Treehugger Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Moute point? I thought it was a Mooo Point. It's like a Cow's opinion... it doesn't matter... It's mooo. No, no it's not. moot /mut/ –adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. 3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BronxRik Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 No, no it's not. moot /mut/ –adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point. 2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic. 3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical. Yes it is. It's just that most have failed to master Nemesis 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Marty Booker is one of those receivers that isn't flashy, doesn't excite you. But he has always produced. Now, just to make sure, I checked his stats, and last year he did not have a good year, so he might be done (only 14 catches). But for his entire career he has been a good if not spectacular WR. Another non-flashy, non-exciting, good not spectacular receiver? Steve Smith. People need not get caught up with one name out of the names I mentioned. I was making a greater point that Steve Smith can be replaced adequately by any number of receivers on the free agent market if that is what it came down to. Or you just put Hixon, Moss, or Manningham in that two-hole (whoever wins the job in camp). It doesn't matter. What matters is that Braylon makes our team better, with or without Steve Smith. Now, go ahead and flame me because I am acting as if Steve Smith is the greatest WR in the NFL. If you could look at Steve Smith as a casual fan does, you would say he's a pretty good receiver. There are a lot of those on the open market. You can't replace 23-24 year old Steve Smith with 33-34 year old Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison, etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Marvin Harrison turns 37 in August. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws44 Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I'm just glad you dont work with the Giants FO then, the Giants said no to dealing Smith and thats that, no need to be "analytical" about it. We want to give them our extra second and fifth round pick which should easily be enough to get a player who has a history of dropping passes along with being banged up throughout the season. However the Browns ask for Smith the only WR currently on the Giants roster who has big game experience and has shown he can move the chains which IMO is hard to find in alot of WRs regardless of your idea that a free agent can just step in and fill his spot. The Giants don't want to give Smith up in the deal, he is young, obviously has good reputation with Eli and will easily be a Giants for the rest of his career outside of some career altering injury. So we countered the Browns with Hixon who has shown he "could" start or even Manninggam who at one point was projected to be a first round talent. The Browns are stupid for not taking our end of the agreement in my opinion, they get two draft picks plus a WR who could develope into something in Manningham or Hixon who can be atleast a #2 on their team. Look at it this way, we get Braylon and trade away Smith. More then likely we wont be signing a WR though FA and would be drafting some kid in the later rounds just to bulk up our WR core. Lets say Braylon gets banged up which heading into the later part of his career could happen. So he's down we're then left with Hixon/Moss/Manningham/Tyree/Draft pick. Do you think we could actually win with that WR core? I'd be much happier with at least Smith/Moss/Tyree/Draft pick/Hixon or Manningham whoever we trade away if the situation came around to it. Smith has game time experience and at this point is probably the best WR on the team(if Plax isnt back) so why trade him away. He has chemistry with Eli and knows this offense and has been bread into our #2 guy. To me to throw away all that work would be beyond idiotic for the Giants to do. Dont get me wrong if this Plax thing goes down the shitter and he is gone I would love to have Edwards, but not at the cost of our #2 guy with a roster of WRs who have shown nothing yet. Heck throw in an extra second round pick in my opinion or even our third which should seal the deal, but the Giants wont be trading Smith and I would take the expert opinion of the Giants FO over ANYONES opinion on an internet forum. That's exactly what I was thinking. It sounds like we may be getting a pretty high compensatory pick in this draft. Package that with the other two extra picks and that should seal the deal. Based on the trades made for other WR in recent years, I think a 2, 4 and 5 should land Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 That's exactly what I was thinking. It sounds like we may be getting a pretty high compensatory pick in this draft. Package that with the other two extra picks and that should seal the deal. Based on the trades made for other WR in recent years, I think a 2, 4 and 5 should land Edwards. Compensatory selections cannot be traded... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mws44 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Compensatory selections cannot be traded... Didn't know that. But based on this information, now that we have 2 third round picks, giving up the 4th rounder doesn't effect to much. I definately think a 2, 4 and a 5 should land Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxi-xxv Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Steve Smith just strikes me as that guy who in his career is gonna be the guy that pisses off the opposition as it will always seem that when the teams needs 12 he gets 13 for a first time. Thats how I always looked a Ricky Proehl and although I know its not actually the case it just seems that way that he is in the right place at the right time. His instincts and route running skills are exceptional and his nice in the NFL will probably always be a slot WR, possesion guy. IMO he is Elis intermediate saftety net. Would I give him up for Edwards? Probably not simply because if the Browns want to deal the guy the Giants have so many picks I would rather trade picks instead of players. There are not a lot of roster spots open on this team so I would hold out for picks instead of players, but the mention of Smith is certainly not a deal breaker, just something I would not want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Marvin Harrison turns 37 in August. Damn, even worse...it's just my opinion but there's no more important information to look at when deciding on a free agent signing than age... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allstarjim Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Steve Smith just strikes me as that guy who in his career is gonna be the guy that pisses off the opposition as it will always seem that when the teams needs 12 he gets 13 for a first time. Thats how I always looked a Ricky Proehl and although I know its not actually the case it just seems that way that he is in the right place at the right time. His instincts and route running skills are exceptional and his nice in the NFL will probably always be a slot WR, possesion guy. IMO he is Elis intermediate saftety net. Would I give him up for Edwards? Probably not simply because if the Browns want to deal the guy the Giants have so many picks I would rather trade picks instead of players. There are not a lot of roster spots open on this team so I would hold out for picks instead of players, but the mention of Smith is certainly not a deal breaker, just something I would not want to do. XXI, I agree with you word for word here. I do not want Smith to be traded. And I also think that the Giants may very well get this deal done without trading him. If the negotiations we read about are true, then I think that they are close enough to come to an agreement. The only difference between me and other posters here is that if it came down to the 11th hour and the inclusion of Smith meant that the deal was going to get done, or we would be going into the season with no real #1, then I would include Smith, very reluctantly. And by the way, doing so is NOT beyond idiotic. Beyond idiotic would be going into next season without a #1 receiver after knowing how Eli's effectiveness and numbers were greatly diminished without Plaxico next season (not to mention the lack of threat of the pass in the playoff game altogether). Going into next season with essentially the same thing as what we ended with after investing so much already in the short term for success.... that would be beyond idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightFire Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The more I think about it the more I wouldn't trade Smith and more than what the Giants got for Shockey. Edwards only had one good year. Would you trade a 2nd for Anderson because he had a great 2007 also? Hell with these amount of draft picks and Smith we should be just going after a proven WR like Boldin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 XXI, I agree with you word for word here. I do not want Smith to be traded. And I also think that the Giants may very well get this deal done without trading him. If the negotiations we read about are true, then I think that they are close enough to come to an agreement. The only difference between me and other posters here is that if it came down to the 11th hour and the inclusion of Smith meant that the deal was going to get done, or we would be going into the season with no real #1, then I would include Smith, very reluctantly. And by the way, doing so is NOT beyond idiotic. Beyond idiotic would be going into next season without a #1 receiver after knowing how Eli's effectiveness and numbers were greatly diminished without Plaxico next season (not to mention the lack of threat of the pass in the playoff game altogether). Going into next season with essentially the same thing as what we ended with after investing so much already in the short term for success.... that would be beyond idiotic. No matter what I do not see how we can trade Smith. The Browns have a need in WR (depending on Stallworth)and they did sign David Patten recently.Also lost TE (Winslow) so why not at least throw Johnson or Matthews in the mix. Although the did sign TE Robert Royal I never heard of their other TE's So they have Braylon, Stallworth,Patten, Steptoe and Cribbs Steptoe and cribbs can be explosive but their are our Moss/Hixon equivilant. I can see where The Browns would want an established WR in return for Braylon. Funny how no one has contacted Toomer????? I mean If the browns were smart they would get the former GOATof the Griants and not lose Braylon and still get a sure handed GOAT plus keep Braylon..... thus turning our scope back to Boldin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueInCanada Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 No matter what I do not see how we can trade Smith. The Browns have a need in WR (depending on Stallworth)and they did sign David Patten recently.Also lost TE (Winslow) so why not at least throw Johnson or Matthews in the mix. Although the did sign TE Robert Royal I never heard of their other TE's So they have Braylon, Stallworth,Patten, Steptoe and Cribbs Steptoe and cribbs can be explosive but their are our Moss/Hixon equivilant. I can see where The Browns would want an established WR in return for Braylon. Funny how no one has contacted Toomer????? I mean If the browns were smart they would get the former GOATof the Griants and not lose Braylon and still get a sure handed GOAT plus keep Braylon..... thus turning our scope back to Boldin. I've said it before, Boldin is a pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I've said it before, Boldin is a pipe dream. But what a sexy pipe that is! More like a wet pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 No matter what I do not see how we can trade Smith. The Browns have a need in WR (depending on Stallworth)and they did sign David Patten recently.Also lost TE (Winslow) so why not at least throw Johnson or Matthews in the mix. Although the did sign TE Robert Royal I never heard of their other TE's So they have Braylon, Stallworth,Patten, Steptoe and Cribbs Steptoe and cribbs can be explosive but their are our Moss/Hixon equivilant. I can see where The Browns would want an established WR in return for Braylon. Funny how no one has contacted Toomer????? I mean If the browns were smart they would get the former GOATof the Griants and not lose Braylon and still get a sure handed GOAT plus keep Braylon..... thus turning our scope back to Boldin. Their second TE, Steve Hedien, is much better than Matthews and Johnson. He actually had a really strong game against us when we played Cleveland on Monday night. Besides, guys with less than 10 career receptions typically don't carry much trade value. No one has contacted Toomer because the writing is on the wall: his days as a productive starting WR are over. And there's not much interest in a third or fourth receiver who doesn't play special teams and has no developmental upside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'd much rather have Braylon than Boldin. Boldin will be 29 this year, has a lot of mileage, and misses time every year because of injury. There's a lot of downside involved with him, and I don't think he provides the vertical threat that would improve our offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I'd much rather have Braylon than Boldin. Boldin will be 29 this year, has a lot of mileage, and misses time every year because of injury. There's a lot of downside involved with him, and I don't think he provides the vertical threat that would improve our offense. The difference in their catching would more than make up for Edwards' slight vertical advantage IMHO. Some of the best hands in the NFL vs some of the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Their second TE, Steve Hedien, is much better than Matthews and Johnson. He actually had a really strong game against us when we played Cleveland on Monday night. Besides, guys with less than 10 career receptions typically don't carry much trade value. No one has contacted Toomer because the writing is on the wall: his days as a productive starting WR are over. And there's not much interest in a third or fourth receiver who doesn't play special teams and has no developmental upside. Funny I don't remember his "clutch" slipping Dare to compare Patten to Toomer? TOOMER 14 years PATTEN 13 years I find it funny the Browns chose Patten over Toomer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 The difference in their catching would more than make up for Edwards' slight vertical advantage IMHO. Some of the best hands in the NFL vs some of the worst. It's more than slight difference in downfield ability. Braylon has averaged 16 yards per catch in his career, Boldin has averaged just 12. Knowing Braylon, I really believe a change of scenary and shift into the spotlight would alleviate his drops. He's made some of the most sensational catches I've ever seen....we know he can catch. And no matter how sure-handed Boldin is, he won't be a worthwhile investment if he's not on the field or past his prime without two years... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Funny I don't remember his "clutch" slipping Dare to compare Patten to Toomer? TOOMER 14 years PATTEN 13 years I find it funny the Browns chose Patten over Toomer Toomer sure wasn't very "cluth" during our strecth run this year. Although intangible qualities such as "clutchness" might not slip, tangible qualities such as speed, agility, and explosiveness do slip. And in Toomer's case, they've slipped drastically. I won't speak for the Brown organization, by my guess is that their decision didn't simply come down to Toomer vs. Patton in a vaccuum. Price is always an issue, and Patton could be a guy they just want for vet competition; I doubt they're counting on him playing a pivotal role in their offense. Truth be told, neither guy will do anything substantial this year or any year beyond that. But Patton is likely viewed as someone who has more in the tank if he can stay on the field.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Toomer sure wasn't very "cluth" during our strecth run this year. Although intangible qualities such as "clutchness" might not slip, tangible qualities such as speed, agility, and explosiveness do slip. And in Toomer's case, they've slipped drastically. I won't speak for the Brown organization, by my guess is that their decision didn't simply come down to Toomer vs. Patton in a vaccuum. Price is always an issue, and Patton could be a guy they just want for vet competition; I doubt they're counting on him playing a pivotal role in their offense. Truth be told, neither guy will do anything substantial this year or any year beyond that. But Patton is likely viewed as someone who has more in the tank if he can stay on the field.... Toomer would be looking for more money than Patten, and Patten is only there in case Stallworth can't play, otherwise chances are he'll be an easy cut. I'm sure Amani thinks he can pull a 2 year deal out of someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Money Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I don't think Amani would play in Cleveland anyway. There have always been whispers that he wanted to finish his career playing on the west coast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treehugger Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I find it puzzling that you'd think more pressure and attention will improve his drops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boohyah Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 I don't think Amani would play in Cleveland anyway. There have always been whispers that he wanted to finish his career playing on the west coast... Watch for Amani playing for fassel and Las Vegas in the UFL....this fall!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lughead Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Toomer sure wasn't very "cluth" during our strecth run this year. Although intangible qualities such as "clutchness" might not slip, tangible qualities such as speed, agility, and explosiveness do slip. And in Toomer's case, they've slipped drastically. I won't speak for the Brown organization, by my guess is that their decision didn't simply come down to Toomer vs. Patton in a vaccuum. Price is always an issue, and Patton could be a guy they just want for vet competition; I doubt they're counting on him playing a pivotal role in their offense. Truth be told, neither guy will do anything substantial this year or any year beyond that. But Patton is likely viewed as someone who has more in the tank if he can stay on the field.... I don't know where you would get this idea from. Did you even look at his stats compared to Pattens? Toomer is glaringly better than Patten even still. The Giants clearly where phasing Toomer out and inserting Smith (Untill the Burress fiasco) But Toomer was still our #2 guy in stats I don't recall how many drops he had last year but over his Pro career he only has had 3 lost fumbles in 14 years . But if it came down to Money and Toomer wanting a 2 year deal and more than vet minimum then I can kind of see that and Not because Patten is better than Toomer , It's not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now