Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CR91

Bears trade Howard to Eagles

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, BleedBlu8792 said:

 

The guy I wanted last year when it was said he was on the trade block. He and Mack would have been an awesome tandem.

 

We can still get ajayi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CR91 said:

 

We can still get ajayi

 

The one I hope we don't get haha 

 

Never been an Ajayi fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what Duke Johnson will go for, he just requested a trade from the Browns. I wouldn't mind him for a 5th, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chad72 said:

Duke Johnson

 

You can't say that on this forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I;m surprised. Big plus for the Eagles.

I guess he didn't fit the 'new' Bears 'KC East' offense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2019 at 2:43 PM, chad72 said:

I wonder what Duke Johnson will go for, he just requested a trade from the Browns. I wouldn't mind him for a 5th, to be honest.

I'm curious about this.  I don't know much about Duke Johnson other than what I can google, what do you think he would bring to the team better than Wilkins or Hines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think wilkins just needs more carries. He was very good when he got the ball. We don’t really need another back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coffeedrinker said:

I'm curious about this.  I don't know much about Duke Johnson other than what I can google, what do you think he would bring to the team better than Wilkins or Hines?

 

I feel he would be better than Wilkins or Hines on between the tackle runs. At 5'9", 210 lbs, he is almost the weight of Mack but can catch it much better than Mack or Wilkins, only Hines is as good (or better in certain instances) as Duke on the catching front. That is why multiple teams are interested in him. 

 

Plus, if you can get him for a 5th rounder, it would be a steal, IMO.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

I feel he would be better than Wilkins or Hines on between the tackle runs. At 5'9", 210 lbs, he is almost the weight of Mack but can catch it much better than Mack or Wilkins, only Hines is as good (or better in certain instances) as Duke on the catching front. That is why multiple teams are interested in him. 

 

Plus, if you can get him for a 5th rounder, it would be a steal, IMO.

That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Remember,  we are not debating whether Spring is doable.   I've stated from the beginning that I agree.    It's not as bad as some here think it is.    It's doable,   No question.   We are debating whether Spring is preferable, or desireable.    So, when you write,  that you don't think you have to say more about an issue,  any issue,  I'm sorry,   but NO!     You DO have to say more.  A heckuva lot more.    Because YOU have the burden of proof.    My position is the Industry Standard.   Your's has, by comparison,  a handful of examples.   Some are recent.   That's great.   But I view that as a nod to the position that it's doable.    You view it as a possibility that it might soon become the norm.   I'm happy to wait until that actually happens.   As to your primary argument.....    that all the prep work has been done,  and if you make the changes in winter,  that the GM is not up to speed on what the current scouts and player personnel people have done.    Except there is this......   Your argument that you yourself use to others here who complain that changing in the spring is bad.   To quote you....   it's just one draft.    One free agency period.    And there will soon be another,  and then another....   and another.   One season is nothing in the grand scheme of things.   That is what you wrote (roughly) to posters who think making the GM change in the spring is outright terrible and stupid.    Which I strongly disagree with their positin.   Your argument makes my argument for me.    I want the new GM in the building ASAP.    So he can sooner evaluate his players.    His front office.    His scouts.    The entire program.   Waiting until May or June just delays that.    I want it to begin ASAP.   I'd expect that he can and would be able to make some level of difference in his first free agency and draft.    Plus,  I think you way, way over-dramatize the handicap the new GM has arriving in January.   He's the GM.    He's already got a ton of information in his head,  and in his notebooks, his binders.    He's not in as much of a bind as you like to portray.     So, with your desired scenario, this draft could be used for a system that the new GM doesn't even want to run.    Like Chuck running a 3-4,  when Ballard wants to run a 4-3.    Like Chuck wanted to run a power running game and a deep pattern passing game.    While Ballard favors a zone running game and a get rid of the ball quick, move the chains offense.     In your preferred scenario,  you're the one who is burning the first year the GM has,  not me.     I see little of the benefits and mostly an approach that screams....   "Gee,  I hope this works out."   By the way,  I didn't want this post to end without addressing one of your main points.   Your paragraph that starts with this:   My Point:  There are always good candidates...   same is true for head coaches and coordinators.    I'm sorry,  but I'm going to STRONGLY disagree with that argument.  And I think you'll retract that.    Every so often you'll see an article about how did the class of GM's from a previous year turn out?   Or head coach hires?    I used to tell posters here who hated Pagano that the class of head coaches that included Chuck,  that all of the other coaches got fired before Chuck.    That Chuck was the best of his class.   And that happens with GM's too.   A class gets hired,  and quite often most of them, sometimes all of them don't work out.   I believe my position has far more facts to back that up.    There isn't always a Sean McVey.  There isn't always a Kyle Shannahan.   There isn't always a Josh McDaniels.   There aren't 32 good GM's, or 32 good head coaches,  or 32 good offensive or defensive coordinators.   That's why so many teams struggle for years to get those spots right.   So, no, I absolutely reject the idea that there are always good candidates.    Sorry.   I know you believe what you're writing.   But honestly, this feels like one big thought experiment. Like you're trying to make a case for something you really don't believe,  but you're trying to see if you can make a good argument anyway.   And yet I know that's NOT the case.    That you really, honestly do believe this.    That's what I find so astonishing.    There's lots of opinion,  and not a lot of evidence to back this up.    As I've said from the get-go....   I think this is doable.    I just don't think it's desireable or preferable.  
    • To your last paragraph....   yes,  I agree that if a GM,  any GM, inherits a bad roster,  then no matter how OK his draft picks may be,   they will likely stick on the roster.   But if you're a GM inheriting a poor team,  and you draft players that are only somewhat better than what you originally had,  then the improvement in the team will only be so good.   Again,  from 4 wis,  to perhaps 6-7.    That wouldn't be bad.    That would be reasonable.   But when you suddenly pop to 10 wins,  including 9 of the last 10 in the regular season,  and you win on the road in the playoffs,   then there's got to be something more there than just the GM's new guys.    Those guys have got to be good.    You can't do that well simply because they're better than the previous guys.    They're much better.    Yes, the coaching staff is better and the systems the team is running are better,  but so are the players.    They have to execute.    And we did.   Better than we thought possible.    Certainly better than when we were 1-5 and looked like a candidate for a top-10 or even a top-5 draft pick.    The players are good.   They may not be great yet,  but they're really good and much better than what we had.    The results are all the proof you need.   Again,  thanks for the exchange....  
    • I missed the first couple innings, was keeping track on phone, didn’t realize things got chippy with the benches clearing after the Contreras HR! Seems the Cubs were playing with a little extra edge tonight, I love it!!! 
    • and then NE goes into KC and throws for 350 and Sony runs for 100+ on them. our O, and O game plan just sucked.   i get KC was good, but our O just sucked.
  • Members

    • Davvon2590

      Davvon2590 3

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • ShakerColt

      ShakerColt 3

      Rookie
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Introspect

      Introspect 179

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Shadow_Creek

      Shadow_Creek 415

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Kirie89

      Kirie89 22

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • luckyBatistuta

      luckyBatistuta 109

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • el duderino

      el duderino 61

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...