Marcus Peters Thread

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

Wait he's going to be a HOFer?

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:

I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

I missed the part where someone called you crazy.

Originally posted by jcs:

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

Wait he's going to be a HOFer?

Do you know the definition of the word possibly? It is absolutely indisputable that Peters is currently on a HOF track. Will he become a HOFer? No one knows for sure. Thats where that magical word possibly comes up again.

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

I missed the part where someone called you crazy.

Going to desperate lengths to knock down the merits of this trade because he's been suspended one game in his entire career, by his own team, is inferring such.

Originally posted by okdkid:

Originally posted by dj43:
A 4th this year and a 2nd next year. WOW!

I am surprised. The Chiefs need a lot of help, especially on defense. I thought they would at least get the 2nd this year.

It is looking more and more like they are going into full re-build mode and this was the best they could get for a guy that was definitely not in their future plans.

I'm not. Fans dramatically overvalue non-QB trade comp.

Non-QBs just aren't nearly as valuable. You can count non-QBs who would could fetch a 1st round pick on one hand.

He's not a QB but he is an All Pro at arguably one of the four most important position on a football team: QB, pass rusher, MLB and CB, being the others.

In effect, the 2nd next year is considered to be the equivalent of a 3rd this year. That is not much for a top-tier player at a critical position.

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

and who's actually stating it was a bad move? I've been saying the kid clearly has some charter issues based on the same s**t you just said as to why it's a good trade for them lol.

Why would KC be so willing to move on from him for such little in return and why were no other teams interested?

That's the debate IMO.

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:

Originally posted by evil:

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:

I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

I missed the part where someone called you crazy.

Going to desperate lengths to knock down the merits of this trade because he's been suspended one game in his entire career, by his own team, is inferring such.

Nope but its a nice try to twist it as such.

Nothing wrong with us not making this trade as all the evidence points to a player with character concerns on the field and in the locker room. Nothing wrong with not want to give up much if anything at all for that kind of a player for a team that is rebuilding and attempting to rebuild its culture, especially with the Foster off the field drama.

Good for the Rams. I imagine it will be all peachy for the first little while while both sides become accustomed to each other. Given they are our rival, I hope this blows up in their face and Peters continues to be an issue in the locker room.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
and who's actually stating it was a bad move? I've been saying the kid clearly has some charter issues based on the same s**t you just said as to why it's a good trade for them lol.

Why would KC be so willing to move on from him for such little in return and why were no other teams interested?

That's the debate IMO.

What am I supposed to infer from this?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Kid is bi-polar pass

Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Funny thing is, I have been arguing with people for weeks saying this exact reason is the reason the Chiefs shouldnt trade him. There have been plenty of articles/tweets talking about "if Peters wont re-sign long term, trade him for what you can get" line of reasoning. Again, who cares if he isnt gonna sign long term. The Chiefs had him under control for the next 4 years if they chose to use tags.

4 years of Peters > what that 2nd round pick turns out to be IMO

You seem to be overly focused on the other teams. All those other teams are in need of cornerbacks? All of those teams feel that Peters is a piece missing from being a contender? All of those other teams could afford what would essentially be a 4/$45M contract? All of those teams think trading draft capital for a players like Peters is better for the team that keeping the draft capital and trying to sign a top FA CB like Kyle Fuller? All of those teams even knew that Peters was available for trade?

There are countless reasons a team wouldnt want to trade for Peters. You claiming its some sort of red flag is no different than me claiming it isnt. I would in fact argue that you claiming its a red flag is even more of a reach than me saying it isnt, as you have absolutely no idea the reasoning that teams didnt throw out an offer. Your point of view is assumption on assumption on assumption.

Only there's been a timeline of character issues dating back to getting kicked out of Washington. I also think Reid knows his s**t and the headaches that the kid brought wasn't worth the output.

Like you said they could control his right for like the next 4 yrs yet were completely fine moving him for not a whole hell of a lot. Throw in that yes the very guy who drafted him didn't offer anything for him is imo a red flag on his character because football wise he's a great player.

agree to disagree

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:

Originally posted by NYniner85:
and who's actually stating it was a bad move? I've been saying the kid clearly has some charter issues based on the same s**t you just said as to why it's a good trade for them lol.

Why would KC be so willing to move on from him for such little in return and why were no other teams interested?

That's the debate IMO.

What am I supposed to infer from this?

Originally posted by NYniner85:
Kid is bi-polar pass

And has he not acted like that? I told you that Matt Miller spoke to a SF executive during the draft process and he stated they couldn't bring him into SF because one he was bi-polar and two he had ties to the Oakland streets. They simply couldn't put him in SF because of that.

NOW add in that KC was so willing to move him after his amazing play and no teams outside of the Rams (or even the GM that did draft him) offered anything for him, well IMO those raise some flags, if you do not think they are that's cool.

Originally posted by NYniner85:
And has he not acted like that? I told you that Matt Miller spoke to a SF executive during the draft process and he stated they couldn't bring him into SF because one he was bi-polar and two he had ties to the Oakland streets. They simply couldn't put him in SF because of that.

NOW add in that KC was so willing to move him after his amazing play and no teams outside of the Rams (or even the GM that did draft him) offered anything for him, well those are issues, if you do not think they are that's cool.

You asked a question and I answered it. Now you're avoiding mine. All I can infer from your statement by saying "pass" is that it's a bad trade. Hence my explanation as to why it's a good one for the Rams. You can stop moving the goal posts now, I'm done explaining.

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
Read the article, then get back to me. I never said he's a cancer at all, just that their locker room chemistry clearly isn't the best and it hasn't been an issue for them.

I've read it...nowhere in there is there anything to claim there are locker room issues between the players.

And as has already been mentioned the story is BS for the most part.

Originally posted by DRnSFw:
Rams outsmarted Lynch and Co. take the L Niner Empire, Peters will haunt us the rest of his career for Baalke picking Armsdead over him

Trade isn't official. I don't know what's stopping other GM's from giving KC a call this very moment after the news came out.

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
Trade isn't official. I don't know what's stopping other GM's from giving KC a call this very moment after the news came out.

I'm pretty sure the trade is officially made...just can't announce it until 3/14.

Originally posted by itlynstalyn:
I love how the GM of a NFL team that went to the playoffs last year and has the makings of an extremely solid team going forward traded for a young, cost-controlled CB that could possibly end up a future HOFer without giving up anything substantial value-wise, yet I'm the crazy one for saying it's a good move for that team.

Never change, WZ.

Don't you think it's at least a little bit suspicious that no other GM was willing to give KC what was offered by the Rams, not even Dorsey or Ballard, who were responsible for drafting Peters? Don't you think the fact that the details were announced and still a team hasn't jumped in to top the offer doesn't inherit at least a little bit of skepticism?

This isn't as black and white as you want it to be.