RuntheDamnBall

Good spot. Interesting article on that one. http://www.denverbroncos.com/news-and-blogs/article-1/Remembering-The-Trade/3abbaba0-0779-4623-9254-9aafe8d3de14 You've got to feel like anytime a running back is being moved for a top-5 player at a skill position, that the team trading the RB wins. Even if the RB is all-world. It's just such an interchangeable position, though I won't deny that Portis was fantastic for a good stretch.

And for fans to run with as though it's gospel, apparently.

Can we all get real about the LaCanfora "report"? http://mweb.cbssport...j-manuel-better "I'd expect the Bills to field calls for running backs if contending teams continue to lose them (Vick Ballard and Kendall Hunter already out for the year). Buffalo has more backs than it needs, probably, and C.J. Spiller, in the final year of his deal and with no extension in sight, could be the odd man out. I anticipate Fred Jackson being a Bill for life, and he could end up with a few new years on his deal, and the speed of Bryce Brown is impressive. Anthony Dixon supplies depth. A trade market for Spiller could well develop over the next month." So, this is all LaCanfora himself speculating. He quotes no sources, he hasn't talked to other teams who have discussed Spiller in trade talks, he doesn't even cite anyone who refuses to be named in discussing it. This is entirely his idea. It's a "putting the pieces" together nugget of speculation. It makes for a conversation point, but there's just nothing to substantiate it. Zero.

True about Welker, but I was looking for player-for-player trades.

I chose the bacon donuts. They aren't going to help me when I finally decide to train for that marathon, though.

Good answers so far. I suspect, to build on You Herd's point, that with many more specialized systems (and combinations thereof) in the NFL, there are even fewer matches of players that coaches deem "right" for their system -- compared to the other sports. The intense training for 16, 19 max games is another reason teams might feel shy about parting with assets that they have spent valuable development time on. In baseball, there's also greater control of non-active-roster players (in the 40-man roster for talent that is at the major league level or close) and the minor league systems. Players at the fringes in the NFL simply tend to end up as cut victims or trying to catch on. There's not enough time to identify that your third TE could be a star, for another team to agree with you on that opinion, and for both teams to match up on an equivalent value. Any good trades that I've missed, though?

It's GOLD, Jerry, GOLD!

Can the original poster please re-submit the original question, as voiced by Jerry Seinfeld? Because that's how I'm hearing it in my head.

The sort of numbskull Spiller thread had me thinking this morning about good "football trades" where there was some combination of player-for-player involved. They're rare if not non-existent, with teams seeming to prefer to defer the return on a player in favor of draft pick assets. Because the draft is a place where big busts and home runs happen with the most frequency, this also means teams are thought to have really won or lost trades involving picks. I understand to an extent why this happens - teams generally have surplus value in players at certain positions. Yet often by the time this value is discovered (and often, in-season): 1) there isn't a match with another team that has a surplus in an area of need for Team 1 2) Everybody has draft picks, and parting with them doesn't represent risk in the current season 3) Everybody has draft picks, and notwithstanding a guess at where someone will finish, you can measure offers among teams a little more quantitatively. 4) The NFL is a sport that allows you to trade picks, where baseball isn't. Still, player-for-player moves are more frequent in each of the other major sports. 5) The NFL trade deadline is fairly early, meaning that a bad team can't dump its star running back, for, say, an intriguing OL prospect that isn't getting reps. Furthermore, good teams want to hold onto their good players, because injuries are so frequent. The only trade I could think of off of the top of my head was actually the draft-related Manning-for-Rivers one, which was unique of course in that neither guy had played a down for his team yet, and the trade was more complex because of it ended up involving 2004 draft pick Nate Kaeding, 2005 pick Shawne Merriman, and Roman Oben in a subsequent trade. Still, you can look at it as a trade that worked for all involved. The Giants got Eli and a couple of SB wins under his direction, and the Chargers achieved greater respectability after some down years, even if they didn't make a SB. Bennett-Bell-Dickerson also involved a bunch of picks. Sheppard for Hughes is one that we have to feel like the Bills won. What about others that didn't involve draft picks? And how many of these can be called good "football trades" where both sides benefited? Interested to see some examples from those that know the history better, as well as your own theories as to why we don't see these trades more often in the NFL.

And LOL at your (very plausible) Browns scenario. I'll have my popcorn ready.

Again, I don't disagree, but the Lions just hired Jim Caldwell as his replacement, based on very sketchy past success. Teams are always looking for a reason to hire a retread who has a successful season or two in his back pocket. They can explain away the things that went wrong or chalk them up as things that the guy learned from. See also: Jauron, Dick.

Noted. I'm so glad we've taken this conversation to the important topics.

How about Duck Donuts in the Outer Banks? Or Peter Pan in Brooklyn?

Can we trade Buffalo Barbarian for some donuts?

I agree, it serves no one to compare the two as quarterbacks. I'm comparing their situations, and the fact is that the practice that Kelly got was valuable, and the number of reps he took before becoming elite was sizable, and this franchise QB had a lot more of them under his belt than does our second year man. No one thinks EJ is or was on the same development curve, and that's why I think some posters could take a step back off the ledge until he gets more reps. I want to see improvement this year and I think it's imperative. I also think we've been wowed by preseason and practice all-stars only to see them fail in the pressure situations. I just find this "he isn't looking good on day 3" stuff a tad ridiculous. If he looks terrible in week 3, I'll be more concerned.

Also, somehow the Ravens manage constant plunder. I'm willing to deal with it if our D excels. Some will say he did the impossible and took a perpetual loser to the playoffs. Not suggesting he is in fact hc material, but I think he'll get looks if he's successful here.

The same coach and nothing else was different, including another year of experience for the underclassmen? Winston thinks of EJ as a mentor, FWIW.

Wait a second. There's a reason that an event that didn't happen, based upon an unsubstantiated report, maybe could have happened? There's a reason I should have bought Apple stock in 1991 but I didn't do it, and no one can verify that I considered it. LaCanfora's "report" really reads like pure speculation.

I don't. Kelly obviously had a higher pedigree coming out of college, but he had two years where he wasn't languishing on an aimless Bills team. It was to his benefit. He still didn't make the playoffs until his third season of NFL ball. Everyone who wants to believe they have the book on a much younger QB with ten games to his credit would do well to remember that the team's greatest QB played four seasons of pro ball before he took the Bills anywhere.

Thanks, Astro!

It's not really concerning. There are players who are more ready, and there are players who take time. If first impressions were always right, Jason Peters would still be a fringe nfl TE - or out of the league. He should act like he's been there before.

I agree with the first sentence. It's a classic case of "he's worth more to us than he will fetch in a deal." I would be very unhappy with trading his production here for a 3. Others may think that production is replaceable, and that's fine, I just disagree.

Partly his own doing, part coaches misusing him, part his skill set making him not a 20-25 carry-per-game back, and part injuries. I don't think anyone would argue he's been used in the best way possible given his skill set. Also, if you have a back who does all the little things and gives effort like Fred Jackson, are you sitting him for the majority of the game for anyone, save maybe 5-10 backs in the league? CJ doesn't block as well as Freddy, he cannot make magic out of those runs up the gut, and he isn't being given the ball in all the places where he can excel. I think if he has a return to health, he will do well when used well, and I think his last season in Gailey's offense is at least a good barometer of his best. Getting rid of him for anything less than a first round pick is a waste, when he cost us a high first rounder and he can contribute here. That's not sunk cost, that's good asset management. My point was that he hasn't been getting A1 back usage, so you can't expect those numbers on a career average, as mrrags is. You can look at years he has been the feature back and has been healthy, and those years are pretty freaking good.

I was high on Moeaki once. I kept getting weird visions of pulled quadriceps, fractured shoulders, and torn knee ligaments. It wasn't for me.

Exactly. Gets it.