McGarrahan to Packers | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

McGarrahan to Packers

so they are both worth only a 7th ? i think dyer has much more value than mcgarrahan, in a system that fits him, he could be top 5 as a blocking fullback
 
Big deal. We lose a good ST player for a 7th rd pick in 3 years? We took it in the shorts..
 
Well the only thing I can say is at least he's not in our division and not on a team we play this year, we won't have to see him this year unless we meet them in the SB. LOL...
 
We didn't take it in the shorts

The reason he wanted traded was because he wasn't going to make the roster. At least we ( potentially ) will get something out of him. Teams are tight fisted with their draft picks when it comes to acquiring backups, let's be happy for Scott and happy that the Dolphins have a guy like Spielman who was able to find a trade.
 
How much cap space did we free up? :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yay: got a draft pick for a player getting cut anyways'
boo: its in 2006
 
Ironically, we originally got McGarrahan from the Packers.

Hey, who cares what year the pick is?? It's a 7th rounder. We keep him out of the division, not to mention the conference. And we get a little pick down the road as a reward.

Trading Freeman would have been an asenine move.
 
Originally posted by Muck

Trading Freeman would have been an asenine move.
Click to expand...

OK. Please explain why you think this.

Here's my take on why Freeman would have been a better trade:
1. He's a FA at the end of the year. Meaning, if he plays at all this year and has a decent year he probably won't resign here.
2. He's a malcontent already being demoted and all.
3. Would currently receive a higher draft pick for him because he is perceived to have a bigger upside than Scott.
4. Isn't play special teams player (maybe he will now that he's on the bench). We all know what Scott brings there.
 
Originally posted by dolfan4good


OK. Please explain why you think this.

Here's my take on why Freeman would have been a better trade:
1. He's a FA at the end of the year. Meaning, if he plays at all this year and has a decent year he probably won't resign here.
2. He's a malcontent already being demoted and all.
3. Would currently receive a higher draft pick for him because he is perceived to have a bigger upside than Scott.
4. Isn't play special teams player (maybe he will now that he's on the bench). We all know what Scott brings there.
Click to expand...


How can you think about trading Freeman when S. Knight is doing squat? We better keep him for insurance, he might win his spot back. I don't think we should have traded McGar. The least we could have done was get the draft pick for next year, not 2006.
 
Originally posted by fairbanksb



How can you think about trading Freeman when S. Knight is doing squat? We better keep him for insurance, he might win his spot back.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what Freeman did for the last two years, SQUAT? So you want to keep him as insurance so you can replace squat with more squat?
 
Originally posted by dolfan4good


OK. Please explain why you think this.

Here's my take on why Freeman would have been a better trade:
1. He's a FA at the end of the year. Meaning, if he plays at all this year and has a decent year he probably won't resign here.
2. He's a malcontent already being demoted and all.
3. Would currently receive a higher draft pick for him because he is perceived to have a bigger upside than Scott.
4. Isn't play special teams player (maybe he will now that he's on the bench). We all know what Scott brings there.
Click to expand...

he was a restricted free agent and could not really drum up any real intrest. I don't think that he will get any better than a 5th round pick for him(that is not what i am saying he is worth just what we would get out of him). I think that he would be better here as a backup. And yes they already said that he is in special teams now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom