BearFan PHX

amen

Im gonna play Devil's advocate about my own point. Maybe he's saying those are the traits of a good QB, and he's the coach to make Fields do that. It's hard to read the tea leaves on this one! But if he's talking about a built in ability, then he's not talking about Caleb Williams either! Also Bagent's release is quicker than a virgin at the Playboy Mansion LOL but he did throw too many interceptions - like a virgin who needs to make sure the routes are actually open and theres no defender in position to pick him off? So here's a question: which is easier to teach; to speed up a QB's reading of the defense so he makes reads faster, or to slow a QB's reads down so he makes better reads?

yeah there is no denying his talent. That's why Im hoping someone else emerges with similar amazing talent without the same risk. Hes hard to walk away from, but id love to if we could find another candidate equally as intriguing. There are a lot of good QBs available this year, but predicting which one(s) are gonna be elite aint easy.

Delivery quickness. It sure doesn't/

I hope there is a non-Williams generational option. I worry about Caleb a lot. I would love to have another option!

yeah, youre 100% right - we need a GOOD offensive minded HC lol I would look seriously at a guy like Ben Johnson, but not the probable Superbowl winning OC (Nagy) lol

I dunno how he is at leading men (no reason to think anything negative about that, just have no info) but based on his schemes and playcalling, Id love to see him here running our offense. I also prefer an offensive minded head coach, since if you have success youre always losing the coordinators. To my mind, the job of offensive coordinator is much much MUCH more complex than defensive coordinators, and good OCs are rare. So if we had a defacto OC as HC, or at least a HC who directed the offensive gameplan during the week that would be preferable to a defensive minded HC.

I agree with you on the second statement, but I dont think MHJr will drop below about pick #3 or #4 If we have our eye on a QB not named Williams, Daniles or Maye, then maybe we trade down to #3 for something short of a haul, grab MHJr, and then that other QB at #9? But all of that has to be contingent (in my opinion) on having a clear plan for a QB you've identified as the best one in the draft. That is job #1 this year to me.

great stuff adam and Grizz, I love all these data points. It's really good to get some points of view that are contrary to the monolithic media narratives. I wont agree with all of them, but hearing the same echo chamber BS over and over is just brainwashing people. Its good to have alternative viewpoints, even if I (we?) end up disagreeing with them, it helps to check our own math. But hearing a sportswriter regurgitate the same crap that he read somewhere else, that started before this season even started is futile. Some examples of narratives that were born in summer of 2023, that still persist as if we havent had a season since then: Justin just needs one more year with some better players around him Caleb Williams is the clear cut cant miss generational talent in this draft Harbaugh is a volatile coach who doesnt belong in the NFL with highly paid players Gervon Dexter is a NT and cant play 3T Kalil Herbert is the best RB on the Bears Cole Kmet is a bust etc.

Stats can definitely be misleading. But there are RAW stats like completion percentage, or yards per attempt and those are factual. They dont always tell the whole story, but they are objective. Then there are PFF stats which are subjective. They include a persons opinion about a play, and they also use formulae to take different subjective stats and wash them through some algorithm to produce an even less reliable "stat" in that you need to trust both the opinions going into the algorithm, plus the algorithm itself. PFF is nonsense, real stats are objective, but dont tell the whole story, and watching tape shows you everything in context.

lol @ $10M perf too LOL

yup and great title to this thread. I wonder when people are going to be sick and tired of Bears mediocrity.

we could probably pay Trubisky half that, whats the point? I want a GOOD QB.

I guess my point from several posts back was about the difference between actually dominant teams that are deep in the playoffs every year, and the kind of team that gets a little lucky and gets to the championship game or the super bowl, but isnt seen from again. For example, our 2006 Bears went to the Superbowl, and the 2007 Bears were 7-9. So were the 2006 Bears really evidence that we were a really good team? When we got double doinked out of going deeper in the playoffs with Nagy and Trubisky, was that really evidence that we had arrived? That those guys would be a positive force for winning games in the future? I dont want to be one of those teams that squeaks into the playoffs and we hope "if we get a fumble you never know! we could run the table if the ball bounces our way a few times" - I want that 1985 feeling - we are the baddest motherf*ckers, and favorites to win the superbowl. Now I know you gotta build that. But you gotta believe the people youre building from 7-10 to 10-7 with have that in them, or youll end up... like the Lions. We'll see what they do next year. Maybe Campbell will make me eat crow. Im not saying he wont, but I dont see it as obvious yet. And the parallels to the current coach and QB are obviously heavily implied LOL

I hear ya. And i am also a huge fan of the big alpha dog who demands excellence. I think that's Campbells strength. But i think he makes, or to your point, has made, some losing decisions as a strategist. The headline at the Rich Eisen show today is "Take the points!" and the Pat McAfee show is "Should Dan Campbell be blamed for losing to the 49ers after leading 24-7 at half?" Im not saying thats correct, there are obviously counter arguments too - but the question is being widely asked today, so it's hard to say Campbell is a top 5 coach, even as his team finished 3rd or 4th this year. Im not here to crap on Dan Campbell at all, I like his personality a lot, and what the Lions did this year was great. But we beat them, and if Campbell was Andy Reid, we wouldnt have? The OC for the Lions is really good too, so a lot of credit goes to him too. I want to find a head coach who has that tough ass attitude. I want a strategist too, and someone with a pedigree of winning in college or the pros. All three. Maybe someone who just came off winning a national championship or something, but those guys are never available (cough)

I like Foreman too, but agree with the sentiment otherwise.

good point, theres also that mid tier oscillation of strength of schedule, youre 6-11, so you get an easy schedule, you go 11-6 and then get a tough schedule, and then regress to 6 wins again - BOY have the Bears been on THAT cycle. That the Lions progress as the schedule gets tougher does definitely show they are rising. Im not convinced they are really in the top 4 teams in the league, but they are surely in the top 8, maybe even 5 or 6. If they keep moving forward next year, then Campbell is a good coach for sure. But right now, I see Goff, the OC and Hutchinson as the primary reasons. I do think Campbell is probably a great motivator - I love his fiery attitude. But I dunno if he is a master strategy guy or not? They seriously might be in the superbowl this year if they had bought into taking FGs on 4th down instead of going for it.

I totally agree. I think the Lions OC is fantastic. The opening drive was like a magic show and the 49ers were always looking the wrong way. But similarly, the 49ers made amazing halftime adjustments, and ended up outcoaching the Lions. After halftime the Niners defense seemed to have Goffs number and they clamped down on the run game. So similar to how we have an opening script for Justin that looks better than the rest of the game, the Lions had a plan that got them a 24-7 halftime lead. But then it wasnt the week leading up planning but in game adjustments where the Niners coaching staff took control. Im not saying Campbell is nothing, he's a very dynamic guy who amps up the players for sure. But he made some situational football mistakes that may have been the difference in the game, like going for it on 4th down instead of taking the FG. But i give more coaching credit to the Lions OC, and Goff. And for people making parallels to Campbell with Eberflus, it's all the same mistakes but without the huge magnetic personality Campbell has. You're also right about the role luck played. It is always is a factor, but hopefully you have coaches that can create some tricky stuff to balance that out too?

for sure. plus there was no pass rush the first half of the season, and Stevenson was a rookie! There is every reason to believe that this defense will be excellent next year, and if you add more on the DL and a new FS, we could be special. And we still need to complement that with an offense that can score points!

It's an interesting problem, and in some ways it's THE interesting problem. I think there is enough chaos in the way it's all set up that while the very best teams rise, and the worst teams fall, there's a whole middle area that churns in the noise of "any given sunday" So a 3-14 team isn't gonna go far into the playoffs, and the Chiefs are always gonna be there in the playoffs, and usually in the Championship game that there is enough chaos in the whole system that a team like ours could be 6-11 or 11-6 even if we are at the same skill level. The Lovie team that went to the Superbowl was like that. They weren't a Superbowl caliber team per se, but the defense was good enough and a couple things went our way and boom there we were. No way we were beating the Colts though, even with Hester spotting a 7 point handicap by returning the opening kickoff. But there are a couple of teams every year that are GOOD. They are gonna bully their way into the playoffs and win. Chaos happens, and they might not make the Super Bowl every year, but they are gonna be in it at the end. Brady took the Pats to 9 superbowls, but he also took them to 13 AFC championship games, including EVERY single one between 2012 and 2019. So cream rises, but there is enough noise that the best team sometimes loses in the Championship game. And somehow the Bears get there only to lose to an actual dominant team. So that's what I'm thinking about the Lions. They were good, and Goff is a pretty good QB. They had a pass rush, and the ball bounced their way a few times. They were like Lovie's Bears. Good, but no ones SB favorite. So if they win at least 11 games next year, I'll say that Campbell is a good coach. But if they go 9-7 or worse, I'll think it was the roster and some luck. So I guess you need that top 5 QB, a surrounding roster to at least some degree, and a coach to pull some magic tricks to give you an edge from being one of the top 4 to being the one holding the trophy at the end. It's chaotic, so some years youll miss out, but if you dont have those three things, then really youre not in the actual game at all. And I suppose this philosophy is what drives me to want to move on from middle or decent coaches and QBs. i feel like until you have exceptional people at those two positions, youre just in the race, but not in the actual hunt to win it? I mean, we beat the Lions. So what does that mean? That the Lions really are a Superbowl team and so are we? Or that the Bears are somewhere in the top teams between 12th to 16th best, and hoping for a breeze of luck to get us to the divisional round? This is why incremental progress isnt actually a sign of becoming dominant. Once you get past the average, youre at the mercy of the winds of luck, and when you get a 10 win season you think youre on the way, and when you win 6 you fire the guy, but neither understands the deeper path to being truly dominant?

yeah and its funny, one of the knocks on Edmunds was that he didnt make INTs. For me, if a LB can take away the deep middle and knock passes down, that's good enough. I mean, I love INTs, but if he can do the Urlacher thing, that's valuable too. And then here he comes getting 4 this year. And he's only 25. Like Kmet, I think Edmunds best play is still ahead of him.

Edmunds value to this defense may not be easily apparent. The Cover 2 system (not just the coverage type, but the gap assignments) tend to funnel all the tackles to the WLB, in this case Edwards. As Edmunds makes good reads and fills his gap, the runners bounce outside where Edwards cleans them up, and was a top tackler in the league. The same thing happened on running plays with Urlacher funneling to Briggs. The difference is on pass plays in the Tampa 2, Urlacher got major depth. He was able to use his speed and length to shut down the deep middle seam, which is one of the three places where you attack a Cover 2. The others being on the sides past the press corner, and in front of, or if you can beat them, behind the safety. Eberflus doesnt use Edmunds that way. I truly think Poles thought that was how Edmunds would be used when he praised his length.

its because Eberflus isnt using him the way Lovie used Urlacher. The difference between the cover 2 Eberflus runs and the Tampa 2 Lovie ran.

no. it showed what this ONE 7th round pick can do. 99% of 7th round picks cant ever do that.

thats my point. but you missed it. I just want to win. But Justin isnt gonna get us there. So I really hope we dont keep him. Then we can win, and i cant prove that i was "right" that we wouldnt have won with him, because he wasnt here to prove it.