WrigleyField 22

Undoubtedly so. But there is such a tonal difference in some of these that's very stark in the way things get framed.

I think this is my favorite part of Fields NFL write up: horsefeathering Dak Prescott? Let's check in on Dak's writeup while we're here.. My mind is dizzying. Here's a great one too from a combine overview Did this person just completely mix up their Green Bay QBs?! horsefeathers it. Zach Wilson could be Aaron Rodgers now because... Zach likes him.

I'm reading through some of these old NFL combine scouting reports and Kyle I guess can be kind of vindicated because apparently Fields didn't rate that highly on a consensus basis, but damn some of the way things are put on there just highlights how little actual process or science there is in scouting. Series of scouting lines right there. All somewhat discussing eyes/reads. All basically stating that improvement and/or consistency was necessary. But some are framed as potential under strengths. Others are just weaknesses. Fields has to get better at X - weakness Pickett has potential (to get better at X) - strength If you're a white QB and you occassionally throw an anticipatory read, it's a flash and a strength. If you're a supremely atheltic and gifted black passer, you need to release anticipatory throws quicker. Cuz I'm sure they never flashed it :| If you're a white passer you also occassionally get gems like this in the very same report These strengths of his that are actually inconsistent are just like a pro? Best might be athleticism. What the difference between a decently athletic white QB and Fields? I'll give anyone $100 who can guess the other 2 players without googling it. One of these lines is the total extent of the write up of Fields ability as a runner.

What a quote : Uh, Zach, you never thought about being the vocal leader?

So like a 30th man?

You don't think they had a website then? I remember in the early internet day they didn't have the Bears.com domain, but they had a site. That was 1999 when they flubbed that. https://web.archive.org/web/20000415000000*/chicagobears.com i did think i remembered them posting it on their website... (also, if you look at the archived page from 2000, it's got a copyright date of 1999) i might be thinking of cubs.com having a don baylor profile up early or something like that. Good find. For some reason I thought they also had acquired the Bears.com.domain since then as well, but I just looked and apparently not lol. Maybe they didn't even have the ChicagoBears.com domain at some point too? Anyways, love those old pro sports websites before the leagues got a hold and standardized them all.

Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't. this was posted on their website, they didn’t have a website when they made that erroneous coaching announcementYou don't think they had a website then? I remember in the early internet day they didn't have the Bears.com domain, but they had a site. That was 1999 when they flubbed that.

The bears announced that move themselves Is that a reliable source? They once said they hired a coach they didn't.

I agree raw. Something like Brisset and maybe like Hendon Hooker in Rd 2 (which wouldn't preclude a bigger swing in 2024 if there opportunity) At least let Jones hit FA. I'm not sure who would really break the bank on him? Like he's somewhat interesting, but probably not a plug in system QB for a lot of teams based on what NYG looked like using him. In a "successful" season.

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. He lost a fumble while running the ball (fields fumbles a lot) and failed on a 3rd down conversion in the fourth quarter. That's all it takes to lose playoff games these days. ROFL.

I don't think it needs a major conspiracy about Fields dropping. QBs like Fields have been undervalued and dropped pretty consistently (despite the occasional guy not falling victim to it).

Alright back on the bandwagon thanks

Alright the Jets fan thinks we should keep him, eff it, trade him. I've seen enough.

"Hunch" is a rather biased way of saying "scouting." Maximizing your chance of getting an elite QB always trumps all those other factors. It's just too important. This is a league where you increasingly have to just never punt to win deep playoff games. You will need your QB to drop back in the pocket with 55 seconds and no timeouts in your own end and calmly pick apart the defense by making quick, precise reads and placing the ball in your receivers' hands. It you review the tape and think there's a guy out there with a better chance to become that guy than fields, then it makes all the logical sense in the world to pull the trigger on that guy and get what value you can for fields. Fields' fallback ability to drag you to a couple of 10-7 seasons with his legs if he doesn't become an elite passer does not enter into it If you don't think any of the QBs in the draft have a better chance to be that guy than fields, then you trade down l Who is the QB? This is what I meant before with the passive language. We're not talking hypothetical here. We know Fields and we know the NCAA prospects. Fields is the better prospect by far. If you don't think so say it. I say it's crazy on the 8+ scale because Fields is better. Stop it with the "it's only 3 crazy because someone could be better." For example, it wasn't crazy when Cards did it with Rosen because Rosen was crap. We can work with real life here not hypothetical if language.

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far. I mean I don't even care if it's a GM. Pretend every owner is Jerry Jones and Mike Brown and can't be fired. I'd call Jerry and Mike crazy if they did it. And they're certainly crazy so they might consider something like that at some point.

You also lose out on all the other things you can do with the #1 pick so, now it's just another plus to Fields already being the better prospect.

Unless he's Fields or...? You just argued fields had less uncertainty. Now you're implying he has equal or more? Less.

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects. When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug Unless he's Fields or...?

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out. So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy? Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. To what data are you referring? Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out.

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

Pritzger is already on record saying he won't cough up any money for a stadium. Of course, no one has greased his wheels yet, so it's still too early to say it won't happen. And the Bears said they aren't asking for it "for the stadium" TBD, though I do luckily think Bears have uphill battle.

I think they'll eventually get some funding but I'm guessing its going to be a bit of a battle before anything happens. Hope so! To clarify, that they battle for a pittance.

TLDR: give us government funding!