Ravens Overpaid For McGahee

[purplepoe]

Talk about semantics. Gave up? We gave up plenty and we have continued to give up ever since we made the pick. This isnt directed at anyone person but You are foolish at this point if you dont think we gave up a first rounder. Boller was picked in the first round, we used a first round pick to get him. A first round pick was used.

Some are talking about Sunk cost but what about all the hidden costs that we keeping incurring. One of our first round picks in 2003 is sitting on the mother fin' bench while we had to go and get a high Priced QB. An OC has lost his job and a well respect HC cant find work around the league because of this guy.

Look I'm still willing to give boller a chance in TC but come on already. Lets call a spade a spade.

It's not semantics at all.

I think Boller stinks but we didn't give up a 1st and a 2nd rounder for the guy.

The net loss if you will, was a 2nd round pick.

It's a fact.

PP

[Art-Florida]

This is so simple. We traded a first round choice FOR a first round choice, period. What we "gave up" was ONE draft choice-in the second round. Comprende?

[WhiskeyRaven]

Actually, before we place a lot of stock in mr. J's piece, he needs to be more accurate regarding all the times the Ravens have traded up or back for a particular player or players. For instance, he makes no mention of the trade the Ravens made on draft day in order to trade up to select Tony Weaver (5th round pick to move up in 2002. If someone offers an "opinion" as fact, they should check history to see if everything jibes. It discounts the validity of the piece if the writer doesn't offer all relevant facts. it makes his thesis look manifactured. Actually, there was another trade made in 2002 (same draft as Weaver) where the ravens traded their third round pick to the broncos for their fourth and fifth round picks. i think but am not sure since they had multiple picks, that the ravens used those two picks to draft Zastudil and Terry Jones Jr. Again, Mr J makes no mention of that trade.

As far as i am concerned, the article is incomplete and irrelevant because all the trades aren't included.

[purplepoe]

This is so simple. We traded a first round choice FOR a first round choice, period. What we "gave up" was ONE draft choice-in the second round. Comprende?

Some people can't seem to comprehend it.

PP

[Filmstudy]

I would say the trade up for Ngata, before all is said and done, is likely to prove one of the best moves the Ravens gave ever made. It should fairly be viewed as a 6th round pick plus Bunkley for Ngata.

The other trade up that didn't happen was the Ravens moving up to 7 to get Leftwich, and ending up with Suggs during the Vinkings coma in 2003.

[UKRavenStockers]

The trade up for Ngata we gave up a 6th round choice that they used on Babatunde Oshinowo of Stanford (who I really liked actually) who then didn't make their roster out of Training Camp. We pretty much didn't trade up actually, so why would people even consider saying it's a bad trade? Am I missing something?

[crazyraven]

This is so simple. We traded a first round choice FOR a first round choice, period. What we "gave up" was ONE draft choice-in the second round. Comprende?

BS its not as simple as that. and I think when this arguement comes up you guys are missing the point or You guys just want to justify the picking of Boller. I wont say its not a good selling point and Ozzie used it well but the Fact is we wasted a pick on Boller in the first round in 2003, gave up our 2nd rounder, then gave our only 2004 1st round pick to the PATs. Boller was taken in the 1st round round, NOT THE SECOND. We wasted a 1st and a 2nd on that POS, Comprende?

If you think it was so simple, would you do it again? That move set the team back a couple of years.

[purplepoe]

BS its not as simple as that. and I think when this arguement comes up you guys are missing the point or You guys just want to justify the picking of Boller. I wont say its not a good selling point and Ozzie used it well but the Fact is we wasted a pick on Boller in the first round in 2003, gave up our 2nd rounder, then gave our only 2004 1st round pick to the PATs. Boller was taken in the 1st round round, NOT THE SECOND. We wasted a 1st and a 2nd on that POS, Comprende?

If you think it was so simple, would you do it again? That move set the team back a couple of years.

Holy crap.

Are you serious.

I want to justify picking Boller? I wish we hadn't of drafted him.

Of course we "used" a pick to draft Boller. That's not the point.

It's really quite simple. The Ravens "lost" one draft pick in the Boller deal.

You can say we wasted the pick with Boller, which I won't argue with. But the fact is, we HAD the pick to waste.

Follow closely. Each team has one pick per round in every draft.

The Ravens traded their 2003 2nd rounder and 2004 1st rounder to the Pats for their 2003 1st rounder.

Hence, the net "loss" was the 2003 2nd rounder.

Can you not understand that?

Argue that the pick was bad. Hell, I agree.

But to simply refuse to acknowledge facts is ridiculous.

PP

[festivus]

BS its not as simple as that. and I think when this arguement comes up you guys are missing the point or You guys just want to justify the picking of Boller. I wont say its not a good selling point and Ozzie used it well but the Fact is we wasted a pick on Boller in the first round in 2003, gave up our 2nd rounder, then gave our only 2004 1st round pick to the PATs. Boller was taken in the 1st round round, NOT THE SECOND. We wasted a 1st and a 2nd on that POS, Comprende?

If you think it was so simple, would you do it again? That move set the team back a couple of years.

Crazy, you are talking about apples (should we have drafted Boller at 19?) while eveyone is talking about oranges (in order to get the pick at 19, which picks did we give up?).

You could start a separate thread, "Should we have drafted Boller at 19" in the QB subforum. ;)

[jonboy79]

Everyone involved, both sides calm down and listen up. IT IS VERY SIMPLE, you are BOTH right. It is a matter of semantics and you are talking about seperate things.

The total COST of Boller is a first and a second pick.

The cost of ACQUIRING Boller is a singular second round pick.

Boller was picked with a first rd pick. It was one acquired in 2003. The player was drafted with a single 1st rd pick. We traded a first rd pick in the following year and a second in that year to move up. 2 picks turn into one, a net loss of one pick in the TRADE. You can think of it either as moving up from the second to the first, trading a future first to do so. You could also see it as trading your next first rd pick, for one this year, and to do so, the other team requires your second round pick THIS year. Either way, same thing, one lost pick.

So you lose one when you trade for the pick, and then you USE that pick on him. We picked Boller at the expense of 2 other players. Had we not drafted Boller we would have 2 other players. This the total cost of Boller is two players, or more simply, 2 picks.

You are both right, just talking about sematically different things. Exact wording is key.

[crazyraven]

Of course we "used" a pick to draft Boller. That's not the point.

It is the point and here is why.

The total COST of Boller is a first and a second pick.

The cost of ACQUIRING Boller is a singular second round pick.

Exactly Right and throw in the fact that we had to sit out in the first round of the 2004 draft, the total cost for Boller has been a crippling experience. So keeping with the threads theme of "over paying" those peddling oranges seem to be, well, wrong.

Apologies will be accepted through PM or reputation points....thank you very much John for paying attention.

[festivus]

It is the point and here is why.

No. It's *your* point. Eveyone understands it's *your* point, and nobody is even arguing with you, it's just, some people are trying to talk about one thing, and you are stubbornly talking about another.

Go ahead, make this thread about you.

:bag: