Our 2 # 1s for LT
- Thread starter sportsman
- Start date
ABQCOWBOY
Regular Joe....
- Messages
- 58,929
- Reaction score
- 27,716
Honestly, I just fail to understand the reasoning behind trading our draft away for a RB. You do realize that our AYPC is amoung the best in the league right? In fact, I believe we are tied for 6th in the league. As a team, we are tied for 6th in the league in rushing TDs. I mean, we're the second best offense in the league, the third best passing offense in the league.
Were about as fortunate as you can get in this respect. Why are we in such an all fired hurry to give up the world to change things?
Were about as fortunate as you can get in this respect. Why are we in such an all fired hurry to give up the world to change things?
- Messages
- 58,971
- Reaction score
- 60,826
sportsman;1781956 said:
Not a bad question, though.
Add a (third) superstar playmaker to the offense and use FA and the 2nd rounder to shore up the secondary and WR positions. Bring LT to a team he admires. If you can get 3 more years out of him playing at his current level, we'd have a much better chance of winning Superbowls while we still have TO available.
We'd miss out on the opportunity to add players like Spencer and Carpenter. And that's not a slam on those players, just a reflection of the relative talent level that could be found at that position in the first round where I expect the CLE and DAL picks to be. Note that at this point our roster's deep enough that adding one player means less time for another promising prospect, so it's a lot harder to get incremental improvement when you have fewer holes.
I'd have to consider it. Of course, San Diego never would.
Big Dakota
New Member
- Messages
- 11,876
- Reaction score
- 0
bbgun;1782007 said:
From their perspective, yes they would. This is his 5th year(even though he has 1000 more carries than JJ and MB3 put together) and he's still in his prime. Even if the RB clock is ticking, they would never except 2 low #1's for LT. Probably wouldn't take all our picks. I might, but i bet they wouldn't. We would NOT have traded Emmitt after 1994.
- Messages
- 47,997
- Reaction score
- 27,917
What a foolish trade on our part if we were to do it.
tunahelper
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,698
- Reaction score
- 2,167
sportsman;1781956 said:
Chargers would never trade LT for that deal!
:laugh1:
- Messages
- 102,646
- Reaction score
- 114,918
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
- Messages
- 58,971
- Reaction score
- 60,826
ABQCOWBOY;1782004 said:
In fairness, it's not a RB, it's LT.
As for our running game, it's good, and our AYPC is good, too, but have you really seen us take over a game by running it down a team's throat yet? We've ended several games by wearing teams down and finishing with the run, but primarily we win by letting teams make us temporarily one-dimensional and just beating them with that one dimension anyway.
In any event, I'd consider a legitimate superstar at just about any position for this team. I'd much rather see us tool up to win the next year or two and worry about years 3, 4, 5, 6 down the road. A career-ender for Tony Romo would make whatever we get with our two number ones next year largely irrelevant, and/or we could go the way of Philadelphia pretty quickly.
AdamJT13
Salary Cap Analyst
- Messages
- 16,583
- Reaction score
- 4,529
Big Dakota;1782014 said:
This is Tomlinson's SEVENTH season, and he was already 22 years old when he was a rookie.
It's comparable to trading Emmitt after 1997, not after 1994. And right now, we have the hindsight of knowing that Emmitt would continue to be productive longer than any other feature back in NFL history. The odds of Tomlinson doing the same thing aren't great.
Do you think the Seahawks wish they had traded Shaun Alexander for even ONE first-round pick after his MVP season of 2005 (he'd have been the same age as Tomlinson will be this offseason). You bet they do. He's an albatross now, and they're stuck with his broken-down body and fat contract.
LittleBoyBlue
Redvolution
- Messages
- 35,766
- Reaction score
- 8,411
sportsman;1781956 said:
Never give up 2 #1's again.... ever....
AmishCowboy
if you ain't first, you're last
- Messages
- 5,134
- Reaction score
- 569
This thread is the result of too much Fantasy Football.
Cowboy4ever
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,192
- Reaction score
- 4,495
Why not just re sign Jones,, and draft 2 players that will make a huge difference on this team. For all the griping that goes on here about JJ, our rushing attack is not bad.. actually its one of the better ones in the league right now. The 2 back system seems to be working just fine. Sign JJ, draft a DB and WR in the 1st and keep this team moving forward.
ABQCOWBOY
Regular Joe....
- Messages
- 58,929
- Reaction score
- 27,716
Idgit;1782032 said:
LT is still a RB. He's one player. The problem with trading for a player like LT and then expecting him to do the same things he did in San Diego are that we would have to change our offensive philosophy. San Diego is a running team. We are a passing team. I don't see the logic in changing what is clearly working so that we can go to a a less efficiant offense. Do you realize that of the top 10 scoring offenses in the league, only San Diego and the Giants can be considered a running team and they are 10th and 8th respectively. Pittsburgh is thought of as a running team but in reality, there really more efficiant in there passing game then they are in there running game. They are still a good running team and they run the ball a lot but they score with the pass. 23 of there 31 TDs this year are via the pass.
It's nice to have a RB that can produce big games for you but if you really look at it, a RB that produces huge numbers doesn't translate into better offense. The top 10 rushing leaders, as of today are as follows.
1. Peterson
2. Parker
3. McGahee
4. Westbrook
5. Addai
6. Portis
7. LT
8. Lynch
9. James
10. Jones (Thomas)
Now, of the RBs, only Parker (Pittsburgh) and Addai (Colts) play on teams that are actually good IMO. While both those backs are at the head of the class in rushing yards, both those backs play on teams that are proficiant and much more productive in the passing game. It just so happens that they have good RBs as well.
I don't think we need LT. I think we need to continue to draft good players that can fit into what we are trying to do as opposed to over spending with picks, cap and fundemental changes to our offense. JMO.
- Messages
- 58,971
- Reaction score
- 60,826
ABQCOWBOY;1782088 said:
Definitely, this is a passing league right now. I'm not talking about running it primarily, only about being able to take over a game with our running game if and when necessary. Addai v. the Pats earlier this year is a good example of what I'm talking about. It could give us a dimension I'm not sure we have now and that we might sorely need against other elite teams. That said, I'm not also sure it's our biggest need. With LT we're just talking about the chance to add a superstar to the roster.
Generally speaking, I'm a build-through-the draft guy. But once you get a very solid roster, you still have to be able to improve your team incrementally and that gets harder and harder to do. Philly tried to build steadily for years before going out and getting TO and Kearse and finally getting to a Superbowl. The Pats did the same this year with Moss and did it previously with Dillon. Those players were all high-risk, high-return guys, and I realize they didn't involve trading high picks. But the point is, to be an elite team, you need superstars as well as role players, and superstars are a lot harder to get. If one's available, it's not crazy to consider him. Especially when you've got another superstar nearing his expiration date.
LittleBoyBlue
Redvolution
- Messages
- 35,766
- Reaction score
- 8,411
bbgun;1782061 said:
It doesnt matter... if LT went down... then BOOM.... deja vu
no thanks
ThreeSportStar80
Benched
- Messages
- 27,093
- Reaction score
- 0
theogt;1781958 said:
Does anyone honestly see LT playing more than 3 years?