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

[NCBlu]

I bet Philly and LA wish they could have had back all the picks sent to get there QBs(ex) who are both gone by the 2nd contract.

[Shotgun]

1 minute ago, NCBlu said:

I bet Philly and LA wish they could have had back all the picks sent to get there QBs(ex) who are both gone by the 2nd contract.

The eagles won a Lombardi because they made that trade. 

[TheRumGone]

And the Herschel walker trade that everyone likes to bring up is totally different then this. 
 

1. Herschel didn’t want to go to Minnesota. He was actually angry about it. And it showed with his play. He loved Dallas and playing for the cowboys. He told jerry Jones only way he would go is if he got him some stuff from a list he made; free house, free Mercedes Benz and a large exit bonus.  Jerry called his bluff and paid it.

2. Herschel was 27 years old which is prime running back falling off the cliff phase.

3. And even if Herschel was one of those rb rarities, he didn’t fit the Vikings scheme at the time. And that was probably the biggest thing.

contrast that with Watson being 25 years old, having a no trade clause, could decline if he didn’t want to come here and Joe Brady’s offense would fit perfectly with what deshaun can do. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by TheRumGone

[Pup McBarky]

2 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

The eagles won a Lombardi because they made that trade. 

Debatable. Wentz got hurt. Foles won through the playoffs. Whether they would've made it that far with Foles during the season is subject to debate, but the claim that the trade was the reason they won the SB is hurt by the fact that Wentz went down with 6 games left in the regular season.

[CRA]

I think recent history.....Ramsey and Mack are the monster blockbuster trades.   Superstar.   Mega cost.   They just aren't QBs.  But from what we have seen have been good for the teams that acquired them.  All other deals in recent history are big names and low/reasonable cost.   

All the super duper deals gone bad are from a different era of the sport and largely involve RBs. 

So given there is no example in recent history similar to Watson showing why we shouldn't do it....there is only one logical conclusion. 

[Shotgun]

3 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

Debatable. Wentz got hurt. Foles won through the playoffs. Whether they would've made it that far with Foles during the season is subject to debate, but the claim that the trade was the reason they won the SB is hurt by the fact that Wentz went down with 6 games left in the regular season.

Everything is debatable, but Wentz put them in position to have homefield throughout the playoffs. I doubt the eagles are sorry they traded for Wentz. 

[top dawg]

12 hours ago, CRA said:

Rams traded for the best corner in the NFL Ramsey last year.   Had never been a top 10 D under McVeigh

#1 D in the NFL this year? Rams

2 firsts and a fourth.

Rams have traded their 20, 21, 22, 23 first round picks actually.  Not everyone  believes in building by the draft. 

 

I think the best FOs look at the roster and build the team via a combination of the draft and/or free agency on a situational basis. It's not an either-or proposition. Some, like ours, are not afraid to look at all avenues either (like the now defunct XFL or the CFL). I think that the priority is fundamentally to build via the draft, but that you have to have the bigger picture of the puzzle each year, and on the macro level as well. 

[Pup McBarky]

8 minutes ago, Shotgun said:

Everything is debatable, but Wentz put them in position to have homefield throughout the playoffs. I doubt the eagles are sorry they traded for Wentz. 

Whether they're sorry they made the trade and whether the trade is the primary reason they won the SB are two entirely different questions. I'd argue the reason they made the SB is because they put together a  damn good team and had a backup QB good enough to be an NFL starter.

There's no guarantee they make the SB or win it if Wentz hadn't got hurt.

[Shotgun]

1 minute ago, Pup McBarky said:

Whether they're sorry they made the trade and whether the trade is the primary reason they won the SB are two entirely different questions. I'd argue the reason they made the SB is because they put together a  damn good team and had a backup QB good enough to be an NFL starter.

There's no guarantee they make the SB or win it if Wentz hadn't got hurt.

There's no guarantees and everything is debatable. But I'm sure they would take the trophy over the picks they traded.  

[Pup McBarky]

1 minute ago, Shotgun said:

There's no guarantees and everything is debatable. But I'm sure they would take the trophy over the picks they traded.  

Sure. That's a no-brainer. If all you had to do was trade picks for a Lombardi, every coach and team would have at least one. 

[Moo Daeng]

47 minutes ago, joemac said:

Rams trading for Ramsey.

What have the Rams won with Ramsey?  They'd be much better off with those selections they gave up.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Moo Daeng

[Moo Daeng]

14 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

Rams trading for Faulk.

Faulk was acquired for a second and fifth. That's not even on the fringe of the cusp of beginning to discuss blockbuster trade. 

[TheCasillas]

2 hours ago, Pup McBarky said:

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. 

this fuging conversation is silly. ahah what is even happening right now?

[Pup McBarky]

5 minutes ago, TheCasillas said:

this fuging conversation is silly. ahah what is even happening right now?

Someone learned something and tried to apply it where it didn't belong. That's all.