Think about this. Last yr, in the 2nd round, we wanted Clemens. Tannenbaum was smart, and dealt down with the Skins and stole their 2nd rounder in 2007. With that 2nd rounder, we swapped it with the Bears for their 2nd and Thomas Jones. With that 2nd, we combined it with our 1st and 5th for #14 and the 6th. SO.... Moving down in 2006 + our 5th round pick = Thomas Jones + 14 + 6th rounder? ARE YOU KIDDING ME.. That's a good GM man.
Somehow, some way, somebody will figure out a way to make it sound like we gave up too much. We moved up 11 spots to pick 14 in a draft that is seemingly very light in talent late in the first round. We got a steal, all the way around.
I think you will see it as a trend for teams to move to more numbers guys? Why? He can hire someone that can evaluate the talent, and doesn't have to worry about emotional decisions on players... He'll make $ decisions based on the info given.... Keeps you out of cap trouble nad keeps your competitive year after year.
Awesome, awesome value....wow. I was afraid of potentially stupid decisions today to knock the FO down to earth, but this was a great trade, and looking at the whole picture makes it that much better. Great job, Tanny.
maybe tanny is so successful BECAUSE he was an accountant. it's all just numbers to him, with no heart/emotions to fcuk things up. As Joe Friday would say, 'just the facts'.
I would add that the FO has also positioned the team to bring its future QB along at a measured pace. Whether Clemens fits the bill, we'll see some day. But at least there's a plan in place. I'm anxious to see what Mr. T does with our current #2. My thoughts are that he made trade down to recoup more picks. I'd love to get a 3 and 4, but not sure where the points reside in such a transaction.
Good analysis but you have to throw our 1st round pick this year into the equation. Moving down in 2006 + 25 + our 5th round pick = Thomas Jones + 14 + 6th rounder? Still very good.
You missed a factor in there though. Gotta put our 25 pick in the equation which you didn't. Moving down last year + 25 + 5th this year for Thomas Jones + 14 + 6th this year. Still a great deal.
I think this is what he meant, but it made sense to me the first time through: Moving down in 2006 + our 5th round pick = Thomas Jones + 11-spot improvement in 2007 1st rd + 6th rounder?
Exactly, that's why I wasn't worried about him moving up to GM. He's a genius with the cap, and has proven to be marvelous at getting his way with other teams (see the Skins trade, the Falcons trade, the Bears trade). When it comes to business decisions, he's lethal. We can get talent evaluators to help him out if he's weaker there. The man is a shark.
Actually, it's more like: 18-spot drop in 2nd round in 2006 draft + our 5th round pick this year + 4-spot drop in 2007 2nd round = Thomas Jones + 11-spot improvement in 2007 1st round + 6th rounder Since the 18-spot drop in the 2nd round of 2006 cost us very little, we essentially got to get most of the 11-spot improvement in the 2007 draft and Thomas Jones for free.
Suppose z = x + iy for real variables x and y. Then we can write x = (z + \bar z)/2 and y = (z - \bar z)/(2i). Now x and y can be thought of as real functions of complex variables z and \bar z. Differentiating x and y gives: {\partial x \over \partial z} = {1 \over 2}\ \mathrm{and}\ {\partial y \over \partial z} = {1 \over 2i} as well as {\partial x \over \partial \bar z} = {1 \over 2}\ \mathrm{and}\ {\partial y \over \partial \bar z} = -{1 \over 2i}. Differentiate a function f(x,y) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y): {\partial f \over \partial z} = {\partial f \over \partial x}{\partial x \over \partial z} + {\partial f \over \partial y}{\partial y \over \partial z}\ \mathrm{and}\ {\partial f \over \partial \bar z} = {\partial f \over \partial x}{\partial x \over \partial \bar z} + {\partial f \over \partial y}{\partial y \over \partial \bar z}. Finally, substitution yields: {\partial f \over \partial z} = {1 \over 2}\left({\partial f \over \partial x} + {1 \over i}{\partial f \over \partial y}\right)\ \mathrm{and}\ {\partial f \over \partial \bar z} = {1 \over 2}\left({\partial f \over \partial x} - {1 \over i}{\partial f \over \partial y}\right). If we let {\partial f \over \partial \bar z} = 0, then {\partial f \over \partial x} = -i {\partial f \over \partial y} and thus {\partial u \over \partial x} + i{\partial v \over \partial x} = -i\left({\partial u \over \partial y} + i{\partial v \over \partial y}\right),
feels good to have a front office for once that knows the difference between their heads and their asses
Great moves by Tanny. 2 instant starters. I wonder if Tanny suggested similar moves to Bradway in the past only to get shot down.