Renegade7

What Offer Would Change Your Mind on Trading Down???

Trade offer to change your mind on trading down???  

214 members have voted

  1. 1. Trade offer to change your mind on trading down???

    • Has to be MORE then accepted trade package to get RG3
    • Has to be AT LEAST the accepted trade package to get RG3
    • Would be willing to accept LESS then accepted trade package to get RG3
    • There's nothing that can convince me to trade down, stop trying, unplug the phone
    • Only if you can convince me of an impossible scenario where we can still get Chase Young, good luck
    • I don't know
    • I don't care


Recommended Posts

I was all for trading back if I thought we could get Miami's 3 #1s but the more I think about it is that Miami will get their QB without having to trade up. Here is why, Cindy takes Barrow. Wash, Det, NY, does not need QBs so Miami at 5 stays put and gets one of the two best ranked QBs left. Chargers next and they get the last QB. Only one other team has 2 #1s to trade and that is LV and they are mid level so as far as I can see we will not be offered a boatload for our #2 pick unless someone can come up with another scenario. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

I was all for trading back if I thought we could get Miami's 3 #1s but the more I think about it is that Miami will get their QB without having to trade up. Here is why, Cindy takes Barrow. Wash, Det, NY, does not need QBs so Miami at 5 stays put and gets one of the two best ranked QBs left. Chargers next and they get the last QB. Only one other team has 2 #1s to trade and that is LV and they are mid level so as far as I can see we will not be offered a boatload for our #2 pick unless someone can come up with another scenario. Cheers.

 

a team may offer their first next year in a package of picks to get to 3 or 4 so 5 may not be safe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, carex said:

 

a team may offer their first next year in a package of picks to get to 3 or 4 so 5 may not be safe

Yes, but the only team to have 2 first round picks this year is LV and they are mid round so would that entice you if they added a 1st next year? Plus is Grudn ready to give up on Carr? What will it cost them? Will anyone want to trade for Carr? 

Edited by 50yrSKINSfan
Punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Other trade scenarios involving the Dolphins' plethora of picks:

 

Redskins own: 1.2 (717)

Dolphins: 1.5 (468) + 1.26 (223) + 2.39 (153) + 2.56 (98)

Redskins net +225

 

Redskins own: 1.2 (717)

Dolphins: 1.5 (468) + 1.18 (287) + 1.26 (223)

Redskins net +261

 

 

This is why I struggle with this 'scale'

 

IMHO, as i've stated before, Chase Young is not your 'typical' no.2 pick.  We're leaving the value of the player available out.  There are literally 3 players that in a lot of other drafts, go 1.1.  Last year Arizona took Kyler and San Fran took Bosa.  Now the argument can be made that Bosa is the better player, but there were NO other QBs out there that people speculated would be 1.1 coming into that draft class.  Tua was the FAVORITE to go 1.1 last offseason.  Jones went 6 and people at the time were up in arms because they didnt even think he was worth that... Haskins was 'supposed' to go there.  2018 had Baker 1 and Saquan 2.  Darnold was 3. 

 

The sad thing is, that the Redskins netting 225 in your scenario, isn't worth giving up Young.  Young takes 1.2 @ 717 and elevates it closer to 1.1, because of the talent level... and i'm actually one of the ones in favor of seriously considering a trade back.. because it's such a valuable pick.  Young, or Tua,  coming into this draft appears to be more valuable than Bosa, Saquan, Trubisky, Wentz, or Mariota.  The last 5, no. 2 picks.  Bosa is the only one of those 5 that was even sniffed at being no. 1 overall, if i'm remembering correctly... I absolutely could be way off base, but I simply don't remember the buzz.  Saquan was hyped, but i feel like he was always in the no. 2 conversation, because the Giants needed a playmaking RB so much and it was an easy fit.  I want to say Trubisky and Wentz were both a bit of a surprise, and Mariota was almost ALWAYS going to be no. 2 behind Winston.  Am I remembering correctly? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

@Koolblue13 I really hope yall right about this guy.

 

Well, if CY is the pick then you'll know Kyle Smith and RR think others are right.  Nothing against Koolblue13 and others, but personally that would mean something.  I think Smith has done well, so the reasoning makes sense.

 

2 hours ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

I wonder if there’s a scenario where we get offered 5, 18, 37, 54. Then we turn around and give 5 and 18 to Detroit to move back to #3 for Chase. 
 

I would think Detroit would take Chase but if they see the chance to get Okudah or Simmons at 5 and adding a mid-1st it might be tempting. And we’d get Chase and add 2 picks in the 2nd. 
 

since I’d take a 3 from Detroit to swap 3&5 I’d be happy that way too

 

If QB isn't what they are looking for Detroit would likely pick CY.  I would imagine in that case they would be happy to stay at 3 and take him. 

 

1 hour ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Interesting exercise to take part in. The RG3 trade in 2012, while seen as a massive return for the Rams, it translated to a net point differential of +144.5 for the Rams using the updated (not Jimmy Johnson) trade value chart.

 

Redskins: 1.2 (717)

Rams: 1.6 (446) + 2.39 (153) + 2013 1st (157.5) + 2014 1st (105) = 861.5

Rams netted 144.5 in pick value

 

Using that as a basis for this year's #2 pick ...

 

Redskins: 1.2 (717)

Dolphins: 1.5 (468) + 1.18 (287) +2.56 (98) = 853

Redskins net 136 in point value

 

A lot of analysts are saying the Dolphins could try proposing an RG3 type trade. But everyone seems to be jumping to the conclusion that that would include all of their 1sts and maybe even more. But if you use the modern trade chart, an "RG3 style trade" would really only involve 5, 18 and maybe their Late 2nd.

 

Even more intriguing, is the chart to get Detroit from 3 to 2 would require them to give us their 2nd and 4th to make it even. Maybe we ask for less since we know we could still get Chase, but if we are truly working the phones and interested in moving off of #2 ... and Detroit ends up wanting to try to get Tua, we might be able to truly get #3 from their along with their 2nd pretty easily.

 

Redskins: 1.2 (717) 

Detroit: 1.3 (514) + 2.35 (170) + 4.99 (36) = 720

Redskins net 3 points

 

 

If Detroit wanted to make the move from 3 to 2, I'd be good with the Bears level trade.  The 1 spot drop was a 3rd, 4th and future 3rd.  I think they got a hard time for that trade and I don't know if another team would offer the higher pick.  I'm not sure why Detroit would do it unless they do want a QB.  If the do want QB and avoid Miami getting there first, then this could happen and we get Chase at 3.

 

If the Lions wanted Chase and we wanted to ensure he doesn't go Giants (and of FO decides more players are better).  Lions take CY and we have #3 with Tua still on the board.  You'd still have leverage with Dolphins/Charger/maybe Panthers to get a similar haul.  Trade with Miami and you might still hold the cards if a team wants to trade up for Herbert (yes, that would get into the realm of crazy and silly...but I have fun with crazy and silly). 

 

Say you traded to Detroit for 1, 3, 4, and future 4.  Then Miami for 1, 1, 2 as you mentioned (maybe it's less due to being #3 vs #2, but with leverage you could hold them to it perhaps). 

 

Burrow/CY/Tua/?? (Thomas/Okudah best guess at this point).  There are still high level guys.  I'd try to get Carolina if Herbert was desired.  Add another 4th/5th and 2020 4th. 

 

At 7, with 3 QBs and CY taken there will be one of Simmonds/Okudah/Thomas available.  With #18, #56, #67, #99, #103, #143 for 2020 (added to #66, #98, #130, #193 and #206) and 3rd/4th added for 2021. 

 

That's 12 picks which is overkill and not something teams generally do, but they could be used to trade up or trade for higher future picks.  7 players in the top 100.  I didn't use a list with comp picks, so I think I missed one pick as well.

 

Like I said crazy, but I still had fun doing it.  Haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

IMHO, as i've stated before, Chase Young is not your 'typical' no.2 pick.  We're leaving the value of the player available out.  

When thinking about a trade back, I sometimes picture Chase Young having a career like Lawrence Taylor.  To give up on LT, you would need way more than 3 firsts to get a fair trade.  The odds of CY being the next LT are low, but our 'Skins are missing all-pro players.  We need to draft this kid/man.  The only trade we should make is to #3 so that we can still get CY.

Edited by ILikeBilly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When he was drafted, experts called LaVar Arrington a generational talent who was more athletically gifted than LT.

Despite being the most overrated player in Redskins history, he wasn't even the best LB in that draft (Urlacher)...or even the second best (Julian Peterson).

Maybe the hype around Young will prove to be prescient, but... maybe it won't, and this team has so many needs that if Miami offers us their 3 firsts, I think you go for it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so a little would you rather... and let's assume that we do the following:

- Extend Trent Wiliams

- Re-Sign Brandon Scherff

- Sign CB James Bradberry

- Sign FS Anthony Harris

 

TE: Probably a FA move like Olsen or Hooper paired with a 4th or 5th round rookie

WR: You could use another piece to add to Terry, Harmon, Sims ...

OT: You need a long-term replacement for Moses and maybe Trent (depending on extension) but not an immediate need

OG: Wes Martin slides in at LG, you likely need some depth here though.

CB: You are probably more or less set with Bradberry, Dunbar, Moreau, Moreland, etc. and likely add a late rounder

FS: set

SS: set

LB: TBD on this front, really depends on where guys slide in. You could use a mid-rounder to challenge as starter

Edge: Need long-term solution behind Kerrigan

DL: Set

 

So do you take the stud at DE that makes your defense complete ... assuming you add CB and LB depth later on? Or do you trade back ... and in a perfect world add #5 #18 and #26 from Miami. BPA lines up to be a CB/WR/LB at #5 ... and #18 is typically WR/OT ... and later on is LB/S ...

 

So Scenario 1 given the above FA / Off-season moves:

Chase Young or:

Isaiah Simmons, K'Lavon Chiasson, Andrew Thomas

 

Scenario 2:
Jeffery Okudah, Tee Higgins, Mekhi Becton

 

Both scenarios give you talent where you could use it for SURE and the team is definitely in a really good spot in either case. But I don't see any of those guys with the exception of maybe Simmons or Okudah even remotely coming close to having the impact of a Chase Young.

 

Could be me though.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said:

When he was drafted, experts called LaVar Arrington a generational talent who was more athletically gifted than LT.

Despite being the most overrated player in Redskins history, he wasn't even the best LB in that draft (Urlacher)...or even the second best (Julian Peterson).

Maybe the hype around Young will prove to be prescient, but... maybe it won't, and this team has so many needs that if Miami offers us their 3 firsts, I think you go for it.

 

I thought there was a lot of knocks on Lavar such as he free-lances too much. I don't think the same is being said of Young. The only knock I am hearing of Young is we could get a haul from Miami though that would only be if Miami is interested and would be willing to give up that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

I think if we take young and pass on a QB and young busts, I think it's a pass, but if we pass on young and watch several players go on to make all pro careers with their franchises, we look like clowns.

 

Disagree, Haskins looked pretty good for this level towards end of the year. Young has yet to play a down in the NFL yet.  Which would be more shocking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

To me it's not whether one player makes a difference.  And when I look at other teams I only look at ones with a similar context.  Albert Breer among others have pointed out the similarities of the SF defense to ours.   SF defense was poor in 2018, 23rd according to Football Outsiders.  This year it raised to #2.  Nick Bosa was a big part of that.

 

If this was the 2016 D line, I wouldn't feel as fired up, I wouldn't think Young in that context would have the same domino effect because the dominos at DT were weak.  When you read about SF, Bosa mentioned in the context of the domino effect is a big part of the story.   A guy who covers SF was on Keim's podcast who elaborated on how the D line's emergence also had a ripple effect on the secondary.  They can play 7 in coverage.  And QB's threw more panicked throws. 

 

What's really wrong with this dline that it needs someone like that?

 

Sweat - Allen - Payne - Ionnidas

 

That's three first rounders and a pro bowl alternate already.

 

Quote

 

I think adding a dominant D lineman is key.  I think for example having Strahan made Osi, Tuck better.   Orkapo or Kerrigan along with Osi and Tuck I don't think would have harassed Brady in the SB quite the same. 

 

You need a dude that you got to game plan for IMO.  I rarely see Kerrigan double teamed.  He's not that kind of player.  You often see one of our D tackles double teamed.   I read somewhere that Ionnadis was double teamed on over 50% of his plays.  Kerrigan or a player of his ilk isn't changing that.    We've had good pass rushers, heck sometimes even at the same time like Orkapo and Kerrigan but not great ones.

 

In the teams heyday they had both Mann and Manley coming at you.  I think Sweat and Young could develop into something similar.

 

Again, I'd like to try Sweat and Ionnidas first before saying we need Young because we can do better then the pro bowl alternate wed be replacing him with.

 

I really don't care how many sacks Kerrigan gets at linebacker anymore because Del Rio is going to try to get most of his pressure from the dline.  If Kerrigan can help that, rotate him in at DE.

 

Quote

 

This again to me is the gravy point not a main one by any stretch but to respond.  NE has the biggest household name in the NFL. Tom Brady is a household name.  One of my closest friend's who is a Giants fan has a son who is an obnoxious Pats fan (its a running joke with us) just because he loves Brady.  I can share other stories like that.  I don't think we got that dude that excited the next generation of fans.  This is me speaking as a dad as opposed to a fan.  but I'd like to have a player for a change that is a star, national stage name.   I know its a quirky thing that has nothing to do with winning -- but I do think in seasons where you don't win, it helps to have some star power to generate next genetation fans and bring casual fans to the stands.  The Giants have stunk for years but especially their young fans have been giddy about Beckham and now Barkley -- its made the team relevant even when they haven't been winning.

 

You already have that with Haskins.  That amount of effort you want put into something like the face of your franchise should be going into him, not some guy you haven't even drafted yet.  Not unless you are replacing Haskins in this draft.

 

Edit: I guess we maybe have to step back and ask how many potential pro bowlers we have In the team already before saying we'll still have trouble selling jerseys if the only thing we change is we start winning again.

 

Collins is also a pro bowl alternate.

Sweat already has a tv commercial with Old Spice.

Haskins, hopefully.

McLaurin, almost won rookie of the year.

Foster if he's healthy?

Trent if he comes back?

Sherrf if he comes back has already been to the probowl and our best linemen.

Will AP get popular again if he's still starting?

 

We have no players in the top 50 in Jersey sales, I'm not sure how adding one will make the difference you are looking for. 

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 50yrSKINSfan said:

Yes, but the only team to have 2 first round picks this year is LV and they are mid round so would that entice you if they added a 1st next year? Plus is Grudn ready to give up on Carr? What will it cost them? Will anyone want to trade for Carr? 

Carolina and Chargers also need QB and they pick right behind Miami. If either wanted Tua they could easily offer a first next year to swap spots with NY or Detroit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JamesMadisonSkins and @OVCChairman, where are y'all getting the 717 value for the #2 pick.  OP chart has 2600 points for that pick.

 

Is the point chart that Kyle Smith will be using public knowledge, private among the NFL, or different for each team based on opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more realistic trade from Miami is for their 5,18,39 but either way they are stacked with 2020 and 2021 picks to get Tua. It would be difficult to turn away 3 first or 2 first, 39 plus a third from them. Loads of scenarios.....including just taking Young...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which teams want a new "franchise" QB; have the draft capital to move up; and are desperate enough to move up into the top 5 slots?  Miami possibly but they will be looking to see which teams could try to leap frog them for the 2nd QB.  If none then there's no reason for any trade.  If Miami thinks Detroit is going to pick a QB and MIami is fixated on one QB in particular then Miami might be in the market.  IMO they would be smarter to use their draft capital to restock the franchise and pick whichever quality QB is available at #5.  Detroit could guarantee its QB of choice by swapping picks with the Skins - the cost would be low versus losing out to a desperate team.  If they can trade Stafford then the cost would be even lower.  IMO this is the best outcome for the Skins - any extra draft pick plus Skins still pick Chase Young.      

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@JamesMadisonSkins and @OVCChairman, where are y'all getting the 717 value for the #2 pick.  OP chart has 2600 points for that pick.

 

Is the point chart that Kyle Smith will be using public knowledge, private among the NFL, or different for each team based on opinion?

 

 

I was just quoting that, the number seemed odd but i just ran with it.

 

Point still stands that i think this years no

2 pick is more valuable than in others, so valuating the number 2 pick on a static scale is tough to do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@JamesMadisonSkins and @OVCChairman, where are y'all getting the 717 value for the #2 pick.  OP chart has 2600 points for that pick.

 

Is the point chart that Kyle Smith will be using public knowledge, private among the NFL, or different for each team based on opinion?

Drafttek links out to the “modern” chart that apparently most NFL teams utilize. It’s the Belichek model and is universally accepted over the old school Jimmy Johnson model you’re referencing. 
 

The new model is more accurate based on actual trades that take place. 
 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp

 

and some background: https://www.patspulpit.com/2018/4/21/17256758/2018-nfl-draft-value-chart-rich-hill

Edited by JamesMadisonSkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d rather not trade with Miami but if we did, I rather do take their #1 pick in 2020, 2021 and 2022 than the three they have this year. That team could suck for a few more years.

Edited by dyst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Granted our FO sucked but we got nothing with the 1999 trade down haul.  We did get who we wanted with our first choice but that is not going to happen this year. Technically Chris Samuels and Lavar Arrington (who did not even come close to living up to the number 2 pick in the draft) were also results.  All the trade backs in 2002 got us nothing even though we had a haul out of those trade backs. The Rams did not re-build their franchise based on what they got from us Sean Taylor was the only known upgrade on our 2004 defense along with having the best CB in the game leave us and going plan B (arguably plan C) at Mike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Granted our FO sucked but we got nothing with the 1999 trade down haul.  We did get who we wanted with our first choice but that is not going to happen this year. Technically Chris Samuels and Lavar Arrington (who did not even come close to living up to the number 2 pick in the draft) were also results.  All the trade backs in 2002 got us nothing even though we had a haul out of those trade backs. The Rams did not re-build their franchise based on what they got from us Sean Taylor was the only known upgrade on our 2004 defense along with having the best CB in the game leave us and going plan B (arguably plan C) at Mike.

 

 

Im sorry but thats like saying Dwayne Haskins wont be a good Qb because we took Heath Shuler in the 1st round and he wasnt any good, so any time we take a QB in the 1st theyre a bust.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JamesMadisonSkins said:

Drafttek links out to the “modern” chart that apparently most NFL teams utilize. It’s the Belichek model and is universally accepted over the old school Jimmy Johnson model you’re referencing. 
 

The new model is more accurate based on actual trades that take place. 
 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart-Rich-Hill.asp

 

and some background: https://www.patspulpit.com/2018/4/21/17256758/2018-nfl-draft-value-chart-rich-hill

 

Belicheck in your second link says FO still use different charts, but it doesnt interfer as much with trades as it used to.

 

Factoring player value that much into the value of picks sounds super subjective to each scouting department. 

 

Quote

Some important notes with this chart:

  • All trades at the top of the draft are ad hoc based on that year’s talent pool. Teams are more willing to pay extra in drafts where there is an Andrew Luck than when there is an Eric Fisher. This is why the Jets paid a premium worth roughly the same as the 19th overall pick to move up from 6th to 3rd overall. They want one of the big three quarterbacks (Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Baker Mayfield).
  • Future draft picks don’t have a perfect value. A rule of thumb is that they are worth roughly # of Years in the Future x 32 picks less than the team’s current draft pick. In other words, if the Patriots were to trade their 2019th second round pick, it would be worth the same as the 95th overall pick in the 2018 NFL Draft. Again, this isn’t exact, but there is greater variance in accepted value with future picks.
  • Teams have to pay a premium to trade back into the first round worth roughly the same as a fifth or sixth round pick.

 

If what you are saying is true, why is the Patriots official website has the Jimmy Johnson model up?

 

https://www.patriots.com/news/draft-pick-value-chart-180181

 

Pretty much even link on first page of google uses the Jimmy Johnson model.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-sscr&ei=bcA0XrmtA_GhytMP2pOzgAI&q=nfl+draft+pick+value+chart&oq=nfl+draft+pick+value+chart&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0j0i7i30j0j0i30l2j0i5i30l2j0i8i30.8342.8687..9707...0.1..0.56.110.2......0....1.........0i71j0i13j0i8i7i30.mOZm1kQfROQ

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Belicheck in your second link says FO still use different charts, but it doesnt interfer as much with trades as it used to.

 

Factoring player value that much into the value of picks sounds super subjective to each scouting department. 

 

 

If what you are saying is true, why is the Patriots official website has the Jimmy Johnson model up?

 

https://www.patriots.com/news/draft-pick-value-chart-180181

 

Pretty much even link on first page of google uses the Jimmy Johnson model.

 

https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-verizon-sscr&ei=bcA0XrmtA_GhytMP2pOzgAI&q=nfl+draft+pick+value+chart&oq=nfl+draft+pick+value+chart&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.3..0j0i7i30j0j0i30l2j0i5i30l2j0i8i30.8342.8687..9707...0.1..0.56.110.2......0....1.........0i71j0i13j0i8i7i30.mOZm1kQfROQ

 

 

 

 

I highly doubt that Belechik would allow his draft chart to be posted on the website?

Edited by OVCChairman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OVCChairman said:

 

 

Im sorry but thats like saying Dwayne Haskins wont be a good Qb because we took Heath Shuler in the 1st round and he wasnt any good, so any time we take a QB in the 1st theyre a bust.

Not really close though I'd also argue that we have not found an elite QB in round 1 since Baugh (though Sneed did turn into Sonny). Heath Shuler was the best choice for us at the time. We definitely needed a potential franchise guy at QB coming into the draft last year.  The main point is that you should not trade a high pick, you let the draft come to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darth Tater said:

Not really close though I'd also argue that we have not found an elite QB in round 1 since Baugh (though Sneed did turn into Sonny). Heath Shuler was the best choice for us at the time. We definitely needed a potential franchise guy at QB coming into the draft last year.  The main point is that you should not trade a high pick, you let the draft come to you.

 

We had different evaluators.  A different team.  Different scouting ability.  Different players available.  College players are better than they were in 02.  Different schme so fit may be different.  Different free agent class.

 

 To say that we traded back before and it didnt work, therefore trading back doesnt work is unfair, when its different people making the decision, as well as picking the players.  We have a different group of people evaluating the talent, and for all we know, they dont see young the same way others do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OVCChairman said:

 

We had different evaluators.  A different team.  Different scouting ability.  Different players available.  College players are better than they were in 02.  Different schme so fit may be different.  Different free agent class.

 

 To say that we traded back before and it didnt work, therefore trading back doesnt work is unfair, when its different people making the decision, as well as picking the players.  We have a different group of people evaluating the talent, and for all we know, they dont see young the same way others do.

And that is the reason that the argument makes sense.  If they were the same than the argument would make no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.