He clearly been shopping to try and go almost anywhere else.

When you look at the receivers we stopped in those playoff games... Julio, Diggs, Theilen, Deebo etc.... 

Vs the WRs we played in the Superbowls???   New England didn't have Edlemen, Cooks got knocked out.... KC certainly didn't have top WRs.

So what was the difference in those games?  You telling me it was that we covered the studs better than the so so guys ??     Obviously the battle at the line was the difference. 

24 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

The argument against CGJ is that he played behind an elite DL that gave him opportunities to make big plays. 

That's the best reason not to pay him.

That and Gannon system is S setup

And no doubt Brady and Mahomes .... but let's be honest... watching the games it was clear those 2 had way more time to throw than the 4 games we played at home.  What happened at the line was night and day, and it made the difference. 

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

That and Gannon system is S setup

And it's set up to make big plays and he made them.  That would be the reason to pay him...and be the argument against a guy like Mills.

The fact that everyone else does the dirty work but we need the safety to make the game changing play.

I also think the argument is about the solid fundamentals. Coverage and tackling are important for a S. You got caught up in the glitz of the interceptions a bit. Think a bunch of people did. But that was part of the system that put him in those spots. Now that basically is Siri D philosophy. Don’t give up big plays…and make some plays occasionally. Can work. But such a talented D this past season. Definitely didn’t make the plays to win the Lombardi. Needed that BG sack fumble play again and we win. Practically anything. If they walking all over you…at least create a turnover or something.

32 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

See when watching the magician...you see what happens at the end....ie. the RB carry or the DB making a play.   You miss what's going on the whole time during the trick.... which is what happens at the line.

You want the RB to not have to deal with the huge monsters on the line. He’s better breaking tackles against the DBs.

15 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Right...they didn't get it done and we got lit up.  The DL needs to be the priority....great point.

2 Superbowl seasons....totally dominant DL play at home... give up barely any points in 4 games..  2 Superbowls where the opposing OL could hold and the field was slippery...which neutralized our DL...and we give up 71 points. 

Great example where 2 good defenses relied on the dominant DL play.

Two great examples of how all that Dline didn’t payoff.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You want the RB to not have to deal with the huge monsters on the line. He’s better breaking tackles against the DBs.

Yeah..why we need to keep Lane and not give him to another contender.  That and addition to protecting the guy who is about to get a couple hundred million.

11 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

When you look at the receivers we stopped in those playoff games... Julio, Diggs, Theilen, Deebo etc.... 

Vs the WRs we played in the Superbowls???   New England didn't have Edlemen, Cooks got knocked out.... KC certainly didn't have top WRs.

So what was the difference in those games?  You telling me it was that we covered the studs better than the so so guys ??     Obviously the battle at the line was the difference. 

Just see it as a team game. Also seen things change and evolve.

7 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

And it's set up to make big plays and he made them.  That would be the reason to pay him...and be the argument against a guy like Mills.

The fact that everyone else does the dirty work but we need the safety to make the game changing play.

But Gannon and Dennard are gone now.

2 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Two great examples of how all that Dline didn’t payoff.

Yes...and where it's important for the DL to pay off....because our DBs couldn't cover...  ummm who were the WRs again???   I forget but I know it wasn't Julio, Diggs, Theilen, or Deebo.

1 minute ago, joemas6 said:

Yeah..why we need to keep Lane and not give him to another contender.  That and addition to protecting the guy who is about to get a couple hundred million.

You just watched KC have a poor T against Reddick and it wasn’t a problem. Never stopped them.

2 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yeah..why we need to keep Lane and not give him to another contender.  That and addition to protecting the guy who is about to get a couple hundred million.

See both sides

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

Just see it as a team game. Also seen things change and evolve.

Yes team game....Our DBs couldn't cover scrub WRs..because our DL didn't dominate... yet did ok vs stud WRs.

Certainly it wasn't the DL that benefitted from our DBs doing a better job of covering the studs vs the scrubs? 

No matter how much you don’t want it to happen…Lane is about done. Could clear cap and get draft ammo to get younger. Setup a longer window.

1 minute ago, cunninghamtheman said:

You just watched KC have a poor T against Reddick and it wasn’t a problem. Never stopped them.

Right... so if we can play 17 games vs a DL that slips...we can trade Lane.  I'm guessing that won't happen though.

I’ve always favored trading a guy a year early than a year late. Packers probably have worked that the best. Early you get return in draft picks. So we get youth in return. Two more seasons with Lane and get nothing.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

No matter how much you don’t want it to happen…Lane is about done. Could clear cap and get draft ammo to get younger. Setup a longer window.

Except it wouldn't clear cap space... and not going to get you 1st round pick... which means a pick around 60 if it's a contender. 

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

I’ve always favored trading a guy a year early than a year late. Packers probably have worked that the best. Early you get return in draft picks. So we get youth in return. Two more seasons with Lane and get nothing.

Right...because he will retire.

Just now, cunninghamtheman said:

I’ve always favored trading a guy a year early than a year late. Packers probably have worked that the best. Early you get return in draft picks. So we get youth in return. Two more seasons with Lane and get nothing.

But ask Hurts...tell him you want to trade Lane...what you think he says?

Notice I never got an answer if you would pay CGJ 13 mil now?

5 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yes...and where it's important for the DL to pay off....because our DBs couldn't cover...  ummm who were the WRs again???   I forget but I know it wasn't Julio, Diggs, Theilen, or Deebo.

Not saying Dline can’t be a great strength. I just can see many ways to go about things. Need a whole team regardless.

4 minutes ago, joemas6 said:

Yes team game....Our DBs couldn't cover scrub WRs..because our DL didn't dominate... yet did ok vs stud WRs.

Certainly it wasn't the DL that benefitted from our DBs doing a better job of covering the studs vs the scrubs? 

Thought Gannon flopped with our DBs. But if you have a record breaking Dline…can’t do anything against Mahomes….might want to rethink that approach then.

24 minutes ago, cunninghamtheman said:

I’ve been saying 13 mil all season. But him not being happy about it and kind of balking at coming back has me reconsidering possibly.