I tend to agree, but we were asked to swing for the fences. Personally, I don't think Nicks or White are anymore of a long shot than Fitzgerald or Jennings are.
No. At this point he really is a rookie who won the job and has shown just as much against NFL talent as any other 1st rd QB this year. You don't consider it at all, ever. 31 teams don't have Fitz and the one that does, hasn't won crap. The teams that have won, all have franchise QBs. You're trying to build a race car and you want to trade a potentially great engine for great older tires.
But we don't even know if the engine works. We know the engine had limited success on the go-cart circuit, but we don't know if it has the horse power to race with the big boys. And the only reason why Tannehill is starting is because Garrard got hurt. But whatever, we have to agree not to see eye-to-eye here (what a surprise). I'm done with this debate, but not because I'm bored of it yet (I'm not) but it seems to me I'm coming across as anti-Tannehill, which I'm not.
Fair enough, just understand a young QB with serious potential is only less important than a great WR if you already have a QB of the future and even then its debatable.
Too much talent in one fell swoop? Too little time to learn the offense? Cant be cap space because we have a boatload of that for next year
Omar Kelly is saying yes, he's got to show up and sign his tender. Which means there's a 50-50 chance it's true. But if we're engaging in reckless speculation, it does seem suspicious that Wallace had been rumored to report but then didn't.
Too much talent in one swoop for Jeff Ireland to make those deals. He's averse to that sort of flipping, in my estimation. Also, you're understating the asking price of Bowe and Wallace. Lastly, Wallace isn't on the market.
And in the end, the fact that we have to go back to Matt Moore as the starter is probably the reason why you don't pull the trigger. But to completely dismiss the idea is short-sighted IMO. I think we all want Tannehill to be the answer so badly that we forget how raw and inexperienced he is. not to mention the fact that he didn't have eye-popping number in college.
Sorry to barge in but the situations aren't really all that comparable (unfortunately, I have the disctinction of being both a huge dolphins and senators fan - basically little to no hope of a championship in the foreseeable future). First of all, Sakic, Forsberg and Daigle all played the same position (center), which to many is the most important position in the game (#1 D or goaltender are also argued as being the most important as well). Not only that, while Sakic was established, Forsberg had yet to play and was still considered a prospect (albeit a top prospect). So basically, the Sens had the oportunity to replace their #1 overall pick with two players who played the same highly important position (one at a proven elite level in the NHL and the other as a young - 2 years older than Daigle - prospect with considerable upside). Obviously they didnt pull the trigger, which still haunts the Sens today. Going back to the Fitz/Tannehill suggestion, while wr is an important position, it doesn't (in my opinion) hold the same importance as Qb. For that reason, I wouldnt do the trade you mentioned (might briefly consider it, but reject it once I thought about how hard it was to get a legit Qb prospect in the first place). Now if we were offered a young qb who is already a proven starter (say a Flacco/Ryan) as well as a prospect with similar potential to Tannehill I would have to seriously consider it (not saying we would ever get that deal mind you - but that is comparable in terms of the Daigle swap that was brought up). Last but not least, going back to Daigle, he famously said about going 1st overall: "No remembers who goes 2nd". Well in this case, I think people do because #2 overall that year turned out to be Chris Pronger, one of the best d men of his generation.
I don't buy that. Pittsburgh can say he's not on the market until they are blue in the face. Saying that drives the price up because it implies that he is untouchable. In the end, I believe they have to pick up the phone and listen to Ireland or whoever else calls. They just gave big money to Brown, the have Sanders and they claim they want to run the ball more. Wallace isn't happy with the Steelers. The Steelers aren't happy with Wallace. They might not be actively shopping him, but I'm quite sure they are actively listening.
I know it's not the same, but I was just trying to illustrate where I was coming from in bringing up the idea. Good to know I have a fellow Sens fan on the boards.
Why not? Because the Steelers said so? That probably doesn't mean a tremendous amount. They chose to put a 1st round tender on Wallace rather than franchising him, essentially meaning that they were ok with him walking for that cost. No one was willing to pay that, but you'd think they would be option to other negotiations.
They're so open to negotiations they've publicly said they won't pick up the phone. Sorry, not buying that the Steelers of all organizations mean the opposite of what they say.
I understand that you were just swinging for the fences. I have no problem with you doing this. I was just pointing out that at this stage of his career, Fitzgerald would probably not be the best fit for a rebuilding team that is still 3-4 years from being a legitimate playoff contender, IMO.
Let's assume it will be Ireland making the choices next year because Ross believes in him. Would you rather trade two #2's for a Dwayne Bowe or let Ireland use those two draft picks? Outside of the offensive line, Ireland has done much better in FA than in the draft. And he doesn't overpay on trades. I would rather see Ireland pull off a trade than to watch him choose BPA in round 2 next year.
If I have the choice of Matt Moore throwing to Fitzgerald, or Tannehill throwing to Marlon Moore or Wallace or Naanee, I know which one I'd take. Trouble is Fitz's contract would make him hard to trade or trade for, without some major reworking of it.
I don't think there is a realistic chance of a Wallace trade taking place. IMO, the most likely among name WRs is a trade for Jones, or Gaffney getting cut and signing him.
I'm going to cast my vote for Greg Jennings. He's in the last year of his contract at a cap friendly number, has a relationship with Philbin and the Packers don't get many opportunities to select early in rounds of the draft.
IMO, trading Tannehill for Fitzgerald is not even close to the worst idea I've ever heard on a football message board. It may be one of the more unrealistic though.
Then I'm not sure how you qualify good or bad ideas. You don't give up a young 8th pick QB that has shown nothing but the proper potential for a great vet WR. Now, maybe you heard something about trading Marino for a bag of Doritoes and Sean Landetta.
A 2 for Tampa Mike Williams? Hell yeah, in a heart beat. They only gave a 4 for him, so they'd be selling high. However he is a starter and I doubt they'd make that deal. It's a reasonable chance that either Tiquan Underwood or Sammie Stroughter gets waived though, and I'd take either one of them.
Nicks, White and Fitz are all in the forget about it category. With Jennings, there is a slight chance. Not bordering on impossible anyway, like the other 3.
We are a helluva lot more away from a SB or even playoffs than just a WR. I say sit on the picks. Overall, it's safe to assume this year is gonna be rocky and expectations are low. Let's keep the picks and (hopefully) have a killer set of picks to start re-tooling.
I qualify good or bad by reading the parameters of the trade, then using my own thought processes formulated in my own brain to determine how good or bad I personally believe the trade idea to be. Ok?
He is young, only 25, and the pcts of getting a WR who turns out as good as he is in the 2nd round are not that high. IMO, if we draft a WR in the 2nd next year, the odds are no better than 50/50 that he turns out as good as Williams. Hence, I'd take the sure thing now. It also gives Tannehill a jump start on having a proven solid young starting WR to work with, rather than waiting until 2013 for that. Also, look at it this way, if Tampa Bay would have called, and offered him straight up for Davis, would you have taken that deal? I would have, based on what I know about Williams. He does have a sketchy background as I recall, so there maybe some info on him that I'm not privy to. So, I guess I should say assuming he has no baggage anymore, I'd trade a 2 for him.
It is ok if that was the worst idea you've heard or you if you heard ideas like "sit on a chainsaw". If not, then no.
Good idea for the team and us but Ireland and Philbins necks are at stake and I am betting they dont see it that way and they are pulling the strings.
He never had much to begin with, from a production standpoint. As bad as our situation is, maybe he could help. He was one of the Pats leading receivers in the first 3 preseason games.
Sign him and Stallworth too, and save all our picks. Or, sign Gaffney and trade a 3 or 4 for Jones. Either choice makes sense to me.
