Draft order

No, I know they had thoughts of franchising him. They didn't, and it would've been a terrible idea to do it. Marty Hurney bad.

 

Actually the Marty Hurney thing to do was let him walk for nothing, as that's exactly what Hurney did with Peppers. The smart thing was obviously to franchise and trade him for something. It's awesome to watch you embarrass yourself again and again with stupid comments, all because you're so desperate to defend your long-discredited position.

 

Why can't you allow someone to have a different opinion on something or someone without posting a trilogy?

 

Uhh - in the Mario Williams situation we don't have Mario Williams to let him walk. But definitely, trading a 9 pick for Williams would've been very Marty Hurney, though his style has always included future picks. It also would've been a disaster.

Sure. Totally agree. But this isn't about Peppers. This is about you wanting to trade the 9 pick for a pending free agent, who would've been ridiculously inaffordable. It was a disaster, and I can see why you don't even want to talk about it. Hell, you barely even mention DE at all anymore. But -

this is clearly a lie. I never insisted that. I've even been fine with the situational backup you keep whining about, but if we went with nothing but DTs, OL, and DBs, I'd be ecstatic.

It's not "long discredited". No one wanted to trade for Williams and it seems pretty clear that DT has issues, but DE has two starters. And, you hitched your wagon to the idea that Hardy wasn't worth starting (when he already was, but has now grown by a good deal from there). I mean, you talk big, but "long discredited" has nothing to do with anything.

 

Not caring about accuracy or the validity of statements gives you a bunch of garbage with no quality or value.

 

Houston letting him walk for nothing was the Hurney move.

It's funny how you're getting humiliated in this argument and the only escape you can think of is to pretend that trading for Mario Williams would have been a bad idea. Mario has 9.5 sacks this season. Saying it would have been a "disaster" to acquire him only succeeds in making you look like an idiot. Or wait, of course no one should want one of the best DEs in the league on this team, that would be disastrous.

Yes, you absolutely did. You said that "at most" the team should add a DE who could replace Hardy for run situations.

Dude, what did I already tell you about lying? http://www.thisboardrocks.com/forum/f19/no-dl-worth-8-9-pick-181419/ Read the thread again. More people favored the idea than opposed it, although as noted, I did say then that salary is what would prevent it from happening.

 

They seemed to do OK without him. Still, you ascribing this from Houston's perspective is beside the point.

You wanting to trade a 9 pick for Williams is a Hurney move.

So you're willing to give up a top ten pick and $100 million additional payroll to get a net difference of one sack?

Also, eight days ago he had 5.5, so it's not like Williams has been a slam dunk.

Is that an addition or not?
But yes, I did suggest numerous starting veterans, and was fine with numerous prospects. You worry about other people lying, but never yourself.

I see one person, vaguely, saying yes. Abusive. You always exaggerate, if not outright lie, about you having this voice of the people. I guess you could just be delusional.

this is similar to what I've been talking about. Paul's asking about you being wordy and you go on some self-serving diatribe about truth. Sometimes communication includes involving the other person.

 

No, the "Hurney move" is obviously what the Texans did, as that's something Hurney actually did as well. Trading a first for a legitimate star is not anything Marty did here. Also, I find it comical that in that thread where I proposed trading for Williams you posted that he'd be a significant upgrade but now you want to pretend it would have been "disastrous." Your opinions aren't based on reason or facts, they change based on your emotions.

It wouldn't be a first plus Hardy for Williams. Having Williams, Johnson, and Hardy would make the pass rush more impactful and consistent. Everyone can see the huge difference in this defense between the times when they're pressuring the quarterback and when they're not. Today they didn't, and what happened?

You mentioned 3-4 LBs, but I don't recall you suggesting any 4-3 DEs. In fact, in that thread where I proposed Mario you said that would be a better move than drafting Coples.

Yeah, I'm the delusional one. In fact, I imagined this post into existence:

 

oh, there were two. My bad. Two! Ho, that makes it a good idea to have done. That makes it not an awful idea. Yes, Williams would've been a significant upgrade in my eyes - right now not as much - but that doesn't mean I didn't think *it would cost far too much, *it wasn't a requirement to upgrade to that level, or *that I didn't really want to trade the 9 pick for anyone. It seems disingenuous to single out "he's an upgrade" and forget that pretty much the entire time I thought it was a terrible idea.

Hurney also traded away bigtime picks. You know, this was my statement, and of course you can't even argue about it. You have to change the entire argument for exactly no reason whatsoever.

So, I'll drop that it was a Hurney move, since you're somehow even in the semantics of that statement. And I'll just keep insisting it would've been a fucking retarded trade. I'm definitely glad we didn't do it.

My feelings on Coples were all over the place. I accepted it at times, I liked it others, I hated it often. I did mention plenty of 4-3 ends. I did also mention some guys who were bigger ends who could rush inside. Interesting you earlier brought up 3-4 OLB guys, though, since I was supposed to have never said a 3-4 was a good idea until very recently.

I'm saying that Hardy has 1.5 less sacks and costs about $95 million less. Sure, Hardy would still be here, but you can't possibly be serious that Hardy would have much production seeing almost no playing time or being mostly a tackle.

Whole defense played poorly today. Can't pin a loss on them, or at least I can't. Your politics may vary. I'm not happy with 362 yards rushing in two weeks without Ron Edwards. Man, if only run defense had some sort of effect on pass rush.




edit - also, you've stated you want to keep Edwards, a 3 tech. But then you say you do want Lotuleilei. Who you said would be a waste at 3 tech. Were you actually suggesting both and no upgrade at NT, or were those two separate worlds?

 

nar·cis·sism
[nahr-suh-siz-em]

- noun

1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2. Psychoanal. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.
Also, nar·cism
Origin: 1815–25; < G Narzissismus. See narcissus, -ism