There are 308 users in the forums
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:I lol'ed. Two thumbs up!
Two thumbs up from me too bro!
Not because I laughed out loud though, but because it was a spot on post (aside from the asusmption Alex will never duplicate last seasons success. I dont think he will either and would bet a lot of money against it, but never say never.)
Damn. You sure do make strange bedfellows.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of itOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you furtherOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be sillyOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:oh so they still have him ?Originally posted by dtg_9er:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Do they really have himOriginally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
Originally posted by Furlow:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of it
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you further
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be silly
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:oh so they still have him ?
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Do they really have him
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Overthecap says you are wrong. Had they kept Smith, they would now be upside down by about $1M.
Originally posted by dj43:They just swapped the cash from QB to WR. keeping Smith wouldn't have sent them in cap hell
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
Another way of saying that is that they knew they were in salary cap hell and going all in on a rookie that would allow them to reduce their cap hit by $20M which would allow them some flexibility in bringing in FAs. As it turned out, most of that savings went for Sammie Watkins to fill the need for a speedy guy that could also run decent routes.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:
Originally posted by NineFourNiner:
I lol'ed. Two thumbs up!
Two thumbs up from me too bro!
Not because I laughed out loud though, but because it was a spot on post (aside from the asusmption Alex will never duplicate last seasons success. I dont think he will either and would bet a lot of money against it, but never say never.)
Damn. You sure do make strange bedfellows.
LOL. Stop. His post was on point.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.Originally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of itOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you furtherOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be sillyOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:oh so they still have him ?Originally posted by dtg_9er:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Do they really have himOriginally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
Originally posted by dj43:i guess restructuring anyone never crossed any minds.. Other teams do it to keep a good team together
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Overthecap says you are wrong. Had they kept Smith, they would now be upside down by about $1M.
Originally posted by dj43:They just swapped the cash from QB to WR. keeping Smith wouldn't have sent them in cap hell
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
Another way of saying that is that they knew they were in salary cap hell and going all in on a rookie that would allow them to reduce their cap hit by $20M which would allow them some flexibility in bringing in FAs. As it turned out, most of that savings went for Sammie Watkins to fill the need for a speedy guy that could also run decent routes.
KC had no choice. All around the league everyone knew KC had to shed Smith's cap hit. The only question was where. Veach made a good move by jumping ahead of the FA market and got back cap space.
After all the moves they are still eating $16.2M in dead money. The Smith trade allowed them to get rid of a cancer (Peters) and bring in a very good young, high character CB (Kendall Fuller) to replace him. No way they could have made that move if Smith had still been on the team.
Originally posted by Furlow:Still got nothing to add huh
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of it
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you further
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be silly
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:oh so they still have him ?
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Do they really have him
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:Originally posted by SteveWallacesHelmet:Originally posted by NineFourNiner:I lol'ed. Two thumbs up!
Two thumbs up from me too bro!
Not because I laughed out loud though, but because it was a spot on post (aside from the asusmption Alex will never duplicate last seasons success. I dont think he will either and would bet a lot of money against it, but never say never.)
Damn. You sure do make strange bedfellows.
LOL. Stop. His post was on point.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Still got nothing to add huhOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.Originally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of itOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you furtherOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be sillyOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:oh so they still have him ?Originally posted by dtg_9er:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Do they really have himOriginally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
Originally posted by Furlow:If you can't understand that the best QBs in the draft get drafted early (especially now days).. then idk how how to help you
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:Still got nothing to add huh
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of it
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you further
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be silly
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:oh so they still have him ?
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Do they really have him
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
How do I counter you saying that franchise QB's can only be drafted early or late in rounds? That teams in the middle of the pack are somehow unable to draft a franchise QB? If you truly believe that, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
I suppose I could go look up all of the great QB's who we're drafted by middle of the pack teams, but then you'd just do what you always do and change your argument. It's pointless.
Bottom line is Verb's original point, which you tried to defend, was proven false. You simply changed the argument. Typical.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:If you can't understand that the best QBs in the draft get drafted early (especially now days).. then idk how how to help youOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Still got nothing to add huhOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.Originally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of itOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you furtherOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be sillyOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:oh so they still have him ?Originally posted by dtg_9er:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Do they really have himOriginally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
How do I counter you saying that franchise QB's can only be drafted early or late in rounds? That teams in the middle of the pack are somehow unable to draft a franchise QB? If you truly believe that, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
I suppose I could go look up all of the great QB's who we're drafted by middle of the pack teams, but then you'd just do what you always do and change your argument. It's pointless.
Bottom line is Verb's original point, which you tried to defend, was proven false. You simply changed the argument. Typical.
just because some outliers have happened before doesn't mean, #1 rated QBs just drop down to the middle of the round or later
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by dj43:i guess restructuring anyone never crossed any minds.. Other teams do it to keep a good team together
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Overthecap says you are wrong. Had they kept Smith, they would now be upside down by about $1M.
Originally posted by dj43:They just swapped the cash from QB to WR. keeping Smith wouldn't have sent them in cap hell
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
Another way of saying that is that they knew they were in salary cap hell and going all in on a rookie that would allow them to reduce their cap hit by $20M which would allow them some flexibility in bringing in FAs. As it turned out, most of that savings went for Sammie Watkins to fill the need for a speedy guy that could also run decent routes.
KC had no choice. All around the league everyone knew KC had to shed Smith's cap hit. The only question was where. Veach made a good move by jumping ahead of the FA market and got back cap space.
After all the moves they are still eating $16.2M in dead money. The Smith trade allowed them to get rid of a cancer (Peters) and bring in a very good young, high character CB (Kendall Fuller) to replace him. No way they could have made that move if Smith had still been on the team.
also, Being 1 mill over is not SCH
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Jimmy G and T Brady say hi! LOL! Wonder if some talent evaluators are better than others? Hmm...
Originally posted by Furlow:If you can't understand that the best QBs in the draft get drafted early (especially now days).. then idk how how to help you
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:Still got nothing to add huh
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of it
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you further
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by Furlow:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be silly
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
Originally posted by dtg_9er:oh so they still have him ?
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Do they really have him
Originally posted by CharlieSheen:
They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
How do I counter you saying that franchise QB's can only be drafted early or late in rounds? That teams in the middle of the pack are somehow unable to draft a franchise QB? If you truly believe that, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
I suppose I could go look up all of the great QB's who we're drafted by middle of the pack teams, but then you'd just do what you always do and change your argument. It's pointless.
Bottom line is Verb's original point, which you tried to defend, was proven false. You simply changed the argument. Typical.
just because some outliers have happened before doesn't mean, #1 rated QBs just drop down to the middle of the round or later
Originally posted by dtg_9er:Jimmy G and T Brady say hi! LOL! Wonder if some talent evaluators are better than others? Hmm...Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:If you can't understand that the best QBs in the draft get drafted early (especially now days).. then idk how how to help youOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Still got nothing to add huhOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:well i guess if thats all you can add..i guess the argument is pretty good.Originally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:it doesn't disprove it at all. you just fail to see the truth of itOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:no, he's saying its better to cut ties then staying with someone who can't take you any further. Because of you stay with him you will not get a QB who can take you furtherOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:i'm pretty sure you guys know what he's talking about, but want to be sillyOriginally posted by Furlow:Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:oh so they still have him ?Originally posted by dtg_9er:Umm...they did...you recall last year's trade?Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:Do they really have himOriginally posted by dtg_9er:Originally posted by CharlieSheen:They aren't worried Mahomes might play like a rookie. They aren't going to use Alex's one good season (production wise) in 13 years as a measuring stick for a player in his 2nd year, first year starting (like some did when we dumped him, even though our young QB was on par with, or better than Alex until our roster fell to the bottom of NFL). I think they get it could happen and have accepted it.
The fact is they moved on from Alex. They realized they aren't winning anything with him, like we did. They finally got his career year out of him, but it was too late. He had already wasted that defenses best years. That kind of season isn't happening again anyways. Expecting a 13 year player to duplicate an outlier year just isn't happening. Not even the Jets fell for that with Fitz going into the 2016 season.
Mahomes may not be a franchise QB, but neither is Alex. The guy we moved on to wasn't a franchise QB, but he had success on good rosters (more than Alex has with good rosters) and we ended up with Jimmy G. You never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex. It's time to get over him, there's nothing special about a guy that takes 13 years to become an ok QB.
Hmm...how did NE get JG?
Verb said you "never give yourself a chance to have a Jimmy G if you hold onto an Alex." The Patriots did not have an Alex, they had Brady. Yet they still gave themselves a chance to get a Jimmy G, and got him. Lol
No, we don't. Well, he's saying better to be a losing team than a winning team that falls short. But ask the fans of perennial losing teams like the Browns how they feel. The majority of fans prefer winning versus fantasizing about getting the next "franchise QB."
Except the Patriots getting JG disproves that silly myth. Packers getting Rodgers while having Farve. Niners got Steve Young while having Montana. Colts got Luck while having Manning. Chargers got Rivers while having Brees. Many more examples.
It's simply a loser mentality to prefer losing so you can draft higher.
Your comparison to an already winning franchise is in no way to counter what he wrote. Already winning franchises with their franchise QB already in place doesn't have to win the QB lottery and can draft backup QBs without any repercussion of those QBs failing because they still have their FQB.
Plus Manning wasn't on their team when they Drafted Luck and they way they drafted luck was tanking for luck. Rivers landed in SD's lap because Eli Manning wanted to play somewhere else.
you should be looking at the middle of the pack teams.. Like us from 2005-2010. We were good enough to get some wins but not good enough to do any better. which screwed us from drafting a better QB. Now the Chiefs, they did pretty well but they couldn't get over the hump.. they decided the need was a QB and traded up a get a QB.
KC was tired of what was happening and needed to change even if it meant taking a step backwards.. and thats very telling
So teams drafting early and late are able to get a franchise QB, but teams drafting in the middle are not.
Is this seriously your argument? Comedy.
i mean how can you draft the top QB in the draft late in the first round..unless you use hindsight lol
I don't think you understand how the English language works. Makes it difficult to argue with you.
How do I counter you saying that franchise QB's can only be drafted early or late in rounds? That teams in the middle of the pack are somehow unable to draft a franchise QB? If you truly believe that, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
I suppose I could go look up all of the great QB's who we're drafted by middle of the pack teams, but then you'd just do what you always do and change your argument. It's pointless.
Bottom line is Verb's original point, which you tried to defend, was proven false. You simply changed the argument. Typical.
just because some outliers have happened before doesn't mean, #1 rated QBs just drop down to the middle of the round or later