Chicago Bears offseason

[jersey cubs fan]

I would kill for an enjoyably productive offense led by a dynamic HOF QB who wins a ton of games, makes the playoffs a whole bunch of times but only makes it to one super bowl and lose that one.

 

That would be an amazing run.

[raw]

I would kill for an enjoyably productive offense led by a dynamic HOF QB who wins a ton of games, makes the playoffs a whole bunch of times but only makes it to one super bowl and lose that one.

 

That would be an amazing run.

 

The Packers, but they won their one.

[gflore34]

I would kill for an enjoyably productive offense led by a dynamic HOF QB who wins a ton of games, makes the playoffs a whole bunch of times but only makes it to one super bowl and lose that one.

 

That would be an amazing run.

 

I would as well however, for all of Mahomes' greatness and Mitch' failures they've both have won the same of number of SB's - 0. A dynamic HOF who wins lots of games along way pounding GB and shutting fucks like Rodgers and Amos up, sounds good to me.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I would kill for an enjoyably productive offense led by a dynamic HOF QB who wins a ton of games, makes the playoffs a whole bunch of times but only makes it to one super bowl and lose that one.

 

That would be an amazing run.

 

sure. Lovie did this, but with the defensive side instead

[jersey cubs fan]

I would kill for an enjoyably productive offense led by a dynamic HOF QB who wins a ton of games, makes the playoffs a whole bunch of times but only makes it to one super bowl and lose that one.

 

That would be an amazing run.

 

sure. Lovie did this, but with the defensive side instead

Not really. He won the division three times and those were the only times he made the playoffs.

 

This also reiterates to how valuable a great QB is, because a dynamic defense requires several great young players and it cannot last. Mahomes could lead the Chiefs for the better part of two decades.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

This is the kind of stuff I just can't get over.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is the kind of stuff I just can't get over.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

 

Mitch 100% made that read pre-snap. He's not comfortable making post-snap reads so he tries to compensate with pre-snap.

[gflore34]

This is the kind of stuff I just can't get over.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

The story of the season, I'm certain in nearly every game the above situation has occurred, it's got to drive Nagy crazy. I'd like think Pace sees the same things...

[gflore34]

This is the kind of stuff I just can't get over.

 

[tweet]

[/tweet]

 

 

Mitch 100% made that read pre-snap. He's not comfortable making post-snap reads so he tries to compensate with pre-snap.

 

That's being nice, simple fact is he's incapable of post-snap reads.

[gflore34]

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232 - Bears are 4th, believe, at one point, they were leading nevertheless, I find it amazing the Falcons, thus far, have dropped only 4 passes.

[minnesotacubsfan]

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232 - Bears are 4th, believe, at one point, they were leading nevertheless, I find it amazing the Falcons, thus far, have dropped only 4 passes.

 

 

but at what rate per attempt?

[gflore34]

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232 - Bears are 4th, believe, at one point, they were leading nevertheless, I find it amazing the Falcons, thus far, have dropped only 4 passes.

 

 

but at what rate per attempt?

 

 

Found this - https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/advanced.htm perhaps, the above only includes currently active players per team?

[minnesotacubsfan]

http://hosted.stats.com/fb/tmleaders.asp?type=Receiving&range=NFL&rank=232 - Bears are 4th, believe, at one point, they were leading nevertheless, I find it amazing the Falcons, thus far, have dropped only 4 passes.

 

 

but at what rate per attempt?

 

 

Found this - https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/advanced.htm perhaps, the above only includes currently active players per team?

 

 

thanks, drop % is what I was looking for, Bears are in the top 1/2, but hardly top 10. Also, look at thrown away, New England has like 40, the Bears dead last at 5. youch

 

however, bad throws and bad throw % has the Bears in top 1/2. Not what I would have expected

[gflore34]

 

 

but at what rate per attempt?

 

 

Found this - https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/advanced.htm perhaps, the above only includes currently active players per team?

 

 

thanks, drop % is what I was looking for, Bears are in the top 1/2, but hardly top 10. Also, look at thrown away, New England has like 40, the Bears dead last at 5. youch

 

however, bad throws and bad throw % has the Bears in top 1/2. Not what I would have expected

 

I would have thought they'd be in the top 10 in those categories still, not very good.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

 

Found this - https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2019/advanced.htm perhaps, the above only includes currently active players per team?

 

 

thanks, drop % is what I was looking for, Bears are in the top 1/2, but hardly top 10. Also, look at thrown away, New England has like 40, the Bears dead last at 5. youch

 

however, bad throws and bad throw % has the Bears in top 1/2. Not what I would have expected

 

I would have thought they'd be in the top 10 in those categories still, not very good.

 

I'm sorry, I meant on target and on target % the Bears are in the top 1/2, which is surprising. They are very low (bottom 1/3) in bad throws %, however GB is near the top of that category. puzzling

[gflore34]

 

 

thanks, drop % is what I was looking for, Bears are in the top 1/2, but hardly top 10. Also, look at thrown away, New England has like 40, the Bears dead last at 5. youch

 

however, bad throws and bad throw % has the Bears in top 1/2. Not what I would have expected

 

I would have thought they'd be in the top 10 in those categories still, not very good.

 

I'm sorry, I meant on target and on target % the Bears are in the top 1/2, which is surprising. They are very low (bottom 1/3) in bad throws %, however GB is near the top of that category. puzzling

 

There are throw aways and bad throws - think Rodgers ability to ground the ball without being called for intentional grounding has anything to do with those stats?

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I would have thought they'd be in the top 10 in those categories still, not very good.

 

I'm sorry, I meant on target and on target % the Bears are in the top 1/2, which is surprising. They are very low (bottom 1/3) in bad throws %, however GB is near the top of that category. puzzling

 

There are throw aways and bad throws - think Rodgers ability to ground the ball without being called for intentional grounding has anything to do with those stats?

 

I have no idea how they judge them. but Trubisky does have a knack of hitting receivers well. whats weird is earlier in the season he was air mailing throws over everyone, and it seemed like he did it a lot. the stats def don't rhyme with the eye test

[gflore34]

 

I'm sorry, I meant on target and on target % the Bears are in the top 1/2, which is surprising. They are very low (bottom 1/3) in bad throws %, however GB is near the top of that category. puzzling

 

There are throw aways and bad throws - think Rodgers ability to ground the ball without being called for intentional grounding has anything to do with those stats?

 

I have no idea how they judge them. but Trubisky does have a knack of hitting receivers well. whats weird is earlier in the season he was air mailing throws over everyone, and it seemed like he did it a lot. the stats def don't rhyme with the eye test

 

It is bizarre take yesterday he missed a certain TD to Robinson in the first half, think he missed one in the second half as well don't remember the intended target. But, it was someone who got behind the DB and most certainly would have scored. Guess it brings around to he's got the physical tools but, not the mental tools. Wouldn't be surprised if he has a stronger arm than both Mahomes and Watson.

[jersey cubs fan]

This is insanity

 

[raw]

This is insanity

 

 

Nagy isn't all wrong for Trubisky. Quarterbacking is.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's kind of a stupid trap because I don't particularly like any of the bad trinity of Pace/Trubisky/Nagy, but there's no good way to fire them one at a time and I don't want to be that franchise that fires all of them at once in the middle of the cycle.

 

I guess I just wanna wait until next offseason when it's a good chance to fire all three.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Trubisky is fairly accurate at short and medium range. He is pretty inaccurate at long range. He doesn't throw deep often enough. Hence his overall accurate throws percentage isn't bad.

[WrigleyField 22]

Trubisky is fairly accurate at short and medium range. He is pretty inaccurate at long range. He doesn't throw deep often enough. Hence his overall accurate throws percentage isn't bad.

Man I think his short throws are consistently some of his worst throws. Yes, guys can usually catch them, but he never leads them, so they're rarely in a spot to advance the ball. His mid/deep range throws are similarly inaccurate, but there's just more margin for error as far as advancing the ball at that spot if the field. He does get those unexplainable deep ones thrown 10 feet high too, yea, but I feel like their rate of occurrence is actually less than they feel.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

OK now I want to cut Trubisky immediately just so we can stop discussing why he's bad.

[WrigleyField 22]

Pick watch. Bears and Oakland are both 7-8 and would occupy 2 of the draft slots between 14-18, so picks 46-50 in Rd 2. 3 teams that are a game above and 3 a game below. So worst/best case is somewhere between 43 and 53.