raw

Forgot to mention Reiff and Schofield too. Pringle, etc. St. Brown, Pettis, etc Letting Daniels go was horsefeathering stupid. You can't tell me he wouldn't be a better C than Mustipher. Daniels was drafted with the idea of possibly becoming a C He's not even playing C now for a team with a similarly bad OL

For a normal team, they'd win in a beautiful offensive performance, perfectly building off of last week and Justin Fields will never turn back on his road to QB eliteness. But this is the Bears, and a QB. I won't count on the Bears winning until they actually start playing winning football more consistently, this team as constructed isn't capable of that. I want to believe the plan is to slowly give Fields more and more to do each week, assuming he is up to the challenge (and dependent on game situation). I still expect a run first game plan with 18-25 pass attempts from Fields. The only way he gets more is if Washington takes a good size lead and the Bears have to throw, similar to Pittsburgh last year which is his career high in passing yards with 291. I'm a bit nervous for this one. Not because the outcome is all that meaningful, but coming off a solid performance on Sunday, I really want to see another step forward, even if its small, and am scared about the possibility of seeing a regression even though its entirely possible and won't change his outlook too much. Well, I did say that the Vikings game reminded me of the SF game. Mediocre first half, followed by great 2nd half including the go-ahead scoring drive. Complete with highlight reel run, even though this one didn't count. And the Pittsburgh game was the following week last year to his SF breakout. This one's also in primetime like PIT was. And the last time the Bears played Washington in primetime was the Trubisky 3 TDs to Taylor Gabriel game and a big 31-15 win. So, hoping for more of the same isn't unprecedented.

Fields is getting his first 300 yard passing game tonight. Another 100 yards is getting dropped. For a normal team, they'd win in a beautiful offensive performance, perfectly building off of last week and Justin Fields will never turn back on his road to QB eliteness. But this is the Bears, and a QB. I won't count on the Bears winning until they actually start playing winning football more consistently, this team as constructed isn't capable of that.

So, I don't have very much hope for Leatherwood. I understand the upside and I think he still has a chance to be a solid OL whether at RT or guard. But I think the worst thing for this team would be for him to play and show flashes. I just don't want them thinking they have a good lineman in Leatherwood only to not seriously upgrade whatever position they pencil him in at because they think they have something. This was the year for experimenting with different OL in different spots to see what you have. But in 2023, they need sure things, or at least high upside talent early in the draft. If Leatherwood plays himself into a starting spot, good. But even if he absolutely dominates, you're looking at at best a 1/2 season of performance when he's 100%. They are likely already going to be for sure starting Jones and Patrick somewhere in 2023 based on the insistence on them 2 being starters/splitting time at all costs. I'd hope Jenkins is at another spot, so that leaves 2 to upgrade. Leatherwood is not an upgrade on paper. So, if you're talking Jones, Patrick, Jenkins and Leatherwood as starters, that only leaves 1 position to upgrade. That means another season of at least 3 question marks in front of Fields. I'm fine with Jenkins, Jones and Patrick starting, but those other 2 spots better be legit upgrades.

I'd like to see Davante Adams push that dude down. End up like that spring training pigeon.

Yeah, just the week before he was bailing to the left, pressure or no pressure, and there was usually a DE waiting for him over there. He's never been big on stepping up in the pocket. So, it was amazing to see in just a week that he seemed to figure all that stuff out. If he can continue with that, I honestly think everything else will fall into place. Him being stationary back there probably affects timing, accuracy, ball placement, etc. And yeah like minnesota said, this year to me was always about him being able/willing to take checkdowns and layup throws. Those plays like the Velus TD, and 30-yarder to Montgomery are plays that other QBs take with ease. He doesn't get hit on those plays, they move the ball, and he gets cheap stats that make his final line look pretty so we don't have to determine if he actually played well despite everything around him or not.

Yeah...I don't have the football acumen that you do (based on your years of posts), so I need it to tell me things rather than confirm. I understand there's definitely bias there and potential misleading conclusions drawn by these videos, but most of the breakdowns make a ton of sense in terms of how they explain the defense, explain the routes, explain the blocking, etc that I find them very valuable and helpful in increasing my own acumen. Thanks. I coached for years and I don't think many people in general know much about QB play. It's just really hard to explain and even teach at a youth level, so I can't imagine on a professional level when the athletes are so much better. And I frankly didn't really work with the QBs much at all.

IDK if they do these for every young QB (no need to do them for Mahomes, Brady, Rodgers, etc), but the breakdowns always make me feel better about what I actually saw on the field. Like I know I want to say Fields is making progress, but they kinda of articulate it much better than I could. I know at least O'Sullivan does for other young QBs. But he, Dilfer, and Baldy are all really big Fields fans in general so may be a little bias (only showing the good). But I'll effing take it!

Lot of stuff in this thread already, but don't know if I saw anyone mention that N'Keal Harry has been activated and is eligible to play Thursday night. I think this is a good chance for some good ol competition at the WR spots from now until the end of the season. Mooney obviously is the mainstay. Velus isn't going anywhere for a few years. But is he going to be a #2 type? A #3? Ideally, he'd be the #4 for next year because they added 2 better options than him to go along with Mooney, but I'd love for him to play himself into a larger role the rest of the year, at least. After that, everyone else has an out in their contract after this year. Can Pringle come back and be a reliable option? The bar is pretty low there, though I'm not sure what he could do to get another contract after this year. Harry and St. Brown I feel are in a competition to potentially be re-signed as the 4th/5th WR. Both are big bodied, good blockers, not big separators, but have some value in giving Fields an occasional big target. St. Brown has familiarity in the scheme. Harry has former 1st round pedigree. Then you have Smith-Marsette and Pettis. Pettis is a potential roster crunch cut when Harry and Jones Jr are hopefully relegating him to 7th WR duties once everyone is 100% healthy. ISM despite the bonehead play Sunday, I'm not giving up on. He has some potential as an end of depth chart WR, who can return kicks. If he shows anything, wouldn't mind giving him a shot to compete with UDFA types as WR6 next year. But my ideal WR corps for next year: FA/trade for WR Mooney Rookie top 60 pick Jones Jr Harry/St Brown ISM/Webster/Coulter/late draft pick

So, I think the key here is that the official didn't see the fumble. It was more of a strip that a "punch out" and it wasn't until the slow-mo that I saw the fumble. I feel like if any other official would have seen the fumble, they would have picked up the flag. And if you see the ball taken, after the fact, it's not really reviewable to the point you take away the penalty. But if they don't see that the ball was taken away, it's a correct call.....by the rule. The rule is dumb and that may have been a borderline interpretation of that rule. But it's not a terrible call, all things considered, IMO. The ref's interview with the pool reporter claimed a fumble would not have changed his call. The ESPN rules guy(who was basically carrying water for every other call the refs made, including the soft defensive hold on the missed FG) pointed out that Jones braced his fall with his left hand(despite cradling the ball in his other arm), which should have meant no penalty regardless. I didn't notice the brace by Jones. So I stand corrected. But yeah, that ref is wrong. The fumble should have changed his call.

So, I think the key here is that the official didn't see the fumble. It was more of a strip that a "punch out" and it wasn't until the slow-mo that I saw the fumble. I feel like if any other official would have seen the fumble, they would have picked up the flag. And if you see the ball taken, after the fact, it's not really reviewable to the point you take away the penalty. But if they don't see that the ball was taken away, it's a correct call.....by the rule. The rule is dumb and that may have been a borderline interpretation of that rule. But it's not a terrible call, all things considered, IMO.

So a Montgomery deal would look a lot like Mixon's or Aaron Jones' deal to me. They both signed for 4/48Mil, which seems like a bit much, but they only got 10-13Mil guaranteed. Mixon's cap hits are 8Mil this year, and 11 next, then they can get out of it with 8 dead over 2 years. Jones was restructured after Rodgers' deal and has an ugly 20M cap hit next year, but they can get out of that deal after 2023 for 7Mil over 3 years. Or more likely, they restructure him and push money around. The Bears wouldn't have to do that with Montgomery, because they don't have anyone else they have to pay. And luckily, paying him doesn't prevent them from doing anything else reasonable on the free agent market. So, you could give Monty a 4/48 deal, that's really like 18-20 guaranteed, and you can get out of all that guaranteed money after 2024....before Fields is due for a payday (hopefully) and before anyone other than maybe Mooney and Johnson are due any big money. So basically, I probably re-sign Montgomery, just because he's the only good player on O right now. You can structure an easy out of the deal and make him feel respected at the same time. Also of note, Herbert can't block AT ALL. So, he's probably not worthy of being RB1 on a team that's trying to win games. That means you are either going to pay someone else less than Montgomery next year or you're using a somewhat valuable draft pick to replace him (thinking anywhere from 2nd to 4th). I know you can find RBs anywhere, but most good ones are still found in that range. So an investment needs to be made there anyway. Might as well make the monetary only investment now, while you are able. Contracts like Elliott only hurt those teams because they have other expensive players (Dak, OL, WRs) and they lost Cooper and a couple OL because of it. Bears don't have good players to worry about losing.

Yea, I'm far from worried about any cap mechanics. Its just losing the high value picks (all over again). Which is why its fine to speculate but seems extremely unlikely that the FO will even consider it. There was a report a couple weeks ago that the Bears would be looking at WRs on the trading block, but I think that was/is more looking for decent veteran guys that can be had at a low draft pick cost. I'm kind of in the middle between "give Justin Fields some real help" and "I respect the FO's plan to build through the draft as long as they are hitting on their picks" Since Moore is signed for 3 more years, I wonder if Carolina would take something like a 2023 3rd or 4th rounder + a 2024 2nd rounder? I think something like that would interest the Bears since they would have another draft and 2 FA periods to fill holes before losing that top 60 pick. Carolina is probably facing a multi-year rebuild so they may be interested in something like that if that's the most they could get for Moore and they think that Bears pick will be high (and they passed on Fields so it's possible they don't think he's good enough). Would also give the Bears more time to recoup some picks between guys like Quinn and potentially comp picks for Roquan + Montgomery coming in 2024 if they focus on salary cap casualty types instead of UFAs.

Actually, they'd pick 17th if the season ended today. https://www.tankathon.com/nfl/full_draft Granted they are tied with all the teams that pick from 7th on down, and 7th is about where they will probably finish, but they have played the toughest schedule so far of the 2-3 teams.

Yeah, I know Carolina is bad. But I think some are discounting DJ Moore's price tag. He's the same age as AJ Brown and has 3 seasons over 1100 yards, compared to AJ who has never hit that number and only hit 1000 twice. Obviously, there's a huge redzone difference and yeah the contract plays a big part in that you don't have to sign Moore to a new 20M/year deal, but there's no way you get him less than a 2+ and I wouldn't put it past a team certainly drafting late to not give up a 1st for him.

I'm pretty sure there is a cap floor (though I think it's based on actual cash spent) so the Bears pretty much HAVE to spend on something. And yeah, you can't punt on multiple seasons at the NFL level and expect to have a job. As for the trade, that's still a lot of moving parts. I'd love DJ Moore, but I don't think you can "plan" on spending a 2nd and recouping it in the draft. If teams know you are going to trade down, and Poles now has a history and based on the roster would have the desperation to trade down, then you probably aren't getting as much on a trade down as you would otherwise. Plus, the right players have to be on the board, etc. oh I agree, but trades in the 1st rd happen frequently enough that it's something that Poles could consider. And fwiw, why would he tell anyone that would be his plan? he wouldn't have to. But he also has FA to play in. My only point is there are ways that he could recoup that pick (or fill holes that 2nd rd pick would be for) and still walk away with a young stud WR for our young (hopefully) stud QB to throw to. I mean, nobody has to know he wants to trade. But it can probably be assumed by the other 31 GMs that a team with like 15 holes for their 22 starting positions would be desperate to trade down. And to be fair, it could also work in the Bears favor if they have a lot of suitors for their pick. Basically, I don't think Poles will make a trade at this point to go to 5 picks again. He already lost one for Harry. So, unless he can flip Quinn and maybe a couple other guys, I don't think he goes to that low a number of picks again.

I cannot imagine a scenario where they are unwilling to spend in 2023. Ownership has opened the wallet in the past, and Poles already punted his first season. It’s not like you can carryover unused cap for future use. They have to spend in 2023. exactly. If Moore could be had at a reasonable pick, go for it. If it cost them a #2, they could still trade down in the 1st (assuming they would have top 10 pick) and get their 2nd rd pick back. At that point, they could start drafting bpa for all the holes they have and not have to be fixated on WR in the draft I'm pretty sure there is a cap floor (though I think it's based on actual cash spent) so the Bears pretty much HAVE to spend on something. And yeah, you can't punt on multiple seasons at the NFL level and expect to have a job. As for the trade, that's still a lot of moving parts. I'd love DJ Moore, but I don't think you can "plan" on spending a 2nd and recouping it in the draft. If teams know you are going to trade down, and Poles now has a history and based on the roster would have the desperation to trade down, then you probably aren't getting as much on a trade down as you would otherwise. Plus, the right players have to be on the board, etc.

It absolutely is. Why do you insist on being so loud and so wrong, so often?

I have 0 desire to trade for another WR this year. I don't see the point. DJ Moore will likely go for a Day 2 pick, if not a 1st. He's not going to put the Bears over the hump this year. And the GM just stockpiled 11 picks when he started with 5. I don't think he's willing to go down to 4-5 picks in Year 2 for a WR in a rebuilding year. It's not really for this year as it would be to get a younger quality WR set for the next 3 years without relying solely on the draft and making use of the cap space they'll have. There's no way Moore would require a first. I'd do a 3rd for him, though. Yeah, I know it's not for this year. But I think I'd rather use a high pick on WR and bank on either free agency or someone comes available for a lesser trade in the offseason. I feel like in season trades are more expensive because teams are desperate to make a run, see Rams trades the last few years.

If I were an NFL coach, I'd have a pretty straightforward philosophy about going for 2. - After a defensive or special teams score, go for 2 - After a long scoring play, go for 2 I'd use those 2pt conversions as practice for short yardage situations going forward. There's no reason a good NFL offense shouldn't be able to pick up 3 yards at least 3/4 of the time it needs to. I'd spend a ton of practice time on short yardage conversions and I'd never punt on 3rd and less than 4 beyond my own 45. I'd never kick a sub 30 yard FG, unless time dictates otherwise either way.

You can't find a way the 32nd ranked passing offense loses?

I have 0 desire to trade for another WR this year. I don't see the point. DJ Moore will likely go for a Day 2 pick, if not a 1st. He's not going to put the Bears over the hump this year. And the GM just stockpiled 11 picks when he started with 5. I don't think he's willing to go down to 4-5 picks in Year 2 for a WR in a rebuilding year.

I hate, hate, hate going for 2 that early in the game because there are so many permutations where it ends up costing you in the end, just like it did yesterday. They kick the extra point and everything else goes as it did, the Vikings only go for 1 and are up 28-23 and a TD in the last 2 minutes wins the game instead of tying it or putting you in a position where you have to go for 2 to win. Statistically it may well be the right call but I just don't like it in that spot at all. I know, when you cut the lead to 5 you're supposed to go for 2, but I honestly think you have to figure more points will be scored when you're at the start of the 3rd quarter against a team that already has 3 TD drives against you. There's having faith in your defense, then there's being realistic. And realistically, there were going to be more points, whether it was 3 or 7, you get the point while you can and chase the 2 only if you absolutely have to at the end. That being said, I don't hate any move where the ultraconservative Eberflus is aggressive. The onsides kick, the 2pt try, F it, this is a bad team in a no-lose situation. Winning is always good, but losing isn't a huge deal since this isn't a playoff team.

...he just did put in a full game of that performance. Also, I'm confused by your numbers, ESPN has him at: Do you mean second half? Yeah, sorry. That was just the 2nd half. And yeah, that makes 3-8, 73 yards in the 1st half which isn't a full game performance, though can argue had 3 that could have been caught that really make those numbers look great.

That was the best QB rating game of Fields' career. First time over 100. Highest completion % in a single game. 12-13, 135 yards and a TD. 5 carries, 36 yards (52 more called back bogusly). Solid performance, but nothing we really haven't seen before (Pittsburgh, SF). Be nice to see him put together a full game of this type of performance, but probably not likely. Ultimately, I guess this shows what people wanted. Good QB performance brought down by a bad team around him (drops, fumbles, blocking still bad). Hopefully, this is something to build on and they'll be right back at it on Thursday.