Bears Acquire Joe Thuney

[Hema2.0]

Are the Bears going to draft Ashton Jeanty? My spidey senses are tingling.

The Bears have enough offensive weapons. Now they need an OL at the expense of all else.

A lot of people smarter than I am say that the Oline prospects in rd2 will be similarity graded as those most likely still available at 10. If Poles/Johnson come to the same conclusion, I can see it happening.

[RichH55]

Are the Bears going to draft Ashton Jeanty? My spidey senses are tingling.

Spidey Senses -----they sense Danger

[Hema2.0]

Are the Bears going to draft Ashton Jeanty? My spidey senses are tingling.

Spidey Senses -----they sense Danger

Question is is it danger for the Chicago Bears or the rest of the NFL

[mmmc_35]

What a good pick up. I really think highly of this. Which of course could have bad omens.

I feel like this is kind of like the Josh Sitton deal. People may take that as a negative and, that didn't work out how we wanted. But similarly Thuney is a all pro generally healthy gaurd. It's exactly what the Bears needed now and then.

The concerns of age are real. The concern that good teams don't let this type of player go until they are on the downside of their career is true.

As I type this I realize all of the above is kind of negative. Yet I really like this pick up.

[karhu]

But even better is what the last couple of days have all but confirmed: that Poles hasn't been dopishly ignoring the line so much as paying undue attention to his HC's preferences. He's probably committed on principle to that approach, which is why he wanted Eberflus gone before the brass was ready for that move: Poles couldn't work with the guy under his own code, and dreaded abandoning that code to try and make it work with the wrong kind of HC. Johnson is factors brighter than Eberflus, and it's already showing. These aren't Poles moves or Johnson moves; they're the smart, opportunistic, win-each-deal moves made by a GM and HC who see eye to eye and are cooking.

And the upshot? After taking it on the chin for nearly all of 40 years?



"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."

[Bearfacts]

What a good pick up. I really think highly of this. Which of course could have bad omens.

I feel like this is kind of like the Josh Sitton deal. People may take that as a negative and, that didn't work out how we wanted. But similarly Thuney is a all pro generally healthy gaurd. It's exactly what the Bears needed now and then.

The concerns of age are real. The concern that good teams don't let this type of player go until they are on the downside of their career is true.

As I type this I realize all of the above is kind of negative. Yet I really like this pick up.

And yet there's nothing to indicate that's in any way true. Once Kelce said he was coming back his $19.8 mil cap hit was gonna stay on the books instead of only $2.55 mil if he retired. KC had to make a choice between a 32 year All Pro LG and a 26 year old ascending RG they just tagged at $23.4 mil. They couldn't keep both.

It's been said that Poles offered KC and 2nd and a 5th for Smith. They declined and offered to deal Thuney instead which actually works out better for us IMHO because he that ace pass protector we need at LG. He's only missed two games in his entire career and the way NFL players condition year round now 32 isn't the end of the line for an OL. He's probably got at least 2-3 good years in him as long as he can keep avoiding injury. It's a bit of gamble but then what it isn't? We've been gambling on TJ staying healthy for fours years and he hasn't.

[HurricaneBear]

the last couple of days have all but confirmed: that Poles hasn't been dopishly ignoring the line so much as paying undue attention to his HC's preferences.

I tend to think this as well.

[wab]

the last couple of days have all but confirmed: that Poles hasn't been dopishly ignoring the line so much as paying undue attention to his HC's preferences.

I tend to think this as well.

I think it's a combination of trying to find diamonds in the rough, bringing in players his coaches wanted (Nate Davis/Matt Pryor/Lucas Patrick), and being saddled with drafted guys like Jenkins/Borom that he needed to figure out what to do with.

Now that the slate is clean, he can look at it and be like "well none of that worked, so let's attack it".

[Moriarty]

But even better is what the last couple of days have all but confirmed: that Poles hasn't been dopishly ignoring the line so much as paying undue attention to his HC's preferences.

I think there's absolutely a good chunk of the latter going on. I think some of column A, too, but I couldn't tell you precisely how much of each.

Either is bad.
A GM needs to listen to his HC, but he also needs to make his own decisions, not just be a waitress taking orders. HCs are very rarely as good at talent evaluation, roster building, and resource allocation as they think they are (see when Dave Wannstedt got heavy personnel control as a classic example). There's a reason why "HC is a direct report up to the GM" is the standard model.

The upside of reason B is, of course, that if you do what your coach says too much, but do happen to stumble across a rare HC who has quality team assembly skills, then you aren't doing as much dumb stuff as you would with a typical HC.

[G08]

I tend to think this as well.

I think it's a combination of trying to find diamonds in the rough, bringing in players his coaches wanted (Nate Davis/Matt Pryor/Lucas Patrick), and being saddled with drafted guys like Jenkins/Borom that he needed to figure out what to do with.

Now that the slate is clean, he can look at it and be like "well none of that worked, so let's attack it".

Agreed -- here's a very telling comment he made at the Combine: "Yeah, I think the clearer the vision, the more aggressive you can be, and that's important. You want to be selective in free agency because historically if you look at it, it can tell you and you can learn from that. But if there are certain players that kind of hit all the checked boxes that you need, there's really no reason to hold back. I feel like you can be aggressive in those situations."

This tells me that, at least offensively at this point, Ben Johnson has told Ryan Poles exactly what he wants and needs for this thing to unlock. That's massive.

I would have to think Dennis Allen knows exactly what he wants as well, dude has been doing this -- with success -- for well over 14 seasons (Head Coach and/or Defensive Coordinator). This is what I was talking about when I said you need to set a clear identity offensively and defensively and stick to it. Even if you have a coordinator change in the future -- STICK TO THE SAME SCHEME. All this bullshit of going from Cover-2, to 3-4, back to Cover-2 needs to fucking stop and I hope that is what we have here.

Ben Johnson and Dennis Allen for the next 10-12+ years would make me thrilled.


Back on topic:

Olin Kreutz made mention that he thinks Jonah Jackson should stick at LG and Joe Thuney be moved to RG. At first I thought he was out of his fucking mind, but after thinking about it, I realized that he probably still is out of his mind but he might have a point here

Jonah Jackson's best NFL tape came at LG while playing under Ben Johnson's guidance. Joe Thuney is a Hall of Fame LG, but he is so fucking talented he was able to play LT for the Chiefs last season because they needed him there. Would RG be that big of a transition for him? I don't know... I don't love the idea of asking him to move BUT, with that being said, I ask all of you to pick one:

1. Jonah Jackson at LG (B+) and Joe Thuney at RG (B)

or

2. Joe Thuney at LG (A-) and Jonah Jackson at RG (B-)


I can make an argument for either one, but my Joe Thuney at LG argument involves Kiran Amegadjie at LT, which I know will cause some of you to have an aneurysm

[dplank]

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

[wab]

I think it's a combination of trying to find diamonds in the rough, bringing in players his coaches wanted (Nate Davis/Matt Pryor/Lucas Patrick), and being saddled with drafted guys like Jenkins/Borom that he needed to figure out what to do with.

Now that the slate is clean, he can look at it and be like "well none of that worked, so let's attack it".

Agreed -- here's a very telling comment he made at the Combine: "Yeah, I think the clearer the vision, the more aggressive you can be, and that's important. You want to be selective in free agency because historically if you look at it, it can tell you and you can learn from that. But if there are certain players that kind of hit all the checked boxes that you need, there's really no reason to hold back. I feel like you can be aggressive in those situations."

This tells me that, at least offensively at this point, Ben Johnson has told Ryan Poles exactly what he wants and needs for this thing to unlock. That's massive.

I would have to think Dennis Allen knows exactly what he wants as well, dude has been doing this -- with success -- for well over 14 seasons (Head Coach and/or Defensive Coordinator). This is what I was talking about when I said you need to set a clear identity offensively and defensively and stick to it. Even if you have a coordinator change in the future -- STICK TO THE SAME SCHEME. All this bullshit of going from Cover-2, to 3-4, back to Cover-2 needs to fucking stop and I hope that is what we have here.

Ben Johnson and Dennis Allen for the next 10-12+ years would make me thrilled.


Back on topic:

Olin Kreutz made mention that he thinks Jonah Jackson should stick at LG and Joe Thuney be moved to RG. At first I thought he was out of his fucking mind, but after thinking about it, I realized that he probably still is out of his mind but he might have a point here

Jonah Jackson's best NFL tape came at LG while playing under Ben Johnson's guidance. Joe Thuney is a Hall of Fame LG, but he is so fucking talented he was able to play LT for the Chiefs last season because they needed him there. Would RG be that big of a transition for him? I don't know... I don't love the idea of asking him to move BUT, with that being said, I ask all of you to pick one:

1. Jonah Jackson at LG (B+) and Joe Thuney at RG (B)

or

2. Joe Thuney at LG (A-) and Jonah Jackson at RG (B-)


I can make an argument for either one, but my Joe Thuney at LG argument involves Kiran Amegadjie at LT, which I know will cause some of you to have an aneurysm

Thuney is a borderline HOF guard (or at least Hall of Very Very Good). Could he move to RG...sure. But he's taken a decade worth of snaps at LG so don't pull the same bullshit they did with Jenkins and move him to accommodate someone else.

Jackson played two full seasons at RG for Rutgers. He'll be fine at RG. The biggest reason Jackson didn't play RG for the Lions is because they had just dumped a bunch of money into Halapoulivaati Vaitai to play RT and he failed spectacularly there, so they drafted Sewell...and the only other position Vaitai could play was RG.

Thuney shouldn't move to accommodate a lesser player. And as much as I do like Jackson, he is a lesser player.[

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

Eh...Flus wanted LBs and DBs. Johnson wants an offensive line. Poles mostly appears to be aligning what he attacks with what his coaches are asking for.

[RichH55]

I tend to think this as well.

I think it's a combination of trying to find diamonds in the rough, bringing in players his coaches wanted (Nate Davis/Matt Pryor/Lucas Patrick), and being saddled with drafted guys like Jenkins/Borom that he needed to figure out what to do with.

Now that the slate is clean, he can look at it and be like "well none of that worked, so let's attack it".

I think it's that you also don't need
QB 1
WR 1
WR 2
2 DTs
2 DEs
2 LB
2 S
1-2 CB
2 OT
As well as 2 OG and a C

With Less Picks and Less Cap.

Like when he took over.

It's a LOT easier to fill Needs when you A) Have markedly less of them. B) They come at non-premium positions. C) You have more resources to do it as well

Also - None of them can be Nate Davis. I bet Jonah's and Thunneys Cap % (per player) isn't all that much higher than Nate Davis was in Year 1 of his contract. Which is a Sad thought actually

[RichH55]

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

Don't forget QB.

It's almost like he took over a terrible old team with little young talent, no 1st Round pick and a middling Cap Situation. And Free Agency options at OL (Especially OT) haven't been great.

Weird.

[RichH55]

I think it's a combination of trying to find diamonds in the rough, bringing in players his coaches wanted (Nate Davis/Matt Pryor/Lucas Patrick), and being saddled with drafted guys like Jenkins/Borom that he needed to figure out what to do with.

Now that the slate is clean, he can look at it and be like "well none of that worked, so let's attack it".

Agreed -- here's a very telling comment he made at the Combine: "Yeah, I think the clearer the vision, the more aggressive you can be, and that's important. You want to be selective in free agency because historically if you look at it, it can tell you and you can learn from that. But if there are certain players that kind of hit all the checked boxes that you need, there's really no reason to hold back. I feel like you can be aggressive in those situations."

This tells me that, at least offensively at this point, Ben Johnson has told Ryan Poles exactly what he wants and needs for this thing to unlock. That's massive.

I would have to think Dennis Allen knows exactly what he wants as well, dude has been doing this -- with success -- for well over 14 seasons (Head Coach and/or Defensive Coordinator). This is what I was talking about when I said you need to set a clear identity offensively and defensively and stick to it. Even if you have a coordinator change in the future -- STICK TO THE SAME SCHEME. All this bullshit of going from Cover-2, to 3-4, back to Cover-2 needs to fucking stop and I hope that is what we have here.

Ben Johnson and Dennis Allen for the next 10-12+ years would make me thrilled.


Back on topic:

Olin Kreutz made mention that he thinks Jonah Jackson should stick at LG and Joe Thuney be moved to RG. At first I thought he was out of his fucking mind, but after thinking about it, I realized that he probably still is out of his mind but he might have a point here

Jonah Jackson's best NFL tape came at LG while playing under Ben Johnson's guidance. Joe Thuney is a Hall of Fame LG, but he is so fucking talented he was able to play LT for the Chiefs last season because they needed him there. Would RG be that big of a transition for him? I don't know... I don't love the idea of asking him to move BUT, with that being said, I ask all of you to pick one:

1. Jonah Jackson at LG (B+) and Joe Thuney at RG (B)

or

2. Joe Thuney at LG (A-) and Jonah Jackson at RG (B-)


I can make an argument for either one, but my Joe Thuney at LG argument involves Kiran Amegadjie at LT, which I know will cause some of you to have an aneurysm

Aside from it's kind of just cliche comments we are reading too much into (And they also aren't particularly different than what hes said in the past either .....They are cliches that make sense afterall)

Wasn't he not making moves before? He didn't trade the #1 overall? He didn't trade 2nds for Claypool and Sweat? Trade for Allen? Trade for Bates? Give a ton of money to various FA? (Sadly including Nate Davis)

[Mikefive]

I'm as negative as anyone these days, but a recent multi-year all pro--even at age 32--who has played in 6 Super Bowls with virtually no injury history for a 2026 R4 feels like a fine swing to me. And I left out some of his superlatives.

What's not to like?
If his production falls off a cliff, that's a bad deal. Wouldn't be the first time a team has done that to us.
If he's a one year rental because we can't re-sign him, that's not good either.

Still, sounds like a really good gamble, even to me.

[dplank]

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

Don't forget QB.

It's almost like he took over a terrible old team with little young talent, no 1st Round pick and a middling Cap Situation. And Free Agency options at OL (Especially OT) haven't been great.

Weird.

This misses the point It's a simple fact that he has gone after specific groups one year at a time, that's not a coincidence it's the 4th year in a row it's happened. He sees a problem from the year before, then goes apeshit on that problem the next cycle. And that's the definition of being reactive IMO.

[karhu]

But even better is what the last couple of days have all but confirmed: that Poles hasn't been dopishly ignoring the line so much as paying undue attention to his HC's preferences.

I think there's absolutely a good chunk of the latter going on. I think some of column A, too, but I couldn't tell you precisely how much of each.

Either is bad.
A GM needs to listen to his HC, but he also needs to make his own decisions, not just be a waitress taking orders. HCs are very rarely as good at talent evaluation, roster building, and resource allocation as they think they are (see when Dave Wannstedt got heavy personnel control as a classic example). There's a reason why "HC is a direct report up to the GM" is the standard model.

The upside of reason B is, of course, that if you do what your coach says too much, but do happen to stumble across a rare HC who has quality team assembly skills, then you aren't doing as much dumb stuff as you would with a typical HC.

Yep.

A more complete reckoning, though, accounts for time. Poles and Eberflus were so far apart, and the results of their work together so bad, that Poles didn't have the kind of leeway he needed as a young first-time GM to learn and grow into the position a bit. Hope springs eternal in the offseason, but it really looks like Poles and Johnson are a better fit. And if they've got their heads screwed on straight--no Lovie/Angelo power struggles--that should give Poles a chance to play the kind of executive role he should regarding roster construction. Let the HC focus on the things he sees and knows best; the GM should balance those short-term imperatives with a longer view.

[karhu]

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

No way of knowing for sure, but that smells to me like a symptom of Eberflus's role in the process, and of Poles's inability or unwillingness to adequately smooth out the roster-construction strategy. Based on next to no real evidence, I still think it's likeliest that Poles felt bound to address his HC's top priorities, and figured he had a good enough eye for talent to tackle the rest of our priorities with mid-/late-round picks and inexpensive FA signings. On the one hand, he was wrong. On the other hand, he's sure acting like he knows it.

[dave99]

It may be worth noting that when Poles was hired in 2022 he had no prior experience as a GM. Nor was there anybody around to mentor him through the early rough patches. Then he hired a DC as a rookie HC and that made the situation much worse.

Apparently, Eberflus didn't know or much care about the offense, and that made Poles job in building one that much harder. Everything tilted toward the defense. Scarce resources in time and money were poured into building Matt's dream D, making the offense and especially the OL the proverbial red headed step child.

Poles should have known better. He should never have hired Eberflus, should have never, ever listened to him and then he waited too long to fire him.
But for years, this is what the Bears did. Hire an untested GM, set him adrift in a building filled with bean counters and McCaskey's and then hope for the best.

But maybe Poles has finally grown into the job. And between him and Warren and Ben Johnson it looks like an honest to God, genuine NFL front office.
And with a QB and now a rebuilt OL to boot.
Happy Days.

[thunderspirit]

Thuney shouldn't move to accommodate a lesser player.

This, right here.

[spudbear]

Glad to see the Bears picking up Thuney.
For some strange reason I'm thinking back to 20 years ago. Bears had a potent D but needed to shore up the OL. They brought in John Tait as a stud OT. He would play a few years on the right side before flipping to LT. A starting unit of veterans (many acquired not drafted) Tait, Brown, Kreutz, Garza and Miller would lead them to the Superbowl. Unfortunately Rex could not unleash the dragon that year.

Bears could still use a Kreutz-like center, but I'd just as soon they not spend a bunch of money on a FA but bring in more youths to develop, whether at OG or OC.

[RichH55]

Don't forget QB.

It's almost like he took over a terrible old team with little young talent, no 1st Round pick and a middling Cap Situation. And Free Agency options at OL (Especially OT) haven't been great.

Weird.

This misses the point It's a simple fact that he has gone after specific groups one year at a time, that's not a coincidence it's the 4th year in a row it's happened. He sees a problem from the year before, then goes apeshit on that problem the next cycle. And that's the definition of being reactive IMO.

So would Rome and DJ Moore be the same year? Nate Davis and Wright were the same year!!! (Though Thunney and Braxton different years - And those are all different positons - unless its "OL". How detailed is this scheme of his? Does 1 QB count as going "apeshit"?

Is it OL? DL? DB>? Or is it more exacting? Like CB this year...Guards this year.....DE this year rather than DL? What are the specifics on this

It's also a 3 year period and he basically had to remake ALMOST the entire roster. So the theory is not exactly helpful if I'm being kind.

From the time he took over the team every position group except PK and TE needed major overhauls.

I know we need to overlook that part ....I'm not sure why we have to - but it seems to be the thing we are doing. It's not negligence as much as - it's really hard to overhaul every position on the Starting Roster (excluding Special Teams - man its nice to have a LS locked in!) except CB1, TE1 and..... That's pretty much the list

Inheriting Jason Peters as your LT and maybe best OL - that's a great thing if its 2007 (His 4th year in the league!)

Less so when its 2022 and it.s......more than 4th year...I ran out of fingers - Sorry

[grendel2000]

Glad to see the Bears picking up Thuney.
For some strange reason I'm thinking back to 20 years ago. Bears had a potent D but needed to shore up the OL. They brought in John Tait as a stud OT. He would play a few years on the right side before flipping to LT. A starting unit of veterans (many acquired not drafted) Tait, Brown, Kreutz, Garza and Miller would lead them to the Superbowl. Unfortunately Rex could not unleash the dragon that year.

Bears could still use a Kreutz-like center, but I'd just as soon they not spend a bunch of money on a FA but bring in more youths to develop, whether at OG or OC.

I was thinking of that move to get Tait and how it reminded me of this trade earlier today but couldn't remember his name - thanks!

[Bearfacts]

I agree with all of this, but would add that Poles appears to be very reactive instead of proactive. Each year he seems to hone in on whatever he viewed as the source of the prior years failure, and then he goes full Waterboy on that specific thing. First year it was the DB's, then it was the LB's, then it was the WR's. Each time he went from basically nothing to massive attack mode.

A more proactive approach would have realized that nothing was going to work without strength at the LOS, so attack that first even if these other position groups are also in need of a makeover. But that's just not what he did.

No way of knowing for sure, but that smells to me like a symptom of Eberflus's role in the process, and of Poles's inability or unwillingness to adequately smooth out the roster-construction strategy. Based on next to no real evidence, I still think it's likeliest that Poles felt bound to address his HC's top priorities, and figured he had a good enough eye for talent to tackle the rest of our priorities with mid-/late-round picks and inexpensive FA signings. On the one hand, he was wrong. On the other hand, he's sure acting like he knows it.

No question at all about Flus. The guys is not HC material and he was an albatross for Poles and roster building the entire time he was here. He was uncertain in his coaching decisions and I believe that also carried over into his personnel and coaching staff decisions. It's been speculated that we ended up with Waldron rather than Kingsbury because Waldron was less of a threat to take his job away from him. We don't have any confirmation of that other than it seems to fit who Flus was as coach. Ben Johnson on the other hand is nothing like that.

But in the end what happened in the past matter little any longer. Whatever mistakes were made seemed to have contributed to Poles learning process as a young first time GM. He's obviously been growing into his role just as players grown into theirs. As little as a week ago who here would have predicted the moves Poles made this past week? Plank has been beating the drum asking why Poles hadn't made trades like this in the past. I dunno. Maybe he tried but they weren't there to be had. This time they were and he wasted no time getting them done.

I'm hoping we can stow any debates about the past and just stay focused on the present at least for now. It's all that matters. Next week and in the few that follow we'll have many of the answers we need to more accurately predict what Poles options may be relative to the draft. I don't see him dropping any hints that anyone can depend on. That's not how he plays his hand. The less predictable he is this year the better off he'll be now that he's made his potential picks far less obvious. Next week may do even more to muddy the waters. Who knows?

[dplank]

This misses the point It's a simple fact that he has gone after specific groups one year at a time, that's not a coincidence it's the 4th year in a row it's happened. He sees a problem from the year before, then goes apeshit on that problem the next cycle. And that's the definition of being reactive IMO.

So would Rome and DJ Moore be the same year? Nate Davis and Wright were the same year!!! (Though Thunney and Braxton different years - And those are all different positons - unless its "OL". How detailed is this scheme of his? Does 1 QB count as going "apeshit"?

Is it OL? DL? DB>? Or is it more exacting? Like CB this year...Guards this year.....DE this year rather than DL? What are the specifics on this

It's also a 3 year period and he basically had to remake ALMOST the entire roster. So the theory is not exactly helpful if I'm being kind.

From the time he took over the team every position group except PK and TE needed major overhauls.

I know we need to overlook that part ....I'm not sure why we have to - but it seems to be the thing we are doing. It's not negligence as much as - it's really hard to overhaul every position on the Starting Roster (excluding Special Teams - man its nice to have a LS locked in!) except CB1, TE1 and..... That's pretty much the list

Inheriting Jason Peters as your LT and maybe best OL - that's a great thing if its 2007 (His 4th year in the league!)

Less so when its 2022 and it.s......more than 4th year...I ran out of fingers - Sorry

TH;DR Too hyper didn’t read, are you claiming he hasn’t taken this approach of super focusing on one position group per offseason? That’s seems plainly obvious, but ok

[RichH55]

I mean....it's just not really true - or you are using coincidental things as a trend line (and extending it as needed - Like Gordon and Brisker becomes "DBs" rather than Safeties and Corners.

When you need to add EVERYTHING.....you are going to see some doubling up especially at positions you need multiple guys.....Like if you classify DB as the postion group - That's essentially 5 STARTERS (Slot is the equivalent of a Starter for me) plus depth guys for the whole group - and you had 1 guy. So adding two guys in the same offseason isn't evidence of he always "Super focused" on a position group

LB - He did add two in the same offseason!!! But they also had zero after trading Roquon (and that wasn't really reactive as much as he got out AHEAD of that and knew that Edmunds was a guy who was likely to be on FA)........ TJ Edwards has been Very good for us! Way outplayed his contract........But is his initial contract "SUPER FOCUSED" on LB? That's thin gruel. That's - at best - a middle class player contract

It's also essentially cherry picking your definitions.

But based on your use of "reactive" - What GM wouldn't be considered Reactive under the situation that Poles inherited?

IF you need QB1, WR1, WR2 (NOT same season there), 5 OL, 4 DL, 4 DB, 2 LB

How are you not doubling up on a position group in an offseason? Not even accounting for the fact that you SHOULD take what the draft and FA gives you rather then reaching on somehting.

But how could you do that? It seems impossible to not double dip on a postion group in a year.

So to derive "lessons" from that (especially when its not even super true) seems foolhardy

[RichH55]

So would Rome and DJ Moore be the same year? Nate Davis and Wright were the same year!!! (Though Thunney and Braxton different years - And those are all different positons - unless its "OL". How detailed is this scheme of his? Does 1 QB count as going "apeshit"?

Is it OL? DL? DB>? Or is it more exacting? Like CB this year...Guards this year.....DE this year rather than DL? What are the specifics on this

It's also a 3 year period and he basically had to remake ALMOST the entire roster. So the theory is not exactly helpful if I'm being kind.

From the time he took over the team every position group except PK and TE needed major overhauls.

I know we need to overlook that part ....I'm not sure why we have to - but it seems to be the thing we are doing. It's not negligence as much as - it's really hard to overhaul every position on the Starting Roster (excluding Special Teams - man its nice to have a LS locked in!) except CB1, TE1 and..... That's pretty much the list

Inheriting Jason Peters as your LT and maybe best OL - that's a great thing if its 2007 (His 4th year in the league!)

Less so when its 2022 and it.s......more than 4th year...I ran out of fingers - Sorry

TH;DR Too hyper didn’t read, are you claiming he hasn’t taken this approach of super focusing on one position group per offseason? That’s seems plainly obvious, but ok

Also. Why are you using the abbreviation and spelling things out......When you literally wrote the whole thing out - why do you need the abbreviation too?

It's also only a few sentences - I get that it undermines your entire position - but it wasn't that long either.

Here's a better one for your post:
IWTKCSIWRNEWF

I want to keep complaining so I would rather not engage with facts

[dplank]

I figured TH;DR was unclear since it was many the usual TL;DR.

There’s just an obvious observation here that really isn’t worth a semantic argument.

[Bearfacts]

I figured TH;DR was unclear since it was many the usual TL;DR.

There’s just an obvious observation here that really isn’t worth a semantic argument.

I'll stick my nose in if you don't mind long enough to just say why are you still revisiting the past? It's over and done. Dead and gone. Kaput.

IMHO Poles did make some errors but in most cases he also took advantage to what the market provided when he signed FA and drafted as he did. If we're gonna criticize "doubling up" on a position group does that mean we also have to include Jackson and Thuney because once again he traded for two OL with a day of each other?