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.
How about using one ounce of common sense here?
Do you not believe that there are many football players who would gladly play for the Bears for $1 million?
I KNOW that there are many people who would apply for work at McDonald’s for $100,000/yr. I don’t need names to know that.
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.
Yes, it is pure luck that the Steelers got #32 out of the trade. But it was obvious that Poles was doing a massive tanking, and so it was reasonable for the Steelers to expect a pick somewhere in top-10 of second round for Claypool. They made the trade based on their projection of the Bears draft position. My point is that a pick at that level has value to other teams besides the Steelers. It is fungible. You would have to talk to the other 30 teams to know what they would offer for it, but it is crazy to suggest that the Steelers deal was the ONLY possible trade for this pick.
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.
How about using one ounce of common sense here?
Do you not believe that there are many football players who would gladly play for the Bears for $1 million?
I KNOW that there are many people who would apply for work at McDonald’s for $100,000/yr. I don’t need names to know that.
I think its common sense that when someone claims something as FACT to want to see the evidence of said fact. You're making a criticism...start naming names.
Getting back to topics actually relevant to this thread, this article goes thru both players. It's overwhelming positive for both but, like myself, gives the edge to Anderson for a higher floor and better positional value. At least this way, we don't have to discuss keeping Alan Robinson or signing some mythical savior UDFA that David can't name:
Do you not believe that there are many football players who would gladly play for the Bears for $1 million?
I KNOW that there are many people who would apply for work at McDonald’s for $100,000/yr. I don’t need names to know that.
I think its common sense that when someone claims something as FACT to want to see the evidence of said fact. You're making a criticism...start naming names.
To follow up on my McDonald’s analogy, the FACT that SOMEBODY will apply for the $100,000 job at MCDonald’s is not established until the first person actually applies. If that is all you are saying, I agree. But I know via common sense, that if McDonald’s advertises $100,000/yr., they going to get a flood of applications. Likewise, there are lots of football players who would play for the Bears for $1 million. I know that. You know that. We don’t need to get into an epistemological debate about it.
Getting back to topics actually relevant to this thread, this article goes thru both players. It's overwhelming positive for both but, like myself, gives the edge to Anderson for a higher floor and better positional value. At least this way, we don't have to discuss keeping Alan Robinson or signing some mythical savior UDFA that David can't name:
Moving on....saw a mock recently (yes, there will be a thousand more coming) that had Bears trading down with Indy to #4 and AZ trading down from #3 to like 8 or 9. Think it was a trade with Carolina with Panthers moving up to 3 to take Levis @ QB.
That's pretty much the ideal scenario for us so I'd jump for joy if somehow 3 QBs went top-3 and we are left sitting at #4 to take Anderson.
BTW, the mock had AZ taking Skoronski (OT) at #9 which is definitely a realistic possibility. Their OL clearly needs upgrades and 3 of their starting 5 are FAs this year. I could easily see them going OL in round 1.
I think its common sense that when someone claims something as FACT to want to see the evidence of said fact. You're making a criticism...start naming names.
To follow up on my McDonald’s analogy, the FACT that SOMEBODY will apply for the $100,000 job at MCDonald’s is not established until the first person actually applies. If that is all you are saying, I agree. But I know via common sense, that if McDonald’s advertises $100,000/yr., they going to get a flood of applications. Likewise, there are lots of football players who would play for the Bears for $1 million. I know that. You know that. We don’t need to get into an epistemological debate about it.
But that wasn't your original assertion. Your assertion, and criticism is that Poles could have definitely, WITHOUT A DOUBT, signed better players than he did for the EXACT same money he paid the other players. That shows, or asserts that you have knowledge of said better players that would have come here for that sum of money, as you alluded to when you claimed this was a fact instead of your opinion or theory. I asked for specifics/evidence, which is usually what someone provides when they make a definitive claim of fact, and you gave me a case study question.
When one makes a claim of fact they have to provide the evidence of said fact....if not, its nothing more than a theory/opinion.
To follow up on my McDonald’s analogy, the FACT that SOMEBODY will apply for the $100,000 job at MCDonald’s is not established until the first person actually applies. If that is all you are saying, I agree. But I know via common sense, that if McDonald’s advertises $100,000/yr., they going to get a flood of applications. Likewise, there are lots of football players who would play for the Bears for $1 million. I know that. You know that. We don’t need to get into an epistemological debate about it.
But that wasn't your original assertion. Your assertion, and criticism is that Poles could have definitely, WITHOUT A DOUBT, signed better players than he did for the EXACT same money he paid the other players. That shows, or asserts that you have knowledge of said better players that would have come here for that sum of money, as you alluded to when you claimed this was a fact instead of your opinion or theory. I asked for specifics/evidence, which is usually what someone provides when they make a definitive claim of fact, and you gave me a case study question.
When one makes a claim of fact they have to provide the evidence of said fact....if not, its nothing more than a theory/opinion.
Yep, nothing specific cuz he has nothing.
And the McDonald's analogy was bizarre. $1m is pocket change in the NFL. It's the equivalent of minimum wage. How many minimum wage players are "good"? Very few.
And among those few that do turn out to be "good", how many truly move the needle and become difference makers? Only a tiny handful.
Example: Jack Sanborn is one of the those few UDFAs who looks "good". Is he going to move the needle? Or push the Bears to contender status? NOPE
The mere fact that were are critiquing Poles over what cheap players he did or didn't sign shows how vacuous this argument is. With very rare exception, these guys don't make much difference in terms of playoffs Ws and Ls.
But that wasn't your original assertion. Your assertion, and criticism is that Poles could have definitely, WITHOUT A DOUBT, signed better players than he did for the EXACT same money he paid the other players. That shows, or asserts that you have knowledge of said better players that would have come here for that sum of money, as you alluded to when you claimed this was a fact instead of your opinion or theory. I asked for specifics/evidence, which is usually what someone provides when they make a definitive claim of fact, and you gave me a case study question.
When one makes a claim of fact they have to provide the evidence of said fact....if not, its nothing more than a theory/opinion.
Yep, nothing specific cuz he has nothing.
And the McDonald's analogy was bizarre. $1m is pocket change in the NFL. It's the equivalent of minimum wage. How many minimum wage players are "good"? Very few.
And among those few that do turn out to be "good", how many truly move the needle and become difference makers? Only a tiny handful.
Example: Jack Sanborn is one of the those few UDFAs who looks "good". Is he going to move the needle? Or push the Bears to contender status? NOPE
The mere fact that were are critiquing Poles over what cheap players he did or didn't sign shows how vacuous this argument is. With very rare exception, these guys don't make much difference in terms of playoffs Ws and Ls.
You guys aren’t that stupid. If I say, “I can sell my brand new car for $100,” are you going to reply, “You don’t know that because you can’t tell me right now the name of the person who will end up buying it.”?
I didn’t say he would necessarily get better players at $1 million/yr. I said he could have had many different players willing to come in and play for that salary. One or two might have ended up on the Bears 2025 Super Bowl contender team.