Mr. WEO Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 4 minutes ago, MJS said: They should be. They held Aaron Rodgers to 10 points. Not Mack's fault the offense couldn't do anything. I think you eat them. Just a guess, though. That's the point. And Mack was the most valuable asset the Raiders had on the team---but he was essentially useless for the purposes of scoring points and winning games. His value to the Raiders was in trade only----for more assets. This is what bad teams do in every sport--sell off their prized asset to get more and rebuild from there. And the Bills D would have held Rodgers to 3... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 34 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: So when I said that if Beane was looking at AB (turns out of course he was!), that if he passed on him, it would because he quit on his last team; that he was a "quitter", and when I said that AB would have to take "the douchebag discount" from his next team......to you that was a "defense" of AB? Pointing out Beane (obviously) would welcome him on this roster because he's a top receiver on a roster with none....that was "defending" AB? Pointing out the obvious as your arguments spiral to the floor always somehow boils down to "defending" someone or other. I'm just putting up a defense against BS, and for the obvious. So you're telling me you didn't wish/think the Bills should have traded for AB, meaning paying him what the Raiders did. That is, before all this drama? Yeah, OK. Of course not. No one's buying it. I always laugh at your "spiralling to the floor/shallow end of the pool" comments. But again, that's typical WEO lack of insight. 10 minutes ago, MJS said: They should be. They held Aaron Rodgers to 10 points. Not Mack's fault the offense couldn't do anything. All the Bears needed was AB on their team. While the Raiders weren't in desperate need of a better defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 Just now, Mr. WEO said: That's the point. And Mack was the most valuable asset the Raiders had on the team---but he was essentially useless for the purposes of scoring points and winning games. His value to the Raiders was in trade only----for more assets. This is what bad teams do in every sport--sell off their prized asset to get more and rebuild from there. And the Bills D would have held Rodgers to 3... Let's not pretend like yesterday's game represents the Bears with Mack. The Bears became a force last year and won a lot of games, and a big reason why is because they added an elite talent in Mack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 3 hours ago, MJS said: Let's not pretend like yesterday's game represents the Bears with Mack. The Bears became a force last year and won a lot of games, and a big reason why is because they added an elite talent in Mack. Wait, what? Why does yesterday's game not represent the Bears with Mack? I mean, yes, you're right, they won 12 games last year and Mack contributed to their #1 D, but they split with GB last year too - with Mack - and lost in the WC game - with Mack. Perhaps I'm just puzzled as to your point here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts