Reggie White is on the very short list of best defensive players in the history of the game. So yes, if you think Mack *might* be better, you are saying Mack *might* be the greatest defensive player in the history of the league. There's no strawman there. Maybe you didn't realize how good White actually was when you posted that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Nope. Reading is a skill.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Sounds more like you don't realize how good Mack actually might be.

_________________

So, I'd say the article that you posted was pretty silly since that was said.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Why do you think that? Because I don't think he's better than Reggie White?

I've been consistent all summer in saying that Mack is a dominant player and deserves to be paid like one. When America tried arguing it wasn't worth it to pay a non-QB that type of money I said he was wrong. There's not one Mack-related post you can find from me where I doubt his talent.

I just don't think he is potentially better than the greatest defensive end ever. That's a pretty non controversial opinion.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

FavreFan is bipolar. He had NoQuan Smith inducted in the pro football HOF earlier, and now, he's not even better than Bob Martinez. If you don't agree with his opinion, give it 5 minutes, it surely will change.

No it's not. Reading is a skill. Surplus value out of a contract is not synonymous with valuable.

Also, you are ignoring that he wrote that article before the 2nd round pick was reported, and I had already posted his correction on twitter with the article, so it's not like you can't say you didn't see it.

Mack is being paid as the best defensive player in the league and in league history. Do you really think he can simply perform at a "very good" level and still get surplus value out of that contract? That's ridiculous.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

My opinions on all players have been consistent all summer. It's a shame that you feel the need to lie about my posts since you can't actually rebut any of them. I never had Smith in the HOF. I said he was a beast and a great pick at 8, and considering how much backtracking you have done since he signed, I'm guessing you're realizing how idiotic you sounded about him since the draft.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

What backtracking have I done since he signed? That's right none. Still not sure about the pick. He's not even slated to start week 1.

FavreFan taking it on all ends here...just like Aaron's 1st date with Manica.

_________________

You spammed the board during the holdout with comments about how worthless he was, and that immediately stopped once he signed. Even in this post your "criticism" of him is extremely soft. "Still not sure about the pick" was "this guy's a bust and a fucking headcase" like 3 weeks ago.

Maybe stick to baseball.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I stopped posting about his holdout, when his holdout ended. That's how general discussions work, when the event reaches an end, so does the discussion.

Oh god, no.

_________________

What is the difference? The whole point seems to be that the best way to win is to have players that are worth more than they are being paid. So, if you are being paid at the same rate as the value you provide then you aren't really making a positive contribution to the win total of the team since you have to sacrifice so much to get that production. Feel free to explain it to me better.

The article currently reflects that, and yet that line still exists in it too.

It depends on what "very good" means. I believe I originally said that he had to simply be as good as he has been in Oakland. If you prefer "great" over "very good" then yes, he has to be "great" even if he doesn't win any DPOY awards let alone 4 straight.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Fair point.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

The REALITY is FavreFan was the biggest Mack fan on this message board prior to Saturday. He was certain that Mack would be a Green Bay Pecker(despite me detailing how it was financially impossible for him to go to Green Bay, oh but I digress), but now that he's not a Pecker, he's going to systematically backtrack and point out all the flaws of the player he was in love with just a week ago. Flip-Flop, Flip-Flop.

In Oakland he won DPOY once already in 4 years and every year since his rookie year was on the very short list of nominees.

If you think he has to play as well as he did in Oakland for it to be a good move you and Barnwell are basically on the same page. So Barnwell's comment makes sense. The Bears paid for the player he was in Oakland. The only way for him to improve, or to get "surplus value" out of the contract, would be for him to win it every year instead of winning it every third year and being in the discussion the other years.

I don't think you object to his statement as much as you think you do.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

What flaws did I point out in Mack, Liar Bob? I don't think he really has any. It's a shame you can't stop making shit up. My opinions on Mack have been consistent all summer, unlike you and America.

Also, I know you aren't really a football guy, but GB had the financial flexibility to sign Mack long term even with the Rodgers extension. I even posted an article explaining it to you.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Some national guys compare him to Lawrence Taylor.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

Close, but you're still hedging too much. Just come out and say it.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

He certainly didn't phrase it very well if for him to be a valuable player he needs to simply be as good as he was in Oakland. His article was mostly negative about the trade. You've been pretty negative about it too. I don't think it was my mistake to think he didn't actually mean that it was a great trade as long as he simply is as good as he was in Oakland.

I also don't think it's fair to say that he is getting paid exactly what he is worth. The NFL is still a salary cap league and there is a barrier to how much any team can pay no matter how good a player is. That's why Aaron Rodgers isn't getting $90 million a year because, as you put it "We have Aaron Rodgers and that is all that matters". If this was a league with no salary cap then the top players would always get exactly what they are worth.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

No, they are being "objective" about the trade.

_________________

He looks like Terrell Suggs and Lawrence Taylor.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!

I think the first part of your post is simply wrong. You mistook surplus value for valuable. They aren't the same thing. What motivation would Barnwell have for being negative? His entire job is to objectively analyze the league. You sound like one of those idiots bemoaning writers hating their teams. Your team isn't special, I highly doubt Barnwell gives a shit about the Bears.

There's some truth to the second part of your post but within the structure of this CBA, Mack is getting paid what he's perceived as worth, and that's really all we can go on when evaluating existing contract extensions.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

If you think Im being negative, that's fine. I'll admit to having bias in this debate. I don't like the Bears.

If you think Bill Barnwell's article wasn't a sincere attempt to objectively analyze the trade from all angles, there's no helping you.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

I don't think he has anything against the Bears. Based on that article he seems to put a lot of faith in advanced stats and those made him think big contract = bad move. That's why he didn't even change his thoughts after the 2nd round pick made the loss of the first much different.

You still haven't explained why having no surplus value still makes you valuable. The very definition of value makes that hard to justify.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

But he never said it was a bad move, and explicitly said "It definitely makes the pot sweeter for the Bears, but the idea is still that the Bears are paying Mack something like $35 million per year after you account for the value of the picks. Which isn’t necessarily wrong, just a lot."

He's simply trying to gauge the overall cost of Mack as accurately as he can instead of just writing a lazy "Bears got Mack and that's all that matters!" article. Unless you're actively seeking to be less informed about the league and team, I can't understand calling the article silly, even if you don't agree with his conclusion.


It's very easy to justify. To simplify this for the sake of argument, let's assume Mack is indeed being paid accurately for what he produced in Oakland. Paying a player like Mack what he is supposedly worth is still a valuable contract - it's valuable to have dominant edge rushers even if you have to pay them accordingly, similar to how it's valuable to have elite QB's even if paying them accordingly. He's saying he can't simply be a dominant edge rusher anymore in order to add SURPLUS value to the contract. To add surplus value, he would need to be the best defensive player in football - which isn't really a stretch. MANY here seem to think he is just that.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

That part seems fairly objective but the tone of the article indicated that he wasn't a big fan of how much the Bears gave up. The "DPOY 4 times in a row" was just the most extreme example of that given that the greatest defensive players in history have not done that.
From what I could tell, the argument seemed to be about total allocation of salary and not simply that Mack would be worth roughly what he was getting paid. It seemed to indicate that while the player may perform at a level to justify his salary it doesn't make the team better because in a salary cap league you only have so much money to allocate and therefore you need players to outperform their contracts to really make it worthwhile. To me, that means that he really isn't valuable at the cost and instead he's just doing his job at a rate that is balanced out by his compensation. It's like those gifs about "You have $15, build your all time great lineup" where people have to decide if Kobe is valuable at $4 or Stephon Marbury is better at $2.

To put it another way, Carson Wentz is a lot more valuable now than he will be when he gets his big deal in a few years. If he is performing at a rate that simply justifies his salary I don't think I would call him valuable just like I wouldn't say that (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky was valuable last year because he was cheap and below average.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!