Stop worrying about salary cap space

[remydat]

Did not know there was a game called, pointing out the obvious.

Seems like you are an expert at this game since well you know you decided to point out how obvious my obviously obvious post was. And then raised the stakes by pointing out how pointless the point was. You must be tired with all that alliteration, lol.

 

[remydat]

Dude, it's intended to create debate as to which players COULD get cut/traded, etc. If you have an opinion on the subject, please feel free to give it, but if you don't, then shut up. Some of us expect some big name moves due to the new coaching regime. Your just being a fuckin Dick!!!

You have to forgive him Bear Pride. That part of the post apparently was not as obvious as the rest of it despite being stated upfront, lol.

 

[onebud34]

Dude, it's intended to create debate as to which players COULD get cut/traded, etc. If you have an opinion on the subject, please feel free to give it, but if you don't, then shut up. Some of us expect some big name moves due to the new coaching regime. Your just being a fuckin Dick!!!

that debate was taken care of a few pages ago

 

[onebud34]

Seems like you are an expert at this game since well you know you decided to point out how obvious my obviously obvious post was. And then raised the stakes by pointing out how pointless the point was. You must be tired with all that alliteration, lol.

not really sure what game you are referring to

 

[onebud34]

Breaking news - The sky is blue

Yeah...I clearly pointed that out in my OP

 

[Bear Pride]

that debate was taken care of a few pages ago

So there WAS a point? Who's the flip flopper now bitch?

 

[onebud34]

So there WAS a point? Who's the flip flopper now bitch?

hmmm....

No

 

[ClydeLee]

The only reason here one shouldn't worry about the cap is because they don't have to do any of these cuts or future restructures.

They aren't the cowboys, raiders, or lions... To say we could cut productive players for cheap guys that in a possibility, could be better, is not a positive scenario

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

 

[remydat]

The only reason here one shouldn't worry about the cap is because they don't have to do any of these cuts or future restructures.

They aren't the cowboys, raiders, or lions... To say we could cut productive players for cheap guys that in a possibility, could be better, is not a positive scenario

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

Of the 9 guys listed, aside from Gould who else are productive players that shouldn't be cut and why shouldn't they be? And if you don't want to cut Gould then don't. No one said you had to. Of the original list I provided I have already stated the moves that I would actually make and it did not include cutting Gould.

We can sit here and play these dumb games or we can try and have an actual discussion.

 

[remydat]

Wrong again. I have no issue with someone responding to me on a message board. My issue, again, is that you quoted my response to something Bear Pride said and attributed my response as being in regards to something you said. I am still unclear as to what your confusion is. You incorrectly quoted me. That about sums it up. Move on.

If two people are having a conversation and a third jumps in towards the end and reaches a conclusion that does not follow from the preceding discussion those two people were having, I think it is only fair to point that out. If you take posts in isolation without thinking about the context they were said in you can often get the wrong idea. This is what Bear Pride was trying to tell you but you refused to understand and kept acting like he meant it the way you interpreted. He did not and so I gave you the background of what was being discussed to try and explain to you why he did not mean it that way. Not sure why you think your interpretation of the statements is more accurate than what Bear Pride thinks he was saying as well as what the person who he said it to understood he was saying.

 

[remydat]

Then I don't understand your bitchiness. My statement was that it would be stupid for the Bears to cut Gould. I never said you, remydat, were stupid for saying the Bears have the option to cut Gould...they obviously do. There is no arguing that. So why are you getting upset when I say it would be stupid for the Bears to cut Gould? In fact, it seems like you even AGREE that it would be stupid to cut Gould. But then you turn around and list 10 reasons why the Bears should cut Gould. Also confusing/Special person.

Not sure where you get that I am bitchy. It is only confusing if you assume that anyone's opinions other than your own are stupid or wrong. I don't. Would I cut Gould. No, as I think any money we need to sign players can be generated by getting rid of crappier players. But being open minded as I am, I can disgree with someone who would while still understanding the reasons for them doing so.

So I was not opposing your opinion that cutting Gould was a bad idea. I was opposing your need to call the the idea idiotic without even really considering the information provided.

 

[gpphat]

Not sure where you get that I am bitchy. It is only confusing if you assume that anyone's opinions other than your own are stupid or wrong. I don't. Would I cut Gould. No, as I think any money we need to sign players can be generated by getting rid of crappier players. But being open minded as I am, I can disgree with someone who would while still understanding the reasons for them doing so.

So I was not opposing your opinion that cutting Gould was a bad idea. I was opposing your need to call the the idea idiotic without even really considering the information provided.

I think he did consider the information provided and still considered it idiotic.

 

[remydat]

Not true. One, my conclusion was based on what Bear Pride said. There was no "context" needed. Your insertion into the process was not necessary and, frankly, burdensome. Two, Bear Pride kept repeating his point over and over, so its not like I made it up. Three, I'm not even arguing with Bear Pride. He didn't say "Trestman SHOULD come in and get rid of some big name players"...he said he expects Trestman to come in and make some suprise moves of big name players based on Trestman "liking/disliking" the player and many other factors. My response was that it would be dumb for Trestman to come in and start throwing out people a la Josh McDaniels in Denver, because the Bears don't have that many good players.

This seems eerily similar to your actions regarding cutting Robbie Gould...

I guess that was a little too much for you to grasp all at once. Like doesn't mean "Let's go play in the sandbox Rory", it means they don't like the player for the direction that they are going with the team. If you can't see that this is a good time for change over, then stick to fuckin sand castles dude!

The bold is him telling you like is not personal ie I like you so let's go have fun together in the sandbox. He then specifically said he meant it as the coach doesn't like a player for the direction of the team. I jumped in because you still responded to him after this post as if he meant like/dislike for personal reasons and I again was trying to explain to you that our discussion was about a new coach making changes for business/football reasons.

So for example, a new coach may not like Gould as much as we do because he is the 6th highest paid kicker this year but there are 21 kickers who were just as accurate. So again, if you actually read the discussion Bear Pride and I were having, you would not have erroneously assumed he meant like and dislike from a personal perspective.

 

[FirstTimer]

The bold is him telling you like is not personal ie I like you so let's go have fun together in the sandbox. He then specifically said he meant it as the coach doesn't like a player for the direction of the team. I jumped in because you still responded to him after this post as if he meant like/dislike for personal reasons and I again was trying to explain to you that our discussion was about a new coach making changes for business/football reasons.

So for example, a new coach may not like Gould as much as we do because he is the 6th highest paid kicker this year but there are 21 kickers who were just as accurate. So again, if you actually read the discussion Bear Pride and I were having, you would not have erroneously assumed he meant like and dislike from a personal perspective.

How or why are you such an idiot?

 

[ClydeLee]

Btw.. Why would Emery let his new HC come in and dictate over him if he wants the center or kicker out for cheaper options.

A hc gets input to how he wants a roster but that would be hanging over the reigns in odd ways after Emery talked highly of some of those listed

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

 

[remydat]

Again, wrong. I am not belittling anyone else's opinion in this thread. I am offering my own opinion. Thats it. My opinion is that cutting Gould would be idiotic. My opinion is that if Trestman gets rid of players like McDaniels got rid of Cutler and Hillis in Denver, that would be idiotic.

I considered the information provided. I gave my opinion in thinking that its idiotic. For you to say that I formed my opinion without considering the information provided is not only flat-out impossible unless you are omniscent...it would also be idiotic.

Ok, maybe I missed it, I don't see why a coach can't evaluate kickers and decide that there is a guy out there who he thinks can kick in Soldier Field that can be had for cheaper. That is not unreasonable. It is riskier but people have different appetites for risk. What is the point of having a Special Teams Coach if he can't evaluate a kickers? The Bears are in the process of evaluating everyone right now on the team and will eventually evaluating players on other teams as well. So yeah, their evaluation of their players versus other teams players may as Bear Pride noted yield unexpected results. So telling me OMG there is wind in Soldier Field as if Robbie Gould is the only kicker in the NFL who can possibly deal with wind doesn't really tell me anything. And yes I am playing devil advocate here because I would not take the risk but someone else with more intimate knowledge of the NFL and who is pouring over game tape might.

 

[FirstTimer]

Ok, maybe I missed it, I don't see why a coach can't evaluate kickers and decide that there is a guy out there who he thinks can kick in Soldier Field that can be had for cheaper. That is not unreasonable. It is riskier but people have different appetites for risk. What is the point of having a Special Teams Coach if he can't evaluate a kickers? The Bears are in the process of evaluating everyone right now on the team and will eventually evaluating players on other teams as well. So yeah, their evaluation of their players versus other teams players may as Bear Pride noted yield unexpected results. So telling me OMG there is wind in Soldier Field as if Robbie Gould is the only kicker in the NFL who can possibly deal with wind doesn't really tell me anything. And yes I am playing devil advocate here because I would not take the risk but someone else with more intimate knowledge of the NFL and who is pouring over game tape might.

You did.

Stop.

 

[remydat]

Amazingly, the Bear Pride quote you cited WASN'T the one I was responding to. So this is essentially a hat trick of fucktardom for you...attributing what I said to the wrong quote three straight times! Here is what I was responding to:

Rory, that was the post after your intitial response in which Bear Pride tried to explain to you that the post you responded to was not about personal like or dislike. You then responded to his clarification that you misinterpreted him with post 76.

I don't know...seems like an odd way for a coaching regime to operate. The Bears aren't known for having any depth, and they don't have a lot of youngsters waiting in the wings to replace the vets. So for a coaching regime to come in and start getting rid of proven, productive players simply because of a "personal dislike" is a recipe for disaster, especially when the Bears don't have any viable replacements at this time.

The man just told you Rory that he did not mean like or dislike from a personal perspective but rather from a direction of the team perspective. Yet you respond to him still acting like he meant it as personal dislike. That is why I stepped in. BP was talking to me and I was the one who originally brought up the idea that a new regime might evaluate players differently from a business/football standpoint and his response about surprise cuts and everything else in his post was to me and about doing so for business/football reasons. You refused to ackowledge that in the above so I tried to clarify. Nothing in his posts said anything about personal dislike. You chose to interpret it that way and continued to do so after he clarified.

 

[remydat]

Btw.. Why would Emery let his new HC come in and dictate over him if he wants the center or kicker out for cheaper options.

A hc gets input to how he wants a roster but that would be hanging over the reigns in odd ways after Emery talked highly of some of those listed

Sent from Neverwhere using Taptalk

Really? So people did not think Lovie Smith had input on personal decisions. I must have imagined all the times people blamed Lovie for our bad drafts or said it was Lovie and Tice who convinced Emery not to draft an OL last year.

A coach has input. Emery obviously has the final decison. If you think there are players that Emery would not want cut then let me know the logic and I will consider it. The point was not to draw a line in the sand and say these guys have to be cut. The point was to come up with a list so that we can discuss. So make your case or don't. It is up to you. I already stated the deals I would definitely do and Garza and Gould was not among them initially.

 

[remydat]

What is this even in response to? When you say you are playing devil's advocate, with whom are you playing with? About what?

I don't disagree with anything you said. Yes, there are cheaper kickers than Gould (duh). Yes, the Bears are in the process of evaluating everyone right now. Yes, there might be unexpected results. So, again, what is your "argument"? Who are you talking to?

That is why it is not that idiotic to consider it is the point. You said it would be idiotic, I was explaining that while I wouldn't do it, I don't think it is idiotic.