QBs. who goes where?

[Ken Gargett]

2 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

not sure what you mean by being beyond me? 

yet another way to look at this is, if the story is true, we offered pick 19 and pick 74 or 82 (we have two in the third and not sure which we are supposed to have offered - let's go with 74).

you gave up a QB who took you to a SB two years ago and who might not have become elite but really is a hell of a lot better than is being made out. he has a far better win/loss record than stafford and a very similar TD/pick ratio. he has always acted with dignity, is a team player, is tough - the screws to the thumb to come back to help his team in the playoffs is evidence of that. a lot of teams have worse QBs. us, for example. 

your third was pick 89, i think. thereabouts. not a huge difference between 74, 82 or 89. allow me a touch of fudging to rule these close enough. they cancel each other out. sort of. 

so basically the trade is our 19th pick up against goff and two future first round picks. tell me you would have swapped goff and your next two firsts for our 19th for this year. and see if you still think ours was a better offer. if detroit wants to offer us goff and two future firsts for our 19th, i'd suggest our FO couldn't sign the deal quick enough. 

i say again, not even close. 

of course, neither of us will know if we are close for several years. the rams are obviously going for a SB win in the next 2-3 years. because this is a side where the stars are a little older and more expensive than with most teams. with new guys coming through, you'll have to offload some talent, although as you don't have a first for the next million years, it might not be such an issue. if you don't win in the next couple of years, hard to see you holding a spot at the heights you'd hope. don't forget, a division with wilson still throwing for the seahawks, the 49ers who were in the SB a year ago. the cards? they won't be easy. 

the lions obviously going for a longer term build-up. you'd have to think they'll find a way to stuff it - probably needing to replace a coach yet again - but five firsts in the next three years, a competent QB and a bag of money. lot of clubs would like to be in that position. 

 

apols, i have dumped you in as a rams supporter. obviously that should be the other way around. but if you look it from that perspective, it should make sense. 

[anacostiakat]

4 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

not sure what you mean by being beyond me? 

yet another way to look at this is, if the story is true, we offered pick 19 and pick 74 or 82 (we have two in the third and not sure which we are supposed to have offered - let's go with 74).

you gave up a QB who took you to a SB two years ago and who might not have become elite but really is a hell of a lot better than is being made out. he has a far better win/loss record than stafford and a very similar TD/pick ratio. he has always acted with dignity, is a team player, is tough - the screws to the thumb to come back to help his team in the playoffs is evidence of that. a lot of teams have worse QBs. us, for example. 

your third was pick 89, i think. thereabouts. not a huge difference between 74, 82 or 89. allow me a touch of fudging to rule these close enough. they cancel each other out. sort of. 

so basically the trade is our 19th pick up against goff and two future first round picks. tell me you would have swapped goff and your next two firsts for our 19th for this year. and see if you still think ours was a better offer. if detroit wants to offer us goff and two future firsts for our 19th, i'd suggest our FO couldn't sign the deal quick enough. 

i say again, not even close. 

of course, neither of us will know if we are close for several years. the rams are obviously going for a SB win in the next 2-3 years. because this is a side where the stars are a little older and more expensive than with most teams. with new guys coming through, you'll have to offload some talent, although as you don't have a first for the next million years, it might not be such an issue. if you don't win in the next couple of years, hard to see you holding a spot at the heights you'd hope. don't forget, a division with wilson still throwing for the seahawks, the 49ers who were in the SB a year ago. the cards? they won't be easy. 

the lions obviously going for a longer term build-up. you'd have to think they'll find a way to stuff it - probably needing to replace a coach yet again - but five firsts in the next three years, a competent QB and a bag of money. lot of clubs would like to be in that position. 

 

Yep.  Remember the RGIII trade?  LOL  For me this kind of management of draft picks is crazy.  YMMV

[mprach024]

11 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

but on what planet anyone thinks that this would be a better offer than what the rams gave up is beyond me.

 

10 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

not sure what you mean by being beyond me?

All good Ken, you prefer the long play, I’ll take quicker play, less time for Lions to screw things up.  We will see how it plays out.  If history has taught me anything, betting against the Lions pays good money.

I’m happy for Stafford, hope this works out well for him, he seems like a good person.

[Woody Hayes]

Goff got exposed in the SB win by the Patriots. The Rams defense and Todd Gurley's running plus Goff as a merely good QB got them to that SB.  He's been disappointing this past season.  I like Stafford who lanquished in Detroit with an average supporting cast except for Calvin Johnson.  Stafford had his best years when Johnson was playing.

No QB is worth DeShaun's contract plus 2 first rounders, 2 second rounders and 2 stud pass rushers.  No one.

 

[Ken Gargett]

2 hours ago, Tim Fleming said:

No QB is worth DeShaun's contract plus 2 first rounders, 2 second rounders and 2 stud pass rushers.  No one.

 

has someone made this offer or is this what they are asking?

[Woody Hayes]

15 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

has someone made this offer or is this what they are asking?

Read this in a sports article this morning.  Can't remember where though. Watson wants out.  My understanding is the Texans don't want to trade him thus this incredibly high bar for trade offers which no team would entertain.

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, Tim Fleming said:

Read this in a sports article this morning.  Can't remember where though. Watson wants out.  My understanding is the Texans don't want to trade him thus this incredibly high bar for trade offers which no team would entertain.

thanks. knew he wanted out. what you mentioned seemed extremely specific with two stud passrushers so i wondered if there was a team offering that. washington has two stud passrushers so i was really hoping it was not us. 

[Woody Hayes]

3 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

thanks. knew he wanted out. what you mentioned seemed extremely specific with two stud passrushers so i wondered if there was a team offering that. washington has two stud passrushers so i was really hoping it was not us. 

Ken:  My mistake on the pass rushers.  Fantasypros.com states... 2 first rounds, 2 second rounds and 2 defensive starters.  I assume it's accurate since it's on the net.  LOL

[Ken Gargett]

34 minutes ago, Tim Fleming said:

Ken:  My mistake on the pass rushers.  Fantasypros.com states... 2 first rounds, 2 second rounds and 2 defensive starters.  I assume it's accurate since it's on the net.  LOL

always trust the net!!

mind you, what is a defensive starter for houston may be something a little less exciting for other teams.