Billsguy Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 How can anybody declare a winner of a trade when neither player has played a single down for their respective teams? You can't! What a ridiculous post.
CodeMonkey Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 How can anybody declare a winner of a trade when neither player has played a single down for their respective teams? You can't! What a ridiculous post. It's just a homer post is all. If that deal had fallen through and someone else had traded for McCoy then these types of posts would be how the Bills dodged the bullet and were so lucky to have kept Alonzo. Harmless really
Dibs Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) How can anybody declare a winner of a trade when neither player has played a single down for their respective teams? You can't! What a ridiculous post. Okay, lets start with the extremes and work back. If we traded EJ for Rodgers and 10 1st round picks would we not be able to say that we got the better of the trade? How about EJ straight up for Rodgers? How about Woods for Rodgers? Obviously one can. Things may happen to alter the assessment of the trade(like player injury etc) but one can clearly assess many trades prior to the players taking the field. A Shepherd for Hughes trade looks even initially. We can see that by determining that they were two guys who had not performed in the NFL to that point and looked like busts. Once they took the field after the trade, it became apparent that Hughes was the far better player and that the Bills actually won the trade. Unlike the Shepherd for Hughes trade, the Kko for McCoy trade does not seem even. McCoy is a multi all-pro in his prime, while Kiko is a potential talent coming off injury. That is not an even trade. Once they take the field we might get a different situation and adjust things. Kiko might be a HOFer while Shady might get injured etc and the Eagles could end up winning the trade. That concept does not mean that we cannot intellectually assess the initial trade and determine whether both teams gave roughly equal value in the trade. Edited May 26, 2015 by Dibs
What a Tuel Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 The difference is that the argument is people saying that the McCoy trade is bad for us because we could have gotten Murray for nothing and kept Kiko. Even being extraordinarily generous and saying we had a 50/50 chance to land Murray, that still leaves a 50% chance that we don't land Murray. Regardless of just how better or worse Murray is compared to McCoy, this was a bird in the hand situation. Why risk not getting a first class RB when there is one on the table available for a relatively cheap trade? That 50% was being extraordinarily generous as I said. Likely the true percentage was closer to 15%. I am finding it difficult to understand how people are making a thing out of this. Exactly. Hopefully this puts it to rest! If Whaley would have waited on Murray hitting free agency, and McCoy went to another team, while Murray still went to the Eagles, and people found out he had an opportunity to trade Alonso for McCoy, and let it slip? And then proceeded to overpay CJ because he had no other choice? People would have lost their $#@!.
CodeMonkey Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 Exactly. Hopefully this puts it to rest! If Whaley would have waited on Murray hitting free agency, and McCoy went to another team, while Murray still went to the Eagles, and people found out he had an opportunity to trade Alonso for McCoy, and let it slip? And then proceeded to overpay CJ because he had no other choice? People would have lost their $#@!. That's a pretty big leap there There are a lot of good running backs around. I prefer to think the Bills would have found another one rather than overpay Spiller
What a Tuel Posted May 26, 2015 Posted May 26, 2015 That's a pretty big leap there There are a lot of good running backs around. I prefer to think the Bills would have found another one rather than overpay Spiller Maybe. I know Forsett was a pretty sneaky under the radar top 5 RB last year. We will see if he replicates it. Gore might have been ok, but we don't need another over the hill RB on the roster (no disrespect to Fred). They both perform. Not a fan of Ryan Mathews, always seems to be injured. Maybe just unlucky. I think I put Spiller above those guys though. Maybe in the draft.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 (edited) Well, here's one Eagles fan's perspective(STOP! NSFW150 Don't even think about clicking on this at work. In fact, don't even look at this post at all if you are at work, because even that may get you in trouble. Actually, the safest course is to log off right now, because this guy drops an aresenal of bombs): http://dailysnark.com/eagles-fans-makes-hilarious-reaction-video-lesean-mccoy-trade/ Hilarious. I may have to grab a still of this as my new avatar. Edited May 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
Thurman#1 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I must have missed the year that Kiko made the probowl You're right, he didn't make the pro bowl. But he made the NFL Top 100 and the Harrison's All Under-25 Team. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-top100-2014/0ap2000000350289/Eric-Wood-Marcell-Dareus-Jairus-Byrd-Manny-Lawson-Kellen-Winslow-Kyle-Williams Both pretty phenomenal for a rookie. Okay, lets start with the extremes and work back. If we traded EJ for Rodgers and 10 1st round picks would we not be able to say that we got the better of the trade? How about EJ straight up for Rodgers? How about Woods for Rodgers? Obviously one can. Things may happen to alter the assessment of the trade(like player injury etc) but one can clearly assess many trades prior to the players taking the field. A Shepherd for Hughes trade looks even initially. We can see that by determining that they were two guys who had not performed in the NFL to that point and looked like busts. Once they took the field after the trade, it became apparent that Hughes was the far better player and that the Bills actually won the trade. Unlike the Shepherd for Hughes trade, the Kko for McCoy trade does not seem even. McCoy is a multi all-pro in his prime, while Kiko is a potential talent coming off injury. That is not an even trade. Once they take the field we might get a different situation and adjust things. Kiko might be a HOFer while Shady might get injured etc and the Eagles could end up winning the trade. That concept does not mean that we cannot intellectually assess the initial trade and determine whether both teams gave roughly equal value in the trade. Kiko isn't a potential talent. He's already one of the better LBs in the league. Now, if the injury affects his abilities, it will look better for the Bills but that injury generally comes back all the way these days. Kiko isn't potential. Potential doesn't get you over 150 tackles. I agree it's not an even trade but think the Eagles got the better of it. McCoy is old for an RB. He's close to the point where most RBs start to see falloffs in their performance. Whereas Alonso could be good for a very long time. And it had been a closer deal till they re-negged Shady. Now the Eagles have three or four years of a cheap excellent LB who they could then re-sign while the Bills are paying huge money for their (very very good right now) RB. How can anybody declare a winner of a trade when neither player has played a single down for their respective teams? You can't! What a ridiculous post. Isn't giving our opinions on stuff like this why most of us are here?
Doc Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 You're right, he didn't make the pro bowl. But he made the NFL Top 100 and the Harrison's All Under-25 Team. http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-top100-2014/0ap2000000350289/Eric-Wood-Marcell-Dareus-Jairus-Byrd-Manny-Lawson-Kellen-Winslow-Kyle-Williams Both pretty phenomenal for a rookie. Kiko isn't a potential talent. He's already one of the better LBs in the league. Now, if the injury affects his abilities, it will look better for the Bills but that injury generally comes back all the way these days. Kiko isn't potential. Potential doesn't get you over 150 tackles. I agree it's not an even trade but think the Eagles got the better of it. McCoy is old for an RB. He's close to the point where most RBs start to see falloffs in their performance. Whereas Alonso could be good for a very long time. And it had been a closer deal till they re-negged Shady. Now the Eagles have three or four years of a cheap excellent LB who they could then re-sign while the Bills are paying huge money for their (very very good right now) RB. Kiko is a far bigger question mark than McCoy and it's not even close. Not only does Kiko have to recover from a 2nd ACL injury to the same knee (do we even know whether he suffered it during contact or not?) he'll likely be making a change to a position at which he's unproven, since he can't last the season as a MLB/ILB. The potential is there, but he has to realize it. As for McCoy, basically all you are going off of is him possibly fading soon because of his age, when the good to great RB's have been playing well into their late 20's.
Beerball Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 And honestly, if I had to choose between Shady and Murray, give me Shady. I am there too & I don't think it's blind homerism. Better receiver, durable. There is no way to know that he wouldn't. You guys are just drinking the koolaid, if we had gotten some other back you would think he was the greatest. If we hadn't traded kiko away I doubt most people would be falling all over themselves to get rid of him. RBs are easy to find and trading for a paying huge money for one is foolish. Shady will have a couple good yrs then we will be looking for a new one. Along with every other team including Philly. I'm confused trying to figure out what your point is? Did the Bills get better today? Yes, they did. Why does there need to be more?
Mr. WEO Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Reasons 1-5 are: Kiko had a great portion of a rookie year: McCoy's value is at least an order of manitude higher.
Beerball Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It's just a homer post is all. If that deal had fallen through and someone else had traded for McCoy then these types of posts would be how the Bills dodged the bullet and were so lucky to have kept Alonzo. Harmless really It's actually much more than that. 6 pages of healthy debate proves the point.
Gugny Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 How can anybody declare a winner of a trade when neither player has played a single down for their respective teams? You can't! What a ridiculous post. Yes. It's ridiculous to think that when Team A trades an overrated, over-hyped, unproven, injury-prone linebacker coming off of a serious injury (2nd) to his knee, to Team B, for a proven durable, top-5 in the league running back, that team A won the trade. Like Crazy Eddie used to day .... It's INSAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Recommended Posts