Goederts contract is already a steal

1 minute ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Goederts contract is already a steal

 

Blog was real big on trading him or letting him walk instead of re-signing him.  

2 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Blog was real big on trading him or letting him walk instead of re-signing him.  

Yea, no. No one said that besides one person who wanted to draft Pitts. 

44 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Which statement do you more believe to be true.

A) Greatness will always be great no matter what circumstance they land in. So if Pat Mahomes and Tom Brady were drafted by the Lions, they'd still be as great as they are today.

B) Greatness needs to be surrounded by the right situation to truly realize their greatness no matter how much talent they have.

If Troy Aikman was drafted by the Bengals, he wouldn’t sniff the hall of fame.

If David Carr was drafted by a team with an NFL-caliber Oline, we’d know his name better than Derek’s.

If Tom Brady didn’t land with Belichick, he’d have half as many rings at best and would be "in the conversation”, not unanimous GOAT.

 

absolutely B. Too much of a QB’s legacy is influenced by team performance 

14 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Goederts contract is already a steal

Woof

that contract is so dumb by the Browns

13 minutes ago, RememberTheKoy said:

 

Blog was real big on trading him or letting him walk instead of re-signing him.  

Yeah no

2 hours ago, RLC said:

But that's not true. Good teams lose in week 1, and bad teams win in week 1, all the time. 

His opinion is that it would be a bad sign... not mine.

52 minutes ago, Sack that QB said:

Which statement do you more believe to be true.

A) Greatness will always be great no matter what circumstance they land in. So if Pat Mahomes and Tom Brady were drafted by the Lions, they'd still be as great as they are today.

B) Greatness needs to be surrounded by the right situation to truly realize their greatness no matter how much talent they have.

A

There are great players that played for bad teams

3 hours ago, UndyTaker said:

Think he'll line up in front of Lane for the most part, am I wrong?

He played both sides at Michigan. If he has some success on one side I expect he’ll stick with that. I think they’ll start him against Mailata just because he’s less experienced.

12 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

A

There are great players that played for bad teams

But are they as great?

Randy Miss statistically had his best year in 2003, how many people remember that? They remember that ‘99 team, they remember that ‘07 team. The narrative has a huge part to play on "greatness”

 

Matt Stafford is a perfect example of this. He’s exactly the same player in LA as he was in Detroit, but his "greatness” has changed considerably

30 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea, no. No one said that besides one person who wanted to draft Pitts. 

In his world, if one person says something everyone is in agreement with it, except him.

2 minutes ago, Aerolithe_Lion said:

But are they as great?

Randy Miss statistically had his best year in 2003, how many people remember that? They remember that ‘99 team, they remember that ‘07 team. The narrative has a huge part to play on "greatness”

Joe Thomas is the first player I think of that is great but played for a bad team

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

Which statement do you more believe to be true.

A) Greatness will always be great no matter what circumstance they land in. So if Pat Mahomes and Tom Brady were drafted by the Lions, they'd still be as great as they are today.

B) Greatness needs to be surrounded by the right situation to truly realize their greatness no matter how much talent they have.

I was thinking along a parallel line in a different context, prompted by the book I’m reading- McCullough’s biography of Harry Truman. It also applies to Ulysses Grant. Neither was remarkable until circumstance was forced upon them. Two unremarkable men rose to greatness in facing those circumstances. I realize I’m waffling but I clearly opt for B.

12 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Joe Thomas is the first player I think of that is great but played for a bad team

Barry Sanders

Calvin Johnson

5 minutes ago, justrelax said:

I was thinking along a parallel line in a different context, prompted by the book I’m reading- McCullough’s biography of Harry Truman. It also applies to Ulysses Grant. Neither was remarkable until circumstance was forced upon them. Two unremarkable men rose to greatness in facing those circumstances. I realize I’m waffling but I clearly opt for B.

That's a good book but it's been a long time since I read it.  Truman is an interesting character.  I certainly agree that Truman did not have some immediate rise to fame and was a first term Senator when Roosevelt choose him to be VP.  I do think they thought he was likely to succeed Roosevelt as President.   

9 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Barry Sanders

Calvin Johnson

OJ Simpson

6 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

OJ Simpson

 

36 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Joe Thomas is the first player I think of that is great but played for a bad team

hmm, then I think position may be important here too. A RB’s reputation is heavily influenced by the quality of his Oline, whereas the Olineman can be equally great regardless of the players around him.

1 hour ago, Sack that QB said:

Which statement do you more believe to be true.

A) Greatness will always be great no matter what circumstance they land in. So if Pat Mahomes and Tom Brady were drafted by the Lions, they'd still be as great as they are today.

B) Greatness needs to be surrounded by the right situation to truly realize their greatness no matter how much talent they have.

I'd say B.

Just look at Mahomes and Brady in college.  Were their Texas Tech and Michigan teams anything to write home about?  If they were great no matter circumstances, I would think their college teams would have faired better.

26 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

Barry Sanders

Calvin Johnson

What is Calvin Johnson when Hurts is throwing to him? While Detroit itself may not have been great, he had a QB who could get it to him

Butkus 

6 minutes ago, bpac55 said:

I'd say B.

Just look at Mahomes and Brady in college.  Were their Texas Tech and Michigan teams anything to write home about?  If they were great no matter circumstances, I would think their college teams would have faired better.

Michigan was ranked top 5 in Brady's senior year and won the orange bowel.   But yes I do agree with your point. 

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

I was thinking along a parallel line in a different context, prompted by the book I’m reading- McCullough’s biography of Harry Truman. It also applies to Ulysses Grant. Neither was remarkable until circumstance was forced upon them. Two unremarkable men rose to greatness in facing those circumstances. I realize I’m waffling but I clearly opt for B.

One could say the same about Zelensky in Ukraine.

2 hours ago, LeanMeanGM said:

Yea, no. No one said that besides one person who wanted to draft Pitts. 

 

No there was multiple people. Became quite the popular idea in here like most awful ideas do. 

22 hours ago, schuy7 said:

A lot of commotion about Simms ranking Daniel Jones over Hurts. I would take Jones over Hurts, easily. Not even close for me.

With good coaching I think Jones is Eli 2.0.  Eli got 7 years before he turned in a plus QB season.

15 minutes ago, Wentz_Era said:

With good coaching I think Jones is Eli 2.0.  Eli got 7 years before he turned in a plus QB season.

He's an interesting player. Certainly flashes his talent, but also makes way too many mistakes. Playing on the Giants hasn't helped. I think he lacks some leadership though. He's just going through the motions, it seems. Never fired up, kind of just there. But yeah, if you're a coach, you're more excited to work with him right now than you would be with Hurts.