Toggle sidebar

OT: Bears & NFL Talk 92

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Status
Not open for further replies.
MarotteMarauder said:
I am, at best, a casual football fan. I watch two # 58s play linebacker. One is flying around and involved in seemingly every play. The other has often had me asking, late in the game, has 58 even made a play. Yet the NFL stats have the latter as a league leader and the former is down in the 60s?

Matt Milano and Roquan Smith eye test makes no sense to me. 'Splain to me Lucy, or anybody else.
Click to expand...
He’s his best when he has room to run obviously. East to west he’s great. North to south like many linebackers they will struggle when a 300 pound plus guard/tackle gets out on them without any interference. D-Line is not doing a great job eating up as many blocks/ smaller quicker then last year and a go to guy who would demand double teams. Still a stud in my opinion. He’s a modern day 3 down linebacker, can cover ends to running backs.
 
Kaners Bald Spot said:
To be fair, when Kane got hurt we thought they'd have to win 2 rounds without him.

I was also on the sell train but if I would have known that he was to return from injury for game 1 of the playoffs it would have completely changed my mind.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. I think there were a few who thought that, but not as many as you're misremembering. There were definitely more of us who thought he'd be back much sooner than that 12 week timeline. There is no being fair here about that. Him wanting the 15 Hawks to sell is one of the worst takes I've ever seen on this board, and it's justifiable that he still hasn't lived it down.

There were countless examples of players who came back far quicker from the same injury, and the fact he was young and in great shape made it obvious that he wouldn't be out as long as they projected.

I think 3-4 players the year or two prior had the same injury and came back in like 7-8 weeks. That's what I always expected him to miss. There was no way he was missing 2 rounds of the playoffs. It was never even a question in my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68
EbonyRaptor said:
Maybe I'm used to the bar being set extremely low after the previous administration. But, two starting DBs and a starting Left tackle ain't too bad - especially considering they didn't have a 1st round pick. Plus, it's too early to tell on a couple other guys.



I agree on trading Eddie Jackson - sell high.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Bears still need soe veterans on the defense until the youngsters are ready. If a team is willing to overpay for EJ fine, but I would not trade him just to trade him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClydeLee
HeisenBaez said:
I disagree. Bears still need soe veterans on the defense until the youngsters are ready. If a team is willing to overpay for EJ fine, but I would not trade him just to trade him.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't "trade him just to trade him" either - but if they can get a 2nd rounder for him - bye bye Eddie.
 
The Bears need a lot of help at WR, OL and DL.

Those positions cost a ton in money/resources.

Paying a guy like Roquan huge money doesn't make sense for the team going forward, I'm fine with the trade.
 
ChiHawks10 said:
Speak for yourself. I think there were a few who thought that, but not as many as you're misremembering. There were definitely more of us who thought he'd be back much sooner than that 12 week timeline. There is no being fair here about that. Him wanting the 15 Hawks to sell is one of the worst takes I've ever seen on this board, and it's justifiable that he still hasn't lived it down.

There were countless examples of players who came back far quicker from the same injury, and the fact he was young and in great shape made it obvious that he wouldn't be out as long as they projected.

I think 3-4 players the year or two prior had the same injury and came back in like 7-8 weeks. That's what I always expected him to miss. There was no way he was missing 2 rounds of the playoffs. It was never even a question in my mind.
Click to expand...
I took the timeline they gave literally, because that's what I do.

Like I said, I'm glad they didn't because it obviously worked out......but I believed the timeline that the team gave for Kane's injury in 2015 and I agreed with BWC based on that. That year, there was no way in hell they were winning two rounds without 88. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion if you thought Kaner wasn't returning until the WCF, if they made it. It's only unreasonable in hindsight, knowing that Kane never missed a shift in the 2015 playoffs. In retrospect, We should have known that 2015 was their last chance to win because the signs of decline were there for Seabrook and Toews, and Sharp was already cooked.

Anyway, this is the Bears thread and I'm sorry for the hijack.
 
Last edited:
Kaners Bald Spot said:
I took the timeline they gave literally, because that's what I do.

Like I said, I'm glad they didn't because it obviously worked out......but I believed the timeline that the team gave for Kane's injury in 2015 and I agreed with BWC based on that. That year, there was no way in hell they were winning two rounds without 88. It was a perfectly reasonable opinion if you thought Kaner wasn't returning until the WCF, if they made it. It's only unreasonable in hindsight, knowing that Kane never missed a shift in the 2015 playoffs. In retrospect, We should have known that 2015 was their last chance to win because the signs of decline were there for Seabrook and Toews, and Sharp was already cooked.

Anyway, this is the Bears thread and I'm sorry for the hijack.
Click to expand...

But there was precedent to NOT take the timeline they gave literally. Multiple players with a virtually identical injury all came back in 7-9 weeks. I believe even in that same season.

It's not "only unreasonable in hindsight", because I was saying then that he wouldn't be out for any of the playoffs, that he would be back before the 12 week projection, and sure enough, he was back in like 7-8 weeks. And I wasn't alone in that thinking. Not even close. Many, many people thought he wouldn't miss any playoffs, or at the most, the 1st round, which they likely win without him. You were the minority, as was BWC. Something can't be "only unreasonable in hindsight" when tons of people on here fully expected him to be ready to go for the playoffs. The fact that many of us thought he'd be back in time for the playoffs is a direct contradiction to that statement by you.

And what are you talking about? Sharp had 43 points in 68 games in 14-15, on a borderline career low shooting%. He had 15 points in 23 playoff games... He was a possession monster. His ppg that season was virtually spot-on with his career.

Seabrook had 8g and 23a for 31 points... He had 7g in the playoffs...

Toews had 28g and 38a, won the Messier, was 2nd in Selke voting, was still a possession monster, and had 21p in 23 playoff games...

No one should have, or would have known that was their last chance to win. There was very little or no decline in any of the 3 guys you mentioned... No idea wtf you're remembering, but your recollection of the 2015 season is waaaaaaaaaay the f*** off.

Anyways... yeah, back to the Bears talk.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68
ChiHawks10 said:
But there was precedent to NOT take the timeline they gave literally. Multiple players with a virtually identical injury all came back in 7-9 weeks. I believe even in that same season.

It's not "only unreasonable in hindsight", because I was saying then that he wouldn't be out for any of the playoffs, that he would be back before the 12 week projection, and sure enough, he was back in like 7-8 weeks. And I wasn't alone in that thinking. Not even close. You were the minority, as was BWC.

And what are you talking about? Sharp had 43 points in 68 games in 14-15, on a borderline career low shooting%. He had 15 points in 23 playoff games... He was a possession monster. His ppg that season was virtually spot-on with his career.

Seabrook had 8g and 23a for 31 points... He had 7g in the playoffs...

Toews had 28g and 38a, won the Messier, was 2nd in Selke voting, was still a possession monster, and had 21p in 23 playoff games...

No one should have, or would have known that was their last chance to win. There was very little decline in any of the 3 guys you mentioned... No idea wtf you're remembering, but your recollection of the 2015 season is waaaaaaaaaay the f*** off.

Anyways... yeah, back to the Bears talk.
Click to expand...
Yeah I think I confused it with 2016.
 
Do not like the price. Feels like we gave away a second just because we had an extra. Don’t like it.

Funny we could have just taken him at 43 instead of Kmet lol
 
Mrfenn92 said:
You take the third round pick for him now
Click to expand...

I don't know ... the way I look at it is the difference between a 2nd and 3rd is 32 players on your draft board - meaning that there were 32 players you would rather have had than the one that was left on the top of your draft board when you selected the 3rd rounder.
 
Steelers giving up on a young WR is rare and raises red flags especially when they need to build around own young QB

As of now I am not thrilled with this, and Bears could have drafted a WR with that 2nd in this year's draft



Terrible move if true

Breer says its Ravens pick
Rap says its Bears pick
 
..edit: removed bad info.

I think it's a good deal. Get Fields a big, explosive, experienced WR.
 
Last edited:
Remember when Broncos traded big futures package for aging QB and then handed him big extension as they were "Contenders now"

Well, a few months later and here we are




Great trade for Dolphins who are already in extension talks with him
 
Man, as somone that really wanted the Bears to make a run for Wilson or Watson three-ish years ago, that desire aged poorly.

If Wilson doesn't turn it around, does he have the worst contract in NFL history?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blackhawkswincup
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom