DMN: BLOG: What would you give up for (Det) Roy Williams?

[ctrous25]

2nd rounder and Bobby Carpenter should be enough there will be some teams in wanting for his services, throwing a good special teams guy might help our chances plus we really dont need Bobby

 

[03EBZ06]

I'd start with 2nd rounder offer and work it to our 28th pick for Roy Williams. If we immediately offer 28th pick, then they will want more. Start low and work it up rather than offering your max immediately.

 

[Rack]

He wouldn't be able to and in my previous statement I said he would adapt by changing his style.

He wouldn't have to change his style. At all.


And WRs still rarely get called for pushing off nowadays anyway. Just look at like half of Moss' TDs this year.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

You wouldnt hvae to pay the palyer nearly as much. The value in the draft is economic as well as talent.

You get to sign a player a t a discount price for upwards of 6 years. Oh and i just looked it up, Williams' contract is up next year. We would trade a first for a year rental of a talented guy with an injury history.

That would be utter stupidity.

Considering the cap has gone up, I'm pretty sure we could afford to pay Williams.

Im not too sure on the details of his contract, but I think if we traded for him, it's safe to say we would sign him to a long term deal.

The injury thing is a bit of a concern.

He's been playing in Detroit with Joey Harrington and Jon Kitna and still putting up good numbers. The guy is averaging 15 yards a catch for his career. And his potential is through the roof.

With Williams, besides the injuries, you KNOW you are getting a stud WR.
Drafting a WR is a big question mark. More economical yes, but also a much bigger risk.

If we don't try to get Boldin/Williams/Jonson or someone this year, we had better get a WR early.

I think we could get by with Owens and Crayton and a rookie for this year. But the position needs to be addressed ASAP.

I think CB, RB, and WR are our biggest needs this year, in that order. But the nice thing is you can get good value on RBs later in the draft. If we address RB in the 2nd or 3rd round, we can probably get a good rookie to step in and contribute with about 10-15 touches, which is what we need to spell Barber. I'm not a big fan of giving Barber 20-25 touches a game with the way he runs.

 

[Sarge]

The Moss for a 4th trade was a freaky, fluke thing. .

Exactly, that type of deal is the exception, not the rule. If you wanna land WR Roy Williams, it doesn't take 'rocket science' to realize it's going to take more than a 4th rounder. With this mentality, there never would have been one single trade league-wide since "the Herschel Walker trade."

Some people need to get real.

 

[CF74]

He wouldn't have to change his style. At all.


And WRs still rarely get called for pushing off nowadays anyway. Just look at like half of Moss' TDs this year.

Moss doesn't play for the Cowboys

and you didn't answer my question about Galloway breaking his leg twice...

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Fair enough, but only #28, not 28 and a 2nd.

That really seems like the best deal. #28 and done.

 

[theogt]

At the time, we were expecting that those picks would be low picks not for us to tank like that. What your doing is termed revisionist history but again what was the last player traded for a first round draft choice?

Yes, I'm sure we expected both of our first round draft picks to be #28 and #60. That makes a lot of sense. Surely this didn't sound as dumb in your head as it did on screen.

Actually it was two years ago when Deion Branch was traded to the Seahawks for a single first coming off a career year. It was considered an overpay at the time.

Was it? Apparently that was market value for a guy that's not considered half the receiver that Roy Williams is. Career year or not, not many thought he was a solid #1 WR. That's certainly not true of RW. So, basically, that trade says that the starting point should be a first rounder.

Over his first 4 years, Branch had 2744 yards and 15 TDs. In that same span Williams had 3652 yards and 28 TDs. That's a difference of 908 yards and 13 TDs. Yet, Branch had arguably the best QB in the game throwing to him, while Roy Williams had a couple of scrubs. Joey Harrington? LOL.

I'm glad that you keep proving my point, though. Thanks. It makes it much easier.

But really the kind of trade you are proposing would be a Daniel Snyder move. who trades away hordes of draft picks for questionable talent.

Questionable talent? Yeah, if we were trading for questionable talent, you might have an argument. Roy Williams isn't questionable talent.

 

[Sarge]

Yes, I'm sure we expected both of our first round draft picks to be #28 and #60. .

I for one never would have predicted to have the #60 first round pick......but that's just me.

 

[DragonCowboy]

How about both our 1st round picks?

Last time we did that it worked so well.


(btw I would be willing to get RW for a 1st rounder...)

 

[khiladi]

Irvin could not run away from anybody. Especially later in his career.

You don't have to be fast to beat zone coverage. You need to work well in space to beat zone coverage. Irvin was all about positioning himself for the catch.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Exactly, that type of deal is the exception, not the rule. If you wanna land WR Roy Williams, it doesn't take 'rocket science' to realize it's going to take more than a 4th rounder. With this mentality, there never would have been one single trade league-wide since "the Herschel Walker trade."

Some people need to get real.

i can actually do most of the projections and rotations for what people would term 'rocket science' so spare me your assumption that you know anything. Im trying to compare it to something; you guys are just throwing out lavish amounts that have no bearing on the market.

The Moss for a 4th trade was a freaky, fluke thing. He'd quit on his previous team, was rumored to have lost some speed, and had a horrible reputation at the time. You can't judge future trades off that, or no WR will ever get traded again.

And Detroit does have a little leverage -- other teams who would bid against each other.

I said in my post that if I'd heard somehow that he would definitely come here after next year when his deal was up, I wouldn't trade for him either. But sometimes you hear about these stories of players wanting to be back home, and it never happens. Money > home most of the time.

1) Williams has had one good year since hes been in the league. Last year wasnt it as he missed 4 games and saw his YPC drop to its lowest ever. You can pretty much count on him missing at least two games and spending a signifcant time hurt.

2) People could bid on Moss as well and as such the Lions have just as much leverage as the Raiders did. Hes got an expiring contract and while Moss had 'lost' a step, Williams hasnt done anything remotely as significant as Moss has and last year he once again got hurt and took a step back. You guys make it seem like Williams is some sort of dynamo when in fact hes had one good year and it wasnt even last year. Throw on top of that Williams not having signed any sort of extension and being only 26 and Detroits prospects look even bleaker.

3) Deion Branch was traded in 2006 for a first after he had a career year where he went for 1k yards and was the superbowl MVP. That was a gross overpay and Willimas last year wasnt even that good.

4) You can get a WR like Berrian or Moss right now through FA and not have to give up a single draft pick in the process.

In the end we dont need to do this trade and if the Lions dont do this trade they are left with a WR that doesnt want to be there and will be gone next year.

In no way shape or from would I consider offering them anything more than a 3rd and I would go after Berrian first anyway.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I'm sure we expected both of our first round draft picks to be #28 and #60. That makes a lot of sense. Surely this didn't sound as dumb in your head as it did on screen.

Was it? Apparently that was market value for a guy that's not considered half the receiver that Roy Williams is. Career year or not, not many thought he was a solid #1 WR. That's certainly not true of RW. So, basically, that trade says that the starting point should be a first rounder.

Over his first 4 years, Branch had 2744 yards and 15 TDs. In that same span Williams had 3652 yards and 28 TDs. That's a difference of 908 yards and 13 TDs. Yet, Branch had arguably the best QB in the game throwing to him, while Roy Williams had a couple of scrubs. Joey Harrington? LOL.

I'm glad that you keep proving my point, though. Thanks. It makes it much easier.

Questionable talent? Yeah, if we were trading for questionable talent, you might have an argument. Roy Williams isn't questionable talent.

1) A guy that takes a step back in his fourth year and has one healthy season in 4 is questionable.

2) Branch was coming off of a career year. Williams has done exactly the opposite. His major concern is his durability and least season he missed the most games of his career. This is a what have you done for me lately and lately Williams has been hurt.

Furthermore the Patriots werent in a position where Branch was talking about wanting to move to Washington state while coming up on the last year of his contract. The Pats had leverage and a guy that had performed as an elite the previous year.

The lions have a guy that is coming off yet another injury riddled year, regressed in every statistical category, and is going to walk after next season.

3) As for the actual placement of the picks you were trying to place the original Galloway trade as an expectant top 10 picks where in fact we were planning to do much better than we did. We tanked and they ended up being top ten but that was not the expectation.

It only sounds stupid when you forget the context of your original argument. This is a typical red herring from you. The bottom line is that the expectation from the Galloway trade was low first rounders and your proposal is much more in line with that then two high first round picks.

if youre going to try and descredit my intelligence then at least try and remember your argument that i am responding to.

 

[theogt]

1) A guy that takes a step back in his fourth year and has one healthy season in 4 is questionable.

And it's been noted that other HOF receivers have missed more time than him in their first 4 seasons. So this alone isn't a big concern.

2) Branch was coming off of a career year. Williams has done exactly the opposite. His major concern is his durability and least season he missed the most games of his career. This is a what have you done for me lately and lately Williams has been hurt.

Furthermore the Patriots werent in a position where Branch was talking about wanting to move to Washington state while coming up on the last year of his contract. The Pats had leverage and a guy that had performed as an elite the previous year.

The lions have a guy that is coming off yet another injury riddled year, regressed in every statistical category, and is going to walk after next season.

Career year. LOL. His "career" year was about average for Roy Williams. These guys aren't in the same echelon.

And, oh, by the way, Branch had missed more games in his first 4 years than Williams had.

Once again, the Branch trade should be viewed as a starting point. He garnered a #24. We start at #28 and go up from that.

3) As for the actual placement of the picks you were trying to place the original Galloway trade as an expectant top 10 picks where in fact we were planning to do much better than we did. We tanked and they ended up being top ten but that was not the expectation.

It only sounds stupid when you forget the context of your original argument. This is a typical red herring from you. The bottom line is that the expectation from the Galloway trade was low first rounders and your proposal is much more in line with that then two high first round picks.

if youre going to try and descredit my intelligence then at least try and remember your argument that i am responding to.

Your argument was that sending them the #28 and #60 was equivalent to sending them two first round picks that ended up being #9 and #19. This argument is absolutely flippin' ******** and I'm embarrassed for you for bringing it up.

You really should just let this die.

 

[ZeroClub]

I think some people don't realize how freaky athletic Roy is. Even in a league of amazing athletes, he stands out. That kind of potential is why you take a chance.

Yes, the injury thing worries me a little, but for that talent at that young an age -- especially for someone who is a good guy and solid person, unlike some of the egomaniacal drama queen WRs out there -- I definitely give a first.

And he wants to be here. This is the Bigg situation all over again.

Probably the only way I *wouldn't* do it is if you have word that he'd come here for free (draft pick-wise) the following year when he's a UFA. In that case, as much as we'd all like to see him here now, I'd wait and use that 1st to draft someone. I think we have to resist the temptation to think that we need to panic and grab for everything *right now*. We have a good young QB and no major cap problems, so our window should be open for several years.

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Is it really worth a 1st round draft pick just to get him a year early? That seems like a stiff price.

Maybe somebody here can provide some examples of players in the last year of their contracts who were traded for a first round draft pick. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out.

 

[theogt]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Is it really worth a 1st round draft pick just to get him a year early? That seems like a stiff price.

Maybe somebody here can provide some examples of players in the last year of their contracts who were traded for a first round draft pick. I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I honestly don't know and would be curious to find out.

While that's a good point, I'd like to be the only voice in his ear in terms of signing him to a long-term contract.

What you're paying for is getting him here for the '08 season (which could be huge) and exclusivity in negotiating with him long-term.

Deion Branch was shipped off after his 4th season.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And it's been noted that other HOF receivers have missed more time than him in their first 4 seasons. So this alone isn't a big concern.

Career year. LOL. His "career" year was about average for Roy Williams. These guys aren't in the same echelon.

And, oh, by the way, Branch had missed more games in his first 4 years than Williams had.

You know as well as I that taking a small sample size of 'HoF WR' shows absolutely nothing. I can show you a plethora of first round WRs whos careers were scuttled to injury and I guarantee you its infintely longer than your 1 or 2 exceptions.

What Branch did in his first 4 years is immaterial and has little to no bearing on that trade. Branch had just had a career year and Williams just had a year where he took a SIGNIFICANT step back due to ONCE AGAIN being injured.

You keep on talking about things that happened 4+ years ago and ill keep talking about the status quo.

Once again, the Branch trade should be viewed as a starting point. He garnered a #24. We start at #28 and go up from that.

Actually it should be considered a bad trade. If you want a starting point look to Chris Chambers who only cost a low second, still had multiple years on his deal while having a better career and there you have your starting point.

Your argument was that sending them the #28 and #60 was equivalent to sending them two first round picks that ended up being #9 and #19. This argument is absolutely flippin' ******** and I'm embarrassed for you for bringing it up.

You really should just let this die.

No I said it was the same mindset as the Galloway trade and nothing about the specific numbers. You were the one that started the numbers thing and now continue to miss the point.

Fact of the matter is you are proposing to give up more for Williams than anyother team has for a single player since the Raiders aquired Moss in the first place (a horrid trade) or that Galloway trade which was the worst trade in Cowboys history.

 

[Da Hammer]

probably been mentioned plenty of times but Roy Williams and a 3rd for Roy Williams. i think ya know who would be throwing in the 3rd...

 

[theogt]

No I said it was the same mindset as the Galloway trade and nothing about the specific numbers. You were the one that started the numbers thing and now continue to miss the point.

The comparison was remarkably dumb. Admit it and move on.

The rest of your post was just you talking in circles.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The comparison was remarkably dumb. Admit it and move on.

Oh, c'mon. An autistic 5 year old could see how dumb you're being here.

Ad hominem. Always the last bastion of those that know they have no leg to stand on.

I actually thought you were proposing to give up more than any trade other than the Galloway trade but then I looked it up and saw the Moss trade was up there as well. Both are noted as two of the stupidest trades in NFL history and now youre saying we should give up a first and a second.

Actually what was prima facia was that your original proposal was idiotic. Perhaps you should review the initail responses to your proposal.

Oh and BTW theo you wouldnt know a circular argument if it bit you inthe butt. My conclusion is not the cause of my premise. Once again you have no leg to stand on and your too childish to admit who youre arguing with might have a point. At least you had the decency to uderstand that the part about autistics was completely classless.

Im done with this your intent on a flame war is not going to work.