Cooley trade speculation

[Ax]

Oh, and the only way "Win Now" fails, is if you don't win.

 

[Elephant]

Yeah, it all depends on how Paul progresses. I cannot imagine another stretch that has Logan Paulsen trying to fill the role of starting TE. That takes away a huge chunk of our playbook.

However, this is not the year we are epxected to do much so I have to agree you take a good deal for Chris Cooley, nothing less than a 3rd or quality young O-line.

If I heard correctly, the rumor was we were talking to Oakland. Well, they have drafted quite a bit of quality young OL in the last few drafts, so I am thinking they are deep across the line enough to upgrade the TE position. They just released Kevin Boss coming off a sub-par season and are weak at the TE position.

 

[Henry]

If done right, winning, both now, and in the future, is not that lofty a goal.

Once you have that core of players established, I agree.

We, sadly, do not. We are getting there, though, and the more youth we have to make that happen the better.

I see a dynamic two tight end attack as more beneficial, and less risky, than getting a 3rd/4th round pick that may fail to ever be a decent backup, much less a starter.

As long as we continue to see draft picks as potential failures rather than potential successes this team will continue to suck.

 

[Goaldeje]

Henry, Lanky, et all, what's the lowest round pick you would accept for Cooley, were you in charge?

 

[Ax]

As long as we continue to see draft picks as potential failures rather than potential successes this team will continue to suck.

Not what I meant to imply.

Simply the old, "One in the hand, verses two in the bush."

That's all.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Henry, Lanky, et all, what's the lowest round pick you would accept for Cooley, were you in charge?

I would angle for a 2nd (while trying to get a 3rd) and probably accept a 4th. I think a 3rd is doable, especially with Oakland involved, but a 4th is probably more than fair for a 30 year-old guy who's had a recent history of injuries.

The GMen got a 2nd and a 5th for Jeremy Shockey, but he was around 25 at the time. Add 5 years and a 4th (maaaaybe a 3rd, if we're lucky) sounds about right.

 

[Ax]

What happened to defenses winning championships?

Our D could easily carry us far. Damn sure further than "sucking".
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Agreed.

If the defense continues it's progress of last year, the offense doesn't have to be phenomenally better for us to be in the mix.

I will, as always, believe we are in it, until we are not.

 

[Goaldeje]

I would angle for a 2nd (while trying to get a 3rd) and probably accept a 4th. I think a 3rd is doable, especially with Oakland involved, but a 4th is probably more than fair for a 30 year-old guy who's had a recent history of injuries.

The GMen got a 2nd and a 5th for Jeremy Shockey, but he was around 25 at the time. Add 5 years and a 4th (maaaaybe a 3rd, if we're lucky) sounds about right.

If we got an offer for a 3rd and don't take it, Bruce has lost his mind, imo. A 4th is what I think we end up with, anything lower than that would have to involve multiple picks.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

What happened to defenses winning championships?

Our D could easily carry us far. Damn sure further than "sucking".
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Patriots & Giants had the 31st and 27th ranked defenses last season. That mantra is no longer applicable in today's NFL, IMO. You simply need an offense to put points on the board.

Not saying RG3 won't eventually be able to do that for us, but to expect it in year one is a bit much.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

Ravens had the best and dilfer at qb

Bucs with a used up johnson

Bears with grossman.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

The most recent of those examples being 6 years ago, and a team that didn't win a championship. As I said, that mantra no longer exists IMO.

 

[tshile]

lanky:
defensive ranks are done in terms of yards allowed, which is a terrible metric in my opinion. where a team 'ranks' with their defense on these lists means nothing.

if you actually break down the patriots defense last year they were pretty good. they were built to compliment their offense - the defense was designed to play with a lead, that they got from their offense. their defense struggled in close games because they were not built to grind out close games.

the giants were much better than 27th in defense last year.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPoints/position/defense

the default setting is by yards, which matches what you say.

lets talk about points against:
new england 15th, NY 25th.

first downs:
NE: 32nd, NY 26th

Interceptions:
NE: 2nd, NY: 6th (tied)

Fumbles:
NE: 30th, NY: 12th (tied)

Sacks:
NE: 14th, NY: 3rd (tied, with 48, 50 was first place. they were 2 from being tied for first)


My point is that the 'official ranking' of defense only looks at yards, and anyone who watches football on a regular basis understands a lot more goes into how good or bad your defense is than just yards.

NY and NE's defenses were much better than 27th and 30th.

Especially when it mattered. Postseason results:
NE/NY tied for 1st in sacks
NY tied for 3rd in INTs, NE tied for 7th (actually pretty bad)
NE Tied for 1st in forced fumbles, NY tied for 2nd.

 

[Henry]

Henry, Lanky, et all, what's the lowest round pick you would accept for Cooley, were you in charge?

I'd say a 4th rounder (or equivalent) or better and I'd take it. For a player, depends on the player (obviously.)

What happened to defenses winning championships?

Our D could easily carry us far. Damn sure further than "sucking".
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

If we are going to win with defense, we should definitely trade Cooley if we can get value for him, seeing as he ... you know, doesn't play defense.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

2011 Steelers

Lost in the first round to the Tebows...

2009 steelers

Didn't even make the playoffs...

I'm assuming you meant the 2010 Steelers and the 2008 Steelers? 2010 lost to one of the more prolific offenses we've seen (Green Bay). 2008 Steelers are the closest example since Grossman, but Big Ben is 10x better than Grossman, and both had strong rushing attacks.

You apparently dont believe that defenses win championships but they can and do. Just maybe not as often as youd like.

Not any more. I agree with you that the Ravens and Bucs won based on the strength of their defenses. But its much more common these days for a solid D with a prolific offense to win, such as the 2010 Packers or 2011 Giants. Or in the case of the 2008 Steelers, a solid O with a very good D. If anything, teams need more balance; you simply have to score points! Saints in 2009 is another example of a prolific offense and respectable defense.

Mike, its okay to disagree.

and the Gnats being ranked 27th is very suspect to look at like that. They have the best front 4 in the game..period. and they were wrecking havock all over Brady both years they won it.

Giants gave up the 25th most points and the 27th most yards last season...their D was suspect all year. It is what it is, Mike.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

lanky:
defensive ranks are done in terms of yards allowed, which is a terrible metric in my opinion. where a team 'ranks' with their defense on these lists means nothing.

if you actually break down the patriots defense last year they were pretty good. they were built to compliment their offense - the defense was designed to play with a lead, that they got from their offense. their defense struggled in close games because they were not built to grind out close games.

the giants were much better than 27th in defense last year.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/totalPoints/position/defense

the default setting is by yards, which matches what you say.

lets talk about points against:
new england 15th, NY 25th.

first downs:
NE: 32nd, NY 26th

Interceptions:
NE: 2nd, NY: 6th (tied)

Fumbles:
NE: 30th, NY: 12th (tied)

Sacks:
NE: 14th, NY: 3rd (tied, with 48, 50 was first place. they were 2 from being tied for first)


My point is that the 'official ranking' of defense only looks at yards, and anyone who watches football on a regular basis understands a lot more goes into how good or bad your defense is than just yards.

NY and NE's defenses were much better than 27th and 30th.

Possibly, but still nowhere near the level of the 2002 Bucs or the 2000 Ravens, with much better offenses. That's my point.

EDIT: And while the Pats and GMen might have had defenses better than their rankings last season, I doubt anyone would make the argument that they made it to the superbowl on the strength of their defenses, which is why I brought up the rankings in the first place.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

http://www.sbnation.com/2012-super-...ats-new-england-patriots-new-york-giants-xlvi

 

[Henry]

Look, I didn't mean for this thread to turn into a debate on the importance of defense in championship-winning teams or anything. I simply made what I thought was a pretty innocuous statement about the well-understood truth that rebuilding teams with rookie QBs aren't expected to do much. Of course anything is POSSIBLE, and I will along with the rest of you hope for the Football Gods to finally point their fingers at our team and let us have an unexpected and bizarre and wonderful playoff run despite the fact that this is not the year anyone who has followed football for more than five minutes expects us to contend. I'm sorry if the way I worded my post suggested otherwise.

However, front offices cannot strategize based on the 'hey, ANYTHING is possible' theory. I expect more realism from the professionals in the business. You know, something we haven't had here in a long time but are finally seeing signs of. And given the realistic chances of this team contending this year, we should trade Cooley if we get the chance. Fans should have the luxury of making decisions like that based on the pie in the sky. The guys who actually run the team do not.

 

[McD5]

Frankly, we have sufficient talent at the position.

I like Cooley, but look at the Eagles...they have had a recipe for success by trading older players (who could still produce) for draft picks/younger players.

Whenever you see a young guy develop in a position, it's time to move the older guy if you can get something of value for him.

Aging players with histories of injuries/missed games become retired players quickly.

I'm all for a trade.

I agree with this. It's time. Let's not hold onto another player until we get nothing in return.

 

[McD5]

Here's a novel idea. Sometimes the easiest solutions are right in front of you.

We have 10 WRs on the roster right now. Wait another week or two in case of injury and for further evaluation.

We are only keeping 6.

Take the 4 we will eventually release for absolutely nothing in return, package some combination of them with Cooley, and pull the trigger.