If we were to TRADE UP, who would you shoot for?

since you asked here's your quote

I expect more out of you matty. You shouldn't give in to the resident shit head.
please note two things (I don't expect the worst poster here to read everything, but I do expect others to)
1- (please note, I am not interested in trading up, just not dismissing the possibility, and opportunity for discussion)
2- By the way, you could also look to trade up the 2nd or 3rd picks too, not just 1st.

Oh, and by the way mods...what happened to the attacking posters rule we have here...way to go for ignoring those rules and even encouraging them.

I expect more out of you matty. You shouldn't give in to the resident shit head.
please note two things (I don't expect the worst poster here to read everything, but I do expect others to)
1-
2-

Hopefully someone quotes me again...

Matty's not giving in to anything, he's The Ego around here. He clearly agrees with me that you're a retard. Put in a more PC manner, he agrees that this thread is ridiculous.

You may not be dismissing the possibility, but I am, because it's impossible. And discussing it is pointless because it will never happen, and furthermore Vinny is trying to trade DOWN, not up.

Discussing whether to trade up from the 2nd or 3rd rounders is fruitless until you know who has fallen down the draft board far enough to make it worthwhile.

You're a waste of bandwidth.

Post #7 was probably crossing the line by Schneed. But post #5? No problem with that one. He attacked your idea, not you.

And why shouldn't he? On the one hand, you're complaining on this site about the Redskins throwing away their draft picks for Chad Johnson (even though it's really just one pick in 2008, and CJ has proven to be an elite WR, and we need a WR, and we can still fill several other needs even with this trade), yet here you are suggesting we trade up for Darren McFadden (even though that would mean giving up draft picks, McFadden is unproven, and RB is so low on the need list)

The thread may not be retarded, but your recommendation (especially in light of your Chad Johnson stance) is questionable, at best.

Apologies to the forum for going against the forum guidelines and attacking the poster in an immature manner.

For the record, in my opinion, these forums would be better off without said poster.

Post #7 was probably crossing the line by Schneed. But post #5? No problem with that one. He attacked your idea, not you.

I don't know which one is which, he's on my ignore list for good reason. If it's the one that matty quoted, the idiot part is certainly attacking.

And why shouldn't he? On the one hand, you're complaining on this site about the Redskins throwing away their draft picks for Chad Johnson (even though it's really just one pick in 2008, and CJ has proven to be an elite WR, and we need a WR, and we can still fill several other needs even with this trade), yet here you are suggesting we trade up for Darren McFadden (even though that would mean giving up draft picks, McFadden is unproven, and RB is so low on the need list)

The thread may not be retarded, but your recommendation (especially in light of your Chad Johnson stance) is questionable, at best.

It's all for discussion, it doesn't mean I have to beleive it. I already said I don't think we should trade up. However, if we were to offer say Portis for the 5th pick to get McFadden, I think I might pull that trigger.
Since when are discussions a bad idea?

Since when are discussions a bad idea?

When they're pointless and run in contrast to concepts and opinions you've previously expressed elsewhere in the forums.

On one hand, I get the forum guidelines and the desire to keep things civil, encouraging open discussions. On the other hand, quality control would be important to me if I were a mod at this place. I think that's SmootSmack's point; he's rightly holding up the civility rules that this site has in place, but at the same time pointing out that your thread makes no sense and should be called to the carpet for failing to add any value to the site.

If this were my site, I'd want it to be better than ES, not more like it. Threads like this make it more like ES.

I don't know which one is which, he's on my ignore list for good reason. If it's the one that matty quoted, the idiot part is certainly attacking.

I missed that line. He has since apologized for attacking you in an immature manner

It's all for discussion, it doesn't mean I have to beleive it. I already said I don't think we should trade up. However, if we were to offer say Portis for the 5th pick to get McFadden, I think I might pull that trigger.
Since when are discussions a bad idea?

I don't understand your first sentence there. Secondly, discussions are not a bad idea. Did I say they were?

I shouldn't have thrown gas on the fire by quoting Schneed, I honestly didn't catch the idiot comment. I have no problem with calling threads retarded or dumb, but let's refrain from attacking the person.

When they're pointless and run in contrast to concepts and opinions you've previously expressed elsewhere in the forums.

On one hand, I get the forum guidelines and the desire to keep things civil, encouraging open discussions. On the other hand, quality control would be important to me if I were a mod at this place. I think that's SmootSmack's point; he's rightly holding up the civility rules that this site has in place, but at the same time pointing out that your thread makes no sense and should be called to the carpet for failing to add any value to the site.

If this were my site, I'd want it to be better than ES, not more like it. Threads like this make it more like ES.

I don't really have a problem with a thread like this. I mean I started an "If we had the first pick" thread. Which is probably even more pointless than this one. I mean they're both rather extreme hypotheticals, but it's fine to have these every now and then.

But it's hard not to respond critically to the opinion presented in the first post. Especially in light of other comments/opinions by that same person.