Hairyducked Idiot

So having paid almost no attention since 2017, I'm trying to catch up. So the Cubs are spending some money but way below what they should be able to for their market size and everyone is frustrated with ownership for being cheap. The team seriously lacks star power, and the farm system is middle of the pack and also lacks star power. We seem to be trying to build around pitching depth and defense? Everyone is excited about some LaHairesque 24-year-old who kinda hit in the PCL last year? Honestly, it's almost nostalgic how mid-90s Cubs this feels.

So Best Player Available doesn't actually mean best player available? *sigh*

No one is saying "take a WR regardless of bpa." We are saying "if the player you want is a WR, that's fine." Generally I hate the concept of "BPA.". After the first few picks, the distinctions between players aren't fine enough to definitively say "hmmm, we have two All Pro tackles, but this tackle is the BPA at 8.07 footballs and this safety is only worth 8.05 footballs, we can't take him." If the BPA at 9 is a QB and we don't get good value offers to trade down, should we take the QB? BPA just turns into an ad hoc justification of picks.

With regard to overloading on receivers, don't forget that both Mooney and Claypool are hitting free agency after next season.

I would be completely ok with drafting a WR at 9.

I'm coming around. Apparently this was one of the top-10 most efficient (by EPA or whatever dumb stat is being pushed) QB performances in a loss last season: Watch this and tell me that's a 6-win offense with a full season of Moore and Claypool.

I'd be more comfortable with this argument if I hadn't said it at this time last year, and then we went DB-DB-KR with our top picks and the cap casualties sucked (as they tend to do) and then Fields had his second year derailed by the worst sack rate in history.

https://www.si.com/nfl/chiefs/gm-report/pass-rush-vs-pass-coverage I'm ok with the "poles is actually a super football genius and everything is going to come together according to his plan" explanation turning out to be the right one

Dead eye stares are the new bat flip.

I love Poles' approach to asset management and he's right that it's a noticeable change from the previous regime. Pace's whole thing was "identify what we want, pay whatever it takes to get it, figure out the rest later." Honestly, even the Mack trade starts to look a little iffy when viewed through that lens (I said at the time that it wasn't necessarily bad but it was high-risk and we were paying a steep price). It's easy to have a hard line on veterans when they weren't the ones you drafted, and to prioritize draft picks when you've got the "rebuild" excuse in your back pocket for when you go 3-14, but I like the idea of a team that has a strong vision of how to allocate their picks and cap space long-term to create the best possible roster. None of it will end up mattering unless his team is good at actually making the picks and developing them, and I've got some concerns about positional valuations (defensive back-7 seems to be getting a ton of investment while both lines are afterthoughts), but I really really dig the approach.

Top 10. I was baking in the assumption that we would trade down at least three times.

Last season there was only a two-game gap between the bottom 10 and the last wild card team. One game between the bottom 10 and the worst playoff team. You can be both on the cusp of the playoffs and looking at a bottom 10 pick.

I *still" cant tell what percentage of the fan base is memeing and what percent thinks he's actually good.

If you're right that Fields' reluctance to pass into man coverage was entirely on the recievers, then we have very little to worry about this season.

Sure, they were a little unlucky. You have to be a both bad *and* unlucky to go 3-14, very few teams are a "true" 3-win talent or whatever. But the D-line is horrible ,there's still some question marks in the back 7 too (Gordon and Sanborn, looking at you). The offensive line looks an awful lot like the historically bad offensive line we just ran out. And we still don't really know what we have in Fields. He's an unpredictable combinations of strengths (Hester-like open-field running from a QB, good deep ball, great leadership/work ethic) and weaknesses (slow processor, wonky mechanics that lead to inaccuracy on short and intermediate throws, a tendency to take sacks by dragging out plays looking for home runs). I can see some upside for this roster, but I can definitely see the downside too. The NFL usually has a few really bad teams, a few really good teams, and like two dozen that are in the middle and could go 6-11 or 11-6 just based on luck and bounces. We're kind of on the borderline between the bad group and the big mass of mediocrity, imo. Could go either way. The OLine is similar-worse-maybe better if Jones takes a big step. But the weapons around Fields are improved enough that I feel that makes a big imorovement. Lots of research around the fact that weapons at WR make a bigger difference than the OL. Fields may be sacked 50 time again, but I feel pretty good about the O and you can point to at least two cases of scrub WR basically costing the Bears a chance at a couple of those close losses. But with the current DL, even with some minimal improvement I think they'll have a lot of shootout games. Yeah. I can definitely see the upside. But those shootouts have to be driven by the passing game with fields plus his new WRs. I don't think you can do 17 games of fields pulling the ball down and taking off every time he sees man coverage without him getting hurt or defenses adjusting and stopping it more

And he was really good the year before. A has been looking for a bounce back is still ahead of our collection of never-was's That's how bad we are We're talking about last year's team, how it performed, and how this year's roster is shaping up by comparison. The year before is 100% irrelevant. It's ok to just admit you were talking out of your ass on that one. So you want me to talk about whether the 2023 bears d line might compare to the 2022 bears d line, but we can't talk about projections? That unfairly benefits the 2023 side, which hasn't had a chance to face any potential underperformance or injury. Between this and tim's "I didn't really mean I wanted to make a bet when I said I wanted to make a bet,' the neurotypicals are confusing today.

It's even worse now on paper. Quinn would be our best by a *wide* margin. how so? and quinn was really horsefeathering bad when he did play last year. And he was really good the year before. A has been looking for a bounce back is still ahead of our collection of never-was's That's how bad we are

It's hard to make a fair comparison because they gutted the roster halfway through, but if you take the average strength, the D-line will be noticeably worse. gutted (the DL) halfway through how? by trading robert quinn? it was horrid all year. It's even worse now on paper. Quinn would be our best by a *wide* margin.

I don't generally make bets. I find precise predictions to be overrated. There's no point in trying to pinpoint exactly what happens in the future, because even if you're exactly right it's probably mostly luck. I find talking about ranges of probability to be more accurate, and therefore more interesting. I don't really want to bet either, I was primarily just highlighting the somewhat ridiculous stance you initially took. I disagree that it's ridiculous. I'd put os on the borderline between the average teams and the bad teams right now, but that includes the probability of a breakout season from Fields or a really great draft. If we get neither of those, we're probably a pretty bad team.

Does that mean you're not going to bet the under on 6.5 wins after saying this: I don't generally make bets. I find precise predictions to be overrated. There's no point in trying to pinpoint exactly what happens in the future, because even if you're exactly right it's probably mostly luck. I find talking about ranges of probability to be more accurate, and therefore more interesting.

We lost 6 one-score games, and won 2. 2-6 is about one fewer win than you'd expect from a below average team. They had a -137 point differential, one point behind (ahead?) of the Colts for dead last. They were probably a little unlucky (lucky? It got us the no. 1 pick) but they weren't pythagorean darlings just getting unlucky. They were legit an awful team. I would also suggest as a hypothesis, which I'm open to being proven wrong, that teams that rely heavily on running the ball might do worse in one-score games because they aren't as effective at running two-minute drills.

Sure, they were a little unlucky. You have to be a both bad *and* unlucky to go 3-14, very few teams are a "true" 3-win talent or whatever. But the D-line is horrible ,there's still some question marks in the back 7 too (Gordon and Sanborn, looking at you). The offensive line looks an awful lot like the historically bad offensive line we just ran out. And we still don't really know what we have in Fields. He's an unpredictable combinations of strengths (Hester-like open-field running from a QB, good deep ball, great leadership/work ethic) and weaknesses (slow processor, wonky mechanics that lead to inaccuracy on short and intermediate throws, a tendency to take sacks by dragging out plays looking for home runs). I can see some upside for this roster, but I can definitely see the downside too. The NFL usually has a few really bad teams, a few really good teams, and like two dozen that are in the middle and could go 6-11 or 11-6 just based on luck and bounces. We're kind of on the borderline between the bad group and the big mass of mediocrity, imo. Could go either way.

So you would definitely take the under on a 6.5 win season right now? I sense an opportunity to win an internet bet here. For what little it's worth in football with the sample sizes involved, they played more like a 5 win team than a 3 win team last year based on pythag. The eye test would seem to agree with some of the games they blew or had a chance to win late. They are already going to be markedly improved in some areas - and weaker in none of significance - as compared to last year and the draft should bolster the roster some more too. I have no idea where it's going to end up at this point and obviously the next couple of months will determine a lot. Oh, also, the Packers are going to be very bad and the Vikings are not actually good so who knows. It's hard to make a fair comparison because they gutted the roster halfway through, but if you take the average strength, the D-line will be noticeably worse.

You need either a HOF draft or a huge breakout from Fields as a passer in order to not be a 6-win team rn, imo. It's not a good roster.

I think poles is like theo Epstein where he is always super willing to walk away if it goes past the hard limit price he has set. I think in the long run that will serve us well. It's a welcome departure from Pace fixating on guys and paying absurd prices to get them. I just have some concerns about his positional priorities.