Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If Fields is an average passer, he's likely a top 10 overall QB. He hasn't yet been an average passer, but it would have taken prime Brady or Peyton to drag last year's Bears offense to league average. It's impossible to judge how good he is based on the last 2 years, but you can see the tools and his ability to turn just about any play into a 60+ yard TD is unparalleled at the position.

 

They just need to build to his strengths. It's obnoxious that last year's roster was almost intentionally built to the exact opposite of what he needs.

 

He needs excellent pass blocking tackles who can give him time to let plays develop the way he likes, and he needs receivers who create visible separation for him to throw to.

[jumbo]

Im not sure if Aaron Wilson is a real NFL reporter, but he tweeted that Muhammad (#55) was released

I didn't see it elsewhere, but I only really look at Rotoworld and they are sort of fantasy focused but tend to report most transactions

 

I wouldn't miss him if true

[jersey cubs fan]

Im not sure if Aaron Wilson is a real NFL reporter, but he tweeted that Muhammad (#55) was released I didn't see it elsewhere, but I only really look at Rotoworld and they are sort of fantasy focused but tend to report most transactions

 

I wouldn't miss him if true

The bears announced that move themselves

[WrigleyField 22]

Im not sure if Aaron Wilson is a real NFL reporter, but he tweeted that Muhammad (#55) was released I didn't see it elsewhere, but I only really look at Rotoworld and they are sort of fantasy focused but tend to report most transactions

 

I wouldn't miss him if true

The bears announced that move themselves

Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't.

[jersey cubs fan]

Im not sure if Aaron Wilson is a real NFL reporter, but he tweeted that Muhammad (#55) was released I didn't see it elsewhere, but I only really look at Rotoworld and they are sort of fantasy focused but tend to report most transactions

 

I wouldn't miss him if true

The bears announced that move themselves

Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't.

this was posted on their website, they didn’t have a website when they made that erroneous coaching announcement

[WrigleyField 22]

The bears announced that move themselves

Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't.

this was posted on their website, they didn’t have a website when they made that erroneous coaching announcement

You don't think they had a website then? I remember in the early internet day they didn't have the Bears.com domain, but they had a site. That was 1999 when they flubbed that.

[David]

Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't.

this was posted on their website, they didn’t have a website when they made that erroneous coaching announcement

You don't think they had a website then? I remember in the early internet day they didn't have the Bears.com domain, but they had a site. That was 1999 when they flubbed that.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20000415000000*/chicagobears.com

 

i did think i remembered them posting it on their website... (also, if you look at the archived page from 2000, it's got a copyright date of 1999)

 

i might be thinking of cubs.com having a don baylor profile up early or something like that.

[WrigleyField 22]

this was posted on their website, they didn’t have a website when they made that erroneous coaching announcement

You don't think they had a website then? I remember in the early internet day they didn't have the Bears.com domain, but they had a site. That was 1999 when they flubbed that.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20000415000000*/chicagobears.com

 

i did think i remembered them posting it on their website... (also, if you look at the archived page from 2000, it's got a copyright date of 1999)

 

i might be thinking of cubs.com having a don baylor profile up early or something like that.

Good find.

 

For some reason I thought they also had acquired the Bears.com.domain since then as well, but I just looked and apparently not lol. Maybe they didn't even have the ChicagoBears.com domain at some point too?

 

Anyways, love those old pro sports websites before the leagues got a hold and standardized them all.

[UMFan83]

This wait for stuff to happen is unbearable. Never cared about combine/draft stuff that much but now I'm counting down the days til the combine next week so things finally get going.

[raw]

This wait for stuff to happen is unbearable. Never cared about combine/draft stuff that much but now I'm counting down the days til the combine next week so things finally get going.

 

I took Thursday and Friday off from work so I could watch live. Work from home, but can't see the TV from my office. I'm a dork, I know. Of course, it worked out because my son has a basketball tournament and the first game is Thursday afternoon while I would have otherwise been still working.

[raw]

So the whole logic of, "Bears increase the value of the #1 pick by making it seem like Fields is available" never made any sense to me.

 

If the Bears trade Fields, then they'd use the #1 pick on a QB so it wouldn't even be available to be traded. I mean obviously the 2 potential moves are related, but if the Bears make Fields available it's not like a team is going to be able to negotiate them to keep Fields. There's never going to be a scenario where the Bears take an extra pick or two to entice them to trade the pick and keep Fields. If you're keeping Fields, you're keeping Fields. If trading him, you're trading him. I don't see how the trade package for the #1 pick would make a difference.

 

Maybe the trade package for what you can get for Fields would make a difference, but in all actuality, it really shouldn't. Because again, you either want to trade him or you don't. And as much as I love the guy, there's just simply no way Fields has as much value as the #1 overall pick.

[CubinNY]

So the whole logic of, "Bears increase the value of the #1 pick by making it seem like Fields is available" never made any sense to me.

 

If the Bears trade Fields, then they'd use the #1 pick on a QB so it wouldn't even be available to be traded. I mean obviously the 2 potential moves are related, but if the Bears make Fields available it's not like a team is going to be able to negotiate them to keep Fields. There's never going to be a scenario where the Bears take an extra pick or two to entice them to trade the pick and keep Fields. If you're keeping Fields, you're keeping Fields. If trading him, you're trading him. I don't see how the trade package for the #1 pick would make a difference.

 

Maybe the trade package for what you can get for Fields would make a difference, but in all actuality, it really shouldn't. Because again, you either want to trade him or you don't. And as much as I love the guy, there's just simply no way Fields has as much value as the #1 overall pick.

 

I'm really stretching here, but if they like multiple QBs equally, they could possibly trade down to 3 and get an extra pick or two and trade Fields for picks/players. I think they are more or less tied to Fields now and won't even think about trading him. However, I must say after reading his college scouting report at the time of his draft, he still has the same issues he had when they drafted him. That does not bode well for his future unless the Bears have some quality coaching to get him to where he needs to be. They really flubbed by not getting rid of the former GM/coach before his draft.

[raw]

So the whole logic of, "Bears increase the value of the #1 pick by making it seem like Fields is available" never made any sense to me.

 

If the Bears trade Fields, then they'd use the #1 pick on a QB so it wouldn't even be available to be traded. I mean obviously the 2 potential moves are related, but if the Bears make Fields available it's not like a team is going to be able to negotiate them to keep Fields. There's never going to be a scenario where the Bears take an extra pick or two to entice them to trade the pick and keep Fields. If you're keeping Fields, you're keeping Fields. If trading him, you're trading him. I don't see how the trade package for the #1 pick would make a difference.

 

Maybe the trade package for what you can get for Fields would make a difference, but in all actuality, it really shouldn't. Because again, you either want to trade him or you don't. And as much as I love the guy, there's just simply no way Fields has as much value as the #1 overall pick.

 

I'm really stretching here, but if they like multiple QBs equally, they could possibly trade down to 3 and get an extra pick or two and trade Fields for picks/players. I think they are more or less tied to Fields now and won't even think about trading him. However, I must say after reading his college scouting report at the time of his draft, he still has the same issues he had when they drafted him. That does not bode well for his future unless the Bears have some quality coaching to get him to where he needs to be. They really flubbed by not getting rid of the former GM/coach before his draft.

 

To be fair, the Bears wouldn't have had Fields if they got rid of Pace and Nagy. We saw what a new GM did last year. Granted, part of what he did was because Pace traded a future 1st and had a bunch of bad money deals on the books. But new GMs don't typically make bold trades like the one to get Fields.

[David]

So the whole logic of, "Bears increase the value of the #1 pick by making it seem like Fields is available" never made any sense to me.

 

If the Bears trade Fields, then they'd use the #1 pick on a QB so it wouldn't even be available to be traded. I mean obviously the 2 potential moves are related, but if the Bears make Fields available it's not like a team is going to be able to negotiate them to keep Fields. There's never going to be a scenario where the Bears take an extra pick or two to entice them to trade the pick and keep Fields. If you're keeping Fields, you're keeping Fields. If trading him, you're trading him. I don't see how the trade package for the #1 pick would make a difference.

 

Maybe the trade package for what you can get for Fields would make a difference, but in all actuality, it really shouldn't. Because again, you either want to trade him or you don't. And as much as I love the guy, there's just simply no way Fields has as much value as the #1 overall pick.

 

I'm really stretching here, but if they like multiple QBs equally, they could possibly trade down to 3 and get an extra pick or two and trade Fields for picks/players. I think they are more or less tied to Fields now and won't even think about trading him. However, I must say after reading his college scouting report at the time of his draft, he still has the same issues he had when they drafted him. That does not bode well for his future unless the Bears have some quality coaching to get him to where he needs to be. They really flubbed by not getting rid of the former GM/coach before his draft.

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year. The only people saying otherwise are an awful former executive in Mike Tannenbaum and hot take artists like Colin Cowherd whose job is to say horsefeathers to drive engagement even if it contradicts stuff they said 3 weeks ago.

 

Fields obviously has horsefeathers to work on but to me he's shown more than enough to be as confident as you can be that his floor is a productive NFL QB if given something other than an offense that is like 80% made up of guys who should be 2nd and 3rd stringers on a good offense. Look at the clean pocket stats. The lack of passing production is primarily a product of an offense that frequently elected not to pass in obvious passing situations because they knew they couldn't protect it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year.

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

[raw]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year. /quote]

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

 

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look.

 

https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks

https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year. /quote]

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

 

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look.

 

https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks

https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate

 

why let effort and research get in the way of a good red herring

[Brian707]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year.

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

 

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year. /quote]

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

 

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look.

 

https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/

https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks

https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate

 

None of those links says Justin fields coming out of college was better than young.

 

The first one says he's better now than Young is now, which isn't the same thing.

 

The other two just say the bears should continue building around fields, which is even less close to the same thing.

 

I understand that not everyone is going to have the same desire for literal interpretations that I do, but there's got to be a *little* more nuance than just assuming all pro-fields sentiments are completely equivalent.

[wekse]

Jesus Christ, imagine being Kyle every day of your life.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Jesus Christ, imagine being Kyle every day of your life.

 

You mostly get used to it, but it's always a little frustrating.

 

The best explanation I've ever gotten is that neurotypicals speak in vibes. The actual words aren't important, they are just vehicles for the general feeling being conveyed.

 

So to me, "Justin fields coming out of college was better than Bryce young coming out of college" is a completely different statement from, and this is the exact quote from the third link: "Mhmmm can’t make a statement like that. I’ll be shocked if Chicago don’t trade back or don’t go above and beyond to build around Justin!”

 

But they both generally convey a pro-fields vibe, so to a lot of people, they are apparently functionally equivalent?

 

Actually, if you go back and click through to Parson's actual tweet, he was specifically saying he *couldn't* say that fields is better than young, but he still thinks the bears should build around fields. So besides not being a draft expert, which is what we were talking about, it involved the player being quoted directly refusing to say the thing most draft experts are allegedly saying. But linking it and saying "lol due diligence" felt like a rebuttal, it had the vibe of a rebuttal,.so the actual words didn't matter.

[wekse]

There is zero chance I'm reading that, haha.

[David]

 

Most prominent draft guys would put Fields coming out of college ahead of any of these guys this year.

 

It's possible this is true, but I personally have not heard it from anyone but bears fans

 

I listen to a lot of sports radio. I have no idea if there's a tweet out there that said it, but Matt Miller, for one, said on the Score that he'd have Fields #1 in this draft, easily.

 

This is the closest I can find to proof of that in under 30 seconds. I can vouch for having heard Nate Tice say it too on a podcast.

 

 

(calling him an NFL scout is a stretch)

Edited February 24, 2023 by David

[David]

Jesus Christ, imagine being Kyle every day of your life.

 

You mostly get used to it, but it's always a little frustrating.

 

The best explanation I've ever gotten is that neurotypicals speak in vibes. The actual words aren't important, they are just vehicles for the general feeling being conveyed.

 

So to me, "Justin fields coming out of college was better than Bryce young coming out of college" is a completely different statement from, and this is the exact quote from the third link: "Mhmmm can’t make a statement like that. I’ll be shocked if Chicago don’t trade back or don’t go above and beyond to build around Justin!”

 

But they both generally convey a pro-fields vibe, so to a lot of people, they are apparently functionally equivalent?

 

Actually, if you go back and click through to Parson's actual tweet, he was specifically saying he *couldn't* say that fields is better than young, but he still thinks the bears should build around fields. So besides not being a draft expert, which is what we were talking about, it involved the player being quoted directly refusing to say the thing most draft experts are allegedly saying. But linking it and saying "lol due diligence" felt like a rebuttal, it had the vibe of a rebuttal,.so the actual words didn't matter.

 

i often have issues similar to this and do my best to filter it out

 

probably why that whole robot thing started

[WrigleyField 22]

I'm reading through some of these old NFL combine scouting reports and Kyle I guess can be kind of vindicated because apparently Fields didn't rate that highly on a consensus basis, but damn some of the way things are put on there just highlights how little actual process or science there is in scouting.

 

Potential to get better at recalibrating reads with more work.

 

Offers potential as full-field reader.

 

Needs to improve eye manipulation as a pro.

 

Shows flashes of throwing players open.

 

Has to become adept at working through progressions and playing chess against safeties

 

Needs to improve anticipatory reads and learn to take what the defense gives him

 

Series of scouting lines right there. All somewhat discussing eyes/reads. All basically stating that improvement and/or consistency was necessary. But some are framed as potential under strengths. Others are just weaknesses.

 

Fields has to get better at X - weakness

Pickett has potential (to get better at X) - strength

 

If you're a white QB and you occassionally throw an anticipatory read, it's a flash and a strength. If you're a supremely atheltic and gifted black passer, you need to release anticipatory throws quicker. Cuz I'm sure they never flashed it :|

 

If you're a white passer you also occassionally get gems like this in the very same report

 

Trusts his pocket and keeps eyes down the field

 

Looks off safeties

 

Takes what defense is offering and won't overcomplicate it

 

Scans full field and eyes don't get bogged down on a single target

 

Gets through progressions like a pro

 

Throws with desired anticipation and timing

.....

Decision-making and field vision were inconsistent this year

These strengths of his that are actually inconsistent are just like a pro?

 

Best might be athleticism.

 

What the difference between a decently athletic white QB and Fields? I'll give anyone $100 who can guess the other 2 players without googling it. One of these lines is the total extent of the write up of Fields ability as a runner.

 

Keeps defenses honest with his legs.

 

Tough runner who can move the sticks with his legs

 

Some elusive qualities when he turns into a runner.

Edited February 24, 2023 by WrigleyField 22