Mr. Scot

If I'm being honest, I'd have to say Miller's value in a trade package is probably equivalent to the "free" item in a "buy one get one free" deal.

We blamed Rivera for that particular glitch, but turned out it was David Tepper who suggested it. Not one of his better moments...

...trying not to think about phrases like "non-disclosure agreement", "jeans day", or (especially) "back to back winning seasons".

He played in a couple of episodes of NCIS too. I think his character ended up dead. (that happens to a lot of side characters on NCIS... and some main characters)

You could make a pretty good case that a top five pick getting benched more than once qualifies as "underperforming".

Got me. I'm not sure what Ryan Clark's logic is here.

Hope so. He didn't really strike me as anything special so if he turns out to be good, cool.

If I'm being honest, his rookie season was kind of...forgettable.

Breer says the Eagles are gonna be looking reeeeeally hard at the top quarterbacks. He believes drafting competition for Hurts is more likely than signing a veteran.

Wait, what?!

He didn't think they would either. He did say that was as much as he'd offer though, with the rationale being that throwing Burns in there essentially makes the deal equal to three first round picks.

I genuinely didn't think this post would lead to a debate I guess it's true that Huddlers will argue over just about anything

McCaffrey isn't cap practical. If I recall correctly, our resident movie Shogun suggested two firsts and Brian Burns. Would you be on board with that?

Saw this from one of SI's Panther guys... I'm not sure whether he's talking about King's proposal or Schrager's.

Wilson's skill set is phenomenal. His frame and physical makeup scare the hell out of me.

There was a comment about Fields in the draft forum attributed to a scout, something to the effect of they examined every play of his season and he only very rarely ever looked off his first read. Valid? No idea, but to be fair that's the way a lot of college systems are set up these days.

I like the direction the team is heading, but I have to admit I'd have a hard time being optimistic about Kellen Mond.

... is the guy playing Andre the Giant on The Rock's new show. That's probably about as good a choice as you could find for that role.

A standard trade, maybe not. But if you give up the kind of things we're talking about giving up, you better win a championship.

Yes I did. You give up a third round pick and that doesn't work out? It's salvageable. You give up a first round pick and it doesn't work out? That gets you a dirty look from the owner, but it's still manageable. You trade more than one first round pick and it doesn't lead to a championship? You're on thin ice...at best. You give up some of the ridiculous trade packages we're talking about here and you don't win a championship with the guy you gave up all that stuff for in short order? Your ass is fired.

We traded a third round pick for Olsen. Think we can get Deshaun Watson for a third round pick?

Bill Voth posted this... ...a clip of Steve Smith throwing a crushing block on Vikings linebacker Chad Greenway. That tweet later received a fun response from a surprising source.

It was a hypothetical example. Teams don't generally come out and say "we made bad decisions and had a sh-tty season", but they still do so pretty frequently.

I'm saying only blockbuster trades that helped a team win championships can truly be called a success. If all you can say is "we gave up a sh-tload for this player and afterward we were...pretty good", then you didn't reach the goal.

I'm not trading away the kind of package we're talking about just to get the best player at the position. If the answer to the question doesn't include championships, then no it's not good enough.