Demi wrote:Arguable? You're going to argue when he played for GB he was a better linebacker than Clay Matthews? Really? Oh my goodness, I guess you'd know what a joke is, you just made a hilarious one!
First of all, Matthews plays more of a defensive end role than anything so no, in no way am I comparing him to Matthews. They are essentially 2 different positions in GB's 3-4 defense.
Demi wrote:Yes, a 5 time pro bowler, defensive player of the year. versus an average two year starter. The big difference is in talent. One has a lot of it, the other doesn't.
Harrison is out of his prime at this point and can't stay healthy. He had most of those accomplishments in his prime, not as of late. Bishop had 218 tackles, 8 sacks, and 1 pick six in 25 games (2 seasons). He put up over 100 tackles and multiple sacks 2 straight years and didn't even start a full 16 games in either of those years (12 in 2010 and 13 in 2011). That's better than any of our LB's in that short of a time. But yeah he's average
Your judgement of talent is just so far off it's not even funny.
Demi wrote:No, the mindset that led us to sign him did. The person making those type of decisions a year into a rebuild.
You're acting like adding guys that are on "prove yourself" contracts is a bad thing. Like I said, I really question your judgement of talent. We had a hole at WILL LB and Bishop was by far the best option out there. Do you expect Spielman to just sit back and not assess it when Bishop is still out there?? It makes no sense whatsoever. That "mindset" is far and away what cost us to be in the bottom of the division. Getting guys on "prove yourself" contracts....yeah that reallyyyyy cost us
Take those blinders off
Demi wrote:
Said the same thing last year. He came in, got hurt, contributed next to nothing. Got a prove it deal, failed to prove it. At best we waste a roster spot on an average 29 year old player for a year or two.
Packers cut him, no interest in bringing him back. Guess you're glad we don't have the Packers front office either, probably question their judgement on players as well.
We can use all the help we can get at LB. And as I have said before, and you continue to ignore, I'm not saying he needs to come in and start. He can come in and simply be a role player and adds very good depth to this team. Enough with the 29 year old crap....that's not old so you prove nothing by continuing to say that.
Your Packers "front office" argument is baffling as well. They have solid LB's to begin with....we don't. There's a HUGE difference there. They can afford letting him go, especially because he was owed a good amount of money. We owed him next to nothing so there is no waste about it. His potential is very high and we all know (other than you) how he can perform when healthy. There is nothing wrong with bringing him back at veteran minimum. Especially with Mike Zimmer as HC.
.....regardless of whatever "genius" comment you come back with....you aren't changing my mind on the matter. So you can go back and forth all you want but neither of us are getting anywhere. So I would say agree to disagree (The story of your life when it comes to the VMB)
I'll put you to the test.....Demi.....Adrian Peterson is the best overall RB in the NFL. Agree or Disagree?? Let's see if it's possible that you can actually agree with someone.
Props to Demi for continuing to argue the facts and not falling prey to the personal attacks being sent his way.
