Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Frustrating Personnel decisions

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    I believe it's inferred because they traded into ten
    Fair enough, but I'm going to continue believing it was mere rumor until someone from the Bengals or Chiefs goes on record and confirms a trade proposal was made. And again, only a day or two ago Marvin defended the choice of Ross by claiming there was no team willing to trade down with them. That's far different than the rejected trade with Arizona in 2015 when Lewis actually bragged about not accepting that teams trade proposal....not to mention how Arizona confirmed what they gad offered.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by HOF View Post
    Fair enough, but I'm going to continue believing it was mere rumor until someone from the Bengals or Chiefs goes on record and confirms a trade proposal was made. And again, only a day or two ago Marvin defended the choice of Ross by claiming there was no team willing to trade down with them. That's far different than the rejected trade with Arizona in 2015 when Lewis actually bragged about not accepting that teams trade proposal....not to mention how Arizona confirmed what they gad offered.
    It's pretty clear that we could have traded down with the Chiefs. Why would they be willing to take the 10 but not the 9? That doesn't mean we ever actually talked to the chiefs. I don't think you will ever have that confirmed as anything more than a rumor.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    It's pretty clear that we could have traded down with the Chiefs. Why would they be willing to take the 10 but not the 9?
    It's not clear at all. Why pay a more compensation when you don't have to? Just because the Chiefs wanted to trade up doesn't mean they started at #1 and worked their way down the list. Rather, they wouldn't have started calling teams drafting close to where Mahones was projected to go and worked their way up the list until they found a team willing to trade down. So the only reason for calling the Bengals would be to check and see if they would be willing to ask less than another team was demanding for a lower pick...which seems pretty unlikely.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by HOF View Post
    It's not clear at all. Why pay a more compensation when you don't have to? Just because the Chiefs wanted to trade up doesn't mean they started at #1 and worked their way down the list. Rather, they wouldn't have started calling teams drafting close to where Mahones was projected to go and worked their way up the list until they found a team willing to trade down. So the only reason for calling the Bengals would be to check and see if they would be willing to ask less than another team was demanding for a lower pick...which seems pretty unlikely.
    Premise 1: Why pay more compensation than you would have to? Nothing prohibits them from offering the same deal to 9 and 10. or 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8. Until Someone takes it or Mahomes is gone. Why would they have to offer less?
    Premise 2: They would have started calling teams drafting close to where he was projected? 9 is right next to 10. And they want to draft as early as possible to insure they get they player they want. They have no idea where Mahomes is going.
    Premise 3: Will Bengals ask less? They can offer the same deal, they don't need to ask less. That's not the only reason to call the Bengals. The reason is to insure the Bengals don't trade the pick for somebody who wants to grab Mahomes, draft Mahomes themselves or the Bills don't trade with someone else.

    The Bills don't care if they draft at 1-9-10.

    This is as straightforward as it gets.
    Last edited by Bengalbro; 11-11-2017 at 02:30 AM.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    They could offer the same deal to 9 and 10.
    This feels oddly familiar. Like how you started ranting after the fact about the Bengals should have accepted a single 2nd round pick for McCarron instead of demanding the 3 picks the Browns actually agreed to.

    You've answered my question though. You're talking about a rumor, unconfirmed, and recently denied by Lewis. Seems like a perfect time to move on.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by HOF View Post
    This feels oddly familiar. Like how you started ranting after the fact about the Bengals should have accepted a single 2nd round pick for McCarron instead of demanding the 3 picks the Browns actually agreed to.

    You've answered my question though. You're talking about a rumor, unconfirmed, and recently denied by Lewis. Seems like a perfect time to move on.
    I love your draft stuff. But you are off here logically.

    1. Would you rather have a 2nd Round offensive lineman or AJ McCarron. To me it's unquestionable.
    2. To mitigate the risk of not getting their player the Chiefs would want to pick as highly as possible. If they can move up without spending more assets they would want to pick as high as possible.

    If everyone agreed on everything there would be no need for discussion boards. I appreciate your take.
    Last edited by Bengalbro; 11-11-2017 at 11:11 AM.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    I love your draft stuff. But you are off here logically.

    1. Would you rather have a 2nd Round offensive lineman or AJ McCarron. To me it's unquestionable.
    2. To mitigate the risk of not getting their player the Chiefs would want to pick as highly as possible. If they can move up without spending more assets they would want to pick as high as possible.

    If everyone agreed on everything there would be no need for discussion boards. I appreciate your take.
    For starters, I love the irony of being called illogical by someone crafting two different what if trade scenarios that are only possible if known facts are ignored.

    Your entire McCarron trade premise is based upon the Bengals asking for much less than they were offered, thereby speeding up the negotiations. In reality the Bengals asking price was proved to be reasonable when their trade demands were accepted. Further, the trade was agreed upon with enough time remaining for the Bengals to submit their paperwork. So rather than blame the Bengals for asking for everything they could get...why not blame the Browns for being both indecisive and incompetent?

    And your Kansas City trade rant is based entirely upon a rumor the Bengals have flatly denied....coupled with the same silly idea the Bengals should have demanded less to make a deal happen. But you don't even know if the Chiefs called.

    Again, I got my answer, and I realize now why I couldn't remember the Bengals turning down a trade offer from the Chiefs. It didn't happen.

    Just another Bengal fan fever dream.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by HOF View Post
    For starters, I love the irony of being called illogical by someone crafting two different what if trade scenarios that are only possible if known facts are ignored.

    Your entire McCarron trade premise is based upon the Bengals asking for much less than they were offered, thereby speeding up the negotiations. In reality the Bengals asking price was proved to be reasonable when their trade demands were accepted. Further, the trade was agreed upon with enough time remaining for the Bengals to submit their paperwork. So rather than blame the Bengals for asking for everything they could get...why not blame the Browns for being both indecisive and incompetent?

    And your Kansas City trade rant is based entirely upon a rumor the Bengals have flatly denied....coupled with the same silly idea the Bengals should have demanded less to make a deal happen. But you don't even know if the Chiefs called.

    Again, I got my answer, and I realize now why I couldn't remember the Bengals turning down a trade offer from the Chiefs. It didn't happen.

    Just another Bengal fan fever dream.
    The trade didn't go through because we asked for more than they were comfortable with. Are you saying you think they would take a 2 and three near the deadline but not a 2 earlier?

    Why would the chiefs be willing to trade into the 10 but not the nine if they were the same price?

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengalbro View Post
    The trade didn't go through because we asked for more than they were comfortable with.
    The trade didn't go through because the Browns couldn't get their paperwork submitted on time. The Bengals proved it could be done. No reason to blame the Bengals for demanding as much as they could get.

    As for the Chiefs, you don't know if they called, and if they did you don't know what they offered. And Marvin says no team made an offer to trade down...so your whole rant doesn't even seem to be based in rumor. Rather, you infer after the fact the Bengals should have been willing to accept the same compensation for #9 as another team got for #10. But why would the Chiefs even bother calling the Bengals if they already had a trade agreement in place for a player they could be reasonably sure would still on the board at #10? Or doesn't the fact Mahones was actually there for the taking mean anything to you?

  10. #30
    The trade didn't go through because the browns couldn't get there paperwork in on time because they were debating about whether or not it was too much. That debate disappears under this premise.

    Because they want to draft as highly as possible to ensure the player they want is there. Why would the Chiefs be reasonably sure he was their at ten?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •