Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Schefter: Nicks trade has NOT been discussed, but should be (for a conditional 4th, possible 3rd)


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,046 posts
  • LocationDark Side of the Moon

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:11 PM

Oh wow a proven WR for a 4th round pick? Tell me again how many successful players we've gotten in the fourth round? G-man needs to get on this. Cut Donald's drop happy ass.


Issue would not be the 4th rd pick....it would be the huge contract he would want at the end if this season.

Would have to work out the deal for an acceptable contract before making the trade.

#32 Razeyfingers

Razeyfingers

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,298 posts

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:20 PM

Questions about Nicks:

 

 

How many years left does he have in his prime? Im curious because I dont know what kind of a player he really is. Does he take a lot of damage? Is he gonna play past 30 effectively?

 

 



#33 Corporal Casto

Corporal Casto

    Noob Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 434 posts
  • LocationQueen City

Posted 25 October 2013 - 06:22 PM

Should have been a straight up trade for Beaston with an additional 4-6 round conditional pick, depending upon his impending signing. Oh the fug well.



#34 Nate Dogg

Nate Dogg

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • LocationBoonville

Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:18 PM

Should have been a straight up trade for Beaston with an additional 4-6 round conditional pick, depending upon his impending signing. Oh the fug well.

 

I agree. Beason has led their team in tackles the last 2 weeks. So definitely would've benefitted both sides.



#35 Ivan The Awesome

Ivan The Awesome

    That wasn't a Penalty.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,513 posts
  • LocationS.L.R.C.

Posted 27 October 2013 - 02:59 AM

Let LaFell go? Lolwat? Drop Hixons bum ass and let Smitty, Ginn, Nicks, LaFell, X player be our WR core.

#36 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,400 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:25 AM

Seriously. No clue why Hixon is still on this roster.

#37 Manos

Manos

    Junior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:29 AM

My only thought on Nixon is he's gettlemans nick hayden, useless player but gm loves him. Personally I liked Hayden more, guy was not nfl caliber but he played hard. Well I remember him playing hard but I might be crazy.

#38 LinvilleGorge

LinvilleGorge

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,400 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 03:50 AM

Hayden has been playing decently for the Cowboys. I'd rather have him than Fua.

#39 Pantherman

Pantherman

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,060 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 06:51 AM

Which receiver would you take off the field? Ginn or Lafell?

Simple solution. Go 4 wide a lot more. Plain and simple.



#40 Snake

Snake

    swagaholic

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,423 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 06:56 AM

Much rather invest in a better oline for Cam. A line that can punch holes and hold at the point of attack is what would push this offense over the top.

#41 Paintballr

Paintballr

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:14 AM

Question should be are we going to focus on the o line or wide outs next season? Some believe that if you have a good enough o line your WR will eventually get open and your Qb will have time. They also help set up the run game which cuts down on the amount of having to throw. Do we see Gin and lafell eventually being our #1 and #2? If we focus more on running are they good enough for that type of offense? Or do we see ourselves as having Nicks #1 and Lafell/Gin as #2 and #3?

#42 jtm

jtm

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,591 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 08:51 AM

I am starting to think Nicks asking price is preventing this trade to the Panthers or anyone to happen. The Giants are a well run organization and there is zero chance they resign him, so why wouldn't they trade him? My guess is Nicks' agent is wanting big money for him and there is zero incentive to trade for him unless you think you can get a bargain price re: Nicks' contract.

If I'm Nicks, I want to hit the open market if money is what I am after. He's going to get paid $8 million plus a year and I wouldn't pay that if I'm the Panthers.

#43 Matthias

Matthias

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:22 AM

The only reason we should trade for Nicks, is if he will put this team over the top for a superbowl run.  If I weren't confident he could do that, there's no point in trading for him. 



#44 Promethean Forerunner

Promethean Forerunner

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,333 posts
  • LocationSouth Florida

Posted 27 October 2013 - 09:40 AM

Fitzgerald is on the trading block.

#45 Nate Dogg

Nate Dogg

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • LocationBoonville

Posted 27 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

Fitzgerald is on the trading block.

 

interesting.. what is his contract situation?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.