gangreenman Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 That's my point. We stupidly traded off Kendall WITHOUT having a viable back up. That cost us the season last year. I don't want us doing the same thing at NT. Yes but we'd at least know what we'd be getting in Peterson. So yeah, in a way we create a need to fill a need. But when you think about it, NT was a need anyway. So we'd gain more then we lose with this trade IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Thats both a good and bad thing for him. Bad, obviously, because being injured sucks. However, also good because it means he's had virtually two years less normal football tear and wear that most his age have had. I think its more good than bad, he has less wear and tear as you say plus they arent bad injuries that will lessen his productivity like a torn up knee or achilles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowa Jetfan Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 If anything, I think this precludes and suggests the Rogers acquisition. This makes sense, unloading the overpriced Drob and then getting Rogers in a later trade, I'm just afraid we'll only get the first deal done and something happens on the second, leaving us without a NT at all, that'd be a nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmike1 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 How about trading Robertson for a WR or a OG or better yet, picks? We don't need Mike Peterson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I can't see this happening TBH. Obviously Jacksonville may cut stroud which would leave them requiring a DT, however I don't think Peterson would be a great fit here. Like people have said he's very similar to Vilma and also incredibly injury prone. I'd rather we got something from another position (O-line) or a draft pick instead TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I think its more good than bad, he has less wear and tear as you say plus they arent bad injuries that will lessen his productivity like a torn up knee or achilles. I don't. I'm not a big fan of the "less wear and tear" argument. It means the guy hasn't been playing or practicing for two years. You don't just jump back in and start hitting when you've been away. It often takes these guys a full season to get back into the swing of things and sometimes they find they don't have the heart for it anymore. How about trading Robertson for a WR or a OG or better yet, picks? We don't need Mike Peterson. I'd prefer that too, but I bet that Jacksonville wouldn't. DRob makes too much to keep at his current salary. If the Jags will pay him his current salary we have to trade him or cut him because there is no reason for him to take a cut if others will pay him. I can't see this happening TBH. Obviously Jacksonville may cut stroud which would leave them requiring a DT, however I don't think Peterson would be a great fit here. Like people have said he's very similar to Vilma and also incredibly injury prone. I'd rather we got something from another position (O-line) or a draft pick instead TBH. I thought Jacksonville had so many tackles they were going to trade us one? Maybe Detroit wants Peterson? Peterson and Vilma for Rogers. I'd do that. Not if I were the Lions, but stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Jet Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I thought Jacksonville had so many tackles they were going to trade us one? Maybe Detroit wants Peterson? Peterson and Vilma for Rogers. I'd do that. Not if I were the Lions, but stramger things have happened. The only tackle they'd think about trading to us is Stroud and he's not even close to a 3-4 NT. That would actually be a great deal for the Lions, could you imagine a LB core of Simms, Vilma and Peterson behind 4 defensive lineman. That would work out well for all parties involved IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack48 Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Isn't Mike Peterson around the same exact size of Vilma? What am i missing here? Yes, but Vilma is not aggressive. He is a side to side guy. Never makes a play in the backfield. There are plenty of LBs his size who tackle for neg yardage all the time. Maybe what I am saying is that his speed is great, his anticipation not so great. Peterson could be a better anticipator of the play. I really don't know much about him. But it is not just size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joebabyny Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 If there's rumors about trading Drob, than our FO must have something up there sleeve with Rogers or some other NT, becuase you don't leave Pouha as the only viable starting NT on our team and not have some sort of plan in mind. I am not huge on the switch, but the amount of money we would save would be incredible. LOL, like the situation they left themselves in last year with the Kendall debacle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 I don't. I'm not a big fan of the "less wear and tear" argument. It means the guy hasn't been playing or practicing for two years. You don't just jump back in and start hitting when you've been away. It often takes these guys a full season to get back into the swing of things and sometimes they find they don't have the heart for it anymore. Well you might have a point if the guy has an injury where he doesnt get to move around freely, but I cant imagine the guy was laid-up too bad with a broken hand or a peck. Its a lot easier to keep close to football shape with those injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Well you might have a point if the guy has an injury where he doesnt get to move around freely, but I cant imagine the guy was laid-up too bad with a broken hand or a peck. Its a lot easier to keep close to football shape with those injuries. Hand maybe, but a torn pectoral can be pretty bad. At a minimum you can expect he wasn't lifting hard. It's not as bad as when Cowart was coming back, but my point is that there is a huge difference between being in shape and being in football shape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUM-KNEE Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Hand maybe, but a torn pectoral can be pretty bad. At a minimum you can expect he wasn't lifting hard. It's not as bad as when Cowart was coming back, but my point is that there is a huge difference between being in shape and being in football shape. Im sure hes not 100% where he needs to be in terms of football shape, but Id bet hes not so far off where he would be a non-factor. Time will tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.