Philadelphia has agreed to trade Carson Wentz to the Indianapolis Colts in exchange for a 2021 third-round pick and a conditional 2022 second-round pick that could turn into a first, league sources tell
@mortreport
and me.
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
RE: I'm not sure why everyone assumes Philly drafts a QB
Hurts had more 300 yard games then Jones last year and he only started 4 games.
I think its a very real possibility. The goal is to not pick at #6 or worse and it could be the best possible time to move up to get a QB you love. Look what they gave up to go from 8 to 2 for Wentz.
As for Hurts, hard to tell what they think of him. If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
Field Yates
@FieldYates
And with the trade of Carson Wentz, there will now not be a single QB drafted in the first round from 2009-2016 that is still with his original team.
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
LOL. So you're going to try tell us that Wentz did NOTHING to help them get there? He started 13 games, went 11-2 with a rating of 102.7. Had 3300 yards, 33 TD and only 7 INT.
But of course, you will do anything to try and spin your narrative.
Giving Wentz no credit for getting the team to the SB would be the same bullshit as saying that NYG won SB 25 without any credit going to Simms...
Nope, his bonus and prorated bonus are on the Igles and get accelerated to the 2021 season. They will be hit with $34M in dead money this year, but he will be off their books afterwards.
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
But we know Detroit is an incompetent franchise that has wasted the careers of hall of farmers. Why would we lay all the blame on that on one person's feet.
This line of thinking is why any player stuck on a dead end team should ask to be traded. If you don't put the franchise on you back and overcome the front office mistakes, you're the goat.
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
But we know Detroit is an incompetent franchise that has wasted the careers of hall of farmers. Why would we lay all the blame on that on one person's feet.
This line of thinking is why any player stuck on a dead end team should ask to be traded. If you don't put the franchise on you back and overcome the front office mistakes, you're the goat.
This line of thinking is SOP here.
RE: RE: RE: You pay the wrong QB and this is what you get
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
Would be nice if it comes down to the last game of the season...
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
I keep seeing this referenced as an opinion people have and I'm struggling to believe this is anything more than a strawman meant to fuel a narrative.
RE: RE: RE: I'm not sure why everyone assumes Philly drafts a QB
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
I keep seeing this referenced as an opinion people have and I'm struggling to believe this is anything more than a strawman meant to fuel a narrative.
what the hell would Jones get in the trade market if Philly can only scrape a 3rd and conditional 2nd for Wentz...
Do you think Wentz’s contract, his demand for a trade, and his toxic relationship with the front office has anything to do with that or do we just ignore that to try to make a point?
I did consider that, yes.
And I considered he's had one losing season as the starter (2020), taken the Eagles to the playoffs three times, has been in the MVP hunt, and has shown he can make chicken salad.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not sure why everyone assumes Philly drafts a QB
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
Where did I say all you need is an elite quarterback?
good or bad as soon as it happens (negative on Beckham and Williams trades, extremely negative on Jones at 6, positive on Solder signing, etc)
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
good or bad as soon as it happens (negative on Beckham and Williams trades, extremely negative on Jones at 6, positive on Solder signing, etc)
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
good or bad as soon as it happens (negative on Beckham and Williams trades, extremely negative on Jones at 6, positive on Solder signing, etc)
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
A lost art around here.
Around here? It was never, ever, an art in the first place
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
If only he were 45-97 against teams with a .500 or better record, then you wouldn't have such a weird disdain for him.
RE: RE: RE: RE: I'm not sure why everyone assumes Philly drafts a QB
salary dumps aren't really a thing. No one is trading for a player they don't want for multiple seasons, especially a QB, unless they see them actually playing and fitting in well.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
salary dumps aren't really a thing. No one is trading for a player they don't want for multiple seasons, especially a QB, unless they see them actually playing and fitting in well.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
Goff was the Brock Osweiler of that trade, and it's pretty obvious IMO.
Exactly - the Rams made a huge error in signing Goff, and have done well to rip the band-aid off.
The same can be said for the Eagles. This trade is the right move for them - they're doing the right thing. The IMMENSE error was paying Wentz. Now they're just starting the process of recovering from that error.
You pay a non-elite QB a second contract and this is what happens.
If you don't know by year 3 on a QB, he's almost certainly not worth paying.
RE: RE: RE: Enough about how “well run” the Eagles are..
Exactly - the Rams made a huge error in signing Goff, and have done well to rip the band-aid off.
The same can be said for the Eagles. This trade is the right move for them - they're doing the right thing. The IMMENSE error was paying Wentz. Now they're just starting the process of recovering from that error.
You pay a non-elite QB a second contract and this is what happens.
If you don't know by year 3 on a QB, he's almost certainly not worth paying.
That also applies to the Giants with Beckham to be fair. They paid him, but then ultimately got a bigger return than the Eagles did with Wentz.
In addition, the Giants have yet to pay Jones.
RE: RE: I agree to an extent but this isnt the NBA
salary dumps aren't really a thing. No one is trading for a player they don't want for multiple seasons, especially a QB, unless they see them actually playing and fitting in well.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
Goff was the Brock Osweiler of that trade, and it's pretty obvious IMO.
you really are a complete and utter disgrace to message board conversation. Who said 5 years? 5 years? Nobody said 5 years.
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
you really are a complete and utter disgrace to message board conversation. Who said 5 years? 5 years? Nobody said 5 years.
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
Rams gave up the extra 1st to unload Goff’s contract. Lions basically took an extra 1st to accept a bad contract. Rams expect to finish very strong with Stafford and go deep into the playoffs making their 1st pick a not very attractive pick. They’ve shown a willingness to trade premier draft choices over the past few years.
I think the Colts really made a good deal, the Eagles much less so. Wentz bonus money, what’s left of it, is charged to the Eagles this year. Colts are on the hook just for a very high salary. If Reich can turn Wentz around, they got a good QB without paying any bonus money until he is re-signed. If Wentz sucks, they get rid of him quickly and just pay the 3rd round pick this year and the 2nd in 22. All the Eagles did was get rid of what they think is a malcontent who can’t play. The Cap hit this year will be enormous and we’ll see going forward if the Eagles made the right move. Also, the Colts should a have a pretty good record making the draft choices less appealing. Either way, this is a good Colts move .
2 seasons? Daniel Jones is a rookie. There's a difference dude. But just like every single one of your posts - you compare every single decision as if it's the same.
you really are a complete and utter disgrace to message board conversation. Who said 5 years? 5 years? Nobody said 5 years.
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
Philly getting ready to welcome Trey Lance. I now think 4 QB's go in the top 10 pushing a very good player to number 11.
With New England at number 15 I wonder if the Redskins try to move up in front of them to select Mac Jones who was impressive at the Senior Bowl practices. Could see 5 QB's chosen in the top 15.
you thought Peppers was a disaster too. You thought the Williams move was a disaster. I imagine you probably thought the Beckham trade was bad too. How did those end up working out?
You need to let things play out. Draft picks, free agency moves, trades....these are things that are not evaluated in a vacuum.
2 seasons? Daniel Jones is a rookie. There's a difference dude. But just like every single one of your posts - you compare every single decision as if it's the same.
I don't understand. If we can start reaching conclusions after 2 seasons on quarterbacks, can we reach them on Jones? And Daniel Jones is a rookie?
You say a lot of negative things about me, but I have to be honest you don't sound like you have a mastery of making an argument, or even the english language.
I'm talking about trades and free agency moves....2 years is definitely enough time to evaluate that move.
Rookie QBs are different. You aren't paying them that much and sometimes it takes longer to develop. So...2 years? Sure. Giants obviously think they've seen stuff from Jones in his first 2 years to build around him more. If he was a disaster, which he's not...they'd obviously move along.
Yeah, was always okay with the trade part.
Just wish Giants didn't backfill it with a god-awful Tate deal. Wrong type, wrong age, bad contract.
Well, they didn't have to absorb a "goff deal" in the process.
Quote:
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
I think its a very real possibility. The goal is to not pick at #6 or worse and it could be the best possible time to move up to get a QB you love. Look what they gave up to go from 8 to 2 for Wentz.
As for Hurts, hard to tell what they think of him. If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
@FieldYates
And with the trade of Carson Wentz, there will now not be a single QB drafted in the first round from 2009-2016 that is still with his original team.
0 out of 22 total.
@art_stapleton
·
55m
Eagles now take on the largest dead money cap hit in NFL history by trading Carson Wentz: $33.8 million.
Quote:
In comment 15156266 Go Terps said:
Quote:
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
LOL. So you're going to try tell us that Wentz did NOTHING to help them get there? He started 13 games, went 11-2 with a rating of 102.7. Had 3300 yards, 33 TD and only 7 INT.
But of course, you will do anything to try and spin your narrative.
Giving Wentz no credit for getting the team to the SB would be the same bullshit as saying that NYG won SB 25 without any credit going to Simms...
The dead money the next 2 years is a killer...
I am not upset.
If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
Exactly.
And low and behold, they just picked up some extra collateral to help move on up as needed...
spot on.
oh jeez stop being so sensitive..
Quote:
In comment 15156260 Captplanet said:
Quote:
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
But we know Detroit is an incompetent franchise that has wasted the careers of hall of farmers. Why would we lay all the blame on that on one person's feet.
This line of thinking is why any player stuck on a dead end team should ask to be traded. If you don't put the franchise on you back and overcome the front office mistakes, you're the goat.
Quote:
Zach Berman
@ZBerm
The Eagles spent five draft picks to acquire Carson Wentz in 2016. They gave him a $128M contract 20 months ago.
They're now taking on a cap hit in excess $33M to essentially get out of the contract and get a 2021 3rd-round pick and a 2022 2nd or 1st-rd pick.
Could you imagine if DG made those moves?
Quote:
In comment 15156324 Carson53 said:
Quote:
In comment 15156260 Captplanet said:
Quote:
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
But we know Detroit is an incompetent franchise that has wasted the careers of hall of farmers. Why would we lay all the blame on that on one person's feet.
This line of thinking is why any player stuck on a dead end team should ask to be traded. If you don't put the franchise on you back and overcome the front office mistakes, you're the goat.
This line of thinking is SOP here.
Quote:
In comment 15156266 Go Terps said:
Quote:
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
Quote:
Quote:
Zach Berman
@ZBerm
The Eagles spent five draft picks to acquire Carson Wentz in 2016. They gave him a $128M contract 20 months ago.
They're now taking on a cap hit in excess $33M to essentially get out of the contract and get a 2021 3rd-round pick and a 2022 2nd or 1st-rd pick.
Could you imagine if DG made those moves?
He would be absolutely eviscerated. And in no way, shape, or form would it EVER be called "a good deal". But here we are.
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
I keep seeing this referenced as an opinion people have and I'm struggling to believe this is anything more than a strawman meant to fuel a narrative.
Quote:
If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
Exactly.
And low and behold, they just picked up some extra collateral to help move on up as needed...
The picks they added would barely move the needle in a trade up to #2.
Quote:
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
I keep seeing this referenced as an opinion people have and I'm struggling to believe this is anything more than a strawman meant to fuel a narrative.
I can see that.
Quote:
what the hell would Jones get in the trade market if Philly can only scrape a 3rd and conditional 2nd for Wentz...
Do you think Wentz’s contract, his demand for a trade, and his toxic relationship with the front office has anything to do with that or do we just ignore that to try to make a point?
I did consider that, yes.
And I considered he's had one losing season as the starter (2020), taken the Eagles to the playoffs three times, has been in the MVP hunt, and has shown he can make chicken salad.
Quote:
In comment 15156337 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
Exactly.
And low and behold, they just picked up some extra collateral to help move on up as needed...
The picks they added would barely move the needle in a trade up to #2.
Right, this was my point. They will have to leverage atleast a future 1st now + more.
Quote:
In comment 15156300 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 15156266 Go Terps said:
Quote:
That said, the Eagles are doing the right thing in not chasing the sunk cost. Acknowledge it's over and move on.
But man did they fuck up paying him.
He earned it by his play over a 3 year period. He had a bad year- it happens and in a year or two, that contract will be reasonable for a starting qb. Hell, for all the hand wringing about his contract, his cap hit this season is $25 million and Sporttrac lists the average annual value of his contract as 8th. What do you think these guys get paid?
The Eagles did the same thing we did when the owners panicked after Manning had a bad year, shit-canned the offense that made him a star and saddled him with Aaron Rodgers' coffee go for.
The Eagles won the title without him. As someone (me) once said, we saw how vital he wasn't. Wayback machine is fun - ( New Window )
But it does kind of fly in the face of your other (more recent) posts that *all* you need is an elite QB and nobody else matters or is even needed on the field, doesn't it?
Where did I say all you need is an elite quarterback?
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
A lost art around here.
If they make the Super Bowl (or win it) with him, it's a great trade
If Colts are medicore with Wentz the next 2 seasons, it's bad. If they stay really competitive, make some playoff runs, it's great
Quote:
good or bad as soon as it happens (negative on Beckham and Williams trades, extremely negative on Jones at 6, positive on Solder signing, etc)
You have to wait a few years to see how the moves pan out. Unless you are doing something like the Colts did with Rivers where it was clear he was just playing for 1 season, these things tend to work themselves out over multiple seasons.
A lost art around here.
Around here? It was never, ever, an art in the first place
There is no more waiting 5+ years to see if something worked out. By then you're assessing a completely different team.
Quote:
In comment 15156260 Captplanet said:
Quote:
I would fire my GM. He traded a QB as good as if not better than Wentz, 2 first-round picks, and a Third for Matt Stafford. I know Stafford is a better QB than Wentz, but he's not 2 firsts, a third, and a Superbowl starting QB better.
.
The Rams definitely gave up too much, what has Stafford
ever won in Detroit?
That's a great point, and I saw this stat mentioned somewhere:
Matt Stafford vs. teams with a .500 or better record: 12-62. But people here would bend over backwards to give up picks for Matt Stafford.
If only he were 45-97 against teams with a .500 or better record, then you wouldn't have such a weird disdain for him.
Quote:
In comment 15156337 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
If I were an Eagles fan I'd fully support taking a QB at 6 or with a trade up and let the 2 QB's have at it - you can easily offload Hurts too.
Exactly.
And low and behold, they just picked up some extra collateral to help move on up as needed...
The picks they added would barely move the needle in a trade up to #2.
I said help, not consummate.
Some of you are on edge today...
If they make the Super Bowl (or win it) with him, it's a great trade
If Colts are medicore with Wentz the next 2 seasons, it's bad. If they stay really competitive, make some playoff runs, it's great
I see you're still refusing to position this accurately.
The Rams gave up a ton for Stafford AND TO OFFLOAD GOFF'S CONTRACT.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
Goff was the Brock Osweiler of that trade, and it's pretty obvious IMO.
The same can be said for the Eagles. This trade is the right move for them - they're doing the right thing. The IMMENSE error was paying Wentz. Now they're just starting the process of recovering from that error.
You pay a non-elite QB a second contract and this is what happens.
If you don't know by year 3 on a QB, he's almost certainly not worth paying.
Quote:
In comment 15156318 Sean said:
Quote:
Quote:
Zach Berman
@ZBerm
The Eagles spent five draft picks to acquire Carson Wentz in 2016. They gave him a $128M contract 20 months ago.
They're now taking on a cap hit in excess $33M to essentially get out of the contract and get a 2021 3rd-round pick and a 2022 2nd or 1st-rd pick.
Could you imagine if DG made those moves?
He would be absolutely eviscerated. And in no way, shape, or form would it EVER be called "a good deal". But here we are.
DG wouldn't trade his franchise QB that is still under a rookie deal.
At least not yet...
The same can be said for the Eagles. This trade is the right move for them - they're doing the right thing. The IMMENSE error was paying Wentz. Now they're just starting the process of recovering from that error.
You pay a non-elite QB a second contract and this is what happens.
If you don't know by year 3 on a QB, he's almost certainly not worth paying.
That also applies to the Giants with Beckham to be fair. They paid him, but then ultimately got a bigger return than the Eagles did with Wentz.
In addition, the Giants have yet to pay Jones.
Quote:
salary dumps aren't really a thing. No one is trading for a player they don't want for multiple seasons, especially a QB, unless they see them actually playing and fitting in well.
The Rams had to trade Goff because it just wasn't working anymore. His contract made the suiters fewer, but those that were there wouldn't be interested if they didn't think anything of him.
Goff was the Brock Osweiler of that trade, and it's pretty obvious IMO.
Yep...
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
This is exactly what Dave Gettleman did with Odell Beckham.
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
What a weird post.
How many seasons is "a few"?
Quote:
Exactly - the Rams made a huge error in signing Goff, and have done well to rip the band-aid off.
This is exactly what Dave Gettleman did with Odell Beckham.
Yes. Paid Beckham - huge error. Traded him - good move.
Would have been better to trade Beckham before paying him. Just like it would have been better to trade Goff and Wentz before they were paid.
I think the Colts really made a good deal, the Eagles much less so. Wentz bonus money, what’s left of it, is charged to the Eagles this year. Colts are on the hook just for a very high salary. If Reich can turn Wentz around, they got a good QB without paying any bonus money until he is re-signed. If Wentz sucks, they get rid of him quickly and just pay the 3rd round pick this year and the 2nd in 22. All the Eagles did was get rid of what they think is a malcontent who can’t play. The Cap hit this year will be enormous and we’ll see going forward if the Eagles made the right move. Also, the Colts should a have a pretty good record making the draft choices less appealing. Either way, this is a good Colts move .
I'm talking about a few seasons. And yeah - every single NFL team in the history of the league lets their draft picks and trades develop unless they are a complete and utter disaster, which would bring them to cut the player or something of that nature.
You take what people say, completely change it around, to fit your own narrative, which makes completely zero sense. You are intolerable dude.
on edge indeed...
With New England at number 15 I wonder if the Redskins try to move up in front of them to select Mac Jones who was impressive at the Senior Bowl practices. Could see 5 QB's chosen in the top 15.
You need to let things play out. Draft picks, free agency moves, trades....these are things that are not evaluated in a vacuum.
I don't understand. If we can start reaching conclusions after 2 seasons on quarterbacks, can we reach them on Jones? And Daniel Jones is a rookie?
You say a lot of negative things about me, but I have to be honest you don't sound like you have a mastery of making an argument, or even the english language.
Rookie QBs are different. You aren't paying them that much and sometimes it takes longer to develop. So...2 years? Sure. Giants obviously think they've seen stuff from Jones in his first 2 years to build around him more. If he was a disaster, which he's not...they'd obviously move along.
That's my point.