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?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

What did it get them? The Steelers and Seahawks didn't get a bump from those players and both  are in bad good shape going forward.

And those weren't close to blockbuster trades either.  We beat the Cardinals....lol

 

6 minutes ago, Daddy_Uncle said:

Remind me of what the teams gave up for those players and the positive results for the teams that acquired them. Just curious

 

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......

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

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......

I'm not trading away the kind of package we're talking about just to get the best player at the position.

If the answer to the question doesn't include championships, then no it's not good enough.

  • Pie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

I'm not trading away the kind of package we're talking about just to get the best player at the position.

If the answer to the question doesn't include championships, then no it's not good enough.

That's a little naive to think a team trades for a player just so they can say "hey, we arent gonna win championships with this player, but he is the best at his position..." 

Is that what you are stating?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

That's a little naive to think a team trades for a player just so they can say "hey, we arent gonna win championships with this player, but he is the best at his position..." 

Is that what you are stating?

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.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we would’ve traded 2 firsts for Brian Burns or 2-3 for cam in 2011 we’d all be happy and say it turned out alright....

but it turned out alright anyways without having to trade anything. Don’t know what you coulda had since it was traded.

seems to me all the recent franchise qbs were drafted not traded for

I’d rather have confidence the FO can find an good qb with 3 years worth of first and second round picks, considering some sort of strategy of moving up to get their guy with those combination of picks than just trade them

something tells me if they’re too inept to do that with all that capital - we’re screwed regardless

Edited by onmyown
  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The game has become so athletic now that I don’t think overtrading is worth it but Watson is a really good blend of natural talent and QB skills. 
 

I’m sure he would want to play with CMC. So I think you either package some firsts with Burns or you bite the bullet and trade CMC and then resign Samuel.
 

But you don’t trade both of those cats. CMC has a shot at the HOF and Burns is the best pass rusher we’ve had since Hardy.

Edited by OneBadCat
  • Pie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute 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.

No one said that.... not a single team has said that. Also, the players mentioned in this thread are still active and have a chance to win a SB with their respective teams... really can't call them failures either.... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheCasillas said:

No one said that.... not a single team has said that. Also, the players mentioned in this thread are still active and have a chance to win a SB with their respective teams... really can't call them failures either.... 

It was a hypothetical example.

Teams don't generally come out and say "we made bad decisions and had a sh-tty season", but they still do so pretty frequently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

This is an honest question. It seems like this never works out for the team in the Panthers situation. Comfort me with an example please.

Too many unknown variables in your equation there homie. 

What is a "blockbuster trade?"

- An established All-Pro player

- A Pro Bowler in their prime

- Anyone who nets multiple picks

- Multiple 1st round picks

- Perceived overpayment

What is considered working out? 

- Tangible improvement in a specific personnel grouping

- Improved W/L record

- Future All-Pro/Pro Bowl noms

- Playoff performance

- Super Bowl

What position are the Panthers in for your scenario? 

- If we trade Teddy to Chicago for a 1st and 3rd, and they win a ring dinking and dunking for 3 yards here and 4 yards there and say 15 passing TDs, who won the trade? Was it a blockbuster?

- If we trade 3 1sts for Watson and are perennial contenders for the next 10 years but, never hoist the Lombardi, did the trade "work out" in our favor? 

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...