Ugh, Roquan wants extension, holdout possible

[Madmike90]

11 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

If I were Poles, i wouldn't even consider trading Roquan. Because, the hope would then be--to get a Roquan type player in return, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

If he were to be moved though, I'd charge a higher price than the Jamaal Adams trade. It would have to be close to what we gave up for Mack. 

Agreed...you don't trade Roquan because he will still be young and a key player in year 3 or 4 where we have to be a good team.

[Sugashane]

4 minutes ago, Madmike90 said:

Agreed...you don't trade Roquan because he will still be young and a key player in year 3 or 4 where we have to be a good team.

Plus it just sends a bad message. Trading Mack showed us they were resetting and getting younger. Cutting Goldman showed lazy and overpriced players aren't being saved. Leaving Daniels showed that consistent effort and aggression is key on the OL.

 

What would cutting your best player, going into their prime, who hasn't had any issues with effort or play say though? Poles needs to have the balls to believe he can build the team but no team gets better by losing Smith, and it would be a hard sell to a team that you're supporting top performers. 

[Bigbear72]

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

Plus it just sends a bad message. Trading Mack showed us they were resetting and getting younger. Cutting Goldman showed lazy and overpriced players aren't being saved. Leaving Daniels showed that consistent effort and aggression is key on the OL.

 

What would cutting your best player, going into their prime, who hasn't had any issues with effort or play say though? Poles needs to have the balls to believe he can build the team but no team gets better by losing Smith, and it would be a hard sell to a team that you're supporting top performers. 

Not only is it a hard sell to the team, but it may also negatively impact how attractive of a destination the Bears are to future free agents. If someone like Smith can be traded away what does that say about the teams loyalty and commitment to players?

[Sugashane]

39 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said:

Not only is it a hard sell to the team, but it may also negatively impact how attractive of a destination the Bears are to future free agents. If someone like Smith can be traded away what does that say about the teams loyalty and commitment to players?

It would say that Poles is only potentially loyal to his own guys. And that would take a few years to prove.

Basically like trying to skate uphill.

[dll2000]

21 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Plus it just sends a bad message. Trading Mack showed us they were resetting and getting younger. Cutting Goldman showed lazy and overpriced players aren't being saved. Leaving Daniels showed that consistent effort and aggression is key on the OL.

 

What would cutting your best player, going into their prime, who hasn't had any issues with effort or play say though? Poles needs to have the balls to believe he can build the team but no team gets better by losing Smith, and it would be a hard sell to a team that you're supporting top performers. 

Montgomery has played even harder than Roquan or anyone.  

Would you pay him a ton or not trade him if a large offer came because of messaging?

These are realities of business and certain positions of lessor value.  Don’t be swayed because Roquan was a first round pick.

I would trade Roquan in a NY minute for a shot at a top QB, ot, cb, ball hawking safety or a dominant WR.   And I wouldn’t over pay any ILB, just like I wouldn’t a RB. 

[Sugashane]

4 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Montgomery has played even harder than Roquan or anyone.  

Would you pay him a ton or not trade him if a large offer came because of messaging?

These are realities of business and certain positions of lessor value.  Don’t be swayed because Roquan was a first round pick.

I would trade Roquan in a NY minute for a shot at a top QB, ot, cb, ball hawking safety or a dominant WR.   And I wouldn’t over pay any ILB, just like I wouldn’t a RB. 

Not even close to one another imo.

 One is a top 5 player in their position and the other was barely missed in his time away last year. Effort is really one of the only things that can be considered special about Monty. One has produced spectacularly, one has a backup match or better his play the short time he was in. 

Smith being a first round pick is a nonfactor, if that was a factor I'd have wanted to keep Tru, White and Floyd for that reason.  White is made of glass and sucked while (rarely) out there, Tru is a top back up/bottom starter,  Floyd was a good offball player,  and Smith is a top talent. 

Now would I keep Smith over Mahomes, Ramsey, Hill, or Bak? No. Positional value will win. But until I see Poles get a few studs I'm not trading one away in hopes he isn't Pace 2.0. Known commodities have a big value. 

[Heinz D.]

7 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Montgomery has played even harder than Roquan or anyone.  

Would you pay him a ton or not trade him if a large offer came because of messaging?

These are realities of business and certain positions of lessor value.  Don’t be swayed because Roquan was a first round pick.

I would trade Roquan in a NY minute for a shot at a top QB, ot, cb, ball hawking safety or a dominant WR.   And I wouldn’t over pay any ILB, just like I wouldn’t a RB. 

I love Montgomery and think that in an even better situation, everybody will (rightfully) realize he's one of the best backs in the league. As I have said before, most likely at the bottom of the upper tier of backs...but I'll take that. 

Roquan's effort is almost topic unto itself...there was a game last season (forget which one) where I bitched about him not showing up until the second half. But, in general, Roquan's motor is something that isn't generally questioned. And he's one of the best defensive players in the entire NFL. That will become crystal clear in the near future. 

Luckily, we already have a QB, OT, and dominant WR. 

[The_Romen]

3 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

Luckily, we already have a QB, OT, and dominant WR. 

Do they?