Shanle trade was a conditional pick

[Alexander]

I would love to go back to those threads and find the people who deserve the crow served for saying i was stupid to think it wasnt a plain 7th.

A conditional pick doesn't prove anything other than it could be conditional on him making the football team.

And if you note, nobody started disagreeing with you until you started defending Pasquarelli, who qualified it as a fourth round choice without conditions.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=990183&postcount=88

Fact is, the debate turned into a 4th versus 7th, when from the beginning it was acknowledged simply that the conditional choice was a distinct possibility.

 

[BigDFan5]

Actually, the thread is about Shanle being traded for a conditional pick.

So that kinda is the point.

:laugh2:

 

[CrazyCowboy]

it could be just that he was for a conditional 7th

Yea, it did not really define what it was for......

 

[newlander]

Good player that got away and helped N.Orleans to the championship game. THAT is the real point. Get a friggin' clue.:bang2:

 

[burmafrd]

Shanle was not a good fit in the 3-4. At least not for us the way we played it.

 

[newlander]

Not saying he was a good fit in the 3-4, but he was a very good special teams player and a good young football player. That is all.

 

[AbeBeta]

Good player that got away and helped N.Orleans to the championship game. THAT is the real point. Get a friggin' clue.:bang2:

You are calling for folks to get a clue but you still don't get that Shanle didn't fit in our scheme very well. He played a ton in 2005 as a 3-4 LB and was ineffective.

Isn't that the REAL point?

 

[AsthmaField]

Not saying he was a good fit in the 3-4, but he was a very good special teams player and a good young football player. That is all.

And we're not discussing if he is a good 4-3 LB or not... we're talking about what N.O. owes Dallas in draft pick compensation for Shanle.

Frankly, anything would be better than nothing, which is what we were all prepared to get because the guy wasn't a very good player in our 3-4. So, even a 7th is okay. Now if there is a condition based on number of starts or playing time that escelates that pick, then great for us.

That's what we're trying to determine, and that is the point.

Frankly, I don't care how good or not he played for the Saints... because he wasn't going to play good for us in any event.

 

[Alexander]

Not saying he was a good fit in the 3-4, but he was a very good special teams player and a good young football player. That is all.

He would have been better in coverage than Ryan Fowler or Bradie James for that matter.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A conditional pick doesn't prove anything other than it could be conditional on him making the football team.

And if you note, nobody started disagreeing with you until you started defending Pasquarelli, who qualified it as a fourth round choice without conditions.

http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=990183&postcount=88

Fact is, the debate turned into a 4th versus 7th, when from the beginning it was acknowledged simply that the conditional choice was a distinct possibility.

Actually it was not just Pasqualoni that got me to my conclusion but also a NO Picayune report. Additionally my stance was not that it was a 4th but rather a conditional form 4th to 7th.

Seeing how there are reports of a 4th, a 7th, and conditional i still think its the most plausible scenario.

 

[Yeagermeister]

You are calling for folks to get a clue but you still don't get that Shanle didn't fit in our scheme very well. He played a ton in 2005 as a 3-4 LB and was ineffective.

Isn't that the REAL point?

And the only reason he got to play then was Fowler got hurt and when he came back Shanle went back to the bench.