Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Outpost31 said: There’s a distinct difference between thinking it’s time to move on (everybody knew Matthews could not be an effective EDGE for us) and calling him a bum stealing money, which is what a lot of people did, which is why I brought it up. They act like these people are animals or machines or somehow bad humans. And that is wrong. I see the business side of it and again, there is no loyalty either way in the NFL, ownership to player or player to team. Both can say in hindsight they would have taken a team friendly deal. The reality is that is what they (Cobb, Matthews) were forced to take. Again, I wish them well, unless they play us. BTW, if anybody was cheering Matthews broken jaw, they are an a-hole! Edited October 6, 2019 by Golfman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) This is why the Patriots are always there. How can they not be with a schedule this pathetic. They don't play anybody until they return from their bye in week 11. This is a joke! https://www.patriots.com/schedule/ Edited October 6, 2019 by Golfman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 2 minutes ago, Golfman said: It's not his loss, it's every time an Ex-Packer does something he has to post about it. Now, you make a great point about him inside, except we were counting on Burks in that role and he's hurt. As for being able to afford. We could have gotten one of them under our cap this year. That money comes out of our ability to extend guys we may want to keep in Martinez, Bulaga, Clark. You can't spend it twice. We have just as many if not more people who post when an ex packer does something bad. Considering what we know Burks to be, why were we counting on him with no legitimate backup in place? We have plenty of money for extensions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Just now, AlexGreen#20 said: We have just as many if not more people who post when an ex packer does something bad. Considering what we know Burks to be, why were we counting on him with no legitimate backup in place? We have plenty of money for extensions. I'll just go back to the finances. Having the money today so you spend it is not a good long-term strategy IMO. It's limits your ability to keep more important players in their second contracts moving forward. We've got 9 million left this year and 25 million in 2020, 34 million total. Giving a guy like Matthews or Cobb 10% of that may be the difference between retaining 2 or 3 guys. Or being able to get one from some place else. One could argue they could help us win one or two more games this year when someone is out injured and that is legitimate. I see it as sound fiscal policy. Today's NFL limits the 'loyalty' deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 1 minute ago, Golfman said: I'll just go back to the finances. Having the money today so you spend it is not a good long-term strategy IMO. It's limits your ability to keep more important players in their second contracts moving forward. We've got 9 million left this year and 25 million in 2020, 34 million total. Giving a guy like Matthews or Cobb 10% of that may be the difference between retaining 2 or 3 guys. Or being able to get one from some place else. One could argue they could help us win one or two more games this year when someone is out injured and that is legitimate. I see it as sound fiscal policy. Today's NFL limits the 'loyalty' deals. It has nothing to do with being a loyalty deal and everything to do with needing guys at those positions. Thinking that we were somehow going to get 32 games of healthy play out of Burks and Martinez was absurd from day 1. If you want to argue that you would rather have Goodson for dirt cheap, than Matthews for 5, I can see where you're coming from in the long term, but I'm also sitting here with an old QB and wondering when we're going to go all in. It doesn't even have to be Matthews, just not having an ILB3 on the roster (and realistically not even a 2, for all we know Burks sucks, or a hybrid safety) is troubling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Trevor Davis, all he does, make plays! Good for him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said: It has nothing to do with being a loyalty deal and everything to do with needing guys at those positions. Thinking that we were somehow going to get 32 games of healthy play out of Burks and Martinez was absurd from day 1. If you want to argue that you would rather have Goodson for dirt cheap, than Matthews for 5, I can see where you're coming from in the long term, but I'm also sitting here with an old QB and wondering when we're going to go all in. It doesn't even have to be Matthews, just not having an ILB3 on the roster (and realistically not even a 2, for all we know Burks sucks, or a hybrid safety) is troubling. Two points and we'll agree to disagree. 1. Probably not wise with a first year head coach. 2. You can't, in today's NFL, have a roster of 53 without any weaknesses. If you want to name a roster where that isn't the case I'm all ears, especially paying an elite QB. Edited October 6, 2019 by Golfman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Looks like Akiem Hicks is down for the Bears and out for a while. Gross! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gopackgonerd Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 26 minutes ago, Golfman said: This is why the Patriots are always there. How can they not be with a schedule this pathetic. They don't play anybody until they return from their bye in week 11. This is a joke! https://www.patriots.com/schedule/ Blame the AFC for having ****ty teams. lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexGreen#20 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 6 minutes ago, Golfman said: Two points and we'll agree to disagree. 1. Probably not wise with a first year head coach. 2. You can't, in today's NFL, have a roster of 53 without any weaknesses. If you want to name a roster where that isn't the case I'm all ears, especially paying an elite QB. 1. Why did we hire a first year head coach? This team has most of the necessary ingredients for winning a super bowl. Going cheap on the last piece doesn't make a ton of sense to me. 2. If we were talking about a position that was expensive I might agree with you but competent ILBs are cheap. We lost to the Eagles because our coaches refused to trust the backups at the most replaceable positions on each side of the ball. A lot of that is on the coaches, but some has to ride with the GM for not having players on the roster that there coaches trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasquatch Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 (edited) Richie Incognito doing Incognito things again. Edited October 6, 2019 by Sasquatch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Clinton-Dix, all he does, miss tackles! LOL 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacReady Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Trevor Davis in four years with Rodgers had 9 catches for 122 yards. Two games with the Raiders and he has 1 catch for 21 yards. I really hope he tears it up over there. Mostly because in 90% of the cases, once a Packer always a Packer, but also because I really want people to start to see that guys like MVS/Graham/Allison etc aren't bums, they're playing with Rodgers. Think of all the receivers in this league that wouldn't get a glance from Rodgers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltarich87 Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 You know the Raiders and Gruden are gonna go all out in this game as if it's their SB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golfman Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Just now, deltarich87 said: You know the Raiders and Gruden are gonna go all out in this game as if it's their SB. The Raiders aren't trash this year. Bears playing with a handicap at QB and Hicks is out in the middle. The Raiders are pounding the Bears between the tackles. Beating the crap out of them and Trevathan and Smith are nowhere to be found! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.