WrigleyField 22

There were plenty of WR options out there in FA better than Pringle. One of those was widely mocked by fans due to his perceived overpay and he is one of the best WR in the game through three games. There were absolutely limits to what the Bears could do (they weren't gonna make a blockbuster trade and you never wanna narrow in on one position in the draft), but they treated FA like... well like most first time GMs treat FA. But there was powder there (and now all roles over into an almost unusable amount in 2023). So I'm not lost as to what's occurring, but it wasn't the best foot forward with Fields. Even in that context where, "okay I know they're gonna be a team that leada with the run" and the last two games look like they're treating Fields like he's a rookie 6th rounder from Conference USA. who were the WR's that were available, especially the one that was mocked? Not being argumentative, I just dont recall them. The specific example of the one that was widely criticized league wide was Christian Kirk. And he will likely come down to earth a little, but he was a legit threat that most probably pegged in the 11-14ish range per year and went for 18M, but with the way the WR went after considering what teams gave up in picks for other guys, it was/is a mild overpay. But a mild overpay who can bail out your O a bit, isn't really any overpay? Sure at some point you run against cap constraints, but that usually is a total non factor until the day you have to pay a QB top 5 money. Amari is the one trade candidate that went for a price that was probably worth the risk. I can understand the Bears weren't in position to part with 1s for Hill, Adams, and Brown. But that's looking like a great trade that mostly just cost CLE money. There were some other interesting FA. None that have popped like Kirk, but some of them are also stuck in lower roles, whereas they would have had a chance to step up in Chicago. And you could/should have still signed a Pringle with another mid level signing.

There were plenty of WR options out there in FA better than Pringle. One of those was widely mocked by fans due to his perceived overpay and he is one of the best WR in the game through three games. There were absolutely limits to what the Bears could do (they weren't gonna make a blockbuster trade and you never wanna narrow in on one position in the draft), but they treated FA like... well like most first time GMs treat FA. But there was powder there (and now all roles over into an almost unusable amount in 2023). So I'm not lost as to what's occurring, but it wasn't the best foot forward with Fields. Even in that context where, "okay I know they're gonna be a team that leada with the run" and the last two games look like they're treating Fields like he's a rookie 6th rounder from Conference USA.

I don't think that at all. I didn't think that when everyone said it this offseason. I don't think that now. I think it's the exact opposite, actually. [highlight=yellow]Those 3 know their OL isn't an ideal pass blocking line. They know their WRs aren't very good[/highlight](there were rumors yesterday that they will be active at the trade deadline to add a WR). They know Fields is learning a new offense. Setting him up for failure would be letting him get beaten down by dropping back 35 times per game with this personnel. I know I have complained about the lack of passing attempts, but they are perfectly justified in them. They have won 2 of the 3 games by running the ball like crazy. They are clearly geared to pound the ball on the ground, and they are playing to literally their only offensive strength right now. I know everyone wants Fields to sink or swim, because everyone wants an answer NOW if he is a franchise QB or not. But I don't think the 3 in charge (GM, HC, OC) are concerned about that. They are trying to win games now, develop Fields along the way, and find out by the end of next year if he's the guy or not. I really don't understand how everyone was convinced this team would be bad and knew the offense would struggle. They are bad and struggling and now everyone is upset because it's "too bad". If Fields was going 14-22, 200 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT per game, guess what? They wouldn't be bad like we all knew they would be (and the personnel says they should be) before the season. It's like the Ray Rice video. "Oh he punched a girl in the face, he's suspended". Then the video comes out, "oh he hit her really hard" Well, that's what a punch is. It's really hard. IDK why people needed video to see it was bad. I don't know why we needed actual game film to see how bad the talent on this offense is. Sure I'd like Fields to do his part better, but this regime is delusional if they are watching this and saying, "see, he's not the guy. Can't elevate this poor talent, let's move on" I know what you're trying to say, but the highlighted was in their control. If Fields was their draft pick they would have aggressively added pieces with him all else being exactly the same. They punted on that opportunity, so from the beginning, that kind of forced a decision, "their commitment to him is lukewarm" or "they just think he's the guy and will elevate play around him" . Obviously it's not the latter. If they're running at this rate all year, then we know what we have in Fields. For me, it's less about being impatient and needing to know what Fields is now, 3 weeks in. I expected uncertainty for this year. But the trajectory and seeing there really isn't opportunity for growth is what sucks. Long story short, there sprotecting your QB. And then there is laying down on almost low probably 2nd and 3rd down because you don't have any apparent trust in the QB. It's not fun to watch as a fan and seems awfully doomy for the prospect of the QB.

Granted I'm not as invested in this 49ers game, but there's such a psychological difference watching a not good QB like Jimmy not being good but still generally trusted by his play caller to operate a offense and and what we've been seeing happen with Fields. Like, missed a throw he probably shouldn't gave, but they called a pass play on 3rd and 3. Bears are running on like 3rd and 6. They would never pass on 3rd and 3 right now and it's kinda depressing as a fan to watch that lack of confidence play on over and over.

How often do games with 250+ rushing yards end with a 3 point margin of win or less, I wonder.

The thing is the issues Fields is showing right now aren't necessarily new issues, but he seems to actually have regressed and now it's all compounding in itself, both in how Ds are playing the Bears and in Fields confidence and Getsy's confidence in him. The crazy thing is I think if I was a DC I'd be absolutely fine letting the Bears run for 250 on me and just sit back and watch them be utterly incapable of passing the ball. It's ugly.

He looks broken mentally. He had his issues with accuracy last year but he’s missing throws that he absolutely made last year We spent all offseason messing with his mechanics. Yup.

Link?

totally agreed. Emry was probably the worst. Hell, there was even a time when the Bears had no GM God. I remember those days. WTF I can't even believe that happened, even now. Not to defend the Bears per se, but that used to be more common. The GM role also changed a lot in the past 30 years and became highly player personnel/scouting focused with the advent of the salary cap in the mid 90s. But I don't think the Bears were the last team to adopt a GM title (or reestablish, after firing Finks). A funny alternative history maybe exists where Michael doesn't eff up the McGinnis hiring and stays on as Pres until 2011, when George replaced him. Phillips never becomes CEO and they operate old-school with no GM even longer than they did. But Michael gets demoted and Phillips first big moves as CEO/Pres are the Soldier Field deal and hiring Angelo as GM. Angelo then tries recruiting Saban who turns him down mostly because he wanted GM duties. IIRC, Lovie was seen as like 3rd choice behind Saban and someone else. Fun sequence of events leading to a failed McGinnis hiring and then the best stretch of the Bears in the past 30 years.

I mean yea, it's always tough to part with multiple first rounders in trades, multiple times (unless you're Les Snead). Snead has had the good sense to accumulate day 3 picks so that they're still a high volume draft team. I'd do the Fields trade all over. Mack... Probably not. But if we are doing the whole transitive property thing on the 1st round pick trades, we ALSO have a disappointing young TE, who is a decent blocker, to show for it. So yea, you know. :?

I wouldn't be surprised at 50/50 split all year. And whether it was this thread or the week 2 thread, whoever said they should treat Fields like Philly did with Hurts, they were the only team to run at a greater than 50% rate last year. So if that's the goal for "year 1", then okay. But that certainly shouldn't be the long term vision. And the best Os all pass at like 60% rate.

Yea. I'm not sure some of his defense of Fields i.e. the missed ESB route is totally legit or not, but the system simplicity stuff, and defining his reads more seems legit. I'm sure that comes with the downside of simplifying the defenses options too, but then that's where you just allow Fields to bail and create outside the pocket and the normal professions. And I loved when he laughed at the question about not having a good bail out target. Like yea, duh, that makes a difference.

Was that the Mark Hatley era? Mark Hatley then Jerry Angelo then Phil Emery then Ryan Pace. To think that Angelo was the best of the bunch. Hatley could have arguably been the best but he was in a totally different role as that was the GM-less era. That's where Phillips first started getting noticed by fans because he was directly nixing or okaying trades and stuff when big money was involved. Once he became CEO and hired Angelo, the consensus I gather is ownership gave the GMs leeway to do whatever without have to sign off (obviously within the confines of the cap).

Travis is SEC-MAGA and Portnoy is like ACC-MAGA. I think that's about it.

Saw this over on RealGM. NBA players union plans to negotiate for equity interests in the next CBA. Predictably a lot of fans on RealGM are just complaining that the players are paid enough already, but man, I'd love to see it. If there was a sport where the players actually had leverage, it has to be basketball. The athletes have made the NBA. The article presents it more like a shared union benefit than necessarily an individual player benefit, but I'm sure it could function as somewhat of both, wherein all players get access to the equity benefits, but may do at certain max/min rates where the stars basically subsidize the low end guys, kind of like max/min salaries do today. And from the ownership standpoint the question is whether such an equity benefit would be shared among owners as well or given more on an individual basis.

probably indifference with some cheers. his years at the U of I weren't great Yea but no one really cares about U of I Football that much.

Yea I think my first memory of being a Bears fan was whatever year they played SF in the playoffs, I think that was 94. I was about 6 then. So that is me. I guess circa 97-2001 my Sundays were often taken up with pop warner football games so I actually missed quote a bit of the slog of the later Wannedstadt and Jauron years. Had a pop warner coach yell at us to not watch those Bears teams if we wanted to be good and watch the Packers instead lol. Then entering HS was the Lovie years so that was generally fun and got me into adulthood years. I've also not moved around the country for any extended time and actually dealt with questions of access so I'm just Chicago Sports through and through.

An actual interesting sports radio segment? Thoughts on coaching up Fields and his development

Well he definitely seems to take more time to process, but in times of pocket distress he has seemed a little panicked this year. But it's also been obviously really low volume and noisy. That stat is somewhat confusing. It's time to throw or to pressure. So a guy could get pressure and navigate it and still throw a half second later. It doesn't measure that I guess. Last year Fields wasn't really near the top of that metric, so if you'd ask me then I'd assume it's because he was getting quick pressure then, not that he was getting out the ball particularly quick either.

Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive. I actually want him to run more at times. Granted, I can't see All-22, but whenever he holds onto the ball more than like 2.5 seconds, I think he should just take off. Even if the D has a spy on him, it's not a guarantee he's going to get caught by that guy, especially not before 3-4 yard gain. IMO, that's way better than him holding onto the ball, being more likely to be sacked or to force a throw that's not coming open. I mean, purely from an immediate value add, I guess so, but I'd also like to see growth where he can stick around in a less that perfect pocket if it means he can get a guy open downfield. Right now he's pretty binary about sticking in the pocket or bailing on it completely. I think a lot of that is just how young QBs get taught this way. Including the best young QBs in the game, the young ones all love that spinout maneuver, whatever its called. It works well, but it changes the whole pass progression to do so.

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive.

I don't know, just thought Hurts came in already having done a lot more running and RPO stuff than Fields ever did and had more natural running instinct. Fields best runs are still usually just beating guys to a spot in a straight line and not creative running more like a RB (which a guy like say Lamar, or maybe Hurts, provide)

George has shown a clear, “whatever didn’t work last just do the opposite next” approach. He’s gone D/O/D/O/D. If Eberflus fails, I would bet he takes an offensive head coach next. But while Trestman was sort of an out of the box guy who had been around a while and seen a lot, and Nagy was relatively fresh and studied under one guy, he’ll probably look for either a guy with a ton of OC experience or a former head coach next. And that guy will get 2-3 years before they go back to defense. They just don’t have the offensive infrastructure in place because they’ve never prioritized it. It is not an accident that the offense always sucks. This has been a defense first team and the couple times they strayed from that they quickly returned to the old model. Yet overreacting to the latest failure will still give them an infinite more number of swings at an emphasis on offensive success than a organizational mindset that D is all that matters. So it's something. Anyways a team like the Steelers has managed O prioritization with D coaches. It's certainly not the only metric by which to say whether an organizational emphasis exists or not. Unfortunately the Bears have been pretty disorganized forever which has only slightly improved from Michael to the Ted Phillips and eventually Phillips/George leadership (low initial standards and all that). And the 80s success was also pretty disorganized but had some nice headwinds from the last period of stability the did have with Finks before old man George dumped him.

Add it to the list of Bears offensive futility. I swear that since I first remember watching the Bears regularly (1994) we've had about 10-12 offensive seasons that would be on most teams bottom 5 offensive seasons ever. Change the players, change the coaches, change the FO and we just cant figure out how to have any sort of success offensively, particularly passing offense. Dating back to 1994 they’ve had a defensive minded head coach in all but 6 seasons. The rest have all been defensive first and the bulk of those were guys in their final job, with minimal prior head coaching success. You can say they’ve changed coaches and still same results, but those changes have rarely shown a concerted effort to prioritize offense. It’s not some weird hex, it’s organizational but philosophy. Defense first. Maybe hire an offensive coach on occasion but if that fails go right back to defense first. We are back in a defense first situation and have to pray they magically find a qb or have a Ron Turner situation where the OC cobbles together a good season once or twice. I hope the current version of ownership is more balanced. All those seasons under an O coach happened once George took over from Michael and initially it was very concerted reason specifically for that change. Obviously they've still spent half the time with D coaches in that span, but I don't think D first is a concerted management mandate anymore either.

Here is a little more info for BTT. https://ontapsportsnet.com/bears/bears-justin-fields-average-rookie-qb-stats-comparison Among rookies over the past 10+ years, Fields had the best Big Time Throw rate. Obviously that's only graded against other rookies, but yea hopefully that 10 game sample is way more representative than the 2 game sample. Turnover worthy throws, meh as a rookie, but that's okay if the big throws are frequent enough.