- 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
re: Is Tripplet serious?!
Posted on 6/21/18 at 6:12 am to Browncoatrebel
Posted on 6/21/18 at 6:12 am to Browncoatrebel
We addressed about every big need we had outside of tightened. Watson is a bandaid.
You can make the case we overpaid to do so, but we have Drew two more years. Why wouldn't you?
You can make the case we overpaid to do so, but we have Drew two more years. Why wouldn't you?
0
Posted on 6/21/18 at 8:04 am to DoubleDown
quote:
The end result is going to be 7-9.
You mean for the Falcons if they don't sack up and pay Julio?
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:24 am to Browncoatrebel
He is upset we didn't acquire Suh and is letting that cloud his judgment in regards to the positive moves the Saints made.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 1:53 pm to El Campo Tiger
quote:
He is upset we didn't acquire Suh
I have a good feeling well be saying Suh Who by midseason. I'm perfectly happy with our roster. Best QB, CB, RB, DE and WR in the league. We got this
Posted on 6/21/18 at 3:55 pm to sicboy
Like the majority of posters here, I am absolutely baffled by the inability, bordering on mental deficiency, to comprehend what occurred in this trade.
The Saints swapped first round draft choices in this year's draft, and relinquished their first round slot in next year's draft. They didn't "give up two first round picks." It's not arguable. They swapped positions in the first round this year. In order to do this, to obtain the higher position in the first round (14, instead of 27) they had to give Green Bay their first round pick next year. So, the price of the trade was next year's first round pick.
The Saints swapped first round draft choices in this year's draft, and relinquished their first round slot in next year's draft. They didn't "give up two first round picks." It's not arguable. They swapped positions in the first round this year. In order to do this, to obtain the higher position in the first round (14, instead of 27) they had to give Green Bay their first round pick next year. So, the price of the trade was next year's first round pick.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 3:59 pm to TigerJeff
Good God, my head is throbbing after reading this thread. What ridiculous arguments, wtf?
Posted on 6/21/18 at 7:40 pm to TigerJeff
While I agree with you, do you make the same argument when other teams do this same type trade?
It’s simply a case of verbiage.
The saints swapped a first and gave up next years first. Apparently that’s too hard to explain to the average nfl fan though so they dumbed it down to say “swapped 2 firsts”. It flows better and catches more headlines.
It’s simply a case of verbiage.
The saints swapped a first and gave up next years first. Apparently that’s too hard to explain to the average nfl fan though so they dumbed it down to say “swapped 2 firsts”. It flows better and catches more headlines.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 11:30 pm to DoubleDown
It’s not an “argument,” it’s simple facts.
Posted on 6/22/18 at 7:58 am to TigerJeff
I can't believe I'm contributing to this mess of a thread, but I am stunned at the "we only spent one pick" crowd.
Even if you think of it as us only spending one 1st (2019) to trade up because of how it nets out, you still have to spend another 1st (2018) that you traded up for in order to complete the transaction of acquiring Davenport.
The trade up to 1.14 cost the 2019 1st, picking Davenport cost the 2018 1st. The argument is about the cost to trade up to 1.14 vs the total cost of acquiring Davenport.
Team two picks.
Even if you think of it as us only spending one 1st (2019) to trade up because of how it nets out, you still have to spend another 1st (2018) that you traded up for in order to complete the transaction of acquiring Davenport.
The trade up to 1.14 cost the 2019 1st, picking Davenport cost the 2018 1st. The argument is about the cost to trade up to 1.14 vs the total cost of acquiring Davenport.
Team two picks.
This post was edited on 6/22/18 at 8:09 am
Posted on 6/22/18 at 11:58 am to Browncoatrebel
We did spend 2 first round picks on him. How can anyone possibly think otherwise? That is the cost that we paid to be able to draft him, regardless of whether or not received one in return to use on him. It’s simple arithmetic.
Posted on 6/22/18 at 6:20 pm to cbree88
14 people are fricking retarded. How is this even hard to understand!? This whole thread was to counter Tripletts assessment that we were merely average this off-season. You idiots were the ones having a conniption fit over semantics.
I bleed black and gold but sweet jesus some of you do my fricking head in
I bleed black and gold but sweet jesus some of you do my fricking head in
Posted on 6/22/18 at 7:15 pm to TigerJeff
Marshon lattimore cost one first round pick
Marcus davenport cost two first round picks
it’s science
Marcus davenport cost two first round picks
it’s science
Posted on 6/22/18 at 7:17 pm to cgrand
He is one of the first round picks but at an earlier point in the draft.
Posted on 6/22/18 at 8:14 pm to tibebecolston
quote:
He is one of the first round picks but at an earlier point in the draft.
Expert analysis
Posted on 6/23/18 at 4:12 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Btw I’m a HUGE supporter of the move. I loved it on draft day and still love it today.
I’m a proponent of acting like we didn’t trade pick 27.
Also if you use pick 14 to cancel out pick 27, then we didn’t receive anything in the trade.
Here’s the math problem like you are trying to argue:
14= 27+’19 first+ 147
If 14 cancels out 27 then the problem now looks like this:
0=‘19 first+147
So did we not get anything in return for our other 2 picks?
Are you dumb or are you stupid?
Posted on 6/23/18 at 4:32 pm to cgrand
quote:
Marshon lattimore cost one first round pick
Marcus davenport cost two first round picks
When you draft a player with YOUR pick, it costs you nothing. Its yours to begin with.
When you give up a pick and don't draft a player with it (2019 1st) that's the cost.
Wow
This post was edited on 6/23/18 at 4:33 pm
Posted on 6/23/18 at 7:09 pm to Saintsisit
Yes. Pretty easy, isn’t it?
Posted on 6/23/18 at 8:05 pm to TigerJeff
It's science 
Posted on 6/23/18 at 8:21 pm to Saintsisit
quote:
When you draft a player with YOUR pick, it costs you nothing.
Lol whaaa?
Of course it does.
Depending on the rookie compensation pool, what round a player is drafted, and how well that player performs on his rookie deal, a draft pick ultimately costs you whatever the salary is of the player you selected. OR possibly whatever player you traded a draft pick for.
Draft picks are a resource. They are a commodity. Picks can be traded for other players or other picks.
The saints had 2 first round picks last year.
were they both just GIVEN to us?
No of course not. We obtained the pick through a trade.
The saints traded a second round pick for Jeremy Shockey. Did we get him for free? Or did we expend a resource/pick to aquire him?
See what I’m getting at?
This post was edited on 6/23/18 at 8:24 pm
Posted on 6/23/18 at 10:27 pm to Saintsisit
quote:That’s nonsense. It cost you the opportunity to draft every other player.
When you draft a player with YOUR pick, it costs you nothing
If we had stayed at 27 and (hypothetically) taken Davenport there, we would have given up the 27th pick in exchange for Davenport. Because we also traded next year’s first rounder to move up to 14 to take him, we gave up 2 first rounders to get davenport.
I get the semantics of the argument y’all are making, but I just don’t understand why so many folks here are so dead-set on insisting that everyone see it that way. While both descriptions are technically correct, literally 95% of nfl viewers would say that we gave up 2 firsts and a fifth to draft davenport. And everyone would know what that means.
And by the way, that was a great deal for us. If we had stayed in our original draft slot, we would have given that draft pick to take whomever it was we wanted in that slot. I think we got better value by giving 2 firsts to get davenport instead.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News