Coach Tuesday Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Or a 3rd, depending on what pick they end up having to give the Eagles for McNabb. If they win more than 9 games, they'll owe the Eagles a 3rd, meaing they'll be shipping a 4th to New Orleans for the right tackle. In all likelihood, it's a 4th. So, we could've traded a 4th for Brown, and recouped the 4th for Marshawn. And, you know, won some games this year. Go to hell, Ralph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 You do realize that Buffalo wanted a 3rd for Lynch, but there were no takers. So they got a 4th and a conditional, the best they could get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 You do realize that Buffalo wanted a 3rd for Lynch, but there were no takers. So they got a 4th and a conditional, the best they could get. Either you missed my point entirely or I didn't state it correctly. We could've gotten Jammal Brown, a quality right tackle, for what we got for Marshawn. Put another way, we could've essentially traded Marshawn Lynch, our third running back, for Jammal Brown, a RT we don't have. Put yet another way, WHY THE FUG DIDN'T WE TRADE FOR JAMMAL BROWN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 'Cause we had Cornell Green baby!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 NFL trades do not follow the transitive property. AKA: Lynch = 4th rounder and Brown = 4th rounder does not equal Brown = Lynch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 NFL trades do not follow the transitive property. AKA: Lynch = 4th rounder and Brown = 4th rounder does not equal Brown = Lynch. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What? His argument is that because Brown and Lynch were both traded for a 4th, the Bills could have traded Lynch for Brown. He's talking about NFL trades having the mathematical transitive property, which they don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 NFL trades do not follow the transitive property. AKA: Lynch = 4th rounder and Brown = 4th rounder does not equal Brown = Lynch. ?????? thats why we trade our fourth for brown and then lynch to seattle for a fourth???? Are you High? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 His argument is that because Brown and Lynch were both traded for a 4th, the Bills could have traded Lynch for Brown. He's talking about NFL trades having the mathematical transitive property, which they don't have. Wrong. My argument is that we could EFFECTIVELY, not ACTUALLY, have traded Lynch for Brown. BIG difference. And I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 We should have gave them our 4th and get the hawks 4th with the trade. So it is basically lynch for brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cvanvol Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 His argument is that because Brown and Lynch were both traded for a 4th, the Bills could have traded Lynch for Brown. He's talking about NFL trades having the mathematical transitive property, which they don't have. This has nothing to do with math, really just common sense our 4th would be a higher pick also so therefore it wouldnt be transitive at all unless all fourth round picks are created equal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 His argument is that because Brown and Lynch were both traded for a 4th, the Bills could have traded Lynch for Brown. He's talking about NFL trades having the mathematical transitive property, which they don't have. Not what he's saying. He is saying...why not make the Lynch deal, then follow it up with dealing the 4th we just got for Lynch for Jammal Brown. That way, instead of picking up another Justin Armour or Reggie Corner, we at least have a pretty good RT to build around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyd19 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 "I'm just saying...the ball looked really high and.... Who gives a sh*t it's gone!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Wrong. My argument is that we could EFFECTIVELY, not ACTUALLY, have traded Lynch for Brown. BIG difference. And I'm right. We could have EFFECTIVELY, not ACTUALLY drafted Brady, Oher, Cushing instead of who we did. BIG difference. And I'm right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punch Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Jammal Brown will be 30 this coming offseason. I would guess, with no apparent answer at QB, by the time the Bills are realistically competitive he'll no longer be a part of the future and the draft pick was deemed more useful for that purpose. I don't think the Bills are winning games this year even with Brown at a T spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted October 5, 2010 Author Share Posted October 5, 2010 We could have EFFECTIVELY, not ACTUALLY drafted Brady, Oher, Cushing instead of who we did. BIG difference. And I'm right. No, you're a jerk. You've proven it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Either you missed my point entirely or I didn't state it correctly. We could've gotten Jammal Brown, a quality right tackle, for what we got for Marshawn. Put another way, we could've essentially traded Marshawn Lynch, our third running back, for Jammal Brown, a RT we don't have. Put yet another way, WHY THE FUG DIDN'T WE TRADE FOR JAMMAL BROWN? You also realize that the trade for Jammal Brown was contingent on him signing a new contract, decreasing the amount of viable teams and lowering his value. Which he never would have done if the team he was being traded to was Buffalo anyway. So there is no point to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 "I'm just saying...the ball looked really high and.... Who gives a sh*t it's gone!" too high? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 What gets me is they could have made this deal on draft day and gotten a 4th to help this year...oh wait this is going to take time... at least 3-5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Lightning Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 No, you're a jerk. You've proven it again. I say exactly what you say in the same arrogant way and you call me a jerk. Okay, now you know what you come off like. We're fans and you are a self proclaimed Bills martyr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts