Not at the table Karlos Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, scribo said: 1. I think he'd get some snaps if they pulled off this trade a week ago. 2. Damn. Highly doubt that. Why risk injury to someone that hasn't practiced in what, 8 months? Also none of the starters played Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-BillzeBubba Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Deal is reportedly bigger than Donald's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 5 minutes ago, x-BillzeBubba said: Deal is reportedly bigger than Donald's ...so McBeane had alligator arms when reaching out............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 That sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One Buffalo Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I wonder what our offer was... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, One Buffalo said: I wonder what our offer was... With Beane it was just enough to not get it done. There's a pattern forming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornette's Commentary Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said: That sucks. Are you a Bears fan now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Just now, TheTruthHurts said: With Beane it was just enough to not get it done. There's a pattern forming. ....just don't see him as the "all in on one player" type............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, TheTruthHurts said: With Beane it was just enough to not get it done. There's a pattern forming. Complain much? Edited September 1, 2018 by Binghamton Beast 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Bummer.... Almost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dezertbill Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 On 8/31/2018 at 9:55 AM, dezertbill said: My thoughts. Khalil Mack for Bills 1st in 2019 (which Raiders may think would be a top 10) Bills 2nd rounder in 2020 Charles Clay AJ McCarron. Clay is expendable. I think Leary, Croom, Lee, Thomas, and even Towbridge---Clay's salary doesn't make sense to keep. He would be a weapon for Gruden's offense, and McCarron would give him a huge upgraded over Connor Cook and EJ Manuel. McCarron to Raiders. Called it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Can we shut this thread down now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIZ Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Are there any Mack type potential players in the 2019 draft? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 On 8/24/2018 at 5:14 PM, Binghamton Beast said: I don’t need to quantify the obvious. When the Raiders trade him you come back here and tell us what you think. Better question, now that the Raiders traded him, is what do you think? Looks like the Raiders quantified the obvious. As did the Bears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenWillBust Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 10 hours ago, CaptnCoke11 said: Good trade for Bears. Two 1st rounders and 141 mill so I've heard? I can't imagine how that is good for any teams future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 21 minutes ago, K-9 said: Better question, now that the Raiders traded him, is what do you think? Looks like the Raiders quantified the obvious. As did the Bears. You said it would be at least for what the Bills gave up for Bennett. It wasn’t. Not even close. And, still the Bears overpaid. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said: You said it would be at least for what the Bills gave up for Bennett. It wasn’t. Not even close. And, still the Bears overpaid. ...sure did.....TWO 1sts & $150 mil?....MLB type insanity money but at least you get 162 games for you buck...........or NBA for 80......... Edited September 2, 2018 by OldTimeAFLGuy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 20 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...sure did.....TWO 1sts & $150 mil?....MLB type insanity money but at least you get 162 games for you buck...........or NBA for 80......... I would never pay a defensive player that amount of money in a league that is doing its best to render defensive football meaningless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 15 hours ago, Binghamton Beast said: You said it would be at least for what the Bills gave up for Bennett. It wasn’t. Not even close. And, still the Bears overpaid. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 32 minutes ago, K-9 said: 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. And, I was right. It wasn’t anywhere near the Bennett package. Funny how you make no mention of the other picks being exchanged. In fact, that makes the two 1sts you later state as being the minimum as also not being accurate. It’s not internet muscles....it’s internet brains. You and the Major should get together and discuss how you can’t own up to statements made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts