Battle of beleaguered Bears braintrusts

[Tim]

Top teams in the 2023 NFL (10+ wins to date):

• Baltimore: Certainly not a traditional franchise QB. Lamar is one proof point that teams can win with this style of QB - at least in the regular season
• Detroit: Goff was not on anyone's top QB list prior prior to getting to Detroit. He's still not on their top QB lists.
• Miami: Tua was a bust until he got a new coach and got surrounded by weapons
• Philly: Hurts is still what we're hoping Fields becomes at some point. Score one team for the "Franchise QB" column. I guess?
• SF: Brock Purdy is not a franchise QB
• Cleveland: Nope. No franchise guy here. Heck, they're winning with a guy that was out of the league for years.
• Dallas: Dak usually rolls up the stats, but I don't hear anyone talking about him in the Franchise QB group

That's not really a compelling argument that you have to have a traditional, franchise QB to win in today's NFL.

[We Got The Whole 9]

9 minutes ago, Tim said:

Top teams in the 2023 NFL (10+ wins to date):

• Baltimore: Certainly not a traditional franchise QB. Lamar is one proof point that teams can win with this style of QB - at least in the regular season
• Detroit: Goff was not on anyone's top QB list prior prior to getting to Detroit. He's still not on their top QB lists.
• Miami: Tua was a bust until he got a new coach and got surrounded by weapons
• Philly: Hurts is still what we're hoping Fields becomes at some point. Score one team for the "Franchise QB" column. I guess?
• SF: Brock Purdy is not a franchise QB
• Cleveland: Nope. No franchise guy here. Heck, they're winning with a guy that was out of the league for years.
• Dallas: Dak usually rolls up the stats, but I don't hear anyone talking about him in the Franchise QB group

That's not really a compelling argument that you have to have a traditional, franchise QB to win in today's NFL.

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.

[jersey cubs fan]

16 minutes 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.

Goff don’t count. He was a bust until he resurrected his career. He’s not an argument for taking a qb at the top 

 

If anything he’s an argument in favor of building a solid team and plugging in a qb to round it out 

Edited December 27, 2023 by jersey cubs fan

[We Got The Whole 9]

25 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Goff don’t count. He was a bust until he resurrected his career. He’s not an argument for taking a qb at the top 

 

If anything he’s an argument in favor of building a solid team and plugging in a qb to round it out 

IDK he threw for 8000 yards and 60 TD to 19 INT across his 2nd and 3rd seasons. Perhaps he was plugged into the perfect season but those are elite numbers nonetheless.

[scarey]

5 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

IDK he threw for 8000 yards and 60 TD to 19 INT across his 2nd and 3rd seasons. Perhaps he was plugged into the perfect season but those are elite numbers nonetheless.

I don't think he's arguing against that. The point is, the Rams drafted him and he didn't take off there. The lions took him as almost a throw-in and he's turned his career around.

If the Bears draft Williams and his career ends up the same, I don't think it benefits the Bears. Especially if Williams gets a similar treatment to what Fields appears to be getting (ran out of town in 3 years of mediocre QB play).

[jersey cubs fan]

7 hours ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

IDK he threw for 8000 yards and 60 TD to 19 INT across his 2nd and 3rd seasons. Perhaps he was plugged into the perfect season but those are elite numbers nonetheless.

The team he plays for acquired him as an afterthought in a trade of their own top drafted qb that didn’t amount to any team success. 
Goff was a bust in LA. They were desperate to give him away and move on. 

 

The theory people are peddling is the best way to build a team is taking a QB as high as possible. The Detroit Lions are not a supporting example of that theory. 
 

 

[BigSlick]

10 hours ago, Tim said:

Top teams in the 2023 NFL (10+ wins to date):

• Baltimore: Certainly not a traditional franchise QB. Lamar is one proof point that teams can win with this style of QB - at least in the regular season
• Detroit: Goff was not on anyone's top QB list prior prior to getting to Detroit. He's still not on their top QB lists.
• Miami: Tua was a bust until he got a new coach and got surrounded by weapons
• Philly: Hurts is still what we're hoping Fields becomes at some point. Score one team for the "Franchise QB" column. I guess?
• SF: Brock Purdy is not a franchise QB
• Cleveland: Nope. No franchise guy here. Heck, they're winning with a guy that was out of the league for years.
• Dallas: Dak usually rolls up the stats, but I don't hear anyone talking about him in the Franchise QB group

That's not really a compelling argument that you have to have a traditional, franchise QB to win in today's NFL.

If “Franchise QB” is defined as “(typically white) guy who stands still and throws a lot” then yeah… but I don’t define it that way? I define it as “cornerstone effective player I don’t mind giving a contract that’s worth >20 mill a year for”. So Lamar Jackson is absolutely a franchise QB. Tua and Hurts are knocking on the door of it. Brock Purdy hasn’t shown enough to say yes or no but he’s having a season currently that’s better than any Bears QB in history.

 

all the guys mentioned, aside from the Browns QB situation, are significantly better than Justin Fields. 

[gflore34]

11 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

If “Franchise QB” is defined as “(typically white) guy who stands still and throws a lot” then yeah… but I don’t define it that way? I define it as “cornerstone effective player I don’t mind giving a contract that’s worth >20 mill a year for”. So Lamar Jackson is absolutely a franchise QB. Tua and Hurts are knocking on the door of it. Brock Purdy hasn’t shown enough to say yes or no but he’s having a season currently that’s better than any Bears QB in history.

 

all the guys mentioned, aside from the Browns QB situation, are significantly better than Justin Fields. 

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.

Edited December 27, 2023 by gflore34

[Brian707]

If Poles cleans house with Eberflus and Getzy, who are potential regimes to come in? Bears might be in a unique situation as a team almost ready to win now with a potential new franchise QB.

[minnesotacubsfan]

38 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

If Poles cleans house with Eberflus and Getzy, who are potential regimes to come in? Bears might be in a unique situation as a team almost ready to win now with a potential new franchise QB.

A rookie qb. You’d have to land a Marino for that to happen

[minnesotacubsfan]

12 hours ago, UK said:

And their teams are doing much worse, which leads to the importance of the QB position.

 

They (and their teams) are doing worse because of the lack of talent around them esp Mahomes. Hes getting the Rodgers treatment

 

 

[We Got The Whole 9]

3 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

The team he plays for acquired him as an afterthought in a trade of their own top drafted qb that didn’t amount to any team success. 
Goff was a bust in LA. They were desperate to give him away and move on. 

 

The theory people are peddling is the best way to build a team is taking a QB as high as possible. The Detroit Lions are not a supporting example of that theory. 
 

 

Is any QB that has questions about their ability to win a SB a bust? Mitchell Trubisky is a bust. Jared Goff does not qualify in my book. He threw for 4600 yards and 30 TDs in his 3rd year in the league and there's never been questions about his standing as a starting QB in the NFL. 

[CubinNY]

I believe that the QB has to fit the system. I know "system" QB is a pejorative, but the best teams have a match between the two. So whatever version of the Bears offense they are going to have with a new OC should be put in place before they make decisions about who to draft when. 

If they honestly assess Fields and think he can do the job if put into the correct system, I can accept that, so long as they get a good OC/system fit for the things he does well and try to minimize the things he doesn't do well. 

However, he has not shown the consistency needed to be a starting QB, no matter the system. I also don't think Poles is going to stake his job on it, but you never can tell.  

[minnesotacubsfan]

34 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Is any QB that has questions about their ability to win a SB a bust? Mitchell Trubisky is a bust. Jared Goff does not qualify in my book. He threw for 4600 yards and 30 TDs in his 3rd year in the league and there's never been questions about his standing as a starting QB in the NFL. 

Goff was absolutely a bust - that’s why the Rams traded him for Stafford

[WrigleyField 22]

Pedanting over exactly what qualifies as a bust or not, it's probably telling that even many retread QBs are former #1s.  Like the downside outcomes over guys capable of going #1 tend to be pretty high still.  Not many are Jamarcus Russell level washouts.

 

Obviously the All Pro type odds are still pretty low, but from an overall risk standpoint I think you can probably do a lot worse that the risk entailed in a prospect like Williams who's upper-tier even among typical #1s (and Goff and Mayfield were obviously lower tier #1s at the time).

[Tim]

5 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Pedanting over exactly what qualifies as a bust or not, it's probably telling that even many retread QBs are former #1s.  Like the downside outcomes over guys capable of going #1 tend to be pretty high still.  Not many are Jamarcus Russell level washouts.

 

Obviously the All Pro type odds are still pretty low, but from an overall risk standpoint I think you can probably do a lot worse that the risk entailed in a prospect like Williams who's upper-tier even among typical #1s (and Goff and Mayfield were obviously lower tier #1s at the time).

I think that list says a lot more about surrounding guys with talent and coaching than anything else. Sure, Goff was a #1 pick. But most of that list was late first, second round, or even the anti-1st pick (Purdy).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

13 hours ago, Tryptamine said:

While not a failure, Mahomes, Hurts, Lawrence, etc are all having much worse years than the previous one. It's a bit bizarre how many QBs are significantly underperforming their previous year's numbers.

Much worse for Mahomes is going to be 4500 yards and 30-35 TD passes

[Tryptamine]

Looks like Washington is out on Howell which adds another team's for the Bears to deal with if they decide to trade down. I wouldn't mind getting Terry McLaurin and the Bears's 2nd round pick on top of other things back.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

36 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I believe that the QB has to fit the system. I know "system" QB is a pejorative, but the best teams have a match between the two. So whatever version of the Bears offense they are going to have with a new OC should be put in place before they make decisions about who to draft when. 

If they honestly assess Fields and think he can do the job if put into the correct system, I can accept that, so long as they get a good OC/system fit for the things he does well and try to minimize the things he doesn't do well. 

However, he has not shown the consistency needed to be a starting QB, no matter the system. I also don't think Poles is going to stake his job on it, but you never can tell.  

I don't understand what "system" Fields is supposed to thrive in.

People usually say something like Baltimore, but that system relies heavily on Jackson's elite ability to execute RPOs, something Fields is *really* bad at.

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I don't understand what "system" Fields is supposed to thrive in.

People usually say something like Baltimore, but that system relies heavily on Jackson's elite ability to execute RPOs, something Fields is *really* bad at.

I don't either, but I'm not the Bears front office. They may have other ideas. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The point where Jared Goff is considered a "bust" is the point where the conversation isn't serious anymore and people are just starting from "I don't want to take a QB" and then saying anything they think supports that point, regardless of how nonsensical.

Edit to add: And apparently Dak Prescott isnt a franchise QB?  This is getting weird.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[WrigleyField 22]

5 minutes ago, Tim said:

I think that list says a lot more about surrounding guys with talent and coaching than anything else. Sure, Goff was a #1 pick. But most of that list was late first, second round, or even the anti-1st pick (Purdy).

And I'd rather put talent around a #1 pick QB than later.  It's obviously not a mutually exclusive choice.  The Bears can build a support system around a #1 pick at QB.  Sure they could also turn it into a few extra picks into a support system for a lesser ranked QB, but your average  downside later is probably quite a bit worse and building that supporting cast doesn't rest on those few extra picks, even though it would lessen margin for error.

[Tim]

3 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

The point where Jared Goff is considered a "bust" is the point where the conversation isn't serious anymore and people are just starting from "I don't want to take a QB" and then saying anything they think supports that point, regardless of how nonsensical.

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. 

[Tim]

1 minute ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

And I'd rather put talent around a #1 pick QB than later.  It's obviously not a mutually exclusive choice.  The Bears can build a support system around a #1 pick at QB.  Sure they could also turn it into a few extra picks into a support system for a lesser ranked QB, but your average  downside later is probably quite a bit worse and building that supporting cast doesn't rest on those few extra picks, even though it would lessen margin for error.

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.

[BigSlick]

1 hour ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

A rookie qb. You’d have to land a Marino for that to happen

Why do we go back to Marino? Roethlisberger went to an AFC Championship as a rookie and won as a 2nd year player. Just looking at who's around the league - Dak Prescott, Baker Mayfield, Justin Herbert and notably, CJ Stroud all had incredibly good rookie seasons that led their teams to be competitive. Stroud specifically has a worse roster around him than what a Bears rookie would. 

It wouldn't be ideal but it doesn't mean the team won't be playoff competitive by default.