MikeO you are so full of it it's not even funny. The reference to Farve was when the falcons traded him to GB, not when GB traded him. Surely you knew that.

Anthony Carter was not an unknown, he was a huge USFL and college star and we traded him not for money or bc he wasn't any good, but bc we had 3 great receivers already and needed defense (unfortnately we got Robin Sendlein instead of anyone good).

Hesselbeck played behind Farve and was never going to play, but he lit up the preseason and was traded for a 1st rounder so to say he was trade bc he wasn't any good it beyond rediculous.

Chris Chambers was our best WR, at the time no one thought he "couldn't play" (SD certainly didn't think so giving us a 2d rounder for him), but we needed draft picks.

Seymour I agree was traded for $ reasons. Schaub was not traded bc of $ but because he had value and wasn't going to start over Vick.

Dickerson may have been traded for $ reasons, but Cornelious Bennet who he was traded for, was not.

This is why no one takes you seriously on this board. You occasionally make good points but refuse to ever back down even when you are clearly wrong. What is so hard to understand that in addition to trading people for $ reasons, equally if not more often people are traded b/c they have value, another team wants them, and the team doing the trading can't use him either bc they have bigger needs at other positions or a star in front of the guy.

MikeO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got any more I can shoot down...


Seems to me...if it doesn't fit your theory, you just say it doesn't count.

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MikeO Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Got any more I can shoot down...
>
>
> Seems to me...if it doesn't fit your theory, you
> just say it doesn't count.


I said there are always exceptions here or there. But the vast majority fit under my criteria! And I think I have proved that

I wouldn't disagree with you on your point the majority are traded b/c of money but if a team feels they can't play, why would another team want him?

A players "value" to a particular team may not be what it once was but that doesn't mean he couldn't flourish in another system....different from not being able to play.

GBOFinFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wouldn't disagree with you on your point the
> majority are traded b/c of money but if a team
> feels they can't play, why would another team want
> him?
>
> A players "value" to a particular team may not be
> what it once was but that doesn't mean he couldn't
> flourish in another system....different from not
> being able to play.


You are all over the place. First you say I am cleary wrong. Now you say you wouldn't disagree with my point??? WHICH ONE IS IT??? Don't just argue with me for the sake of arguing with me. That is just a waste of all of our time now.

Each teams needs are different. We traded for Thigpen as a backup when Pennington went down. Not beacause we thought Thigpen was some great player. WE NEEDED A WARM BODY TO FILL A ROSTER SPOT AT QB!! That was it. KC thought nothnig of him and thought he couldn't play. Miami needed a warm body at QB. It was a match made in heaven! Doesn't make Thigpen a great player!! Hence, he was traded cause KC thought he couldn't play. Fitting my theory.

Same for Samson Sattele. Miami thought he sucked and just signed Grove to a big deal. They weren't going to pay Samson that kind of money to be a back-up. Raiders just lost Jake Grove. So Oakland needed a replacement at center. These guys dont grow on trees. He was the best of a bad bunch that was available to them and for the mid to late round pick it cost them, it was an easy move to make. Doesn't mean Samson is some great player because he was traded. He was traded cause Miami didn't want to pay him anymore and cause Oakland had a hole. You can't fill every hole with an all star. Hence Miami traded him cause they thought he couldnt play. Fitting my theory exactly.

Like I said, guys are traded for 2 reasons. MONEY! Or teams think they stink. Now guys who stink will always find a landing spot in this league (as I have pointed out in the above examples). It doesn't mean they are great players, no they stil stink....but somewhere, someplace there is a coach who thinks they can make a stinky player good with their magic touch. Thats all it is.

MikeO I notice you are ignoring my post, as you have no response other than "there are some exceptions." Just admit you are wrong. Come on, explain away Farve from the Falcons, Hasselbeck, Anthony Carter, etc. There are more examples posted on this thread disproving your point than proving it.

This is reminding me of the thread where you insisted that an assisted tackles does not count as a total tackle, despite 20 posts proving you wrong you never even acknowledged the point

MikeO Wrote:
>
> You are all over the place. First you say I am
> cleary wrong. Now you say you wouldn't disagree
> with my point??? WHICH ONE IS IT??? Don't just
> argue with me for the sake of arguing with me.
> That is just a waste of all of our time now.
>

WHOSE ALL OVER THE PLACE? READ WHAT I SAID AGAIN....I NEVER SAID YOU WERE CLEARLY WRONG! WAKE UP!!!!!

Oh, and by the way, I'm not going to be sucked into one of your pointless blackhole debates.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MikeO I notice you are ignoring my post, as you
> have no response other than "there are some
> exceptions." Just admit you are wrong. Come on,
> explain away Farve from the Falcons, Hasselbeck,
> Anthony Carter, etc. There are more examples
> posted on this thread disproving your point than
> proving it.
>
> This is reminding me of the thread where you
> insisted that an assisted tackles does not count
> as a total tackle, despite 20 posts proving you
> wrong you never even acknowledged the point


I am right on the assisted tackles.

I responded to each and everyone of your guys . Farve, Carter, Hasselebck...Not not typing it all over again. Go back and read earlier posts

If a trade is VOIDED it doesn't count. Cause it never happened

Plus you said traded "SEVERAL" times. TWICE isn't several

If your going to pass off Fasano and Satelle as "GOOD" players then this debate is pointless. Both of those guys stunk on their original teams and did nothing. They were traded cause dallas and miami thought neither was any good.

If you are passing those two off as "GOOD" players, this is almost as dumb as comparing Brian Hartline to Rice and Largent like some were doing earlier in the week!!

The only reason Oakland sent NE an offer is because NEW ENGLAND put Seymore on the block cause they didn't want to pay him and lose him and get nothnig in return. HENCE, they traded him over money!!

Oakland doesn't send the offer unless New England makes it known they want to trade him!

I completely agree.

Rick

yes you responded and in response we pointed out that your response was asinine (i.e., the Farve trade was from ATL and not when he was "done," Hasselbeck was traded for a 1st rounder bc he was behind Farve not bc he was no good, etc etc). But no response to this. Because there is none that doesn't include "I'm wrong" and we all know you'll never admit to that!

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If you are passing those two off as "GOOD"
> players, this is almost as dumb as comparing Brian
> Hartline to Rice and Largent like some were doing
> earlier in the week!!"
>
> LOL Mike, LOL. Please go back to your Jets board
> and leave us die-hard Dolphins fans alone


I thought I was a Pats fan. Make up your mind

what name did I call you?

again you deliberately miss the point. ok so Hasselbeck was traded for less than a 1st round pick. how does this prove your point that he was traded for $ or wasn't any good? And he wasn't a "thrown in player" HE WAS THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE TRADE!! Or are you telling me Seattle traded the 10th and a 3d for the 17th and a 7th? Oh that's a great deal!

I think you actually believe that this foolishness makes sense. Cutler had a big mouth in the locker room and the sideline..and his teammates and coaches don't pay him; O-Gun was traded because we desperately needed a receiver, and the coaches thought Booker was the guy-they needed a pass rusher and we wouldn't trade JT. As for Welker, we couldn't keep him - look up "poison pill". By the way-why was it that Pittsburgh traded Johnny Unitas again?

Rick

Johnny Unitas...jesus christ why don't ya go back a little further in time!

O-Gun wasn't traded cause we needed a WR. He was traded cause Miami couldn't afford to have him and JT under the cap. Our salary cap would have been tied up on 2 d-linemen!!!! We would have been in CAP HELL by paying 2 defensive ends that kind of money. Miami didn't even want Booker, but it was the only team that would pay O-Gun so Miami was forced to get something in return and they took BOoker. Better take Booker than watch him sit out half the year. Same reason why Seymore was traded by NE. They couldnt pay both Wilfork and Seymore. And the NT has more value, hence they kept Wilfork.

Cutler was traded cause he wanted an extension, they said no...so since they wouldn't pay him they traded him. Culter is a class act and not a big mouth or a cancer! He's a good guy!! Now your making stuff up.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 07:04PM by MikeO.

Cutler is a class act??

He is a crybaby who got his little girl feelings hurt when his head coach tried to trade for another QB then went public and demanded a trade or he was going to sit out....couldn't handle the idea that someone wanted another QB over him. Talk about ego! He was so used to everyone kissing his butt his entire life that he couldn't handle a coach that didn't pat him on the butt every 5 minutes.

The rift got so bad that they had to trade him. Had nothing to do with money. He put his house up for sale and wasn't even going to report for mini-camp.

.....................................................................................
“I'm here" You're welcome!" - Kenny Powers



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2010 11:43PM by eesti.

Part of the reason he was upset was because He asked for a contract extention they said no. That's when they traded him.

He was upset when they tried to replace him, but if they gave him an extension he would still be in Denver. It Had EVERYTHING to do with money.

Cutler plays with diabeties and while not an elite NFL QB yet, is a good player who aside from that one spat with McDaniels (who has spats with everyone it seems) hasn't caused trouble

Just as KC traded Thigpen bc he wasn't "their guy." Ah we've come full circle.

Now Thigpen is Culter.

Phinsfan, you are exactly right. Cutler trade had zip to do with money.
The crybaby couldn't take rejection. Boo Hoo.

And the winner is.........not MikeO. Mike is clearly defeated when he starts trying to twist your points and words around, as evidenced by him now trying to say that people are saying "Thigpen is Cutler", when it is so clear (that they used the Cutler trade as an example to discount yet another hair-brained argument that Mike cant win) that even Stevie Wonder could see it.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And the winner is.........not MikeO. Mike is
> clearly defeated when he starts trying to twist
> your points and words around, as evidenced by him
> now trying to say that people are saying "Thigpen
> is Cutler", when it is so clear (that they used
> the Cutler trade as an example to discount yet
> another hair-brained argument that Mike cant win)
> that even Stevie Wonder could see it.


Oh boy back to the personal jabs. I'm not wrong on Cutler and I don't want to sit here and educate you people. Cutler was upset they tried to trade him. They tried to make nice with him, he said fine give me an extension (aka MORE MONEY). They said NO. When they continued to try and make up Culter REFUSED to answer the phone calls of McDaniels and Bowlen. That is when they said, since he won't take our phone calls we are trading him. And they did. If they just gave him the extension he wanted....he would have stayed! It was all about money. Yes, he was upset a bit, but that was a trade with the core principal being MONEY!

Now if you people want to "change" history, do what ya want...

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> This is reminding me of the thread where you
> insisted that an assisted tackles does not count
> as a total tackle, despite 20 posts proving you
> wrong you never even acknowledged the point


I'm so glad you brought this back up. NFL NETWORK did a piece recently. Top 10 Football Myths. #10 was "Tackle stats being accurate". Search your DVR/TIVO and record it next time it airs. Pretty much backs up my entire point.

Bottom line is this. A tackle or assisted tackle is recored by the home stadium stat crew. And some teams crews like Atlanta and St.Louis pass out assits rarely. Other teams just give it to everyone who piles on a tackle after the play is dead. ALSO, (this is the kicker) the stats change every monday. After the coaches watch the game-tape. If the defense as a whole makes a nice play and everyone does their job, some coaches will give the entire defense an assist. Even if a LB or CB was 15 yards away from the play and nowhere near the tackle. Just because they did their part on a play that worked to perfection. Then after the coaches watch the game tape they send the "adjusted" stats in "their eyes" to the stat crew who makes the changes.

It totally backs up my whole stance on assisted tackles being worthless. DON'T TAKE IT FROM ME!!! Watch the show and take it from current players, former players, coaches, and the hall of fame media people they talk to!!!


NFL Network Top 10 Football Myths. TIVO or DVR it!! It replayed about a million times on that network!

MikeO that was not your point re tackles. your point was the assisted tackles do not count as total tackles.

You are so predictable. If MikeO posts more than 5 times on a thread, you will see the following

(a) way-out-there "opinion" being stated as "fact" (usually in the first post)

(b) after being called out and proven wrong on (a), the following:
(i) MikeO refusing to back down even one bit;
(ii) MikeO ingnoring the substantive points in each response, but twisting any minor and irrelevent points made in responses and trying to change the subject; and
(iii) MikeO saying somone is calling him "names"

rinse and repeat.