|
Post by gramazins on Jul 19, 2011 17:33:28 GMT -5
Cowboys Receive: Phillip Rivers 32 y/o 95 OVR 16 cap 5 yr Kris Dielman 33 y/o 90 OVR 20 cap 5 yr Nick Hardwick 32 y/o 82 OVR 11 cap 3 yr
SD Receive Tony Romo 34 y/o 87 OVR 11 cap 6 yr Dallas 2013 1st Rounder Rams 2013 1st Rounder Dallas 2014 1st Rounder Dallas 2014 2nd Rounder
|
|
|
Post by povertystriken on Jul 19, 2011 17:56:44 GMT -5
I agree, but don't understand the disapproval votes. Ages are not correct, btw. Cowboys are getting long term contracts on 90, 95 overalls in their prime. The first rounders this year are latter and with Rivers I'm sure they'll be late next year as well. Just the way I view it.
|
|
|
Post by gramazins on Jul 19, 2011 18:24:15 GMT -5
ok this trade getting denied is weird. Can people please post why. I've talked to 4 teams now and 2 think I gave up too much and 2 think chargers gave up too much. That sounds like a fair trade to me.
|
|
|
Post by gramazins on Jul 19, 2011 18:25:53 GMT -5
Who keeps messing with my karma?
|
|
|
Post by tecmosuperbowler on Jul 19, 2011 18:52:18 GMT -5
I will be waiting until progressions to vote on this trade.
Romo + Dallas 1st(2013)= Rivers
Dielman= Rams first(2013) as long as he doesnt decline
Hardwick< Dallas 1st and 2nd (2014)
Romo actually had better years than Rivers the past 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by lions11 on Jul 19, 2011 19:03:31 GMT -5
I will be waiting until progressions to vote on this trade. Romo + Dallas 1st(2013)= Rivers My reasoning for voting yes is the Jamarcus Austin deal. If Cassel + 2 firsts = Austin, im fine with Romo + 2 firsts for Rivers. After that, Dielman and Hardwick for a first and second is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by guzman11 on Jul 19, 2011 19:10:09 GMT -5
I'm voting yes. Unfortunately we set the precedent by the trades we processed. ie lions11 comment. Plus I like the idea that these guys are doing a blockbuster deal before progression, I like the risk involved
|
|
|
Post by tecmosuperbowler on Jul 19, 2011 19:12:36 GMT -5
I will be waiting until progressions to vote on this trade. Romo + Dallas 1st(2013)= Rivers My reasoning for voting yes is the Jamarcus Austin deal. If Cassel + 2 firsts = Austin, im fine with Romo + 2 firsts for Rivers. After that, Dielman and Hardwick for a first and second is fine by me. Big difference in the 2 deals. Austin is a rookie who will continually get better. Rivers and Romo are the same age and both will digress in a few years while Austin is Peaking.With us going a season a week Austin will be higher rated than Rivers in 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by lions11 on Jul 19, 2011 19:29:16 GMT -5
Highest I've seen Austin is a 95. Rivers is there now. I've never seen Rivers retire, and he stays 90+ up until the last few years.
I value them the same.
|
|
|
Post by tryintobe72phins on Jul 19, 2011 19:44:24 GMT -5
i voted yes i wanted phillip rivers guess now will get NILE TURNER
|
|
|
Post by gramazins on Jul 19, 2011 19:46:12 GMT -5
I actually looked at the QBs available to draft teh next few years and decided I wasn't getting a good one and Romo had more than enough chances to stick in dallas. His sims have been awful with a decent line and receiving core.
Also my other areas of need for the next few years were C and G so this fills what I would have been using my picks for.
I actually saw this as River for Romo and 2 firsts then the other 2 for a 1st and a 2nd. Also my draft picks are always towards the end of the 1st so its not like I'm giving top 5 picks
|
|
|
Post by gramazins on Jul 24, 2011 18:45:33 GMT -5
and now it looks like I got hosed.
|
|
|
Post by tecmosuperbowler on Jul 24, 2011 19:04:41 GMT -5
and now it looks like I got hosed. LOL, Umm I guess I said so doesnt help much.
|
|
|
Post by povertystriken on Jul 24, 2011 19:05:49 GMT -5
Man, I really hate it for you bud, but on a bright note...Romo tanked too.
|
|
|
Post by tecmosuperbowler on Jul 24, 2011 19:12:59 GMT -5
Highest I've seen Austin is a 95. Rivers is there now. I've never seen Rivers retire, and he stays 90+ up until the last few years. I value them the same. Cough*Cough
|
|