proof positive That even on one leg, a great QB beats a great LB So now can all the pundits stop the Mack shit talk. Mack has no big wins. Rodgers has a bunch. We are so lucky to have Sam. No need for a billionaire pass rusher.
We already have Sam. Mack would have elevated our defense to top 10. It’s not Mack or Sam. Btw, not a Jet thread, and there is already a Mack thread.
Well yeah .... I guess Mack elevated the Bears to only lose by 1??? A lodd is a loss unless you care about moral victories? Duh
Lol you’ve completely missed the point. Mack almost singlehandedly put that team on his back. He’s not a QB. And we already have a QB. We don’t have a dominant defender to take our DEFENSE to another level. Geezuz.
Would one rather have Rodgers than Mack? Of course, but that’s a really stupid comparison. If you wouldn’t want a defender like Mack on the Jets, they you’re just not watching.
You added a key word that proves how your argument it logically and mathematically wrong The word is ALMOST Bottom line his team LOST A loss is a loss unless you know of a new way to manage team records?
I would NOT want Mack on a team that’s 2-3 years from winning (not to mention his salary hell and draft pick hell) That’s the Direct answer to your question. ........ He will not win a super bowl by himself for the Jets or Bears. Unless you’re saying he won one for the Raiders? You have proven a bit delusional so you never know.
I never said anything of the sort. Nothing to do with the Bears winning or the Raiders winning. It’s about the Jets winning (you know, the team with gobs and gobs of money). Keep up the straw men, you’re doing wonderfully.
You just got owned and it’s your fault for not using logic and fact. No hard feelings buddy. We both want the Jets to win a SB
Owned? Logic and fact? What are you 15? You don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. You’ve dipped into quite a few logical phallacies, keep it up. And I’m not sure you want the Jets to win if you don’t want a dominating edge pass rusher, something we haven’t had since Abraham. Having Sam is a given. Not having a dominant pass rusher will stunt our ability to win, but having a dominant pass rusher will enhance our ability to win and would elevate our entire defense. PLUS we have $100 million to spend. But you keep pointing to a bad Bear team losing. Our a bad Raider team not winning. That makes logical sense.
Going to bed now. In case you come back at me and I don’t reply. It’s not cuz I don’t have logic or facts to refute a claim for moral victory. Healthy disagreement is fine. Peace
I don't understand how someone can make a thread like this. Honestly. No disrespect to @Longsuffering88 but this is terrible logic. 1. You posted in the Jets forum where this is an NFL Topic. Yes, Mack was rumored to the Jets, but that ship has sailed and no longer a Jets topic. 2. Why are you comparing Mack to Rodgers? That makes no sense. Mack clearly showed he is a difference maker tonight. He has only been in Chicago for like a week and missed all of Camp. It was an impressive performance. 3. The Bears defense clearly has improved with the addition of Mack. 4. Yes, Rodgers is more important to his team than Mack, but that does not mean Mack is not important or worth pursuing. 5. I just wasted my time writing this response, didn't I?
