WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from rochfan. Show rochfan's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    KC's pass defense was average. Flacco dropped about 250 yards passing on them in the playoff debacle.
    That being said..Hali had 2 sacks that game, one for a turnover.
    He beat Oher right past him upfield, and then bent back in and slapped the ball away from Flacco.
    The second time he beat Oher again, clubbed him upfield , and then came underneath and sacked Flacco.
    Blind side became the "pain side".
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsLifer. Show PatsLifer's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's


    He's an interesting player. Romeo Crennel saw something in him to convert him to 3-4 OLB from DE. The question of whether he could be effective in our system is a projection, but if he is effective as an OLB in Romeo's, I got to guess it is similar to what we play, in terms of OLB responsibility.  

    Given he played DE most of his professional career, I assume he hasn't dropped back to play pass very often. If we are going to spend 2 #1's on an OLB and pay him top money, I want someone well rounded that has been playing the position for some time. All we really have to go on is his tape from last year, although very impressive.

    If we signed Hali, that would be our premier FA signing for the off-season. I can't see us really considering anyone else of that stature, and I'm not sure how it affects things in terms of possibly working something out with Mankins long term.

    I would make the move, but not for 2, #1's. I would try to negotiate with Pioli, and see if we could give up our #28 this year, a 2nd round pick (not 33) and a player or two. Someone suggested Mankins and #60...I would make that trade in a heartbeat.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    To ALL:

    Look, I wanna say, and specifically in regards to one 1 of my main counterpoints, RE: the notion of attempting to nab Hali (when I mentioned the large differences in terms of precisely HOW certain 3-4 defensive teams deploy their key pass-rush OLB)- THAT some on this thread have countered that Hali's decent sack production last season for KC, may not be parralleled with Dumervil's sack output in Denver's form of the 3-4 D (wherein Denver TOTALLY moves Dumervil around, per play, in order to best exploit his pass-rushing prowess with very specific oppossing offensive player, EASY and exploitable matchups for Elvis)...SOME have said, this shouldn't be the case in KC with Tamba Hali, considering Scott Pioli and Romeo Crennel's influence on KC's specific form of their 3-4 Defense, and these guys's former tenure with New England and under Belichick's form of the 3-4 that HE employs...

    ALL I gotta say is, YOU do NOT know this to be factual accurate...he!!, you're just offering it up as a probability...a maybe...  You folks are merely repeating an offerance by OTHER Patriot Fans RE: KC's form of the 3-4 D, and Hali's more probable and perhaps equally successful transition in BB's 3-4 Defense, if and when NE actually acquired Hali.  I mean, I personally KNOW that I'm largely incorrect to make the correlation with Denver & Dumervil, because I know WHY I'm totally wrong...  You folks believe you're correct, b/c you have a few small but uncertain facts that you're correct... Ha!  I, on the otherhand, KNOW that I'm wrong and YOU'RE right, because I PERSONALLY, have the MUCH better facts on my complete & total utter inaccuracy...  Sheez, some people think they're right with less info, Compared to SOME-one who totally KNOWS these people are correct and he's incorrect, with MORE info...I believe there IS a difference, thank you. 
     
    Kansas City, UN-like what Bill Belichick does in New England, offers and likes to employ MORE blitzing by their guys, and deploys a few more complex blitz schemes...which lol, Is probably a good idea, maybe even better...but regardless.  LIKE I said=Regardless...because THIS is where the pretty darn minor differences end, and the vast number of similarities begin: 

    KC, Like Bill Belichick does in New England with his 3-4 Defense, deploys (I'm almost totally certain)-that basic and very less risk-ey form of the 3-4 Defense; In NO way like Pittsburgh's (Lebeau) 3-4 D-attacking, massive pre-snap shuffling, and freakish specific player shifting, stunting, and movement anywhere and everywhere you'd never expect them to go at the snap of the ball (and all in accordance with each of the OTHER specific players's movement)...Nope, KC doesn't do this!  Does KC do what Dallas (Wade Phillips) does with massively overloading the LOS with zone-blitzes from 1 side of the defense, in order to simply overwhelm 1 of the oppossing offense's side of the LOS with sheer numbers...A little...I mean, at times extremely sporadically...but not really (same w/ NE).  San Diego, sits on the fence with issues (like most Californians), and scr#ws up a little bit of both of these designs...So no comparison there.  

    Nope=Far more often than not, It's BB's brand of basic, original 3-4 Defense (i.e. conservative-Let the Offense scr#w up 1st, fail to convert, turn over the ball)...heck, I even think KC might prefer press-man outta their Cornerbacks...  Ha-ha, That's like sayin that you guys are EXTRA correct and I'm extra wrong (in your FACE, with that one).  When KC wants ta "mix things up" (is the wrong choice of terms), it's 9 outta 10 times, the same way BB varies his front 7 looks...  Called 3-4 OVER and 3-4 UNDER...  Very simple here: 3-4 Over: D-line stays the same, but the 4 LBs shift en masse, OVER a bit towards the STRONG side of the Offensive Line (side WITH the TE, and/or no TE? The strong side of the field of play-side w/ more space) .  3-4 Under is the opposite (unless I've transposed them both)- 3 D-lineman stay the same, and the 4 LBs then shift on mass towards the WEAK side of the Offense... EX: Here, you now have that weakside OLB, with really NO D-lineman right in front of him/OLB has a big open look at the weakside of the O-Line (the one w/ no TE)...Here, the guy (OLB) can now creep up, and act as another D-Lineman himself, right at the LOS...creep up, then back off, just scaring the offense and keeping it wondering...he can creep up, and pat the DE on his rear, and then that DE will either creep a little closer to the NT (DE/NT/DE/OLB=LOS from strongside to weakside of offense, d-line look), OR this DE can even move OUT-side more, and give room for this OLB to move right in between the DE and the NT themselves (DE/NT/OLB/DE=LOS from strongside to weakside d-line look)...

    Sounds sorta familiar, right (even the OLB creepin up and givin' one of the DEs in a 3-point stance, a small tap and that DE moves 1 way a bit)...  Lol, it should...b/c ya've only seen it like 10 million times on NE's Defense through the years...  Works pretty well, b/c- well, it worked pretty well IF you're Willie Mac, and you're an extremely smart Outside Linebacker...a guy who can sniff out a play, and where it's headed and a potential and potent weak-spot...  Works well b/c it ain't very risky at all (all thing''s considered).  Pre snap, the 4 LBs shift say, and there's Willie Mac, and he sees something, and he's like, "Hmmm, it's a pass...I think IF I can creep in between our NT and DE, I can gap shoot and cut right in, and get'ta this guy...".  Not very risky, just adaptable and exploitable here and there IF ya got smart guys and guys with enough skill-Considering, the ONLY guys who have to alter, is that DE on 1 side of the former 3 man D-Line front...that DE shifts over, and you're now lookin' DE/OLB/NT/DE), while those remaining 3 LBs aren't dummies and all this is happening in front'a their faces, and STILL pre-snap, so they say (en masse): "Oh, Willie sees something, He gonna act pretty much like a 4th D-lineman, so let's all creep just a bit back over towards the big open space left over from where he was as an OLB...no bigge, minor adjustment."  And IF ya got REALLY good guys who're all smart and played long enough that they're on the same page as 1 another, EVEN that NT and DE shifts over w/out hesitation towards the OTHER side of the D-Line, upon Willie Mac creepin' on up...

    ~So...yea...KC does this w/ Hali...NE did this with WM...Heck, they're probably both called "the elephant position" for all I know at this OLB spot...  Regardless, Next time do my the favor of at least comin' to me and not sayin, "You may be way off here, Laz," BUT, "You're an id!ot here with this argument, pal!"  Geezus, the least ya can do is gimme that, after all this time on here...  Still, I wouldn't give up 2 1st rders for God himself...     
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]Hali was a "Non-Exclusive" Franchise tender by KC meaning he can negotiate with other teams.  If he's signed to an offer sheet, KC has the option to match, if they don't, they receive two 1st rounders from the team that signs him (not sure if the deal would have to include 17 this year or if they'd have to give up their 2011 and 2012 assigned 1st rounders).  If they were to lose a 1 this year, they may be able to pick another one up via pick 33 in this years class.  That is the first pick of day two and should bring plenty of interest/value from other teams. With that being said, If they can keep 17 while giving up 28 and their 2012 1st, I'd love to see BB pull that deal off as that would still leave them with 17, 60, 74 and 92.  Sure he'd cost money and picks, but he's a proven commodity in this league and as a 3-4 OLB and would represent an immediate impact to the pass rush. The deal may be a bit too rich for BB's taste though.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]


    getting that for sure player at one of the 2 majorneeds we have and still havign our 17, if BB thinks the cost is too high what is he smokin (it's better than wastng 1's and 2's several years in a row and not getting that olb you need - that cost is a lot higher).

    great logic mb
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]To ALL : Look, I wanna say, and specifically in regards to one 1 of my main counterpoints, RE: the notion of attempting to nab Hali (when I mentioned the large differences in terms of precisely HOW certain 3-4 defensive teams deploy their key pass-rush OLB)- THAT some on this thread have countered that Hali's decent sack production last season for KC, may not be parralleled with Dumervil's sack output in Denver's form of the 3-4 D (wherein Denver TOTALLY moves Dumervil around, per play, in order to best exploit his pass-rushing prowess with very specific oppossing offensive player, EASY and exploitable matchups for Elvis)...SOME have said, this shouldn't be the case in KC with Tamba Hali, considering Scott Pioli and Romeo Crennel's influence on KC's specific form of their 3-4 Defense, and these guys's former tenure with New England and under Belichick's form of the 3-4 that HE employs... ALL I gotta say is, YOU do NOT know this to be factual accurate...he!!, you're just offering it up as a probability...a maybe...  You folks are merely repeating an offerance by OTHER Patriot Fans RE: KC's form of the 3-4 D, and Hali's more probable and perhaps equally successful transition in BB's 3-4 Defense, if and when NE actually acquired Hali.  I mean, I personally KNOW that I'm largely incorrect to make the correlation with Denver & Dumervil, because I know WHY I'm totally wrong...  You folks believe you're correct, b/c you have a few small but uncertain facts that you're correct... Ha!  I, on the otherhand, KNOW that I'm wrong and YOU'RE right, because I PERSONALLY, have the MUCH better facts on my complete & total utter inaccuracy...  Sheez, some people think they're right with less info, Compared to SOME-one who totally KNOWS these people are correct and he's incorrect, with MORE info...I believe there IS a difference, thank you.    Kansas City, UN-like what Bill Belichick does in New England, offers and likes to employ MORE blitzing by their guys, and deploys a few more complex blitz schemes...which lol, Is probably a good idea, maybe even better...but regardless.  LIKE I said=Regardless...because THIS is where the pretty darn minor differences end, and the vast number of similarities begin:  KC, Like Bill Belichick does in New England with his 3-4 Defense, deploys (I'm almost totally certain)-that basic and very less risk-ey form of the 3-4 Defense; In NO way like Pittsburgh's (Lebeau) 3-4 D-attacking, massive pre-snap shuffling, and freakish specific player shifting, stunting, and movement anywhere and everywhere you'd never expect them to go at the snap of the ball (and all in accordance with each of the OTHER specific players's movement)...Nope, KC doesn't do this!  Does KC do what Dallas (Wade Phillips) does with massively overloading the LOS with zone-blitzes from 1 side of the defense, in order to simply overwhelm 1 of the oppossing offense's side of the LOS with sheer numbers...A little...I mean, at times extremely sporadically...but not really (same w/ NE).  San Diego, sits on the fence with issues (like most Californians), and scr#ws up a little bit of both of these designs...So no comparison there.   Nope=Far more often than not, It's BB's brand of basic, original 3-4 Defense (i.e. conservative-Let the Offense scr#w up 1st, fail to convert, turn over the ball)...heck, I even think KC might prefer press-man outta their Cornerbacks...  Ha-ha, That's like sayin that you guys are EXTRA correct and I'm extra wrong (in your FACE, with that one).  When KC wants ta "mix things up" (is the wrong choice of terms), it's 9 outta 10 times, the same way BB varies his front 7 looks...  Called 3-4 OVER and 3-4 UNDER...  Very simple here: 3-4 Over: D-line stays the same, but the 4 LBs shift en masse, OVER a bit towards the STRONG side of the Offensive Line (side WITH the TE, and/or no TE? The strong side of the field of play-side w/ more space) .  3-4 Under is the opposite (unless I've transposed them both)- 3 D-lineman stay the same, and the 4 LBs then shift on mass towards the WEAK side of the Offense... EX: Here, you now have that weakside OLB, with really NO D-lineman right in front of him/OLB has a big open look at the weakside of the O-Line (the one w/ no TE)...Here, the guy (OLB) can now creep up, and act as another D-Lineman himself, right at the LOS...creep up, then back off, just scaring the offense and keeping it wondering...he can creep up, and pat the DE on his rear, and then that DE will either creep a little closer to the NT (DE/NT/DE/OLB=LOS from strongside to weakside of offense, d-line look), OR this DE can even move OUT-side more, and give room for this OLB to move right in between the DE and the NT themselves (DE/NT/OLB/DE=LOS from strongside to weakside d-line look)... Sounds sorta familiar, right (even the OLB creepin up and givin' one of the DEs in a 3-point stance, a small tap and that DE moves 1 way a bit)...  Lol, it should...b/c ya've only seen it like 10 million times on NE's Defense through the years...  Works pretty well, b/c- well, it worked pretty well IF you're Willie Mac, and you're an extremely smart Outside Linebacker...a guy who can sniff out a play, and where it's headed and a potential and potent weak-spot...  Works well b/c it ain't very risky at all (all thing''s considered).  Pre snap, the 4 LBs shift say, and there's Willie Mac, and he sees something, and he's like, "Hmmm, it's a pass...I think IF I can creep in between our NT and DE, I can gap shoot and cut right in, and get'ta this guy...".  Not very risky, just adaptable and exploitable here and there IF ya got smart guys and guys with enough skill-Considering, the ONLY guys who have to alter, is that DE on 1 side of the former 3 man D-Line front...that DE shifts over, and you're now lookin' DE/OLB/NT/DE), while those remaining 3 LBs aren't dummies and all this is happening in front'a their faces, and STILL pre-snap, so they say (en masse): "Oh, Willie sees something, He gonna act pretty much like a 4th D-lineman, so let's all creep just a bit back over towards the big open space left over from where he was as an OLB...no bigge, minor adjustment."  And IF ya got REALLY good guys who're all smart and played long enough that they're on the same page as 1 another, EVEN that NT and DE shifts over w/out hesitation towards the OTHER side of the D-Line, upon Willie Mac creepin' on up... ~ So...yea...KC does this w/ Hali...NE did this with WM...Heck, they're probably both called "the elephant position" for all I know at this OLB spot...  Regardless, Next time do my the favor of at least comin' to me and not sayin, "You may be way off here, Laz," BUT, "You're an id!ot here with this argument, pal!"  Geezus, the least ya can do is gimme that, after all this time on here...  Still, I wouldn't give up 2 1st rders for God himself...     
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]

    some have mentioned negotiating down from 2 # 1's , mb has said if it can be a28 and a 1 next year, both of which i'm interested in so laz, your'e blasting everyone who would consider it, without consideringsome of the circumstances under which some guys have posed taking it.

    just wanted to point that out.

    and actually your 2nd post doesnt blast anyone (call everyone who disagrees insane) it just says you wouldnt do it even if kc 3-4 is similar to ours.


    peace
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]If we are willing to give up 2 first rounders to a 27 year old that wants cash just to get our pass rush back, why didnt we just keep richard seymour? 
    Posted by Ender587[/QUOTE]


    "JUST to get our pass rush back"?

    with a more consistent pass rush we would have played green bay in the sb and had a chance to add to the patriot legacy
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's : some have mentioned negotiating down from 2 # 1's , mb has said if it can be a28 and a 1 next year, both of which i'm interested in so laz, your'e blasting everyone who would consider it, without consideringsome of the circumstances under which some guys have posed taking it. just wanted to point that out. and actually your 2nd post doesnt blast anyone (call everyone who disagrees insane) it just says you wouldnt do it even if kc 3-4 is similar to ours. peace
    Posted by brdbreu[/QUOTE]

    Jesus, I mean-I DID call myself, "an id!ot," sooo...like, stream a picture'a me taking a ball-pin hammer to my t#sticles, or...?  I'm open here...?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from makonikyman. Show makonikyman's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

      I just think mb that this d is VERY close to being really good. We just need a playmaker that can put pressure on the qb. Besides, T Brady's window is about 4, maybe 5 yrs and if TH can help bring us a couple of rings in that span then it would be well worth it. Some on here say he is a 1 yr wonder, but in reality he's been really good since he came into the leauge 5 yrs ago. Maybe we can work something out with pioli and give them Mankins and a 2nd, or BM and a 1st next yr. Something along those lines. If we did this deal I would then trade #17 and#33into next yr and pick up a couple of 2nds this yr. and # 1s next. With 28 I grab Ingram. In the 2nd I grab ( 2 out of the 3 ) Watkins/Wisenewski/Moffett to shore up the interior of our o line. Then maybe Reed/acho etc....We could then address the d line next yr with the 2 #1s we aquired.

    n Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]Hali was a "Non-Exclusive" Franchise tender by KC meaning he can negotiate with other teams.  If he's signed to an offer sheet, KC has the option to match, if they don't, they receive two 1st rounders from the team that signs him (not sure if the deal would have to include 17 this year or if they'd have to give up their 2011 and 2012 assigned 1st rounders).  If they were to lose a 1 this year, they may be able to pick another one up via pick 33 in this years class.  That is the first pick of day two and should bring plenty of interest/value from other teams. With that being said, If they can keep 17 while giving up 28 and their 2012 1st, I'd love to see BB pull that deal off as that would still leave them with 17, 60, 74 and 92.  Sure he'd cost money and picks, but he's a proven commodity in this league and as a 3-4 OLB and would represent an immediate impact to the pass rush. The deal may be a bit too rich for BB's taste though.
    Posted by mbeaulieu07[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from datdude401. Show datdude401's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    it's a dumb idea because you've never taken a calculated risk in your life. Be happy in your life with your tail between your legs never knowing what it's like to take A SHOT at something......Greatness comes with risks, super bowls are won with proven vets, not rookies and unproven commodities...

    Because its irresponsible thats why. My question is, why does this make sense to you?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from EASON11. Show EASON11's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's :   it's a dumb idea because you've never taken a calculated risk in your life. Be happy in your life with your tail between your legs never knowing what it's like to take A SHOT at something......Greatness comes with risks, super bowls are won with proven vets, not rookies and unproven commodities...
    Posted by makonikyman[/QUOTE]

    20 years in the Marine Corps I think is a calculated risk....................smoke me
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MordecaiBloodmoon. Show MordecaiBloodmoon's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    I would be totally against the 2 #1s for TH.  Plus having to pay him a huge pay day.  It would hurt us when the cap is back.  Plus I see strong players when and where we need them this year. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from paularnold. Show paularnold's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    Not sure how I feel about it.  Hali had a very good season and has the pedigree (drafted 20th overall in 06) and would provide the pass rushing and run stopping from the edge.  He would command a high salary but would be a known commodity with four years of game film.  The cost would be 2 first rounders 28 this year and hopefully 32 next year (hopefully).  That is definitely a large cost, but in one of the hardest positions to transition from college to the pros you have a known product that can be evaluated.  I can see both sides of the arguement.
    One other caveat that I was thinking about was the salary cap implications of having so many players coming from these recent draft classes in future years.  I mean that you'll be putting money into Chung and Vollmer one year, and then the next you'll have to deal with McCourty, Cunningham, Spikes, Gronk, and Hernandez.  Then you have to deal the next with what we get out of this draft class which involves a lot of high picks.  Might it be worthwhile to get a guy like Hali where you do lose a pick in the next 2 drafts who is a solid player and whose contract will be realistically expiring when some of these guys need to be resigned.?  Just a thought, and like I said I am definitely not sold on it.  If pressed I would say keep the picks, but I don't think it's an insane idea. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    If it was just the picks you could justify the move or if it was just the cash you can do the same again but cash and picks? That is just to high of a cost.

    I'm actually shocked no one has brought up a kid that is another Tamba Hali and after the new CBA will cost no picks, RAY EDWARDS. Right now he's had 5 years of experience so if the old CBA was in place he wouldn't be a RFA but with no cba he is one (like Makins last year). So when a new cba is reached he'll be a FA. Put his and Hali's numbers side by side and it's kinda scary. At 6'5" 268 he has the right size and speed. Minn also had him stand up and cover flats so he does have the ability to stand up. If people really want Hali then for a much lower cost Edwards is worth a look too
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from makonikyman. Show makonikyman's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

       THANKS PAULARNOLD. that's all I was trying to do was have a debate. It looks like that has happened. The guy is good, VERY GOOD. with 5 yrs of making plays. We've got four, maybe 5 more yrs with TB and BB together prob. If he can help us get over the top and bring us a couple of more rings then I think it's worth looking into. Right now this D is very young, and he's in his prime at 27. Getting him would also allow us to let Mankins go for a pick and address the oline in this draft. I just think that he would make EVERYBODY better. Our dline, linebackers and cornerbacks. Thanks for your opinion

    n Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]Not sure how I feel about it.  Hali had a very good season and has the pedigree (drafted 20th overall in 06) and would provide the pass rushing and run stopping from the edge.  He would command a high salary but would be a known commodity with four years of game film.  The cost would be 2 first rounders 28 this year and hopefully 32 next year (hopefully).  That is definitely a large cost, but in one of the hardest positions to transition from college to the pros you have a known product that can be evaluated.  I can see both sides of the arguement. One other caveat that I was thinking about was the salary cap implications of having so many players coming from these recent draft classes in future years.  I mean that you'll be putting money into Chung and Vollmer one year, and then the next you'll have to deal with McCourty, Cunningham, Spikes, Gronk, and Hernandez.  Then you have to deal the next with what we get out of this draft class which involves a lot of high picks.  Might it be worthwhile to get a guy like Hali where you do lose a pick in the next 2 drafts who is a solid player and whose contract will be realistically expiring when some of these guys need to be resigned.?  Just a thought, and like I said I am definitely not sold on it.  If pressed I would say keep the picks, but I don't think it's an insane idea. 
    Posted by paularnold[/QUOTE]
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's : 20 years in the Marine Corps I think is a calculated risk....................smoke me
    Posted by EASON11[/QUOTE]

    Don't let this affect ya, too much Eason... Like, when you actually feel the wind from high caliber rounds whizzing past your head, and you've glanced over in full-sprint just to see a mortar shell kill two of your best friends, while you were all 10 thousand miles away from home defending The US from terrorism, Or allowing this to keep you awake in the dark hours of night while the guy in the next cot over from you is screaming from post traumatic stress disorder, Don't be goin': "Thank god I don't have a mirror around..."Gutless" on an internet sport's forum thread, Mr. Eason my friend....gutless on a thread in an internet sport's forum...". 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtics12345. Show Celtics12345's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    All of you stop arguing. This is ridiculous, just respect everyone's opinions and get over your petty differences.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    I would make the move, but not for 2, #1's. I would try to negotiate with Pioli, and see if we could give up our #28 this year, a 2nd round pick (not 33) and a player or two. Someone suggested Mankins and #60...I would make that trade in a heartbeat.
    Posted by PatsLifer[/QUOTE]

    Something along these lines would be much more palatable. The value of 2 first round picks is beyond measure and way beyond Hall's current value, IMO. 

    In my memory the only time a team has traded two first round picks is the Niners to the Pats back in the 80's. That was the famous draft that netted jerry rice for the niners and a couple of stiffs who were out of football in a three years for the Pats. But that was the old Patriots, under the sullivans. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]All of you stop arguing. This is ridiculous, just respect everyone's opinions and get over your petty differences.
    Posted by Celtics12345[/QUOTE]

    Have you never posted on a sports board on the internet before? This is the post season it's made for people to argue over players and try to convince others to come over to their opinions. If people weren't arguing their opinions it would be awfully quiet around here and there would be zero discussion
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's : Jesus, I mean-I DID call myself, "an id!ot," sooo...like, stream a picture'a me taking a ball-pin hammer to my t#sticles, or...?  I'm open here...?
    Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium[/QUOTE]


    that's what i love about you laz,
     you completely sell out for wahtever you do, like a wise confident linebacker.
    you're often funny.
    you drive a point.
    usaully you make a lot of great points.
    sometimes you're wrong (like anyone) and since you've gone all out, you're out of position.

    props for having the humility and dignity to come back and eat crow (er.. "stream a picture'a me taking a ball-pin hammer to my t#sticles")

    (laughing) you crack me up.
    i'm glad youre on here.
    even though you may blast mefor being "insane" (laugh) in your fervent effort to make the point you want to make.

    let's all consider the field is a lot more fun when there are (23) other players on it, whether a football field or these boards. sure we can disagree even a little animateldly. let's just not totally disrespect ourselves and one another (which very few on these boards do sometimes, but to the detriment to us all [havent seen that with you Laz]). and if we do, let's the rest of us let them know, "hey, you're out of line""
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]it's a dumb idea because you've never taken a calculated risk in your life. Be happy in your life with your tail between your legs never knowing what it's like to take A SHOT at something......Greatness comes with risks, super bowls are won with proven vets, not rookies and unproven commodities... Because its irresponsible thats why. My question is, why does this make sense to you?
    Posted by datdude401[/QUOTE]


    a well needed point on these boards! thanks.
    (and one i try to make as well).
    every action and inaction has risks.

    what's the risk of not getting the players to allow brady to take us to the superbowl while he is still good?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from brdbreu. Show brdbreu's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]  I just think mb that this d is VERY close to being really good. We just need a playmaker that can put pressure on the qb. Besides, T Brady's window is about 4, maybe 5 yrs and if TH can help bring us a couple of rings in that span then it would be well worth it. Some on here say he is a 1 yr wonder, but in reality he's been really good since he came into the leauge 5 yrs ago. Maybe we can work something out with pioli and give them Mankins and a 2nd, or BM and a 1st next yr. Something along those lines. If we did this deal I would then trade #17 and#33into next yr and pick up a couple of 2nds this yr. and # 1s next. With 28 I grab Ingram. In the 2nd I grab ( 2 out of the 3 ) Watkins/Wisenewski/Moffett to shore up the interior of our o line. Then maybe Reed/acho etc....We could then address the d line next yr with the 2 #1s we aquired. n Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's :
    Posted by makonikyman[/QUOTE]


    that all sounds very reasonable makoniky.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from makonikyman. Show makonikyman's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

        sometimes brdbeau I just don't understand it. This team is SOOOO CLOSE.Tamba Hali. Imo. gives us the best shot of being a top 5 D tomorrow. Not 3 or 4 yrs from now, if ever. People forget on here that for every DMC,BM,Mayo Vince,Mankins, Gronk and Vollmer. There's a B Watson, D graham, Brace, Maroney, T Wheatley, Butler and Chad Johnson. Even T Warren has just been Solid.Do we need more solid players ? Or do we need an animal playmaker. Someone who has to be accounted for, ON EVERY PLAY. Of course, BB knows a little more than me : ), so I'll just leave it up to him

    n Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's : a well needed point on these boards! thanks. (and one i try to make as well). every action and inaction has risks. what's the risk of not getting the players to allow brady to take us to the superbowl while he is still good?
    Posted by brdbreu[/QUOTE]
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's : that's what i love about you laz,  you completely sell out for wahtever you do, like a wise confident linebacker. you're often funny. you drive a point. usaully you make a lot of great points. sometimes you're wrong (like anyone) and since you've gone all out, you're out of position. props for having the humility and dignity to come back and eat crow (er.. "stream a picture'a me taking a ball-pin hammer to my t#sticles") (laughing) you crack me up. i'm glad youre on here. even though you may blast mefor being "insane" (laugh) in your fervent effort to make the point you want to make. let's all consider the field is a lot more fun when there are (23) other players on it, whether a football field or these boards. sure we can disagree even a little animateldly. let's just not totally disrespect ourselves and one another (which very few on these boards do sometimes, but to the detriment to us all [havent seen that with you Laz]). and if we do, let's the rest of us let them know, "hey, you're out of line""
    Posted by brdbreu[/QUOTE]

    Lol...honestly brdbreu, ya got me pegged: Reminds me of something my very own mother said to me awhile back: "Jesus Kr!st! Do you EVER do, or say, or try ANY-thing, half-way...good god, Take it easy for once...Moderation? It's like, whatever you do, you're just fanatical about it!"  Work, No work, Studying, Fighting, Reading, Vagrancy, Working out, Drugs, ZERO drugs or drinking, Charity, Hatred...makes no difference to me really. 
    Laz when he works: "Let's pick up the PACE here People! Full-bore...set the gauges to: 'Insane-Death-OverDrive!' We can DO this...So Let's GO!" 
    Co-worker: "Are you on drugs...
    Laz: "Sadly, no... Are you- Are you- slowing down to talk to me?" 
    Co-worker: "No way. But look, You're not even the Boss, ya know- So WhyTH do you even CARE?! You do know, we get paid the same amount regardless, right? Also, the boss thinks you're a head-case...He told me that he was actually hoping you WERE on drugs...". 
    Laz: "Greeat, Now I gotta have a talk with him after work...". 
    Co-worker: "I know you...I KNOW what you're thinkin here, Laz; And ya don't HAVE to tell him off or explain yourself...I mean, the boss actually likes you." 
    Laz: "Doesn't matter anymore, and Don't worry, I'm not gonna do ANY of those things...I'm gonna wait for him at his car, pistol-whip him with a tire iron, throw him in the trunk of my car, and scatter his remains across several states. I was gonna work through lunch too...now I gotta head across state line's to get a Rent-a-Car though, sheez. Maybe, I'll come back after and work some overtime...".      

    As for your last part (RE: starting and beginning ANY attacks, let alone, personal attacks)...  I believe Lil' Kim said it best, when she said:

    "Who da f#ck want war?
    But'cha fed-ex' me, straight to'ya front door...
    I draw back with some crazy borough bricks,
    Go'wid some crook-ed thorough licks,
    Rep from my overthrows
    Never been the one to start beef,
    I try ta settle sh#t
    But'I ride out'til the wheels fall off,
    An' I squeez til every last shell drop off
    ;"

    Man...I need a gangsta-chick.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from mthurl. Show mthurl's posts

    Re: WHY NOT TAMBA HALL? for the 2 # 1's

    It kind of makes me laugh (kind of) how so many people weren't concerned with our lack of pass rush a few months ago and how we just were going to bend but not break our way to another title...well we broke:(

    These guys don't grow on trees or come cheap. Would I give up 2 first rounders for a guy that routinely gets 14 sacks a season? Sure would! Would I do it for a guy that has done that once? Yikes, I don't know.

    Chances are we are going to miss on one of those picks; maybe we hit on both, then again, maybe we miss on both. It's all in what you hope/believe we can do with the picks; realistically the best you can hope for based off of where we are picking, is that we get two solid contributers. Do you trade that for a proven pass rusher at a position of need? 

    Not going to happen anyways, but I wish this guy had done this for two seasons, because I'm not super happy about his 5 to 7 sack seasons when we are talking about a huge contract and high picks.
     
  25. This post has been removed.

     

Share