-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
Positional value and impact is part of a totally different conversation, and has very little bearing on whether trading for a player should be considered aggressive. If you trade a 1st for a punter, it's aggressive (and probably stupid, but still aggressive). It's certainly not risk averse, as you're trying to categorize it. The Buckner move was absolutely aggressive, and belongs in the conversation with the AJ Brown move, as it's basically the same thing. And while, in a vacuum, trading up for a QB in 2020 would have been the more aggressive move, I could argue that signing Rivers was just as risky. He was 39, coming off of a bad season, switching teams for the first time in his career. He played well enough, but then retired, and so was a bit of a sunk cost. -
By NewColtsFan · Posted
“Is just not evident”. ??? What am I not understanding? Frank wanted Ryan. Ballard wanted Ryan. Ballard made the trade. Isn’t that as evident as it gets? -
Brown plays a premium position and had some issues staying on the field. There was risk involved with that but that was a trade for a player that has more of an impact because the position he plays. Yes Buckner makes a huge impact on the field because he’s a good player, but there isn’t a person here who wouldn’t rather have a WR, LT, or Edge Rusher of the same or greater caliber as him. So trading for AJ Brown or Tyreek Hill is much more aggressive than trading for Buckner. Most of the playoff teams had elite receiver rooms and average DTs. -
By throwing BBZ · Posted
You and your kind keep bringing up how Miami or San Diego were willing to NOT draft THEIR Franchise QB that year. You are out in left field on this. Move on because you are WRONG. Complain about something real! -
Wentz trade had a higher risk factor because of the 1st rounder given up for a shakier player compared to Buckner or compared to Matt Ryan, IMO.
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts