OT: Bears & NFL Talk 96

Status
Not open for further replies.

TLEH

Pronounced T-Lay
Feb 28, 2015
19,974
15,856
Bomoseen, Vermont
Tons of heisman qb’s are shitty pros. And ncaa qb’s shouldn’t need nfl receivers to dominate.

Not saying these guys can’t be good pros, but there’s an awful lot of excuse making going on to rationalize taking them at the top. Both should be more in the 5-12 range.
What are the excuses? He had a 4600 yard season as a sophomore with a 2nd round WR. Almost every QB that wins a heisman has nfl level talent on their team.

The guys that youre referring are generally 5th year or now 6th year guys that go off senior year.

Penix(if he won) or even Daniels being the exact type of heisman we are talking about. Manziel and Tebow being the only two to win the heisman young and not do well in the NFL. Manziel had well documented problems and didn’t have near as much talent or traits that even Maye has. Tebow is well.. Tebow lol not even comparable.

Williams would go 1 in every draft back to Luck except for Lawrence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Idionym

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
18,595
25,633
Chicago, IL
Fields went 19/40 and got outplayed by the corpse of Joe Flacco and then I still have to listen to Bears media blame everyone else but the most important position in football.

Its Mitch all over again. (Fields is better than Mitch).

He was terrible. So was the offensive line. So was the play calling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TLEH and ChiHawks10

Idionym

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
3,414
3,659
Chicago
I think people are looking at this "#1 QBs don't always pan out/don't win SBs/don't outperform later QBs/etc" thing all wrong.

First of all, the QB1 in drafts are all different, much like how Bedard was different than Slaf. They're not all built the same. Comparing Luck to Goff, for example, is just not a valid comparison. There are clear tiers of QB prospects, but because of how important and valued the position is, where they're drafted is similar despite their talent difference. So stop looking at QB1 hit rates because that's just not a valid way to think about it. What's more accurate (even if it's still a bit apples to oranges) is looking at how QBs perform in their QB tiers. Obviously this is subjective, but Williams is in the tier below the truly generational guys (Luck, Lawrence), and generally those guys hit and become very good to elite.

In addition, teams that draft QB1s are built different. So far, Jalen Hurts has had a more successful career win-wise than Andrew Luck even though Hurts was a 2nd round pick, but Luck went to a horrible team for essentially his entire career while Hurts has been on an elite team his entire career. Same (to an extent) with Mahomes, Dak, Lamar, Rodgers, Russ, Purdy, etc. A lot of guys who are drafted later/not top 3 are successful partially because the teams around them can support them and allow them to grow. There's obviously a nature vs nurture debate here (would Mahomes become Mahomes if he went to Chicago?), but the fact is that many QB1s go into bad situations that stunt their development.

We have a unique situation here to draft an elite-if-not-generational QB talent in Williams and pair him with a roster that is arguably on the cusp of being a playoff contender already. Add in another offseason of FA (where we have a ton of cap space), an additional top 10 pick, and the growth of our young players, and there's a real chance that we could have the best situation a QB of Williams' caliber has had in recent memory.

We're so lucky that we don't once again have to worry about the age-old issue of being bad enough to get a good QB prospect but have them enter a terrible situation vs be good enough to have a good situation but not be bad enough to get a quality QB prospect (or trade everything to move up). I legitimately cannot think of the last time that has happened for any franchise. Passing over this uniquely advantageous situation for Justin Fields and an elite WR is insane. We could set this franchise up to finally have a QB that we can win because of, and it'd be inexcusable to pass that up.
 

Paul Allen

Registered User
Oct 24, 2011
513
179
Los Angeles
We're so lucky that we don't once again have to worry about the age-old issue of being bad enough to get a good QB prospect but have them enter a terrible situation vs be good enough to have a good situation but not be bad enough to get a quality QB prospect (or trade everything to move up). I legitimately cannot think of the last time that has happened for any franchise. Passing over this uniquely advantageous situation for Justin Fields and an elite WR is insane. We could set this franchise up to finally have a QB that we can win because of, and it'd be inexcusable to pass that up.
Being a Bears fan is like being in an abusive relationship, some are unfortunately addicted to the suck.

It’s crazy to not want a QB at #1, it’s a free pick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Idionym

Pez68

Registered User
Mar 18, 2010
18,595
25,633
Chicago, IL
I think people are looking at this "#1 QBs don't always pan out/don't win SBs/don't outperform later QBs/etc" thing all wrong.

First of all, the QB1 in drafts are all different, much like how Bedard was different than Slaf. They're not all built the same. Comparing Luck to Goff, for example, is just not a valid comparison. There are clear tiers of QB prospects, but because of how important and valued the position is, where they're drafted is similar despite their talent difference. So stop looking at QB1 hit rates because that's just not a valid way to think about it. What's more accurate (even if it's still a bit apples to oranges) is looking at how QBs perform in their QB tiers. Obviously this is subjective, but Williams is in the tier below the truly generational guys (Luck, Lawrence), and generally those guys hit and become very good to elite.

In addition, teams that draft QB1s are built different. So far, Jalen Hurts has had a more successful career win-wise than Andrew Luck even though Hurts was a 2nd round pick, but Luck went to a horrible team for essentially his entire career while Hurts has been on an elite team his entire career. Same (to an extent) with Mahomes, Dak, Lamar, Rodgers, Russ, Purdy, etc. A lot of guys who are drafted later/not top 3 are successful partially because the teams around them can support them and allow them to grow. There's obviously a nature vs nurture debate here (would Mahomes become Mahomes if he went to Chicago?), but the fact is that many QB1s go into bad situations that stunt their development.

We have a unique situation here to draft an elite-if-not-generational QB talent in Williams and pair him with a roster that is arguably on the cusp of being a playoff contender already. Add in another offseason of FA (where we have a ton of cap space), an additional top 10 pick, and the growth of our young players, and there's a real chance that we could have the best situation a QB of Williams' caliber has had in recent memory.

We're so lucky that we don't once again have to worry about the age-old issue of being bad enough to get a good QB prospect but have them enter a terrible situation vs be good enough to have a good situation but not be bad enough to get a quality QB prospect (or trade everything to move up). I legitimately cannot think of the last time that has happened for any franchise. Passing over this uniquely advantageous situation for Justin Fields and an elite WR is insane. We could set this franchise up to finally have a QB that we can win because of, and it'd be inexcusable to pass that up.

As long as they hire an offensive coordinator worth a shit, that is.... It's been decades.
 

clydesdale line

Connor BeJesus
Jan 10, 2012
24,706
22,881
Let's not act like Flacco ain't that dude in the 4th quarter. He's always been, age be damned. Having said that, the Bears should've still won this game all the way at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68 and Mrfenn92

Idionym

Registered User
Apr 6, 2015
3,414
3,659
Chicago
As long as they hire an offensive coordinator worth a shit, that is.... It's been decades.
To be fair, how much of that is a chicken before the egg type issue? It's hard to be a good OC with a terrible offense and QB.

Let's not act like Flacco ain't that dude in the 4th quarter. He's always been, age be damned. Having said that, the Bears should've still won this game all the way at the end.
I'm sorry but losing to a 38 year old Joe Flacco has really no excuses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Panzerspitze

Romang67

BitterSwede
Jan 2, 2011
29,834
22,123
Evanston, IL
Tons of heisman qb’s are shitty pros. And ncaa qb’s shouldn’t need nfl receivers to dominate.

Not saying these guys can’t be good pros, but there’s an awful lot of excuse making going on to rationalize taking them at the top. Both should be more in the 5-12 range.
Which NCAA QB dominated without NFL receivers?

No I know but it was everywhere on Reddit. Comical.
The Bears subreddit is a hive of scum and villainy. But the tendency to overreact to any kind of success is everywhere in the fandom and the media. It likely comes from the complete lack of prolonged success in recent history, but it is a lot.

Keeping Fleus and hiring an OC is a losing proposition. If the OC turns out good he will be poached by someone else as a head coach. Just start from scratch and hire an offensive coach as the new head coach.
I can't imagine keeping Flus. Yes, the defense has improved, no doubt. But just this season they have managed to lose despite being up 10 in the 4th against a team decimated with injuries, despite being up 12 late in the 4th against a division rival, and lose despite being up 21 with less than a minute to go in the 3rd quarter. Yes, we can and should question the OC, but this has to come back to the head coach.

Keep in mind that the Bears has some of the weakest strength of schedule in the entire league this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TLEH

ndgt10

Registered User
Jul 3, 2009
8,745
827
Poland
Which NCAA QB dominated without NFL receivers?


The Bears subreddit is a hive of scum and villainy. But the tendency to overreact to any kind of success is everywhere in the fandom and the media. It likely comes from the complete lack of prolonged success in recent history, but it is a lot.


I can't imagine keeping Flus. Yes, the defense has improved, no doubt. But just this season they have managed to lose despite being up 10 in the 4th against a team decimated with injuries, despite being up 12 late in the 4th against a division rival, and lose despite being up 21 with less than a minute to go in the 3rd quarter. Yes, we can and should question the OC, but this has to come back to the head coach.

Keep in mind that the Bears has some of the weakest strength of schedule in the entire league this season.
Not like the HC is in charge of all 3 phases or anything
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
187,518
21,000
Chicagoland
Keeping Fleus and hiring an OC is a losing proposition. If the OC turns out good he will be poached by someone else as a head coach. Just start from scratch and hire an offensive coach as the new head coach.

Also keeping Fields is losing proposition for many OC's and not appealing.

They would be handcuffed to a QB who if he doesn't turn it around would see them blamed potentially and facing a one and done year in Chicago

Bears need an absolute clean sweep of Coaching and Fields

This offseason/draft is new direction for franchise
 
  • Like
Reactions: Illinihockey

Sarava

Registered User
May 9, 2010
17,183
2,735
West Dundee, IL
Also keeping Fields is losing proposition for many OC's and not appealing.

They would be handcuffed to a QB who if he doesn't turn it around would see them blamed potentially and facing a one and done year in Chicago

Bears need an absolute clean sweep of Coaching and Fields

This offseason/draft is new direction for franchise
Posting from Vegas!

Yeah…. I think this week is pushing me over the edge with Fields. We need a new QB.

We’ll see if Carolina holds on to #1 or not. They could have won their last 3 games. So we shouldn’t be assuming they have this locked up. And they played TB tougher than GB did - who is their opponent this week

For coaching. I would be totally fine with keeping Flus if they got a top notch OC in. Problem is- as others pointed out, no good OC will come here to play under a lame duck head coach on the hot seat. So you may need to fire Flus just to fix the offensive coaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pez68

hawksrule

Lot of brains but no polish
May 18, 2014
20,897
10,533
Which NCAA QB dominated without NFL receivers?


The Bears subreddit is a hive of scum and villainy. But the tendency to overreact to any kind of success is everywhere in the fandom and the media. It likely comes from the complete lack of prolonged success in recent history, but it is a lot.


I can't imagine keeping Flus. Yes, the defense has improved, no doubt. But just this season they have managed to lose despite being up 10 in the 4th against a team decimated with injuries, despite being up 12 late in the 4th against a division rival, and lose despite being up 21 with less than a minute to go in the 3rd quarter. Yes, we can and should question the OC, but this has to come back to the head coach.

Keep in mind that the Bears has some of the weakest strength of schedule in the entire league this season.
Off the top of my head, heisman qb’s who didn’t have pro receivers would include Luck, Lamar Jackson, newton, mariota, Bradford, and I want to say Winston, but I don’t remember the team all that well.
 

ndgt10

Registered User
Jul 3, 2009
8,745
827
Poland
1000015553.jpg
 

ClydeLee

Registered User
Mar 23, 2012
11,836
5,360
Off the top of my head, heisman qb’s who didn’t have pro receivers would include Luck, Lamar Jackson, newton, mariota, Bradford, and I want to say Winston, but I don’t remember the team all that well.
Why spurn Bears WR legend Jauquin Iglesias? Bradford did have a solid TE and RBs
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawksrule

Illinihockey

Registered User
Jun 15, 2010
24,526
2,854
Off the top of my head, heisman qb’s who didn’t have pro receivers would include Luck, Lamar Jackson, newton, mariota, Bradford, and I want to say Winston, but I don’t remember the team all that well.

Luck didn’t win the heisman. Bradfords top 4 receivers all were drafted one of them in the first round. 4 of Winston’s top 5 receivers went to the NFL with 1 in the first round
 

hawksrule

Lot of brains but no polish
May 18, 2014
20,897
10,533
Luck didn’t win the heisman. Bradfords top 4 receivers all were drafted one of them in the first round. 4 of Winston’s top 5 receivers went to the NFL with 1 in the first round
Doesn’t matter if Luck won the Heisman. He was the number one overall pick and had no pro receivers on his team.

I said I wasn’t sure about Winston, and didn’t feel like looking it up

None of Bradford‘s receivers played any meaningful NFL games. You can combine them and count them on one hand. The first rounder you speak of was a freshman who caught 10 passes in bradford’s heisman season. The others were seventh rounders drafted because of him, not the other way around.

Point is, plenty of quarterbacks do just fine without pro receivers, and the excuses people are making for Williams are just excuses.
 

HeisenBaez

Registered User
Nov 3, 2008
3,111
1,233
Heart of Dixie
For those who think the Bears should draft a QB, DJ Moore just complicated the off-season. DJ said he "hopes" the Bears do not draft QB and he believes Justin is better than Caleb Williams/Drake Maye.

Moore may not have an actual say in who the Bears draft but I believe his opinion will carry some weight. Something to watch out for.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad