Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from hoyle. Show hoyle's posts

    Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    The guys done nothing so far this year for either team so It looks like a good trade.
    The pick is sitting at #100 which can be parlayed into a future 2012 3rd rounder ?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    BB fleeced McDaniels and Childress.

    Fleeced.

    Moss is going to sign with someone other than Minny or Tenn next year.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]The guys done nothing so far this year for either team so It looks like a good trade. The pick is sitting at #100 which can be parlayed into a future 2012 3rd rounder ?
    Posted by hoyle[/QUOTE]

    Denver should trade Maroney for Hillis...LOL...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Fleeced?

    What did the Pats get for Maroney, a fourth for a sixth?

    A pretty good move up in a crapshoot area of the draft.

    I don't know about "fleeced."

    Minnesota got fleeced, but that was just Chilly being Chilly.







     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from hoyle. Show hoyle's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    P-Mick pick 100 compared to 184 is a better crap shot for me. Also Its very likerly this Denver pick  whick i think will be a top 5 in next years draft will be traded into a 3rd rounder for 2012..... By 2014 It could be a 1st rounder lol !!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]P-Mick pick 100 compared to 184 is a better crap shot for me. Also Its very likerly this Denver pick  whick i think will be a top 5 in next years draft will be traded into a 3rd rounder for 2012..... By 2014 It could be a 1st rounder lol !!!
    Posted by hoyle[/QUOTE]

    That's a good point, hoyle.

    With Belichick, you just never know.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]Fleeced? What did the Pats get for Maroney, a fourth for a sixth? A pretty good move up in a crapshoot area of the draft. I don't know about "fleeced." Minnesota got fleeced, but that was just Chilly being Chilly.
    Posted by p-mike[/QUOTE]

    Dude, they got a pick for a guy they were going to cut!

    Absolute fleecing.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Didnt we trade that pick for Branch?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]Didnt we trade that pick for Branch?
    Posted by MordecaiBloodmoon[/QUOTE]

    The higher of the two 4th rounders goes to Seattle I thought.  So likely Denver's 4th for Branch I believe. 
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]Didnt we trade that pick for Branch?
    Posted by MordecaiBloodmoon[/QUOTE]

    Pretty much. He used one of them to acquire Branch.

    So, basically he turned Maroney, a guy who probably was going to be cut out of camp, into a chip for Branch.

    For whatever reason, Maroney just doesn't have it.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    We traded the only back we had that we could rely on to handle 15-20 carries a game. We traded the only back not named Faulk that had been with us since 2005. We have NO run game and WE fleeced Denver? I think we fleeced ourselves.

    If we had any inclination in the off season that maroney wasn't the guy( which we must have since we didn't play him in preseason) then why on earth would we not have gone after a VET? We were relying on Fred T? Or BJGE? It is as inexcusable as not having a #1 or 2 wr in 2006( A mistake that probably cost us a 4rth Super Bowl)
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade : Pretty much. He used one of them to acquire Branch. So, basically he turned Maroney, a guy who probably was going to be cut out of camp, into a chip for Branch. For whatever reason, Maroney just doesn't have it.
    Posted by BBReigns[/QUOTE]

    For whatever reason Maroney doesn't have it?!

    How about this:
    1. Runs upright
    2. No vision
    3. No timing
    4. No leg strength
    5. Dumb
    6. Lazy
    7. Can't catch
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Here is a comparison for haters...

    Player A = 15 games. 194 att. 757 yards 9 TDS

    Player B = 29 games. 194 att. 774 yards 11 TDS


    One of these players is one single seasons numbers.

    One of these players is his career numbers.

    One of these players is Laurence Maroney

    One of these players is BJGE.

    Might not be the player. Might be the system/play caller.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    So your argument goes: A totally sh#tty former 1st rd selection, who has had the opportunity to st!nk up the field for more snaps, and many more years-Must certainly be the more skilled player than the guy who has seen less snaps, and played less years...  About right? 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TrueChamp. Show TrueChamp's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    No, you missed the point completely. I am saying if our idea was to basically give Maroney away and settle on Taylor/BJGE(more BJGE given Taylor's injury history) then that was a TERRIBLE plan. BJGE has a similar effect on the game as LM.(as in neither player seemed to have much ability to get into the secondary and make the big play) We should have done something much like we should have signed a better receiver in 2006.

    I don't care about who is better between LM/BJGE. I just know that we gave away the only system veteran we had in order to go with only the Law Firm?!?!?!   Why?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE] I just know that we gave away the only system veteran we had in order to go with only the Law Firm?!?!?!   Why?
    Posted by TrueChamp[/QUOTE]

    Becuase this is a rebuilding year and getting a draft pick for Maroney was more valuable than playing him and getting nothing for him at the end of the season.  This was especially true given how unproductive Maroney has been.  Keeping him on the team wouldn't have made us any better this season and would have prevented us from getting a valuable draft pick which will help us with our rebuilding effort. 
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Gotta agree with True Champ, here.  Sometimes you let your players play out their contracts and give you what they can in terms of performance for the sake of a current campaign.   

    Belichick had a known quantity with Maroney, that may have helped the currently injury depleted backfield of the pats who own the best record in the NFL but just had their lunch handed to them by a team with a losing record. 

    Now maybe no one (including Belichick) thought the pats had a chance at the superbowl this year, and hindsight is 20/20, but it seems to me that the pats were flush with extra picks before they gave up Maroney for another one.  If 1st rounder Maroney was considered enough of a bust for the team to rid themselves of him for a significantly lower pick - where's any guarantee that the pick is going to provide more value at a significantly later date than Maroney would have now and for the rest of the season?

    I must admit that I am fascinated with Belichick's desire for future picks at, what appears to be, the expense of his current team. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    If you watch the games, though, you know that Maroney was not playing any better than BJGE.  So why keep him if (1) you've got someone else who can fill his slot with no drop off in performance and (2) you can get a fourth round pick for him if you let him go?  Maroney just hasn't been all that productive in the past few years and he wasn't seeing the field regularly . . . if Maroney had been contributing, BB would have kept him.  He traded him because he wasn't contributing. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade : For whatever reason Maroney doesn't have it?! How about this: 1. Runs upright 2. No vision 3. No timing 4. No leg strength 5. Dumb 6. Lazy 7. Can't catch
    Posted by mthurl[/QUOTE]

    He was a 1st rd pick in 2006 whom many teams coveted.  He never made the leap from college star to the NFL.

    So, yes, for whatever reason, he never progressed.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from arodrambone. Show arodrambone's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Too bad Wheatley wasn't traded for a low pick before deadline.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from beavis. Show beavis's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Unless you're a stud running back, you are only good as your O-Line...
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    In Response to Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade:
    [QUOTE]So your argument goes: A totally sh#tty former 1st rd selection, who has had the opportunity to st!nk up the field for more snaps, and many more years-Must certainly be the more skilled player than the guy who has seen less snaps, and played less years...  About right? 
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    True~

    It's not so much that maroney was injured all but 1 year, missing multiple games each season;  Likewise, it's not so much that I dislike his shying of interior contact & his style of hesitancy while waiting for the hole to fully develop, which would be fine on bigger O-Lines built for running and blocking man-man, But was an awful coupling on NE's smaller zone-blocking O-Line, built for passing...  No...It could certainly be EITHER of these things.  Easily...  But it's not. 

    It's that Maroney was consistantly getting worse and worse each and every season, specifically in areas of running the ball where it mattered worse: Field placement during each & every specific drive; Average gain per number of rushing attempts in which he saw per game; Far worse 2nd half AND 4th quarter rushing average per gain, compared to 1st half rushing average per gain; And Even things like: Average gain per rush, compared to what the score of the game was.  Worse when it mattered the absolute most, And far more often than not-getting worse each year...

    EXAMPLES~
    FIRST, Number of Rushes per game and their average (usually RBs talk about getting in a "rhythm" and doing better when they see more touches in a game...not Maroney).

    Yard Average For~
    First 1-10 rushes in a game
    : 2006 (3.6 avg)/ /2007 (4.7 avg)/ /2008 (3.3 avg)/ /2009 (4.2 avg)/ /2010 (2.0 avg)
    Then 11-20 rushes in a game: 2006 (5.1 avg)/ /2007 (4.4 avg)/ /2008 (N/A-injured)/ /2009 (3.4 avg)/ /2010 (3.0 avg)
    Finally, when or if he saw 21-30 in a game: 2006 (N/A-injured)/ /2007 3.2(avg)/ /2008 (N/A-injured)/ /2009 (2.3 avg)/ /2010 (N/G)

    Conclusion: Each & Every single season, either the averages per number of touches he sees gets worse year after year, Or the averages within each single year get worse per touches he sees in a game...OR BOTH.  Maroney's usually getting weaker each year rushing the football, and/or he usually gets weaker as the game wears on.  AND each year=worse.


    ~
    NEXT, his average comparitive to field position.  First, I understand that when LM's in the opponent's red-zone, there'll be less room to rush the football so his avg will be worse, but compared to other backs it's astoundingly worse.  I'll quickly show each year's numbers of avg gain For:  First LM within his own 1-20 yard line, Secondly LM within his own 21-50 yard span of the field, Thirdly LM rushing in the opponents49-20 yard line of the field, And Fourth LM inside the opponents red-zone of the oppossing team's 19-1 yard line.

    (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th=Parts of field as drive goes along or is warranted, LM's avg according to this field position-beginning from his own territory into the end of the opponents territory)
    2006: 1st (3.6 avg)  2nd (3.8 avg)  3rd (4.6 avg)  4th (3.6 avg)...  First year for LM, very good-he gets rollin as the drives go along, and does better when it counts most.
    2007: 1st (4.0 avg)  2nd (5.2 avg)  3rd (4.7 avg)  4th (2.0 avg)...  2nd year, LM's largely improving his average, excellent.  Again, the red-zone drop-off overall says more RE: less running room and against red-zone defenses that stack the box, so this has to be figured in.
    2008: 1st (2.8 avg)  2nd (3.6 avg)  3rd (3.7 avg)  4th (-1 avg)...  3rd year, across the boards, LM's average's gettin' worse compared to past years, AND amount comparitive to field position no longer increases then tapers down when the red-zone comess, AND within that red-zone...well, not to good when it's negative yards.
    2009: 1st (5.0 avg)  2nd (4.5 avg)  3rd (3.7 avg)  4th (2.7 avg)...  Overall the averages per rush aren't bad, ya know?  But see, the telling sign here on this one equates with LM doing worse & worse (& worse & worse) as the drives move along, or according to the field.  Gettin' worse, In areas closer to scoring points for your team=Not a Good trait.
    2010: 1st (3.0 avg)  2nd (2.2 avg)  3rd (1.9 avg)  4th (0.8 avg)...  Yea, not gonna go into detail here...  Closer that TD dance gets to reality=Sh#ttier Maroney does (and a best of a 3.0 avg in your best area of the field, ain't too good either).



    ~Hey, Sorry though-I'll provide the simple link to figure LM's 1st vs 2nd half avg's; Then his avgs per quarter of play; Then LM's avgs comparitive to score of the game (up by ANY number of points protecting a lead, not nearly as good compared to when NE's behind; AND the clloser the game is=LM's avg is worse; AND it does ALL of these, It gets worse in ALL of these factors year after year after year)...

    ~Lawrence Maroney=More he sees the football the worse he does + the tighter the gamescore the worse he does + the closer one gets to score the worse he does + As the game moves along time-wise, the worse he plays + ALL, ALL of this getting worse each & every year...year after year.  This post for me, was already spending far too much time talking about Maroney. 

    http://www.nfl.com/players/laurencemaroney/situationalstats?id=MAR273311&season=2010

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    Usually, It's a tell-tale sign that when IndyLove agrees with your premise...you're AMAZINGLY wrong on your premise.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Indylove. Show Indylove's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

    now now.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from whitetrashgang. Show whitetrashgang's posts

    Re: Revisting the Laura Maroney trade

      You two should play nice because jetsons 09 mom told me when they find out who his real father is there is going to be a party with ballons and everything.The wtg needs this bad.
     

Share