Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Again, this is getting into a positional value thing, so if you disagreed with me before, you probably disagree with me here.
Trading the 13th pick should net a better player than using it. After all, you are going to have the guy for less years, and you aren't going to get him cheap.
If we had drafted a receiver who put up Coles like production, I'd be cool with that. 13 is a good spot to pick a wide receiver who has fallen in the draft (i.e. was supposed to be selected in the top 10). But trading the 13th pick for a receiver warrents a top of the league talent, IMO. I don't think anybody is going to be confusing Coles for Steve Smith anytime soon. If we dealt the 13th directly for Moss, that would have been a fair deal. But after trading for Coles, being able to turn around and get Moss for him was wonderful value. They both play the same position, but one consistently outproduces the other. If you are the Jets there is no way you can justify this deal to us.
Also Pennington is one of the most accurate passers this league has seen in a long time. My thoughts on Brunell are well documented, and Ramsey was no slob either. It's not like he had to field passes from Shaun King or anything.
|
um, when coles got here, he was really fast and outproduced steve smith. and btw, coles is the one consistently outproducing moss. 2005 was the only year moss had more yardage than coles in his entire career. he averaged 1100 yards a year for us and then turned into moss (after that horrible toe injury) which gave us 2400 more yards. that's a great use of a #13 pick. coles was #7 in receiving that first year. I have no idea why you're writing like he was dirt.
your trading potential for proven results, and you get a lot less potential in a trade since the risk of busting is extremely small at that point. If you need help now, trades are safe, if you want to save money drafting, you might still need help at the same position next year. One is NOT automatically better than the other.