jiggins7919 Posted February 24, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 I saw an article written yesterday by an ESPN analyst which stated the two front runners for Garoppolo are the Browns and the Bears. The article insinuated the Bears will go "all in", and while nobody quite knows what that means, one has to wonder if they'd be craziest enough to offer their #3 overall pick. Most people, including myself, think that's absolutely nutso, but when I look at it like, "Well, the Bears need a QB, and nobody would skewer them for DRAFTING one at #3, so why is it different to TRADE #3 for a QB?" Silly season tells us we don't know anything, and whatever the analysts write about will most certainly be either conjecture or directly stem from misleading information. Why would an NFL leak real information right now? Still, it's all we got right now, so might as well talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Still, it's all we got right now, so might as well talk about it. Thank God the combine starts next week. Just in time to save us from more retreads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 uh huh That's what you call your shitposting? By all means, carry on then What has this board become where we have a Pats fag calling out a Bengals fag? (don't take the term "fag" personally...it is what we call all fans of other teams...or all people that are just on here because of one player...like Johnny fags. If you want you can replace the g with an n...if it makes you feel better) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Just to show how deep into silly season we are... 'Madden 17' sim: Browns, 49ers, Texans, Bears shouldn't trade for Jimmy Garoppolo Then again the sim did nail the Falcons' 2016 SB appearance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umadogg1 Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Gipper---I see no reason to be upset about being called a fag on the Browns Board. When in Rome, right? choco---That's two posts in a row where you've written nothing worth reading. What's your record? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 24, 2017 Report Share Posted February 24, 2017 Gipper---I see no reason to be upset about being called a fag on the Browns Board. When in Rome, right? choco---That's two posts in a row where you've written nothing worth reading. What's your record? The thing is, coming onto the Browns board is the least gay thing you do in you life likely. "Not that there's anything wrong with that". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby73 Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/2/22/14696012/5-nfl-executives-discuss-6-ideal-trade-partners-and-best-value-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo "ESPN's Mike Sando spoke with 5 NFL suits to try & get a feel" on JG trade..in short this bitch had a wet dream..ask Belicheck,the guy not in a suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 "ESPN's Mike Sando spoke with 5 NFL suits to try & get a feel" on JG trade..in short this bitch had a wet dream..ask Belicheck,the guy not in a suit I can hear the voice of Keith Jackson concluding this with "And there you have it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 I can hear the voice of Keith Jackson concluding this with "And there you have it." "Whoa Nelly, there you have it"...you mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 Its going to be the Bears. Cant see Chicago drafting a QB when they have to start winning now. Why do they have to start winning now more than any other team? The Browns/49ers/Jets etc. all the team looking for a QB. The Browns need to start winning long before the Bears. Why? Because I am a Browns fan, not a Bears fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 http://www.patspulpit.com/2017/2/22/14696012/5-nfl-executives-discuss-6-ideal-trade-partners-and-best-value-for-patriots-qb-jimmy-garoppolo Did not see a lot of #1's flying to Foxboro... Bad link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 "Whoa Nelly, there you have it"...you mean. HA! Yes, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 The way I read the article those were outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 25, 2017 Report Share Posted February 25, 2017 The way I read the article those were outliers. Going price seems to be a couple seconds. Also liked the comment that the Bradford trade was the all time desperation move- something I said from the get-go. Somebody wasn't listening when I said that haul the Eagles got wasn't likely to be repeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Going price seems to be a couple seconds. Also liked the comment that the Bradford trade was the all time desperation move- something I said from the get-go. Somebody wasn't listening when I said that haul the Eagles got wasn't likely to be repeated. No less listening than to any other opinion posts around here... I can see the Pats hanging on to Jimmy in hopes of a Bradford-like scenario developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 A 2018 1st is still a 1st. Not in trade equity calcs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Expound? Picks are discounted one round per year that they are in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfly Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Really? So the Eagles 2017 1st from the Vikes is really a 2nd. Interesting. In terms of trade points, yes....it was....last year.... simple logic.....would you trade this years #1 for next years #1...straight up?..... answer =.....of course not..... Why?.....because "right now" next years pick is less valuable......(and will stay that way till next year)(which is when it becomes this years pick, which is where the greater value is).....get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Nobody is talking about trading a 1st for a 1st. Next years pick is relative to the talent in the 2018 draft. If the 2018 draft is ranked like the 1983 draft for QBs, picks in the 1st round of that draft are absolutely worth more than the 2017 1st round pick. Therefore, next years 1st is just as valuable if not more valuable.. Comprende? That's all conjecture. There was a time that Matt Barkley was considered the next big thing. Grading a draft class a year away is a fool's errand. I believe the analogy is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 26, 2017 Report Share Posted February 26, 2017 Nobody is talking about trading a 1st for a 1st. Next years pick is relative to the talent in the 2018 draft. If the 2018 draft is ranked like the 1983 draft for QBs, picks in the 1st round of that draft are absolutely worth more than the 2017 1st round pick. Therefore, next years 1st is just as valuable if not more valuable.. Comprende? As RR said- trying to "grade" a draft a year in advance is risky at best. In spring 2015 no one, and I'll bet no one- had Carson Wentz as a top 5 pick, even his groupies from North Dakota State. Top prospects can get hurt too- like the kid from Notre Dame who blew out his ACL in a Bowl game. The other thing that you have to factor in is, unless you have a functional crystal ball to look into the future, you have no idea where the team you're trading with is going to land in the draft order a year hence. Case in point would be if the team you want Jimmy to go to- Da Bears, offers you a 2018 first round pick. Goody- they suck and will be drafting high again next year. Not necessarily the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Nobody is talking about trading a 1st for a 1st. Next years pick is relative to the talent in the 2018 draft. If the 2018 draft is ranked like the 1983 draft for QBs, picks in the 1st round of that draft are absolutely worth more than the 2017 1st round pick. Therefore, next years 1st is just as valuable if not more valuable.. Comprende? What a bullshit reply. Set up a strawman "if" that you have no idea js close to true, and then build on it as if it's gold and get puffy. You and Gipper deserve each other. It's not that hard. The concept is called "net present value" (NPV). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 The Eagles got a 1st for Bradford. Just ask any Vikes fan. Belichick has a history of swapping NE picks to go up 1 round in the following draft. Example a 2017 3rd for a 2018 2nd. Ridiculous. Like how many times do I & others have to say the Bradford trade was desperation by the Vikings? Stupid it sucked. And if you would have bothered to follow Tour's logic, 2017 3rd exactly equals 2018 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Apparently boo has never had to pay interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Apparently boo has never had to pay interest. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 The Eagles got a 1st for Bradford. Just ask any Vikes fan. Belichick has a history of swapping NE picks to go up 1 round in the following draft. Example a 2017 3rd for a 2018 2nd. Ridiculous. LMAO... Why would I ask a Vike's fan when you make my case for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 27, 2017 Report Share Posted February 27, 2017 Like how many times do I & others have to say the Bradford trade was desperation by the Vikings? Stupid it sucked. And if you would have bothered to follow Tour's logic, 2017 3rd exactly equals 2018 2nd. Got your numbers backward there my man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 No he doesn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Yes he does. A 2017 3rd equals a 2018 4th, not 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 Yes he does. A 2017 3rd equals a 2018 4th, not 2nd. Sheeze. Try to follow along. Picks get DISCOUNTED a year in the future. A 2018 second round pick is worth a third today, NOT a fourth. Boo was talking about a 2017 third. So trading a 2017 third for a 2018 second is a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 28, 2017 Report Share Posted February 28, 2017 You're right actually. I'm an idiot. Carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.