Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What means are acceptable to land Mariotta?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bardy View Post
    It is highly unlikely the Eagles can move up from 20 to #2 without giving up at least two 1sts two 2nds and other stuff.
    Obviously it depends on whether it's #2 or #6. At some point, Chip has to know when to say no--have a price and stick with it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by BigSlizz View Post
      I haven't seen anyone say "No thanks, he sucks!" so clearly he can be an effective QB. Plummeting the franchise into a decade of suck is the biggest concern.

      So what's acceptable? This year's first, Foles and a second? This year's first and next year's first? What is realistic?

      The Jets aren't at the top, so an RGIII type deal is off the table, IMO.
      Personally I feel none, but Titans may take a deal of Nick Foles our #1 this year, #1 & 2 next year.

      Comment


      • #18
        I think if Mariota drops to the Jets we can offer our first, second, third and next years's first.

        Then we deal Foles for St. Louis' second round pick.

        Thats how you best achieve the deal I outlined. The Jets would be crazy to turn that deal down and i think St. louis would like to get Foles
        "You'll get nothing and like it!" Judge Smails

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by J_Cuz31 View Post
          I think if Mariota drops to the Jets we can offer our first, second, third and next years's first.

          Then we deal Foles for St. Louis' second round pick.

          Thats how you best achieve the deal I outlined. The Jets would be crazy to turn that deal down and i think St. louis would like to get Foles
          That would be a fantastic trade(s). The Jets are in total rebuild mode, so they seem willing to pass on a QB or dig deeper and see what happens next year.

          Comment


          • #20
            They're not trading that pick the Titans are taking Leonard Williams.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by nerd View Post
              i actually went back and looked at who had around the 20th pick for a few years back...maybe to like 2007. I probably missed a name...but there were a decent number of good players found at those picks...like pick 17-23 of each round. obviously some were shit bags...but for the most part, it ranged from decent to really good.
              Yeah, which is why I don't think it's a good idea to commit to too many future picks if you can help it.

              I look at it like this: trading all of a single year's draft to get a guy you feel will be a huge star isn't *actually* that nuts. There are obviously exceptions, but I think if you're picking around 20 it's going to be hit or miss. You might have a poor draft (2011 Buccaneers at 20: Adrian Clayborn in the first and not much else) or a good one (2010 Broncos at 22: Demaryius Thomas in the first, Tebow in the second, Eric Decker in the third).

              A respectable draft might land you one long-term starter and a second short-term guy. If you think you've got a chance to land a big-time star QB instead, it's not necessarily a bad idea.

              But once you start trading future firsts -- unless you're really, really good at drafting -- you're quickly putting yourself at a disadvantage to deal with losing free agents or dealing with injuries.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AnnapolisEagle View Post
                Yeah, which is why I don't think it's a good idea to commit to too many future picks if you can help it.

                I look at it like this: trading all of a single year's draft to get a guy you feel will be a huge star isn't *actually* that nuts. There are obviously exceptions, but I think if you're picking around 20 it's going to be hit or miss. You might have a poor draft (2011 Buccaneers at 20: Adrian Clayborn in the first and not much else) or a good one (2010 Broncos at 22: Demaryius Thomas in the first, Tebow in the second, Eric Decker in the third).

                A respectable draft might land you one long-term starter and a second short-term guy. If you think you've got a chance to land a big-time star QB instead, it's not necessarily a bad idea.

                But once you start trading future firsts -- unless you're really, really good at drafting -- you're quickly putting yourself at a disadvantage to deal with losing free agents or dealing with injuries.
                Completely agreed. That's why I really don't think there is a realistic way to trade up to #1 for the eagles. Teams know that the eagles want mariota...or at least that's what we are being told. If i'm one of the top 5 teams...i'm asking for like at least 3 first round picks and 2 second round picks and a player in return...and that's just starting off.

                Also...what if this is one giant smokescreen and Kelly wants Gordon or a wideout instead like Amari Cooper? The amount of heads exploding in philly would be amazing.
                “I am going to literally sodomize you on the field of battle. I am going to have non-consensual sex with your face and your butt. Then I’m going after your wife and kid”

                Comment


                • #23
                  Sounds right to me.

                  If the the Titans want a QB, this seems like a no brainer. If they stand pat with Mettenberger and go for Williams, a similar deal without Foles should be tempting to the Jets.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Denver traded back into the first for Tebow.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Mike Vick anyone???

                      I would no be surprised in the least
                      OFFICIAL BOARD DRUG CZAR
                      "BFTR"

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X