Pool Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 4 minutes ago, CWood21 said: Only knock? That's a pretty damn big knock, especially how we're in a passing-oriented league. That's like saying your OL is a stud even though his pass protection is average at best, but he's a great run blocker. It's illogical. Are you comfortable paying him elite RB money? Because I certainly wouldn't be. I'd rather reinvest my money elsewhere and gamble that I can find a better value back in the draft or in FA. He's not in that elite tier, and I'm not sure he's in that next tier below either. He isn't going to demand elite money and if he does they will let him walk. He's durable and has rushed for over 1000 yards his first two years in the league on terrible Bears teams. 8 man fronts for days. Predictable play calling etc etc. The fact is we don't need him to be a receiving back. We have Cohen for that. And his receiving skills are not so poor that it telegraphs plays for the defense. Most teams in the league would love to have a Jordan Howard. I guarantee you the Packers FO would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 8 minutes ago, Pool said: He isn't going to demand elite money and if he does they will let him walk. He's durable and has rushed for over 1000 yards his first two years in the league on terrible Bears teams. 8 man fronts for days. Predictable play calling etc etc. The fact is we don't need him to be a receiving back. We have Cohen for that. And his receiving skills are not so poor that it telegraphs plays for the defense. Most teams in the league would love to have a Jordan Howard. I guarantee you the Packers FO would. If he's a top 10 RB, and a fringe top 5 RB like you claimed he was, the Bears would be foolish not to re-sign him right? But now you're saying that he's durable and effective yet, you don't want to pay him. Which one is it? And you were talking about how Cohen was your 3rd down back, but earlier you were talking about how great he was. Most people don't refer to 3rd down backs as great picks. Would I love to have Jordan Howard? Sure, but I'm content with spending less than half that on Jamaal Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 7 minutes ago, CWood21 said: If he's a top 10 RB, and a fringe top 5 RB like you claimed he was, the Bears would be foolish not to re-sign him right? But now you're saying that he's durable and effective yet, you don't want to pay him. Which one is it? And you were talking about how Cohen was your 3rd down back, but earlier you were talking about how great he was. Most people don't refer to 3rd down backs as great picks. Would I love to have Jordan Howard? Sure, but I'm content with spending less than half that on Jamaal Williams. You're arguing in circles. I made my main point. You keep flipping it to something else. I'm glad you are happy with Jamaal Williams. I'd rather have Howard and probably 80% of the Bears roster over the Packers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Pool said: You're arguing in circles. I made my main point. You keep flipping it to something else. I'm glad you are happy with Jamaal Williams. I'd rather have Howard and probably 80% of the Bears roster over the Packers. No. You made the argument that Howard was easily at top 10 RB, and could make an argument that he was top 5. If he's truly as good as you are saying he is, you're not going to let him walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 14 minutes ago, CWood21 said: No. You made the argument that Howard was easily at top 10 RB, and could make an argument that he was top 5. If he's truly as good as you are saying he is, you're not going to let him walk. No. You said Amos, Howard, Cohen (and someone else) were "solid starters" and nothing else. That's simply false and has been proven false. You know that's what you said and what spawned this entire discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Pool said: No. You said Amos, Howard, Cohen (and someone else) were "solid starters" and nothing else. That's simply false and has been proven false. You know that's what you said and what spawned this entire discussion. I.e. good enough that you're not actively going to replace them, but not willing to pay a huge premium on them. You've already said that you're willing to let Jordan Howard walk if the price tag got too high. I've said that Adrian Amos is in a slew of other safeties in the league, and quite frankly outside of the top handful of safeties I think you could make an argument for any of them. And this is coming from someone who really liked Adrian Amos coming out of Penn State. Do you feel comfortable paying Adrian Amos elite safety money (i.e. $10M+)? If the answer isn't yes, than he's not a top 5 safety. Do you feel comfortable paying Amos in that second tier (i.e. $8M)? If the answer is yes, he's in a tier with another 7 safeties who make +/- $1M from that level. If you're not comfortable with that, he's a fringe top 10 safety. I sure as hell won't pay Amos elite safety money. I'd probably consider that second tier for Amos as a FA, which puts him in the group like Tashaun Gibson, Kareem Jackson, and Rodney McLeod. Good, but not great safeties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragnar Danneskjold Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 28 minutes ago, Pool said: You're arguing in circles. I made my main point. You keep flipping it to something else. I'm glad you are happy with Jamaal Williams. I'd rather have Howard and probably 80% of the Bears roster over the Packers. I am amazed at the number of fans that think the Bears roster is so much better than the Packers. I admit that the Packers are going through a bit of a rebuild, but I think that feeling is based on ignorance about the Packers players, as well as the Packers record last year with a backup QB who was just not up to the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broncofan Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 I've got no dog in this show, but frankly, you take away ARod, the Bears are clearly a more talented roster on D, and a similarly talented roster on O. I'd spot them a 2W+ difference on D talent, and frankly, McCarthy loses a W over any decent HC staff (and I'm probably being generous - and yeah, I know, VJ is probably a -2, so not throwing stones in glass houses). Having said that, ARod is a 4W+ QB in his own right, so I think GB & CHI are pretty close overall now, but GB gets the edge, but only because of the impact A-Rod has, and because we don't know if Trubisky is league-average or better yet. And I looooooove what GB did in this draft FWIW - so I think GB is going to be really better...in 2019. NO's 2017 draft impact is the outlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pool Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: He's not in that elite tier, and I'm not sure he's in that next tier below either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 1 hour ago, CWood21 said: It's no more or less ridiculous than the Bears fans who refuse to admit the downside of acquiring Mack. I've got serious questions about Trubisky, and if he struggles like I believe they are, they're going to be handing a top 10 pick to the Raiders. I never said it was doomed to fail, which is again either you failing to read what I'm posting or making huge leaps in assumptions. I mean, go read that tweet about the Raiders preferring the Bears' pick because they thought it would be high. They don't believe in Trubisky, and neither do I. And you haven't been reading the thread if you haven't seen that Bears fans think they're a playoff team, probably with some projection from Trubisky. You say defend the position as not being ridiculous, relative to other folks' positions (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense)...then you deny you had the position at all. And, yeah, the Raiders were assigning odds on next years records (supposedly, anyway), and felt the Bears had a better chance of having the poorer record. I agree with that odds assessment, and probably most would. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers win the Super Bowl this coming season, and I've said that on the site several times, including in the Packers forum. You've been approaching this topic from the get-go with posting fueled by a trifecta of sour grapes, blatant Packer homerism, and thinly veiled panic. You continually flip arguments, deny you've posted things you actually have, move argumentative goal posts, and refuse to address a lot of specific questions thrown your way. It's unbecoming, IMO. Especially for a moderator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 5 minutes ago, Broncofan said: I've got no dog in this show, but frankly, you take away ARod, the Bears are clearly a more talented roster on D, and a similarly talented roster on O. I'd spot them a 2W+ difference on D talent, and frankly, McCarthy loses a W over any decent HC staff (and I'm probably being generous - and yeah, I know, VJ is probably a -2, so not throwing stones in glass houses). Having said that, ARod is a 4W+ QB in his own right, so I think GB & CHI are pretty close overall now, but GB gets the edge, but only because of the impact A-Rod has, and because we don't know if Trubisky is league-average or better yet. And I looooooove what GB did in this draft FWIW - so I think GB is going to be really better...in 2019. NO's 2017 draft impact is the outlier. I think that the Bears' D looks a LOT better with Mack, but the rest of the defense as a whole isn't that overly better IMO. I keep hearing about how great the Bears' DL is, but the Packers DL is no slouch. I'd personally take the Packers DL over the Bears, but I don't hate the argument that you'd prefer the DL. Probably is tied to how far you think Muhammad Wilkerson bounce back. A DL unit of Kenny Clark, Mike Daniels, and Wilkerson is just as good (if not better) Akiem Hicks, Eddie Goldman, and Jonathan Bullard. Mack is clearly better than Clay, but I'd argue Nick Perry is better than Leonard Floyd. The Bears' ILB is deeper and more talented. In the secondary, the Bears are probably safer at the CB position but I don't think they offer the upside that the Packers corners do. And they certainly don't have the depth the Packers do, which is incredibly important. They're definitely more talented at safety, and safer bets to play at a high level given the regression we saw from HHCD last year. There's no doubt that the Packers' D is worse than the Bears' D, but I don't think its this canyon of a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 My goodness people. Drop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWood21 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 2 minutes ago, Heinz D. said: You say defend the position as not being ridiculous, relative to other folks' positions (which doesn't make a whole lot of sense)...then you deny you had the position at all. And, yeah, the Raiders were assigning odds on next years records (supposedly, anyway), and felt the Bears had a better chance of having the poorer record. I agree with that odds assessment, and probably most would. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Packers win the Super Bowl this coming season, and I've said that on the site several times, including in the Packers forum. You've been approaching this topic from the get-go with posting fueled by a trifecta of sour grapes, blatant Packer homerism, and thinly veiled panic. You continually flip arguments, deny you've posted things you actually have, move argumentative goal posts, and refuse to address a lot of specific questions thrown your way. It's unbecoming, IMO. Especially for a moderator. IF you have an issue with the way I've posted, feel free to discuss this via PM. Otherwise, that second paragraph is a direct violation of forum rules. If you can't discuss the topic at hand, don't post. Going with ad homenims doesn't justify your opinion. That being said, I'm done posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaidersAreOne Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 So about this Mack trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gannon12 Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 10 minutes ago, RaidersAreOne said: So about this Mack trade. Was poopy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.