Browns/Raiders Trade(approved)

To Oakland:
Kamerion Wimbley
Andra Davis
Daven Holley

To Cleveland:
Dominic Rhodes
Stanford Routt
Nnamdi Asomugha
Thomas Howard
Jake Grove
Kevin Booth
#138 overall (5th round)
#165 overall (5th round)
#175 overall (6th round)
#211 overall (7th round)
#254 overall (7th round)

Dreadlocks |
|
|
\/

^
l
l
Dreadlocks

raiders agree

Cleveland-Fan wrote:

To Oakland:
Kamerion Wimbley
Andra Davis
Daven Holley

To Cleveland:
Dominic Rhodes
Stanford Routt
Nnamdi Asomugha
Thomas Howard
Jake Grove

What is going on here. Wimbley had 11 sacks as a rookie. Wow. I need to think about this one.

DC wrote:

Cleveland-Fan wrote:

To Oakland:
Kamerion Wimbley
Andra Davis
Daven Holley

To Cleveland:
Dominic Rhodes
Stanford Routt
Nnamdi Asomugha
Thomas Howard
Jake Grove

What is going on here. Wimbley had 11 sacks as a rookie. Wow. I need to think about this one.

I'm switching to the 4-3 and he is switching to the 3-4.

^ My mistake, I thought you wanted to know why I was trading Kam.

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 80s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

Id say this trade looks pretty fair

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I dont know. I'm gonna need more input from others. It looks fair. But I'm not willing to give much "Leeway" here because your getting better players Zoom.

Howard wont be rated as high as Wimbley, and thats my Opnion. Davis is a great MLB. Thats 2 LB's subsituted with 1. Howard will be a 84 at best. The corner back your offering had a good year, but I dont see him jumping all the way up to a 90 just after 1 season. He was nothing until this last season.

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I dont know. I'm gonna need more input from others. It looks fair. But I'm not willing to give much "Leeway" here because your getting better players Zoom.

Howard wont be rated as high as Wimbley, and thats my Opnion. Davis is a great MLB. Thats 2 LB's subsituted with 1. Howard will be a 84 at best. The corner back your offering had a good year, but I dont see him jumping all the way up to a 90 just after 1 season. He was nothing until this last season.

Asomugha had a good year last season considering he was playing the #2 corner spot. And he was in the top 7 CBs this season so that has to count for something. Howard was top 20 in tackles this season and will definately be higher than an 84. Not to mention the reason for the Raiders defensive success was because of Howard, Morrison, Sapp, Burgess and Asomugha. Those 5 players alone pulled it off. With that being said, their ratings are sure to go up due to their success, why would they give Howard a low rating if the team was the 3rd best defense in the league? . And I know Howard wont be rated as well as wimbley, he'll be 3-4% worse. He had like 50 more tackles but 11 less sacks, the 50 tackles could probably count for 6 of those sacks making leaving howard 5 sacks shy of being equal to wimbley, Rhodes basically covers that gap up.

BTW sorry for the essay, a lot to say though

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I dont know. I'm gonna need more input from others. It looks fair. But I'm not willing to give much "Leeway" here because your getting better players Zoom.

Howard wont be rated as high as Wimbley, and thats my Opnion. Davis is a great MLB. Thats 2 LB's subsituted with 1. Howard will be a 84 at best. The corner back your offering had a good year, but I dont see him jumping all the way up to a 90 just after 1 season. He was nothing until this last season.

Asomugha had a good year last season considering he was playing the #2 corner spot. And he was in the top 7 CBs this season so that has to count for something. Howard was top 20 in tackles this season and will definately be higher than an 84. Not to mention the reason for the Raiders defensive success was because of Howard, Morrison, Sapp, Burgess and Asomugha. Those 5 players alone pulled it off. With that being said, their ratings are sure to go up due to their success, why would they give Howard a low rating if the team was the 3rd best defense in the league? . And I know Howard wont be rated as well as wimbley, he'll be 3-4% worse. He had like 50 more tackles but 11 less sacks, the 50 tackles could probably count for 6 of those sacks making leaving howard 5 sacks shy of being equal to wimbley, Rhodes basically covers that gap up.

BTW sorry for the essay, a lot to say though

Dude your fine. I like you explantions always. You know that. This is just a tough call. You have to know where Im coming from here. Give me a little time. I want to be fair as possble. Sorry if I seem like a Dick now. I'm not trying to be one. Sorry.

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I dont know. I'm gonna need more input from others. It looks fair. But I'm not willing to give much "Leeway" here because your getting better players Zoom.

Howard wont be rated as high as Wimbley, and thats my Opnion. Davis is a great MLB. Thats 2 LB's subsituted with 1. Howard will be a 84 at best. The corner back your offering had a good year, but I dont see him jumping all the way up to a 90 just after 1 season. He was nothing until this last season.

Asomugha had a good year last season considering he was playing the #2 corner spot. And he was in the top 7 CBs this season so that has to count for something. Howard was top 20 in tackles this season and will definately be higher than an 84. Not to mention the reason for the Raiders defensive success was because of Howard, Morrison, Sapp, Burgess and Asomugha. Those 5 players alone pulled it off. With that being said, their ratings are sure to go up due to their success, why would they give Howard a low rating if the team was the 3rd best defense in the league? . And I know Howard wont be rated as well as wimbley, he'll be 3-4% worse. He had like 50 more tackles but 11 less sacks, the 50 tackles could probably count for 6 of those sacks making leaving howard 5 sacks shy of being equal to wimbley, Rhodes basically covers that gap up.

BTW sorry for the essay, a lot to say though

Dude your fine. I like you explantions always. You know that. This is just a tough call. You have to know where Im coming from here. Give me a little time. I want to be fair as possble. Sorry if I seem like a Dick now. I'm not trying to be one. Sorry.

Its cool, im gonna make some chip dip

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I dont know. I'm gonna need more input from others. It looks fair. But I'm not willing to give much "Leeway" here because your getting better players Zoom.

Howard wont be rated as high as Wimbley, and thats my Opnion. Davis is a great MLB. Thats 2 LB's subsituted with 1. Howard will be a 84 at best. The corner back your offering had a good year, but I dont see him jumping all the way up to a 90 just after 1 season. He was nothing until this last season.

Asomugha had a good year last season considering he was playing the #2 corner spot. And he was in the top 7 CBs this season so that has to count for something. Howard was top 20 in tackles this season and will definately be higher than an 84. Not to mention the reason for the Raiders defensive success was because of Howard, Morrison, Sapp, Burgess and Asomugha. Those 5 players alone pulled it off. With that being said, their ratings are sure to go up due to their success, why would they give Howard a low rating if the team was the 3rd best defense in the league? . And I know Howard wont be rated as well as wimbley, he'll be 3-4% worse. He had like 50 more tackles but 11 less sacks, the 50 tackles could probably count for 6 of those sacks making leaving howard 5 sacks shy of being equal to wimbley, Rhodes basically covers that gap up.

BTW sorry for the essay, a lot to say though

Dude your fine. I like you explantions always. You know that. This is just a tough call. You have to know where Im coming from here. Give me a little time. I want to be fair as possble. Sorry if I seem like a Dick now. I'm not trying to be one. Sorry.

Its cool, im gonna make some chip dip

lol.. Some chips and Dip does sounds good thou. Thanks for the idea.

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I have to disagree with you Lebron...I dont see him being rated higher than Wimbley...Aso had a great year, dont get me wrong, but Wimbley tore it up as well...and should be rated no less than Aso (probably a point more, because he was rated higher initially)

Davis absolutely trumps anything your offering...he is young, rated 90 last year...he "WILL" (you can quote me) be higher than 90 this year...I dont know how much higher, but he will be higher...

Rhodes was 83 last year...and will not be anywhere near 90 this year...he is the #2 back in Oakland...last year was his first over 300 yds since 2001...there is no chance he jumps 7 spots by gaining 600 yds and getting demoted...

Routt is not a stud, nor will he ever be...come on man, who are you trying to fool? 22 tackles is not a stud...46 tackles in 2 years, is not impressive in my eyes...you cant sugar coat a piece of crap and call it candy...it still smells and tastes like crap...

Well...for my 2 cents, Im gonna have to vote no to this one...Holly is a "freak of nature" if Routt is a stud...at least he had 5 picks and 57 tackles last year!

Lebron you have to do better than this please...your better than that and have much more knowledge then your letting off...add a player or something to even this thing out...I wont sleep good tonight if I let this one go

Well. If there is no reply from Zoom, then I guess the trade will have to be cancelled

cav_fan2 wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I have to disagree with you Lebron...I dont see him being rated higher than Wimbley...Aso had a great year, dont get me wrong, but Wimbley tore it up as well...and should be rated no less than Aso (probably a point more, because he was rated higher initially)

Davis absolutely trumps anything your offering...he is young, rated 90 last year...he "WILL" (you can quote me) be higher than 90 this year...I dont know how much higher, but he will be higher...

Rhodes was 83 last year...and will not be anywhere near 90 this year...he is the #2 back in Oakland...last year was his first over 300 yds since 2001...there is no chance he jumps 7 spots by gaining 600 yds and getting demoted...

Routt is not a stud, nor will he ever be...come on man, who are you trying to fool? 22 tackles is not a stud...46 tackles in 2 years, is not impressive in my eyes...you cant sugar coat a piece of crap and call it candy...it still smells and tastes like crap...

Well...for my 2 cents, Im gonna have to vote no to this one...Holly is a "freak of nature" if Routt is a stud...at least he had 5 picks and 57 tackles last year!

Lebron you have to do better than this please...your better than that and have much more knowledge then your letting off...add a player or something to even this thing out...I wont sleep good tonight if I let this one go

davis is 29, hes not young. 22 tackles is good for a 3rd string CB and hes still young. If you watch raider games and see him play he doesnt give the QB a chance to let the WR even get close to being open. The term "stud" refers to having good potential, not that hes a good player. Just like how Youbooty and Jackson are considered studs. I didnt say Rhodes would be a 90 I said hed be an 82 (the low 90s is supposed to be low 80s) but you should have gotten the picture from when I said (82). Davis had like 40 less tackles than last season, he WONT go up, look at his stats first. and Wimbley tore it up NO MORE than Aso did. Theres at least 15 players that had more than 11 sacks but there are only two players that had more than Aso's 8 INTs. Seriously man, im disappointed usually you come to with a better arguement

lebronzoom wrote:

cav_fan2 wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I have to disagree with you Lebron...I dont see him being rated higher than Wimbley...Aso had a great year, dont get me wrong, but Wimbley tore it up as well...and should be rated no less than Aso (probably a point more, because he was rated higher initially)

Davis absolutely trumps anything your offering...he is young, rated 90 last year...he "WILL" (you can quote me) be higher than 90 this year...I dont know how much higher, but he will be higher...

Rhodes was 83 last year...and will not be anywhere near 90 this year...he is the #2 back in Oakland...last year was his first over 300 yds since 2001...there is no chance he jumps 7 spots by gaining 600 yds and getting demoted...

Routt is not a stud, nor will he ever be...come on man, who are you trying to fool? 22 tackles is not a stud...46 tackles in 2 years, is not impressive in my eyes...you cant sugar coat a piece of crap and call it candy...it still smells and tastes like crap...

Well...for my 2 cents, Im gonna have to vote no to this one...Holly is a "freak of nature" if Routt is a stud...at least he had 5 picks and 57 tackles last year!

Lebron you have to do better than this please...your better than that and have much more knowledge then your letting off...add a player or something to even this thing out...I wont sleep good tonight if I let this one go

davis is 29, hes not young. 22 tackles is good for a 3rd string CB and hes still young. If you watch raider games and see him play he doesnt give the QB a chance to let the WR even get close to being open. The term "stud" refers to having good potential, not that hes a good player. Just like how Youbooty and Jackson are considered studs. I didnt say Rhodes would be a 90 I said hed be an 82 (the low 90s is supposed to be low 80s) but you should have gotten the picture from when I said (82). Davis had like 40 less tackles than last season, he WONT go up, look at his stats first. and Wimbley tore it up NO MORE than Aso did. Theres at least 15 players that had more than 11 sacks but there are only two players that had more than Aso's 8 INTs. Seriously man, im disappointed usually you come to with a better arguement

Davis is young. Since when did 29 become a old age?

DC wrote:

Davis is young. Since when did 29 become a old age?

If Davis is young then Asomugha is a kid still in diapers. I didnt say 29 is an old age but it certainly isnt young. Hes on the down-side of his career.

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

Davis is young. Since when did 29 become a old age?

If Davis is young then Asomugha is a kid still in diapers. I didnt say 29 is an old age but it certainly isnt young. Hes on the down-side of his career.

Not on the downside. Usually once players hit around the ages of 28 thru 34. They are considered to be in the prime of their respected Careers.

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

Davis is young. Since when did 29 become a old age?

If Davis is young then Asomugha is a kid still in diapers. I didnt say 29 is an old age but it certainly isnt young. Hes on the down-side of his career.

Not on the downside. Usually once players hit around the ages of 28 thru 34. They are considered to be in the prime of their respected Careers.

So then when players retire theyre in their prime? No players retire at 34, they dont go into their prime then. If you look at players stats their best season is usually when they're 27-28. After that they start getting worse, NOT NECESSARILLY becoming bad but they just cant produce what they did in the best season. You can almost never see a player toping his numbers at 28 when hes 35

[quote="lebronzoom"]

DC wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

DC wrote:

Davis is young. Since when did 29 become a old age?

If Davis is young then Asomugha is a kid still in diapers. I didnt say 29 is an old age but it certainly isnt young. Hes on the down-side of his career.

Not on the downside. Usually once players hit around the ages of 28 thru 34. They are considered to be in the prime of their respected Careers.

So then when players retire theyre in their prime? No players retire at 34, they dont go into their prime then. If you look at players stats their best season is usually when they're 27-28. After that they start getting worse, NOT NECESSARILLY becoming bad but they just cant produce what they did in the best season. You can almost never see a player toping his numbers at 28 when hes 35[/quote

Plenty of players produce at a old age.

Read that last two sentences of my post

lebronzoom wrote:

Read that last two sentences of my post

I read it and I still do not agree. I think John Lynch is a living testiment to that.

lebronzoom wrote:

cav_fan2 wrote:

lebronzoom wrote:

and Howard had 110 tackles as a rookie.

Heres how I was viewing it

Asomugha=Wimbley
Howard, Rhodes=Davis
Routt, Grove=Holly

Aso=early 90s (90-92)
Howard=mid-late 80's (85-87)
Rhodes=low 90s (82)
Routt=high 70s (78 but is a stud)
Grove=mid 80s (84)

Wimbley=high 80s-early 90s (89-91)
Davis=90
Holly=mid 80s (85)

That makes it a:
91=90
86, 82=90 (arguably davis is better but thats just leeway)
78, 84=85

I have to disagree with you Lebron...I dont see him being rated higher than Wimbley...Aso had a great year, dont get me wrong, but Wimbley tore it up as well...and should be rated no less than Aso (probably a point more, because he was rated higher initially)

Davis absolutely trumps anything your offering...he is young, rated 90 last year...he "WILL" (you can quote me) be higher than 90 this year...I dont know how much higher, but he will be higher...

Rhodes was 83 last year...and will not be anywhere near 90 this year...he is the #2 back in Oakland...last year was his first over 300 yds since 2001...there is no chance he jumps 7 spots by gaining 600 yds and getting demoted...

Routt is not a stud, nor will he ever be...come on man, who are you trying to fool? 22 tackles is not a stud...46 tackles in 2 years, is not impressive in my eyes...you cant sugar coat a piece of crap and call it candy...it still smells and tastes like crap...

Well...for my 2 cents, Im gonna have to vote no to this one...Holly is a "freak of nature" if Routt is a stud...at least he had 5 picks and 57 tackles last year!

Lebron you have to do better than this please...your better than that and have much more knowledge then your letting off...add a player or something to even this thing out...I wont sleep good tonight if I let this one go

davis is 29, hes not young. 22 tackles is good for a 3rd string CB and hes still young. If you watch raider games and see him play he doesnt give the QB a chance to let the WR even get close to being open. The term "stud" refers to having good potential, not that hes a good player. Just like how Youbooty and Jackson are considered studs. I didnt say Rhodes would be a 90 I said hed be an 82 (the low 90s is supposed to be low 80s) but you should have gotten the picture from when I said (82). Davis had like 40 less tackles than last season, he WONT go up, look at his stats first. and Wimbley tore it up NO MORE than Aso did. Theres at least 15 players that had more than 11 sacks but there are only two players that had more than Aso's 8 INTs. Seriously man, im disappointed usually you come to with a better arguement

Are you serious? Davis is young (sorry man but 29 is by no means old) and had over 100 tackles again...that warrants continuing to grow...you dont have to trump your previous year's stats to move up my friend (if he did that he would 99 this year)...consistency breeds success...

Please dont come at me with "22 tackles is good for a 3rd corner" crap...thats bull! 80 year old Aaron Glenn had 22 tackles..so the young man doesnt impress me...He shows nothing that even looks like he would ever be more than a 3rd CB and ST player...

If you want me learn how to decifer your coding for your post on Rhodes, you have to give me the Crackerjack decoder ring first! I cant read your mind...you posted that he was gonna be 90, what was I supposed to think?

Did you seriously tell me that alot more people had more than 11 sacks last year? He was a freaking ROOKIE man!! That is ridiculous for a rookie! I told you that I didnt take anything away from Aso, but he has had more time to develop than Wimbley and was still rated lower than he was in 07...did you know that Aso didnt have a single pick in 3 years before last year? Dont you think that matters at all? One "big" season for a 4 year pro doesnt really make them Hall of Famers man...

Please dont insult me Lebron...my argument was right on point...you really didnt come back with anything substantial...it was all the facts that I put out there...