Jump to content
North Side Baseball

Hairyducked Idiot

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    39,504

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    46

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot

  1. Hairyducked Idiot
    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. 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
  2. Hairyducked Idiot
    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
  3. Hairyducked Idiot
    I can’t say it wasn’t a penalty but I can say that type of contact is often not called. I’d wager you could go back play-by-play in this game and find similar contact, uncalled. It's like in hockey, you may see hooks all game, but they'll call it when you hook the guy who has the puck as he's trying to get a shot off. It wasn't just the jersey tug, it was where and when it happened
  4. Hairyducked Idiot
    Seemed like an easy call to me. The reciever that the QB was looking at tries to make a sharp turn and gets his jersey tugged as he tries to change directions. That's gonna get called more often than not.
  5. Hairyducked Idiot
    So should we expect a poor return for our no. 1 pick?
  6. Hairyducked Idiot
    It's hard to generate a lot of hype for the upcoming draft if the no. 1 overall pick isn't better than a guy who fell outside the top 10 a couple years ago. So you're saying a team would have been dumb to trade the #1 pick for Brady at the peak of his playing days because he was a 6th rounder? Hmm. That doesn't sound like something I said.
  7. Hairyducked Idiot
    It's hard to generate a lot of hype for the upcoming draft if the no. 1 overall pick isn't better than a guy who fell outside the top 10 a couple years ago. Faulty assumption. There is no indication that Young is going to be the #1, 2 or 10 pick. It's too early to tell. However, he's a better prospect than Fields ever was. He's a better passer, has more situational awareness, and makes better decisions than Fields did in college. I'm not an expert (obviously), but if Fields and Young were both in the draft, Young would likely get drafted before him. But then again, he probably would have been a 2nd string QB for OSU. Edit: That also does not necessarily mean that Young is going to be a better pro QB than Fields. If the Bears believe this, they should trade Fields and take Young.
  8. Hairyducked Idiot
    Shorter than Kyler? Yikes...so Young would be the shortest QB in the NFL. I think you can be successful as a sub-6 foot QB and guys like Kyler, Russ Wilson and Brees have proven that, but at some point height becomes an issue. This is a lot of the reason why I don't get some in the media insistence that Young is a better prospect than Fields. Really? Because physically Fields >>> Young and it's not even that close, so, I guess the base of their argument is Young is better at the mental portion of the game. Which is questionable given Young has never played a down in the NFL. It's hard to generate a lot of hype for the upcoming draft if the no. 1 overall pick isn't better than a guy who fell outside the top 10 a couple years ago.
  9. Hairyducked Idiot
    There used to be a running joke among sportswriters about how short a guy had to he before media guides gave up on listing him as 6-0 and dropped to 5-10 (nobody is ever 5-11 for some reason). The consensus was the cutoff was around 5-8
  10. Hairyducked Idiot
    Counterpoint: His actual nickname is "Mash" I'll accept that only if he's good
  11. Hairyducked Idiot
    The fact that the Cubs have a prospect named "mervis" is everything wrong with this organization
  12. Hairyducked Idiot
    **gestures broadly at the last page**
  13. Hairyducked Idiot
    Stroud still hasn't declared. Deadline is Monday. I still bet he does. But if he didn't that should be good for the bears
  14. Hairyducked Idiot
    Notice how you're arguing this with me, the person who said history doesn't matter, and not the person who tried to use Bears history as their argument. you outlined a process of picking the wrong QB and then called it all a "pretty bears thing to do.", were you talking about UCLA? I don't think you understand what you read. He said "This would be a Bears thing to do>" I said "Actually, that wouldn't be a Bears thing to do, and it wouldn't be a good argument either way." That's not the same as saying "this is a good argument as to why this should happen."
  15. Hairyducked Idiot
    Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern. or, at some point, Bear fans need to come to terms with the fact that megastar QBs are extremely rare and difficult to find, and that the idea that the Bears have had a rough time finding one should have ZERO bearing on their choices going forward. So why even give it air time? Notice how you're arguing this with me, the person who said history doesn't matter, and not the person who tried to use Bears history as their argument.
  16. Hairyducked Idiot
    this is total fearmonger and overthinking Only if this logic is used in the "trade justin fields" region. If the exact same argument is used to keep justin fields, it's sparkling reasonable concern.
  17. Hairyducked Idiot
    I get the concern of going defense again but Fields was starting to put up points. If we had a defense to prevent the same from happening to us it would be beneficial. Also i am not a fan of takign wr in 1st round unless he looks like Calvin Johnson and you know hes a HR. Lots of good receivers come out of rounds 3-5. Just need to pick the right one. Those points came over a 4-game stretch that coincided with changing the offense mid-season to a style of offense that we had previously avoided specifically because it's not sustainable once defenses adjust and your QB keeps taking hits. The QB got banged up, defenses adjusted, the points dried up.
  18. Hairyducked Idiot
    How many of these "megastar" high draft pick QB's actually live up to the hype? Not many. How many "we just need to give him more weapons and another year" bears QBs ended up living up to the hype? Once again, I'm not saying we have to draft a QB and trade fields because of this. I'm saying that "trading fields and seeing him become a superstar somewhere else would be a Bears thing to do" is a bad argument. There's a lot of instances of the Bears passing on good QBs and very few (flutie?) of them letting a good one go. It's perfectly possible for keeping fields to be the right choice and for a lot of the arguments being put forth for it to be bad arguments.
  19. Hairyducked Idiot
    I dunno, finding out in a few years that we passed on what turned out to be a megastar QB because we didn't want to let go of a guy who never ended up putting it together would also be a "pretty bears thing to do." They don't really have a history of giving up on QBs too soon. They do have a history of passing on guys they later wish they hadn't passed on. Not that history actually matters to what's best here
  20. Hairyducked Idiot
    Professional sports teams, and especially the NFL, are well equipped to handle near constant personnel churn
  21. Hairyducked Idiot
    I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk. That's the cognitive bias called loss aversion, and it skews our ability to make rational decisions If you pick a new QB, it feels like you've "lost" on the time and emotional investment in fields, whereas with you've never had a new QB so it can't be a loss, only an unrealized gain. Unrealized gains feel less bad than tangible losses, even though from a value perspective they are identifical.
  22. Hairyducked Idiot
    I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there. do you think his value is higher then the #1 pick in the draft? ie, would you trade more for Fields then you would for the #1 pick? Probably a little less, but not much.
  23. Hairyducked Idiot
    I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there. And you think Youngs is #1value? I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't
  24. Hairyducked Idiot
    I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close. A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status. So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs? I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.
  25. Hairyducked Idiot
    I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close. A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.
×
×
  • Create New...