raw

Day 2: I don't really have a lot of DBs I'm looking to solidify their spots or move up draft boards. If you are able to watch CBs in particular, you can really tell if a guy can cover, run, move, etc. And frankly, I haven't really looked at safeties as I think that's about the only position (besides QB) the Bears are probably OK with not drafting, especially before like the 5th round. Alex Austin- Oregon St CB, didn't know he was even in the draft until 2 days ago. Didn't appear in mock draft simulators but on combine participant list. Now projected as a 3rd round pick on a few things I've read. 6'1", 190lbs. Someone I need to watch Kelee Ringo- he's one of the guys I do have agility/speed questions about. I honestly think he may be an NFL safety, but if he can show athleticism he can stay a guy that has Round 1 aspirations. There's a lot of CBs with size that will have pique my interest just because of the success of guys like Sauce Gardner and Tariq Woolen this past season. And I think NFL teams that don't have a 6'2"+ CB will be in the market if some guys really stand out athletically.

Campbell had an insane 3-cone and showed lateral agility at his size similar to Brian Urlacher Henley disappointed a little with his speed, but looked fluid in drills Orji looked amazing, ran really well and is a guy that will take on blocks. Definitely gotta find what I can on him the next few weeks. Simpson solidified LB1 for sure. Williams was super fast and explosive. Pappoe did get fastest 40, length wasn't very good at sub 32" arms Adebawore definitely showed he's explosive enough for the edge. Ran a 4.49 which I saw a joke that he's faster than any WR that Northwestern had Bresee was fast, didn't really do drills as well as I expected. Short arms Foskey had a pretty good day, potential for late day 1 Kancey doesn't have the length, but he didn't stop those Aaron Donald athleticism comparisons. Morris is NOT athletic enough to be an edge player. Van Ness was super fast and great in agility drills. He's probably a top 15 pick Tuipulotu I didn't really see much, but what stood out to me was him weighing at 262 when he was listed at 290 for USC. Going all in on the edge position, which I think is a bad move. Boy was Nolan Smith ever healthy enough to work out! Better combine than Stefon Diggs and Saquon Barkley, who are obviously NOT 240lb pass rushers.

There are 3 tiers of 2nd contracts for RBs. The elite tier is 15-16M/year = McCaffery, Elliott, Kamara The 2nd tier is 12-12.6M/year = Aaron Jones, Henry, Mixon, Chubb Then the 3rd tier is all the way down at 7-8M/year = Conner, Fournette, Ekeler Now there's a guy in each tier that probably shouldn't be their (Elliott down 1, Henry and Ekeler up 1), but I think Montgomery would rightly value himself in that 2nd tier. Maybe he's not on Derrick Henry's level, but he's clearly better than Fournette and James Conner. And Barkley obviously belongs in that elite tier. So, you're talking about 12M for Montgomery vs. 15M for Barkley. Barkley is worth that difference. Now to be fair, Montgomery may not get 12M on the open market as all those guys re-signed to avoid hitting the market, so there may not be an open market to pay a guy that much. But that's besides the point for the Bears who would be paying for him NOT to hit the market. I guess there's a scenario where he hits the market, realizes he's not valued in that 2nd tier and signs back with the Bears for like 7-8M/year, but that's risky for the Bears to let him hit the market. And still, if the Bears miss out on Barkley, they could go much cheaper than 7-8M for a backup RB and give the reins to Herbert. I was surprised when you got to the part of Montgomery being in the second tier. I do not think the broader public views it that way. I just looked at a few different lists for the top FA RB's for example, and Montgomery is usually 5th on those lists. That would be a stunning contract for me if he got 12 million a year. I didn't really say that, though. I said that he would value himself in the 2nd tier, because there are only 3 tiers and he's clearly better than those guys in the 3rd tier. He won't get paid in 2nd tier for the reasons I said above and I even conceded that he will likely get 7-8M.

If anyone cares, I'm going to list players at the combine each day that I will be watching, and what I'm actually looking for. LB- Jack Campbell- how fast is he? how well does he move laterally? Daiyan Henley- one of my favorite players, I know he's fast and long and can move. Does the former WR make a run for off ball LB1? Cam Jones- my IU brethren, how fast/explosive is he? Has shown 0 coverage ability, but is there something there? Anfernee Orji- Vandy LB, haven't really watched him, but heard some good things earlier in the season. Seems like a late pick, but if he shows up athletically, could move up to earlier Day 3. Ivan Pace Jr- Flies all over the field and showed also at Senior Bowl, can he hit sub 4.5? Similar to Jones, can he show any coverage potential? Trenton Simpson- my current LB1, can he solidify it? If you squint, he may have some pass rush potential ala Micah Parsons, can he show any of it? Dorian Williams- Tulane LB, can really run. Strength will be key. Explosion numbers will also be important. Owen Pappoe- he will probably run fastest 40 of the day, he's undersized, but length measurements will be interesting DL- Adetomiwa Adebawore- short, but extremely long arms, looks like a 3T, but is he explosive enough to play edge as well? Felix Anudike-Uzomah- raw, but looks very athletic. Measurements, strength, speed, bend are all worth watching here Bryan Bresee- supposedly really athletic, interested to see just how much because I'm not a big fan. Also arm length will be key Isaiah Foskey- how athletic is he? Explosion numbers? Pretty raw pass rusher Zach Harrison- supposedly a freak athlete similar to last year's #1 pick, 6'6, 275 never put up big numbers at Ohio St Calijah Kancey- extremely quick, but severely undersized, does he have the length to make up for lack of height? Is he truly only 6'? Will McDonald- looks like a great athlete, can he back it up? played out of position at Iowa St, can he bend the edge consistently? Mike Morris- bit of a tweener, but strong holding the edge. Is he athletic enough to stay on edge or is he a 3-4 DE? Myles Murphy- if Harrison isn't Travon Walker athletic, Murphy may be. Another who's numbers don't match athleticism. Moro Ojomo- played HS ball with my nephew in Katy, TX. played DE, but more likely a 3-tech in NFL. Has length, how's atheticism? Lukas Van Ness- power rusher off the edge, but how athletic is he? How much length? Dating Cole Kmet's sister, so could be a fun pick Tuli Tuipulotu- another guy that played edge in college, but likely moves inside in NFL. Quickness and length are to watch Nolan Smith/Tyree Wilson- are they healthy enough to work out?

There are 3 tiers of 2nd contracts for RBs. The elite tier is 15-16M/year = McCaffery, Elliott, Kamara The 2nd tier is 12-12.6M/year = Aaron Jones, Henry, Mixon, Chubb Then the 3rd tier is all the way down at 7-8M/year = Conner, Fournette, Ekeler Now there's a guy in each tier that probably shouldn't be their (Elliott down 1, Henry and Ekeler up 1), but I think Montgomery would rightly value himself in that 2nd tier. Maybe he's not on Derrick Henry's level, but he's clearly better than Fournette and James Conner. And Barkley obviously belongs in that elite tier. So, you're talking about 12M for Montgomery vs. 15M for Barkley. Barkley is worth that difference. Now to be fair, Montgomery may not get 12M on the open market as all those guys re-signed to avoid hitting the market, so there may not be an open market to pay a guy that much. But that's besides the point for the Bears who would be paying for him NOT to hit the market. I guess there's a scenario where he hits the market, realizes he's not valued in that 2nd tier and signs back with the Bears for like 7-8M/year, but that's risky for the Bears to let him hit the market. And still, if the Bears miss out on Barkley, they could go much cheaper than 7-8M for a backup RB and give the reins to Herbert.

I'm going to stick it out with my AOL email address, thank you!

You only liked it so much when you were younger because you haven't had it recently. It's still horsefeathering amazing (been about 5 years for me as well).

Yeah, that's how I'm looking at it as well. Both the $/WAR equivalency and the non SABR friendly move. I think Claypool was already one of these moves, but they are bad enough where they can't just be like, "well WR class is bad, I guess we can't add anybody!". They still have to upgrade the weapons. If they can't get a difference making WR, they have to get a difference making TE and/or RB. Or worst case, they have to build a damn near elite OL in 1 offseason. They have the resources and incentive being that they have to spend a certain amount of cash this offseason.

Yeah, to really get a franchise changing package of picks, they are going to have to move out of the top 5. I don't know that the Colts and especially the Texans will really trade enough to make it worth the Bears while. I think both may make offers, and it may create a nice little bidding war where you get more than expected, but I doubt they'll get a Herschel Walker level trade. LOL. Like I think most fans want either Anderson or Carter + an early 2nd this year to replace the early 2nd they don't have + a 2024 1st. But that's a lot to ask for. Colts may very well value that early 2nd as a late 1st (4 picks into the round) and may be reluctant to give up what amounts to 3 1sts for them if they add a 2024 1st. Texans, I feel, you'd only even get 33 from them because they know they have multiple picks in the 1st and 2nd the next 2 years, but I feel that's a long shot.

It's a little bit reflexive, but I basically agree. His team has to mostly nail every decision this offseason. They cannot afford any mistakes and they haven't earned any leeway. You're not going to fire him after 2 years, 1 of which wasn't really trying. And it's unfair to expect every move to be perfect and to deem they aren't perfect in 1 year. Like Claypool is probably a bad move, but it's not fair to say it's a fail yet. The Jenkins pick looked mostly bad after 1 year, now he's potentially a really good guard after year 2. And even if every decision isn't nailed, he just has to nail the important ones. Like you can't have a disasterous pass blocking OL again. You can't have a sieve of a defense anymore. You gotta reach adequacy levels of both, whether that's nailing FA and all the early draft picks or you find 5 Jack Sanborn UDFAs. And realistically, Justin Fields can cover up a lot of the issues if he takes the Year 3 leap that others have. Granted, you can't do that with no help as this past year showed, but Fields' natural ability does lessen the curve.

That was the only game where he didn't get sacked multiple times (actually 0, 2 or more in every other game) and he had a career high completion percentage (despite 2 INTs) and a season high in passing yards.

IDK if you have a hairy dick, but I can vouch for the 2nd part of your name. Would it help if I linked you to three articles not actually backing up what I said but it kinda felt like they were generally supportive of me? It completely backs up what I said, it just doesn't say word for word what the horsefeathers you want it to say. And you know it, you're just being you. You said you hadn't heard it anywhere but Bears fans. I gave you Mel Kiper and you still disagree because that's what you do for the sake of doing it. The only way you can help me is if you stay the horsefeathers out of my comments. Don't quote me. Don't respond to me. Disagree all you want, and be publicly wrong on your own time.

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look. https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/ https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate None of those links says Justin fields coming out of college was better than young. The first one says he's better now than Young is now, which isn't the same thing. The other two just say the bears should continue building around fields, which is even less close to the same thing. I understand that not everyone is going to have the same desire for literal interpretations that I do, but there's got to be a *little* more nuance than just assuming all pro-fields sentiments are completely equivalent. IDK if you have a hairy dick, but I can vouch for the 2nd part of your name.

Yeah, I'm sure you did your due diligence to actually look. https://dawindycity.com/2023/01/27/chicago-bears-news-draft-expert-fields-better-young/ https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/bears/espn-analyst-doesnt-understand-bears-justin-fields-trade-talks https://clutchpoints.com/bears-news-micah-parsons-fires-back-at-justin-fields-bryce-young-debate

I'm really stretching here, but if they like multiple QBs equally, they could possibly trade down to 3 and get an extra pick or two and trade Fields for picks/players. I think they are more or less tied to Fields now and won't even think about trading him. However, I must say after reading his college scouting report at the time of his draft, he still has the same issues he had when they drafted him. That does not bode well for his future unless the Bears have some quality coaching to get him to where he needs to be. They really flubbed by not getting rid of the former GM/coach before his draft. To be fair, the Bears wouldn't have had Fields if they got rid of Pace and Nagy. We saw what a new GM did last year. Granted, part of what he did was because Pace traded a future 1st and had a bunch of bad money deals on the books. But new GMs don't typically make bold trades like the one to get Fields.

So the whole logic of, "Bears increase the value of the #1 pick by making it seem like Fields is available" never made any sense to me. If the Bears trade Fields, then they'd use the #1 pick on a QB so it wouldn't even be available to be traded. I mean obviously the 2 potential moves are related, but if the Bears make Fields available it's not like a team is going to be able to negotiate them to keep Fields. There's never going to be a scenario where the Bears take an extra pick or two to entice them to trade the pick and keep Fields. If you're keeping Fields, you're keeping Fields. If trading him, you're trading him. I don't see how the trade package for the #1 pick would make a difference. Maybe the trade package for what you can get for Fields would make a difference, but in all actuality, it really shouldn't. Because again, you either want to trade him or you don't. And as much as I love the guy, there's just simply no way Fields has as much value as the #1 overall pick.

I took Thursday and Friday off from work so I could watch live. Work from home, but can't see the TV from my office. I'm a dork, I know. Of course, it worked out because my son has a basketball tournament and the first game is Thursday afternoon while I would have otherwise been still working.

So, with franchise tag window starting today, I was thinking. If you're the Giants, do you really want Daniel Jones back? I mean, regardless that he said he wants 45M/season (who doesn't), any realistic deal for him just seems like a bad idea to me. If you're Brian Daboll, you have on your resume that you developed Josh Allen. You made Mitch Trubisky look good enough in short stints to the point that he was signed by another team as a starting QB. And now you salvaged what was a bust of a draft pick in Jones. But still, you barely let Jones throw the ball. Granted, your WRs were pretty bad, but he didn't exactly prove he's a 45 or even 30M a year QB. The non-exclusive franchise tag makes a little sense at 32M or whatever for 1 year. But then if you want Saquan back, you'd have to commit to him long-term. Which with his health history, you may be compounding a problem. And they have a decent amount of cap space, but that's eaten up quite a bit with Jones & Barkley back, considering you also have to add WR talent. I know the Giants aren't in the best place (playoff win) to draft a QB this year, but they may be able to get cheaper production in free agency. Maybe a guy like Jacoby Brissett makes sense. Maybe another failed top 10 pick can be salvaged in Baker Mayfield or Sam Darnold. Maybe Jimmy G if you want to tie similar (if not lesser) money to someone you know might have trade value if you can find a QB to develop over the next year or 2. But if I'm the Giants, I really don't want to tie a bunch of money/years to Daniel Jones to not be good enough. Even if it means a down year, those guys in NY aren't on any kind of hot seat anytime soon, and that puts them in position to go big in 2024 for a QB prospect.

Lol. That's what you're going with? Hurts doubled up Mahomes' passing yards in that game. You're intentionally being stupid and I'm done with this conversation.

You're really hanging onto where he got drafted when Aaron Rodgers fell to 24 and Tom Brady went 199th? And you ignored HS rankings and pre-draft rankings that I pointed out. Fields was always 1B until he wasn't 1B on draft day. He wasn't 2nd tier to Trey Lance and Zach horsefeathering Wilson. The coaching staff not throwing is definitely not on him. You watched the same horsefeathering games I did and saw him getting hit or pressured at the last step of his drop. The Bears receivers were also statically the worst in the league at getting open (I'll find the tweet if I can). Again, I'm not saying he was the perfect prospect or is a sure fire star QB in the league, and many have said this many times, but you're clearly being contrarian for contrarian sake. You're like a flat earther disagreeing just because it's an unpopular side to take, and that's your brand. My take is extremely popular outside of Chicago Bears and Ohio State fandoms Congrats! But you aren't spouting this nonsense around non-Bears and Ohio State fans right now are you?

He's got the longest time to throw from the pocket in the league. One of the highest sack rates. He is accurate against zone but one of the worst against man All of that points very clearly to slow processing. It's 100% not fake news. That ringer article has simply been proven to be incorrect. If you have one piece of information that says "either Fields isn't that level of QB prospect or there's a reasonable explanation" then maybe it could be either one. But we have a lot of those pieces, and taken as a whole, you can't keep arguing that fields is simply the victim of luck and circumstances in each separate incident. Did fields fall out of the top 10 because he's a second-tier QB prospect or did he fall out of the top 10 because of a conspiracy of racists and because professional football teams abandoned years of scouting work to take Orlovsky's word? Is fields threatening records for sacks per pass attempt because he has the singularly worst pass blocking line in history or because he is slow to process and takes sacks? Did the team virtually abandon passing for long stretches because the other 10 personnel on the field are all that bad at it and fields is actually good, or was it because fields is bad at it too? Does fields rank near the bottom in multiple statistical measures of accuracy because he just can't bring himself to throw near receivers he doesn't trust, or is fields simply an inaccurate passer? (and speaking of fake news, the article about him being the most accurate passer in measured college history is contradicted by other pff articles using the same stat.) Is he absolutely brutal against man coverage because he struggles to process and pull the trigger if receivers aren't visibly in space, or is it the receivers/coaching staff/something else? At some point, the constant excuse making becomes absurd. He's not 1b to Lawrence. He's not a top-10 QB right now being held back by supporting cast. He's an elite athlete with great intangibles and a good deep ball who struggles with processing and pulling the trigger at the NFL level as well as having mechanical flaws that lead to inaccuracy on short and intermediate passes. He needs to either get noticeably better at those flaws or we need to figure out a way to work around them and win despite second-tier QB play Fields has the longest time to throw because he buys the most time with his mobility. That stat has always been higher for mobile QBs. And yes, you saw how bad they were at it. The only game Fields wasn't sacked this year, he threw for a season best 20-25 with 254 yards. The games he was sacked 2 times (never a single sack game) he had a 101 passer rating with 7 TDs and 1 INT coming in the opener vs. SF. I know it sounds like excuses to you, but you know the personnel is bad. You know the blocking sucks, you know the receivers don't get open (which explains man coverage stats somewhat). At some point the constant devils advocate stuff becomes absurd. Nobody has said he is a top 10 QB right now. But yeah, elite athlete with great intangibles and a good deep ball wins a lot of games. That description sounds a lot like Jalen Hurts. That description sounds a lot better than Jimmy Garoppolo. And all we are saying, it's worth seeing if Fields is a 2nd tier QB and if that is good enough to win games with a better supporting cast. And it's definitely worth it when you consider he could actually ascend to top 10 QB levels like Hurts did this year. Especially considering he has a much better pedigree than Hurts came into the league with. And it's definitely worth it given the alternatives available, which you still won't address and keep using hypotheticals.

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense. As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Fields was the fourth QB selected. He fell out of the top 10. Fields simply being a second-tier QB prospect is an infinitely simpler explanation than a complicated conspiracy to devalue him or NFL teams abandoning years of scouting and evaluation to listen to an ESPN analyst. And you ignored the biggest ding on him in the draft: His slow processing, which has continued to be a problem in the NFL. Yes, volume matters for a QB. You can't just throw 15 times a game in the NFL. The fact that he frequently pulled the ball down, the fact that that coaching staff didn't feel comfortable calling more pass plays, is partly on him. And sacks taken absolutely correlate strongly with QB style. It's not an independent variable in either film study or statistical analysis. He takes a lot of sacks because he holds onto the ball too long and doesn't pull the trigger (slow processor again) and has a preference for trying to hold out for big plays over taking simple throws. You're really hanging onto where he got drafted when Aaron Rodgers fell to 24 and Tom Brady went 199th? And you ignored HS rankings and pre-draft rankings that I pointed out. Fields was always 1B until he wasn't 1B on draft day. He wasn't 2nd tier to Trey Lance and Zach horsefeathering Wilson. The coaching staff not throwing is definitely not on him. You watched the same horsefeathering games I did and saw him getting hit or pressured at the last step of his drop. The Bears receivers were also statically the worst in the league at getting open (I'll find the tweet if I can). Again, I'm not saying he was the perfect prospect or is a sure fire star QB in the league, and many have said this many times, but you're clearly being contrarian for contrarian sake. You're like a flat earther disagreeing just because it's an unpopular side to take, and that's your brand.

well that’s plainly not true because the conversation to trade fields is happening all over the place if fields were impervious to criticism then it wouldn’t be a topic And among bears fans, that topic is being deemed completely crazy, unworthy of even the slightest consideration. It's asinine Nobody has said it's unworthy of slight consideration. Even someone in this thread said it was 8 on a scale of 1-10 crazy. That is slight consideration. And everyone that posts in these threads has criticized and pointed out negatives in Fields' game. Stop being a damn drama queen.

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense. As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him.

My problem with that, and I admire the creativity, is that given the shorter shelf life of running QBs and how bad the roster is, i don't really want to fast forward to a prime version of what we want fields to be The biggest problem with that is Jackson won't be able to be "signed". The Ravens have already said they are going to franchise tag him if they can't work out a deal in the next 2 weeks (march 3rd deadline for tag). So, you're talking about a lot of moving parts. Trading Fields, trading for Lamar, which would include the #1 pick at least. So even if you get a 1st+ for Fields, you're essentially trading down in the draft to go from cost controlled Fields to potentially the highest paid QB in the league. And I know the money doesn't matter somewhat because the Bears need to spend, but going from Fields to Jackson gives you less spending power to build up a team that was the worst in the league and you also got rid of your best asset to improve the team in the #1 overall pick