- 12/03/2008, 11:16AM ET
PissOff said 12/03, 11:16 AM
At first I was going to use Ricky Williams for all of New Orlean's draft choices, but then I noticed that Washington did as much with those draft choices as Pitt does with a woman on Saturday night. Hard to be lopsided when New Orleans appears to still have gotten the best end of the deal.
So that led me to the real shame of it all, and that is the Colts trading Marshall Faulk to the Rams for a 2nd and 5th round selection. How absolutely stupid was that? Its like trading a Harvard education for Bconngemini's brain.
Marshall Faulk went on to be a superstar running back, top choice of fantasy drafts, Super Bowl champion..and oh yeah, future Hall of Famer.
And who did Indianapolis get with those draft choices? Well, a great player named Adrian Peterson....wait, that's Mike Peterson, Adrian's older brother. Yeah, I don't remember him either.
Well then, how about DE Brad Scioli? I know.....who? Well he did average 2 sacks a year in his short time on the Colts roster.
Simple question: Would you trade Faulk for M. Peterson and Scioli? That's what I thought. But the Colts did. If it was the last 15 years, Elway. But the last 10.....Faulk.
Moondizzle said 12/03, 12:41 PM
When I determine the lopsided nature of a deal, 2 things come to mind:
1. Was the talent so immeasurably off balance that one team made out like a bandit.
2. Did the team on the lower end collapse into a heap of goo like my opponent at a Tampa Bay Fantasy Camp.
I'll take a look at your pick in the next argument when we disparage eachother incessantly.
Anyway, I switched my deal at the last minute. I'm going with the following:
The Oakland Raiders trade Head Coach Jon Gruden, with 1 year left on his deal, to the Tampa Bay Bucs for two 1st rounders, two 2nd rounders, and $8 million in cash. Sounds awful for the Bucs, right? Hmmm...
This deal had more long term implications than the deal you mentioned, as it still effects both franchises today.
The following season, Gruden (despite using Dungy's squad) beats the Raiders in the Super Bowl (and while I don't attribute this to 1 man, still had to hurt) and then poof. The Raiders went up in eternal smoke.
The Raiders with Gruden? 38-26 in 4 seasons and 2 straight division titles. Since? 33-74..in 7 seasons!!! Can I attribute it to one man? Well...Using your logic, the draft choices meant squat in the end.
PissOff said 12/03, 01:32 PM
Well, to be perfectly honest: The Gruden deal was not a trade. You can't trade a coach. But I'll go with it anyway, just to humor you.
Actually, by your standards, ANY COACH would have won the Super Bowl with Tampa Bay, since they used Dungy's team, as you said. Then what happened to the team that traded away all of their draft choices in the next couple of years?
Simple equation. What do the numbers 35-44 mean to you? No, not Porkins' pants length and waist size. That's Jon Gruden's record in the years FOLLOWING the Super Bowl win with Dungy's team. That includes THREE losing seasons out of 5, and one 1 game over .500, and zero playoff wins. Not exactly a glaring example of a great trade. Tampa gave up their future with that trade, and has paid the price ever since. Sure, they are winning this year, but they could just as easily finish 9-7 again, with one little QB injury.
So if ANYONE could have won the Super Bowl with Dungy's team, as you have said....and Marshall Faulk leading his team to two Super Bowls, winning one of them....it is clear that the Faulk trade was much more lo9psided.
Gruden was going to be fired anyway, according to Al Davis.
Moondizzle said 12/03, 01:50 PM
With one year left on his deal, and no firing imminent, Gruden was effectively traded for compensation of draft picks and financial terms. It's clean cut.
ANY Coach would have won? So...Norv Turner, Rich Kotite, and countless others could have done the same thing? That's not a fact. That's just giving me hypotheticals.
Tampa did pay for a slow rebound in the near future after the Super Bowl simply in acquiring Gruden, however where is the franchise? This wasn't a deal you measure in 1 or 2 seasons. And now you expect them to lose their last 4 at 9-3? Cmon now.
Marshall Faulk led them, eh? Did he play with an MVP QB? Just wondering. Let me know.
In trading Faulk, the Colts traded a future HOFer for a crap heap bigger than Frank's whiskey tango home.
But wait...The Colts next 4 seasons were....
13-3 (with a RUNNING BACK named Edgerrin James receiving OROY honors), 10-6, 6-10, 10-6.
Doesn't exactly make you weak in the knees, but a composite 39-25 record with 3 playoff appearances ain't awful. And I won't even get into the next half decade. Did they really miss Faulk? Was it that bad? They weren't going to reach a contract agreement anyway!
PissOff said 12/03, 03:31 PM
When you have to use the word "effectively" in your opening line, then you know as well as I do that you might as well type "I was wrong".
As for "any coach"....you said it, not me. You said he won with another coach's team, and he had nothing to do with it. I'm glad to see you've changed your mind on that.
Where is Tampa NOW? Well, with the easiest schedule in the NFL, you're right. They probably won't lose their last 4. But if they lose Garcia, they certainly might. And all that means is that they'll have a tough schedule next season, and suck again. Trust, as a fan since 1996, I think I have a little more insight over a New York guy.
Did the MVP ever win a Super Bowl without Faulk? Just wondering. Let me know.
As for telling me what the Colts did with James at running back, you are again admitting that you are losing the argument. If they had drafted James with one of those two draft picks, you MIGHT have an argument. But they didn't. And the TD is about a lopsided TRADE, is it not? Or did you change the paramaters of the argument quicker than Fizzle changes excuses for why he can't get laid?
All the Colts needed to do was pay him. They wouldn't.
Moondizzle said 12/03, 04:04 PM
Um...nope...I wasn't using 'effectively' for emphasis. He was traded.
I said it. Dungy's team. But to insinuate that you could insert any crappy coach is misguided. We all know that any one decision a different coach would make would change things.
So Tampa (who won their division last year by the way) will win more than 9 because of an easy schedule. I see. Ok. Not alot of credit in there for Gruden, is there?
You said "Faulk" led the Rams to the Super Bowl. I just ask you acknowledge who the MVP was. Thank you. To come back with "well did he do it without Faulk?" is silly. You can't omit Warner and get away with it.
"You are again admitting that you are losing the argument."
Um...nope. What I (judge me on that if you will) considered a lopsided trade is listed in argument 1. Does 1 team make an absolutely huge gain in the deal (The Rams and Bucs did, thats a wash) that cripples the opposing team on the lower end into oblivion (The Colts didn't collapse, the Raiders did).
Gruden never finished under .500 with the Raiders. They haven't finished .500 since (1 year with Callahan at 11-5).
The Raiders have never recovered. Maybe they never will.
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia