If we could get a 2nd rounder for Steve Smith, would you take it?

[OneBadassCat]

i'd love to come on a message board one day where people disagree with each without the personal attacks. oh what a world it would be. that would really suck if that poster stopped being a fan of the team 'cause he kept getting cursed at.

Right, so which 2 WRs are better than Smith?

[Mr. Scot]

i didn't say we should trade smith this year. you obviously just skimmed what i wrote.

Your full post...

the original question didn't specify when we should trade him. by "relatively unproductive", all i meant was we have 2 other receivers who are better than him. i didn't mean he was totally washed up. teams do weird things. some team with no good receivers may trade a 2nd rounder for him at that point. who knows? it's just a hypothetical question. yes, veteran leadership is important, but not more important than a 2nd round pick. unless that veteran is a starter, i'd take the pick.

The quote in question...

by "relatively unproductive", all i meant was we have 2 other receivers who are better than him.

So...who are they?

[littlebigman89]

i'd love to come on a message board one day where people disagree with each without the personal attacks. oh what a world it would be. that would really suck if that poster stopped being a fan of the team 'cause he kept getting cursed at.

When you say something like "all i meant was we have 2 other receivers who are better than him" you're kind of asking for it.

[nosuchthingasapanther]

that would really suck if that poster stopped being a fan of the team 'cause he kept getting cursed at.

i know i'd stop being a fan of a team if the players kept cursing at me too.

oh wait...

[Yaboychris28]

thread =epic fail

[OneBadassCat]

You fvckers keep stealing my sig.

[Guest silver82blade]

for goodness sakes. you people are not reading what i wrote.

i didn't say we currently have two receivers better than steve smith. i said if in the future, as in a few years down the road when smith's game deteriorates more, we have two receivers better than smith then i would rather have a 2nd round pick than keep him. by then some of these younger players we currently have, and/or ones we will pick up, may actually be better than a mid-30s steve smith. you know, star young receivers DO exist. i know that's a whole new concept to fans of this team, but they are out there. it's not a fairytale. i promise. smith has already lost a small but noticeable step. if he's our best receiver when he's in his mid-30s, we have a huge problem.

i realize no one will probably offer a 2nd round pick for a mid-30s receiver, even if he can still be productive, but it's just a hypothetical question so i gave my opinion. i don't know how much clearer i can be in my wording.

[Lumps]

thoughts?

[SOJA]

go ahead ...... see what happens when you make the worst trade in NFL history....

[therealmjl]

I'd rather shoot myself in the chin.

[CatMan72]

Not right now, he's the only proven WR we've got.

[Wither]

Yeah. 1 sock is as about as useless as this thread.

It has its uses...

for goodness sakes. you people are not reading what i wrote.

i didn't say we currently have two receivers better than steve smith. i said if in the future, as in a few years down the road when smith's game deteriorates more, we have two receivers better than smith then i would rather have a 2nd round pick than keep him. by then some of these younger players we currently have, and/or ones we will pick up, may actually be better than a mid-30s steve smith. you know, star young receivers DO exist. i know that's a whole new concept to fans of this team, but they are out there. it's not a fairytale. i promise. smith has already lost a small but noticeable step. if he's our best receiver when he's in his mid-30s, we have a huge problem.

i realize no one will probably offer a 2nd round pick for a mid-30s receiver, even if he can still be productive, but it's just a hypothetical question so i gave my opinion. i don't know how much clearer i can be in my wording.

It actually sounds like you intially meant that you would rather have a 2nd now than when his game deteriorates only a few years down the road. Translation: "I would like to get a 2nd for him now than nothing in 2 years when hes not any good any more."

[Guest silver82blade]

It actually sounds like you intially meant that you would rather have a 2nd now than when his game deteriorates only a few years down the road. Translation: "I would like to get a 2nd for him now than nothing in 2 years when hes not any good any more."

naw, it really didn't, and i guess i'll actually take the time to show you why. that comment i made was part of a conversation. if people had just looked a half dozen comments back they would've seen me say this ...

he's already lost a step. if he keeps losing steps then i'd definitely trade him for a 2nd round pick in a few years. not now though. he's still too good and none of our other receivers have proved themselves yet.

there's a lot of you folks going "noooo he has to retire a panther"! i wonder if any of you were the same ones who were criticizing people when they were upset at some of the cuts this year, like hoover. there were a lot saying it was dumb to say we had to keep people so they'd retire with the team.

however, even if all people looked at was the other comment, a little reading comprehension should've clued them in.

the original question didn't specify when we should trade him. by "relatively unproductive", all i meant was we have 2 other receivers who are better than him. i didn't mean he was totally washed up. teams do weird things. some team with no good receivers may trade a 2nd rounder for him at that point. who knows? it's just a hypothetical question. yes, veteran leadership is important, but not more important than a 2nd round pick. unless that veteran is a starter, i'd take the pick.

"the original question didn't specify when we should trade him." since everyones' impression was the original question was asking if we'd trade him now, a little logic would've dictated that i wasn't talking about now since that sentence was taking a contrary stance to the common assumption.

"... at that point." that means at some time in the future. that doesn't mean now.

"unless that veteran is a starter ..." ok hmm, is steve smith not going to be a starter this year? let me think. obviously i was talking about the future.

you see what a little education can do for people? reading is fun. be cool, stay in school.

[Mr. Scot]

This...

by "relatively unproductive", all i meant was we have 2 other receivers who are better than him. i didn't mean he was totally washed up.

...does not - in any way, shape or form -translate to this:

i said if in the future, as in a few years down the road when smith's game deteriorates more, we have two receivers better than smith then i would rather have a 2nd round pick than keep him. by then some of these younger players we currently have, and/or ones we will pick up, may actually be better than a mid-30s steve smith.

Your first statement is present tense, as anyone with "reading comprehension" can see.