Darby trade

[Chuck Schick]

Your mind is clearly made up, which fine.... but to say that the Watkins/EJ trade isn't directly tied into the Darby/Mathews trade kind of hurts your cred.  One clearly wouldn't have happened without the other.  And that was the reality AT THE TIME....to say you'd rather now have Darby to trade, but ignore everything else isn't realistic. 

 

And of course there are CBs that are better suited at man-to-man than zone, and vice versa.   Good zone CBs are usually better at reacting to and catching the ball and making tackles in the run game, as examples.  

Edited March 22, 2018 by Chuck Schick

[K-9]

50 minutes ago, Chuck Schick said:

Your mind is clearly made up, which fine.... but to say that the Watkins/EJ trade isn't directly tied into the Darby/Mathews trade kind of hurts your cred.  One clearly wouldn't have happened without the other.  And that was the reality AT THE TIME....to say you'd rather now have Darby to trade, but ignore everything else isn't realistic. 

 

And of course there are CBs that are better suited at man-to-man than zone, and vice versa.   Good zone CBs are usually better at reacting to and catching the ball and making tackles in the run game, as examples.  

This has always been true. It's almost surprising the amount of CBs over the years that were good at one and not the other. I can count on one hand the CBs that were/are just as adept at either. 

 

Another point regarding scheme fit for McD's zone schemes, is his preference for taller, longer players which was another factor in making Darby expendable. Zone is much more challenging to play than man; just a lot more moving parts. 

[Logic]

McDermott needs very specific things from his cornerbacks.

Ideally, they should be long, strong, have a big wingspan, good "zone eyes", and be willing tacklers.

Whether you agree or disagree, McDermott and co seem to have concluded that Darby didn't fit the mold, so they moved on and got what they could in return.

Me personally? I'm fine with the trade. Getting a 3rd back for a guy of Darby's caliber -- when players like JPP and Marcus Peters and Robert Quinn got traded for less -- seems like great value.

[formerlyofCtown]

You have to pay attention to the whole market.  Who do you want in a trade, Darby or Peters and Talib.

Peters 2019 2nd and 2018 4th

Talib 2018 5th round

This draft is loaded with DBs

They got great value for Darby because DC and scheme familiarity.

[Alphadawg7]

6 hours ago, dbflaBill said:

Any one else think that they traded Darby too soon, and the return wasnt really worth it. Having Darby now would be a more valuable trade piece than the 3rd round pick they got in return. In fact I believe the Bills could probably get a 1 for him if he were on the Roster right now. At the very least a swap of ones like the Glenn trade. Essentially the Bills "traded" mathews (no longer on the team) and Darby for a 3.  I believe Beane really swung and missed on this trade, and it could really come back and bite them. 

 

I would have preferred to have kept Darby, but I don't think the compensation was bad when we did the trade.  

[K-9]

6 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

You have to pay attention to the whole market.  Who do you want in a trade, Darby or Peters and Talib.

Peters 2019 2nd and 2018 4th

Talib 2018 5th round

This draft is loaded with DBs

They got great value for Darby because DC and scheme familiarity.

DC and scheme familiarity? With whom, Philly? Because he never played a down in Schwartz's previously. 

[formerlyofCtown]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

DC and scheme familiarity? With whom, Philly? Because he never played a down in Schwartz's previously. 

My bad you're right

4 minutes ago, K-9 said:

DC and scheme familiarity? With whom, Philly? Because he never played a down in Schwartz's previously. 

 

[JMF2006]

6 hours ago, dbflaBill said:

EJ has nothing to do with the trade, and hes no longer on the team. My point isn't Darby fitting a scheme. My point is holding on to him till now, and trading him now would be more valuable than getting a third round pick... Darby being part of a trade package to get into position for a top QB is more valuable than the third round pick that they have. 

 

I am happy they got more than a bag of deflated footballs for him

 

If he wasn't happy last year was the proper time to trade him.

[K-9]

16 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said:

My bad you're right

 

[Doc]

The Eagles should be actively shopping Darby.  He's in the last year of his deal and there's probably no way they can afford to pay him what he'll be looking for on the market next year. 

[artmalibu]

7 hours ago, dbflaBill said:

 In fact I believe the Bills could probably get a 1 for him if he were on the Roster right now. 

 

 

Your crazy, put the crack pipe down!!!

[LABILLBACKER]

10 hours ago, Chuck Wagon said:

No,  essentially the Bills traded Watkins & Darby for Mathews, EJ Gaines, 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick.  

if we can resign Gaines it was worth it...

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I liked Darby.  

Hope he has a good career. 

 

 

[KW95 - JA17]

Seriously, he's a terrible SB winner! 

 

Not only that, he got squeezed in to defend man to man against Gronk a few times.  Guess what.  Any cornerback is losing that battle.

 

23 years old, came back from a major injury, Super Bowl champ.  Id love to have me some of that!  I think White and Darby would be good together!  Even though he looks like a Giraffe.

[NoSaint]

6 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

You have to pay attention to the whole market.  Who do you want in a trade, Darby or Peters and Talib.

Peters 2019 2nd and 2018 4th

Talib 2018 5th round

This draft is loaded with DBs

They got great value for Darby because DC and scheme familiarity.

 

While you get there’s a bigger picture, you are neglecting that Darby is dirt cheap for multiple years which helps his value quite a bit.

[BringBackOrton]

7 hours ago, K-9 said:

This has always been true. It's almost surprising the amount of CBs over the years that were good at one and not the other. I can count on one hand the CBs that were/are just as adept at either. 

 

Another point regarding scheme fit for McD's zone schemes, is his preference for taller, longer players which was another factor in making Darby expendable. Zone is much more challenging to play than man; just a lot more moving parts. 

More challenging from a cerebral standpoint.  I don't believe it's as physically challenging, in terms of needing as much athleticism.

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

More challenging from a cerebral standpoint.  I don't believe it's as physically challenging, in terms of needing as much athleticism.

Of course, he has all the athleticism necessary, although, as said earlier, he doesn't fit McD's preference for tall CBs with length. 

 

As to the cerebral aspects of the position, CB is by far the easiest position on the field to master; the playbook section for CBs is the shortest in the book. Especially where man coverage is concerned. But zones do require an entire mastery of the various coverage areas and knowing where everyone else is in relation to your position. Proper depths and drop angles are critical as well, kind of akin to a wideout that needs to run precise routes in relation to all the other receivers and needs to make sure his mistaken routes aren't running defenders into another area, etc. 

[formerlyofCtown]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

 

While you get there’s a bigger picture, you are neglecting that Darby is dirt cheap for multiple years which helps his value quite a bit.

No I get that but rookies in a deep class are cheap as well. I would give pick 65 for him after how he played well this past season but I would take Talib and Peters at less than a first before I took him for a first. Especially when Peters is on the cheap as well at the moment.

Edited March 23, 2018 by formerlyofCtown

[Thurman#1]

21 hours ago, dbflaBill said:

Any one else think that they traded Darby too soon, and the return wasnt really worth it. Having Darby now would be a more valuable trade piece than the 3rd round pick they got in return. In fact I believe the Bills could probably get a 1 for him if he were on the Roster right now. At the very least a swap of ones like the Glenn trade. Essentially the Bills "traded" mathews (no longer on the team) and Darby for a 3.  I believe Beane really swung and missed on this trade, and it could really come back and bite them. 

 

 

I liked Darby a lot.

 

There are some folks who think he doesn't fit the McD scheme, that he's mostly a man coverage guy. I'm not sure I buy that, but maybe.

 

But the bottom line was that they needed trade bait for a QB and they needed to clear salary cap space and knew he was going to cost a ton to re-sign. The return was worth it, though it turned out Matthews was injured and was never right. That was a shame. Might they have gotten more this off-season? Maybe. If he hadn't fit this defense, maybe not.

 

I've been constantly harping on about the salary cap and how it was causing us more problems than people were wanting to admit. Now it's out that Beane had promised the Pegulas to get it under control and handled by this year. That took a ton of moves, some of which hurt in the short term. This was one of them and we at least got a valuable pick out of it.

 

Not to mention that the secondary was excellent last year without Darby.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Thurman#1

[McBean]

We got a 3rd rounder for a guy who got torched all last season.

 

What are you talking about?