Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30
  1. #11
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,909

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "kevoncox" wrote:
    I think if I was the Jags I would have put a call in for Peppers. A 1st, 23rds and a 4th may have been too much the Panthers to pass up.
    LOL, I love your dedication my friend.
    ;D
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  2. #12
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "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.
    This thread wasn't created to diss the Jags, but to show the naysayers of the NFL that the deal that the Vikings did made perfect sense.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  3. #13
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "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.
    This thread wasn't created to diss the Jags, but to show the naysayers of the NFL that the deal that the Vikings did made perfect sense.
    I haven't heard a single analyst, writer, fan, or friend say that the Allen deal was a bad move. The worst I have heard is "This is a great deal but there is some risk associated with it."

    Holland, on the other hand, called the Jags foolish.

    Also, if it were really about the Vikings, why did you put it in the General NFL Discussion Section?
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  4. #14
    dcboardr41 is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,051

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "V" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "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.
    This thread wasn't created to diss the Jags, but to show the naysayers of the NFL that the deal that the Vikings did made perfect sense.
    I haven't heard a single analyst, writer, fan, or friend say that the Allen deal was a bad move. The worst I have heard is "This is a great deal but there is some risk associated with it."

    Holland, on the other hand, called the Jags foolish.

    Also, if it were really about the Vikings, why did you put it in the General NFL Discussion Section?

    its obviously not about the vikings, but since its comparing something we did.....trade away draft picks for a DE, some people have to boast about us doing it better ;D ;D lol

    In the end the Jags spent way to much for him, but they can afford it, they have no other glaring holes to fill

    Pissing on the Pack since 08'

  5. #15
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "V" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "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.
    This thread wasn't created to diss the Jags, but to show the naysayers of the NFL that the deal that the Vikings did made perfect sense.
    I haven't heard a single analyst, writer, fan, or friend say that the Allen deal was a bad move. The worst I have heard is "This is a great deal but there is some risk associated with it."

    Holland, on the other hand, called the Jags foolish.

    Also, if it were really about the Vikings, why did you put it in the General NFL Discussion Section?
    Because the article was about the Jags...and I posted it to stimulate discussion.
    I have heard plenty of criticism about how the Vikings gave up too much for Allen...and I submitted this article to show that at least one other team agrees that this type of cost is still worth the potential reward.
    This thread isn't to diss the Jags (I think that they did what they felt would work for them and I would have done it if I were them) nor is it to praise the Vikings (who I will always feel did the right thing for them), but to show that the Vikings were more than justified in giving up what they did to improve the team.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  6. #16
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "V" wrote:
    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.
    If I was a Jags fan I would not be happy. They could have pursued Allen. Now they are stuck wondering will he be a bust or a stud.

  7. #17
    marstc09's Avatar
    marstc09 is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    23,179

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "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.
    Your right they are different. They gave up more for a draft pick than we did for a Pro Bowl vet. We came out better IMO. They had a choice and they choose to address in the draft and we choose Allen. What makes it worse is that they gave up a lot to get Harvey.

  8. #18
    COJOMAY is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    7,005

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    Even if it turns out to be a great deal for the Jags, they will still have trouble ever filling up their stadium. Jacksonville is just NOT a football town. More blackouts last year than anyone I believe. They have even hung up curtains to hide the empty seats so it doesn't look so empty.
    Kentucky Vikes Fan

    When you require nothing, you get nothing; when you expect nothing, you will find nothing; when you embrace nothing, all you will have is nothing.

  9. #19
    V-Unit's Avatar
    V-Unit is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,317

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    "marstc09" wrote:
    "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.
    Your right they are different. They gave up more for a draft pick than we did for a Pro Bowl vet. We came out better IMO. They had a choice and they choose to address in the draft and we choose Allen. What makes it worse is that they gave up a lot to get Harvey.
    Two times in a row you ignored the entire post just to highlight the last sentence in an effort to prevent you from doing it again I have created a run on sentence so you are forced to respond to the entire thing so first of all I agree we came out better but that does not mean the Jags came out horrible this is not us vs. them as I said before second of all just as they are wondering will he be a bust or a stud we are wondering will he be a star or a drunk to Cajun I still have not seen the criticisn of the Allen trade which you refer to to Cojo that is a bit off topic don't you think?
    "I hate when threads are destroyed by facts and logic."
    - Prophet


    Thanks Josdin!

  10. #20
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278

    Re: Was dealing for Derrick Harvey worth it for the Jags?

    I think the Jags got a very good player. I think the jags are ready to win now so I am not sure if drafting rookies who are expected to start is a good approach. I don't think that they gave up too much though. They followed the draft value sheets(I assume, prove me wrong) to move up to a position where Harvey was expected to be taken.

    Comparing him to Jared Allen is interesting. No doubt Jared Allen is the better player right now but that could change. In 5 years when Allen is 31 and Harvey is entering his prime Harvey could be the better player. Also you have to look at the cap implications. Allen is being paid 73million while Harvey will probably get about half of that. Plus Harvey has the potential to player longer, Allen is unlikely to play much past his current 6 year deal while Harvey wile harvey could play for 10 or more years.

    The closest example to the Jared Allen deal would be when the Eagles aquired Jevon Kearse via free agency(actually a better deal than the Allen deal because no draft picks were used) and signed him for 8 years, 65million. The first 2 years Kearse was
    a stud, the next 2 he was injured and innefective and was released before the fifth season. His contract affected the Eagles ability to aquire other free agents. Had they not went after Kearse they could have moved up in the draft, they would have lost late 1st rounder Mike Patterson(starter-extended), early 2nd rounder Reggie Brown(starter-extended), late 2nd rounder Matt McCoy(cut). This would have gotten them into position to draft the top rated DE end in the draft Erasmus James.
    So in the end who the hell knows what will happen or if it was a good or bad move, if it was better or worse than the Allen deal, only time will tell.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-15-2008, 08:31 AM
  2. Will the Jaguars have trouble signing first-round pick Derrick Harvey?
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 04:14 PM
  3. Schrager STILL has Derrick Harvey at #17...to the Chiefs
    By cajunvike in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-24-2008, 01:17 AM
  4. If our pick comes up at 17 and Matt Ryan and Derrick Harvey are long gone..
    By mewario in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-26-2008, 10:12 AM
  5. Do Vikings like Florida’s DE Derrick Harvey?
    By singersp in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 03-20-2008, 08:51 AM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •