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!

     

Moton extension. 2 more years, $44M


jb2288
 Share

Recommended Posts

I dont want to trade for them. Lets give the rooks the season to see what we have. We aren't 1 player away and giving up that much draft capital and then tying up that salary would hurt us for 2-3years. You only take swings like that when you're 1-2 players away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, carpanfan96 said:

I wouldn't even trade dj wonnum and two firsts much less what GB offered. lol

I wouldn't trade future 1sts for any non-QB in the league given our current situation. We gotta figure out QB. Hopefully Bryce is it but we can't be parting with future 1sts until we've solved that riddle.

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

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

I wouldn't trade future 1st for any non-QB in the league given our current situation. We gotta figure out QB. Hopefully Bryce is it but we can't be parting with future 1sts until we've solved that riddle.

I'd be ok with a 2nd and 4th and 6th for Hendrickson because I think that's at least in the realm of sanity but the haul that Dallas wants for Parsons is well into the realm of absolute insanity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Tepper has been looking for this giant splash move that bypasses a rebuilding process ever since he bought the team. It's an approach that will most likely just continue to dig the hole deeper.

People like to say that, but I don't know if it's true. We went a few years trying to answer the QB question on the cheap amid bad coaching. We did what other teams do and tried to address QB by giving up a king's ransom and moving up. I mean, I guess that could be considered a "splash move," but I see it more as trying to draft the next big thing at QB. 

I think that he's been more impatient than anything else. He gave too much power to Rhule who didn't know what the hell he was doing and relied on Fitterer who left a lot to be desired as well. Sure, we may have tried to get Watson and Stafford, but that's all a part of trying to answer the question at QB. "Splash moves?" maybe, but I think it's just business as usual for teams without a QB.

Parsons would be a "splash move," but he's about as sure a thing that you could acquire for the capital. 

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, TD alt said:

I disagree. That five year difference in age makes all the difference in the world. I'm all for signing Parsons (which is still simply a hypothetical), but Hendrickson not so much. But that being said, I don't see a signing as predicative of, or equal to, a "sellout" or a sacrifice. Just my opinion, but if a front office can't maneuver around big signings by drafting well or otherwise making smart acquisitions (even those that are sometimes outside the box), then they need to be replaced.

The price to trade for him, would likely completely bankrupt our future draft assets.

I would have been all for a Hendrickson or Parsons trade in maybe 2017 or 2018.

But this team is so far from being good and needs SO much help to build, those draft picks are almost priceless. 

Let's not forget the insane cost it took to get Bryce and how much that harmed our drafting ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, frankw said:

How does anyone still think we're getting Parsons? Even if you trade a haul. Why would he want to play here?

It's just talk. I don't think that anyone thinks that Parsons will end up anywhere but Dallas. If he does end up on the market, we've already been on a few lists of potential suitors, including one on NFL.com.

Edited by TD alt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TD alt said:

People like to say that, but I don't know if it's true. We went a few years trying to answer the QB question on the cheap amid bad coaching. We did what other teams do and tried to address QB by giving up a king's ransom and moving up. I mean, I guess that could be considered a "splash move," but I see it more as trying to draft the next big thing at QB. 

I think that he's been more impatient than anything else. He gave too much power to Rhule who didn't know what the hell he was doing and relied on Fitterer who left a lot to be desired as well. Sure, we may have tried to get Watson and Stafford, but that's all a part of trying to answer the question at QB. "Splash moves?" maybe, but I think it's just business as usual for teams without a QB.

Parsons would be a "splash move," but he's about as sure a thing that you could acquire for the capital. 

I mean, he has been nothing but impatient with attempts at splash moves. Players, GM's, coaches. He wants desperately to be seen as a genius.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TD alt said:

It's just talk. I don't think that anyone thinks that Parsons will end up anywhere but Dallas. If he does end up on the market, we've already been on a few lists of potential suitors, including one on NFL.com.

Landing Parsons would require multiple 1st rounders. Under no circumstance should this franchise think for one second that we should trade a single 1st rounder given where we’re at right now

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Ah we were so close to actually doing the smart thing for once 

All they had to do was not do anything but they couldn’t help themselves 

Seriously. He was already under contract this year. Just let him play out the season and see how the knees hold up. I just don't understand why this organization is always so eager to make financial decisions that aren't pressing and need more evaluation.

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, *FreeFua* said:

Landing Parsons would require multiple 1st rounders. Under no circumstance should this franchise think for one second that we should trade a single 1st rounder given where we’re at right now

Well… a single first rounder for Parsons would be a no brainer 

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

    • Here is how Morgan is strategic-He re-signs Scott because he was not going S in round 1--he had the chance, and he did not.  He saw the top of the draft at T and knew none of them would be ready to start day 1, so he signs a veteran to a one-year deal, giving his tackle selection a chance to learn and prepare for what might be LT or RT.  Those two moves suggested, perhaps ironically because they contradict each other, what he was going to do, based on the talent pool.  He never brought in a Robinson replacement at DE/NT, and then moves up to draft one.   I almost wonder if the intent was to draft DT/DE all along at some point, maybe with a trade back, but then Freeling dropped to them.   Of course, we felt that they were looking WR, and wonder if the plan was to draft a WR in round 2 if you traded back in round 1.  However, when Freeling was there, the trade back fell apart.  Then we traded up for Hunter.  We could stick with XL and hope Metchie steps up, so we sat still in round three and took Brazell II, a 1000 yard speedster and perfect Z WR.  What a break. At that time, CB and Center were our biggest needs, and with several possible centers on the board and a good fit for our defense at CB, we grabbed Will Lee III.  Lee and Thornton have people in front of them, but I think Morgan knew we needed a guy who can play the outside and press--and probably step in as Jackson's replacement in 2027.    After making trades to get back into the fifth round, where we grabbed one of the best centers in the draft.  This is significant because we signed Fortner to a one-year deal; maybe Morgan saw what some of us saw--the center position is strong in this draft--on day 3, and day 3 players need a year, in most cases.  Moments later, a safety they had been talking to whose skill set matched what we are looking for in a FS.  As stated, Scott was signed,  but the fact that the Panthers were talking to Wheatley and not Theiemann means that they might have known they were not going FS early, but would need a developmental FS later--which explains why we signed Scott.  So if you pay attention to the one-year, vet deals, you can tell where we planned to sign later-round, developmental players.  What positions did we draft early that did not have 1-year veterans signed in front of them:  DL (Hunter) and WR (I don't count Metchie because I count starting-level players). I would not be surprised to learn later that the plan was DT and WR in rounds 1 and 2--then Freeling fell.  Notice that Freeling--from Mt Pleasant SC, did not come in for a visit.  Most of the other OT candidates had short arms or were certain to be gone. I don't think Freeling was in their plans.  I think a trade back and Hunter and maybe Boston was the vision.  I am guessing that CB was also high on their list.   So in this draft, we got 
    • This is one area I think that is not getting enough exposure in the midst of all the optimism. I like Chuba a great deal from a personal standpoint but he has largely proven nothing on a consistent basis yet. He's had the one season of production but before that most people pegged us as moving on. And last year injuries or not he just did not have that juice. The rest of the guys are completely unproven. I don't see anyone among the group having a game or a handful of games worth of high level production the way Rico Dowdle did last year. And yeah he dropped off and yeah he got an attitude about our incompetent handling of the touches which was honestly justified on his part and he moved on but he did legitimately save our season. That's what it is going to take to seize control of the NFC South. We all know that we will not be passing all over defenses. It is what it is. So who amongst this RB group is capable of doing that? And if we are struggling to run the ball AND pass are we going to revert to making excuses for our coach and QB again? That is definitely getting old.
×
×
  • Create New...