**OFFICAIL** Bears 2024 Regular Season News & Schleisse - FTO Preferred - No ALTS! Derailing Is Discouraged!

rawdawg

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
8,013
Liked Posts:
6,460
napo55 said:
Most people rate Roquan above Edmunds. Questionable whether the position has been "upgraded."
Click to expand...
Eh. PFF rated Edmunds over Roquan the last 2 years, with this year being both of their best seasons. I feel like Edmunds has more upside too, at a full year younger, and with his size and length in the pass game.

But either way, I do think Roquan is slightly better than Edmunds. But it's pretty close. And Edwards is much better than Morrow. And Sanborn as LB3 is much better than Sanborn as LB1 to end the season. The overall LB position is much better than last year, even if 1 of the positions is slightly downgraded (Smith was Will, Edmunds will be Mike).
 
nc0gnet0

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,857
Liked Posts:
4,656
Payton!34 said:
This is probably the simple truth. I won’t disagree with you just bc I disagreed with you in the past and you were rude.

But what you said is probably the skinny of why they got rid of him. Was it a good move, I don’t know bc he’s probably one of the top second tier te’s in the league and I doubt laPorta brings that kind of production but maybe they don’t value the te as much as others.

Regardless, it’s a Lions move for sure
Click to expand...
And maybe 'Quan proves to be a much better LB than Edmunds after a payday. Time will tell.
 
nc0gnet0

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,857
Liked Posts:
4,656
remydat said:
That wasnt the point moron. The point is to compare their rookie seasons. All that tough talk and now you copping pleas because you know LaPorta aint coming close to 874 yards and 11 TDs.

You are the same jackass that celebrates Goff's Pro Bowls with the Rams and Stafford's Super Bowl with Rams.



I wouldnt draft an off ball LB in the top 15 either hence why I was against the Quan pick. So your whataboutism isnt going to help you. You are just proving the point. Even if they are good you are unlikely to give a monster contract to a TE, RB or off ball LB so kind of silly to waste a first rounder on them.

They likely have to be top 3-5 in the NFL to justify a 2nd contract which is a huge bar to meet.
Click to expand...
So if you had traded the 33rd overall pick on the corpse of T. Owens, you would then want to compare to his rookie year?
Sorry dumbass, it doesn't work like that. And btw shitforbrains, Hock was not drafted by the current regime.

We are comparing what the Bears actually got, vs what the Lions actually got.
Deal with it.
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
60,809
Liked Posts:
39,190
nc0gnet0 said:
So if you had traded the 33rd overall pick on the corpse of T. Owens, you would then want to compare to his rookie year?
Sorry dumbass, it doesn't work like that. And btw shitforbrains, Hock was not drafted by the current regime.

We are comparing what the Bears actually got, vs what the Lions actually got.
Deal with it.
Click to expand...

You compare a guy's rookie year to another guy's rookie year. You dont want to because you know how that story ends.
 
nc0gnet0

nc0gnet0

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Nov 27, 2014
Posts:
18,857
Liked Posts:
4,656
remydat said:
You compare a guy's rookie year to another guy's rookie year. You dont want to because you know how that story ends.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, you want to compare a rookie TE to a rookie WR, lol.
Maybe you didn't hear me the first time........



"So if you had traded the 33rd overall pick on the corpse of T. Owens, you would then want to compare to his rookie year?
Sorry, dumbass, it doesn't work like that. And btw shitforbrains, Hock was not drafted by the current regime.

We are comparing what the Bears actually got, vs what the Lions actually got.
Deal with it.

But if you are hellbent on comparing Rookies, let use Cold Cements rookie year..........

28 receptions243 total yards

Both second round picks. Let's see how Laporta stacks up against that impressive stat line.
 
remydat

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
60,809
Liked Posts:
39,190
nc0gnet0 said:
Oh boy, you want to compare a rookie TE to a rookie WR, lol.
Maybe you didn't hear me the first time........



"So if you had traded the 33rd overall pick on the corpse of T. Owens, you would then want to compare to his rookie year?
Sorry, dumbass, it doesn't work like that. And btw shitforbrains, Hock was not drafted by the current regime.

We are comparing what the Bears actually got, vs what the Lions actually got.
Deal with it.

But if you are hellbent on comparing Rookies, let use Cold Cements rookie year..........

28 receptions243 total yards

Both second round picks. Let's see how Laporta stacks up against that impressive stat line.
Click to expand...

You were running your mouth about LaPorta and Claypool but now you scared. Pathetic.

I didnt like Kmet in the deaft. I wanted Claypool over him ie the guy with 874 yards and 11 TDs.
 

Payton!34

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 18, 2013
Posts:
2,529
Liked Posts:
1,303
nc0gnet0 said:
And maybe 'Quan proves to be a much better LB than Edmunds after a payday. Time will tell.
Click to expand...
Quite possible. Hard to compare the two in my opinion, they’re too different in style.

LaPorta might end up better too but has a long time to go. Edmunds has been an all pro already, therein lies the difference.

I don’t think many people here are arguing that the Lions don’t have a good roster, they’re saying that the Lions have been so bad for so long that they shouldn’t count their chickens and until they show out as good as they are on paper, they’re still the Lions.

We don’t have much room to talk the past 25 years or so, but to compare our history with Detroit’s is insane!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

10,910members
94,512threads
4,467,250posts
255online users

Members online NOW

  • Member
  • Admin
  • Mod
  • Donor
  • HOF
Total: 255 (members: 9, guests: 246)
Top