The Bears are on the clock; Packers Week

[BigSlick]

12 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I am genuinely surprised at how inept the lines were made to look on both sides of the ball.

It makes me wonder about the quality of opponents down the stretch and wonder if we overstated the improvement we saw from the D and O lines. 

The Bears played 4 playoff teams down the stretch. The line play, honestly, looked better than the Lions did in both match ups. They looked pretty damn bad against the Browns - the Oline was pretty bad, the Dline did get pressure though. They looked horrible on both sides against the Packers. 

[jersey cubs fan]

3 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

Regarding 2) they really only had 1 year to address needs. Because they were purposefully trying to tank in year 1. (You can dispute if that was a good strategy or not! I am open to the idea that it wasn't a good idea) 

And yeah, they didn't effectively address all those needs in the one off-season they set out to address them - but they made progress. I wish they did more to address the Oline, and more effectively. Neglecting the Center position in particular seems to have been a huge blunder. Davis has been a huge disappointment at Guard. 

But the holes are far more manageable this year compared to last. It is a test to see if Poles can do enough to address them, particularly if he brings in a rookie QB. 

They had two years and plenty of cap space. Just because they chose not to use it does not mean they didn’t have two years. They had two and blew it. That’s why we’re sitting at 10 wins over two seasons, with very limited offensive weapons, multiple holes on both lines and only a couple truly impactful defenders. 
 

Having some good players isn’t enough. You need impact and they don’t have them. 

[mul21]

I'm curious if Jenkins looking as bad as he did yesterday had something to do with playing next to a new center.  Just from memory, it looked like most of the plays where he was beaten badly were on stunts or a similar play where there needed to be communication between him and the C as to who was taking which guy and it appeared there was a consistent miss there.  Whether that's on him, the C or coaching, I don't know but it seems worth mentioning.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

5 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

I'm progressing from confused to amused.  It seems *very* important to you to claim some sort of status differential in this conversation.

I hereby grant it to you. I acknowledge that you are higher status, cooler, of hierarchal precedence, or whatever else it is you are looking for here.

Status?  I'm trying to understand why you think me stating that Fields is more accurate than the least accurate first round pick in recent history makes it follow that Fields has more accuracy issues than I know about, but you refuse to converse like a human being.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

3 minutes ago, mul21 said:

I'm curious if Jenkins looking as bad as he did yesterday had something to do with playing next to a new center.  Just from memory, it looked like most of the plays where he was beaten badly were on stunts or a similar play where there needed to be communication between him and the C as to who was taking which guy and it appeared there was a consistent miss there.  Whether that's on him, the C or coaching, I don't know but it seems worth mentioning.

That's my biggest complaint with the coaching staff.

I don't have any huge issues with the play design or playcalling.

But it feels like (and I don't have any objective data to back this up so maybe it's wrong) we have *way* more blown assignments on offense than should be considered normal.  People seems confused about who to block or what route to run multiple times every single game.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

3 minutes ago, JudasIscariotTheBird said:

Status?  I'm trying to understand why you think me stating that Fields is more accurate than the least accurate first round pick in recent history makes it follow that Fields has more accuracy issues than I know about, but you refuse to converse like a human being.

This is the first time you've asked "why do you think that." I'll be glad to answer.

Because you've stated several times that you believe that Fields has what it takes to be a decent starting QB in the league with different surrounding talent and coaching, and I think that opinion comes from overrating several aspects of his game, one of which is accuracy.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

2 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

This is the first time you've asked "why do you think that." I'll be glad to answer.

Because you've stated several times that you believe that Fields has what it takes to be a decent starting QB in the league with different surrounding talent and coaching, and I think that opinion comes from overrating several aspects of his game, one of which is accuracy.

He's not as accurate as almost all of the other youngish QBs whom I think that about.  It's because he can run better than literally every QB in football.  Duh.  If you respond to a conversion (that you weren't even a part of) where I compare one QB's accuracy to another's, and you say that he has more accuracy issues than I realize, I'm obviously going to think that's what you're addressing.  That's how conversation works.  I have to imagine you're being disengenuous when you back track to my general favorable impression of Fields from 5 pages ago, and seem to imagine, whole cloth, that I think Fields is some kind of sharp shooter or something.  This is troll behavior.  

[Hairyducked Idiot]

27 minutes ago, JudasIscariotTheBird said:

He's not as accurate as almost all of the other youngish QBs whom I think that about.  It's because he can run better than literally every QB in football.  Duh.  If you respond to a conversion (that you weren't even a part of) where I compare one QB's accuracy to another's, and you say that he has more accuracy issues than I realize, I'm obviously going to think that's what you're addressing.  That's how conversation works.  I have to imagine you're being disengenuous when you back track to my general favorable impression of Fields from 5 pages ago, and seem to imagine, whole cloth, that I think Fields is some kind of sharp shooter or something.  This is troll behavior.  

As an alternate approach, might I suggest reading the words that are written.  It was a pretty simple sentence, not a cleverly designed fae trick to fool you into reading it wrong.

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

As an alternate approach, might I suggest reading the words that are written.  It was a pretty simple sentence, not a cleverly designed fae trick to fool you into reading it wrong.

Get fucked

[Brian707]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

As an alternate approach, might I suggest reading the words that are written.  It was a pretty simple sentence, not a cleverly designed fae trick to fool you into reading it wrong.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 minute ago, Brian707 said:

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2 minutes ago, JudasIscariotTheBird said:

Get fucked

And we're back to confused amusement. These responses are really a trip.

[minnesotacubsfan]

everyday, I become more and more convinced that hairytheidiot is nothing more than some failed attempt at early AI that got loose in cyberspace

 

 

[CubinNY]

1 minute ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

everyday, I become more and more convinced that hairytheidiot is nothing more than some failed attempt at early AI that got loose in cyberspace

 

 

too much energy is already wasted on this is personal stuff. Kyle is allowed to have an opinion, even if you think it is off or weird or whatever. 

Let us let this die, please. I'd rather talk about the Bears' dysfunction than ours. 

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

too much energy is already wasted on this is personal stuff. Kyle is allowed to have an opinion, even if you think it is off or weird or whatever. 

Let us let this die, please. I'd rather talk about the Bears' dysfunction than ours. 

petition to lock the thread, boss?

 

 

[Old Style]

I just want to know why I still see that idiot’s posts after adding him to my ignore list. 

Edited January 8, 2024 by Old Style

[We Got The Whole 9]

8 minutes ago, Old Style said:

I just want to know why I still see that idiot’s posts after adding him to my ignore list. 

Should depend on when you ignored him. You will still see the posts from before you added him, but shouldn't see any of the ones posted after you ignored him. 

 

And of course any post of his that is quoted by another poster you will see unless you also have that poster on ignore.