The Last Storm Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 13 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said: Yup. The rookie wag scale was a game changer. If you can get a QB who can be top 10ish by their second or third year, you've hit the jackpot and have to go all in. Now, I don't think Goff is a top 10 QB, but they're so loaded everywhere else that it doesn't really matter. As far as the WR trades go, the Cowboys look like fools. Cooper has the higher ceiling, but he's been a disappointment for a while now. I'd rather have Tate, especially at that value. Goff is top 10. Hasnt won anything yet, and he has crazy weapons, but name 10 better qbs starting atm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 58 minutes ago, The Lasr Storm said: Goff is top 10. Hasnt won anything yet, and he has crazy weapons, but name 10 better qbs starting atm Brady Rodgers Brees Roethlisberger Wilson Rivers Ryan Mahomes That's eight that I'm sure of. You could potentially put Luck, Newton, Stafford, Cousins, Watson and Wentz ahead, depending on personal preference. There's a lot of good quarterbacks in the league these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Just now, DanteGabriel said: Brady Rodgers Brees Roethlisberger Wilson Rivers Ryan Mahomes That's eight that I'm sure of. You could potentially put Luck, Newton, Stafford, Cousins, Watson and Wentz ahead, depending on personal preference. There's a lot of good quarterbacks in the league these days. Plus FitzMagic! on his good days. Considering just how much talent there is at QB these days, the entire concept of top-10 at the position is kinda silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, The Lasr Storm said: Goff is top 10. Hasnt won anything yet, and he has crazy weapons, but name 10 better qbs starting atm Easy, let’s do it by division: AFC East: Brady AFC North: Big Ben AFC South: Luck, Watson AFC West: Rios, Mahomes NFC East: Wentz NFC North: Rodgers, Stafford, Cousins NFC South: Brees, Cam, Ryan NFC West: Wilson That’s 14 QBs I would absolutely take before Goff. Jared Goff is the dumbest QB in the NFL. Homeboy was born and raised in California. Went to college in California. Plays professionally in California. AND HE DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST AND SETS IN THE WEST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 33 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said: That’s 14 QBs I would absolutely take before Goff. Jared Goff is the dumbest QB in the NFL. Homeboy was born and raised in California. Went to college in California. Plays professionally in California. AND HE DIDN’T KNOW THAT THE SUN RISES IN THE EAST AND SETS IN THE WEST. To be fair, as Kyrie Irving has taught us, the Earth is flat. And therefore the entire concept of 'East' and 'West' is unnecessary nonsense. The true directions are hubwards, rimwards, turnwise, and widdershins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 21 minutes ago, Fez said: To be fair, as Kyrie Irving has taught us, the Earth is flat. And therefore the entire concept of 'East' and 'West' is unnecessary nonsense. The true directions are hubwards, rimwards, turnwise, and widdershins. I can’t tell if Kyrie is joking around or not. Goff legitly didn’t know. The funniest part was after he learned where the sun rises and sets, he went around telling his teammates. They looked horrified. The point is this team is thriving because of McBae, not Goff. He makes the game so much easier for him. I guess you could say the same thing about Reid and Mahomes, but Mahomes looks like a world beater. Goff does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, briantw said: Yeah, but the main difference is that we know Tate is good. I have no idea if Cooper is good or not, and at best his QB situation has stayed the same or probably slightly regressed. We also know Tate is 30. Cooper is only 24. With Cooper, the Raiders were able to play the 'he may grow' card. I'm not buying it and I think the Cowboys got robbed. But Tate is an old warhorse and there is no hope he'll ever be any more than he already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 17 minutes ago, Bronn Stone said: We also know Tate is 30. Cooper is only 24. With Cooper, the Raiders were able to play the 'he may grow' card. I'm not buying it and I think the Cowboys got robbed. But Tate is an old warhorse and there is no hope he'll ever be any more than he already is. Getting Tate is a win now move done by the defending champions. Giving up a third for a potential rental of a good WR is a solid move. The Cowboys also have indicated that they’re in win now mode even though they lack the quality to be there. They gave up a first for a lesser player, who while younger, is also going to be looking to get paid soon. Unless Cooper realizes his potential and does so quickly, it was a terrible move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said: Getting Tate is a win now move done by the defending champions. Giving up a third for a potential rental of a good WR is a solid move. The Cowboys also have indicated that they’re in win now mode even though they lack the quality to be there. They gave up a first for a lesser player, who while younger, is also going to be looking to get paid soon. Unless Cooper realizes his potential and does so quickly, it was a terrible move. I'm not sure I agree that Tate was a good move (a third seems high to me), but it was at least a defensible one. It could be just a one year rental, but it doesn't have to be. I'm sure if he's a good fit in Philly he'd resign there if they made a reasonable offer. Cooper on the other hand has not been as good a receiver as Tate and the Cowboys gave up what is likely to be a pick in the 10-15 range to get him. Based on the trade value chart the Philly pick is worth approximately 1/6th as much as the Dallas pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronn Stone Posted October 31, 2018 Author Share Posted October 31, 2018 I definitely do NOT think Cooper is worth a #1 pick. But I do think he's worth more in this market than Tate. Not by much, but more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, Bronn Stone said: I definitely do NOT think Cooper is worth a #1 pick. But I do think he's worth more in this market than Tate. Not by much, but more. I'd say they're about equal. Both are worth, IMO a late 3rd or early 4th round pick. And thus the Eagles overpaid slightly, and the Cowboys overpaid egregiously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 4 hours ago, Maithanet said: I'd say they're about equal. Both are worth, IMO a late 3rd or early 4th round pick. And thus the Eagles overpaid slightly, and the Cowboys overpaid egregiously. Agreed, and it's magnified based on the positions of the teams. I would argue, if you think Cooper is better with a higher ceiling while also being younger, that the Eagles trading a first for Cooper would make more sense than the Cowboys doing it. The Eagles were one of four teams, IMO, that could say at the start of the season that their roster was better than everyone else (the other three being the Rams, Saints and Vikings). However, they've been rocked by injuries, and retooling makes sense if you still think you're a contender. The Cowboys, OTOH, are a very middling team, and there is no way you can justify giving up a first for an okay WR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Good lord.....: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 13 hours ago, Triskele said: Is Green Bay selling with the Ha-Ha trade? One could argue perhaps not because there was little left on his contract, but he's a really solid player, so I can see the other side. The biggest hope for Green Bay is that they're really not out of it for the division. They might have a better chance of winning the division than they do at making a wild card slot. Minnesota got a rude awaking at home against New Orleans, Detroit looks to be selling, and while Chicago is better than expected and much improved I still don't think they're any kind of sure-fire 11-5 division winner. The Ha-Ha trade does seem weird for the Packers. He is a first round draft pick who has been, while not exceptional, at least a good player for them. I expected GB to resign him when his contract was up. But apparently they decided to go another way, which NFL teams do all the time, so whatever. But they're right in the playoff hunt, and it's not like they can afford to just throw away another year of Rodgers's prime. I have to assume that they think their younger replacement will be just as good as Clinton-Dix, but you'd think they'd hold on to him just as injury insurance, since safeties get hurt a lot and I very much doubt they have two guys as good as Ha-Ha on the team. The return (4th round pick) they got was OK, but if he walks in free agency, they'd be looking a compensatory pick of probably a 4th or 5th rounder, unless GB is planning on signing enough guys that they don't get any compensatory picks (which the Packers typically do not do). Anyways, I agree, it's hard to make it add up, seems like a trade with little upside for them and significant potential risk. Unless he was a locker room problem or something (which I have not heard about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Week Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 On 10/31/2018 at 9:31 AM, DanteGabriel said: Brady Rodgers Brees Roethlisberger Wilson Rivers Ryan Mahomes That's eight that I'm sure of. You could potentially put Luck, Newton, Stafford, Cousins, Watson and Wentz ahead, depending on personal preference. There's a lot of good quarterbacks in the league these days. What about Eli[te] Manning? Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Met an attorney friend for lunch today. We had BBQ. He's a Raiders fan. I'm a Niners fan. We spent the hour mostly arguing over who's team is going to suck worse tonight. When the alert popped up from ESPN on the TV behind him that CJ Beathard was 50/50 to play tonight, I told him I win. ETA: And now its been announced that someone named Nick Mullens will be starting at QB... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Nick Mullens is bailing me out in a couple of 2QB fantasy leagues right now where bye weeks killed me. Great timing on the Beathard injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 HA! Kittle makin' Mullens look All-World! ETA: QB controversy in SF! ETA II: The Raiders are shockingly, breathtakingly bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
briantw Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 Still really salty the refs gifted the Raiders that win against the Browns, because this is clearly a team that deserves to be winless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of the North Posted November 2, 2018 Share Posted November 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, briantw said: Still really salty the refs gifted the Raiders that win against the Browns, because this is clearly a team that deserves to be winless. Agreed. They certainly look it. I mean, look at how these two O-lines look...just as one example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.