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

[ForJimmy]

Watson by himself obviously doesn’t make us an elite team. IF we get him we will be retaining some of our talent (Moore, Brown, Chinn, YGM, hopefully Burns/Anderson). The main reason our GM is cleaning out our salary is to build a team around Watson if we manage to get him. 

[Shotgun]

Just now, Pup McBarky said:

And that is my point. TB has a really good OL and a dominant defense before Brady got there.

And they went 7-9 with that incredibly awesome loaded team...our pathetic depleted team went 6-10.     

[CRA]

1 minute ago, Pup McBarky said:

And that is my point. TB has a really good OL and a dominant defense before Brady got there.

but again, Brady's 20 year career in NE tells the other side of that story. 

He didn't always have the weapons and the OL.  But they were going to win.  Maybe they aren't the 15-1 Moss Patriots.  But they were still the double digit winning playoff Patriots. 

and you can look at Rodgers, Wilson, etc.  Elite QBs win with or without the well built team.  Odds just improve when you give them good teams. 

[Pup McBarky]

2 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

7-9 is a loaded team and 6-10 is awful...lol

If you replace Brady with Winston, sure, you get mediocre. Even the best teams cannot win when your QB throws it to the other team every other possession. They get tired of having to clean up his mess.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, CRA said:

again, Watson has one losing season to his name.  Pros.  College.  HS.  He puts teams on his back.  To quote the great Dabo Sweeney, he is Michael Jordan. 

Watson isn't enough to overcome an owner/GM that make a place miserable and where teammates are no longer working.  That's NFL great JJ Watt talking. But that is all you got to hang your hat on IMO. 

We tried this formula once already.

It didn't go so well.

We are not a good enough team to be "just a quarterback away". And the notion that this description applies to every NFL team just isn't factual.

I'm all for getting Watson, but if you hamstring yourself from building around him all you've done is make a football version of O Henry's "Gift of the Maji" story.

[Shotgun]

Just now, Pup McBarky said:

If you replace Brady with Winston, sure, you get mediocre. Even the best teams cannot win when your QB throws it to the other team every other possession. They get tired of having to clean up his mess.

I couldnt agree more.

[CRA]

1 minute ago, ForJimmy said:

Watson by himself obviously doesn’t make us an elite team. IF we get him we will be retaining some of our talent (Moore, Brown, Chinn, YGM, hopefully Burns/Anderson). The main reason our GM is cleaning out our salary is to build a team around Watson if we manage to get him. 

I'm only really an advocate for trading draft picks.   Not bodies.  RBs and Teddy not included. 

We got talent for Watson to work with here and a young and improving D. 

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, CRA said:

I'm only really an advocate for trading draft picks.   Not bodies.  RBs and Teddy not included. 

We got talent for Watson to work with here and a young and improving D. 

Pretty much nobody believes that draft picks alone are going to be enough to make that trade, if  Houston even agrees to make it at all (which is not guaranteed).

[Pup McBarky]

3 minutes ago, CRA said:

I'm only really an advocate for trading draft picks.   Not bodies.  RBs and Teddy not included. 

We got talent for Watson to work with here and a young and improving D. 

If we could get Watson for only picks, I think everyone would be on board.

[CRA]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

We tried this formula once already.

It didn't go so well.

We are not a good enough team to be "just a quarterback away". And the notion that this description applies to every NFL team just isn't factual.

I'm all for getting Watson, but if you hamstring yourself from building around him all you've done is make a football version of O Henry's "Gift of the Maji" story.

Well, I am a big believer Cam Newton was a unicorn and has no comparison in the NFL.  The NFL game isn't exactly rigged for Cam's style like it is other QBs.   Plus, he was Cam which always came with a unique bias IMO. 

I think Cam is a HOF worthy QB.  Huge fan.  But even at his prime (which was the best player in the NFL), Cam was never a consistent passer. 

[TheCasillas]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Yet the argument I'm having presented to me is that trading for Watson alone makes us winners.

I think there is a fair argument that if Watson was our QB last year... we would have a winning record. We will never know, but it was obvious that QB play was our weakest link last year.

[CRA]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Pretty much nobody believes that draft picks alone are going to be enough to make that trade, if  Houston even agrees to make it at all (which is not guaranteed).

I'm down with picks.  I'm down with CMC and Teddy.   That's always been my position. Getting rid of that doesn't present the Jonathan Stewart assertion.   We didn't even have CMC last year and competed with everyone but the Super Bowl champ.  

and if we threw in one more player? Depends on who it is.  

 

[ForJimmy]

11 minutes ago, CRA said:

I'm only really an advocate for trading draft picks.   Not bodies.  RBs and Teddy not included. 

We got talent for Watson to work with here and a young and improving D. 

Agreed and we need our 2nd/3rd rounders to build our line up.

[Mr. Scot]

7 minutes ago, CRA said:

I'm down with picks.  I'm down with CMC and Teddy.   That's always been my position. Getting rid of that doesn't present the Jonathan Stewart assertion.   We didn't even have CMC last year and competed with everyone but the Super Bowl champ.  

and if we threw in one more player? Depends on who it is.  

McCaffrey's not gonna happen. Voth explained why.

King and Schrager both speculated on Brian Burns. Schrager added Robby Anderson.