Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: kaepernick an Ealge?
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
CT_Eagle
Sorry if this has already been posted.

Hard to believe but it almost happened

Link

HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (CT_Eagle @ Sep 17 2013, 10:10 AM) *
Sorry if this has already been posted.

Hard to believe but it almost happened

Link


Sometimes when I think of our front office discussing personnel moves, I imagine a 3 Stooges episode.
mcnabbulous
Head coaches shouldn't be involved in personnel decisions. It's been proven time and time again.
koolaidluke
why did the 9ers want to trade Kap? They saw him everyday in practice so presumably they knew he could play.
CT_Eagle
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 17 2013, 03:47 PM) *
why did the 9ers want to trade Kap? They saw him everyday in practice so presumably they knew he could play.



From the article:

"The 49ers were open to trading Kaepernick because of the success the team had the previous season with Alex Smith at quarterback."
koolaidluke
But Alex Smith sucks. Don't know why they would want to trade their potential QB of the future when the alternative was the horrendous Alex Smith. They knew he sucked enough to pursue Manning in the offseason.
CT_Eagle
Smith had a good year in 2012. Perhaps they were thinking he finally matured and was their guy.
mcnabbulous
Something about this story doesn't add up. From my understanding, Harbaugh absolutely loved Kaepernick and, as Luke pointed out, they pursued Manning enough that Smith obviously wasn't thought of so incredibly highly in SF.

I call bullshit.

The Russell Wilson stuff stings though.
CT_Eagle
I don't think you can use the pursuit of Manning as an indicator of how SF valued Smith or even Kapernick for that matter. Manning is a huge upgrade over both and a team positioned as SF was in 2012 would have been foolish not to pursue Manning.
mcnabbulous
Fair - I just think something is missing here. Kaepernick was drafted at the top of the second round (36.) Why would the Niners give him up one year later for the 59th pick?
CT_Eagle
Now that is a good point. There would have to have been more offered than just the 59th pick to make trade scenario worthwhile to SF.
mcnabbulous
It just stinks of another Banner hit piece.
make_it_rain


The Philadelphia Eagles front office, ladies and gentlemen. You'd think after so many whiffs over the years I'd be desensitized to it by now, but no. If true, this one hurts to think about.
koolaidluke
We have the best OL in football thanks to them. Desean, Celek and McCoy, the second best halfback in the game, because of them also. They've done one hell of a job at least on the offensive side of the ball. You don't produce like the Eagles have over the first two weeks without a lot of talent.

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 17 2013, 12:43 PM) *
We have the best OL in football thanks to them. Desean, Celek and McCoy, the second best halfback in the game, because of them also. They've done one hell of a job at least on the offensive side of the ball. You don't produce like the Eagles have over the first two weeks without a lot of talent.

Yeah - as good as they've been on offense, they've been that bad on defense. Actually, probably worse.

We went from 2006-2012 without drafting a really solid defender. That's why we're in this mess.
TGryn
This:
QUOTE
The Eagles "geared their whole draft around" Wilson? That's ridiculous. How do you gear your draft around a guy you passed over THREE TIMES, especially at a premium position? It doesn't seem to make sense. If the Eagles believed in Wilson enough to "gear their draft" around him, I don't think they gamble missing out on him.
koolaidluke
By the way, if I'm a GM and another team solicits me saying that I can have player X in exchange for a pick, my assumption is that the team making the offer knows first hand that player X can't play and is just trying to unload him.

If this story is true than it is the San Fran FO that has more explaining to do than anyone else.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 17 2013, 01:10 PM) *
By the way, if I'm a GM and another team solicits me saying that I can have player X in exchange for a pick, my assumption is that the team making the offer knows first hand that player X can't play and is just trying to unload him.

If this story is true than it is the San Fran FO that has more explaining to do than anyone else.

Good point.
HOUSEoPAIN
QUOTE (make_it_rain @ Sep 17 2013, 01:24 PM) *


laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

So this is actual footage of the Eagles FO deciding to go with Danny Watkins then?
Rick
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 17 2013, 02:10 PM) *
By the way, if I'm a GM and another team solicits me saying that I can have player X in exchange for a pick, my assumption is that the team making the offer knows first hand that player X can't play and is just trying to unload him.

If this story is true than it is the San Fran FO that has more explaining to do than anyone else.

Right because teams only trade people who can't play. That's the only reason trades are made...

unsure.gif
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Rick @ Sep 17 2013, 03:47 PM) *
Right because teams only trade people who can't play. That's the only reason trades are made...

unsure.gif

Why would you trade a guy for significantly less than you paid for him if you thought he could play? Especially at that position, at that salary?
Phits
QUOTE (koolaidluke @ Sep 17 2013, 02:10 PM) *
By the way, if I'm a GM and another team solicits me saying that I can have player X in exchange for a pick, my assumption is that the team making the offer knows first hand that player X can't play and is just trying to unload him.

If this story is true than it is the San Fran FO that has more explaining to do than anyone else.

At the time, CK had untapped potential...whereas the starting QB (Alex Smith) was flourishing efficiently and effectively. With 2 (potential) starting QB's on your roster, why wouldn't you try and see what the value is of the unknown commodity?
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2013, 04:50 PM) *
Why would you trade a guy for significantly less than you paid for him if you thought he could play? Especially at that position, at that salary?

Because he is only worth what the market demands for him. I think if they felt they could get more, they would try to get more. For example, Anquan Boldin got traded for a 6th round pick.....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2013, 04:03 PM) *
Because he is only worth what the market demands for him. I think if they felt they could get more, they would try to get more.

So then why trade him? He was young and at a reasonable contract. There would be no reason to trade him unless they thought he couldn't play.

Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2013, 05:06 PM) *
So then why trade him? He was young and at a reasonable contract. There would be no reason to trade him unless they thought he couldn't play.

They didn't. The return was lower than they wanted, and eventually they got rid of the other guy.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Phits @ Sep 17 2013, 04:14 PM) *
They didn't. The return was lower than they wanted, and eventually they got rid of the other guy.

But the report implies it was the Eagles who turned down the deal (because they were sure they were going to get RW.) Which is the general point here. Something doesn't add up.
Rick
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Sep 17 2013, 05:06 PM) *
So then why trade him? He was young and at a reasonable contract. There would be no reason to trade him unless they thought he couldn't play.

How about because they (maybe) felt they needed something else and could get it for him?

There are many reasons a team might trade a player who can play.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.