LIQUID24
hi
A 2nd rounder is already overpaying for Feely, why in the hell would Spielman allow it to be a conditional 2nd? I hope this isn't true
Deal for Feeley could be a 1st rounder
- Thread starter Louis Oliver
- Start date
ckparrothead
Premium Member
I hope it isn't true either. I guess it depends on what ranking they go by. If they go by yardage, that could be bad. Jon Kitna and Tommy Maddox both rank in the top ten in terms of yardage...and Quincy Carter came close at #12. Brad Johnson and Trent Green also had top ten yardage years but I wouldn't want to pay a first rounder for either of those dudes.
Jon Kitna, Trent Green, and Jake Plummer all had top ten performances this year in QB rating as well. They did well but I mean, would you want to give a first round pick for any of those three?
Last season Bledsoe and Brunell both ranked top ten in QB rating. Brian Griese came in at #13, scary close to having a top ten. Would you have given a first rounder for any of those three? If you go by yardage Brian Griese and Drew Brees were #13 and #12. Go back to 2001 and Doug Flutie pops into the screen as a top ten yardage QB, with Chris Chandler a top ten QB rating QB and Kordell Stewart and Jay Fiedler pulling up #12 and #13, respectively. Go back to 2000 and you got guys like Elvis Grbac, Doug Flutie, Vinny Testeverde, and Steve Beurlein pulling in top ten in one of the above categories.
Bad QBs can have good years. We've got Ricky running for Feeley, we're revamping the offensive line for him, and probably drafting some exciting prospect at WR. Aside from that we've got a great pass catching FB, a great pass catching TE, and a blossoming star WR in Chambers. Its very possible Feeley turns in a good year, but due to some hole in the dike that we forgot to plug (like defense), we end up not even in the playoffs again.
Like PhinKev said, reality sucks and the reality is that just because we get a "top ten passer" it doesn't mean we have a GOOD passer, or that we're even in the playoffs. All it will mean for certain, is that we're losing a first round pick.
No, I think the clause (if there is one) should be playoff/super bowl based, or pro bowl based.
Jon Kitna, Trent Green, and Jake Plummer all had top ten performances this year in QB rating as well. They did well but I mean, would you want to give a first round pick for any of those three?
Last season Bledsoe and Brunell both ranked top ten in QB rating. Brian Griese came in at #13, scary close to having a top ten. Would you have given a first rounder for any of those three? If you go by yardage Brian Griese and Drew Brees were #13 and #12. Go back to 2001 and Doug Flutie pops into the screen as a top ten yardage QB, with Chris Chandler a top ten QB rating QB and Kordell Stewart and Jay Fiedler pulling up #12 and #13, respectively. Go back to 2000 and you got guys like Elvis Grbac, Doug Flutie, Vinny Testeverde, and Steve Beurlein pulling in top ten in one of the above categories.
Bad QBs can have good years. We've got Ricky running for Feeley, we're revamping the offensive line for him, and probably drafting some exciting prospect at WR. Aside from that we've got a great pass catching FB, a great pass catching TE, and a blossoming star WR in Chambers. Its very possible Feeley turns in a good year, but due to some hole in the dike that we forgot to plug (like defense), we end up not even in the playoffs again.
Like PhinKev said, reality sucks and the reality is that just because we get a "top ten passer" it doesn't mean we have a GOOD passer, or that we're even in the playoffs. All it will mean for certain, is that we're losing a first round pick.
No, I think the clause (if there is one) should be playoff/super bowl based, or pro bowl based.
dolphan39
Maria & LauRen Aha!
Brady was in there at 10th - http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/stati...=off&league=nfl&order=true&season=2&year=2003 - so maybe the 10th or better QB is worth a #1 :hmmm:
Phinzone
FinHeaven VIP
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2003
- Messages
- 2,105
- Reaction score
- 0
- Age
- 40
Problem is, their raking in all the benefit, and we're taking all the chances.
Our season is riding on this guy. We gave a 2nd round pick for him, too much IMO for a QB that was released, and resigned after he got no bites. They had no leverage.
But forget that, let's say a 2nd rounder IS fair for him. THen that's what it should be. That 2nd rounder is worth more than what Philly invested in him, and should be more than enough to compensate for him playing for us.
Either way, we're losing a 2nd rounder next year. Fummbles 40 times, we lose a 2nd rounder, throws 68 picks, we lose a 2nd. Doesn't play a single game,a nd we lose a second rounder. On top of that, we lose his bonus, his salary, and we're currently (looks like anyway) not pursuing any other options at QB. We're passing on QB's for this guy, and investing A LOT in him next season. WHy the hell should his success give the eagles any MORE? They got more than a fair deal for a 3rd string QB (get over it, he was listed as 3rd string QB, that's what he has to be valued at). 2nd rounder should have been enough PERIOD>
Now, if he's a top 10 QB you won't see me complaining. But come draft day, I'll have a bad taste in my mouth. The condition should go BOTH ways. We give them a 2nd rounder for a top 15 QB, or a first rounder for top 10. You don't see a clause in there that says the pick will be demoted to a 3rd or 4th rounder, if he's a total flop do you?
The risk is all miami's. They lose nothing in this trade. THey have their QB, they gained at least a 2nd rounder. His success here is contingent on what MIAMI does from now on. So why should they share in the wealth? Before we give a team the abliity to share in the wealth, they should be ready to share in the possible failure of this QB. It's rediculous that this could become a first rounder.
Our season is riding on this guy. We gave a 2nd round pick for him, too much IMO for a QB that was released, and resigned after he got no bites. They had no leverage.
But forget that, let's say a 2nd rounder IS fair for him. THen that's what it should be. That 2nd rounder is worth more than what Philly invested in him, and should be more than enough to compensate for him playing for us.
Either way, we're losing a 2nd rounder next year. Fummbles 40 times, we lose a 2nd rounder, throws 68 picks, we lose a 2nd. Doesn't play a single game,a nd we lose a second rounder. On top of that, we lose his bonus, his salary, and we're currently (looks like anyway) not pursuing any other options at QB. We're passing on QB's for this guy, and investing A LOT in him next season. WHy the hell should his success give the eagles any MORE? They got more than a fair deal for a 3rd string QB (get over it, he was listed as 3rd string QB, that's what he has to be valued at). 2nd rounder should have been enough PERIOD>
Now, if he's a top 10 QB you won't see me complaining. But come draft day, I'll have a bad taste in my mouth. The condition should go BOTH ways. We give them a 2nd rounder for a top 15 QB, or a first rounder for top 10. You don't see a clause in there that says the pick will be demoted to a 3rd or 4th rounder, if he's a total flop do you?
The risk is all miami's. They lose nothing in this trade. THey have their QB, they gained at least a 2nd rounder. His success here is contingent on what MIAMI does from now on. So why should they share in the wealth? Before we give a team the abliity to share in the wealth, they should be ready to share in the possible failure of this QB. It's rediculous that this could become a first rounder.
LIQUID24
hi
Completely agree. Where should the conditions end?
I mean, if we win the Super Bowl, should we throw in a couple more 1st rounders in '06 and '07?
I mean, if we win the Super Bowl, should we throw in a couple more 1st rounders in '06 and '07?
