BearFan PHX

Cool, so now i understand the nature of our disagreement. 1) You think its less likely than 50% to find that great QB in the draft. I cant say youre wrong. i dunno how Poles is at picking QBs. I also worry that it'll just be the same thing over again. 2a) You think Fields is going to develop into a good player Here is where we really disagree. I see Fields' obvious skills. His legs, his arm, his size, all extremely impressive. But I hope we also agree that he hasnt really shown an ability to be a pocket passer. I think that's critical to NFL success in the modern age. Not to beating the bottom half of the league, but to be a contender, I think it's a necessity to have a QB who can read and exploit defenses. 2b) You think we can contend without a top 5 QB if we put a team around Fields. I also think this is a vestage of days gone by, in the 1990s and before, complementary football worked. Tony Dungy could wear you down with time of possession and a bend dont break defense. Bill Parcells could win a Super Bowl with Jeff Hostetler. You can still beat the lesser teams that way. But you're never going to beat KC, Miami, Philadelphia etc without being able to put up points, and lots of them. The rules have changed and defense no longer wins championships. And dont get me wrong defense is still extremely important, but the end of these contending playoff football games almost always comes down to who the last team to hold the ball is, as high scoring teams lead comebacks and trade leads back and forth in the 4th quarter. So you may still think that Fields will become that guy, or that if you build a team around him, he doesnt have to be that guy. I disagree with you about Fields, but I could be wrong. I hope I am, but I sure havent seen it yet and time is running out. But I know that you need a top QB to win a Super Bowl in the modern age, so I think you're definitely wrong about building around a lesser QB as a recipe for success?

why would you roll your eyes at that? the only way to find a great QB is to keep trying people out until one develops. You cant really buy them already cooked. So you draft and develop them, until one of them actually blossoms. The success rate on top pick QBs is around 50%, so any time you draft a guy you dont know what he will be in the NFL. But buying a lottery ticket on a guy is better than staying with a previous pick who youve already looked at in depth and who you now know wont ever be a top 10 QB. You seem to be saying youd rather have a guy that you know cant do it than to take a risk on a guy that might be able to do it because he might not be able to do it too? If you think Im saying that any of the rookie QBs are cant miss, I'm not. They are as likely to flame out as not - we all agree on this. But why keep Fields when you now have three years of film to see that he hasnt progressed in the basic parts of being a QB - reading defenses, and making quick throws with anticipation to the right guy? How is that a better path than continuing to search for someone who can, just because they aren't guaranteed either? I think you give guys a few years, and then try again until you get it right. I really dont understand what is eye rolling about that.

only against substandard teams though. That formula won't bet the good teams in the modern age. If you execute the Tony Dungy plan perfectly in 2024, you end up flirting with a wild card playoff loss - that's the ceiling.

this is no doubt true. If Fields comes out as a completely different QB than we have ever seen, one who is dominant and looks like a top 10 QB, he will keep his job. But to think that's a likely outcome is another thing, in my opinion. Incremental progress will not be enough, and the extra skills he has, like his incredible running ability, will not be enough. he has to show he is a top 10 QB as a passer from the pocket. He needs read the defense quickly, make fast decisions, and get the ball out in tempo to the right guy. And he needs to do that consistently. Flashes won't be enough. We've tried the go with a substandard QB and build around him thing. It doesn't work. Not in today's game with the pass friendly rules. You could increase the execution of our current scheme with Fields until you regularly beat the bottom half of the league - but then what? Is it incremental from there, or do you reach a ceiling where you find the top 12 teams are playing a different game - one that requires points and the ability to pass the ball well, for 4th quarter comebacks against other good passing teams etc. So just like your pass coverage breaks down no matter how good it is if you dont have a pass rush, playing complementary football and Tony Dungy style running, scoring 17 points and strangling the opponent with a cover 2 breaks down when you meet teams that can put up 30+ points regularly, and in context of more receiver friendly rules. We need to join the modern age. We need a real QB. If Justin Fields suddenly becomes that, great. Heck if Nate Peterman suddenly starts killing it in practice, gets his shot and puts up 50 points on a good NFL defense, then that's great too. But its not going to happen, so you have to start planning for it now. We've got the high picks for exactly this scenario - it's here. Who are we going to take?

Then again if Houston hadnt won a meaningless game at the end of last season, we wouldnt have had the first overall pick to trade last year in the first place to get Carolina's pick this year LOL call it even?

ha! excellent.

Harbaugh has plusses and minuses, and its OK to want him or not want him, but he has said that the bears is his "dream job" Im not even sure i want him, but there is reason to believe hed be interested in the job.

One interesting tidbit - there was some speculation that Harbaugh would be suspended into next years season, and that the NFL would abide by that so he couldnt escape his punishment into the NFL. But now they announced his punishment will be for this year only, so he is free to come to any NFL team he wants next year without penalty, but he is also free to stay at Michigan with no penalty next year either. Some had guessed a 2024 penalty could help usher him out the door. So neither is happening, he can stay and he is available both without punishment.

I think Bagent's head is fine. He is definitely learning what is Ok to throw and what isnt - normal rookie learning curve there. But he has tons of confidence, and knows who and where he is. But yes, the staff called a VERY conservative game. They are trying to win from the sidelines despite the players, instead of creating a situation where the players they have can do what they do well and win it for themselves. And the results are obvious. A close barely-win against the worst team in the league. It should have been 28-13 at least.

Honestly I don't think hes that good of a DC either. I get the idea behind cover 2 defenses, and there is a time and place for it, but last night, we almost lost. If they had moved the ball 3 yards more on our zone before the field goal the game might have gone very differently. We were facing an unsure rookie QB, and there was talk that he could be confused with hidden coverages. Aside from one fake blitz where Sandborn almost had the interception, where was the creativity? Also I see a roster that's getting better. But does it matter whether it's Nicholas Morrow and Matthew Adams or Tremaine Edmunds and TJ Edwards if they are always 2 steps away in zone coverage? I think we have more talent on defense on this roster than people realize, and it's being used so predictably, and so vanilla it's not showing. How many 3rd and longs have to be converted in a row? And we're playing safe on offense too. This staff coaches scared. They try not to lose, they aren't trying to WIN. On occasion youll see some foolhardy show of aggressiveness, usually where it doesnt belong, like 4th and 1 in range for the go ahead field goal against the pack and instead you TE sneak. "Look how aggressive we are!" - but thats just taking a dumb chance at the wrong time. It isnt trusting your key players to do their normal jobs well. Everything about this staff screams trying to win the game from the sidelines like a video game. Put the ball in the players' hands. Find out who is good. Ride them. It isn't rocket science.

So I'm reading all of this, and I have come to the conclusion that you guys would make excellent friends and neighbors. Youre optimistic, forgiving, hopeful and loyal. All excellent personal qualities. I like to think Im the same. I regularly help my neighbors, Im a good father, I treat people with respect etc. But when it comes to football, if you want to win, you have to be willing to do what's best for the team, even if it means moving on from people you like. People who are good, and tried their best. People who had a mix of success and failure. No one is 100% terrible. But if you want a winning team, decent isnt good enough, and I dont think Eberflus is quite decent. He's made so many mistakes and poor judgement calls. I dont blame him for last year's record. Last year he was a caretaker of a tear down - fair enough. But he has made so many unforced errors this season. I wont even bother to list them all here. I like Matt Eberflus as a man. He looks like he'd be a great neighbor, teacher and role model. But he is never going to win a Super Bowl for the Chicago Bears, and that alone is enough reason to fire him. Not in anger, but just because you think someone else has a better chance to be the winner we are looking for.

This 100%

Carolina is the worst team in football. That's how bad we are. But I DO see the increased talent out there. I do see the players getting better and flying around, and yet we still cant get off the field on 3rd and 4th downs. We still cant get rolling on offense. THIS is what terrible coaching looks like. You've got players, but they're not in the right places. Every success looks like it was hard to manage. Nothing but Foreman running the ball looks easy. We've got some dogs on defense, and that passive constant zone is putting them out of the play. I cant stand Eberflus.

HITS my ass. Let's see some tackling sheesh

You know, these days during the rebuild, I've been rooting for good play. I want to win games we deserve to win, but i don't want any accidents giving us undeserved wins. I'm not rooting for unforced fumbles etc. But this game counts, and I'm all in on winning this one no matter how it happens. I feel like I do in a year where we are playoff bound tonight. Win by any means necessary. Let's go Bears!

yeah Im not saying any of the QBs are generational - I dont know. Im just saying, we passed last year, and the idea of finding a super bowl winner as a developmental project in the 3rd round is a longshot and a half.

I agree with some of this, but having a top 5 in the league QB is what this league is all about. Sometimes you find them later down the draft, sometimes top picks bust, but the odds are clear that your best chance, even if it's only 50/50, of finding a top 5 NFL QB is in the top half of the first round of the draft.

That's what Im thinking too. And if you dont want Williams or Maye, you can trade it down to 2 or 3 for a fortune. I want to win this one more than I want to win any other remaining game this season, and we should be able to.

We absolutely need to beat CAR. I want the best shot at the number one pick. But it might lower our pick too. So I wonder, would anyone rather have #2 and #3 instead of, say, #1 and #5? Im pretty sure I want #1 no matter what it does to our other pick. Thoughts?

are those PFF ratings?

Moore has met my expectations for talent and ability, but his production should be a lot higher, but I dont really put that on him.

amen

right, if Fields or Bagent or a rookie next year TAKE the job, prove it belongs to them, and make you think you be CRAZY not to play them - then and only then will we stop looking for a QB. This "he needs another chance" and "give him more time" all that is good - no one comes out of the gate NFL ready, and you have to develop players - but even as you are developing them, you are still thinking about adding competition until one of them TAKES the job in a clear and obvious way. For example, last year, we chose to develop Fields, but we got a second first rounder for 2024 as an insurance policy to get another top QB if necessary. I understand the seduction of using both first rounders on non QBs - it would do a lot for us - but this is a QB driven league, and unless you KNOW you have one, you still need one.

between the two of em, yes. but its likely neither of them is our starter by mid season 2024

unless they're apple, youre totally right.