Hmmmm. So I'm reading this fine post and I'm thinking, all these years I've been using that saying backward, by saying "no taksies-back."
Then I thought that maybe it's a Boston/NY thing so I looked it up and it's apparently more along the line of "no taksies backsies" and we're both right.
As for the trade, I'm still skeptical. Why would NO give up on this kid if he's so good?
There's plenty of reasons they could have given up on him. And he might be a waste of time. But it's a low-risk, high-potential reward opportunity so why not take a flyer?
Just because a bad team gives up on a player doesn't make them bad. The Raiders gave up on Moss, who set the NFL record for TDs. The Titans gave up on Ayers while the Eagles gave up on Chung, both of whom became solid contributors on a Super Bowl winner. The Bears gave up on Mark Anderson, who signed with Houston for the rest of the season before coming to NE and getting 10 sacks. The Redskins gave up on Andre Carter, who also had 10+ sacks for us. The Saints gave up on Ninko, who has been one of our best players since.
The Bucs gave up on Talib. The Bucs gave up on Blount. The Bucs gave up on Revis. Hey, has someone called the Bucs lately???
The point is that just because a team gives up on a player doesn't mean that player is worthless. I think a large part of it is that teams often look at a player's weaknesses instead of their strengths. Anderson was a speed rusher who had a lot of success as a rookie, and the Bears were so excited they tried to make him into a 3-down linebacker who did everything. It didn't work out well, and so they gave up on him and rather than use his one great skill, they tossed him aside. The Patriots knew what he was, maximized his strengths while not asking him to do anything he couldn't do, and he did really well. Then the Bills threw gobs of money at him and expected him to be a 3-down linebacker, and he failed again.
But really, has someone called the Bucs recently???