Colts give Jonathan Taylor permission to be Traded | Page 106 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Colts give Jonathan Taylor permission to be Traded

What words did I "put in your mouth"?

You said it doesn't matter the position, when it clearly does when you consider cost v value.

You said you can argue several different scenarios, and while that's true on an individual basis, it is not necessarily true for a large sample size.

Then, you respond to @XxJustinxX 's comment of "If we can actually obtain a player of his caliber for future picks, it's a no brainer to make the move" with "thanks for understanding what I was saying".

Which part did I misinterpret again? It is not a "no brainer". It is a matter of opinion on the investment/risk/potential reward of the specific situation. That's what I meant when I said that kind of blanket statement is a complete oversimplification.

I too am sorry if you took offense. I simply do not agree with your premise. It is not logical to me.

I mean, I just kind of assumed it goes without saying that it won't be "At any price" I think we have quite a bite of context into what this trade would look like if it were to be completed.

Yes, IMO a future 2nd round pick and an additional 5th is a "no brainer". Personally, if they would take Ogbah or C. Wilson I'd send two 2nds without hesitation. Picks are potential, Jonathan Taylor is elite and we need to win NOW.
 
Not in Oregon
Not in Jakarta either for all know. I don't live in either of those places, though. It wasn't a world wide declaration.....lol.

From what I understand, Oregon has also changed policy on this.
 
Becides our GM the only GM that I can think of that triggers me is Howie Roseman, what he does with the Eagles roster is amazing. That DT Carter they just drafted looks like he's gonna be a monster. He always has a great Oline too, Roseman is the best GM in football right now and it's not even close.
How many playoff games did his team win during his first 7 years as GM?
 
Not in Jakarta either for all know. I don't live in either of those places, though. It wasn't a world wide declaration.....lol.

From what I understand, Oregon has also changed policy on this.
Yeah, they just did. I don't know if it's in effect yet though
 
I would say a conditional 2025 2nd round pick that could be a 1st round pick if Taylor plays at least 15 games and rushes for 1,500 yards. Or if they would rather, a 2024 2nd round pick with a conditional 3rd in 2025 if Taylor rushes for 1500 yards in 2023.
 
I would say a conditional 2025 2nd round pick that could be a 1st round pick if Taylor plays at least 15 games and rushes for 1,500 yards. Or if they would rather, a 2024 2nd round pick with a conditional 3rd in 2025 if Taylor rushes for 1500 yards in 2023.
I wouldn’t support any trade involving a first round pick personally
 
I mean, I just kind of assumed it goes without saying that it won't be "At any price" I think we have quite a bite of context into what this trade would look like if it were to be completed.

Yes, IMO a future 2nd round pick and an additional 5th is a "no brainer". Personally, if they would take Ogbah or C. Wilson I'd send two 2nds without hesitation. Picks are potential, Jonathan Taylor is elite and we need to win NOW.
That's fair, but when I frequently see ppl use the phrase "ALL IN" for one year, I take that as an unqualified, whatever it takes position.

Is that not what "all in" means? Or does it mean "all in", but only if the moves make financial sense? And who determines what makes financial sense?

You say we need to win NOW. Does cost, or thoughts of the future cap circumstances enter that equation or not?

Ppl use terms like "all in" and "win now" (this year), but what they really mean is they want a certain player.
 
I wouldn’t support any trade involving a first round pick personally
I would if it's conditional on Taylor rushing for 1500 yards. If he's producing like that our first round pick is going to be just a few picks away from being a 2nd round pick anyway. Taylor for the 26th or 27th overall pick in 2025 might be worth it to me. Also of course Taylor would have to have already agreed on a long term deal prior to any trade.
 
That's fair, but when I frequently see ppl use the phrase "ALL IN" for one year, I take that as an unqualified, whatever it takes position.

Is that not what "all in" means? Or does it mean "all in", but only if the moves make financial sense? And who determines what makes financial sense?

You say we need to win NOW. Does cost, or thoughts of the future cap circumstances enter that equation or not?

Ppl use terms like "all in" and "win now" (this year), but what they really mean is they want a certain player.

That's your interpretation of "all in" or win now.

You're blanketing a whole group of posters to think that way.

It also acknowledges you're not paying attention to what the individual poster has stated or said.

To me, that phrase may mean something diferrent like it may you.

But when a poster clearly states when a price is too high, they very clearly do not fall on to your interpretation of all in.

We can't force people to see things the way we believe or see it.
 
Hahahaha listening now to NFL radio on Sirius, and during the updated they noted Zach’s extension…..3 year, $68 million. Jeremey Schuler I think was the guy. Anyone just hear that?

Meant to post in the Seiler thread but oh well.
 
Back
Top Bottom