The Chicago Bears are on the clock! OFFSEASON OPEN THREAD!

[Alaskan Grizzly]

54 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Eberflus and Fields are not going to win Superbowls for this team. Yes they went from crap to eh. And that was a big improvement. So what? if Eberflus had gone missing and they got another head coach in before preseason this past year, any NFL coach would have gotten at least 7-10.

You need to be great to be great. Going from 3-14 to 7-10 is not a show of greatness.

Never say never.

Campbell's HC record:

• 2021  3-13
• 2022  9-8 
• 2023  12-5 (one game from SB)

Then there's the example illustrated from Kevin Warren when he worked with Dick Vermiel in LA

• 1997  5-11
• 1998  4-12 (regressed this year)
• 1999  13-3 (won SB)

Vermiel did that two other times with two other teams 

With PHI:

• 1976  4-10
• 1977  5-9
• 1978  9-7 (would have three more winning seasons to include SB appearance)

With KC:

• 2001  6-10
• 2002  8-8
• 2003  13-3

 

[Mongo3451]

1 hour ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Never say never.

Campbell's HC record:

• 2021  3-13
• 2022  9-8 
• 2023  12-5 (one game from SB)

Then there's the example illustrated from Kevin Warren when he worked with Dick Vermiel in LA

• 1997  5-11
• 1998  4-12 (regressed this year)
• 1999  13-3 (won SB)

Vermiel did that two other times with two other teams 

With PHI:

• 1976  4-10
• 1977  5-9
• 1978  9-7 (would have three more winning seasons to include SB appearance)

With KC:

• 2001  6-10
• 2002  8-8
• 2003  13-3

 

Just think, if you get the right QB, you can be Belichick. Without Brady, he has a career losing record.

[Stinger226]

5 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Never say never.

Campbell's HC record:

• 2021  3-13
• 2022  9-8 
• 2023  12-5 (one game from SB)

Then there's the example illustrated from Kevin Warren when he worked with Dick Vermiel in LA

• 1997  5-11
• 1998  4-12 (regressed this year)
• 1999  13-3 (won SB)

Vermiel did that two other times with two other teams 

With PHI:

• 1976  4-10
• 1977  5-9
• 1978  9-7 (would have three more winning seasons to include SB appearance)

With KC:

• 2001  6-10
• 2002  8-8
• 2003  13-3

 

Every situation is different but there's times that teams get very good. It's not black and white.

[BearFan PHX]

7 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Never say never.

Campbell's HC record:

• 2021  3-13
• 2022  9-8 
• 2023  12-5 (one game from SB)

Then there's the example illustrated from Kevin Warren when he worked with Dick Vermiel in LA

• 1997  5-11
• 1998  4-12 (regressed this year)
• 1999  13-3 (won SB)

Vermiel did that two other times with two other teams 

With PHI:

• 1976  4-10
• 1977  5-9
• 1978  9-7 (would have three more winning seasons to include SB appearance)

With KC:

• 2001  6-10
• 2002  8-8
• 2003  13-3

 

You keep making this argument in many different forms. It goes like this:

"Someone who is great was once bad, therefore someone who is bad is likely to be great"

It's completely wrong. What percentage of people who were bad became great later? There are some, but being bad is almost certainly an indicator that youre going to keep being bad.

All you're proving is that nothing is certain. It'd be like saying "It's possible that if I give all my money away I will impress someone who will bring me better opportunities to recoup my money and more" OK yes. It is possible. Mr Beast did it.

Now go throw your money away and see the difference between possibility and probability.

Can I say for sure that Eberflus will not be great in the future? of course I cant. But that doesnt mean that he will. Not at all. He made a ton of bad decisions, and is lauded for some pretty vanilla ones on defense that lost us games.

Keeping him is a mistake, and if they keep Fields too, it's going to blow up and then everyone is going to be mad as hell for the wasted year and the lost chance at a top QB.

I cant just sit around an nod my head about it because "hey ya never know" - it's a foolish way to run a football team.

[BearFan PHX]

Albert Breer had a bunch of information today. He tells us that:

Multiple OC Candidates that the Bears interviewed told him that the chance to coach Caleb Williams was a drawing card for considering the OC position with the Bears for them.

AND

Matt Eberflus defended Justin Fields in the interviews.

Now maybe that's just some smoke going into trade and draft season, but maybe it's a clown show too.

I REALLY don't want to be right about this. I don't want to get this rebuild all out of rhythm and miss the chance at a #1 pick QB. Saying i told you so will be a poor prize for getting thrown back into mediocrity for several more years, and watching this roster age out and move on to better free agency deals while we scramble to keep some together.

Getting your rookie QB in 2025 if you even CAN get a sniff of the #1 pick, (and who is coming out then?) is gonna require anotheryear of development into 2026 and then youre losing Sweat soon and god dammit why the hell did we keep Eberflus.

We had better have a new QB next year. This franchise is the NFLs version of the Washington Generals, and they never beat the Globetrotters. Theyre just there to be a foil for the Packers. Havent we had enough mediocrity?!

Oh, and if we keep both, that thing i said about Poles hugging and getting too close to make good decisions about letting "friends" go - is gonna start sounding pretty right. Grrrr

(reposting this in the OC thread)

[Stinger226]

13 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

Albert Breer had a bunch of information today. He tells us that:

Multiple OC Candidates that the Bears interviewed told him that the chance to coach Caleb Williams was a drawing card for considering the OC position with the Bears for them.

AND

Matt Eberflus defended Justin Fields in the interviews.

Now maybe that's just some smoke going into trade and draft season, but maybe it's a clown show too.

I REALLY don't want to be right about this. I don't want to get this rebuild all out of rhythm and miss the chance at a #1 pick QB. Saying i told you so will be a poor prize for getting thrown back into mediocrity for several more years, and watching this roster age out and move on to better free agency deals while we scramble to keep some together.

Getting your rookie QB in 2025 if you even CAN get a sniff of the #1 pick, (and who is coming out then?) is gonna require anotheryear of development into 2026 and then youre losing Sweat soon and god dammit why the hell did we keep Eberflus.

We had better have a new QB next year. This franchise is the NFLs version of the Washington Generals, and they never beat the Globetrotters. Theyre just there to be a foil for the Packers. Havent we had enough mediocrity?!

Oh, and if we keep both, that thing i said about Poles hugging and getting too close to make good decisions about letting "friends" go - is gonna start sounding pretty right. Grrrr

(reposting this in the OC thread)

Can you share the link? I'm follow him on X and missed that post. 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

13 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

You keep making this argument in many different forms. It goes like this:

And you speak in absolutes quite a bit.  Unless you're in the room with Poles etc, you don't really have a clue what will happen.  You and I can both speculate to our heart's content about what may happen until it does happen.  Some sports columnists call it a 'hot take' and boy are there plenty of them.  

13 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

Can I say for sure that Eberflus will not be great in the future? of course I cant. But that doesnt mean that he will. Not at all. He made a ton of bad decisions, and is lauded for some pretty vanilla ones on defense that lost us games.

At no time did I say or indicate that I thought Flus is or will be great.  The examples I gave were of two other coaches that were in very similar situations as Flus is in currently.  As it stands today, arguments can be made of how great a coach Vermeil was but his record speaks for itself.  He was able to turn around three different teams in three different eras with a myriad of QBs from varying backgrounds (while in Philly he had Ron Jaworski - himself a 2nd round pick, in STL he had Tony Banks to start with - who was another 2nd rounder until Kurt Warner came around - who was undrafted and bounced around a bit before landing in STL, then with KC he had Trent Green who was an 8th round draft pick).  In the case of Campbell the jury is still out of how great a coach he will be but what is helping him succeed is the revitalization of Goff, himself a previously #1 overall pick. 

13 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

Keeping him is a mistake, and if they keep Fields too, it's going to blow up and then everyone is going to be mad as hell for the wasted year and the lost chance at a top QB.

An example of your absolutism.  For now all this is your opinion.  There were fans in the last game that chanted "we want Fields", people on many social media platforms are still divided about 50/50 whether we should keep Fields and many former players have suggested the Bears keep Fields.  If the Bears keep Fields AND he fails miserably, yes many will be mad.  Just like if they draft Williams #1 overall and he fails... But for now, its still pretty clearly divided on which direction we as fans want the team to go.  What will management do, we won't know until closer to April 25th.  

[Stinger226]

25 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

And you speak in absolutes quite a bit.  Unless you're in the room with Poles etc, you don't really have a clue what will happen.  You and I can both speculate to our heart's content about what may happen until it does happen.  Some sports columnists call it a 'hot take' and boy are there plenty of them.  

At no time did I say or indicate that I thought Flus is or will be great.  The examples I gave were of two other coaches that were in very similar situations as Flus is in currently.  As it stands today, arguments can be made of how great a coach Vermeil was but his record speaks for itself.  He was able to turn around three different teams in three different eras with a myriad of QBs from varying backgrounds (while in Philly he had Ron Jaworski - himself a 2nd round pick, in STL he had Tony Banks to start with - who was another 2nd rounder until Kurt Warner came around - who was undrafted and bounced around a bit before landing in STL, then with KC he had Trent Green who was an 8th round draft pick).  In the case of Campbell the jury is still out of how great a coach he will be but what is helping him succeed is the revitalization of Goff, himself a previously #1 overall pick. 

An example of your absolutism.  For now all this is your opinion.  There were fans in the last game that chanted "we want Fields", people on many social media platforms are still divided about 50/50 whether we should keep Fields and many former players have suggested the Bears keep Fields.  If the Bears keep Fields AND he fails miserably, yes many will be mad.  Just like if they draft Williams #1 overall and he fails... But for now, its still pretty clearly divided on which direction we as fans want the team to go.  What will management do, we won't know until closer to April 25th.  

First of all none of our opinions matter, only the regime in power that dictate that. We get to see how the Flus decision plays out on live TV, since he's not going anywhere. I think it turns out well but time will tell. Same with the QB decision, I trust Poles to do the right thing. If it's Williams, im all in , I'm not going to be Mr negative because he didn't keep Fields . I'll wait and see the results of that decision. I want my team to be successful, I don't have to be right about my opinion.

[BearFan PHX]

funny that having an opinion that isnt yours is absolutism.

This is sportstalk - people have opinions. Mine is that Fields will never be great.

You also missed the point I was making entirely. That you identify people who have been bad and then good later doesnt take into account all the people who were bad and never got good. You cant possibly be arguing that anyone who is bad will then be good.

All youre saying is "you never know" and that is a ridiculous way to make decisions.

Also, I dont need to be int he room with Poles to criticize the argument YOU keep making. What does Poles even have to do with that?

Let's sign Trubisky to be our QB, because Geno Smith had a resurgence, and hey ya never know.

Let's bring back Getsy because other OCs have done better in their second stint, because hey ya never know.

It's inane.

[BearFan PHX]

Here are some hints.

Don't argue that because a handful of successful people had bad starts that everyone who has a bad start will be successful.

Instead, say what you see of Fields or Eberflus that you like. Tell us WHY you're betting on them. I've been clear this whole time that Justin has strengths. I dont see them overcoming his weaknesses, but it isn't stupid to say you believe in him, or you think the problem was all Getsy etc. Those are arguments. I dont agree with them, and I would still argue against them, but they arent inane arguments.

But the ongoing thread of people who were bad and then good is not a good argument at all. It's not predictive.

It's like the argument that because Brady was found in the 6th round, you should pick a 6th round QB. Or similar with Brock Purdy. Youd have to take 50+ 6th round QBs to have the likelihood go your way on finding a great QB there. The fact that Brady exists doesnt predict the overwhelming number of QBs in the 6th round who are not good.

So it takes more than an argument of "it's POSSIBLE" to support making a strategy. It should include some component of "it's likely" and that doesnt exist in those "once bad now good" arguments. They just dont hold logical water.

You like Eberflus or Fields? Fine! It's sportstalk! Just tell us why instead of using arguments that are illogical.

The other one I have mostly blocked but still see in quotes is "no ones opinion matters on here Poles is gonna do what he does" well YEAH, everyone knows this. Why have the board? Because it's fun to talk about and think about different scenarios.

The "no one knows" argument seems mostly to be deployed to invalidate someone's assertion the person using the "no one knows" argument disagrees with. The irony of course is that "no one knows" also defeats their own argument, and all arguments. Why eve nhave a sportstalk board then?

I prefer people come with facts, or even rumors, pro or con, and then we all learn something. And if we dont agree, then it helps us check the math on our own points of view at least?

 

[Stinger226]

On 1/23/2024 at 3:39 PM, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Never say never.

Campbell's HC record:

• 2021  3-13
• 2022  9-8 
• 2023  12-5 (one game from SB)

Then there's the example illustrated from Kevin Warren when he worked with Dick Vermiel in LA

• 1997  5-11
• 1998  4-12 (regressed this year)
• 1999  13-3 (won SB)

Vermiel did that two other times with two other teams 

With PHI:

• 1976  4-10
• 1977  5-9
• 1978  9-7 (would have three more winning seasons to include SB appearance)

With KC:

• 2001  6-10
• 2002  8-8
• 2003  13-3

 

Glad you've backing up your statement ( coaches can get better, players can get better) with factual examples. No one knows what next year brings, but I think its a winning season whether it's Fields or a draftee and Flus will finally start getting noticed for being a good coach.( IMO)

[BearFan PHX]

25 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Glad you've backing up your statement ( coaches can get better, players can get better) with factual examples.

Now do the percentages. How likely is that?

Or is the point just "ya never know" and "anything's possible" - if thats it, why doesnt a NEW QB or coach also get the "ya never know" benefit? I mean they could turn out to be amazing too right? It's also POSSIBLE.

The "factual" examples only prove its POSSIBLE (which everyone already knows and agrees) not that its LIKELY.

Make a different argument about why you like Eberflus or Fields. Tell us why you think it's LIKELY they will succeed.

Otherwise, why not just bring Cutler out of retirement because Kurt Warner? Or just run naked through the neighborhood? Someone might be impressed by it and give you a million dollars. I mean it's POSSIBLE so that means its a good idea right?!

It's mind boggling that the difference between possible and likely escapes anyone's understanding.

[Pixote]

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

Now do the percentages. How likely is that?

Or is the point just "ya never know" and "anything's possible" - if thats it, why doesnt a NEW QB or coach also get the "ya never know" benefit? I mean they could turn out to be amazing too right? It's also POSSIBLE.

The "factual" examples only prove its POSSIBLE (which everyone already knows and agrees) not that its LIKELY.

Make a different argument about why you like Eberflus or Fields. Tell us why you think it's LIKELY they will succeed.

Otherwise, why not just bring Cutler out of retirement because Kurt Warner? Or just run naked through the neighborhood? Someone might be impressed by it and give you a million dollars. I mean it's POSSIBLE so that means its a good idea right?!

It's mind boggling that the difference between possible and likely escapes anyone's understanding.

I think Flus will prove to be a very good HC, one that can be very successful. I don't know of any HC that, given what he had to work with to begin his tenure, and the loss of his DC during this season, could have done much better. Yes, in our opinion, he screwed the pooch a few times. Tell me any HC that hasn't! Every HC I have ever seen on the sidelines has made questionable calls.

I think Fields will be a very good QB, one that is more than capable of leading a team to the Super Bowl. (I hope it is the Bears and not some team that got him cheap in a trade.) However, like all QBs, he needs pass protection from the OL, reliable targets, and a good OC calling plays. These requirements do not make him a bad QB, it is a basic requirement that needs to be met for any quarterback to maximize his skill set.

I have no proof. It's my gut feeling. I could be wrong. I am 75 years old and have been an avid fan forever. Hell, I think I was still in diapers when a fan of the Baltimore Colts, the team of choice for those of us in lower Delaware, my home as a kid. I've been wrong before. This time I believe I am correct in my evaluation.

You will lose your shirt if you bet on sports, especially football, based on statistics and history. Every week there is an upset that proves stats and expert analysis doesn't mean shit. You can take your percentages that you use for proof and  use them. I understand. I once tried to do so myself, until I realized that sometimes you just have to trust your gut. 

I believe in Flus. I believe in Fields. If you think that is inane, so be it.

 

[Stinger226]

5 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

Now do the percentages. How likely is that?

Or is the point just "ya never know" and "anything's possible" - if thats it, why doesnt a NEW QB or coach also get the "ya never know" benefit? I mean they could turn out to be amazing too right? It's also POSSIBLE.

The "factual" examples only prove its POSSIBLE (which everyone already knows and agrees) not that its LIKELY.

Make a different argument about why you like Eberflus or Fields. Tell us why you think it's LIKELY they will succeed.

Otherwise, why not just bring Cutler out of retirement because Kurt Warner? Or just run naked through the neighborhood? Someone might be impressed by it and give you a million dollars. I mean it's POSSIBLE so that means its a good idea right?!

It's mind boggling that the difference between possible and likely escapes anyone's understanding.

I don't need to make the case for Flus, the person running the Bears picked Flus. Poles thinks he's a good coach. It doesn't matter that you disagree. What is mind boggling  is that you think it's not possible that he can't be a good coach. You keep telling people on this site that their opinion doesn't count but yours does. Flus is the Bears coach and this year will go along way for proof one way or another. If this is a Bears forum, anyone can have their opinion and they don't need your approval. They get to say whatever they want.

[BearFan PHX]

4 hours ago, Pixote said:

I think Flus will prove to be a very good HC, one that can be very successful. I don't know of any HC that, given what he had to work with to begin his tenure, and the loss of his DC during this season, could have done much better. Yes, in our opinion, he screwed the pooch a few times. Tell me any HC that hasn't! Every HC I have ever seen on the sidelines has made questionable calls.

I think Fields will be a very good QB, one that is more than capable of leading a team to the Super Bowl. (I hope it is the Bears and not some team that got him cheap in a trade.) However, like all QBs, he needs pass protection from the OL, reliable targets, and a good OC calling plays. These requirements do not make him a bad QB, it is a basic requirement that needs to be met for any quarterback to maximize his skill set.

I have no proof. It's my gut feeling. I could be wrong. I am 75 years old and have been an avid fan forever. Hell, I think I was still in diapers when a fan of the Baltimore Colts, the team of choice for those of us in lower Delaware, my home as a kid. I've been wrong before. This time I believe I am correct in my evaluation.

You will lose your shirt if you bet on sports, especially football, based on statistics and history. Every week there is an upset that proves stats and expert analysis doesn't mean shit. You can take your percentages that you use for proof and  use them. I understand. I once tried to do so myself, until I realized that sometimes you just have to trust your gut. 

I believe in Flus. I believe in Fields. If you think that is inane, so be it.

 

So while I disagree with all or most of this, everything you said are all still valid opinions and arguments.

What is inane is offering as evidence that some bad players and coaches became good later, so it is likely that these players and coaches will too.

Now you may well disagree that either or both are bad in the first place, and that is also a valid opinion.

The only thing that's inane here is the argument that "some bad players got better, so therefore most or all bad players will get better." in other words giving evidence of some coach or player who was good after being bad. It only proves it's POSSIBLE, but not that it's LIKELY.

Disagreeing with me about Fields or Eberflus is not inane. I think you're wrong, but thats just MY opinion too, but either way, youre not saying "2+2=5, so we should keep Fields" instead youre saying "I see talent, and he didnt have great protection or WRs, so Id give him another shot" and thats FINE, and not inane at all.

It's just that particular argument that keeps getting repeated here that is inane. Not anyones guess at Fields or Eberflus' future. No one can predict the future, all we have are these opinions. Thats all cool.

I was just saying the argument that is someone is bad then they WILL LIKELY be good later is inane, and if the point is only to prove that its POSSIBLE, then i think you need more than that to justify keeping either of them.

And as a great example, you gave a bunch of reasons why you believe what you do above. And that's all cool. You didnt say it was because Dick Vermeil did it, that means Eberflus WILL. And if it just meant that he MIGHT, well anything is POSSIBLE and that's not a reason either.

Dick Vermeil is not Matt Eberflus, and bad coaches mostly stay bad. Only a rare few were bad and then great. Vermeil is not evidence of anything about Eberflus at all. Only that it's POSSIBLE. And I think you need more reasons (like the ones you gave!) to argue that Eberflus will be better and should be kept, than just that it's POSSIBLE he will be better..

What you gave, were actual reasons, and thats fine. Agree or disagree, nothing you wrote was inane.

[BearFan PHX]

47 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

I don't need to make the case for Flus, the person running the Bears picked Flus. Poles thinks he's a good coach. It doesn't matter that you disagree. What is mind boggling  is that you think it's not possible that he can't be a good coach. You keep telling people on this site that their opinion doesn't count but yours does. Flus is the Bears coach and this year will go along way for proof one way or another. If this is a Bears forum, anyone can have their opinion and they don't need your approval. They get to say whatever they want.

no I have never said that anyones opinion doesnt count. You just never understand anything i say on here.

Opinions are awesome. No one knows the future. Ive said that about a million times.

Bad logical arguments like Dick Vermiel was bad then good, so Eberflus will be too are inane. Not because they support or reject Eberflus, just because they are illogical.

For example, I wanted Eberflus fired. OK. If I say "he made bad decisions and lost games" thats a logical argument for firing him. But if I say "We kept Nagy a year too long and that didn't work out, so it cant possibly work out for Eberflus either" THAT would be inane.

Can you understand the subtlety of the difference between rejecting someones opinion, and saying some particular argument or evidence is illogical regardless of which outcome it supports?! It's like all you hear is "Eberflus good / Eberflus bad" and no attention at all to the various facts, arguments, reasoning etc.

"Mitch Trubisky was bad and didnt get better so we should definitely trade Fields" - does that make any sense? No right? Because it's anti Fields you can see that the logic is faulty. Well its just as faulty to say that Dick Vermeil means anything about Eberflus.

And you gotta admit it is POSSIBLE that Fields will be much better next year, just as it is POSSIBLE that Trubisky will be better next year. But that's not a reason to go sign Trubisky.

Now if the reasons are that you like some aspect of Fields' game, or his leadership or whatever those are VALID arguments. I dont agree with them, but they are not illogical. That's about balancing various true things about Fields good and bad to come to a decision.

Is that getting through at ALL?

No one needs to agree with my opinion, no one needs my approval for anything. You're just not understanding what Im saying at ALL.

If you say "2+2=5, therefore we should keep Fields" thats not an opinion, it's a logical fallacy that supports an opinion, and while I only disagree with you opinion, that reasoning is whats WRONG.

And not because Im arrogant or know better about the future than anyone or that my opinions are fact and everyone elses are trash. That's totally misunderstanding me - it's just that 2+2 does not equal 5. So you can't use it as evidence in supporting your opinion -  even as you have every right to your opinion and Ive never said otherwise.

The argument that is repeated a million times a day by Grizz that is illogical is "some player or coach used to be bad then became good so it is LIKELY that Eberflus or Fields will be good"

The argument that you repeat a million times a day that makes no sense is "Poles isnt listening to us, so our opinions mean nothing" because no one thinks Poles is reading this, and we give our opinions and debate stuff here because its fun and we learn from each other.

I am not, and never have been, the guy you misunderstand me to be.

I have said a million times:

Everyone has a right to their opinion

Fields has a lot of athletic and leadership skills

No one can predict the future, and Fields might become a good QB, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance

No one can predict the future and Eberflus might become a good HC, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance

So if you still read everything to say that Im disrespecting peoples opinions, and being arrogant about thinking I know the future, then reread what I just wrote above, and if you still cant get past it, then maybe youre the one not respecting people who disagree with you, and not me.

[adam]

I will say Getsy did not do Flus any favors. Either did Williams lol. If you had to place a percentage of blame on each coach and player for the losses, more blame would be on Getsy and Williams than anyone. The next person is probably Fields, but it's not because he didn't try or give it 110%. Getsy had terrible play calls, and when they were better calls, Fields missed the open guy. 

My assumption is Fields is gone, and Waldron + [Insert QB Name] will look light years better than Getsy+Fields did in 2023. The team will have 10+ wins and Flus may even get some votes for CotY even though not much has changed. 

For Fields, can you imagine if the team/offense starts our slow next season? There would be boos and calls for Bagent after the first INT or 3 and out. I just don't think that is good for Fields long term career. I think his camp is happy to move on and reset somewhere else where expectations won't be so high. That is why you are seeing social media posts of him working out already. I thought that was odd considering we know he is an athletic beast, I would've rather seen him throwing quick slants right when his backfoot hits in his dropback without a hitch.

[ChileBear]

1 hour ago, adam said:

I will say Getsy did not do Flus any favors. Either did Williams lol. If you had to place a percentage of blame on each coach and player for the losses, more blame would be on Getsy and Williams than anyone. The next person is probably Fields, but it's not because he didn't try or give it 110%. Getsy had terrible play calls, and when they were better calls, Fields missed the open guy. 

My assumption is Fields is gone, and Waldron + [Insert QB Name] will look light years better than Getsy+Fields did in 2023. The team will have 10+ wins and Flus may even get some votes for CotY even though not much has changed. 

For Fields, can you imagine if the team/offense starts our slow next season? There would be boos and calls for Bagent after the first INT or 3 and out. I just don't think that is good for Fields long term career. I think his camp is happy to move on and reset somewhere else where expectations won't be so high. That is why you are seeing social media posts of him working out already. I thought that was odd considering we know he is an athletic beast, I would've rather seen him throwing quick slants right when his backfoot hits in his dropback without a hitch.

I can agree with that. Listening to Waddle and Silvi yesterday, I came away confused again. I think I'm with the "trade the pick for a haul" camp and then they discuss rating the QBs of our division and guess who comes out last? Fields. Then they talk about "chasing greatness" and to be great, you gotta take a swing. So we have pick 1 and 9, when are we ever going to be in this position again? Take a QB at 1? Man, I'm gonna stop listening to Chicago radio or I'll be flipping every day. LOL

[Stinger226]

8 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

no I have never said that anyones opinion doesnt count. You just never understand anything i say on here.

Opinions are awesome. No one knows the future. Ive said that about a million times.

Bad logical arguments like Dick Vermiel was bad then good, so Eberflus will be too are inane. Not because they support or reject Eberflus, just because they are illogical.

For example, I wanted Eberflus fired. OK. If I say "he made bad decisions and lost games" thats a logical argument for firing him. But if I say "We kept Nagy a year too long and that didn't work out, so it cant possibly work out for Eberflus either" THAT would be inane.

Can you understand the subtlety of the difference between rejecting someones opinion, and saying some particular argument or evidence is illogical regardless of which outcome it supports?! It's like all you hear is "Eberflus good / Eberflus bad" and no attention at all to the various facts, arguments, reasoning etc.

"Mitch Trubisky was bad and didnt get better so we should definitely trade Fields" - does that make any sense? No right? Because it's anti Fields you can see that the logic is faulty. Well its just as faulty to say that Dick Vermeil means anything about Eberflus.

And you gotta admit it is POSSIBLE that Fields will be much better next year, just as it is POSSIBLE that Trubisky will be better next year. But that's not a reason to go sign Trubisky.

Now if the reasons are that you like some aspect of Fields' game, or his leadership or whatever those are VALID arguments. I dont agree with them, but they are not illogical. That's about balancing various true things about Fields good and bad to come to a decision.

Is that getting through at ALL?

No one needs to agree with my opinion, no one needs my approval for anything. You're just not understanding what Im saying at ALL.

If you say "2+2=5, therefore we should keep Fields" thats not an opinion, it's a logical fallacy that supports an opinion, and while I only disagree with you opinion, that reasoning is whats WRONG.

And not because Im arrogant or know better about the future than anyone or that my opinions are fact and everyone elses are trash. That's totally misunderstanding me - it's just that 2+2 does not equal 5. So you can't use it as evidence in supporting your opinion -  even as you have every right to your opinion and Ive never said otherwise.

The argument that is repeated a million times a day by Grizz that is illogical is "some player or coach used to be bad then became good so it is LIKELY that Eberflus or Fields will be good"

The argument that you repeat a million times a day that makes no sense is "Poles isnt listening to us, so our opinions mean nothing" because no one thinks Poles is reading this, and we give our opinions and debate stuff here because its fun and we learn from each other.

I am not, and never have been, the guy you misunderstand me to be.

I have said a million times:

Everyone has a right to their opinion

Fields has a lot of athletic and leadership skills

No one can predict the future, and Fields might become a good QB, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance

No one can predict the future and Eberflus might become a good HC, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance

So if you still read everything to say that Im disrespecting peoples opinions, and being arrogant about thinking I know the future, then reread what I just wrote above, and if you still cant get past it, then maybe youre the one not respecting people who disagree with you, and not me.

I totally understand your position, it's a well thought out opinion but you always seem to dismiss that next year could be good with Flus. His first year as a new HC was a train wreck provided by Poles getting rid of his talent on defense and not giving him tools to make  the offense to be better. For Poles to change a bad cap situation and obtain draft capital, that's how he needed to do it. 

So in year 2 we start out slow with lots of young players. Flus has to deal with a couple coaches with bad behavior, a cancer in Claypool and several injuries. He keep the team focused and started to see improvement. So now because of his patience with the team, and players getting healthy , we start to win. So two ways to judge him, cup half empty or half full? I saw him get better, you did not, totally understand that. 

Poles went from a washed out UDFA to the GM of a NFL franchise. Some one gave him a shot at being a scout and here we are. He was an underdog and won. He is going to support underdogs, Flus is that underdog. Poles thinks he can be good. You don't have to agree but that decision has already been made.

Now with Fields, it's not just Fields vs Williams, you win that argument, but it's a boat load of draft capital plus Fields . Poles is going to bank on what he sees will allow him to win in 2024, does a rookie help do they? We will find out in April what his decision is. I don't see a loser no matter what decision he makes. It's not just going to be passing skills. Character, team leader, hard worker are all going to come into play when you use the top pick on a QB. He may decide that a Fields with upside , a better OC, more blue chip players around him puts him in a better position to win. Or Williams is the dude and takes him and the history of the Bears might be a new storyline. I'm okay if he does that because I trust his player evaluation. If he keeps Fields , I understand that decision too. I get you don't agree with any of that, you have a good argument but the other can still have good results. His job is on the line, just as if you were the GM, you're going to do what you think is best. That's the decision he will make and live with it. 

[Mongo3451]

I find it inane or insane that witnessing a coach, dragging a team out of the muck and stench of a full rebuild, leads ones opinion to failure.  Poles hired Flus due to a shared vision of the rebuild.  Did Flus make mistakes?  Yes.  Did he learn from them?  Yes again.  Are we trending upward when QB play had greater expectations?  Yes x3.  Flus kept the locker room and they play hard for him.  I believe he deserves the whole 4 years of his contract.  Something I also find inane/insane is over arguing a point out of the need to be agreed with.  Poles and Flus are both new at this.  I happen to believe they are getting it right, together.  There are many other coaches that have failed and became champions.  Belichick, Saban and Carroll come to mind me asking with the aforementioned Vermiel.

[adam]

11 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

I find it inane or insane that witnessing a coach, dragging a team out of the muck and stench of a full rebuild, leads ones opinion to failure.  Poles hired Flus due to a shared vision of the rebuild.  Did Flus make mistakes?  Yes.  Did he learn from them?  Yes again.  Are we trending upward when QB play had greater expectations?  Yes x3.  Flus kept the locker room and they play hard for him.  I believe he deserves the whole 4 years of his contract.  Something I also find inane/insane is over arguing a point out of the need to be agreed with.  Poles and Flus are both new at this.  I happen to believe they are getting it right, together.  There are many other coaches that have failed and became champions.  Belichick, Saban and Carroll come to mind me asking with the aforementioned Vermiel.

I agree. With good coordinators and position coaches, Flus if fine. The playcallers have the biggest impact on the outcome of the games, not a head coaches usage of a challenge twice a game.

[BearFan PHX]

For the record, again, I did not call anyones opinion inane or insane.

I simply said that arguing that because Dick Vermeil was bad then good means that Eberflus who has been bad must then then be good is inane.

If you like Eberflus that fine. I respect and disagree with it. Especially given other options like Harbaugh.

But if you say "cows are usually blue so therefore Eberflus will be good" THAT would be inane. Not the Eberflus will be good part, the cows are blue part.

Is literally no one understanding my point? And choosing instead to misunderstand me as being disrespectful to people's opinions?

I am calling the logical argument if A then B inane, not the opinion it supports.

[Pixote]

31 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

For the record, again, I did not call anyones opinion inane or insane.

I simply said that arguing that because Dick Vermeil was bad then good means that Eberflus who has been bad must then then be good is inane.

If you like Eberflus that fine. I respect and disagree with it. Especially given other options like Harbaugh.

But if you say "cows are usually blue so therefore Eberflus will be good" THAT would be inane. Not the Eberflus will be good part, the cows are blue part.

Is literally no one understanding my point? And choosing instead to misunderstand me as being disrespectful to people's opinions?

I am calling the logical argument if A then B inane, not the opinion it supports.

The way I read his posting was that there is historical proof that it is possible for a HC to start off with a poor record of wins and losses, and turn it around. (He agrees that it is not guaranteed Flus will do so, just that it is possible as history has proven!) I do not find that inane. Many first time HCs start their career off with a team in rebuild mode. It takes time and patience.

To say his use of historical data to support his opinion inane, to me is calling his opinion inane. So I therefore can see why he might be offended.

[Stinger226]

46 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

For the record, again, I did not call anyones opinion inane or insane.

I simply said that arguing that because Dick Vermeil was bad then good means that Eberflus who has been bad must then then be good is inane.

If you like Eberflus that fine. I respect and disagree with it. Especially given other options like Harbaugh.

But if you say "cows are usually blue so therefore Eberflus will be good" THAT would be inane. Not the Eberflus will be good part, the cows are blue part.

Is literally no one understanding my point? And choosing instead to misunderstand me as being disrespectful to people's opinions?

I am calling the logical argument if A then B inane, not the opinion it supports.

I keep getting the impression you say it's okay to have your opinion and then turn around and say 2+2=5 meaning it's a worthless opinion. Then say no one understand what you're saying. I think everyone totally understands your side of it but it's like if they  don't agree with you you keep dismissing their argument. Can we all just move on and just agree to disagree and stop rehashing the same argument over and over. No one is changing their mind on this. 

The Williams argument will play out as the draft process vents him. At the end he may be the Golden boy and everyone will be on the same page. But as I said before its not Fields against Williams. Poles may get an offer he can't refuse. I contend he can still keep Fields, get a draft haul, move back again and draft McCarthy to develop and satisfy everyone at the same time. 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

move back again and draft McCarthy to develop

or Nix...but either to me would be good.  😎👍