Official 2018-19 NFL Thread

[soxfan49]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

So you're saying he has no credibility? This one is over my head. Please explain. 

He had credibility years ago. His last stint where he was majorly involved in football operations was a complete shitshow in Cleveland.

 

[Jack Parkman]

3 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

 That doesn't excuse the dumb things Lombardi, who you apparently think is very credible in his thoughts on current NFL football, said about the Doug Pedersen hire.

Lombardi when the Eagles hired Pedersen: "He might be less qualified to coach a team than anyone I’ve ever seen in my 30-plus years in the NFL."

Of course Nagy is still somewhat protecting Trubisky. He's played like 26 games since his 18th birthday, and 13 of them were in UNC's crazy ass offense and the other 13 (besides one) was in a run/run/pass/punt offense led by the incomparable John Fox. If you really thought Trubisky was going to have a second year like Wentz, your expectations were too high to begin with. I told you all I still think they win 8 or 9 games this year because I expect a lot of ups and downs from the offense- raw QB, rookie coach, totally new pieces and a brand new/innovative offense. What did you truly expect?

 

2 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

He had credibility years ago. His last stint where he was majorly involved in football operations was a complete shitshow in Cleveland.

 

I somewhat follow the Raiders and he was their GM before McKenzie. When Al Davis died his son fired everyone a year or two later. He was there as recently as 2012 or 13, IIRC.  

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

 That doesn't excuse the dumb things Lombardi, who you apparently think is very credible in his thoughts on current NFL football, said about the Doug Pedersen hire.

Lombardi when the Eagles hired Pedersen: "He might be less qualified to coach a team than anyone I’ve ever seen in my 30-plus years in the NFL."

Of course Nagy is still somewhat protecting Trubisky. He's played like 26 games since his 18th birthday, and 13 of them were in UNC's crazy ass offense and the other 13 (besides one) was in a run/run/pass/punt offense led by the incomparable John Fox. If you really thought Trubisky was going to have a second year like Wentz, your expectations were too high to begin with. I told you all I still think they win 8 or 9 games this year because I expect a lot of ups and downs from the offense- raw QB, rookie coach, totally new pieces and a brand new/innovative offense. What did you truly expect?

still can't believe Pace traded up for this

[Kyyle23]

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

 

I somewhat follow the Raiders and he was their GM before McKenzie. When Al Davis died his son fired everyone a year or two later. He was there as recently as 2012 or 13, IIRC.  

No, he wasnt, he was a senior personnel exec from 97-07. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lombardi_(American_football)

[soxfan49]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

 

I somewhat follow the Raiders and he was their GM before McKenzie. When Al Davis died his son fired everyone and replaced them with their own guys. I think Mack was his last pick there, IIRC. 

Wrong. Mack was drafted in 2014. Lombardi was last in Oakland in 2007. His last four first round picks in Oakland were Robert Gallery, Fabian Washington, Michael Huff and Jamarcus Russell, and his only three first round selections in Cleveland were Manziel, Barkevious Mingo and Justin Gilbert. What's your point?

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

still can't believe Pace traded up for this

 

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

still can't believe Pace traded up for this

 

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

still can't believe Pace traded up for this

Quoted 3 times for relevance. 

I hated that move when they did it, I understand the Mack move but I thought they couldn't afford to do that. 

[soxfan49]

2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

still can't believe Pace traded up for this

Why? He traded up for potential, and that pick was being dealt regardless. He made the best offer.

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Wrong. Mack was drafted in 2014. Lombardi was last in Oakland in 2007. His last four first round picks in Oakland were Robert Gallery, Fabian Washington, Michael Huff and Jamarcus Russell, and his only three first round selections in Cleveland were Manziel, Barkevious Mingo and Justin Gilbert. What's your point?

Really? I thought Lombardi was there after his Cleveland stint. I could have sworn he was there during this decade. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[StrangeSox]

 

3 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Why? He traded up for potential, and that pick was being dealt regardless. He made the best offer.

hard to evaluate the talent when he barely played college football

it was an overreach then and he hasn't flashed any brilliance to justify it so far. other year 1/2 QB's at least show you something to get excited, have a few big games here and there with the growing pains.

 

edit: plus they didn't need to move up anyway, not at that cost. if someone else really wanted to blow a bunch of picks on Trubs, they should have let them. this was a roll of the dice by Pace to save his own job if it works out and cripple the franchise if it doesn't

Edited September 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[soxfan49]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

Really? I thought Lombardi was there after his Cleveland stint. I could have sworn he was there during this decade. 

He went to NE for some bullshit role after Cleveland.

 

Just now, StrangeSox said:

 

hard to evaluate the talent when he barely played college football

it was an overreach then and he hasn't flashed any brilliance to justify it so far. other year 1/2 QB's at least show you something to get excited, have a few big games here and there with the growing pains.

That's fair to say. He must have loved what he saw in the workouts and at the combine. The bottom line is that he's here, and I don't think anyone could have expected him to be great this year. I think he'll have good games, bad games and then the average ones we saw on Sunday.

[soxfan49]

3 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

 

hard to evaluate the talent when he barely played college football

it was an overreach then and he hasn't flashed any brilliance to justify it so far. other year 1/2 QB's at least show you something to get excited, have a few big games here and there with the growing pains.

 

edit: plus they didn't need to move up anyway, not at that cost. if someone else really wanted to blow a bunch of picks on Trubs, they should have let them. this was a roll of the dice by Pace to save his own job if it works out and cripple the franchise if it doesn't

Well obviously. Everything hinges on Trubisky. If he stinks, every move Pace made will be bad, including Mack, because they'll be anywhere from bad to average annually.

[Jack Parkman]

2 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Well obviously. Everything hinges on Trubisky. If he stinks, every move Pace made will be bad, including Mack, because they'll be anywhere from bad to average annually.

This is so true it isn't funny. What has anyone seen from Jock Itch Mitch to say he's any good?

[soxfan49]

1 minute ago, Jack Parkman said:

This is so true it isn't funny. What has anyone seen from Jock Itch Mitch to say he's any good?

Nothing, and you can say "what has anyone seen from Jock Itch Mitch to say he's bad" too. You can thank Fox's stubbornness and Loggains' play calls for delaying his progression. Other than that, all we can do is hope.

[StrangeSox]

16 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Well obviously. Everything hinges on Trubisky. If he stinks, every move Pace made will be bad, including Mack, because they'll be anywhere from bad to average annually.

Right, but people are criticizing the pick in real time, not hindsight. That's why I still can't believe he traded away everything he did to move up a single spot to grab a very high risk, high-ish(?) reward QB. Were any other teams that high on Trubisky?

Edited September 11, 2018 by StrangeSox

[soxfan49]

26 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Right, but people are criticizing the pick in real time, not hindsight. That's why I still can't believe he traded away everything he did to move up a single spot to grab a very high risk, high-ish(?) reward QB. Were any other teams that high on Trubisky?

Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
11:52 AM - Apr 28, 2017
For what it's worth, the #49ers did have a real and legitimate offer for someone to come up to No. 2 yesterday. #Bears offer was best value.

So, I suppose it was very real that they had to trade up.

And why is anyone criticizing the pick yet? He was average last year and showed plenty of bright spots (the throw on 3rd down to beat Baltimore, the drive down the field to almost beat Detroit [thanks Barth], and the Cincy game) with an awful supporting cast (Kendall Wright and Dontrelle Inman are unemployed) and coaching staff (John Fox and Dowell fucking Loggains), and they were a Jordan Howard 1 run yard from being 1-0 after a primetime Green Bay win two days ago. Only in this god damn city can we have no patience with anything. When the fucking Blackhawks, THE FUCKING BLACKHAWKS, the worst organization in sports, showed they were rebuilding and drafted Kane & Toews, people believed. When a hopeless organization like the Cubs were rebuilding, people believed. Why can't we believe for the Bears? Give them some time. I have no clue if Trubisky will pan out, but his mobility, athleticism and leadership are already very good. We now hope the mental piece comes along but we won't know for another 15-31 games. If you thought they were going to win 8-9 games in 2018 like me, they're going to still. Relax.

Edited September 11, 2018 by soxfan49

[bmags]

When I saw Lombardi criticize Trubisky I suddenly felt very, very good about things.

I love the athletic, but hiring Jim Bowden and Lombardi were two terrible hires.

[StrangeSox]

8 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Ian Rapoport
@RapSheet
11:52 AM - Apr 28, 2017
For what it's worth, the #49ers did have a real and legitimate offer for someone to come up to No. 2 yesterday. #Bears offer was best value.

So, I suppose it was very real that they had to trade up.

And why is anyone criticizing the pick yet? He was average last year and showed plenty of bright spots (the throw on 3rd down to beat Baltimore, the drive down the field to almost beat Detroit [thanks Barth], and the Cincy game) with an awful supporting cast (Kendall Wright and Dontrelle Inman are unemployed) and coaching staff (John Fox and Dowell fucking Loggains), and they were a Jordan Howard 1 run yard from being 1-0 after a primetime Green Bay win two days ago. Only in this god damn city can we have no patience with anything. When the fucking Blackhawks, THE FUCKING BLACKHAWKS, the worst organization in sports, showed they were rebuilding and drafted Kane & Toews, people believed. When a hopeless organization like the Cubs were rebuilding, people believed. Why can't we believe for the Bears? Give them some time. If you thought they were going to win 8-9 games like me, they're going to still. Relax.

I guess I just don't feel that Pace and the rest of the Bears org deserves any benefit of the doubt, and I still don't think they should have staked the next 5+ years of the franchise on such a huge question mark like Trubisky. He's shown a few good drives or throws here or there, but he hasn't had any breakout performances. Even if the Bears had won on Sunday, it's not like it would have been because Trubs put the team on his shoulders. Even if they hadn't traded up, I wouldn't have been exactly thrilled with Trubisky at 3. And I think when you look at the contract they gave Glennon, it should give you some doubts on their ability to evaluate QB talent.
 

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

[soxfan49]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

I guess I just don't feel that Pace and the rest of the Bears org deserves any benefit of the doubt, and I still don't think they should have staked the next 5+ years of the franchise on such a huge question mark like Trubisky. He's shown a few good drives or throws here or there, but he hasn't had any breakout performances. Even if the Bears had won on Sunday, it's not like it would have been because Trubs put the team on his shoulders. Even if they hadn't traded up, I wouldn't have been exactly thrilled with Trubisky at 3. And I think when you look at the contract they gave Glennon, it should give you some doubts on their ability to evaluate QB talent.
 

I'll be happy to be proven wrong, though.

I hope you are too otherwise the next 6 years are going to be tough 

[Jack Parkman]

The truth is the following:

With the Blackhawks, some of the talent was already there and it is really tough to blow a top 3 pick in the NHL

With the Cubs, Epstein and Hoyer already had a very long track record of drafting and developing players with Boston. 

You can say neither of those things with the Bears, Bulls and Sox.

Those two rebuilds deserved the benefit of the doubt because of track record. 

With the other three it is easy to blow a top 3 draft pick, and there is zero track record of competence. It was much more plausible that the Hawks and Cubs were going to turn it around than the Sox, Bears or Bulls are. There is much more of a track record of complete incompetence with them, and thus extreme skepticism is at the very least understood, if not warranted. 

Forgive me for my Bears QB PTSD, but I've seen enough shitty QBs to last a lifetime, and I dont trust any QB in a Bears uniform until they've had 3 consecutive good to great seasons. I have to see it 3 times, otherwise I want to believe it is a flash in the pan. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[soxfan49]

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

The truth is the following:

With the Blackhawks, some of the talent was already there and it is really tough to blow a top 3 pick in the NHL

With the Cubs, Epstein and Hoyer already had a very long track record of drafting and developing players with Boston. 

You can say neither of those things with the Bears, Bulls and Sox.

Those two rebuilds deserved the benefit of the doubt because of track record. 

With the other three it is easy to blow a top 3 draft pick, and there is zero track record of competence. It was much more plausible that the Hawks and Cubs were going to turn it around than the Sox, Bears or Bulls are. There is much more of a track record of complete incompetence with them, and thus extreme skepticism is at the very least understood, if not warranted. 

Wasn't some of the talent already here for the Bears, too? Leno, Long, Whitehair, Howard, Floyd, Hicks, Goldman, Fuller, Amos?

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, soxfan49 said:

Wasn't some of the talent already here for the Bears, too? Leno, Long, Whitehair, Howard, Floyd, Hicks, Goldman, Fuller, Amos?

Yeah, but it matters less in football. Football is all about the QB position, similar to having a LeBron or Durant in the NBA

[Jack Parkman]

12 minutes ago, Tony said:

This is such nonsense. Kane and Toews were both drafted when Bill Wirtz was still alive and running the team. I don't care who else they drafted, under Bill Wirtz ownership in the 2000s, a total turnaround was ANYTHING but plausible. 

You love to play the ever so annoying "Well the Bears have never had a QB so Mitch Trubisky must suck" but are totally fine playing revisionist history and saying "Well of course the Hawks were going to turn it around, that was a given." 

GTFO here with that. Go back on vacation. 

Bill Wirtz died 3 months after Kane was drafted. I'm saying in 2007, after that event, it was a lot more plausible. If Dollar Bill lived a couple more years it would have been much less believable. Neither 19/88 had donned the Indianhead yet at the time of Bill Wirtz's passing. Dollar Bill kicks the Bucket is #1 on the list of things that had to happen for the Hawks to be successful. I remember this very well, that Bill Wirtz died right around the end of September in 2007. The timing couldn't have been more perfect.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

There is nothing unreasonable about saying "I'll believe it when I see it" about the Bears finding a decent QB. They have a 70 year track record of failure on that subject so I don't see what's so controversial about it. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Jack Parkman]

1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Nothing, and you can say "what has anyone seen from Jock Itch Mitch to say he's bad" too. You can thank Fox's stubbornness and Loggains' play calls for delaying his progression. Other than that, all we can do is hope.

Fox and Loggains sucked, there is no denying that. Sometimes, it is better to expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised rather than expecting good results and being dissappointed. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[soxfan49]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

There is nothing unreasonable about saying "I'll believe it when I see it" about the Bears finding a decent QB. They have a 70 year track record of failure on that subject so I don't see what's so controversial about it. 

So why can't you be in the middle? You aren't "believing it when you see it," you're already declaring him bad. You've said he sucks repeatedly.

And the Hawks had a decade of being completely pathetic and unwatchable but you believed in a 5'8 winger just because the owner died?