Warrick a Seahawk

[HoosierCat]

ESPN reported that the Pats were trying to acquire Warrick BEFORE he was released. If this is so, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T WE ACCEPT IT?? I would rather have a 7th round pick over nothing at all!

If this is true, then my assumption is the Bengals wanted to keep Warrick out of the AFC. I bet the Seahawks had contacted them, and agreed to snatch him up as soon as he was released so nobody in the AFC could have him.

Or Warrick may have blocked the deal. Any team he signed with certainly would have wanted him to redo his contract, even if they weren't worried about his injury, since it was in its final year. And that essentially gave Warrick a veto over any trade.

Or the report could simply be untrue. Personally, I find it tough to think Warrick would have blocked a trade to the Pats...

[The_Next_Big_Thing]

ESPN reported that the Pats were trying to acquire Warrick BEFORE he was released. If this is so, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T WE ACCEPT IT?? I would rather have a 7th round pick over nothing at all!

ESPN reports a lot of stuff wrong too....

[HairOnFire]

If Warrick was going to be their starting slot receiver, I'd take the "vs. 2003" bet. But he apparently isn't. Would any No. 2 wideout in the league match his "old" numbers if moved to No. 3 or spot duty? Sorry, but I'm not that stupid.

I'm not counting on you being stupid. Far from it. However, if Warrick was truly healthy it seems unlikely that he'd be battling for a teams 3rd WR role or even more telling....spot duty. The fact that he finds himself in that situation sorta makes my point far more than yours, ehh?

I'm not trying to cheat you. Trust me, I can afford my own booze. But in any bet about Warrick's likely production I'm not going to agree to pay off if he falls 19 receptions short of the total that was previously discussed.

So perhaps we should drop the booze payoff and agree to the 60 catch total with the understanding that the loser has to say the were wrong OR eat an imaginary bug.

[HoosierCat]

However, if Warrick was truly healthy it seems unlikely that he'd be battling for a teams 3rd WR role or even more telling....spot duty. The fact that he finds himself in that situation sorta makes my point far more than yours, ehh?

No, it just shows that Mike Holmgren isn't stupid either. Let's see, Warrick hasn't practiced much, doesn't know the offense, has zero rapor with the QB, and it's 10 days before the season starts. Yet he ought to be installed as a starter?

So perhaps we should drop the booze payoff and agree to the 60 catch total with the understanding that the loser has to say the were wrong OR eat an imaginary bug.

Sure. Fine. Whatever.

[HairOnFire]

So perhaps we should drop the booze payoff and agree to the 60 catch total with the understanding that the loser has to say the were wrong OR eat an imaginary bug.

Sure. Fine. Whatever.

You sound disappointed. I hate that.

Look, if you want to do the bet then agree to a number that's close to his 2003 performance of 79 receptions because that's what we were talking about. And I think you'd have to agree that 60 isn't close to 79. Besides, listing things like not knowing the offense, being rusty due to the lack of practice, and not having a working relationship with the new QB were all givens no matter where Warrick landed. Yet you dismissed those factors previously when claiming Warrick was completely healthy and should be able to produce at his 2003 performance level. So why mention them now?