Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

**cajunvike** · 06-09-2008, 04:03 PM

I'd say that the Vikings got the better deal, no doubt.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/8220038

**dcboardr41** · 06-09-2008, 04:07 PM

he will be good player, nothing like JA, they gave up waaaaaaaaaaaaay to much for an unproven player

**marstc09** · 06-09-2008, 04:17 PM

I think it makes us look like geniuses.

**V-Unit** · 06-09-2008, 04:24 PM

I think the Jags are like us in that they don't see many holes on their team. Yes the did give up a lot, but they addressed their main need in a big way and thats what important.

Jared Allen for a 1st and 2-3rds
Derrick Harvey for a 1st, 2-3rds, and a 4th.

They didn't give up that much more than we did. Yes Allen is a much better option, but I think if you are a Jags fan you are happy with the move.

**Mr-holland** · 06-09-2008, 04:45 PM

They were really foolish but they could have been right.
They are right when Harvey becomes the best DE in the game ( Allen is the best right now ) or if Allen goes drinking and driving again. Maybe they did not want to take the risk bringing in a guy who has/had a problem with that

**Purple Floyd** · 06-09-2008, 04:53 PM

We won't know the answer until a few years have passed and we see what he has become. The same goes for our deal with Allen. We all pray it works out but you never really know.

How many fans even 3 games into his first season believed that the Walker trade would be one of the worst in history?

**V-Unit** · 06-10-2008, 08:08 AM

"Mr-holland" wrote:

They were really foolish but they could have been right.
They are right when Harvey becomes the best DE in the game ( Allen is the best right now ) or if Allen goes drinking and driving again. Maybe they did not want to take the risk bringing in a guy who has/had a problem with that

This is not Allen vs. Harvey in any way. This is two different scenarios of a team addressing their need. It just happens to be the same position, but its not like the teams were picking between the two.

Before the Allen trade, we were saying lets get an OT and get a DE later in the draft. We knew Harvey was out of reach. Also, Allen never even visited Jacksonville. He wasn't even on their radar.

So, I don't think they're foolish at all. Harvey doesn't have to become the best DE in the game for them to be right. Even if Allen blows it, the Jags are still wrong if Harvey doesn't pan out. To be optimistic, both teams may have made the right move for their franchise.

**digital420** · 06-10-2008, 09:09 AM

"V" wrote:

"Mr-holland" wrote:

They were really foolish but they could have been right.
They are right when Harvey becomes the best DE in the game ( Allen is the best right now ) or if Allen goes drinking and driving again. Maybe they did not want to take the risk bringing in a guy who has/had a problem with that

This is not Allen vs. Harvey in any way. This is two different scenarios of a team addressing their need. It just happens to be the same position, but its not like the teams were picking between the two.

Before the Allen trade, we were saying lets get an OT and get a DE later in the draft. We knew Harvey was out of reach. Also, Allen never even visited Jacksonville. He wasn't even on their radar.

So, I don't think they're foolish at all. Harvey doesn't have to become the best DE in the game for them to be right. Even if Allen blows it, the Jags are still wrong if Harvey doesn't pan out. To be optimistic, both teams may have made the right move for their franchise.

well said V!! our decision to not go for the draft and get the player NOW who was ready and at the top of his game shows a different need then the jags.
They were looking further down the road, rebuilding and trying to do what we did 2 years ago.

it's the story of 2 different teams looking at a position from 2 completely different views.

i like our win now more then if we went for the lets win tomorrow.

DiGiTaL