It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:26 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Peoria Matt wrote:
America wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
I am not an internet know it all.

You said the Niners wanted Thomas. I would expect the Bears would know that. Then there is no point in making that trade. The Niners take Thomas at 2 and the Bears take (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky at 3.

Again you think Watson is better than (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky, correct?

Dude I could easily be wrong about which QB is better than the other. So can you. It is obvious NFL front office were not enamored with Watson, the Cheifs and Bears both ignored him. So did a bunch of other teams who could've used a QB. I'm not an NFL scout, somebody could probably show me something right now that would flip my whole opinion on individual players.

And for the millionth time the Bears were not bidding against the 49ers for pick #3. They were almost definitely in competition with the Browns for that pick, and you can see that since the Browns didn't get their man they have gone two picks without drafting a QB. The Browns have a lot of resources, they were a very credible threat to move up to #2 and get (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky.


You realize you are saying the Bears beat the Browns out to get their guy, right? And if you knew the Niners wanted Thomas, I would hope the Bears would have known that.

And I could absolutely be wrong about this but I would feel a lot better with Watson and the picks right now. 10,168 yards, 90 touchdowns and 32 INTs, plus rushed for nearly 2,000 yards.​ A bunch of other teams passed on Watson but they also passed on (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. And those teams still have their draft picks (except Houston) Which is something the Bears could not afford to give away. Especially for a guy who will more than likely not see the field next year.

The Bears still have their draft picks. The keep their second rounder this year and their first two picks next year. Stop pretending they sold the farm...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 39750
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

There is always plenty of "picks" with Deshone Watson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 2220
pizza_Place: ....
Scooter wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
Beardown wrote:
Lots of picks to give up for one spot. But you realize why Pace had to do it, right?

Another team was about to do it. So the 49ers made the Bears pay big.

And Pace thinks this is his franchise QB. If he is, nobody gives a shit about the picks given up. If he's not, Pace is fired and never gets another GM job.

I have no opinion. Never seen or even heard of this guy.

But Pace bought himself 2 years. Cuz he might not start next year. Even if he does, rookie QBs are allowed to suck.


Which team?

The next team to trade up for a QB was KC at 10.

Bears could have had Mahomes or Watson and had all the picks also. But they fucked up as usual

Looks like Pace followed the Rush Limbaugh Principle on QB Leadership Ability Evaluation.

_________________
I like thinking big. . . If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big.
-Donald J. Trump, BPE
FavreFan wrote:
I apologize to The Hawk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55711
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
America wrote:
If you have to spend three draft picks, none of which are first or second rounders, to make absolutely sure you get your man at QB you do it. There is no alternative in the world of QB's, the idea of "just taking another guy" is unacceptable when it comes to that position. If you identify someone and decide he is the man you do whatever it takes to get him. If you get your man its a success, if you dont its a failure.

The Bears finally moved into a new era in earnest for the first time since the Cutler trade. If you chose to just be miserable because they missed out on a handful of Hroniss Grasu's and Brandin Hardin's that's your problem. I'm excited that for the first time since it became apparent Cutler was not the answer (last year of Trestman) the Bears have finally taken a bold step in a new direction.

The rest of you who wanted to covet picks and draft some bum in the 4th round because of extreme outliers like Tom Brady or Dak Prescott (the latter may not be any good) would've been happier keeping the Bears in QB hell? Really? This front office is damned if they do and damned if they dont in the eyes of a lot of fans and I dont think they really deserve it. For everyone complaining about having such a bad year last year, well if they were just a little bit worse they would've been picking #2 overall anyways, so next time you cite the record as a reason to have zero faith in Pace you may want to reexamine other complaints you're voicing in these threads.


So in the one year that many "experts", not internet know it alls, have declared this not to be a solid QB draft, would you say this was a good year to trade up to the second pick to get one?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
RFDC wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.

:lol: What?

Matt doesn't need me to defend him but did you even read his posts tonight?

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55711
FavreFan wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.

:lol: What?

Matt doesn't need me to defend him but did you even read his posts tonight?

Of course I have.

That was not his only point. He kept making it seem as if the Bears traded up to get a QB that no one else wanted.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33817
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
SANTA CLARA–They got their guy–probably the best guy available for them–and the 49ers got even more than that.

They played it perfectly, they were patient, they head-faked or sweet-talked or hypnotized just plain out-smarted Chicago into giving up three good picks to trade up just one slot and then the 49ers drafted Stanford defensive lineman Solomon Thomas, who they probably wanted all along, anyway.


Ok. Pace got had. Good for the 49ers. They got him. Bad for us. But hopefully he's awesome and it won't matter.


Last edited by Beardown on Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 10:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Peoria Matt wrote:
America wrote:
If you have to spend three draft picks, none of which are first or second rounders, to make absolutely sure you get your man at QB you do it. There is no alternative in the world of QB's, the idea of "just taking another guy" is unacceptable when it comes to that position. If you identify someone and decide he is the man you do whatever it takes to get him. If you get your man its a success, if you dont its a failure.

The Bears finally moved into a new era in earnest for the first time since the Cutler trade. If you chose to just be miserable because they missed out on a handful of Hroniss Grasu's and Brandin Hardin's that's your problem. I'm excited that for the first time since it became apparent Cutler was not the answer (last year of Trestman) the Bears have finally taken a bold step in a new direction.

The rest of you who wanted to covet picks and draft some bum in the 4th round because of extreme outliers like Tom Brady or Dak Prescott (the latter may not be any good) would've been happier keeping the Bears in QB hell? Really? This front office is damned if they do and damned if they dont in the eyes of a lot of fans and I dont think they really deserve it. For everyone complaining about having such a bad year last year, well if they were just a little bit worse they would've been picking #2 overall anyways, so next time you cite the record as a reason to have zero faith in Pace you may want to reexamine other complaints you're voicing in these threads.


So in the one year that many "experts", not internet know it alls, have declared this not to be a solid QB draft, would you say this was a good year to trade up to the second pick to get one?

Perhaps, it definitely didn't cost as much as it usually does to trade up for a QB. Bears got a hell of a bargain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
America wrote:
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.

It's hilarious that you think 3rd round picks are worthless. You sound like Dan Snyder in 2005.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
RFDC wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.


Peoria Matt wrote:
I can't see how a Bears fan would feel better with this scenario than with picking Watson at 3 and keeping the picks they desperately need.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.

It's hilarious that you think 3rd round picks are worthless. You sound like Dan Snyder in 2005.

They're not worthless, but they're also not "the farm" or even remotely as valuable as first or second rounders. The pressure is definitely on the Bears to make the most of this second round selection (whether that means trading down or making an outstanding pick) because of the (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky trade, but its not like 5 years from now Bears fans will be rueing the day they gave up a bunch of picks outside the top 50.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
America wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.

It's hilarious that you think 3rd round picks are worthless. You sound like Dan Snyder in 2005.

They're not worthless, but they're also not "the farm" or even remotely as valuable as first or second rounders. The pressure is definitely on the Bears to make the most of this second round selection (whether that means trading down or making an outstanding pick) because of the (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky trade, but its not like 5 years from now Bears fans will be rueing the day they gave up a bunch of picks outside the top 50.

If (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks of course they will.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.

It's hilarious that you think 3rd round picks are worthless. You sound like Dan Snyder in 2005.

They're not worthless, but they're also not "the farm" or even remotely as valuable as first or second rounders. The pressure is definitely on the Bears to make the most of this second round selection (whether that means trading down or making an outstanding pick) because of the (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky trade, but its not like 5 years from now Bears fans will be rueing the day they gave up a bunch of picks outside the top 50.

If (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks of course they will.

The bigger regret will undoubtedly be the misuse of the #3 overall and lost playing time wasted to try and make it work with (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. The 3rd rounders are not really capable of making or breaking a franchise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
America wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
America wrote:
Signing Glennon wasn't doing enough to fix the QB position, now drafting a QB at #2 is too much? Because of some shitty draft picks that from a raw odds perspective have like a 15% chance of netting one good player amongst all three of the selections? The Bears clearly were not interested in Watson, do you really want them to draft a guy they didn't believe in? Especially instead of a guy they did believe in?

These complaints people are having already all suck. Perhaps the worst is the pearl clutching over some dogshit picks that wind up being Jeremy Langford or Chris Conte's (if you're lucky), especially when those picks are sacrificed to get what could very well be a franchise altering player at QB.

It's hilarious that you think 3rd round picks are worthless. You sound like Dan Snyder in 2005.

They're not worthless, but they're also not "the farm" or even remotely as valuable as first or second rounders. The pressure is definitely on the Bears to make the most of this second round selection (whether that means trading down or making an outstanding pick) because of the (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky trade, but its not like 5 years from now Bears fans will be rueing the day they gave up a bunch of picks outside the top 50.

If (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky sucks of course they will.

The bigger regret will undoubtedly be the misuse of the #3 overall and lost playing time wasted to try and make it work with (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky. The 3rd rounders are not really capable of making or breaking a franchise.

If you're just giving away multiple 3rd round picks for nothing it will.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
Teams give up draft picks all the time for nothing. The Patriots and Broncos have both been severely penalized by way of draft picks fairly recently, and those are the last two teams to win a Super Bowl. I dont think the Bears should make a habit of losing 3rd round picks, but using them for trading up every so often is fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
RFDC wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.

:lol: What?

Matt doesn't need me to defend him but did you even read his posts tonight?

Of course I have.

That was not his only point. He kept making it seem as if the Bears traded up to get a QB that no one else wanted.


And you also have no idea who wanted him. If he is so desired, than I'm guessing the many teams that need a QB would have trumped the Bears offer. And if they didn't, that tells me something. I'm not really sold on this regimes evaluation of the QB position. This is a GM who said you have to draft a QB every year. And the one year he does actually follow up on that, he trades up and gives away draft picks in a year when it's said by many "experts" to be a down QB year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55711
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
RFDC wrote:
I would have preferred they take Watson and 3 and kept the picks.


Thank you.

That has been my point all along.

No that really has not been your only point all along, but we will go with that.

:lol: What?

Matt doesn't need me to defend him but did you even read his posts tonight?

Of course I have.

That was not his only point. He kept making it seem as if the Bears traded up to get a QB that no one else wanted.


And you also have no idea who wanted him. If he is so desired, than I'm guessing the many teams that need a QB would have trumped the Bears offer. And if they didn't, that tells me something. I'm not really sold on this regimes evaluation of the QB position. This is a GM who said you have to draft a QB every year. And the one year he does actually follow up on that, he trades up and gives away draft picks in a year when it's said by many "experts" to be a down QB year.


Thank you for showing you had more than one point.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
So I take it you agree with me on my multiple points?


Last edited by Peoria Matt on Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:21 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 33817
Pace is on the SCORE right now. Doing his press conference.

He admitted he didn't know if the 49ers were bluffing him or not. But this was his guy and if he did get bluffed, so be it. He wanted to be aggressive. Which is what I was trying to say.

And I agree with him. Now it's just about him being right.


Last edited by Beardown on Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 7:43 pm
Posts: 2609
pizza_Place: Lucio's
Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Peoria Matt wrote:
So I take it you agree with me on my multiple points?

He gets pissy when he's in a bad mood. He'll get over it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55711
Peoria Matt wrote:
So I take it you agree with me on my multiple points?

I agree you had multiple points.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
I will take that as a yes.

Thank you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 79880
Beardown wrote:
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
SANTA CLARA–They got their guy–probably the best guy available for them–and the 49ers got even more than that.

They played it perfectly, they were patient, they head-faked or sweet-talked or hypnotized just plain out-smarted Chicago into giving up three good picks to trade up just one slot and then the 49ers drafted Stanford defensive lineman Solomon Thomas, who they probably wanted all along, anyway.


Ok. Pace got had. Good for the 49ers. They got him. Bad for us. But hopefully he's awesome and it won't matter.


Lynch has zero track record to rely upon. The 49ers need a QB. If they passed on a guy who pans out, they will look like fools.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 2220
pizza_Place: ....
Is (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky a Russian surname? :shock: :o :shock:

Could there be another international hacking scandal afoot?

_________________
I like thinking big. . . If you're going to be thinking anything, you might as well think big.
-Donald J. Trump, BPE
FavreFan wrote:
I apologize to The Hawk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2014 10:32 pm
Posts: 13865
Location: France
pizza_Place: Baranabyis
good dolphin wrote:
Beardown wrote:
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
SANTA CLARA–They got their guy–probably the best guy available for them–and the 49ers got even more than that.

They played it perfectly, they were patient, they head-faked or sweet-talked or hypnotized just plain out-smarted Chicago into giving up three good picks to trade up just one slot and then the 49ers drafted Stanford defensive lineman Solomon Thomas, who they probably wanted all along, anyway.


Ok. Pace got had. Good for the 49ers. They got him. Bad for us. But hopefully he's awesome and it won't matter.


Lynch has zero track record to rely upon. The 49ers need a QB. If they passed on a guy who pans out, they will look like fools.

So will the Browns, who had considerably more resources with which to acquire SF's pick.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group