When has a blockbuster NFL trade worked out for the team who gives up everything?

[Stumpy]

10 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

Blockbuster trade is like pornography. It is hard to define but you know it when you see it.

Which is exactly why the Miller Test was developed. To set parameters so that an objective question can have subjective answers. 

[Stumpy]

3 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

Which is exactly why the Miller Test was developed. To set parameters so that an objective question can have subjective answers. 

Scratch that. Reverse it. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Stumpy

[Aussie Tank]

3 hours ago, Smithers said:

Steelers trading for Minkah Fitzpatrick.  Seahawks trading for Jamal Adams.  Cardinals trading for Deandre Hopkins.  
 

to name a few...

Come on now what did the cards pay for Hopkins? Peanuts? 

Edited February 24, 2021 by Aussie Tank

[Car123]

2 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Why stop at blockbusters? Under your terms, why wouldn't any aquisition that didn't lead to a Super Bowl be considered a failure. 

We gave up a 3rd for Olsen and had an overall losing record during his tenure. We never reached the goal. But he might reach the HOF. Did we lose that trade? 

Pretty sure we had a winning record.

[Happy Panther]

2 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Too many unknown variables in your equation there homie. 

What is a "blockbuster trade?"

- An established All-Pro player

- A Pro Bowler in their prime

- Anyone who nets multiple picks

- Multiple 1st round picks

- Perceived overpayment

What is considered working out? 

- Tangible improvement in a specific personnel grouping

- Improved W/L record

- Future All-Pro/Pro Bowl noms

- Playoff performance

- Super Bowl

What position are the Panthers in for your scenario? 

- If we trade Teddy to Chicago for a 1st and 3rd, and they win a ring dinking and dunking for 3 yards here and 4 yards there and say 15 passing TDs, who won the trade? Was it a blockbuster?

- If we trade 3 1sts for Watson and are perennial contenders for the next 10 years but, never hoist the Lombardi, did the trade "work out" in our favor? 

This is a very common reaction in the analytical world and is an immediate flag that you will fail at critical thinking. "Define all the parameters before I can answer." Nah if you want to participate state your assumptions and then answer. I'm not force feeding you. It's a discussion.

 

[Stumpy]

8 minutes ago, Happy Panther said:

This is a very common reaction in the analytical world and is an immediate flag that you will fail at critical thinking. "Define all the parameters before I can answer." Nah if you want to participate state your assumptions and then answer. I'm not force feeding you. It's a discussion.

 

You literally did not define any of your parameters. 

It is like asking "Is Taylor Swift is a rock star?"

-Yes, she's sold more records than the Beatles. 

-No, her music is terrible. 

-She doesn't even play "rock music."

-Well, she's bedded more celebrities than anyone can count. She must be somewhere between Wilt Chamberlain and Tommy Lee.

Unless you define "rock star," in at least some concrete terms, then any of these answers could be right or wrong. 

You clearly have an opinion. But, rather than stating it, you phrased it as a question that you can refute any answer to in order to suit your agenda. 

And then resorted to attacking peoples' "critical thinking" ability when you got called on it. 

[Stumpy]

Happy Panther:

If there's no goal posts, I can't be accused of moving them. 

[Stumpy]

Mods, can we change the name of this thread to "No true blockbuster fallacy"

[Mr. Scot]

5 hours ago, top dawg said:

I don't think that you can measure the success of a blockbuster trade only by championships. It takes many moving parts to win a championship. I mean, if we trade for Watson and we end up a perennial contender, consistently in the playoffs for the next decade, would that really be a failure if we don't win the big one? 

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.

[TheCasillas]

9 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Lolwut?

“Blockbuster trade” is just a media terminology - it’s been used to describe a trade that makes mainstream headlines. That’s it.

You are thinking into this way too hard.

[Pup McBarky]

7 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Mods, can we change the name of this thread to "No true blockbuster fallacy"

That depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Pup McBarky]

9 hours ago, Stumpy said:

Which is exactly why the Miller Test was developed. To set parameters so that an objective question can have subjective answers. 

The Miller Test was developed specifically to define material that is "obscene" for the sake of community standards. It was not developed to give people a way to objectively answer subjective questions in any other situation. The very notion is absolutely silly. 

[TheRumGone]

Has there ever been an mvp level franchise qb 25 and under traded going into their prime? No, unless I’m forgetting someone. Only qb I can remember close to this is jay cutler from Denver to Chicago and Watson is ten times the qb cutler was. 
 

cutlers last year in Denver he threw for 4500 yards 25 tds to 18 int 200 yards and 2 tds rushing for 4700 yards 27 total tds to 18 picks.
 

Watsons’ supposed last year with Houston he threw for 4800 yards 33 tds and 7 int 444 yards and 3 tds rushing. That’s over 5k yards and 36 tds to 7 int.

That’s just stats. Watson brings intangibles that Cutler never had. There has never been a history of this to look back to at the most important position on the football field. These types of trades never ever happen. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by TheRumGone

[joemac]

13 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Rams trading for Faulk.

Rams trading for Ramsey.