MAJBobby Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: This team has exactly one star player who is probably in his last year here. They have massive holes along the offensive line, secondary, receiver and linebacking positions that have persisted for two offseasons. They had no problem overspending for defensive line help but the two veterans they overpaid for look like they may be out of gas. They are shaping up as a 3-4 win team this season. It’s time for this first-time GM to start showing some roster-building ability. And one DE that strips you of assets to fill the massive holes on OL, Secondary, WR and LBer as you say help how?
aristocrat Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, George C said: NO, he didn’t. Other choices like head coach, continuing by doubling down with a flawed EJ. , and ofcourse giving up two firsts for the third best reciever in that draft...while ironically ......passing on Mack. Sorry, we totally disagree, and so do 31 other NFL owners who don’t want his services as GM. Yes he did. It’s a fact that during his tenure more guys played in the nfl than other gms. It’s not something you can deny. Guys that went on to play on other rosters as well.
Zebrastripes Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: Yes they are. The 5th year option is meant to do exactly what these players have done. One team re-signed the other by reports flipped the player for alot of assets Donald held out after his 3rd year as well.
george c Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, MAJBobby said: Yes they are. The 5th year option is meant to do exactly what these players have done. One team re-signed the other by reports flipped the player for alot of assets Spot on. For the 5th year, the Raiders walk away with an enormous ENORMOUS haul...
HappyDays Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said: The bears will never once regret or care about the 2 guys they won’t pick now. If Trubisky isn't good Mack won't change anything for them. In 2021 Trubisky will have played 3 seasons and if they need to hedge their bets with a new QB they won't be able to get one. It also isn't a guarantee that their defense will be good. The Raiders defense has been terrible the last few years because Mack was all they had. I would have given a single 1st for Mack but a team with an unproven QB situation shouldn't be taking risks that far into the future.
Buffalo_Stampede Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said: Nobody knows any of this. Haven’t people learned yet to not get wrapped up in preseason? What are we basing this on? The last meaningful games that this team played, was from a playoff season. I also fully expect Peterman to start, to play well and to keep the job. For this year anyway. If Peterman plays well obviously that changes a lot.
Doc Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, Zebrastripes said: Donald held out after his 3rd year as well. Yep. If teams are thinking they have guys under cost control until they hit UFA, they have another thing coming.
george c Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, aristocrat said: Yes he did. It’s a fact that during his tenure more guys played in the nfl than other gms. It’s not something you can deny. Guys that went on to play on other rosters as well. We sure had a lot of his dumpster diving specials wear our uniform, I agree. His best record with all of that discarded trash from other teams? Yeah, don’t bother... Edited September 1, 2018 by George C
aristocrat Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, George C said: His best record? Yeah, don’t bother... God you don’t get it and just ignore what I said. Very very good talent evaluator.
MAJBobby Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said: The cost control matters when a guy is good. Shaq Lawson and EJ Manuel were very recent firsts that we had cost control over. How much is that helping us? Had it over Sammy too. Cost control is wonderful when you get lucky and actually hit on a real good player like Russel Wilson. Then it mattered. Now it has had a reverse effect and destroyed that entire team. Funny how it worked out for the Raiders with Mack too. Obj...Donald....When you get a great player in round 1, they are going to make you pay them more. So the cost control point just really doesn’t matter that much to me. I will take the guy that I know is great already, over question marks. I know it doesn’t work that way. The NFL overvalues draft picks in a sickening way. Good players get traded for mid round picks. It’s mind boggling. After round 2, the entire draft of a crap shoot. The bears will never once regret or care about the 2 guys they won’t pick now. Lets see history says this will hurt bears more than help them 1
TheElectricCompany Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said: Think about all of our 1st round picks over the last 15 years. How many pairs of them would you take over Mack? People need to stop overvaluing draft picks. Get good players. We have plenty of draft picks left over after these trades and we never pick the right guys anyway. Draft picks are just opportunities. The odds of finding a player trending towards a gold jacket are rare, especially one like Mack who brings elite production against the run and pass. It's an expensive deal for the Bears, but I don't see how you can price a truly elite player for anything less than 2 firsts. Edited September 1, 2018 by TheElectricCompany
MAJBobby Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, Zebrastripes said: Donald held out after his 3rd year as well. Did he play after that hold out? Did he get a new contract to being him back after that holdout? 1
Sammy Watkins' Rib Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Doc said: It's the 2-1sts and a player that makes it a lot different. Yes. The similarity is in the impact the player will have on the team. Mario came in and played well for two years but it didn't make a difference in the win column. Mack would likely have the same impact here. Possibly even less with such young QBs. Would have been a bad trade for us. 1
MAJBobby Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, Doc said: Yep. If teams are thinking they have guys under cost control until they hit UFA, they have another thing coming. Really?? But they actually do. For four years. That 5th year option it a trigger point and what is was designed to be.
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said: I don't see this as all that different than when we signed Mario to a a huge contract in free agency. At least with the Mario signing we didn't also have to give up two first round picks. And let's face it, better than good chance that this years first would be a top 5 pick. And when we got Mario, he played well for us but did he really end up making a difference in the win/loss column? What are the odds Mack would make a difference the next couple of seasons with our young QB's? I kind of got triggered by something and went off on a diversion from my actual feelings on Mack. I don’t even really care that much about this exact situation. I knew all along a team would be willing to play ball and also that it wouldn’t be us. I never even for a second considered it a real possibility. It would be nice to have him but that’s not really what aggrievated me. I just hate the thought that these picks are this important and that the Bears are dumb to give them up. The Bears will be better now, then they were going to be without Mack. I wish the Bills had the same aggression towards gettting better. We have 1 WR that would even see the field for any other team. There are probably less then 10 WRs in the NFL you couldn’t get straight up for a first. I would be exploring trades to get better at that position. Yes we traded for KB, he’s the one good guy we have. Yes we traded for Colman. You also moved up for Zay...Those guys stink. You can’t just give up because you threw a few things at the wall. You don’t stop until the position is acceptable. Edited September 1, 2018 by Brianmoorman4jesus 2
Doc Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 1 minute ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said: Yes. The similarity is in the impact the player will have on the team. Mario came in and played well for two years but it didn't make a difference in the win column. Mack would likely have the same impact here. Possibly even less with such young QBs. Would have been a bad trade for us. I think he would have helped. The Bills didn't have much on offense last year and I think Peterman will be far better in his 2nd year. But it's academic now. Just now, MAJBobby said: Really?? But they actually do. For four years. That 5th year option it a trigger point and what is was designed to be. The player can sit out.
MAJBobby Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, Doc said: I think he would have helped. The Bills didn't have much on offense last year and I think Peterman will be far better in his 2nd year. But it's academic now. The player can sit out. A player can destroy his career as well so what is your point again?
Doc Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, MAJBobby said: A player can destroy his career as well so what is your point again? "Destroyed his career"? Yeah, no.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 1, 2018 Posted September 1, 2018 27 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Do we know what they offered I heard last night “2 High picks and Hughes.” I suspect that means a 1 and a 2 now. The Raiders turned the offer down but they were still engaged. He liked the idea of the Bills.
Recommended Posts