All things defense

[TheShredder]

Nobody should be surprised when this defense wets the bed and costs them winnable games. Been pissed about this since the end of last year.

[Voice_of_Reason]

16 minutes ago, TheShredder said:

Nobody should be surprised when this defense wets the bed and costs them winnable games. Been pissed about this since the end of last year.

I'm not going to be surprised, but I am going to wait for it to happen before getting worked up over it.

 

The defense played well during the 4 game winning streak.  It led the way to the victories, contrary to the ridiculous narrative that TH beat Brady, Wilson and Carr.  

 

Then it fell apart due to injury and COVID.

 

My expectation is we see the level of defense we did in those 4 games for all 17 games this season.  Which would be far from the 85 bears, but would also be far from the worst defense we've seen in these parts for the better part of 15 years.  

 

If they fall short of that mark, I will be upset.  But not surprised, necessarily.  

[HigSkin]

FWIW -

 

 

[Warhead36]

I thought I read that that theory has already been debunked based on when Young had the surgery

[KDawg]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I thought I read that that theory has already been debunked based on when Young had the surgery

I think the theory makes sense in part.

 

But if he were playing on an injury it didn't make him take too deep of a rush lane and get run around the QB. It also didn't make him utilize so few moves. It may have slowed him, though.

 

Regardless of the injury he has to bring more to the table than he has. And he still can. We'll see. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

I thought I read that that theory has already been debunked based on when Young had the surgery

Yeah, I have no idea.

 

I know it's a cottage industry, but I really hate it when doctors go on TV or Radio and make diagnosis of patients they have never examined, have never seen the records for, and are just guessing based on what, in their experience, is "normal." I think the like to do it because it makes them look smart. Especially the really smart ones, they like people to know they are really smart.  

 

I had a good friend of mine, who is WICKED Smart,  he's a Neurosurgeon.  Just passed all the last of the million things you have to do to be a fully qualified brain cutter.  And he "diagnosed" the President (while he was running) as somebody who had some type of a (I'm forgetting exactly, but I think) seizure, stated he was going to be dead in a year because of the medical condition (insert a lot of medical stuff I didn't understand here), all because of several factors he picked up watching him on TV.  I asked him if he had ever examined the President or seen his medical records, which of course, he hadn't.

 

Well, I have no idea if he was right or not on his diagnosis, but he was wrong on his prediction because the President is not dead, unless there is a serious Weekend at Bernies or "Dave" thing going on.  (Note: this is NOT a political post, and PLEASE do not feel compelled to post anything about the President.  It's an example of a REALLY SMART doctor making a TV diagnosis, which I am not for.)

 

So it's inherently dangerous giving a medical diagnosis for a specific person having never examined them or seen their medical records.

Edited August 26, 2022 by Voice_of_Reason

[SkinsFTW]

4 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

So it's inherently dangerous giving a medical diagnosis for a specific person having never examined them or seen their medical records.

 

It might be stupid to listen to people who obviously are just speculating but I can't see how it's dangerous. Who is in danger?

[Voice_of_Reason]

35 minutes ago, SkinsFTW said:

 

It might be stupid to listen to people who obviously are just speculating but I can't see how it's dangerous. Who is in danger?

Ok, maybe dangerous is the wrong word. Maybe irresponsible is a better word.  But what I mean is media influences public opinion, and having somebody just speculating, specifically about a medical issue, which can sway public opinion in a way that is potentially unfair.  

 

This particular doctor speculated that it's hard for this injury to take place, and therefore maybe Young had a prior injury.  And now there is discussion about this speculation, and there are some who are going to take it as basically fact because it was spoken by an expert.  

 

I think that's somewhat unfair to Young.  It's probably also unfair to Ron, and anybody who has to answer questions about it.

 

Here's what I wouldn't have a problem with: "In my experience, here is a medical analysis of the information which has been reported."  And then explain what the surgery entails, what the rehab takes, and any information to help those of us who do not have a medical background understand the surgery and recovery. And bringing in experiences based on other patients, how they have recovered, the best case that dr. has seen, the worst case, that's all fair, foundational knowledge.  As long as it is based on the facts which have been reported.  

 

What I don't like is the next step, which involves speculation.  Speculating that there might have been another injury I think was over the line.  In my post above, speculating the President was going to die within a year was over the line.  Now, my friend doesn't have the platform Kevin Sheehan's radio show does, it was a facebook post to friends.  But the point still holds, it was irresponsible.  

 

Overall, the danger is incorrectly influencing public opinion with speculative information, specifically about health related issues.  Anyway, that's where I was coming from.  

 

(Also, I love using the phrase "inherently dangerous" because I here Mr. Pelt say it in The Hunt for Red October, and I love the way he says it, and I hear it in my head when I use the phrase. Which MIGHT have influenced my choice of words ever so slightly.  But just slightly.)

[FootballZombie]

1 hour ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Ok, maybe dangerous is the wrong word. Maybe irresponsible is a better word.  But what I mean is media influences public opinion, and having somebody just speculating, specifically about a medical issue, which can sway public opinion in a way that is potentially unfair.  

 

Do you seriously expect anything different here? From the moment a dude goes down everybody whips out their medical degrees to diagnose how bad a knee buckle looks. Announcers, fans, pretzel venders... everybody. Docs talk about it on sports networks the next day and the ones that are willing to spice it up a bit or even sensationalize an injury are the ones that get the call-backs the next time a major star gets injured.

 

 

Just look at Tyron Smith. That dude's prognosis has changed like 3 times. We got articles in the same day saying he could be back in Dec, and others that question if its a career ender, with both articles citing the newly found knee tear.

 

Sure the rampant speculation is irresponsible, but that's the nature of the beast in this biz.

Edited August 26, 2022 by FootballZombie

[Voice_of_Reason]

38 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

 

Do you seriously expect anything different here? From the moment a dude goes down everybody whips out their medical degrees to diagnose how bad a knee buckle looks. Announcers, fans, pretzel venders... everybody. Docs talk about it on sports networks the next day and the ones that are willing to spice it up a bit or even sensationalize an injury are the ones that get the call-backs the next time a major star gets injured.

 

 

Just look at Tyron Smith. That dude's prognosis has changed like 3 times. We got articles in the same day saying he could be back in Dec, and others that question if its a career ender, with both articles citing the newly found knee tear.

 

Sure the rampant speculation is irresponsible, but that's the nature of the beast in this biz.

I get it.  I'm not saying there is anything to prevent it.  But I still think it's irresponsible.  And depending on the outlet and tone, dangerous.  

[86 Snyder]

Hey @Voice_of_Reason, how’s it going with those Payne and Holcomb extensions?  

[TheShredder]

22 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I get it.  I'm not saying there is anything to prevent it.  But I still think it's irresponsible.  And depending on the outlet and tone, dangerous.  

So, you're saying that if I utilize my professional knowledge and experience to offer my medical opinion about anyone I haven't physically evaluated, then I'm being irresponsible and dangerous to the public or the patient?

 

Clearly practitioners are consulted regularly about their opinions without ever physically examining anyone. This is a normal daily task. Every year someone makes this type of statement and the results are that I stop wasting my time to offer my opinions. I don't have any need to share and I can easily keep my medical opinion to myself. That way I won't be so dangerous!

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Hey @Voice_of_Reason, how’s it going with those Payne and Holcomb extensions?  

That appears to be a "Bold prediction sure to go wrong" which went wrong....

[Voice_of_Reason]

3 hours ago, TheShredder said:

So, you're saying that if I utilize my professional knowledge and experience to offer my medical opinion about anyone I haven't physically evaluated, then I'm being irresponsible and dangerous to the public or the patient?

If you use your professional knowledge and experience to explain the medical situation, that's fine.

 

What I was reacting to is the dr. on Sheehan's show saying he thought there could be a prior injury which was not reported.  There's no way he can know that.  It's pure, 100% speculation.  He said it was rare for the two types of injury to happen at the same time, which is fine.  "It's rare, but it happened, and without knowing more, I couldn't say why it happened" is the responsible response.  "He could have been playing on a partially torn tendon and then the second injury happened" is pure speculation, and that's where I draw the line and say it's irresponsible.  

 

3 hours ago, TheShredder said:

Clearly practitioners are consulted regularly about their opinions without ever physically examining anyone. This is a normal daily task. Every year someone makes this type of statement and the results are that I stop wasting my time to offer my opinions. I don't have any need to share and I can easily keep my medical opinion to myself. That way I won't be so dangerous!

If you're explaining an injury which has been reported with some facts, I see that as a benefit to everybody.  Again, it's the next step, making some type of a diagnosis, or conjecture on something you can't possibly know, though you might have a strong hunch based on experience, which I would not get into.  

 

But to each their own.  

[TheShredder]

7 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

What I was reacting to is the dr. on Sheehan's show saying he thought there could be a prior injury which was not reported.  There's no way he can know that.  It's pure, 100% speculation.  He said it was rare for the two types of injury to happen at the same time, which is fine.  "It's rare, but it happened, and without knowing more, I couldn't say why it happened" is the responsible response.  "He could have been playing on a partially torn tendon and then the second injury happened" is pure speculation, and that's where I draw the line and say it's irresponsible.  

Sounds like the Dr was pointing out simple speculation about the kinetics to the mechanism of injury, likely backed by his experience. There's nothing dangerous about that. His responsibility in offering a scenario where this double injury happened is his own choice. You don't like him speculating, fine.

It's not uncommon to have undiagnosed injury, but usually an athletes is in tune with their bodies and would have noticed a partial tear. At least irritation enough to get an MRI and sniff it out.  I don't recall Young ever having any knee complaints prior to injury. He has been injury prone as a Pro so far starting with the groin/abdominals related issues. Then the knee crumble should be evidence enough to rework his body. I'd expect this to has been addressed.

Three strikes and you're out! Has to get it right this time imo.

[86 Snyder]

11 hours ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

That appears to be a "Bold prediction sure to go wrong" which went wrong....

You were predicting those as a counter to those of us saying Snyder has a cash problem, not as bold predictions.

[Voice_of_Reason]

27 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

You were predicting those as a counter to those of us saying Snyder has a cash problem, not as bold predictions.

Well, they haven’t done it.  I don’t think money is the reason.  And I think you’ve seen evidence they are in wait and see mode with the defense. 
 

The money issue thing remains the stupidest theory ever created on this forum.

[86 Snyder]

38 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

Well, they haven’t done it.  I don’t think money is the reason.  And I think you’ve seen evidence they are in wait and see mode with the defense. 
 

The money issue thing remains the stupidest theory ever created on this forum.

Then why didn’t they restructure Wentz?  It was a no-brainer move after giving up two high picks for him. That has nothing to do with the approach to the defense and they could have easily created another $20M to spend to improve said wait and see defense.

 

You can call it a stupid theory but they are behaving exactly like a team with cash problems.  I find it interesting you’re getting defensive about it now.

 

Extending Holcomb at market value is something only a dumb team would do anyway and they’ve already leaked that Payne isn’t in their future plans, but these were the theories you came up with for why they weren’t spending money.

 

So now we have the “you can’t know that” defense which is beneath you and now this theory that fizzled.  This is year 1 of a major rebrand and year 3 of a total staff reboot and a successful season is critical to both of those endeavors.  There are holes all over the roster and they could have added 2-3 major contributors by executing simple and obvious cap maneuvers.  It doesn’t add up.

 

They are behaving like a company with cash problems so it’s not much of leap to suggest they have cash problems.

[Koolblue13]

9 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

Then why didn’t they restructure Wentz?  It was a no-brainer move after giving up two high picks for him. That has nothing to do with the approach to the defense and they could have easily created another $20M to spend to improve said wait and see defense.

 

You can call it a stupid theory but they are behaving exactly like a team with cash problems.  I find it interesting you’re getting defensive about it now.

 

Extending Holcomb at market value is something only a dumb team would do anyway and they’ve already leaked that Payne isn’t in their future plans, but these were the theories you came up with for why they weren’t spending money.

 

So now we have the “you can’t know that” defense which is beneath you and now this theory that fizzled.  This is year 1 of a major rebrand and year 3 of a total staff reboot and a successful season is critical to both of those endeavors.  There are holes all over the roster and they could have added 2-3 major contributors by executing simple and obvious cap maneuvers.  It doesn’t add up.

 

They are behaving like a company with cash problems so it’s not much of leap to suggest they have cash problems.

Take the annoying "I was right" conversation that you just restarted to an appropriate thread.

[Voice_of_Reason]

I am following @Koolblue13's advice and moving my response to the appropriate thread. 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Voice_of_Reason

[86 Snyder]

53 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Take the annoying "I was right" conversation that you just restarted to an appropriate thread.

 

14 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

I am following @Koolblue13's advice and moving my response to the appropriate thread. 

You’ve both severely overestimated my interest in the discussion.  I asked a question about extensions for defensive players in a thread titled All things defense.  The response took a quick detour as conversations sometimes do but I don’t have much interest in continuing it.  Anywho.

[Koolblue13]

17 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

Hey @Voice_of_Reason, how’s it going with those Payne and Holcomb extensions?  

 

2 hours ago, 86 Snyder said:

You were predicting those as a counter to those of us saying Snyder has a cash problem, not as bold predictions.

 

1 hour ago, 86 Snyder said:

Then why didn’t they restructure Wentz?

No, it was a clear troll job and off topic conversation out of the blue to revive a past argument to try and prove that you were right.

 

It's annoying,obvious and against board rules. Do it in the right thread.

[86 Snyder]

15 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

 

 

No, it was a clear troll job and off topic conversation out of the blue to revive a past argument to try and prove that you were right.

 

It's annoying,obvious and against board rules. Do it in the right thread.

I like VOR dude, not trolling just having a conversation with him.  Anyway we moved it so no need to freak out any further.

[Warhead36]

They need to see what Wentz does before extending him. While extending him would give us a lot more cap room this year, it could potentially bone us in the future. We're actually in a bit of a fortunate spot in that if he doesn't work out, we can cut him and move on without big cap penalties(though would suck to have given up those draft picks for a one year rental).

 

Normally I'm all about extending guys on rookie contracts early but I'm fine not extending Holcomb. LBs generally aren't worth it unless they're superstar types like a Bobby Wagner or Devin Lloyd, but even the Bears are hesitant to give Roquan Smith big money. I'd much rather focus on resigning Sweat and Curl next year.

[Koolblue13]

4 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

They need to see what Wentz does before extending him. While extending him would give us a lot more cap room this year, it could potentially bone us in the future. We're actually in a bit of a fortunate spot in that if he doesn't work out, we can cut him and move on without big cap penalties(though would suck to have given up those draft picks for a one year rental).

 

Normally I'm all about extending guys on rookie contracts early but I'm fine not extending Holcomb. LBs generally aren't worth it unless they're superstar types like a Bobby Wagner or Devin Lloyd, but even the Bears are hesitant to give Roquan Smith big money. I'd much rather focus on resigning Sweat and Curl next year.

There's a reason that quality starting LBers don't hit the market often and it's because for an average starting LBer like Holcomb, it's affordable to keep them.

 

I'm totally down with an extension for Holcomb, along with drafting to replace him, but keeping him stops us from creating a hole and while he's not a world beater, he's a legit starter.