|
what if Glennon is Tom Brady and trubs is Jimmy g what if??????????
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Diva Cupcake posted:David Carr has a better more accurate arm right now than Pat Mahomes. That last one reminds me of that Kaep throw that beaned someone on the sideline. I'm also amazed that Carr is able to throw a pass instead curling up in the fetal position halfway through his throwing motion because he thinks a blitzer is coming.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:Says the guy who's team plopped a rookie QB into the literal perfect situation for a QB. I think it's backwards to let your young quarterback get pummeled behind an awful offensive, lose confidence with terrible WRs/TEs and have no one to lean on without a decent running back. To me it makes sense to assemble those pieces first and give your young QB a chance to succeed out of the gate. I think I initially read your post as "that sounds like the recipe for every poo poo team" and not "that should be the recipe" due to the typo. I don't think we are disagreeing though (I was making fun of the Bears again) But either way, I think it's bad to spend a bunch of picks to get your QB regardless of where you are in the process. It leaves you hamstrung when you try to build around him, even if your team wasn't in a bad spot before. Suddenly you're missing out on the ability to add 3-6 of college football's most promising prospects to your team at bargain rates. I agree with you that the team should build a good place for the QB first, but it's also situational--who's available when you have a chance and what you have to give up. I generally think you're better off putting a slightly worse prospect on a strong team than to put a better prospect on a worse team (emphasis: slightly). Re: Dak--he was never supposed to be the starter--The Cowboys were looking for a QB to groom into the QB of the future, but the plan wasn't for Romo to break his vertebra in the preseason. They were primarily building a team around Romo, working on the offense to make a short-term push. With Romo gone and Dak the obvious successor, that opens up a lot of possibilities to build more long-term (hence, going defense heavy this year in the draft).
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
John Brown posted:Dude, shut the gently caress up already. Or how about you get better at context and reading comprehension. I am under no illusion that this organization is a good one. my "defense" of the move amounts to being okay with a GM staking a claim and tying himself to a pick that will most assuredly bury him if it falls through. what you just quoted is me doing nothing but extrapolating possible outcomes. Never said likely, or probably. Nothing more than theoretically possible. So No I will not shut the gently caress up already.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:what if Glennon is Tom Brady and trubs is Jimmy g We get to find out how bad Tom Brady would have turned out if loving John Fox was his coach rather than Bill Belicheck
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Diva Cupcake posted:David Carr has a better more accurate arm right now than Pat Mahomes. That last one was pretty uncatchable unless you have Tyreek Hill or something.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:You have Hopkins, Fuller and Miller which is a good WR/RB combo, Fedora seems like a decent enough tight end. No idea what the Texans O-Line looks like. They've had a very solid team that just needed a plug-in at QB for three seasons now
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
I hope Dexo has this thread bookmarked on the off-chance he's vindicated in the next three years.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
fsif posted:I hope Dexo has this thread bookmarked on the off-chance he's vindicated in the next three years. the funny thing is that even if Trubisky is good, it will still have been a bad, dumb idiot move because the alternative to making the trade to get Trubisky was not making the trade and still getting Trubisky
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
fsif posted:I hope Dexo has this thread bookmarked on the off-chance he's vindicated in the next three years. Nah. that's a sucker's game. As I'm sure if you go back 2 years you'll find me defending John Fox likely because of how garbage and chaotic the Emery/Trestman fiasco ended. I think Trubisky and Glennon are gonna be trash, Fox is gone after this year. And the Bears go back into their early 00's cavalcade of bad QB's
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:the funny thing is that even if Trubisky is good, it will still have been a bad, dumb idiot move because the alternative to making the trade to get Trubisky was not making the trade and still getting Trubisky lmao if you think anyone is bringing up this trade if Trubisky is good. <-------- Sweet someone spent money on me. Haven't had that happen since the old USPOL thread.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
I wish it had been like with Detroit Dogg where whoever bought it forgot to make it big and/or red
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Seems pretty obvious to me who bought it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Mike Glennon?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Mike Glennon? woah woah he better be saving that 16 million dollars he's about to get paid to sit on the bench for a year. Like man what's gonna happen when Trubisky is bad. That name is such a loving Chicago quarterback name. He can't be bad. I can picture post game callers talking about how great or bad he is now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Dexo posted:If Glennon is still great after year 2(wake me up), then you have to judge Glennon vs Trubisky and it's on your self scouting to determine if Trubisky projects to be better than Glennon is The problem is that the team just wrote two ridiculously large checks, one being a bunch of guaranteed money for a guy who lost a starting QB competition to Josh McCown (and spent the last two months being told that the team was behind him 100 percent, then got kicked in the dick a few nights ago) and the other being a huge amount of draft capital for a guy who literally was going to be there when the Bears picked. And saying "it's on your self-scouting" is effectively a non-sequitur when there's zero chance the coaching staff is there after this coming season, and a non-zero chance that the rest of the front office doesn't get kicked to the curb, either. If there's another front office / coaching change, it'll just be a repeat of when Emery and Trestman were canned, and both Pace and Fox were vocal about hating Cutler and wanting him gone, but instead they'll have Glennon and Trubisky to "self-scout." Really, they should have just loving kept Cutler on a one-year deal if they wanted to keep the seat warm for Trubisky. Cutler would have been a lot cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
The team paying money doesn't mean much of anything they are under the cap by a bunch. I don't care much about the Mccaskey's spending money so long as it doesnt kill their cap.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Vikings have told Bridgewater they aren't exercising his 5th year option. https://twitter.com/tompelissero/status/859121090563649536 I can understand why they'd decline it based on the injury guarantee but it's going to be real hosed up if they pull those PUP shenanigans Ian Rappaport mentioned last week.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
who cares how much Glennon costs. it's not like Dion sims' giant contract matters either with respect to drafting a fat white supremacist the bears have totally changed organizational philosophies and it's about drat time. be like the cubs and Blackhawks - suck horribly, get top picks win a title instead of interminable mediocrity for a giant media market
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Again, they traded two thirds and a fourth to move up one spot and take a player who would have fallen to them anyway e: Likely would have fallen to them anyway Intruder fucked around with this message at 23:39 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:who cares how much Glennon costs. it's not like Dion sims' giant contract matters either with respect to drafting a fat white supremacist And then after you have success you start overpaying guys and somehow everyone on the team ends up with no trade clauses and you get bounced out of the first round unable to really do much of anything to reshape the team.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Intruder posted:Again, they traded two thirds and a fourth to move up one spot and take a player who would have fallen to them anyway In that moment. If you have Trubisky as your target, and you don't know if some other team is going to move up and try and take him, and you don't know that the Niners aren't going to be willing to go further back with another offer they may have Yes after the fact with all the information we know now,it's known that he likely would have fallen. Bears were working off incomplete information. So sure they "lost" the trade, but they ensured with 100% certainty that they got the QB they wanted. If Mitch turns out to be a good QB, and the Niners have issues at the position then no one is going to be talking about how much the Bears got fleeced rather they would likely say something to the effect of how much the Niners screwed up by passing on him.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
The Football Funhouse > May N/V: No, Dexo will not shut the gently caress up already
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Watching Bear fans trying to justify their lovely pics gives me glee.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
The Football Funhouse › May N/V: the john brown tantrum & slapfight
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with trading up to get a guy you really want. If you like him, get him. Even if is only one pick The problem was that their guy was Mitch.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I don't have a problem with trading up to get a guy you really want. If you like him, get him. Even if is only one pick This is probably closest to my view on it. I don't care about value or poo poo in the NFL draft if you as a front office really have faith in a player being a game changer I don't think Mitch is a guy worth doing it for. But Obviously this Front office did. So we'll see what happens. Dexo fucked around with this message at 00:10 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Dexo posted:This is probably closest to my view on it. I don't care about value or poo poo in the NFL draft if you as a front office really have faith in a player. I feel the same way about the Mahomes trade up. Giving up 2 firsts is crazy and dumb, but if Reid/Dorsey love him that much maybe see what happens. it's just sports and entertainment at the end of the day and Mahomes will certainly be more entertaining than our current QB
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:But either way, I think it's bad to spend a bunch of picks to get your QB regardless of where you are in the process. It leaves you hamstrung when you try to build around him, even if your team wasn't in a bad spot before. Suddenly you're missing out on the ability to add 3-6 of college football's most promising prospects to your team at bargain rates. I agree with you that the team should build a good place for the QB first, but it's also situational--who's available when you have a chance and what you have to give up. I generally think you're better off putting a slightly worse prospect on a strong team than to put a better prospect on a worse team (emphasis: slightly). If a team doesn't have a franchise QB and they have the opportunity to gamble on one, they absolutely should trade up. A good quarterback will be on that team for nearly two decades. There's plenty of time to build a team around them. Because of their unique value and longevity, quarterbacks are the only position where a big trade up is justified. With that said, there are clearly levels of appropriateness. What Chicago pulled was just awful because: TheChirurgeon posted:the funny thing is that even if Trubisky is good, it will still have been a bad, dumb idiot move because the alternative to making the trade to get Trubisky was not making the trade and still getting Trubisky
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
SHOAH NUFF posted:I feel the same way about the Mahomes trade up. Giving up 2 firsts is crazy and dumb, but if Reid/Dorsey love him that much maybe see what happens. it's just sports and entertainment at the end of the day and Mahomes will certainly be more entertaining than our current QB Yeah. Mahomes seems like a risky prospect but if anybody can develop a QB it's Reid.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:If a team doesn't have a franchise QB and they have the opportunity to gamble on one, they absolutely should trade up. A good quarterback will be on that team for nearly two decades. There's plenty of time to build a team around them. Because of their unique value and longevity, quarterbacks are the only position where a big trade up is justified. The problem is that history doesn't validate this--teams that trade up to get a QB haven't been successful historically. And even if your argument was "Trubisky might not have been there," there were other QB options and it's not like Trubisky was the highest-rated QB prospect in the draft.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:And even if your argument was "Trubisky might not have been there," there were other QB options and it's not like Trubisky was the highest-rated QB prospect in the draft. Edit: I was being unnecessarily flippant. Apologies On Ryan Pace's board he had to have had Trubisky rated as at least the number 2 option for his team. So he made sure he got his guy. On other team's boards other QB's might have ranked higher, or other players or whatever depending on what that team's scouts said. Dexo fucked around with this message at 00:35 on May 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:And even if your argument was "Trubisky might not have been there," there were other QB options and it's not like Trubisky was the highest-rated QB prospect in the draft. He clearly was on their board and they probably thought he was on others  I also saw plenty of mocks that had him as the top guy for whatever that's worth (not much, but the buzz was there).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
assuming trubs would fall is exactly how the bears misses on Aaron donald
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:assuming trubs would fall is exactly how the bears misses on Aaron donald trigger warning  I have never been more mad at a draft pick being taken before the Bears in my life.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:The problem is that history doesn't validate this--teams that trade up to get a QB haven't been successful historically. What? I stated that Chicago trading up for Trubisky is dumb. But trading up for QB's is absolutely the right thing to do. The problem is it has to be for a decent prospect instead of just drafting whatever QB happens to be there. We live in a world where Tebow went in the first. Teams get greedy with any quarterback prospect.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
I think we are all missing a valid point here.... the Bears drafted Kyle "loving" Orton. I have hope... and season tickets.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
High_Life posted:I think we are all missing a valid point here.... the Bears drafted Kyle "loving" Orton. I have hope... and season tickets. Man apoligies to anyone who owns Bears seasons tickets.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
The Chiefs trading a first round pick, likely to be at the end of the round next year and a third for a franchise quarterback is absolutely not overpaying.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
Lotta ifs in that statement
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 01:12
|
|
