Man - I've been holding my tongue

[KingofCards]

Originally posted by RLakin
Yeah because $47 million does not define an interested team. Makes sense.

It does when you consider they did not have to throw in a 1st round pick on top of it.

Make sense yet? If not I feel sorry for you.

 

[KingofCards]

Originally posted by DevonCardsFan
Exactly

Where did he say they could have gotten two 1st rounders for him?

 

[CardinalMike]

Originally posted by DevonCardsFan
I like how you jump in and make your 69th post, such a clever and witty view to add to the discussion

Because post count is important! Seriously, I've been reading this board, the board before it, the board before that and the board even before that. I've been around several years. I don't feel the need to post much. Maybe I should pad my post count with inane spam like so many around here.

Anyways that has nothing to do with your inability to understand something as basic as Boston vs the franchy tag. Hmm maybe this is the part where you threaten to beat me up over the internet like you did to some others shortly before you left oh so many months ago.

Cardinal Mike!!

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by RLakin
Yeah because $47 million does not define an interested team. Makes sense.

47 million for Boston is not only an interested team, it's a stupid team.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Originally posted by cheesebeef
he's still got the heart, but performances like those just don't come around often enough to mask the wear and tear on the old warrior.

(sniff, sniff) oh cheesey you old devil,

now I'm all verclempt

(talk amongst yourselves)

 

[Stout]

Tagging Boston and then rescinding the tag would not have given this team a negative image. The Eagles did it with Jeremiah Trotter. No big deal. That huge whole debate is now closed.

Sign and trades are quite legal in the NFL. See Aeneas Williams. We got, what, a 3rd rounder for him? Would anyone have given up a 1st rounder for Boston, and paid him all that money? No, very doubtful. Would they have done the same for a 3rd? I think anyone would be a fool to think otherwise.

Now, who wouldn't like to have had an extra third rounder, either last draft or the next?

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by Stout
Tagging Boston and then rescinding the tag would not have given this team a negative image. The Eagles did it with Jeremiah Trotter. No big deal. That huge whole debate is now closed.

Sign and trades are quite legal in the NFL. See Aeneas Williams. We got, what, a 3rd rounder for him? Would anyone have given up a 1st rounder for Boston, and paid him all that money? No, very doubtful. Would they have done the same for a 3rd? I think anyone would be a fool to think otherwise.

Now, who wouldn't like to have had an extra third rounder, either last draft or the next?

We got a second (Mike Stone) and a fourth (Marcus Bell) for Aeneas.

 

[Renz]

Originally posted by red desert
Yeah, that's almost as funny as the Cards letting him walk and getting nothing in return.

We'll get a compensatory draft pick for Boston & Plummer, no? If so, can we stop with the posts saying we "got nothing" for that goofball?

 

[Stout]

Originally posted by Renz
We'll get a compensatory draft pick for Boston & Plummer, no? If so, can we stop with the posts saying we "got nothing" for that goofball?

Actually, that's not necessarily true...we won't know for a long time. We lost them, but we picked up other FAs.

Fact is, we had a chance to be proactive and we sat on our hands.

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
47 million for Boston is not only an interested team, it's a stupid team.

True, but wouldn't you want to take advantage of a team's stupidity.

I would.

 

[KingofCards]

Originally posted by RLakin
True, but wouldn't you want to take advantage of a team's stupidity.

I would.

You missed your calling.

 

[8ndkorner]

we coulda, shouda, woulda.....yada, yada, yada.

Guys, it really would not have mattered how many picks we got. Or when we picked them They would have had to endure the same indignities that the players we have now are having to deal with.

without good coaches, good play calling, good clock management and a coaching staff that they will not question it's the same ol' thing. Maybe just the ticket sales increase for a while but it still comes down to wins and losses.

Until we correct that aspect of the organization nothing is going to change. We've seen too many ex-cardinals move on to good teams and do well. Damn! Pittman looks good and he may be going to jail after this season.

I'm baffled and at this point numb that the front office doesn't see this.

Or do they? What reason could they possibly have for not trying to get better. Really, I've learned a lot just from hanging out on this board to see this. And they ARE the organization that wants to put a winner on the field. I stated earlier that I really think they feel the pressure to do it by the time the new stadium is opened. If you think they are the laughing stock of the NFL now, wait until they have a state of the art air conditioned stadium and nobody shows up to watch.

What can possibly be the excuse then?

 

[Russ Smith]

Originally posted by cheesebeef
Don' you think that by not tagging him we sent the word to the rest of the league? Also - this is pecualtion - but weren't there reports that Graves was bashing Boston at the combine ot anyone who would listen? I mean in a game of poker - which is what the Boston situation was - we not only showed our Cards (pun heavily intended) - but we didn't even have a poker face. Also - isn't it true that the Ravens were his next scheduled stop after San Diego - I can remember articles where Billick even talked about Boston - saying that there were some risks, but that he was a talent of high quality. There were also reports that the Jets were interested in Boston after having lost Coles and with the amount of picks they had in the first round and a fan base that was peeved at the defections, you don't think a competent GM could have gotten at least a 2 for him?

Saying no one else was interested is just igrnoring the realities of the situation - just like people scream that Boston only had ONE good year here - when in reality he had one GOOD year here (1150 yds and 7 tds) and one GREAT year with 1600 yards and even with all his problems again - still led the team in receiveing and was on pace for his 3rd consecutive 1000 yard season.

I had to look it up because it didn't sound right but the Coles part is untrue. Boston signed with San Diego on March 5th, on March 10th Coles signed an offer with Washington and the Jets had a week to match it, so Boston was gone before the Jets even knew for sure Coles had an offer.

That was the point someone else made boston was a complete FA and Daniel Snyder chose to not pursue him.

The ravens reports were conflicting there were stories 2 days before Boston signed that the Ravens had soured on him and he might not visit because they weren't offering enough of a bonus.

I agree we could have got SOMETHING for him, but not by tagging him and then trading because the Cards made it clear they didn't want to violate the spirit of the tag rule. Yes I know we did it for Aeneas I think that was a special case because he was threatening to retire.