Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

When has a blockbuster NFL trade worked out for the team who gives up everything?


Happy Panther
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Stumpy said:

Why stop at blockbusters? Under your terms, why wouldn't any aquisition that didn't lead to a Super Bowl be considered a failure. 

We gave up a 3rd for Olsen and had an overall losing record during his tenure. We never reached the goal. But he might reach the HOF. Did we lose that trade? 

We traded a third round pick for Olsen.

Think we can get Deshaun Watson for a third round pick?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success.

If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

So what if you don't make any moves and stay the course and still suck?

This is like choosing a mystery box vs a million bucks. 

Some would squander away the million and not have much to show for it and others could turn the million into a billion.

Mystery box could have a billion in it but it also could turn out to be dog poo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stumpy said:

You didn't answer the question. 

Yes I did.

You give up a third round pick and that doesn't work out? It's salvageable.

You give up a first round pick and it doesn't work out? That gets you a dirty look from the owner, but it's still manageable.

You trade more than one first round pick and it doesn't lead to a championship? You're on thin ice...at best.

You give up some of the ridiculous trade packages we're talking about here and you don't win a championship with the guy you gave up all that stuff for in short order? Your ass is fired.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yes I did.

You give up a third round pick and that doesn't work out? It's salvageable.

You give up a first round pick and it doesn't work out? That gets you a dirty look from the owner, but it's still manageable.

You trade more than one first round pick and it doesn't lead to a championship? You're on thin ice...at best.

You give up some of the ridiculous trade packages we're talking about here and you don't win a championship with the guy you gave up all that stuff for in short order? Your ass is fired.

Unless you're the owner...

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yes I did.

You give up a third round pick and that doesn't work out? It's salvageable.

You give up a first round pick and it doesn't work out? That gets you a dirty look from the owner, but it's still manageable.

You trade more than one first round pick and it doesn't lead to a championship? You're on thin ice...at best.

You give up some of the ridiculous trade packages we're talking about here and you don't win a championship with the guy you gave up all that stuff for in short order? Your ass is fired.

If you keep everything you were going to trade and don't win a championship in that same time frame you will also probably get your ass fired.

Do you go with the proven commodity or risk it to chance?

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what the conditions are to quality for blockbuster.   QBs are also valued different now than even 15 years ago. 
 

Giants gave up a lot for rookie Eli.  That worked out.  2 first (Rivers), a 2nd and 3rd. 
 

Lot of big names have moved around in trades and it worked out very well.   Compensation wasn’t bonkers though. 

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yes I did.

You give up a third round pick and that doesn't work out? It's salvageable.

You give up a first round pick and it doesn't work out? That gets you a dirty look from the owner, but it's still manageable.

You trade more than one first round pick and it doesn't lead to a championship? You're on thin ice...at best.

You give up some of the ridiculous trade packages we're talking about here and you don't win a championship with the guy you gave up all that stuff for in short order? Your ass is fired.

No. You didn't.

You have attempted to here. But, your logic is flawed. 

If we take your parameter of 2 1sts as the cut off for a "blockbuster" and a Super Bowl win as the only option for success, then every team in the league is an abject failure. 

Draft picks are the opportunity to aquire a player's services. Nothing more nothing less. What difference does it make if you spend 2 picks on one player or 3 picks for 10 players if you didn't win a ring? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success.

If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

this is an irredeemably bad take 

  • Pie 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that you can measure the success of a blockbuster trade only by championships. It takes many moving parts to win a championship. I mean, if we trade for Watson and we end up a perennial contender, consistently in the playoffs for the next decade, would that really be a failure if we don't win the big one? 

Trading is supposed to ultimately improve your team and put it in a position to win championships. Whether or not you win one depends on other factors, like how close you are to winning a championship and where do you fall along the spectrum. There are different expectations for each trade. No one is expecting the Panthers with Watson to win a championship any time soon. Many people expect Stafford to be the final piece to get the Rams over the hump and consider anything less as a failure. 

 

  • Pie 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

 

 

Minkah Fitzpatrick has the most caused turnovers in the NFL over the last 2 seasons with the Steelers and was rated the second best safety in the league.... how did that not work out for the Steelers?

Adams set the record for the most sacks by a secondary player in a single season in nfl history and was the 5th best safety in the league.

Beating a team doesnt change the fact that the trades were good or not. I believe the Cardinals won a bc of Hopkins himself as well... Also, these players are still in the league.... you can't say that they are a failed trade. Hopkins is one of the best WRs in the game... hands down.

These ARE blockbuster trades bc they are trades for the best players at their position that cost a lot of capital for a team to get......

Rams traded for the best corner in the NFL Ramsey last year.   Had never been a top 10 D under McVeigh

#1 D in the NFL this year? Rams

2 firsts and a fourth.

Rams have traded their 20, 21, 22, 23 first round picks actually.  Not everyone  believes in building by the draft. 

 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Exactly what I was going to say. Brady seems to be taking a page out of Olsen's playbook, which is probably a good thing. They'll probably get around to giving Brady an Emmy one day, and he should thank Olsen for giving him the blueprint for success.
    • In before: "XL sucks, there is no hope." "As long as we have Bryce, none of this matters." My response: "It's X, not XL...we're not discussing apparel sizes, or we'd have to consider XS."  
    • Alain Pierre provides some food for thought on Last Word On Sports regarding Xavier Legette, and his article, though specifically on X, kind of puts me in the mind of QBs being overdrafted and put into situations that they're not prepared for, some ultimately failing due to drafting missteps by front offices who don't necessarily view prospective players within the contextual importance that situations demand.  At this point, Legette looks like a failure in reference to expectations, of not only what a consistently productive NFL receiver looks like, but a first round pick (which he obviously should never have been). But the story on X isn't necessarily completely over. Damn. I seem to be experiencing deja vu...It wasn't X's fault that he was overdrafted, that was a choice by an FO that obviously downplayed actual realized skill vs outstanding measurables and upside. Sure, the FO was impressed by X's one-year feats during his senior season at South Carolina, but it was the NFL god, RAS (a.k.a. Raw Athletic Score), that had Dave Canales's and Dan Morgan's jaws dropping in amazement at the sight of X running around in underwear at the Combine...   "At 6-foot-3 and over 220 pounds, Legette brought rare athletic upside to the position. His breakout season at South Carolina showed flashes of dominance that NFL teams dream of. Projecting forward, many scouts compared his physical profile to D.K. Metcalf, and the Panthers clearly believed they could develop him into a true wide receiver 1 over time. The issue was never his talent. The issue was the timeline. Just a few picks later, the Chargers selected Ladd McConkey, a receiver who may have lacked Xavier Legette’s physical ceiling but entered the league far more technically refined. McConkey immediately showed advanced route discipline, leverage awareness, good pacing, and separation ability.  Bryce Young’s game has always depended on timing and anticipation. His best football at Alabama came with receivers capable of winning through precision rather than pure athleticism. Jameson Williams and John Metchie III were excellent route runners and were able to get drafted in 2022. McConkey naturally fit that style of play. Legette, meanwhile, needed significant development in the exact areas where Bryce Young needed help. The Panthers drafted traits when Bryce Young needed reliability."   Yes, the FO was guilty. The good thing is that the execs appear to be improving. Some of that may be attributed to the hiring of Eric Eager (who was hired right after the Xavier Legette draft). Eager seems to have helped the Panthers FO fine-tune their analytical progress, and, at least on paper, they acquired players with a lot of value during the last draft in regards to actually (what I'll refer to as) "underdrafting" talent relative to their position with value already built in.  Look at Chris Brazzell: He may be more of the quintessential project receiver who was arguably more or less just as raw as Legette was when he was drafted, and with a relatively high RAS as well. The notable difference is value, as Brazzell was a round three pick and Legette was a first rounder.    "Unlike the Xavier Legette situation, Carolina’s environment for Brazzell is completely different. "The Panthers are not asking a raw receiver prospect to stabilize this offense for Bryce Young. "Brazzell enters a much healthier developmental situation with far less pressure. With Tetairoa McMillan established as the primary target and Jalen Coker continuing to settle as the number 2 option...Xavier Legette, Metchie III, and Jimmy Horn Jr. are also still in this rotation, fighting for reps. "It gives Carolina something they failed to give Legette when they drafted him: A developmental runway. "Xavier Legette entered the league with expectations attached to a first-round pick and an offense desperate for answers. Brazzell enters a room where he can spend a year working on his route running, learning the playbook, and earning snaps gradually rather than being asked to become part of Bryce Young’s solution immediately. "And truthfully, Brazzell needs that time coming out of college. Despite his elite physical tools, many evaluators have several concerns about his overall polish as a receiver. "His route tree at Tennessee was viewed as fairly limited due to the type of offense that they run. The receivers are expected to run a lot of choice routes, which are dictated by the placement of the defenders. It doesn’t require technical route-running and an understanding of the playbook needed at the NFL level...   "Context changes significantly when expectations change. "The Panthers are not depending on Brazzell to save the offense. They can allow him to develop slowly, expand his route tree, improve his technical refinement, and learn behind a much more stable receiver room... "Traits become much easier to bet on when patience is built into the plan."   It's all about understanding your situation. I don't agree that it's an inherently difficult choice like the author is suggesting in the following excerpt. At the very least, I think that it should be easier as long as all parties involved stay levelheaded and true to their process.    "That is what makes these draft decisions so difficult. "Every front office believes it can find the next Metcalf, Owens, or Marshall. Sometimes they do. More often, they are betting on a development path that may take years to complete. "The challenge is understanding what your offense needs right now. "If a team has patience, stability, and a quarterback capable of carrying the offense while a receiver develops, betting on traits can make sense. But if a young quarterback needs immediate help, there is a strong argument for prioritizing the receiver who already knows how to separate, create throwing , and earn trust from day one. "That’s why the Xavier Legette-Ladd McConkey debate remains so fascinating. "It was never really a discussion about talent. It was a discussion about timing."   For me, Ladd McConkey was talented enough in his own right, that the gap--the upside--was never as big as people are suggesting between not only McConkey and Legette, but McConkey and other receivers drafted in the first round during that draft. The technique divide between Ladd and X was pretty stark though, as was the roughly 35 pounds, but the speed was identical, the maybe 1½ height difference isn't huge (6' and 6'1"), and it may surprise some that Ladd's RAS (9.34) was also enough to put him in the top 10 percent of receivers since 1987. There is an argument that he would've been a better pick for Bryce and the Panthers, regardless of timeline and talent. But, I still appreciate the thesis (if you will) of the article, as it still provides some hope--perhaps a glimmer at this point, that X's RAS may finally translate to the NFL given more time, but, perhaps more importantly, it explains how Dan Morgan and company are showing improvement, even if it appears somewhat understated. My hope is that continued improvement is palpable by this time next year. https://lastwordonsports.com/nfl/2026/05/30/xavier-legette-draft-lessons/#google_vignette        
×
×
  • Create New...