Originally Posted by Mescalito345:
I simply do not understand why GMs are not willing to trade future draft picks for current stars like Davante, Tyreek, or Amari.
Originally Posted by Mescalito345:
I simply do not understand why GMs are not willing to trade future draft picks for current stars like Davante, Tyreek, or Amari.
Because they think that they’ll hit on all of their draft picks… when in reality a draft pick is an unknown commodity that can just as likely result in a Skyy Less, rather than a Rashee Rice.
Not saying teams should follow the Rams lead of a few years ago when they mortgaged most of their draft capital for veteran players (although it did result in a Super Bowl win)… but the obsession with not trading draft picks for proven veteran players is irrational at times. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mescalito345:
I simply do not understand why GMs are not willing to trade future draft picks for current stars like Davante, Tyreek, or Amari.
Big money plus picks.
You’re risking major cap space and draft capital for one guy.
Teams that are bad enough to have both have more needs to fill. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FloridaMan88:
Because they think that they’ll hit on all of their draft picks… when in reality a draft pick is an unknown commodity that can just as likely result in a Skyy Less, rather than a Rashee Rice.
Not saying teams should follow the Rams lead of a few years ago when they mortgaged most of their draft capital for veteran players (although it did result in a Super Bowl win)… but the obsession with not trading draft picks for proven veteran players is irrational at times.
Yeah, it seems like most GMs (and fans for that matter) think that 1st rd draft pick is a guarantee for something, when it’s really nothing more than a lottery ticket. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FloridaMan88:
Because they think that they’ll hit on all of their draft picks… when in reality a draft pick is an unknown commodity that can just as likely result in a Skyy Less, rather than a Rashee Rice.
Not saying teams should follow the Rams lead of a few years ago when they mortgaged most of their draft capital for veteran players (although it did result in a Super Bowl win)… but the obsession with not trading draft picks for proven veteran players is irrational at times.
It’s more than that. Rarely is it a 1 for 1 swap of a pick for a player. Usually a trade involves multiple picks, especially for a higher end player. Now throw in salary differences and it’s not a sustainable strategy. The keys to winning in this league are having an elite QB (hopefully on a rookie deal) and having a roster with solid cost controlled players. KCs last two SBs are proof of that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefaRoo:
If the Raiders traded Adams to KC Al Davis’ ghost would come back from the great beyond and strangle his kid in his sleep.
Originally Posted by Mescalito345:
I simply do not understand why GMs are not willing to trade future draft picks for current stars like Davante, Tyreek, or Amari.
Well, let's see. The Raiders traded for Adams, the Dolphins traded for Tyreek. The Bills traded for Diggs. The Cowboys traded for Cooper. I can't say that any of those trades made those teams better. The Bills still couldn't get past Mahomes in the playoffs, neither could the Dolphins. And the Raiders still couldn't even get to the playoffs. But the Chiefs have won back to back Superbowls without an elite wide receiver. I don't see why anyone would trade for a top wide receiver. There's no precedent to show that it puts a team over the top. [Reply]
In a fluid and unpredictable situation that seems to change weekly, Davante Adams still could wind up staying with the Las Vegas Raiders rather than being traded, league sources told ESPN.https://t.co/jcTP3QUSsa
Originally Posted by jjchieffan:
Well, let's see. The Raiders traded for Adams, the Dolphins traded for Tyreek. The Bills traded for Diggs. The Cowboys traded for Cooper. I can't say that any of those trades made those teams better. The Bills still couldn't get past Mahomes in the playoffs, neither could the Dolphins. And the Raiders still couldn't even get to the playoffs. But the Chiefs have won back to back Superbowls without an elite wide receiver. I don't see why anyone would trade for a top wide receiver. There's no precedent to show that it puts a team over the top.
Exactly. They don't move the needle enough. [Reply]
In a fluid and unpredictable situation that seems to change weekly, Davante Adams still could wind up staying with the Las Vegas Raiders rather than being traded, league sources told ESPN.https://t.co/jcTP3QUSsa
This just means they are getting garbage offers.... as they should for a 32 year old Wideout who makes a cap crushing fortune and is just okay anymore. [Reply]
Originally Posted by nychief:
This just means they are getting garbage offers.... as they should for a 32 year old Wideout who makes a cap crushing fortune and is just okay anymore.
I can't think of a single AFC team that would make me worry if they got him.
I don't want to see him going to the Lions or Cowboys though. In a world where that happens those offenses would be hard to stop. [Reply]
In a fluid and unpredictable situation that seems to change weekly, Davante Adams still could wind up staying with the Las Vegas Raiders rather than being traded, league sources told ESPN.https://t.co/jcTP3QUSsa
