K-9

I can see your point, too.

Gotta disagree here. There is nothing tentative at all about him. He takes the snap and lets it rip, totally trusting his first read. That may be because he likes what he sees pre-snap or because he lacks patience to go through progressions (I doubt this), but, either way, that ball gets out; torpedoes be damned.

I believe Black River is owned by PSE.

Every silver lining has its cloud.

Beats hearing about the five INTs every single game he plays.

Can’t speak to his final stat line, but I predict it will include five first half TD passes. ‘Cause that’s how you exorcize demons. Or should he wait until next week and do it against the Chargers?

Zip. The only "strategic" goal of preseason is whipping the ass of the opponent lined up across from you. Unfortunately, I saw precious little of that at the POA all preseason.

Posted this in the O'Leary thread but it's probably more pertinent here: I see a lot of two TE sets as a staple of our offense. Both Clay and Croom can flex and I envision Daboll utilizing them much like NE*** prefers when they have two athletic talents at the position. If we can hurt teams with these mismatches, DCs will be forced to use sub packages to counter and that's when I see Daboll going to more up tempo play calling if he likes what he sees. For instance, if DCs sub in more favorable coverage packages with smaller guys who can cover, I see Daboll bringing the TEs back inside and running the ball relentlessly until DCs sub bigger packages to counter and Daboll then flexing them wide again.

I read the title as "Cheap Blond Tasting Beer" and thought it was another "would ya" thread.

I see a lot of two TE sets as a staple of our offense. Both Clay and Croom can flex and I envision Daboll utilizing them much like NE*** prefers when they have two athletic talents at the position. If we can hurt teams with these mismatches, DCs will be forced to use sub packages to counter and that's when I see Daboll going to more up tempo play calling if he likes what he sees. For instance, if DCs sub in more favorable coverage packages with smaller guys who can cover, I see Daboll bringing the TEs back inside and running the ball relentlessly until DCs sub bigger packages to counter and Daboll then flexing them wide again.

Just read it. King is spot on regarding the relative value of a proven impact player like Mack vs. totally unknown draft picks. Also appreciate his point about what Green Bay must be thinking. Again, I see similarities between the Bears/Mack and the Bills/Bennett; the acquisition of those players changed the balance of power in their respective divisions over night. Chicago's front seven is a bonafide force.

Haven't read much about the trade at all, just what's been posted in threads so thanks for the link. Bottom line is the Bears got an impact player at an impact position in his athletic prime. He will help them on defense, there is no doubt in my mind. IMO, it all comes down to how Trubisky develops. I've long compared any prospective Mack deal to the Bennett deal. Really, the only difference I can see is that Bennett was more of a finishing piece for us as Kelly had already had four years of pro ball under his belt and was largely a finished product. And Polian and Co. did a great job of building around him; the Bills were ready to contend. I think the Bears are talented, but Trubisky is the main ingredient.

When it comes to players being traded in sports, history serves an anecdotal role at best. Each player, each team dynamic is a unique situation. Mack, although I doubt it, may well end up not working out, but that remains to be seen. But "history" has no bearing one way or another. I would think less of a GM, coach, owner, etc., that balked at making moves because "history" dictates otherwise. Regarding keeping a few difference makers, well, the Bears went out and acquired one to keep. An impact player at an impact position they can build around.

No, but you make a great cup of coffee.

If the punter situation is anything like the Bonnie situation, we best call Mr. Wolf.

Lewis has some athletic tools to work with for sure. His issue is inexperience. I hope a year of learning in Bellyache’s system helped. Intrigued by this signing.

Lot of these guys aren’t too fond of our new QBs, either.

Which is why I won’t be surprised if we see Allen from the get go.

That kind of goes to my point about defenses exploiting what they know you can’t or haven’t shown you can do. So no, I don’t see out patterns, especially of the longer variety, being a staple of this offense with Peterman at the helm. He can get the ball out qucickly on a variety of other, less risky patterns. I see lots of three step drops and the ball is out. Gonna be a crowded middle with the safeties cheating up a lot, so it’s gonna be a challenge for him to exploit short middle areas.

I think he’s forced to use his offense in ways that minimize exposure of a poor O line. We know what that is for the most part; ball out quickly, misdirection, screens, etc., avoiding long down and distance situations and using a lot of max protect when we can’t. I just hope we can run the ball against the stacked boxes I think we’re gonna see a lot of. It ain’t so much what opponents know you can do, it’s what they know you can’t do that they exploit. I also suspect Daboll is a fan of mixing up the tempo a lot.

Simple question: what was closer to the truth; two first round picks as the cost or no way a GM deals multiple firsts? If you need to demand me being 100% accurate in a prediction of events I have no control over, so be it. That’s impossible. But the simle fact is, you saw fit to call me out before the fact, I was a helluva lot closer than you or anyone else who predeicted no team would offer multiple firsts after the fact, and you can’t seem to own that in an intellectually honest fashion. I had my suspicions when you refused to quantify the value of Mack vs. future first round picks by passing it off as not having to “quantify the obvious” and this exchange confirms it; it’s a waste of time to engage in honest discussion with those too disingenuous to do so.

The old adage says the team that gets the best player wins the trade. Right now, that’s the Bears, hands down. If and when one of the picks acquired by Oakland ends up being better than Mack, then we can say the Raiders won the trade. The odds are against it, though.

Any relation to friggin Lonnie?

A few posts later, I said the minimum would be two firsts. “Not even close” is what you and others predicted by declaring that the rookie contract structures now in place make them so valuable to GMs that no team was going to part with multiple firsts. No. Team. If you’re gonna flex your internet muscles and dare someone to come back to a thread to defend their predictions when the event finally transpires, you should be prepared to offer a bit more than the weak sauce you threw out.

Better question, now that the Raiders traded him, is what do you think? Looks like the Raiders quantified the obvious. As did the Bears.