It depends what Mitch asks for. If it's reasonable with outs in his contract ... yeah, it might make sense to keep going with Mitch IF he keeps improving. If he's just a nicer version of Jay Cutler who wants Dak Prescott's type of guarantee money, you have to seriously consider about moving on.
Bears & NFL Talk 67: Who needs a kicker anyway?
- Thread starter DisgruntledHawkFan
- Start date
- Status
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
That doesn't happen often.... I forgot who won that Super Bowl anyway. Who was it? Hmmmm. If you go back in history 75% of Super Bowls have been won by HOF QBs. In the last 25 years the percentage is even higher, depending upon what you think of Eli Manning. (I included him in the non-HOF category)This is where you lose people. The awful hyperbole. You don't have to be an MVP to win a team a Super Bowl. Rex ****ing Grossman almost won a Super Bowl...
You either have to have an all-time QB or an all-time Defense. There is no other way. It's easier to have longevity with an all-time QB.
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
Speaking of the 2006 Bears, it can't be understated how devastating losing Tommie Harris was to that team. For his first 3 seasons he was every bit as good as Aaron Donald is today.
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
There is a bit of circular logic in this as winning the Super Bowl greatly increases your chance of getting to the HOF.
In the past 6 years super bowls have been won by a backup QB, zombie Peyton Manning who could barely throw the ball and Joe Flacco. Of course you would prefer to have the best QB possible if given the choice but you speak in these absolute or near absolutes that are much further from reality than you suggest.
There was a time from the late 70s to the late 90s when it was mostly first round QBs who won Super Bowls (including Favre who was traded for a first round pick). A couple of legendary coaches (Gibbs and Parcells) were able to beat the odds at times. That kind of cemented the idea you needed a first round QB to win.
Then came Belichick and Brady ... and the rest is history. Once football execs finally ditched the idea of the prototypical QB and other paradigms to winning football (example: running to open up the passing game), more options became available.
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
I still don't know how the Eagles pulled that off. I think they got the benefit of some calls that went the other way in similar situations during the regular season.
It's similar to the Brett Hull goal in 99.
Last edited:
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
Look at it this way: since 2003 Joe Flacco is the only QB not named Brady, Roethlisberger or Manning to represent the AFC in a Super bowl. That took a miracle play, otherwise it would have been either Brady or Manning that year. If you remember, a Bronco CB got torched for a ~70 yd TD with 30 seconds left in the AFC divisional game with the Broncos leading at the time.
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
Yeah, he was. He wasn't getting the sack numbers but he was incredibly disruptive. Tommie Harris was Aaron Donald before Aaron Donald was a football player.
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
He was really good. Donald is the best defensive player on the planet. Do you think Harris was that two straight years?
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
He was overshadowed by Urlacher but as we saw in his absence, he was the engine of that defense. They got no pass rush without him. Once Tommie Harris and Mike Brown got injured, the 2006 Bears went from historic to just very good. They didn't have enough offense to compete without those guys.
Harris was the best in the league in 2006, Donald might be the best of all time. Harris and Brown going down torpedoed the 2006 Super Bowl.
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
He was Akiem Hicks. You’re really overrating Harris or criminally underrating Donald.
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
And in the NFC there are only 2 QBs to go more than once. Wilson and Eli.
Brady and Bellicek are the best to ever do what they do. They are going to keep a lot of great players and teams out, the same way Jordan and Jackson did in the NBA. That doesn't mean the only way to win is to have the best QB and coach ever.
DisgruntledHawkFan
Blackhawk Down
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
No I think you're criminally underrating Harris. He was much more disruptive than Hicks. Donald is a much better comparison. For 26 games in 2005 and 2006 Harris was damn near unblockable. They don't talk about him as much because that injury wrecked his career and he was never even close to the same guy. If not for that, they would have spoken about him like they do Donald. Tommie Harris's impact is largely forgotten because of his incredibly short prime. He used to sack QBs and force fumbles on freaking handoffs.
Last edited:
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
You are on fire today.
Harris was a great player but not in the same class as Donald who's at an all time great level.
clydesdale line
Connor BeJesus
- Jan 10, 2012
- 25,242
- 23,758
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
He was, it was just too short to remember well. Harris had the best first step I've ever seen. He used to jump snaps and be in the backfield before the OL had time to move.
You all think it's ridiculous because he was at his best for such a short time. Go back and watch games in 2005-06 and tell me he wasn't an all-time great. It looks ridiculous because he was only at that level for 26 games.
The only thing that Donald has on Harris is longevity. They were a similar player for those 26 games.
Last edited:
ChiHawks10
Registered User
It was devastating to lose Tommie Harris that season. That I can agree with. That said... he's not Donald.
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
Again, longevity muddies your opinions. In 2005 and 2006 he was. People seem to remember him after his injury and not before. After his injury (2007) I'd say he was at Hicks level but he dropped off a cliff after that season.
b1e9a8r5s
Registered User
Donald just had 20.5 sacks (1st), 25 tackles for loss (1st) and won the DPOY (2nd in a row) and was voted the best player (any position) by his peers this offseason.
You mention the 2005-06 stretch. In those 26 games, Harris had 8 sacks and 14 TFL. Harris was very good, but not close to Donald and you lack any sense of objectivity if you can't realize that.
Last edited:
In 05 and 06 combined Harris had 8 sacks and 14 TFL. Donald's career low in any year of his career is 8 sacks and 15 TFL.
Kaners Bald Spot
Registered User
He was in the backfield on nearly every play. Just because he didn't get sacks does not mean he wasn't incredibly disruptive.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Pre-Game Talk: Countdown thread to 24-25 Season (T - 12 days) - Main Cam- Latest: The Great Weal
Upcoming events
-
Grand Final Brisbane Lions vs Sydney Swans - MCG, MelbourneWagers: 10Staked: $10,821.00Event closes- Updated: