Why no value for Polumbus?
by BB in LA on Aug 31, 2010 9:03 PM MDT
Email
PrintI don't get the Broncos cutting Polumbus, who apparently drew considerable interest once on waivers, then the Lions picking him up, only to trade him days later. If he had trade value, why didn't we get it? This is reminiscent of another situation earlier in the pre-season. This year's draft is looking good (especially the later rounds), but it seems like whether it is trading our 2010 #1 to Seattle, for 2009's #2, or Seattle's fabled "no we want your 1st round pick, not Chicago's" demand, this front office seems outmanned at times.
This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well
With only the ability to speculate, you have to understand that it is difficult to shop around a player who is about to be cut. Why would a team pay draft picks when they have a chance to pick up the player for free on the waiver wire?
I think this is more on the Seahawks front office, who probably didn’t know Polumbus was available or about to be cut and were excited to put a claim on him when he hit the wire. They have a need for an emergency LT at this point and probably called the Lions to see if he was available for a low draft pick after he didn’t pass Detroit.
But from Seattle’s perspective, why would you deal with Denver even if Xanders came a-knocking? Let the player hit the waiver wire, if he makes it to you, great, if not, deal with the team that picks him up. There’s really no advantage for Seattle in dealing with Denver.
As the 2009 draft goes, either Seattle wrongly thought that the Bears would be better than the Broncos, or, McDaniels thought, hey, I just made a mondo trade and can’t say to my team, we’re going to be worse off than the team we just traded to. No McD, needed to send a message to the lockeroom and the NFL that the Broncos could win without the “franchise quarterback.” And guess what? They went out and did it.
I didn’t have the highest expectations for the Broncos FO, but this offseason they have really shined, and are getting some outside respect for once.
"It's a little bit of us against the world. It will be wonderful when I prove him right."
www.worthingtonjohn.com
by Worthington on Aug 31, 2010 9:32 PM MDT reply actions 15 recs
Took the words right out of my mouth
Rec’d
"Bombs dropping down overhead. Underground. It's instilled to want to live." -EV
A comment very Worthington of a rec!
Boy I love cheesy puns! Not to be confused with Cheesy-buns, which are quite delicious by the way.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:17 AM MDT up reply actions
Because Polumbus Sucks
I konw he had a nice warm and fuzzy Colorado story, but the fac of the matter is that he is worthless as a pass protector. The guy gets beat on a conssitant basis. The reason Denver couldn’t get it’s offense going in the middle of last year, besides the QB, wasthe fact that Ryan Harris went down, and Polumbus started. I am really glad we finally got rid of that guy. Orton should be glad too.
How does that answer the question of why didn't we trade him?
You just ranted about how bad he was, I agree with you, but that’s not the point.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Aug 31, 2010 11:26 PM MDT up reply actions
Read Worthington's post above
That pretty much explains it all.
"My team's on the floor"
Gene Hackman - Hoosiers
I understand
But just wasn’t sure what the rant was about, I agree Polumbus wasn’t good, but it had nothing to do with why we cut rather then trade him.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
The title of the article
asks Why No Value for Polumbus? The reason why is that there wasn’t alot to get. I think we are getting really nitpicky about not getting sixth or seventh round picks. 80%-90% of those guys don’t stay with there team after two years anyway. I think it is a matter of stepping over dollars to pick up dimes. It would be a waist of resources to pursue such a meaningless trade at this point in the season. At this point teams are set in cutting their roster down mode. Unless you have a chance at a fourrth round pick why have Zanders on the phone calling 31 teams to negotiate a possible low end pick? Hopw that helps explain my point.
Valid points
But draft picks are draft picks. An extra sixth or seventh today becomes a chip that helps you move up to nab Tebow, Decker, Cox in earlier and middle rounds. This front office has shown that they WILL wheel and deal with draft picks in order to land the players they really want. There is just no such thing as a waste when it comes to picking up extra draft picks.
- Nick
"Know the enemy, know yourself, and victory is never in doubt, not in a hundred battles."
- Sun Tzu
"if you look close, there’s a hoodie lurking in the background of picture 4. similar to the classic sasquatch shot and equally stunning, as the denver temperature today is relatively fair."
-oxmouth
Except....:
There is a waste if the time spent calling all those teams who probably wouldn’t have traded us for him anyways (given the situation – read Worthington’s response above) would waste precious time that could be spent evaluating the draft picks you just wheeled and dealed for. What if spending a day or two trying to find a partner for Polumbus (who we were going to cut anyways… its not like he was a talented player on our roster that just didn’t fit – for reference see Scheffler or Hillis trades) would cause Xanders and the personnel staff film time that determines who we cut (as we may end up cutting a potential star CB this year, Smith or Squid and maybe even Vaughn).
So to sum it all up. What’s the point in getting that extra 7th rounder (if we even could get it) and possibly send a 7th rounder we drafted packing that turns out to be a star? Case and point.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:23 AM MDT up reply actions
I'm sure an organization like Denver
has enough people that one could be working the phones without taking anyone away from evaluations.
- Nick
"Know the enemy, know yourself, and victory is never in doubt, not in a hundred battles."
- Sun Tzu
"if you look close, there’s a hoodie lurking in the background of picture 4. similar to the classic sasquatch shot and equally stunning, as the denver temperature today is relatively fair."
-oxmouth
PIcks are valuable - Seattle is foolish
I also think that there wasn’t much interest and everyone knew that he was getting cut. In that scenario every team would just laugh on the phone and wait a day.
Seattle’s fron office isn’t too bright either may have said no at first to the Broncos and then changed their mainds. People point to the trade they made with Denver as a genious move, but anybody, but McDaniels knows that a second round pick for a first round pick is uneven.
The fact that he was cut
only means that he was cut.
We do not have any insider information to make a determination that Polumbus was/was not shopped by Denver prior to that action.
It could just as easily have been a case of Xanders shopping him & getting no buyers (or at least no-one offering what the Denver FO considered fair value), so they cut him, as it was that they simply cut him. We don’t know.
We live in an age when instant gratification isn't fast enough
fair value?
You mean anything? right? if you are going to cut a player or could get a ham sandwich you take the sandwich. it’s better than nothing and looking dumb
How about a ham and cheese?
Too many unknown variables to imply any level of “dumbness”.
"as in football so in life"
As do you with your quick responses, sir.
:P
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Lol...
I do it all the time as well though, so I guess I can’t call you out. Hahaha.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:24 AM MDT up reply actions
Do we even know what the draft pick was that Detroit rec'd?
I was thinking it could be a conditional pick. If he doesn’t make their roster, or stay all season, they might get nada. So it’s not a big deal. It’s really all in the timing, they may have tried to trade him and had no takers when they needed to get rid of him.
There's no need to fear, Underdog is here! / Broncos/Dodgers/Lakers fan in Niners/Raiders/Giants/Warriors country, and damned proud of it.
This was covered in another thread
Seattle tried to pick him up on waivers but Detroit was ahead of them and got him. In order to get him they then had to offer Detroit a conditional 2012 pick, probably a late-rounder. It was simply a matter of timing and positioning. Nothing the Broncos could have done about it. You can read about it here.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
by spock on Aug 31, 2010 10:09 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
w0rd
Comparing Michael Lombardi to Bill Williamson is like comparing an In-N-Out Cheeseburger to a sh## sandwich.
Williamson would probably eat both – no questions asked.
How do you know that?
Did you read what I said, what was said in the link I provided, or what Worthington said above? If you know something the rest of us don’t, please provide a link. Otherwise you’re just blowing hot air.
"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.
Im sorry I thought this was a message board not a court of law
How do you know that I don’t know that they could have traded him. Hilarious
Is BS somehow more okay on message boards than in courtrooms?
If you think you have proof that Polumbus could have been traded before being released, offer it up. Otherwise, you are blowing smoke. I’m a lawyer, so I’ve seen a lot smoke blown. In fact, I see more smoke blown in courtrooms than on MHR. Back it up or don’t sling it.
All work and no play makes Homer something something.
Dang Bronco$...
You just got BURNED by Griz!
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:26 AM MDT up reply actions
added factor
Jeremy Bates (remember him) is the OC for Seattle. It’s not that hard to figure out why Bates would be interested in a player he’s familiar with and who’s suited to their new scheme (ZB, I believe), and the recent injury to Okung made finding an immediate replacement essential.
That deals with why Polumbus was attractive but the question was why we didn’t find value. To put it simply, Polumbus didn’t have much trade value. This is a situation we run into frequently, and the underlying assumption is that — ‘if’ a player has value ‘then’ we should be able to find that value on the market. Actually, many players have some value but arranging a trade for former UDFA (of commensurate ability) immediately before final cuts is very difficult. His overall trade value was practically nil, and that’s true even though a situation in Seattle arose where he could provide help (probably for a conditional 7th that may never be paid because would have to start a number of game to meet the trade terms threshold).
Trades like this occur all the time and few of them result in picks. Looking back, we gave the Jets a conditional 3rd for Dewayne Robertson, which was never awarded because he didn’t meet the stipulated threshold. The dealing team gambles in these situations and hopes that they gain a pick. Meanwhile, the offering team provides itself with insurance in the case of an unexpectedly long recovery by the injured player (Okung in this case).
I can’t get too excited about a (potential) late pick, and neither does McX. Moreover, given the expected lack of trade prospects, I’m happy to see Polumbus get the chance to find his own opportunity, even though he didn’t actually clear waivers. He may never actually earn Detroit a pick but he appears to have found a good fit — at least for a little while.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
by Colinski on Sep 1, 2010 11:19 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well said.
You and Nick Cast are quickly becoming two of my new favorite commenters and posters here on MHR.
by DoubleJay on Sep 1, 2010 3:41 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Colinski is amazing.
Rarely speaks, but when he does it’s always concise, accurate, and completely tossing someone’s random thoughts for a refined analysis of the topic. I wish I could get email notifications when certain people post. Like twitter or fb. That would be sweeeeeet.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:29 AM MDT up reply actions
Well, in hindsight, of course we know that Denver probably could have gotten something for Polumbus
It’s kind of alarming to me that the team didn’t even appear to shop him around, considering how many teams absolutely suck on the O line, any late round pick in McX’s back pocket is better than nothing.
Comparing Michael Lombardi to Bill Williamson is like comparing an In-N-Out Cheeseburger to a sh## sandwich.
Williamson would probably eat both – no questions asked.
i'm sure they tried
teams don’t just release players without bothering to trade them.
My guess: Seahawks wanted him, were willing to gamble that he’d make it to them on waivers, he didn’t make it, so they decided to trade (which…by the way they gave up a conditional 2012 pick)
by black_knight101 on Aug 31, 2010 10:43 PM MDT up reply actions
THIS
is the most likely explanation to me. Seattle didn’t think he would draw interest on the waiver wire, so they weren’t willing to deal for him until they saw that other teams were interested.
- Nick
"Know the enemy, know yourself, and victory is never in doubt, not in a hundred battles."
- Sun Tzu
"if you look close, there’s a hoodie lurking in the background of picture 4. similar to the classic sasquatch shot and equally stunning, as the denver temperature today is relatively fair."
-oxmouth
how do you know we didn't?
For all we know, Denver called every team, but everyone said no. Why pay something when you get him for free? Seattle probably thought they were the only team to put waivers on him. So when Detroit surprised them and put a claim on Polumbus, they had to make a move. So they decided to call Detroit.
We don’t know if Denver made any calls or not. They very well could have.
Last Name: Ever, First Name: Greatest
Nobody Runs On The Denver Broncos
Xbox360 gamertag: SnipeMeHarder
Well obviously they forgot to call the Seattle
Cause they just traded for him. I agree they may have checked around, but they may have had bigger issues to deal with, maybe it was a lazy Monday.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
by Topher Doll on Aug 31, 2010 11:29 PM MDT up reply actions
Now, now....
Saying that we didn’t call Seattle is a pure and simple assumption, based on nothing but the fact that a trade happened. The two do not necessarily correlate. Additionally, you assume that Seattle will deal with us, some teams simply do not play nice. Finally, Seattle’s tackle situation very well could have changed in the time between when we put him on waivers as when they traded with Detroit.
While I admit sloth could be the reason for Detroit’s gain, one would have to overlook some pretty large assumptions to come to that conclusion. If you are not convinced, I could keep going if you want. ;-)
by BroncoWeimer on Aug 31, 2010 11:38 PM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Seattle's situation has changed
But the fact remains that while I am speculating, it goes both ways, it’s just speculation that we tried at all to get much value from a guy we let go to the waiver wire. Assumptions go both ways, and I really don’t care either way, Detroit got a good deal out of nothing really, and we didn’t lose or gain anything, but it’s also assuming to think that Denver actually tried to sell Polumbus.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
Exactly...
That is why both reactions are purely emotional, not logical, reactions to the news. Assumptions have to be made both to defend and criticize the Broncos actions. However, asserting that they may have “bigger issues to deal with” is a conclusion drawn from assumptions… unless you were being sarcastic… in that case I’m just being an ars.
by BroncoWeimer on Sep 1, 2010 10:24 AM MDT up reply actions
No, we did have bigger issues to deal with
The a player who might net us a late round pick. Our front office was trying to stabilize our RB situation, as well as getting injuries under control. That’s not an assumption, it’s a fact.
I am a bear of very little brains and big words bother me.
OK
I was unclear about the larger issue of which you spoke, now I see what you mean and agree that our RB situation is concerning. That could very well have been a reason he went to wire, instead of a trade with Seattle, again, just an assumption.
Either way, a late round pick in next years draft wouldn’t really help our RB situation this year. So, the “value” Detroit got for Polumbus would not have helped either situation. Then again, I am assuming they wouldn’t have done a straight up trade for a “stabilizing” running back. Who knows, not me, but hopefully the front office does.
If we do run with your conclusions, it might have been more important to address the injury concerns than to hold a player on the roster who we had no intention of keeping, just to possibly squeeze a small amount value out of. If one looks at it in this light, it could be said (as McDaniels has) that it was out of respect to the veteran (Polumbus is a 3rd year payer) to find anther gig.
a comment on the baseline prospects
We do know that it’s a buyer’s market (i.e., waiver claimer’s) and that trade prospects are normally rare and even more rare at this point. Teams often make “the call” before waiving a player but only very attractive prospects generate discussions. Curiously, all the phone call does in most cases is alert the other team, which then puts in a claim once he’s waived.
We know that we’ve been successful in claiming a number of players off waivers just recently. For instance, Hunter was available and should have garnered some trade discussion, but Detroit still couldn’t find a trade partner. This is typical. There are players who have value but it’s still not enough to generate a trade, especially at this time of year. I can think of far, far more instances in which the player SHOULD have generated trade talk and didn’t than instances in which a player produced a trade but shouldn’t have. We acquired John Lynch after he was released; why didn’t he generate a trade? (speaking rhetorically). Brandon Stokley was released, why didn’t he generate a trade? And so on and so on.
"the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque." – Norman Cohn - quoted in The Paranoid Style in American Politics
Pure speculation, but
Seattle, by virtue of their finish last year, is fourth in line for all waiver claims until the 3rd or 4th week of the regular season. Given that, I imagine that if any team calls offering to trade a player subject to waivers, Seattle would have to believe 1 of 2 things to be willing to trade:
1) The player is not a about to be waived
2) The player is going to be waived, but one of St. Louis, Detroit, or Kansas City is sure to claim him.
Tyler Polumbus was clearly going to be cut, so that leaves Seattle needing to believe that one of the 3 teams ahead of them was going to claim him.
It’s really quite logical, given Seattle’s place in line for waiver claims, that they are unwilling to entertain trade proposals for any players that they believe are about to be waived. (Under this scenario, they would have been willing to trade with Detroit because Detroit was not about to waive him). Since they were the team that, in the end, proved willing to part with something for Polumbus’ rights, it’s quite possible that there was, in fact, no team in the league willing to trade a ham sandwich to Denver for Polumbus when it was obvious he was going to be waived.
by sports_monkey on Sep 1, 2010 9:18 AM MDT up reply actions 1 recs
Just look at this way
You are Seattle. You want Polumbus a little bit, like a conditional 6th or 7th round pick amount. You know the Broncos are going to waive him. The Broncos call about a trade, and you can either do the trade and give up a pick or not do the trade, put in a waiver claim (where you are very high on the priority list), and likely get him for nothing, with a worst case scenario that you don’t get a guy you only like a little bit but also a high chance that you could then do the trade with the team that claimed him if you had to. To me, the answer clearly is to try and get him off waivers first.
This is borderline pathetic
I cant recall a player getting claimed off waivers then traded right away in the NFL. The Broncos pretty much just gave away a late round pick, for what reason I have no clue
Dude, that's because you have no clue what happened behind the scenes...
none of us do…
Orton to Gaffney, all day long...
by Broncs Cheer on Aug 31, 2010 11:04 PM MDT up reply actions
It happens
Last year when the Pats cut Kevin O’Connell, multiple teams, including Denver, put in claims but he was awarded to Detroit, who traded him to the Jets. It’s one of the few advantages of sucking every year like the Lions but one I’d rather do without.
But thanks for bitter whining, dude. You’re a credit to the fanbase.
by Broncologist on Sep 1, 2010 12:38 PM MDT up reply actions
Hindsight is always 20-20
But it’s also a form of self hate. At best, things went on behind the scenes that we’re not privy to. At worst, the FO made a mistake. No big deal. We’re talking a marginal late round pick at best. Mellow out and enjoy the progress the Bronco’s are making. Stop focusing on set backs. It’s way too terrible way to live such a short life.
First they ignore you.
They then laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then, you win.
--Gandhi
by Santa Fe Bronc on Aug 31, 2010 11:02 PM MDT reply actions 4 recs
+1
This is needless high blood pressure for people that need an excuse to hate. Move on, folks. You’re better off saving your stress for when you begin to lose your hair.
"All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on Aug 31, 2010 11:11 PM MDT up reply actions
And people wonder
why Americans are dealing with so many health issues (obesity, diabetes, cancer, early heart problems, etc). So many of these can (and often are) linked to high levels of stress in their lives. When a TON of that stress is self-imposed. People need to chill-ax and save the worrying for keeping a roof over their heads and food on the table. Who gives a rat’s left toe for what the Broncos may or may not have done right. If they win the Superbowl (or even make the playoffs for that matter) this year, then I’ll be stoked.
I <3 calm people, and they’re few and far between these days.
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:37 AM MDT up reply actions
“no we want your 1st round pick, not Chicago’s” demand,
Hey, they still won that one.
"All the world's indeed a stage, and we are merely players."
"God I'm excited for those two to fail miserably." - SBNation writer Andrew Sharp on Josh McDaniels and Tim Tebow.
Quitter's People United Member #18
by Tempestuous Binary on Aug 31, 2010 11:08 PM MDT reply actions
Indeed but only in retrospect.
The trade was so imbalanced, we should have given up the worse of the two #1’s, not the Broncos (which most people felt was likely to be the better pick).
I can't believe the hysteria...
Folks, this is much ado about nothing.
One of the worst teams in Football, with a need to improve just about every position on their team, figured out in just six days the Polumbus wasn’t good enough for them.
Seattle has had a rash of lineman injuries that will leave them short handed for the first game of the season (Seattle Times):
Seattle is thin at tackle with rookie Russell Okung recovering from a high ankle sprain and unlikely to play in the regular-season opener. Ray Willis is out after knee surgery, and while Chester Pitts has begun practicing, he is not expected to play in Thursday’s exhibition finale in Oakland. That leaves Mansfield Wrotto the starting left tackle with undrafted rookie Jacob Phillips as his backup before acquiring Polumbus. “We’re in a very obvious intense need right here,” Carroll said. Polumbus has experience in the zone-blocking system. Jeremy Bates, who is now Seattle’s offensive coordinator, was on the Broncos staff when Polumbus was a rookie there in 2008.
Polumbus is nothing more than an emergency fit. He’ll be cut after the first game of the season, if he makes it that long, and Seattle will never have to give Detroit a draft pick as Polumbus will never hit the qualifiers on the conditional pick.
Long story short – at the end of the day no draft pick will be exchanged for Polumbus.
In case anyone is curious here’s the report from his first day in Seattle:
Polumbus worked with the second and third units at left tackle. He looked okay during pass protection drills, but played a little high on the zone plays, which is expected for a guy 6-foot-8.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..."
by Alan_Smithee on Sep 1, 2010 5:38 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Re-what now?
It’s SO much more fun to speculate and make sh*t up, as some in this thread demonstrate.
by AllBroncsallday on Sep 1, 2010 4:59 PM MDT up reply actions
What were we going to get for Polumbus?
A pat on the back and a cold beer? That was his value given his soon-to-be-cut status.
Why does Madden suck at ranking the Broncos so much?
hey guys...gotta be fair about this
two things…first…seems like McJedi and Dr X are sometimes way smart about trading and picking players…like the 2010 class looks way awesome…but sometimes maybe not so cool…loosing a safety to the pats and this polumbus thing
second…like forever a lot of guys have been saying how terrible polumbus is and that he should be cut and gone and never play again…and…when thats what happened…suddenly hes worth a high draft pick…maybe someone should go back through the threads and match up people wanting hm cut with some of the comments being made here
just sayin…be careful what you wish for
MHR...and proud of it!
by MHRsGirl on Sep 1, 2010 8:29 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Yes.
Screaming like little children that ’ Polumbus sucks! ’ and then crying that McDumba$$ didn’t get a draft pick for him.
Some ’ fans ’ I just don’t get.
Oh well. He was a Bronco until he wasn’t. Hope he has a good career.
all of the above reasons are
well and good… and some of them even turned green with sound reasoning, but i think my theory of why we got no value for Polumbus is the best of them all…
and my theory is: sh*t happens sometimes……
by tunga77 on Sep 1, 2010 6:26 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
This post has just stirred up a lot of negative whining on a moot issue that none of us can really do anything but speculate about.
Why waste the time worrying about it? There are so many other things to follow right now in the end of preseason aside from a conditional 7th round pick that we may or may not have been able to garner?? You people are going to die early from stressing like this (and even if it doesn’t feel like stress to you, all those little irritating things people talk about can add up under your noses to something bigger).
Enjoy life for a change. How about you let me know the player who’s going to be available in the 7th round of next year’s draft that you want so badly and then start whining about it. Better yet, write down the team, and which round the pick is in so you can actually see who is available that we missed out on next year in April.
Gah, now you’re even getting to me! Negativity is contagious! I’m going to go relax and drink a nice gold glass of water. Mmmm… feeling better already,
"It is better to be rougly right than precisely wrong." - John Maynard Keynes
by Alexander Wall on Sep 2, 2010 12:43 AM MDT reply actions 1 recs
In the same way that good teams win close games
Good FO’s win on trades. You will recall in the 2010 draft McX twice was very aggressive about giving up picks to move up (obviously there was a lot of moving up/down in the 1st two rounds esp), and McD basically said something to the effect of he proposed one thing, the other team said no, countered and he took it because he wanted the player. You get a reputation for not being a tough negotiator, it’s hard to lose. I don’t deny the thoughtful comments above that we don’t know what is going on behind the scenes, but I think it is reasonable to conclude that our FO is not viewed as the toughest group of negotiators in the league.
This is to say nothing about the 2010 draft – which I agree looks very good so far. I also thought that about 2006 – and they’re all gone, and the #1’s from Cutler weren’t used well.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Report
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Getting Social With MHR
Web Stuff
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
