Every new GM “inherits” a team with veteran players on high salaries. No GM in NFL history has gotten rid of them and other good players on the LEVEL that Poles did. I researched the salary cap differentials back 20 years. You can stop repeating your same argument over and over. We are not going to agree, but happy to move on.
Ok, great.
So we aren't going to hear any more about how Poles wrecked everything not keeping an overpaid, over-the-hill, and oft-injured Danny Trevathan or Akiem Hicks, right?
Thank you
None of these guys, perhaps Mack excepted, were "good players" anymore, certainly not for the timeline of a rebuild. They were good in 2017-2019. They were not by 2022, at least they certainly wouldn't be by 2024-25.
He has no such knowledge because it doesn't exist. David is just ranting at the moon spouting nonsense he claims as fact, with no basis for making such a claim.
Free agents have to CHOSE to sign with you. Players with no-trade clauses (i.e., DeAndre Hopkins) have to CHOSE to approve the trade. You don't get to just wave a magic wand and voila your team is stacked with pro-bowlers everywhere. Not how it works.
Same thing with the Claypool trade--total re-write of history. Everyone and his uncle (David included) was screaming for Poles to "do something!" at WR mid-year. He did something. If CC hasn't worked out by the end of next season, then yeah its a fair critique to say it was bad trade. We don't know that yet.
Besides...."WINNING" was never the realistic goal in 2022 anyway. How obvious does this have to be?
Did you even bother to read my reply to him about what is, and is not, a fact? It is not a fact that he could have gotten a different particular player. It is a fact that for same money he could have gotten many, many different players than the guys he selected. He created this roster, not only by the players he cut, but also the decisions he made in free agency, draft, and trade.
For the record, I was, and still am, beating the drum for WR1. Not trading pick #32 for Claypool.
No "WR1" was available last offseason at a price the Bears could afford. They couldn't afford much.
See: Dead Cap, definition of
No "WR1" was available mid-season when everyone was screaming their heads off that Fields needed more weapons in Captain Obvious style.
No "WR1" will be available in FA this offseason. In fact, with rare exceptions, no "WR1s" are ever available in FA. Those that might be available via trade generally are expensive and often get to pick where they want to go (no-trade clauses).
So prepare yourself for the possibility that Poles won't be able to acquire a "WR1" (whatever your definition of that is) this offseason either. Hopefully we can draft a guy and develop him into one.
I'd love to have a Ferrari too. You don't always get what you want.
Who would have played for us if we paid them $1 mill? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of players who would have done this. Who could we have traded the #32 pick for, which at the time was not the #32 pick? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of teams who were interested in acquiring the pick with the players they were willing to deal.
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
Notice how there's zero specifics here
Just a generic: "he should have done something different". Which is utterly meaningless.
Who would have played for us if we paid them $1 mill? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of players who would have done this. Who could we have traded the #32 pick for, which at the time was not the #32 pick? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of teams who were interested in acquiring the pick with the players they were willing to deal.
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
I thought the gist of your argument is that Poles could have done better in the players he has acquired but then you throw out "every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn" as support of your argument? I'm lost. lol
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
Notice how there's zero specifics here
Just a generic: "he should have done something different". Which is utterly meaningless.
Please give it a rest
Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote? I said “could” not “should”. Do you seriously believe the Steelers are the only team Poles could have traded the #32 pick? That’s practically a first-round pick he traded for Claypool. We don’t know what others were obtainable, but it defies credulity to suggest that Claypool was his only possible trade for the #32 pick.
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
I thought the gist of your argument is that Poles could have done better in the players he has acquired but then you throw out "every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn" as support of your argument? I'm lost. lol
He wanted a list of names of players who would be willing to play for the Bears for a measly $1 million. I said the list would be endless, but I start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn.
Obviously, we are running out of things to debate until free agency begins. But fear not, butkus and I aren’t done. The odd couple show must go on!
Did you even bother to read my reply to him about what is, and is not, a fact? It is not a fact that he could have gotten a different particular player. It is a fact that for same money he could have gotten many, many different players than the guys he selected. He created this roster, not only by the players he cut, but also the decisions he made in free agency, draft, and trade.
For the record, I was, and still am, beating the drum for WR1. Not trading pick #32 for Claypool.
No "WR1" was available last offseason at a price the Bears could afford. They couldn't afford much.
See: Dead Cap, definition of
No "WR1" was available mid-season when everyone was screaming their heads off that Fields needed more weapons in Captain Obvious style.
No "WR1" will be available in FA this offseason. In fact, with rare exceptions, no "WR1s" are ever available in FA. Those that might be available via trade generally are expensive and often get to pick where they want to go (no-trade clauses).
So prepare yourself for the possibility that Poles won't be able to acquire a "WR1" (whatever your definition of that is) this offseason either. Hopefully we can draft a guy and develop him into one.
I'd love to have a Ferrari too. You don't always get what you want.
I said a couple weeks ago that I expect him to TRY like hell to trade for a WR1 (D-Hop, Evans, Higgins, Cooks, Thomas, etc.), and I want a WR drafted at #53 in the draft.
I was thinking more about Michael Thomas today. I’d like to give him a contract like Poles did with Reiff with heavy weighting on how much he plays. In a way, he’d be another Poles lost dog, but unlike Leatherwood, Taco, Harry, etc. this is proven All Pro talent prior to all his injuries, suspensions, and other issues.
Just a generic: "he should have done something different". Which is utterly meaningless.
Please give it a rest
Are you deliberately misreading what I wrote? I said “could” not “should”. Do you seriously believe the Steelers are the only team Poles could have traded the #32 pick? That’s practically a first-round pick he traded for Claypool. We don’t know what others were obtainable, but it defies credulity to suggest that Claypool was his only possible trade for the #32 pick.
A) What other receivers were available for trade mid-season? Name NAMES please. SPECIFIC NAMES ONLY
B) No one knew it would become the #32 pick back then, did they? Butkus pointed this fact out earlier and I noticed you ignored it. Did you predict, much less actually know, the Bears would finish with worst record in the league back then when they were 3-5?
No, you didn't.
None of us did.
Again, same thing as we have been talking about above--meaningless critiques not grounded in the facts present at the time.
Who would have played for us if we paid them $1 mill? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of players who would have done this. Who could we have traded the #32 pick for, which at the time was not the #32 pick? If its a fact you should be able to provide a list of teams who were interested in acquiring the pick with the players they were willing to deal.
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
You're claiming something as a fact and not producing any evidence. The FACT is YOU THINK other players would have signed here for *insert sum here*....but you don't KNOW THAT. YOU THINK we could have traded a pick we didn't yet have for other players...but YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
Until you provide proof that players were willing to sign here or that teams were willing to deal better players, please stop claiming things as facts.
LOL. The list would be endless, but I’d start with every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn. This is ridiculous. The 32 pick (or 35 pick) has value to every team. He could have traded for other players besides Claypool.
I thought the gist of your argument is that Poles could have done better in the players he has acquired but then you throw out "every UDFA not named Jack Sanborn" as support of your argument? I'm lost. lol
LOL, you are "lost" because there is nothing to "find" here.
Apparently, David is mad at Ryan Poles for executing the perfect tank this season so he is ranting endlessly that Poles should have done X or not done Y and that would have somehow made us 6-11 instead of 3-14 and for some magical reason he still hasn't stated, that outcome would have somehow been "better". Yes, I guess David doesn't like high draft picks and trade options. He prefers lower ones and no options.
There are no specifics or rationality beyond that. He's just mad.