Jump to content

49ers trade Buckner to Colts


RaidersAreOne

Recommended Posts

Just now, m haynes said:

I keep hearing the Niners now have 2 1st. Big Deal yes, but they also lost Buckner which IMO is a major loss.

Of course! That's what happens when you have a stacked roster with big contracts upcoming. Can't sign them all. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Forge said:

I didn't say he didn't look as special. Not sure where you are getting that from. I said he had the worst season of his career since his rookie year. Let's not put words in my mouth. 

 if you watched games last year and didn't think he was far more invisible for stretches of time than he was in previous years, I don't know what to tell you. this was brought up quite a bit in various game day threads. Last year was his worst season since his rookie year. 

Calm down no one was attacking u...lol If u look up the gm day threads I was one of the few who consistently brought up the stretches of Buck disappearing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dub_City30 said:

Saving 12m in cap from a player they might have losed soon due to 21m a year salary. Getting the13th pick along with having the 31st pick. Loaded up on a high draft pick, saving money and giving themselvs a longer window of winning a Super Bowl by controling their cap. Its a win win for both teams. 

honestly I'd rather have DeFo vs. Armstead + pick 13, but that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sherm said:

Calm down no one was attacking u...lol If u look up the gm day threads I was one of the few who consistently brought up the stretches of Buck disappearing. 

I get animated if I think you are crediting me with saying something that I didn't say. @N4L can attest. It's a pet peeve of mine. Apologies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

Of course! That's what happens when you have a stacked roster with big contracts upcoming. Can't sign them all. 

I understand but the talking heads are only mentioning the 2 picks without comment about the loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DoleINGout said:

Colts gunna be gewwwd

Assuming that means "good" - why? 

IIRC the secondary more or less sucked and only true stud on the offense is Hilton who can't stay healthy. Also Ebron is gone.  I see another 6-7 win season at best (maybe 8 if things bounce their way) and mostly low-scoring games. A worse season would not surprise me.

But I'm not saying the move is bad. I think getting Buckner is great, but I seriously doubt Brissett is the answer at QB. Maybe if they sneak Eason in the 2d it could work out, but realistically they aren't going anywhere this year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, m haynes said:

I understand but the talking heads are only mentioning the 2 picks without comment about the loss.

Let's see what they do with their picks first. If they can flip their late first for say someone like OBJ or Diggs and then hit on their pick at #13, then the trade off was worth it. But no guarantee something like that happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CeeDee Lamb would be a monster in that offense. 

Also the 9ers can trade down in one of those spots and fill the middle rounds of their draft back up. That 31st pick will be a prime spot for teams looking to get that 5th year option, especially for a QB. My guess is someone likes Jalen Hurts and jumps up. 

This trade actually felt pretty fair. Unlike that BOB abomination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RandyMossIsBoss said:

Why did the 49ers move Buckner? Prefer the pick over paying him, or couldn’t afford him?

Seems to be that they weren't comfortable paying him what he wanted (21 million puts him only behind Donald for right now), coming off his worst year since his rookie season. We still have Solomon Thomas, and this is actually more his position, so maybe they wanted to give that a shot, not sure. But the value in return makes it easier to say yes if they were not a fan of the salary. So I get it. 

I think the idea that we couldn't afford him is a little off....I could have done it without a problem (especially seeing the structure and conract that Armstead actually got now, where his first year cap hit is only 6 million), so I know Paraag could have done it. I honestly think that the team didn't want to pay him that, probably assumed the price tag would just go up, and decided to take the value. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...