Melton going to be the new "Fridge"??????

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Your last point is stupid for two reasons:

1. Nobody on this board has influence, so there is no point bringing it up. Again.

2. You don't know that the change will be positive. Neither do the coaches. And that's the entire point of having a board like this, where we get to pontificate on what the players, coaches, GMs, etc. should do since we don't have influence (see #1)

 

Come on, don't you know that I am really Michael McCaskey! Where do you think I got the idea to finally fire Jerry Angelo from, that's right Talk bears!

[Pixote]

I have been following this thread, although sometimes I must admit I need to take some Tylenol afterwords. I really have only learned one thing from this ongoing "differences of opinion", never try and argue a point with Jason or Wesson unless you want to wind up with an unresolved disagreement and a "agree / disagree" concession.

[jason]

I have been following this thread, although sometimes I must admit I need to take some Tylenol afterwords. I really have only learned one thing from this ongoing "differences of opinion", never try and argue a point with Jason or Wesson unless you want to wind up with an unresolved disagreement and a "agree / disagree" concession.

 

 

That's the fun of it sometimes for me. Debating to see if either the opposing party can be reasoned with (not possible in this situation) or there is middle ground to be had.

[madlithuanian]

Or less eloquently put, we all are getting hit with residual splash from the pi$$ing contest!

 

I have been following this thread, although sometimes I must admit I need to take some Tylenol afterwords. I really have only learned one thing from this ongoing "differences of opinion", never try and argue a point with Jason or Wesson unless you want to wind up with an unresolved disagreement and a "agree / disagree" concession.

 

[Wesson44]

You could potentially be the mose dense person to ever post on this forum. You contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. If they no longer play WR, they are not WRs. Why don't you understand that? The draft has nothing to do with the game if the players are moved to another position because of their lack of production/ability/opportunity at their original position.

 

 

Summarization...

A- Weems and Thomas are now ST players. That's all there is to it. If a player can't cut it at their drafted position, but they are talented elsewhere, they may make a team's roster at another position. That makes them the new position, not the one in which they were drafted. That topic of talent is why I was in favor of...

B- Devin Hester's position change. Devin Hester didn't really have a position when he was drafted, was drafted as an athlete, became an amazing returner, and had more raw ability than perhaps any player since Barry Sanders. A player like that you try to find opportunities for. But even someone as immensely physically talented as Hester initially struggled. That initial struggle is why I'm against...

C- Henry Melton playing FB. Him playing FB doesn't make a lot of sense since he hasn't done it in a while, he isn't a dominant performer at his current position, the initial struggle is likely, the likelihood of injury increases, the Bears already have a FB on the roster, and already have two starting-quality RBs on the roster.

 

Your last point is stupid for two reasons:

1. Nobody on this board has influence, so there is no point bringing it up. Again.

2. You don't know that the change will be positive. Neither do the coaches. And that's the entire point of having a board like this, where we get to pontificate on what the players, coaches, GMs, etc. should do since we don't have influence (see #1)

 

In defense of this statement "potentially be the mose dense person to ever post on this forum" I think its you because you dont thave the balls to admit when you are wrong. Thomas and Weems are WR playing ST....thats it.

 

You also assume too much that Melton will struggle because he has not played the position in a while. The Bears had two starting-quality RBs and a FB on the roster when the Fridge was playing Rb too.

 

Lastly as I said before players will be switched at different positions to help the team take advantage of what they bring to the table as far as talent goes. So if Melton plays FB good, Weems and Thomas plat ST good....so you just need to get over that fact that you and your oponion and disagreements have no merit to what the Bears will do and are going to do. And its very stupid of you to think that Weems & Thomas are not WR's. If they both make one catch this year....it will not be on ST but at WR because as you say "Weems and Thomas are now ST players".Now one last lesson for you look at the links below....and see #'s 11,14,15,17,18,23, and #80 all catching passes! Because they are WR's!!!!!

 

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/mul...amp;play_clip=Y

http://www.chicagobears.com/multimedia/mul...amp;play_clip=Y

[Mongo3451]

I have been following this thread, although sometimes I must admit I need to take some Tylenol afterwords. I really have only learned one thing from this ongoing "differences of opinion", never try and argue a point with Jason or Wesson unless you want to wind up with an unresolved disagreement and a "agree / disagree" concession.

I will self appoint myself judge in this matter. By process of attrition in the season, we lose a couple of receivers to injury or DEA bust; who steps in and plays WR? A = Weems and Thomas. Therefore they are WR's who specialize at ST's. Case solved. Winner = Wesson

 

Now, to the Jeffery case of the board vs Wesson. Winner = board!

 

All verdicts are final!!!

[selection7]

Cutting through to the main topic of debate these last two pages (after you both stopped talking about Melton, that is)...

 

Wesson, this started when you said "i am saying that some of the moves they make or needed to make can help this team win. Like getting four WR in the draft and FA....look back and see hoe YOU laughed at the idea."

 

It's disingenuous to imply Thomas' and Weems' primary contributions were intended to be WR when we picked them up. I think that point was pretty clear (rudeness aside) when Jason said "My god how many times does this have to be explained to you? They did not get 4 WRs. They got two WRs, and two dudes who will play almost exclusively on ST." So now after the fact, you're leaning your argument on the technicality that they have "WR" next to their name and will be available as such if an emergency calls for it (and maybe as a dependable backup, but not in the near future, and only if we're lucky). THAT'S NOT what any reasonable person would say you were implying with your quote above. It's a straw-man argument since Jason never cared to argue whether they techinically have a WR designation and can contribute in emergency.

 

If I was to criticise Jason, it would be that he went after a fairly unimportant part of your point (e.i., whether Thomas and Weems should be included in that lot), since the Marshall and Jeffery additions are clearly enough by themselves to illustrate your point about seeing our Bears' needs in the same way as Bears management. And doing that sidetracks the discussion. ...leftover irritation a previous spat you two have had probably.

 

The only angle I think you could have argued on the Thomas/Weems thing, Wesson, would have been that while they may not be on this team to help us at WR, it also may not be entirely coincidence that they play WR on offense, because it could mean our coaches see our current WR depth as untalented and easily replaceable...that even Weems and Thomas aren't much of a downgrade and we can cut someone like Sanz or Knox to make space easier than we could at other positions. Jason would probably respond he ws never interested in debating depth though, but rather the best strategy to turn our weaknesses at starting positions into strengths instead, which gets back to the OL or WR at the top of the draft question from months ago.

[selection7]

I will self appoint myself judge in this matter. By process of attrition in the season, we lose a couple of receivers to injury or DEA bust; who steps in and plays WR? A = Weems and Thomas. Therefore they are WR's who specialize at ST's. Case solved. Winner = Wesson

 

Now, to the Jeffery case of the board vs Wesson. Winner = board!

 

All verdicts are final!!!

I guess now it's our turn Mongo (there's no boxing gloves emoticon, ha)

[jason]

I will self appoint myself judge in this matter. By process of attrition in the season, we lose a couple of receivers to injury or DEA bust; who steps in and plays WR? A = Weems and Thomas. Therefore they are WR's who specialize at ST's. Case solved. Winner = Wesson

 

Now, to the Jeffery case of the board vs Wesson. Winner = board!

 

All verdicts are final!!!

 

LMAO. I object. Could they be two current ST players who will be used at WR because they used to play WR? Aside from that, there have been plenty of points made, and countered very clearly. Just rereading the entire thread becomes comical with how poorly the points are made. To summarize:

 

1. What is best for the team, with implications that the moves made will work out, is inconsequential since the Bears are batting about .500 the past decade. Continually pointing to the moves as if they are undebateable is entirely flawed given the Bears' history.

 

2. Weight and height do not automatically equate to on-field success. Period.

 

3. Being schemed to play a position you haven't played in several years - particularly if this position is fundamentally different than a player's current position - is entirely different than using a player in an emergency situation simply because he's athletic (i.e. Pats). In addition, the position for which a player is drafted, or where he played in college, means nearly nothing if the NFL doesn't view that player as that position anymore. A player is what he currently is, not what he was. It's the reason Urlacher isn't a Safety in the pros, and why many college LTs get moved inside when they make the NFL. This holds particular value when discussing the number of players brought in by the Bears to play a certain position. While some players have done things before, and may technically be a position by previous trade, the implication was that the Bears would sign four WRs to play WR, not four WRs so two of them could play ST (selection7 reinforced this point well). Similarly, not all players are equal, so bringing in one of the most dynamic players in history to prove a point about two guys who haven't cut it at their originally drafted positions is ridiculous.

[Mongo3451]

LMAO. I object. Could they be two current ST players who will be used at WR because they used to play WR? Aside from that, there have been plenty of points made, and countered very clearly. Just rereading the entire thread becomes comical with how poorly the points are made. To summarize:

 

1. What is best for the team, with implications that the moves made will work out, is inconsequential since the Bears are batting about .500 the past decade. Continually pointing to the moves as if they are undebateable is entirely flawed given the Bears' history.

 

2. Weight and height do not automatically equate to on-field success. Period.

 

3. Being schemed to play a position you haven't played in several years - particularly if this position is fundamentally different than a player's current position - is entirely different than using a player in an emergency situation simply because he's athletic (i.e. Pats). In addition, the position for which a player is drafted, or where he played in college, means nearly nothing if the NFL doesn't view that player as that position anymore. A player is what he currently is, not what he was. It's the reason Urlacher isn't a Safety in the pros, and why many college LTs get moved inside when they make the NFL. This holds particular value when discussing the number of players brought in by the Bears to play a certain position. While some players have done things before, and may technically be a position by previous trade, the implication was that the Bears would sign four WRs to play WR, not four WRs so two of them could play ST (selection7 reinforced this point well). Similarly, not all players are equal, so bringing in one of the most dynamic players in history to prove a point about two guys who haven't cut it at their originally drafted positions is ridiculous.

Overruled! Lol!