Laissez les Bears temps rouler (saints game)

[Wilson A2000]

45 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Why are we pretending 17 points is an accomplishment? Fields has a much better resume. It’s not just 3 games vs 3 years. Fields has done more in his life. Not the least of which was surviving last season when his GM openly set him up to fail. 

Both QBs are throwing for the same number of yards per game and are putting up the same points. I don’t see a better resume from Fields.

[Old Style]

So glad I didn’t see a single play after the first half. 

[Derwood]

Bears ended up with the wrong Ohio State quarterback 

[UMFan83]

Obviously we want the Bears to win on Thursday (if you are all in on tanking), right?

There are like 7 teams with 3 wins, so winning again makes the Bears in jeopardy of falling into that 5-8 pick range, in exchange for the Panthers remaining at 2. But if the panthers win, I’m pretty sure the Bears will remain 1.2 and 1.3 with their 2 picks due to tiebreakers. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Would a tie help?

 

I would rather maximize our chances of getting at least one of the top 2 vs. minimizing downside.  Getting picks 3 and 4 would be a significantly worse outcome than, say, 2 and 10.

[NorthsideAvenger]

9 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I kinda wish we had young right now too tbh.

 

We are really gonna play ourselves into QB hell continuing.  We will pick something like 2nd and 7th, take MHJ and the third QB who turns out to bust.

Bears will never have a star QB. I'd say stop drafting QB's in the first round. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by NorthsideAvenger

[NorthsideAvenger]

1 hour ago, UMFan83 said:

Obviously we want the Bears to win on Thursday (if you are all in on tanking), right?

There are like 7 teams with 3 wins, so winning again makes the Bears in jeopardy of falling into that 5-8 pick range, in exchange for the Panthers remaining at 2. But if the panthers win, I’m pretty sure the Bears will remain 1.2 and 1.3 with their 2 picks due to tiebreakers. 

God, I hate having this conversation for a second straight year. 

[CubinNY]

The point of playing is to try to win. If they are winning it solves a lot of problems that come from losing. It's pretty simple. The frustrating part is that knowledgeable fans can see the train coming and the people running the Bears would rather pretend they already moved the track or at least moving it now. They are a bad team with a bad QB who is not going to suddenly be good through force of will. Fields is awful. 

The main problem is that there are so many very bad teams in the NFL right now. I have faith in the Bears to finish with one of the top five worst records though. 

[Soul]

12 hours ago, Derwood said:

Bears ended up with the wrong Ohio State quarterback 

They will always wind up with the wrong quarterback.  If they draft another one next year he will fail.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

8 hours ago, NorthsideAvenger said:

Bears will never have a star QB. I'd say stop drafting QB's in the first round. 

Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Historically, trying to cheap out on lesser QB prospects is our problem.  Trubisky was the first and only time we took the first or second QB in the draft since McMahon.

It would be wonderful to already have a QB and use high draft picks for surer positions. But we don't, so we have to keep using them until we get one.

[Tryptamine]

9 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Would a tie help?

 

I would rather maximize our chances of getting at least one of the top 2 vs. minimizing downside.  Getting picks 3 and 4 would be a significantly worse outcome than, say, 2 and 10.

Unfortunately I think this is what we're looking at, with both picks in the 4-7 range where the QBs are definitely out of play without giving up a ransom to trade up. In this scenario, I'm sorry to say, but Fields is probably your QB next year too.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

7 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Unfortunately I think this is what we're looking at, with both picks in the 4-7 range where the QBs are definitely out of play without giving up a ransom to trade up. In this scenario, I'm sorry to say, but Fields is probably your QB next year too.

That's my doom boner scenario. All it takes is one or two fluke wins against one of the many other bad teams in the NFL and you play yourself right out of taking an elite qb prospect.

Jimmie Claussen, Blaine gabbert, ryan tannehill, Mike Glennon, Teddy Bridgewater, Garrett Grayson, Paxton Lynch, deshaun Watson, josh Allen, dwayne Haskins, Justin Hebert, trey Lance, Malik Willis, Anthony Richardson.

That's the list of qb3s in each draft since 2010.  There's a couple of nice names in there but overall that's not the grab bag on which I want to be commiting my franchise for 2-3 years at a minimum.

I hate QB hell.

 

 

[raw]

10 hours ago, UMFan83 said:

Obviously we want the Bears to win on Thursday (if you are all in on tanking), right?

There are like 7 teams with 3 wins, so winning again makes the Bears in jeopardy of falling into that 5-8 pick range, in exchange for the Panthers remaining at 2. But if the panthers win, I’m pretty sure the Bears will remain 1.2 and 1.3 with their 2 picks due to tiebreakers. 

Bears win = 1 really good chance for #1 pick

Bears lose = 2 not as good chances for #1 pick

There's not really a bad outcome in terms of getting the #1 pick. But yeah, I'd prefer a Bears win because I know the Bears won't be tanking and Carolina has no incentive to tank w/ no 1st. So if both teams are trying, I'd prefer the team in the best position for #1 take the loss.

[Tryptamine]

Stroud's passing ranks so far, remember he already has had his bye week.

 

Passing Yards: 2270 (7th)

TD: 14 (T7th)

INT: 1 (T32nd)

YDS/G: 283.8 (3rd)

QBR: 62.3 (12th)

Rating: 102.9 (4th)

[WrigleyField 22]

22 minutes ago, raw said:

Bears win = 1 really good chance for #1 pick

Bears lose = 2 not as good chances for #1 pick

There's not really a bad outcome in terms of getting the #1 pick. But yeah, I'd prefer a Bears win because I know the Bears won't be tanking and Carolina has no incentive to tank w/ no 1st. So if both teams are trying, I'd prefer the team in the best position for #1 take the loss.

Eh, I don't know if a Bears L gets them much further, if at all, away from #1 pick than a W:

 

Carolina loss: still just a half game "back" from Arizona

Bears loss: one game back from Arizona

 

The difference between each scenario is the bye week imbalance, and the fact Bears play Arizona, whereas Carolina doesn't.  Either way, both teams are one L back from Arizona right now, but both positioned to win the tie breaker.  So in any case you're hoping for Arizona to outplay one of them by a game the rest of the way.

[CubinNY]

5 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Eh, I don't know if a Bears L gets them much further, if at all, away from #1 pick than a W:

 

Carolina loss: still just a half game "back" from Arizona

Bears loss: one game back from Arizona

 

The difference between each scenario is the bye week imbalance, and the fact Bears play Arizona, whereas Carolina doesn't.  Either way, both teams are one L back from Arizona right now, but both positioned to win the tie breaker.  So in any case you're hoping for Arizona to outplay one of them by a game the rest of the way.

The Cardinals picking another #1 from USC is giving me flashbacks. Leinart was a guy I was sure was going to be a great NFL QB. . 

[WrigleyField 22]

Even a Carolina W isn't looking as bad for SoS tie breaking as it did earlier.  And later in the year it is, the more stable SoS should start to be.

 

10 teams have hit the 5 L mark.  This is the SoS ranking from worst (highest pick) to best, with their current game behind rank

Green Bay +2.5

Chicago +1.0

Tampa +2.5

Carolina +0.5

Denver +2.5

Los Angeles (Rams) +2.0

New York (Giants) +1.0

Arizona +0

Tennessee +2.0

New England +1.0

 

So their worst tie break scenarios for either pick have already picked up a couple games.  When it comes to a team like NYG, NE, or ARI, they basically have that extra half game edge with the likely tie breaker.

 

Anyways I said I wouldnt tank track again, so I officially hate myself.

Edited November 6, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[raw]

12 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Eh, I don't know if a Bears L gets them much further, if at all, away from #1 pick than a W:

 

Carolina loss: still just a half game "back" from Arizona

Bears loss: one game back from Arizona

 

The difference between each scenario is the bye week imbalance, and the fact Bears play Arizona, whereas Carolina doesn't.  Either way, both teams are one L back from Arizona right now, but both positioned to win the tie breaker.  So in any case you're hoping for Arizona to outplay one of them by a game the rest of the way.

Not much further is still further. I just think there are more potential wins on the Bears schedule, which I factor in to the chances of the #1 pick. Carolina has Dallas at home and then 3 straight on the road after this week. So, I'd much prefer them to lose one of the few winnable games they have left. Then you could be talking about 4 straight losses (6 total in a row), a 1-12 record, and a team that has 0 confidence and barely any hope.

[WrigleyField 22]

2 minutes ago, raw said:

Not much further is still further. I just think there are more potential wins on the Bears schedule, which I factor in to the chances of the #1 pick. Carolina has Dallas at home and then 3 straight on the road after this week. So, I'd much prefer them to lose one of the few winnable games they have left. Then you could be talking about 4 straight losses (6 total in a row), a 1-12 record, and a team that has 0 confidence and barely any hope.

It might be begging the question, but if Bears lose to Carolina, do they have a few likely wins left on the schedule? 🤣

[raw]

2 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

It might be begging the question, but if Bears lose to Carolina, do they have a few likely wins left on the schedule? 🤣

I mean technically, the games are still winnable. We know the Bears are bad. Losing the Carolina may conclude they are really, really bad. But that doesn't change that Fields, with all his flaws, is probably better than all the QBs he'll face the rest of the way outside of Goff and maybe Watson.

[BigSlick]

You spin the QB roulette wheel and hope it comes up a jackpot at some point

I actually don't think the grousing about Bear QB busts even makes much sense: Except for Mitch Trubisky at 2 (dear god its embarrassing to think about it in hindsight), The Bears have barely spun the wheel. Spin it again, boys. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by BigSlick

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

Honestly I think the decision to throw was defensible on all three ints. He just doesn't have the consistency in his throws to make them 

[BigSlick]

There are a few stats that I think show something quite telling about the difference between Bagent and Fields and why some (extremely dumb people) might have gotten enamored with Bagent. 

Pro-Football-Reference keeps a stat called 'Success %' - it measures how often a QB makes a play on 1st down that gets at least 40% of the yardage needed on 1st down, 60% of the yardage needed on 2nd down, and 100% of yardage for 3rd and 4th down. Bagent has a 52.2% success percentage, Fields, in contrast, has a 38.7%. That's really bad. A good QB seems to hover around 50%, give or take a few percentage points. Bagent's 52.2% success percentage is actually up there with the top line QBs ---of course I'm not saying he's playing like a top line QB, I'm drawing a distinction between the two---

Justin Fields' sack per drop back percentage? 12.9%. Tyson Bagent's? 4.3%. This is playing behind the same damn line. Tyson Bagent's completion percentage is 6% higher than Fields. 

A 14% difference in successful plays is a huge differential. That's a huge chunk of opportunities where Fields is not doing the job while this undrafted kid is. That kid is also turning the ball over faster than hotcakes, but he's facilitating the functioning of an offense that is, when its not turning the ball over lol, significantly more efficient than Fields was. Now, that may come down to a bunch of factors, it could come down to coaching, the offensive line finally gelling, improvements in the run game, etc. But, well, in stark numbers, there's a huge failing right there.

 

 

 

[CubinNY]

30 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

There are a few stats that I think show something quite telling about the difference between Bagent and Fields and why some (extremely dumb people) might have gotten enamored with Bagent. 

Pro-Football-Reference keeps a stat called 'Success %' - it measures how often a QB makes a play on 1st down that gets at least 40% of the yardage needed on 1st down, 60% of the yardage needed on 2nd down, and 100% of yardage for 3rd and 4th down. Bagent has a 52.2% success percentage, Fields, in contrast, has a 38.7%. That's really bad. A good QB seems to hover around 50%, give or take a few percentage points. Bagent's 52.2% success percentage is actually up there with the top line QBs ---of course I'm not saying he's playing like a top line QB, I'm drawing a distinction between the two---

Justin Fields' sack per drop back percentage? 12.9%. Tyson Bagent's? 4.3%. This is playing behind the same damn line. Tyson Bagent's completion percentage is 6% higher than Fields. 

A 14% difference in successful plays is a huge differential. That's a huge chunk of opportunities where Fields is not doing the job while this undrafted kid is. That kid is also turning the ball over faster than hotcakes, but he's facilitating the functioning of an offense that is, when its not turning the ball over lol, significantly more efficient than Fields was. Now, that may come down to a bunch of factors, it could come down to coaching, the offensive line finally gelling, improvements in the run game, etc. But, well, in stark numbers, there's a huge failing right there.

 

 

 

Great post. 

[jersey cubs fan]

29 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

There are a few stats that I think show something quite telling about the difference between Bagent and Fields and why some (extremely dumb people) might have gotten enamored with Bagent. 

Pro-Football-Reference keeps a stat called 'Success %' - it measures how often a QB makes a play on 1st down that gets at least 40% of the yardage needed on 1st down, 60% of the yardage needed on 2nd down, and 100% of yardage for 3rd and 4th down. Bagent has a 52.2% success percentage, Fields, in contrast, has a 38.7%. That's really bad. A good QB seems to hover around 50%, give or take a few percentage points. Bagent's 52.2% success percentage is actually up there with the top line QBs ---of course I'm not saying he's playing like a top line QB, I'm drawing a distinction between the two---

Justin Fields' sack per drop back percentage? 12.9%. Tyson Bagent's? 4.3%. This is playing behind the same damn line. Tyson Bagent's completion percentage is 6% higher than Fields. 

A 14% difference in successful plays is a huge differential. That's a huge chunk of opportunities where Fields is not doing the job while this undrafted kid is. That kid is also turning the ball over faster than hotcakes, but he's facilitating the functioning of an offense that is, when its not turning the ball over lol, significantly more efficient than Fields was. Now, that may come down to a bunch of factors, it could come down to coaching, the offensive line finally gelling, improvements in the run game, etc. But, well, in stark numbers, there's a huge failing right there.

 

 

 

I get what you are saying but are they really playing behind the “same line”? Didn’t jenkins start the season on IR and Nate Davis start in Bolivian? The center position has changed.