]

Hughes would have gotten more snaps for us than Sheppard has. And with Werner being injured and Walden missing a game, Hughes would have had a few chances to really step in. He wouldn't be a starter for us, but we would have used him plenty. Even if we only used him as much as we did last year, he'd still have done more for us than Sheppard has.

 

There's no question the Bills got the better player, and there's no question they've gotten the most production. It's not a hard conclusion to reach.

 

Walden and Mathis were and are playing a high percentage of the snaps regardless of the situation. I don't think Hughes would have been given enough time to produce half as much as he has in Buffalo. Absolutely, Sheppard has been bad, and I'm not denying that, but I don't think Hughes would have given us some "huge" increase in production over what Sheppard has done to warrant saying "Grigs screwed the pooch" with this trade. I guess I just look at it as great for Jerry, oh well for Sheppard. The trade didn't make or break the Colts, no where close, and that's the important thing.