Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

OFFSEASON TRADES will be necessary

MHS831

By MHS831,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

SorthNarolina Newbie

SorthNarolina

Posted
Posted

I disagree about the trades being necessary for a few reasons.

1. If football is around in 2011 it will mean a bigger roster size/longer season which makes depth more important. Salary cap should increase too.

2. While we are missing our 2nd rounder we still have the highest pick in most rounds and we do draft well.

3. We have a ton of cap room to bring in or get rid of whoever we want. I doubt we will need to trade for anybody.

The only trade I see possible that I have mentioned before is Connor because his ceiling is much higher in a 3-4 and he probably won't like being on the bench after being a starter and earning high praise.

But really that is all up to Connor because he's cheap so we have no incentive to trade him especially when we have enough cap room to sign whoever we need.

It doesn't make any sense to trade Gamble when we are already probably going to lose Marshall.

If Smitty leaves it will probably be after his contract is over. He's a franchise asset.

Trading runningbacks is a bad deal as they depreciate exponentially like a Ferrari

Link to comment
Share on other sites
D34Williams Newbie

D34Williams

Posted
Posted

Here is a great idea: Hooked on phonics. The passage suggests that there are areas where a new coach might look to trade. It mentions to get value you need to trade value. These "playmakers" are on our roster now. Our 1-11 roster. It never suggests trading all 5. It states that there could be a move to trade value to get value.

As far as Smith goes, he may want out. He has value and he will be 32. The most successful teams do not hold onto players too long. If we trade Smith, he needs to be Replaced.

You're right. I retract my post, I see now that I am a rehtard. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lite4Nite Newbie

Lite4Nite

Posted
Posted

We dont need to trade any one of 1-5. Trading J-stew before its too late sounds like a good idea because i believe goodson can fill his spot nicely.

We need to draft AJ green. With Smitty and Green, and pick up a decent QB outta free agency(Mcnabb?) this could be a powerful team. And yes, trade around a few to fill in our DT needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is probly the stupidest idea ever suggested on this MB, EVER!

Good job giving reasons. Since you have an uncanny ability to see the future, and are swarmed with the supreme intelligence necessary to overcome the fact that we have 3 younger running backs who have shown the ability to rush for 100+ yards. Your superior intellect probably tells you to lock him up to a long-term deal. We have a surplus of RBs and he would cost more to keep than the other three combined. Sorry the business side of the decision to trade an aging, banged up RB is ignorant to you.

We have 4 RBs and 0 DTs. I don't have time to teach you common sense, If you read the post--or had someone read it to you--you would have learned that it was a list of possible trades that could transpire to re-build this team. You are dumb for thinking it was a suggestion, even though it would be SMART. Now go change the lightbulb shining on your framed and matted GED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I disagree about the trades being necessary for a few reasons.

1. If football is around in 2011 it will mean a bigger roster size/longer season which makes depth more important. Salary cap should increase too.

2. While we are missing our 2nd rounder we still have the highest pick in most rounds and we do draft well.

3. We have a ton of cap room to bring in or get rid of whoever we want. I doubt we will need to trade for anybody.

The only trade I see possible that I have mentioned before is Connor because his ceiling is much higher in a 3-4 and he probably won't like being on the bench after being a starter and earning high praise.

But really that is all up to Connor because he's cheap so we have no incentive to trade him especially when we have enough cap room to sign whoever we need.

It doesn't make any sense to trade Gamble when we are already probably going to lose Marshall.

If Smitty leaves it will probably be after his contract is over. He's a franchise asset.

Trading runningbacks is a bad deal as they depreciate exponentially like a Ferrari

Very good points, and thanks for having the intelligence to realize that these were possible scenarios, not a list of suggestions. The best point is the schedule going to 18 games. If rosters are lengthened, then we will need more RBs. However, if you have to lose a RB position, why not the oldest and most expensive when the others are showing the ability to get the same results? Just some decisions that the new guy might consider.

I also don't think it is the time to get rid of Gamble. Just threw it out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jim stone Newbie

jim stone

Posted
Posted

Good job giving reasons. Since you have an uncanny ability to see the future, and are swarmed with the supreme intelligence necessary to overcome the fact that we have 3 younger running backs who have shown the ability to rush for 100+ yards. Your superior intellect probably tells you to lock him up to a long-term deal. We have a surplus of RBs and he would cost more to keep than the other three combined. Sorry the business side of the decision to trade an aging, banged up RB is ignorant to you.

We have 4 RBs and 0 DTs. I don't have time to teach you common sense, If you read the post--or had someone read it to you--you would have learned that it was a list of possible trades that could transpire to re-build this team. You are dumb for thinking it was a suggestion, even though it would be SMART. Now go change the lightbulb shining on your framed and matted GED.

OK Asshole. Stewart and Williams are the only thing we have selling tickets. They are the best we got. Go fug yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MHS831 Grand Master

MHS831

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You sure get hacked off when someone misinterprets your thread.

Not at all. I knew some would not read it correctly because they are cyber snipers. I just laugh and throw it back at them. Although I will add that threads like this reveal a lot about our public school system. :ciappa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jim stone Newbie

jim stone

Posted
Posted

Good job giving reasons. Since you have an uncanny ability to see the future, and are swarmed with the supreme intelligence necessary to overcome the fact that we have 3 younger running backs who have shown the ability to rush for 100+ yards. Your superior intellect probably tells you to lock him up to a long-term deal. We have a surplus of RBs and he would cost more to keep than the other three combined. Sorry the business side of the decision to trade an aging, banged up RB is ignorant to you.

We have 4 RBs and 0 DTs. I don't have time to teach you common sense, If you read the post--or had someone read it to you--you would have learned that it was a list of possible trades that could transpire to re-build this team. You are dumb for thinking it was a suggestion, even though it would be SMART. Now go change the lightbulb shining on your framed and matted GED.

You should be forever bant for stupidity!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...