- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Would you suspect collusion in this trade?
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:40 pm
Team A: 0-4 after tonight trades:
Aaron Rodgers
Greg Olsen
Team B: 2-2 after tonight, trades:
Andrew Luck
Ladarius Green
Aaron Rodgers
Greg Olsen
Team B: 2-2 after tonight, trades:
Andrew Luck
Ladarius Green
6
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:42 pm to Jayre
veto and fight them
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:42 pm to Jayre
I would question why its a QB/TE for QB/TE trade when one side is getting both the better QB and better TE.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:43 pm to Jayre
I was expecting something whacky, I honestly don't know which side got the better of the deal here. Rodgers has outplayed Luck, but expectations were similar and Olson>Green.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:46 pm to drizztiger
You think Luck is better to own than Rodgers?
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:49 pm to TheWalrus
quote:Significantly and Luck is also injured.
Rodgers has outplayed Luck
I'd like to see the owner receiving Luck/Green to explain his thought process.
A trade like this (positions being the same) that only upgrades one team is a red flag for me.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:49 pm to Jayre
It's a lopsided trade but I don't think i could veto as a commish.
Would i express my displeasure? hell yea. Especially if im trying to compete with the 2-2 team. This clearly throws the balance off in the league, but can easily be argued on paper for either side.
Would i express my displeasure? hell yea. Especially if im trying to compete with the 2-2 team. This clearly throws the balance off in the league, but can easily be argued on paper for either side.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:50 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I would question why its a QB/TE for QB/TE trade when one side is getting both the better QB and better TE.
This. Doesn't make a ton of sense. Not to mention Gates comes back this week, making Green even worse to own
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:51 pm to TheWalrus
quote:From what I read, one team is getting Rodgers and Olsen.
You think Luck is better to own than Rodgers?
The other team is getting a lesser QB and lesser TE (same positions). Yes, that's fishy.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 3:52 pm to Lester Earl
quote:Hypothetically argue receiving Luck/Green in this trade in relation to giving up Rodgers and Olsen.
but can easily be argued on paper for either side.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:00 pm to Jayre
Lopsided or not, what exactly is the point of the deal?
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:00 pm to drizztiger
it's still early enough in the season to lean on Luck's track record. A guy who accounted for 43 TDs last year and 4700yards passing.
Rodgers is playing really well(some good games, and leaning on one huge game to this point), but this isn't deep enough into a season to close the book on Luck.
Ladarius Green's stats prorated to 4 games (he missed a game) are slightly better than Greg Olsen's. Yes, Gates is coming back but Green should still be a factor here.
20-232-3
17- 243-2
Is the guy receiving Luck/Green banking on Luck picking up the pace soon, to a point where he is better or equal to Rodgers? Could he think Green is on the midst of something big? I don't really know. Would I do it? No. Would i voice my displeasure? absolutely. Could I veto it? no. And im a huge veto proponent
Rodgers is playing really well(some good games, and leaning on one huge game to this point), but this isn't deep enough into a season to close the book on Luck.
Ladarius Green's stats prorated to 4 games (he missed a game) are slightly better than Greg Olsen's. Yes, Gates is coming back but Green should still be a factor here.
20-232-3
17- 243-2
Is the guy receiving Luck/Green banking on Luck picking up the pace soon, to a point where he is better or equal to Rodgers? Could he think Green is on the midst of something big? I don't really know. Would I do it? No. Would i voice my displeasure? absolutely. Could I veto it? no. And im a huge veto proponent
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:04 pm to Lester Earl
quote:I'm the opposite and I don't like this trade at all. You make a interesting case, and I think Luck (non-injury) will be fine. As I stated earlier, same positions swaps raise a red flag for me.
And im a huge veto proponent
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:08 pm to drizztiger
If it were any QB other then luck is flip my shite
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:18 pm to Lester Earl
Definitely collusion.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:18 pm to Lester Earl
Great feedback guys I really appreciate it... Trade was vetoed
Posted on 10/5/15 at 4:38 pm to Jayre
Team A may have been sick of his squad and wanted a change. He's 0-4, what's it going to hurt to take a risk? If Luck starts playing like 2014 luck, it could payoff.
BUT, Green's role is going to diminish now that Gates is back.
BUT, Green's role is going to diminish now that Gates is back.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 5:12 pm to drizztiger
I'm an idiot, I thought Luck and Olsen were paired. Disregard my stupidity.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 6:18 pm to TheWalrus
You just read it wrong. It happens.
Posted on 10/5/15 at 7:11 pm to krehn11
quote:I keep seeing this, but until we see a game we have no idea if that is true. Gates is 35 and coming off of a suspension.
Green's role is going to diminish now that Gates is back.
This post was edited on 10/5/15 at 7:12 pm
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News