Battle of beleaguered Bears braintrusts

[Hairyducked Idiot]

58 minutes ago, Tim said:

The point of my post wasn't about where in the draft to find the QB with the highest upside and floor. That's undoubtedly at the #1 spot as long as your talent evaluators are worth their salaries. 

The point was more of a challenge to those who believe you have to have a "franchise" "cornerstone" type QB in order to in in today's NFL. For the easy example, I think Brock Purdy would look a lot more like Bagent on the Bears than the potential MVP he's been on the 49'ers. It's just not that easy to pull apart how much the QB elevates the team and how much the team elevates the QB.

"Purdy would be Bagent on the Bears" is one of those "brady without bellichek" things except we should be over it because Brady proved it's QB and not coach after he left.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

13 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Goff, Stafford, Burrow, Lawrence - I think those are the only first QBs taken in the last 15 drafts that are in the top 15 QBs in the league. Not sure if Mayfield should count.

When 27% of the good QBs are coming from 0.38% of the draft slots, that's probably a pretty good slot to look for a QB.

[BigSlick]

The amount of disrespect Brock Purdy has received around the country is wild. Dude is having, even after factoring his disastrous MNF game, at worst the 2nd best season of QBs this year. People penalize him for playing on the best team in the league. Ok. Go watch some tape of him. Imagine Tyson Bagent making the throws he makes - particularly the 20+ in the air throws, which he's had more success in doing than anyone else in the league. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 hour ago, Tim said:

For the record, I don't consider Goff a "bust". But he hasn't been a guy that people around the league were calling out as a "franchise" guy or a "cornerstone", either. 

Is he "elite"? Is he "generational?"

We're playing with words in pointless ways here.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You absolutely don't *need* to take a QB 1.10a-1 to succeed in the NFL.

But that's completely the wrong way of approaching the question.  The question is what's the best course of action for the Chicago Bears in the 2023-24 offseason.

Given the following

!) We already did our "pass on a QB to load up on assets to support the next QB" trade and now have a pretty solid offensive and defensive situation for the next QB to come into.

2) There's basically no veteran QB options unless Arizona wants to trade Murray (which will cost a big chunk of the draft capital you're salivating over when you trade out) or you convince whatever's left of Kirk Cousins to come here.

3) Despite the prospect fatigue, there will be a QB available at our pick who is the best QB prospect you're going to see in a 3-5 year span.

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that this isn't our best course of action in this specific circumstance.

[SpongeWorthy]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

2) There's basically no veteran QB options unless Arizona wants to trade Murray (which will cost a big chunk of the draft capital you're salivating over when you trade out) or you convince whatever's left of Kirk Cousins to come here.

 

I don't really think he could be had but I think there's been enough smoke around Herbert and enough plausibility that the Chargers would want to build around Williams as a local college product to breathe some life (Herbert's really good but he's not Mr. Personality) to consider the possibility of the Bears trading for him

[SpongeWorthy]

.

Edited December 27, 2023 by SpongeWorthy

[Tim]

16 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

"Purdy would be Bagent on the Bears" is one of those "brady without bellichek" things except we should be over it because Brady proved it's QB and not coach after he left.

You're making a statement that I made an absolute when it wasn't an absolute statement.

[Tim]

8 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

You absolutely don't *need* to take a QB 1.10a-1 to succeed in the NFL.

But that's completely the wrong way of approaching the question.  The question is what's the best course of action for the Chicago Bears in the 2023-24 offseason.

Given the following

!) We already did our "pass on a QB to load up on assets to support the next QB" trade and now have a pretty solid offensive and defensive situation for the next QB to come into.

2) There's basically no veteran QB options unless Arizona wants to trade Murray (which will cost a big chunk of the draft capital you're salivating over when you trade out) or you convince whatever's left of Kirk Cousins to come here.

3) Despite the prospect fatigue, there will be a QB available at our pick who is the best QB prospect you're going to see in a 3-5 year span.

I haven't seen any convincing arguments that this isn't our best course of action in this specific circumstance.

I think it depends on the return they could get from a trade, whether or not they want to retain Eberflus as coach, and a variety of other factors. Let's say that AZ does decide to move on from Murray and makes a godfather kind of offer for #1. Something like 1-3, 1-16, 2-35, 2025 1st, and 2026 1st. As things stand, Bears would draft #3, #8, #16, #35. You could end up adding something like MHJ and Bowers to the offense, plus a 3T and edge to the defense. Or you could still go QB and take Daniels at #3 with the rest of that haul. 

I'd probably lean towards taking Williams at #1. But there are definitely scenarios where I'd make the trade.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

47 minutes ago, Tim said:

I think it depends on the return they could get from a trade, whether or not they want to retain Eberflus as coach, and a variety of other factors. Let's say that AZ does decide to move on from Murray and makes a godfather kind of offer for #1. Something like 1-3, 1-16, 2-35, 2025 1st, and 2026 1st. As things stand, Bears would draft #3, #8, #16, #35. You could end up adding something like MHJ and Bowers to the offense, plus a 3T and edge to the defense. Or you could still go QB and take Daniels at #3 with the rest of that haul. 

I'd probably lean towards taking Williams at #1. But there are definitely scenarios where I'd make the trade.

Yes, if Arizona offers you four firsts and more to move up two spots, you do that.

I don't think that's a realistic trade offer tho.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Tim]

1 hour ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Yes, if Arizona offers you four firsts and more to move up two spots, you do that.

I don't think that's a realistic trade offer tho.

I'm glad we agree. There are circumstances in which it makes more sense to make a trade than to take the QB #1. We likely disagree with where the line gets drawn, but at least now we're not talking in absolutes.

[raw]

6 hours ago, gflore34 said:

I'd really like to see Purdy or Hurts and Fields switched, while Fields has flaws I believe, neither Purdy or Hurts are significantly better.  They're beneficiaries of a strong supporting cast and superior coaching which, I guess, are examples of build up the roster/coaching staff and a QB will succeed.

This is an interesting point. The more interesting point though is that both of those guys were afterthoughts. They were the result of taking a QB every year philosophy that we have wanted the Bears to take. SF had Jimmy G and a very highly drafted Trey Lance. Philly had Carson Wentz coming off a really strong and healthy season post injury after putting up MVP level numbers pre-injury. 

But the bottom line....these were the paths to get to Purdy and Hurts for the Niners and Eagles, respectively.

49ers- gave up a 2nd for Jimmy G, then paid him 122Mil over 5 1/2 years, then gave up 2 future 1s for Lance.

Eagles- Draft Wentz- gave up a 3rd round pick (77), 4th round pick (100) a future 1st rounder, a future 2nd rounder. Then they gave Wentz 56Mil which including eating money. They did get a 3rd and a 1st (somehow) for Wentz but used a 2nd on Hurts. 

Obviously, if the Bears could become as good as these teams then that'd be great. But this also serves as a cautionary tale to NOT pay a QB that isn't the guy, because they've defied all logic to get to this point. They draft well, are extremely well coached teams, which the Bears have a chance to be if they get things right. But this shouldn't be the expected result of overpaying a QB in picks and cash. If anything, the Bears are close to putting Caleb Williams in a similar situation because they have build the semblance of a team and potentially have the assets to improve on that this offseason.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I could have sworn I was promised this was the year people *definitely* stopped making excuses for Fields.

[Tim]

2 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I could have sworn I was promised this was the year people *definitely* stopped making excuses for Fields.

Who are you referring to here? Just in general? There will always be some people.

[BigSlick]

49 minutes ago, raw said:

This is an interesting point. The more interesting point though is that both of those guys were afterthoughts. They were the result of taking a QB every year philosophy that we have wanted the Bears to take. SF had Jimmy G and a very highly drafted Trey Lance. Philly had Carson Wentz coming off a really strong and healthy season post injury after putting up MVP level numbers pre-injury. 

But the bottom line....these were the paths to get to Purdy and Hurts for the Niners and Eagles, respectively.

49ers- gave up a 2nd for Jimmy G, then paid him 122Mil over 5 1/2 years, then gave up 2 future 1s for Lance.

Eagles- Draft Wentz- gave up a 3rd round pick (77), 4th round pick (100) a future 1st rounder, a future 2nd rounder. Then they gave Wentz 56Mil which including eating money. They did get a 3rd and a 1st (somehow) for Wentz but used a 2nd on Hurts. 

Obviously, if the Bears could become as good as these teams then that'd be great. But this also serves as a cautionary tale to NOT pay a QB that isn't the guy, because they've defied all logic to get to this point. They draft well, are extremely well coached teams, which the Bears have a chance to be if they get things right. But this shouldn't be the expected result of overpaying a QB in picks and cash. If anything, the Bears are close to putting Caleb Williams in a similar situation because they have build the semblance of a team and potentially have the assets to improve on that this offseason.

The persistence in continuing to go after QBs and not being gunshy until you find the guy that plays well for you (whether it’s because the system works well, or they’re a good fit or whatever) is also well taken. They weren’t afraid to cut bait and not just settle on a guy who was maybe OK but not stellar for them. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

4 hours ago, Tim said:

Let's say that AZ does decide to move on from Murray and makes a godfather kind of offer for #1. Something like 1-3, 1-16, 2-35, 2025 1st, and 2026 1st. As things stand, Bears would draft #3, #8, #16, #35.

Arizona is currently slotted into the #2 pick and I really don't see them winning another game.  If they want to give up 3 or more 1st rounders to move up one slot, you take that offer every time.

[Tim]

1 hour ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Arizona is currently slotted into the #2 pick and I really don't see them winning another game.  If they want to give up 3 or more 1st rounders to move up one slot, you take that offer every time.

It was an extreme example to make a point that you can't just categorically state that taking Williams is the only right move at this point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

31 minutes ago, Tim said:

It was an extreme example to make a point that you can't just categorically state that taking Williams is the only right move at this point.

It's the right move based on the real situation. It might not be the right move based on imaginary situations that won't happen.

It's hard to imagine anyone offering more for WIlliams than he's worth to us, given that we need him as badly as anyone.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

It's the right move based on the real situation. It might not be the right move based on imaginary situations that won't happen.

It's hard to imagine anyone offering more for WIlliams than he's worth to us, given that we need him as badly as anyone.

if Williams is the generational "cant miss" talent people say he is, he's worth the world

 

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

20 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

if Williams is the generational "cant miss" talent people say he is, he's worth the world

 

 

He's not that, and if he were, he would still be worth as much to us as anyone else. 

[raw]

Can you be generational and NOT can't miss? Because I think Caleb is a generational talent. I think he does everything we love Fields for except runs a mid 4.5s instead of high 4.3s. But I also think he has better pocket presence, a quicker release and better field vision. But I also acknowledge there's some hit or miss there, due to ball security and holding onto the ball (similar issues to Justin). 

[Irrelevant Dude]

12 minutes ago, username said:

I hope wherever he goes, he finds success.

Absolutely. I like Fields and will be rooting for him wherever he ends up. The Bears trading him outside the division will make that much easier to do.

[BigSlick]

36 minutes ago, raw said:

Can you be generational and NOT can't miss? Because I think Caleb is a generational talent. I think he does everything we love Fields for except runs a mid 4.5s instead of high 4.3s. But I also think he has better pocket presence, a quicker release and better field vision. But I also acknowledge there's some hit or miss there, due to ball security and holding onto the ball (similar issues to Justin). 

Why wouldn’t I want Fields But Better In All The Ways He’s Weak? Sounds can’t miss to me 

Edited December 28, 2023 by BigSlick

[Hairyducked Idiot]

46 minutes ago, raw said:

Can you be generational and NOT can't miss? Because I think Caleb is a generational talent. I think he does everything we love Fields for except runs a mid 4.5s instead of high 4.3s. But I also think he has better pocket presence, a quicker release and better field vision. But I also acknowledge there's some hit or miss there, due to ball security and holding onto the ball (similar issues to Justin). 

Short, and while I think the evidence is good for his processing, you rarely *really* know if a QB prospect can handle NFL speed until you see them at NFL speed and he's not one of the very small handful of guys in my lifetime who you know for sure.

The list of generational QB prospects is Elway, Manning and Luck.  Williams isn't on that level, and if we're including him as "generational" we're going to need a *new* word for those guys and the point of generational was to separate those guys from the guys like Williams.

Someone on reddit suggested the term "presidential" for guys like Williams and I like it, as in "probably the best prospect you'll see in a four-year cycle."

Edited December 28, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

6 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Why wouldn’t I want Fields But Better In All The Ways He’s Weak? Sounds can’t miss to me 

I don't like the Fields comparison at all, personally.  Besides the height and speed differences, Williams is *way* better at throwing on the run and much more accurate.

Williams is somewhere between "taller Kyler Murray" and "shorter Mahomes."

But he's going to have to adjust to NFL speed and complexity. ("A-ha! That was Fields' problem."  That's *every* college QB's problem.  Williams doesn't have the glaring "he can't make the leap" issues on his tape that Fields had.  He just hasn't proven he *can* make the leap until he does.)