struby3 Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 I have my doubts about PFF and don't always agree with them, but they currently have K'Waun Williams as the 24th best CB. Whenever I see him, he is running behind a slot receiver who just caught a pass. If you asked me, I would've guessed that he was ranked around 90th best. Has he actually been playing well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 minute ago, struby3 said: I have my doubts about PFF and don't always agree with them, but they currently have K'Waun Williams as the 24th best CB. Whenever I see him, he is running behind a slot receiver who just caught a pass. If you asked me, I would've guessed that he was ranked around 90th best. Has he actually been playing well? Williams is a good player, and more importantly a sure tackler. That is probably why he is rated as high as he is. He did have two blown coverages that went for big gains against Minnesota and Detroit though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 So JL said that our offer for Mack was similar to the Bears "Our offer was very similar to the one that ultimately won out. I don't know what went into the Raiders' mindset in terms of where they sent him, but that was one we knew we had a game changer." I wonder if the Raiders just didn't want to send him to us. It's understandable they wouldn't want to send him to a local rival like us, it would look terrible if he started balling out for us. Still sucks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 For sure, if the offers were similar it made more sense to send him to Chicago. Now, we don't know exactly what Lynch and the crew offered, but looks like they made a solid run at Mack. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Geek said: So JL said that our offer for Mack was similar to the Bears "Our offer was very similar to the one that ultimately won out. I don't know what went into the Raiders' mindset in terms of where they sent him, but that was one we knew we had a game changer." I wonder if the Raiders just didn't want to send him to us. It's understandable they wouldn't want to send him to a local rival like us, it would look terrible if he started balling out for us. Still sucks though. I think it definitely would have been bad optics (to them at least) to send him to SF. That beings said, it's reasonable to assume that the Raiders also believe less in Trubisky than they did in Jimmy G, which is pretty much in line with how everyone seemed to view it heading into the season. SF had so much hype and everyone just pretty much ignored the Bears. They may have thought that there was a better chance that Chicago craps the bed with a new coach, a young quarterback without impressive tape (Fox or not) and that immediate pick could be much higher. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 10 minutes ago, Forge said: I think it definitely would have been bad optics (to them at least) to send him to SF. That being said, it's reasonable to assume that the Raiders also believe less in Trubisky than they did in Jimmy G, which is pretty much in line with how everyone seemed to view it heading into the season. SF had so much hype and everyone just pretty much ignored the Bears. They may have thought that there was a better chance that Chicago craps the bed with a new coach, a young quarterback without impressive tape (Fox or not) and that immediate pick could be much higher. Yea I thought of that point too immediately after posting. I bet they're regretting it now though. Imagine having 2 of the top 3 picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
757-NINER Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 55 minutes ago, Forge said: I think it definitely would have been bad optics (to them at least) to send him to SF. That beings said, it's reasonable to assume that the Raiders also believe less in Trubisky than they did in Jimmy G, which is pretty much in line with how everyone seemed to view it heading into the season. SF had so much hype and everyone just pretty much ignored the Bears. They may have thought that there was a better chance that Chicago craps the bed with a new coach, a young quarterback without impressive tape (Fox or not) and that immediate pick could be much higher. Yea I was EXTREMELY disappointed we didn't land him. I just envisioned him coming here and being that missing peice and turning our unit into a top 10 defense overnight. It just made too much sense not to happen and when it didn't I was livid. Felt like they didn't do enough when in all actuality, Chucky probably had no intent on ever sending him down the road to us and having to watch him flourish right under his nose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-ALL-DAY Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Forge said: I think it definitely would have been bad optics (to them at least) to send him to SF. That beings said, it's reasonable to assume that the Raiders also believe less in Trubisky than they did in Jimmy G, which is pretty much in line with how everyone seemed to view it heading into the season. SF had so much hype and everyone just pretty much ignored the Bears. They may have thought that there was a better chance that Chicago craps the bed with a new coach, a young quarterback without impressive tape (Fox or not) and that immediate pick could be much higher. Oh yeah? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted October 12, 2018 Share Posted October 12, 2018 42 minutes ago, J-ALL-DAY said: Oh yeah? Lol present company excluded. I meant in a general sense. But yeah, I can vouch for you being bullish on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted October 13, 2018 Share Posted October 13, 2018 This is soft as hell Apparently not being able to levitate away from the QB in mid-air will cost you 20 grand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW21 Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 16 hours ago, Geek said: This is soft as hell Apparently not being able to levitate away from the QB in mid-air will cost you 20 grand. That is ridiculous he is clearly trying to avoid Rosen. This is even worse than the NFL fining Ahmad Brooks for that hit on Brees. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justone2 Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 18 hours ago, Geek said: This is soft as hell Apparently not being able to levitate away from the QB in mid-air will cost you 20 grand. Its his own choice to jump up to try and bat the ball away. But instead of jumping straight up he moves forward straight into the QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geek Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 5 hours ago, Justone2 said: Its his own choice to jump up to try and bat the ball away. But instead of jumping straight up he moves forward straight into the QB. He was running so he had momentum. There is no way to stop moving in the air unless he stopped before jumping and jumped straight up which would be ridiculous and time wasting. He can't be running as fast as he was and jump without his momentum carrying him forwards. That's how physics work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudyZ Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 2 hours ago, Geek said: He was running so he had momentum. There is no way to stop moving in the air unless he stopped before jumping and jumped straight up which would be ridiculous and time wasting. He can't be running as fast as he was and jump without his momentum carrying him forwards. That's how physics work. justone is right in that it is his choice. He is responsible for the consequences. The consequence of his jump was a contact to the head of the QB. So I guess that by rule, there had to be a penalty, however soft it was. I do disagree about the excessive fine, though. I guess it's not a subjective application of the rule. If someone has any judgment, it's clear there was no malicious intent. But again, by the rules, they had to fine him, or else they'd be saying the referee was wrong, which he wasn't, because he did hit the QB to the head, however soft it was. And the amount of the fine also usually isn't arbitrary. It's probably 20k because he was fined before, no? It escalates. 5k, 10k, 20k, something like that? So the amount of the fine is not indicative of the severity of the hit, just of repeated behaviour. Or maybe I'm just wrong and confused. Very soft hit, weak call, but unfortunately for K'Waun, probably the right call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 8 minutes ago, rudyZ said: justone is right in that it is his choice. He is responsible for the consequences. The consequence of his jump was a contact to the head of the QB. So I guess that by rule, there had to be a penalty, however soft it was. I do disagree about the excessive fine, though. I guess it's not a subjective application of the rule. If someone has any judgment, it's clear there was no malicious intent. But again, by the rules, they had to fine him, or else they'd be saying the referee was wrong, which he wasn't, because he did hit the QB to the head, however soft it was. And the amount of the fine also usually isn't arbitrary. It's probably 20k because he was fined before, no? It escalates. 5k, 10k, 20k, something like that? So the amount of the fine is not indicative of the severity of the hit, just of repeated behaviour. Or maybe I'm just wrong and confused. Very soft hit, weak call, but unfortunately for K'Waun, probably the right call. Plus, I think the jumping and landing like that has been a rule for a while now, regardless of how "soft" it is. I don't think that is something that is part of the RTP crackdown from this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts