Quote:
|
That is just perfect.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Kaepernick want taken in our spot. Posted via Mobile Device |
How bout that Kaeper-keeper?!
Alright I need to go walk that one off |
Quote:
This is a case where it's technically true, but the Broncos didn't trade the pick with the intention of giving up the player. That's why I think it was a poor thread. Like my earlier example showed, did the panthers trade darelle revis, or did they trade the pick with the intention of getting more picks? |
By that logic, you're effectively trading away any single player you don't choose while acquiring the one you do with your given pick.
Eh, **** it. Agree to disagree |
Interesting. I just posted in another thread laughing about how Denver overspent for a 2 year old man when they could have had Russell Wilson too. So glad Pioli pissed off Peyton...
|
When you see him on interviews, Kaepernick reminds of me one of those little kids with that aging disease. He always wears a hat that's too big, and then he has kind of a big nose and close-set eyes. I think he's really five years old and everyone just assumes that he's NFL-eligible.
|
Quote:
|
Using a pick that high (no. 36) for a quarterback is risky and reckless, especially when you trade for that pick. It's much safer to use high picks for offensive line depth.
Regards, Scott DickHeadedPrickBalls |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
"End result" has nothing to do with PM. The "end result" is passing on Kaep for Baldwin (in our case), and trading the pick where Kaep was taken(in denver's case). Thus, not having Kaepernick is the end result.
Do I really have to spoon feed you the point in order for you to understand it? |
Nice
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.