Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Hard2BaBirdWachr

Brandin Cooks to Rams

99 posts in this topic

8 minutes ago, Vandy said:

It’s called depreciation. They got a year of value out of cooks, he helped them go to another SB, while teams like ours watched from home.

Smart trades by pats. This type of out-of-box thinking is a big reason why they are in a class by themselves. 

ha ha said like a real life accounting type. And I agree, nothing wrong with a good year of value and a small depreciation. I guarantee the ROI works out in the positive

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

Just lol.... Last year pats get praised for trading a 1st for cooks... Gonna go 16-0 ect, now this year praised again for trading him for a 1st....

Weren’t Pats in Super Bowl....again? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Weren’t Pats in Super Bowl....again? 

exactly. 8 SB appearances and 5 wins under Belichik. he has tiger blood! Winning!

Vandy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 1989Fan said:

Reminds me of when Eagles tried to build the dream team a few years back and it blew up in their faces.

To me it feels like this Rams team has a better chance of pulling it of.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dirtybird3 said:

Rams are gonna be nastyyyy

No, just the opposite.  The Rams are focusing on the wrong parts.  Suh would have been a great addition, except it's Suh.  He is going to cause more trouble than he is worth on that team.  Although, their Dline is going to have some moments of domination, they are not built for a long run.  Cooks for a first makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hurry_Up_And_Buy said:

Betcha the Pats pick up Nick Williams :sadwave:

Wouldn't surprise me, and he'll probably have a probowl year and win a Superbowl with the Pat's.. BB just has it

datboilando likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, falconfreak1 said:

To me it feels like this Rams team has a better chance of pulling it of.  

The Rams have to draft a center and guard that's starters day 1..its going to be interesting to see what Goff can do without much of a offensive line 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

No, just the opposite.  The Rams are focusing on the wrong parts.  Suh would have been a great addition, except it's Suh.  He is going to cause more trouble than he is worth on that team.  Although, their Dline is going to have some moments of domination, they are not built for a long run.  Cooks for a first makes no sense.

I love the Peters trade that they did. That was a smart play. Cooks is interesting. But now you have to pay a lot of people if this team is successful. Suh is fascinating to me. Uber talented, yet both teams he's been on haven't done squat. Playmakers tend to elevate team play all around him. With Ansah and him at Detroit they should have been much better. Ditto with Wake and even the rookie Harris at Miami. 

I know Donald is otherworldly but there's something about Suh. Maybe it's the dumb penalties, maybe he's an arse. But something just seems to not work beyond mediocrity on defenses that he's on. Which is weird, as he's so talented.

Adding Talib, Peters and Suh could be catastrophic if McVay can't keep that locker room in check. Lots of risk. And I always question trading with the Pats. They rarely get the short end of a trade. So Cooks adds another dynamic

Slappywhite and falconsd56 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

No, just the opposite.  The Rams are focusing on the wrong parts.  Suh would have been a great addition, except it's Suh.  He is going to cause more trouble than he is worth on that team.  Although, their Dline is going to have some moments of domination, they are not built for a long run.  Cooks for a first makes no sense.

All that is your opinion.. Suh hasn't been the distraction he once was.. Suh Talib Peters Donald and those boys paired with their offense. Makes more sense than not that they would improve and not regress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, caponine said:

they have ?

IMO this is how we were told to have done in the offseason after our SB loss...upgrade the team in every necessary position.  Rams were a good team last year, one of the best, but they are still growing and looking to put them over the edge.  They will be a real different team this year, possibly dominant on the defensive side so they wont need to be offensively but they stand the potential to be very very good.

caponine likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, King Jigsaw said:

Anybody else just irrationally hate this guy? All he does is parrot the same things every day, week, month, and year and in every thread he can fit his Dimitroff-based whining into. I’ve never seen such a miserable person before. All these terrible nicknames and catchphrases get under my skin, guys. I have a problem.

Dam I'm still in your skull huh? You need to put me on ignore son. Or seek help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, schwarzenegger321 said:

No, just the opposite.  The Rams are focusing on the wrong parts.  Suh would have been a great addition, except it's Suh.  He is going to cause more trouble than he is worth on that team.  Although, their Dline is going to have some moments of domination, they are not built for a long run.  Cooks for a first makes no sense.

Cooks to them makes sense.  They didnt have major holes .plus this years draft is highly skilled you can fo deep in 5th and 6th and still find a gem.

So for them to get a veteran proven deep threat from day 1 .....its a home run! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, FalconFanSince1970 said:

Dam I'm still in your skull huh? You need to put me on ignore son. Or seek help.

I just think you’re really annoying. You’ve become little more than a parody of yourself. It’s a bit sad, to be honest. The fact that you can no longer hold rational and intelligent conversations says a lot about how downhill your posting has traveled. You rely on hindsight ‘troffed’ and ‘trust me’ posts to drive home a tired narrative that no one cares to listen to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vandy said:

It’s called depreciation. They got a year of value out of cooks, he helped them go to another SB, while teams like ours watched from home.

Smart trades by pats. This type of out-of-box thinking is a big reason why they are in a class by themselves. 

Precisely put!!

as good as it sounds to build a team and have continuity year after year with franchise players at every single position, the Pats prove every season that you only need those franchise stalwarts at key positions, or rather just one at each position group and you can plug and play savvy veterans and trade quality guys close to a big contract at the tail swing of their careers for multiple draft picks that can be used to add or trade up for players in the draft. 

We waaay overpaid Trufant for the career he HAS had rather than the trajectory his career is currently on, which was utterly baffling to me considering we had the leverage of a defense that got better without him on the field and went to the Super Bowl and had the **** thing won! Seems like that would have given the Falcons some leverage in negotiations to counter Trufants agent arguing past success. I don’t see a dominant top 5 CB when I watch Trufant on the field, maybe I’m missing something. 

But I totally agree with what Vandy said. 

Cooks did exactly what he was suppose to, he helped the Pats get back to the Super Bowl and gave them another shot at a ring. His value depreciated a bit but the Patriots still got a decent return on their original investment. 

Not one single fan on this forum wouldn’t have forfeited a third round pick to have been in the Super Bowl again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Furthermore. 

I honestly believe you have to put an unscouted look on the field every year. Doesn’t matter how great you were the year before when 31 other teams are studying your film in the offseason. 

Pats are awesome at this. They reload after every season and put a different look on the field that is unscouted and teams have to learn how they plan on using their new pieces. I’d almost bet that an unscouted look is nearly as dangerous as a look you had success with previously that other teams have already been studying. If you don’t think this is true ask Kirby Smart and the Bulldogs about that unscouted QB that ripped them to shreds in the National Championship.

Atlanta gives up a 28-3 lead in Super Bowl and does really nothing in offseason, Pats win the Super Bowl and then reload in offseason, keeping stalwarts at key positions and then adding new talent. Just like the Eagles this season winning the Super Bowl and letting guys go and reloading in offseason. 

This is not an argument of free agency moves, this is an argument of collective franchise management.

Atlanta is a city that has never really tasted consistent success so they get a little bit and they seek to almost maintain, this holds true for all their professional sport franchises. Our fan base is bad about this too, rattling off a lot minor successes but not one being a Championship. 

Good example, Hightower makes one of the biggest plays in SB51 forcing fumble against Ryan. Pats let him walk and were willing to, not to get into a situation of overpaying him. We could probably agree the Falcons would have made him one of the highest paid LBs in the league. Haha. 

Trufant is another example of this. He is on the tail end of his career, we have probably seen the best he has to offer (pro bowl), Patriots would let a guy like him walk instead of paying him a top 5 contract in the league that he likely wasn’t going to consistently play up to. Or traded him for draft capital that could have been used to trade up in draft or get a few extra picks in camp. Saving that cap space for savvy vet at position of need. 

datboilando likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JKH5785 said:

Furthermore. 

I honestly believe you have to put an unscouted look on the field every year. Doesn’t matter how great you were the year before when 31 other teams are studying your film in the offseason. 

Pats are awesome at this. They reload after every season and put a different look on the field that is unscouted and teams have to learn how they plan on using their new pieces. I’d almost bet that an unscouted look is nearly as dangerous as a look you had success with previously that other teams have already been studying. If you don’t think this is true ask Kirby Smart and the Bulldogs about that unscouted QB that ripped them to shreds in the National Championship.

Atlanta gives up a 28-3 lead in Super Bowl and does really nothing in offseason, Pats win the Super Bowl and then reload in offseason, keeping stalwarts at key positions and then adding new talent. Just like the Eagles this season winning the Super Bowl and letting guys go and reloading in offseason. 

This is not an argument of free agency moves, this is an argument of collective franchise management.

Atlanta is a city that has never really tasted consistent success so they get a little bit and they seek to almost maintain, this holds true for all their professional sport franchises. Our fan base is bad about this too, rattling off a lot minor successes but not one being a Championship. 

Good example, Hightower makes one of the biggest plays in SB51 forcing fumble against Ryan. Pats let him walk and were willing to, not to get into a situation of overpaying him. We could probably agree the Falcons would have made him one of the highest paid LBs in the league. Haha. 

Trufant is another example of this. He is on the tail end of his career, we have probably seen the best he has to offer (pro bowl), Patriots would let a guy like him walk instead of paying him a top 5 contract in the league that he likely wasn’t going to consistently play up to. Or traded him for draft capital that could have been used to trade up in draft or get a few extra picks in camp. Saving that cap space for savvy vet at position of need. 

I like how fans act like they got the pats all figured out yet not one NFL franchise can emulate what they do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

I like how fans act like they got the pats all figured out yet not one NFL franchise can emulate what they do.

 

I’ve not seen one of the 31 other teams consistently year in year out for the last 17-18years do what they do either 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JKH5785 said:

I’ve not seen one of the 31 other teams consistently year in year out for the last 17-18years do what they do either 

I literally just said that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, FalconFanSince1969 said:

I literally just said that. 

not technically, you were trying to be smarta$$, like I've seen most of your replies generally are. No team has been consistently managed like the patriots cept for them, and no one implied they have NE totally figured out, there are a lot of cogs in that wheel. What was being implied is that they make good decisions on roster management. Besides, teams every couple of years making patriot like moves doesn’t exactly qualify as consistently year in/year out attempting to “emulate” what they are doing. Making some moves similar to them one offseason doesn’t guarantee you a postseason trip the next. The Pats have instilled that management process for nearly 18 years straight.  

Buts it's not like they are doing something that other teams are physically incapable of doing, it comes down to management -- 

no one held a gun to TDs head and forced him to resign Trufant, it was managements choice. Just like it was managements choice to make the moves NE has made. 

we aren't forced to stand put and admire what they do, we are perfectly capable of doing the same things and being just as creative. it comes down to management decisions. 

the Trufant deal was ludacris, that was a management decision. 

like the other poster said, NE is contending for a superbowl almost every year, 8 appearances and 5 wins. They don't generously hand out big contracts often - they work the trades, that collect picks, they add savvy veterans to key positions for leadership. They put an unscouted look on the field with every new season. 

You can argue that the Falcons are doing it the right way if you'd like, but 53 years without a championship and only 2 superbowl appearances would say otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites