Chicago Bears offseason

[Sammy Sofa]

20 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

Reading meatheads is fine.

[raw]

Waldron probably got a huge edge for being a former playcaller for a defensive HC. Kubiak and Robinson were maybe more inspiring, but they don't have playcalling experience at the NFL level. After Getsy, it's no wonder they valued experience.

[WrigleyField 22]

56 minutes ago, Sammy Sofa said:

Besides the brain rot, what's the risk?

[Sammy Sofa]

Just now, WrigleyField 22 said:

Besides the brain rot, what's the risk?

The fleeting nature of time and life.

*Checks post count*

OH GOD.

[WrigleyField 22]

Plus if I read an opinion on here, I at least have the assurance the meathead is literate.  No such guarantee if I listen to talk radio.

[CubinNY]

I hope they watched the QB play in this last round of playoffs and noticed the stark contrast between what Fields can do after three years and what we saw by all the team's QBs, for the most part. Fields play obviously doesn't match up.

[We Got The Whole 9]

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I hope they watched the QB play in this last round of playoffs and noticed the stark contrast between what Fields can do after three years and what we saw by all the team's QBs, for the most part. Fields play obviously doesn't match up.

I hope they didn't need to see that to see that.

[stitchface]

Do you guys honestly think getting someone better than Fields is more than a crapshoot? I'm not football expert, but I don't think I would go with a QB at 1:1. Seems like the Bears would be better off building a strong roster than throwing all their eggs (I know that's an overstatement) on one QB savior. I mean, it's not just the Bears that are routinely disappointed by top QB picks.

Can't really evaluate without knowing what moves could be made, but I have to think deciding QB or no-QB without evaluating the total value of the available picks is not a good approach.

[Irrelevant Dude]

40 minutes ago, stitchface said:

Do you guys honestly think getting someone better than Fields is more than a crapshoot?

Did you see the QB play in the Chiefs/Bills game?  No matter who you put around Fields, he will never be one of those guys.  Time to roll the dice again and hope they come up in the Bears' favor.

[jersey cubs fan]

1 hour ago, stitchface said:

Do you guys honestly think getting someone better than Fields is more than a crapshoot? I'm not football expert, but I don't think I would go with a QB at 1:1. Seems like the Bears would be better off building a strong roster than throwing all their eggs (I know that's an overstatement) on one QB savior. I mean, it's not just the Bears that are routinely disappointed by top QB picks.

Can't really evaluate without knowing what moves could be made, but I have to think deciding QB or no-QB without evaluating the total value of the available picks is not a good approach.

Absolutely more than a crapshoot. They’ll probably never get a better chance than with the #1 pick in the 2024 draft. Fields is an average NFL QB, when taking into account all the guys that actually play, but well below the difference makers on successful teams. It’s not that hard to get better than him. Tampa and Detroit did with castoffs. Maybe Fields turns into somebody else’s reclamation success story. Probably not.
 

If they do manage to trade out and surround fields with studs aplenty, they might succeed. But it won’t last, because youll have to pay him more than he’s worth to keep him if he’s so reliant on the supporting cast. 

[Rex Buckingham]

Fields isn't good enough. Try again. If your QB isn't good enough, the rest of your roster has to be unbelievable and healthy. A good enough QB can carry an average roster. 

[gflore34]

10 hours ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Fields isn't good enough. Try again. If your QB isn't good enough, the rest of your roster has to be unbelievable and healthy. A good enough QB can carry an average roster. 

The NFC Championship game is a fairly close realization of this: SF - great roster with not good enough QB vs. DET - good roster with a good QB, because Goff is better than Purdy, the Lions have a real chance.  Also, don't understand the blind spot when it comes to Fields, sure about 10% percent of his problem has been bad supporting cast and coaching however, 90% is on him,   He hasn't shown the ability to consistently execute, his third season and we're still seeing the same bad things from him.

Edited January 23, 2024 by gflore34

[gflore34]

3 minutes ago, username said:

Huh?  In what way is Goff better than Purdy?

Purdy didn't look good last week, missed open receivers, Goff looked better, maybe it was the conditions.

[Outshined_One]

Put differently, it's easy to see teams like KC, Baltimore, Buffalo, and GB back in the playoffs next year because of their QB situations.

I don't see Fields ever being that QB for the Bears.

[Brian707]

1 hour ago, username said:

Huh?  In what way is Goff better than Purdy?

Every single way. 

[BigSlick]

I am pleased the Bears hired an Offensive Coordinator who has worked as an OC and has had success, particularly when the QB position hasn’t been ideal.

now let’s see what he can do with Caleb Williams

[Brian707]

You absolutely have to draft a QB at #1. Willams may bust, but his ceiling is a future HOF too. Roll the dice.  

 

We pretty much know what Fields ceiling is and its not a HOF QB.

Edited January 23, 2024 by Brian707

[Tryptamine]

I was reading an article that had suggested a Bears/Falcons swap with Fields headed out and Kyle Pitts coming to Chicago. If a third is the only thing on the table for Fields, I think I take that deal. Draft Williams and he has a ton of weapons with Moore, Kmet, Pitts and perhaps Odunze at #9. 

[NorthsideAvenger]

31 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

I was reading an article that had suggested a Bears/Falcons swap with Fields headed out and Kyle Pitts coming to Chicago. If a third is the only thing on the table for Fields, I think I take that deal. Draft Williams and he has a ton of weapons with Moore, Kmet, Pitts and perhaps Odunze at #9. 

I think I would too. 

[Bertz]

1 hour ago, Tryptamine said:

I was reading an article that had suggested a Bears/Falcons swap with Fields headed out and Kyle Pitts coming to Chicago. If a third is the only thing on the table for Fields, I think I take that deal. Draft Williams and he has a ton of weapons with Moore, Kmet, Pitts and perhaps Odunze at #9. 

Didn't the Seahawks run a ton of 12 personnel under Waldron?  This might be a really perfect fit.

[raw]

39 minutes ago, Bertz said:

Didn't the Seahawks run a ton of 12 personnel under Waldron?  This might be a really perfect fit.

Yes, 10th most 12 personnel, but not a big scheme TEs open type of playcaller. Maybe that would be different with a talent like Pitts and a solid weapon better than he's had at TE in Kmet, but in general, Waldron still likes to get the ball outside and down the field.

[raw]

2 hours ago, Brian707 said:

You absolutely have to draft a QB at #1. Willams may bust, but his ceiling is a future HOF too. Roll the dice.  

 

We pretty much know what Fields ceiling is and its not a HOF QB.

So, I do think Fields has a HOF level ceiling. Before anyone kills me, he does have historic rushing ability and has shown it. If he can somehow continue to channel that without getting hurt and have all his flaws hidden by a pretty good deep ball, he could have that ceiling.

The problem is, after 3 years, there's almost a 0 chance of him hitting anything near his ceiling. And nobody has run as much as him and stayed healthy or overcome flaws with a slow trigger to that level.

[WrigleyField 22]

17 hours ago, stitchface said:

Do you guys honestly think getting someone better than Fields is more than a crapshoot? I'm not football expert, but I don't think I would go with a QB at 1:1. Seems like the Bears would be better off building a strong roster than throwing all their eggs (I know that's an overstatement) on one QB savior. I mean, it's not just the Bears that are routinely disappointed by top QB picks.

Can't really evaluate without knowing what moves could be made, but I have to think deciding QB or no-QB without evaluating the total value of the available picks is not a good approach.

Better than 2023 Fields?  I'd say it's very likely.  Now how long it takes (are they bad rookies) or the extent Fields can improve more is a bit more open ended, but either Caleb or Maye should be looked at as very safe bets vis a vie their "floor" (even though I hate that term).

Edited January 23, 2024 by WrigleyField 22

[Tryptamine]

33 minutes ago, raw said:

So, I do think Fields has a HOF level ceiling. Before anyone kills me, he does have historic rushing ability and has shown it. If he can somehow continue to channel that without getting hurt and have all his flaws hidden by a pretty good deep ball, he could have that ceiling.

The problem is, after 3 years, there's almost a 0 chance of him hitting anything near his ceiling. And nobody has run as much as him and stayed healthy or overcome flaws with a slow trigger to that level.

I absolutely believe that's true, the problem is that he's just maddeningly inconsistent. 

[stitchface]

17 hours ago, Rex Buckingham said:

Fields isn't good enough. Try again. If your QB isn't good enough, the rest of your roster has to be unbelievable and healthy. A good enough QB can carry an average roster. 

Well, Caleb Williams hasn't exactly done that at USC has he?