ChiefsPlanet
Page 18 of 18 « First 814151617 18
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Chiefs According to NFL Network (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=206356)

Pioli Zombie 04-23-2009 12:05 PM
Patriots made a draft living out of trading out into future years. They are concerned with long term building. If Pioli can get a first next year to him that's as good as a first this year. And the Bledsoe trade to Buffalo showed they don't settle or get nervous. I think he'll get #13, a third, and next years first for the 3
Posted via Mobile Device

DaKCMan AP 04-23-2009 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 5697197)
I fully understand the concept.

Which means Philadelphia gave up the 19th overall pick for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008), and a #2 (2009).
I'm sure Philadelphia sees the trade through the same lenses.
:rolleyes:
You clearly DO NOT understand the concept. Philly gave up the 19th overall pick in 2008 for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008) and a #1 (2009) OR in value terms, a #2 (2008, a #4 (2008 and a #2 (2008).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 5697197)
It's not devalued by an entire round. And you haven't produced one shred of evidence to substantiate that claim.
There are several examples of past trades that validate my point. Teams trade up from the 2nd round back into the 1st and give up a #2 and a future #1. If the future #1 wasn't devalued then they wouldn't need to give up a #1 and a #2 for a #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 5697197)
So apparently...I'm wrong
This we can agree on.

Pioli Zombie 04-23-2009 12:12 PM
If Seattle wants Sanchez so bad flip picks with them for their second. Chiefs still get Curry at #4 and get their second back. Basically getting Cassel and Vrabel for nothing.
Posted via Mobile Device

Micjones 04-23-2009 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5697328)
You clearly DO NOT understand the concept. Philly gave up the 19th overall pick in 2008 for a #2 (2008), a #4 (2008) and a #1 (2009) OR in value terms, a #2 (2008, a #4 (2008 and a #2 (2008).




There are several examples of past trades that validate my point. Teams trade up from the 2nd round back into the 1st and give up a #2 and a future #1. If the future #1 wasn't devalued then they wouldn't need to give up a #1 and a #2 for a #1.



This we can agree on.
Got it.

You know better than both Peter King AND Jimmy Johnson (the man who came up with the chart in the first place). Johnson said future 1st's don't devalue an entire round.

Scott Pioli has consistently traded out for future picks because he believes future #1's lose as much value as you're suggesting. Get that guy outta here!!! He's and idiot.

DaKCMan AP 04-23-2009 12:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 5697354)
Got it.

You know better than both Peter King AND Jimmy Johnson (the man who came up with the chart in the first place). Johnson said future 1sts don't devalue an entire round.
Peter King is a goon who gets many things wrong. Please provide a link w/ JJ's comments.

Micjones 04-23-2009 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 5697355)
Peter King is a goon who gets many things wrong. Please provide a link w/ JJ's comments.
I'm sure you've never gotten anything wrong.
And I'm sure because of it... Everything else you've said has no merit.
:rolleyes:

But sure, I'll do some digging... Let me see what I can turn up.

What say you provide a link that substantiates your claim that future #1's devalue by an entire round? Fair?

htismaqe 04-23-2009 12:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefscafan (Post 5697279)
I like this deal I was also thinking why don't redskins trade campbel for a second and maybe another pick then trade us for 3 13 second pick third pick and pick next year would you do it?
How would you get a 2nd out of Campbell?

DaKCMan AP 04-23-2009 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micjones (Post 5697461)
What say you provide a link that substantiates your claim that future #1's devalue by an entire round? Fair?
Without spending too much time here's something I found (not the best source - about 5th paragraph down):

Quote:
And though the Bears surrender a first-rounder in '10, NFL teams tend to drop the value of a future pick by one round, so a first-rounder next year is worth about a second-rounder this year.
http://nflblogs.profootballweekly.co...rs_traded.html


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:08 AM.
Page 18 of 18 « First 814151617 18
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.