jason
-
Posts
8,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by jason
-
-
5 hours ago, Stinger226 said:
A deep dive into statistics suggests differently.
Thanks. I was going to post this.
Dude had pressure roughly 50% of drop backs. League average is 35%. No wonder his accuracy isn't perfect. No wonder he holds onto the ball sometimes. Side note: I would argue some of the stats are skewed because Fields is able to run and evade the pressure.
Trade the #1. Stockpile picks. Build around the team leader.
-
3 hours ago, Lucky Luciano said:
1. some people believe williams is too much of a risk to pick with the overall #1. he could be a bust.
2. these same people believe we should trade down and get a plethora of draft picks AND pick a lesser qb.
i just gotta ask.... what makes these picks you will accrue any different from the williams pick? according to that theory, they could ALL be busts right?
if you deem williams the best qb in this qb heavy draft why in the H E double hocky sticks would you NOT pick him and roll the dice that we will have a high end qb that will beat the good/accomplished qb's in our own division for a freaking decade?
isn't that what this is all about? being at LEAST good enough to win the division each year to get us a SHOT at a supberbowl and WINNING IT?
having a solid team that maybe makes it to the playoffs every 5 years or more as a wildcard or even rarer win our division and has an even rarer chance to win a superbowl is just not enough.
it's some kind of glutton phobia some are having. for god's sake we have TWO top ten picks!!!
they want to trade out of the rarest of the rare situation to land that key player that moves this franchise into a yearly contender and for what? didn't the 85 bears teach these people ANYTHING?
the 85 team had all-pro/HOF players on both sides of the ball (remember this was prior the cap) yet what did they lack? a freaking QB (after mcmahon's career was stolen from him, and also a good coach i might add) to win those tight games. if we couldn't do it with that team it's insane to believe we could do it in the salary capped NFL of today!!!
Short answer: More high picks means better odds of more positions being filled with potentially better players.
Long answer: Grabbing a QB at #1 means less day 1-2 picks, less future draft capital, and gambling three years of the franchise on a 50/50 roll of the dice who has numerous red flags and is not the unanimous best QB of the draft class, while filling other positions with known lesser quantities (it’s pure salary cap math at that point). Additionally it means trashing a QB who, while he may not be on track for the HOF at this point, is solid, electrifying at times, and appears to be a clubhouse leader with near universal support, despite the glaringly obvious team issues hindering his potential progression (coaching carousel, bad OL, bad offensive weapons until DJ).
-
The ferocious debate on this kills me. There are people from every level - former GMs and personnel people all the way down to garden variety fans - who have differing opinions on Williams.
Highly respected people thought Fields was a can’t miss prospect. Well, his detractors now say that was a mistake while simultaneously believing in the same “experts” who are already putting Williams in the HOF. The fact is, however, that ANY AND EVERY college QB transitioning to the NFL is an unknown.
Meanwhile, Fields supporters aren’t going off of unknowns. We have seen his glimpses. The arm strength. The spectacular play ability. The incredible running addition. The obvious rapport and leadership with teammates. And we have also literally seen him play behind a subpar OL, with multiple train wreck coaches at varying positions, and a single WR who opponents fear.
Given all the red flags, and complete unknown, the smart play is to go with what we know and build a team, not take another risk and keep a team full of holes.
-
32 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:
As far as whether Williams had those skills you listed in college, the proof is already in hours of tape. The Bears and everyone else already know he can do all those things at the college level. He is as impressive a prospect as there is.
I’d argue the proof is questionable. Multiple people have broken down and shown where he has serious flaws reading defenses and holding the ball forever. But since he played in the weak ass PAC-Whatever, every team pretty much gets 30 points by default.
And that doesn’t even touch on the topic of why he has huge stats against bad teams, but his production drops when he plays decent-good teams.
Arm talent? Sure, elite.
Big plays? Yep.
Game play question marks? Also yes.
-
5 hours ago, killakrzydav said:
Use your head before claim red flags. You’d want the exact freakin same for a kid who’s mom you’re pushing dick into every night
I would do research before asking stupid questions about circumventing the CBA and having ownership in a team. I’d also advise my son to take part in medical, and participate in the combine. I also would have told him to skip the nail polish and Cam Newton outfits.
To me those are all red flags. You can dismiss them at your discretion, but where there is smoke there is fire.
He and his camp are doing almost everything wrong when it comes to the extracurriculars, and that should be concerning to the Bears, because either he actually is a huge risk, or his camp is attempting to throw the Bears off the scent. Either way, it’s an issue.
-
This dude's idiot father not only doesn't want to hire an actual NFLPA agent, but he's also asking completely idiotic questions about foregoing NFLPA collective bargaining rookie salary structure, and yet again about team equity.
Dude is going to be a combination of Jamarcus Russell and the the Ball Brothers moron father.
The Bears absolutely can't take the risk that his father convinces his son to hold out, or to take it even further, basically holding the Bears entire franchise at ransom.
TRADE THE PICK.
https://www.outkick.com/sports/caleb-williams-agent-nfl-draft-status
-
9 hours ago, killakrzydav said:
I’m not a fan of using a 1st on Bowers while the Bears have Kmet, but even I would be OK with how this plays out. Offense with the first four picks is the exact strategy the Bears should have in order to maximize Fields and focus on offense.
-
The fact that I look at some of these and think of how many trades you had to make them come true, and I STILL think it’s believable, is exactly why trading down makes sense. Load up, double down on positions of need, draft insurance picks.
-
8 hours ago, adam said:
The grading systems are so tough, especially if you are looking back at the totality of the season, and not on a snap by snap basis.
What is hard to provide context to: if one OL fails on a play and it counts as a hurry/hit/sack, it obviously impacts his grade AND the play. If two or more OL fail on a play and it only sometimes counts as a hurry/hit/sack, the grading gets out of whack.
If you use PFF, Fields was the most pressured QB in the NFL last year at 48.9%, no other QB with over 400 drop backs was over 45%. Zach Wilson was 2nd at 43.1%.
Now you have to apply some context to that as well. Fields holds the ball longer than normal, causing some of that pressure, and some was also related to play design.
At the end of the day, both sides can be right. Fields has some self-induced pressures AND the OLine needs to improve, especially at Center.
I tell people this all the time and nobody ever recalls how bad the OL has been. The problem is with PFF stats it can be incredibly misleading. Four linemen doing well on each play still results in pressure.
Play 1-LT fails
Play 2-LG fails
Play 3-C fails
Play 4-RG fails
Play 5-RT fails
That results on four linemen grading out at 80%, but a QB who faces 100% pressure rate. Especially last year, that’s how it felt watching Fields.
-
On 2/22/2024 at 7:35 PM, BearFan PHX said:
2) He mentioned that the Jennifer King was a 7 time All American in tackle football. She played 12 seasons as QB and WR in the womens league on the Carolina Phoenix. Cool. That assuages my worries earlier. If shes a dynamic competitor with experience playing professional football, then I feel differently about what I said earlier.
She held the same position "assistant running backs coach" for the Washington Commander the past three years.
She also coached at the Senior Bowl.
Honestly, I didn't know there really was a womens pro tackle football league other than some gimmick ones like the lingerie league. And some of those girls are freakin intense too, but playing in lingerie makes me take it less seriously LOL
But anyway, she seems qualified AND experienced.
FYI-Don’t let any of that fool you.
I’ve reffed 4 different “pro” women’s leagues, with teams stretching the entire southeast, and they’re all virtually the same. The level of play is atrocious. The athleticism is nearly nonexistent. It’s like a bad high school varsity team strictly because of the player size. I could give you dozens of examples, but it’s definitely not as legit as playing in high level varsity, let alone NCAA.
A few examples:
1. A team traveled 10+ hours and forgot their pads in the “other truck.”
2. A team quit mid-3rd Qtr with injuries piling up and because one player said “we got jobs tomorrow.”
3. Team owner was also coach and RB. In other words, she footed the bill. In little league this is called “Daddy Ball.”
4. Nearly every player for one team, including “skill” positions, had a visible beer gut, or post pregnancy weight lingering. 5. I told two coaches at half of one game that if they wanted the game to continue with refs, they’d relay to their entire team that we are tired of hearing they’re uninformed complaining. They were absolutely clueless about the rules and never shut up.I could go on and on. I can’t speak about the time with the Commanders, but all women’s pro league resume building is like listing your HS job at Burger King when applying for a professional job in your 40s.
-
May the best Xavier win. LOL
There would be some serious camp competition with that many new bodies. I could see a roster turnover like never seen before.
-
2 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:
Did you ever play football? It's important to the context.
Concur.
-
Concur. I just don’t know how people actually watched the games last year and come to a different conclusion.
Ruined Cutler.
Ruined Trubisky.
Ruining Fields.
When will this franchise prioritize the OL in order to protect the franchise’s number one asset?
-
4 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:
for sure. anyone who has watched teams get picked in gym knows this instinctively. It's obvious, and we agree.
But not all positions are equally important to winning championships.
That said, the weakest link on any team is an issue, and football is the ultimate team sport. So every position matters. And as I've said before, I agree with you that the offensive line is extremely important to a football team's success.
But I think you can more reliably find good offensive linemen, especially interior players, in the second round than you can reliably find championship QBs there, with the possible exception of left offensive tackle.
There is a reason that the best QBs get paid more $ than any other position by far. General Managers know this truth about the importance of the position and what a dominant one is worth.
Right defensive end is one of the most important positions on the defense, because they are the anti QB. They rush the QB to stop him from being able to throw. Their importance is a reflection of the QBs importance.
And of course then, to your point, the left offensive tackle is important because he blocks the DE who is trying to stop the QB. Again, all worth directly relative to the importance of the QB position.
Now it is also true that we have seen difference makers at every position in football history. You wouldnt normally think of safety as a position from which you can dominate the outcome of a game, but Ronnie Lott, Ed Reed and Troy Palumalu have shown otherwise. So real generational difference makers can come at any position.
But even when they do, at the height of their powers, they are not the most highly paid players in the league. That distinction always goes to a QB. And that value, expressed here as salary cap %, relates directly to effect on winning.
So if you think there's a hall of Fame QB available in the draft, you pay almost any price to get him.
And I do think the Bears roster building is far enough along to support a Caleb Williams, and I also think we will put more on the OL this offseason to make that even more true.
It isnt a true choice between a top rookie QB *OR* an offensive line. i think we can have both. And I think every metric and study shows that the top QB is the most important thing in football. Not the only important thing, but the most important.
I won’t reply individually to each point, but it really comes down to percentages and finances in my mind.
A QB at #1 means guaranteed holes elsewhere and a 50/50 coin flip success rate. It also means financially burdening the franchise with one player in such a way that virtually guarantees flaws elsewhere.
It reminds me of going to the arcade with my kids. They spend all their money on those huge games. Sometimes those games are awesome, with great game length, amazing graphics, etc. And other times they die in very short order.
Meanwhile I’m playing twice as long for a third of the money because I’m playing the classics and having a blast.
If they pick the right game, their experience is fun. IF. In general, however, my strategy provides more consistent success.
-
3 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:
Yes, good players are sometimes found later in the draft or free agency, and yes top picks sometimes bust, but statistically speaking, the best players generally go earlier in the draft, of course.True of all positions.
-
12 hours ago, Daventry said:
That’s interesting, but the “bottom 5” idea was the commentators opinion, not a fact. There was no mention of the pressure issue, I assume you are saying that is your opinion? In my opinion, the line wasn’t great but it wasn’t horrible either, and the reason for most of JF’s issues were his poor decision making.
See above. Although…PFF ?
As for the WRs, it’s their opinion, but also difficult to argue with that.
-
I’ll add this for supporting evidence. Fields had a bottom 5 receiving corp, and was pressured more than nearly every other QB in the league. Can’t properly evaluate any QB in that situation.
https://x.com/clayharbs82/status/1758697342184607896?s=46&t=TmVeSz5NqQC-GsJTz-8YiQ
-
On 2/5/2024 at 12:58 PM, Mongo3451 said:
The rumors are already swirling, since Washington hired Stinksberry. We get a haul for the number one and draft our dynasty.
??????
-
4 minutes ago, ChileBear said:
I just don't think Fields has the next level in him as a QB. He has skill, but another year of "improve around him and "the Fields will look better" will just be another of our franchise failures you alluded to earlier.
Certainly possible. But picking yet another first round QB and surrounding him with an incomplete roster and poorly run organization just means they swung at the same pitch the exact same way three times in a row and struck out without even attempting another approach.
I’d rather they at least try something different and build a complete team. Loading up on a first round QB almost guarantees the multiple glaring holes don’t all get filled.
-
1 hour ago, ChileBear said:
So we're hopeless, why follow the Bears as your team?
Because there is hope. There is always hope. Hope that they learn from past mistakes and try a new approach.
-
1 hour ago, ChileBear said:
Hold it, we've got two young and improving Tackles, cap space for free agents and draft capital. The OL will be better and I'd rather see a new QB with better skills than more of the same with Fields. And if what you say is true, then Fields was a lost cause two years ago, so why keep him longer, based on your arguement?
You hold Fields because he’s still under rookie contract and you try to fix the team around him. If they improve the OL like you suggest, then Fields will look better and the Bears will make an immediate ascension.
-
1 minute ago, ChileBear said:
Trubisky, Fields, franchise history with QBs is about to change. Poles, with the Panthers' pick, hass set us up with a once-in-a-franchise opportunity. He has the first pick in a QB heavy draft, and he has the 9th pick as well. If poles thinks one of the QBs is even a smidge bit better than Fields, its a done deal and he'll take him. THAT is how you change the course of a team that struggles for mediocrity at the position. Tom Waddle said today that great QBs make the surrounding players better, but surrounding a so-so QB with more talent doesn't improve the team. I think Poles has the right plan.
I love Waddle, but that’s nonsense. We’ve seen countless teams make players look better than when they get to another team, whether that be offensive weapons, offensive scheme, coaching, or other. Look no further than Cutler: well over 4K, traded to Chicago, gets destroyed in year one, never the same again.
-
4 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:
Seen where last year, Fields was second in the league with pressure rate. 2022 he was first. No QB is going play well with constant pressure. I think this year he finally finishes building the OL, gets us one more weapon and an edge. That will be his theme this off-season.
Didn’t know that!! Not surprising. It’s the same thing every Bears QB since Cutler has had to deal with. When will this franchise ever learn?
-
7 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:
If Poles doesn't take a QB with a top pick, he will get fired and deserve it. And we will suffer through another decade of awful teams.
If Poles picks a QB, Williams to be exact, with the #1, that rookie will flounder with a below average OL, a below average RB, and a poor offensive scheme. DJ will want to leave. Kmet will want to leave. Williams will show himself to be an eccentric prima donna. The rookie QB will then be a bust. And Poles will be fired for following the previous Bears’ flaws of hitching a wagon to yet another horse that’s walking into a minefield.
Clear the minefield first.
Yet another Caleb Williams Red Flag
in Bearstalk
Posted
Your analogy is understood, but not ideal. More picks means more chance at success. It’s fact. Take it to the extreme and give a team every first round pick. They’d certainly have several successes and some busts. But if 10 first round picks every year are all pros, odds are better of getting one if you have more picks.