We Really Need To Pin This One 'Til January

[yomyyo]

Strong discussion, everyone. Here’s another interesting thought: when the Bears don’t regress, even with the “inevitable” (picture Kim Joeng-whatever in Team America) decrease in turnovers, then the entity responsible for sustaining the quality of the team, by extension of non-Bears fans’ logic, must be Mitch. I wonder how many naysayers will credit him then. 

[soulman]

13 hours ago, dll2000 said:

The way to Twitter followers is saying extreme things not rational thoughts.  It applies to other media formats as well. 

Works in sports and politics and it's a good reason why I don't bother with it myself.  I get enough spillover from it elsewhere.

[soulman]

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Trubisky is still an unknown. If he doesn't progress, the likely don't improve. And he certainly cannot carry an offense if the defense was to slip even back to top 8-9 range. 

Maybe, but really I don't care who the DC is, a team cannot and will not sustain the same number of turnovers where they outpaced the league by a large margin.

Most every fans argument in here is they usual, we were X last year and improved Y this year, so everything points up for the team... except that doesn't always happen. Every team thinks they've improved every offseason. But the games have to be played and there are red flags for Chicago that fans want to ignore and I get that as a sports fan. 

Red flags or red herrings written by the media that focus readers on some singular issues just as you've done with a decrease in turnovers being directly connected to a regression in the defense??  The two could also be far less connected than that.  One doesn't necessarily assure the other.  That said I'm sure the defense will still get their share.

With all due respect your arguments are coming straight from the national media who keep repeating those same two reasons for a major decline in wins.  1) the defense will regress under Pagano, and 2) Trubisky won't progress.  In theory both are either possible or not likely depending solely on one's viewpoint so we end up with nothing better than pure speculation which can't be proven yet.

The majority of national media are either journalists or paid former jock talking heads and not true analysts.  They're paid and instructed to write or speak from a specific point of view to sell magazines on newsstands and/or gain followers on broadcast or social media.  A great majority of what's written online and spoken on air will be intentionally structured as controversial "click bait".

Like it or not we are in an era of huge disinformation campaigns whose only purpose is to manipulate personal opinion in a predictable way.  Your main talking points seem derived directly from what you've read while ours as Bears fans are more derived from other sources with more in depth knowledge of the team itself and it's players and coaches.  There are differences in our levels of understanding.

The Bears are a strong team with reasonable depth at most positions.  Enough so to sustain a few injuries that won't completely decimate either the offense or the defense.  The coaching staff is smart and experienced and they have a very focused goal.  All of that points toward another successful season at least from the perspective of those who is are actual analysts not media types.

For your reading pleasure when you have time.  It's not lengthy and it speaks to all of those issues you've presented.

https://dabearsblog.com/2019/bears-dont-fit-the-regression-profile

As fans we're not totally blinded by homerism and truth be told we may be far more honest in our assessments than others if only because the Bears are who we spend the majority of our time analyzing and discussing.  All of the risk factors you've brought have been looked at upside down and inside out for the past six months or longer and are all part of our conclusions.

I don't make singular predictions.  It's a waste of time.  But I can analyze data and follow trends because it's what I do and have done professionally for over 30 years.  Based on that and with a very high confidence factor the Bears should win between 10 to 14 games this year.  Eight or nine wins could happen but with less confidence than 10 or more and the 7 wins SI predicts would be a major outlier.

That and any other opinions or analytical information I've presented is all I can offer to counter you with.  All of the rest will be settled on the field between Sept. 5th and Dec. 29th. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by soulman

[big_palooka]

8 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

What red flags?  Please dont say turnovers again, bc while turnovers arent sustainable, everything else about the defense certainly is.

Chicago was very fortunate last year injury wise on both offense and defense. They have some depth issues that could injuires could easily expose.

And while not a red flag per se, a change is DC and FA attrition could effect this defense. There is a change in philosophy and while a decent DC, Pagano is simply not the same as Fangio. The talent on defense has to show they can thrive with a different approach. 

[big_palooka]

7 hours ago, yomyyo said:

Strong discussion, everyone. Here’s another interesting thought: when the Bears don’t regress, even with the “inevitable” (picture Kim Joeng-whatever in Team America) decrease in turnovers, then the entity responsible for sustaining the quality of the team, by extension of non-Bears fans’ logic, must be Mitch. I wonder how many naysayers will credit him then. 

I personally have to no dog in the fight. I just appreciate the insight and discussion. Credit where credit is due. Right or wrong, Tru will always be under a certain level of scrutiny because of his draft position and what the Bears gave up to get him.

The Bears are opening a window, leveraged pretty heavy in Tru working out. 

With respect, we've seen these Bears teams before. Great, opportunistic defenses, win a division, loose in the playoffs and don't make it back for a few years save their 05-06 teams.

[AZBearsFan]

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I personally have to no dog in the fight. I just appreciate the insight and discussion. Credit where credit is due. Right or wrong, Tru will always be under a certain level of scrutiny because of his draft position and what the Bears gave up to get him.

The Bears are opening a window, leveraged pretty heavy in Tru working out. 

With respect, we've seen these Bears teams before. Great, opportunistic defenses, win a division, loose in the playoffs and don't make it back for a few years save their 05-06 teams.

The biggest narrative issue working against Mitch at this point is Mahomes’ success, not the mid-round picks traded away (and somewhat recouped in subsequent trades) to move up 1 spot. As to the window being leveraged on the success of Mitch, what team has ever taken a QB in the top 5 with their future NOT leveraged on the success or failure of that player? That’s the NFL.

The difference between this team and Bears teams of the past is that those teams were built around the defense and winning in spite of the offense. This one isn’t built that way at all, and just because it can win that way doesn’t mean that the intent is for that to be necessary in the long run. This isn’t Lovie Smith’s “score me 21 points and my defense will win” philosophy. If/when this team gets where Nagy intends offensively (top 5) they won’t need a defense that’s top 3 to win most games. At that point having such a defense would make them arguably the hardest team in the league to beat. 

Now, is the offense going to get to that level in 2019? Time will tell, but they should get closer to that than they were in 2018. They improved notably talent-wise at RB and should see at least some continued development at WR and QB. Not only are they only in year 2 of the offense but among their offensive skill position groups collectively the oldest guy who isn’t a backup QB is Taylor Gabriel. He’s just 28. They’re a young offense. The likelihood that at least some of these guys continue to grow is very high, and it’s at least possible that none of them have peaked yet.

It doesn’t take blind homerism to see that there should be some improvement on offense. Frankly, it takes the opposite to expect that there will be the absence of any offensive growth whatsoever. 

[soulman]

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

Chicago was very fortunate last year injury wise on both offense and defense. They have some depth issues that could injuires could easily expose.

And while not a red flag per se, a change is DC and FA attrition could effect this defense. There is a change in philosophy and while a decent DC, Pagano is simply not the same as Fangio. The talent on defense has to show they can thrive with a different approach. 

Fortunate as far as injuries is a relative term.  We may see it a bit differently once we take a pencil to it.

Mitch was lost for two games.  During that time we lost to a NYG team we should have beaten.  That loss cost us a higher seed in the playoffs and we don't face the defending champs first.

Also two of our best WR, ARob and Miller, were nowhere near 100% for all 16 games and we eventually lost Miller.  TE Shaheen missed most of the season and never fully recovered from his preseason injury and Burton was lost before the playoff game.  That hurt the offense big time.

Defensively we lost All Pro Safety Jackson and Slot CB Callahan prior to the playoff game.  Callahan's sub McManis gave up the winning TD and I can almost assure I saw at least two passes Jackson could have easily picked that were not.  Losing both hurt the defense.

We also lost Mack for a couple of games and the result was a decline by the defense.  He was a huge difference maker last year.

As for this year the internal reports from the players themselves are that Pagano is blending his own style in with Fangio's scheme not wholly replacing it.  The secondary has been all over the ball in camp making life very tough for Mitch and the offense and that's not necessarily bad.  Practicing against the best helps you to beat the best and that theory goes all the way back to Halas' days as HC.

Now, all of what you say regarding multiple injuries having a cumulative impact and the need for the defense to not show any regression are true but the same could be said about any other team.  It's simply boilerplate logic.  Right now we can only work under the assumption that those things won't happen or that they'll be tempered at their worst.  As of today neither can be accurately predicted.

Edited August 28, 2019 by soulman

[beardown3231]

4 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I personally have to no dog in the fight. I just appreciate the insight and discussion. Credit where credit is due. Right or wrong, Tru will always be under a certain level of scrutiny because of his draft position and what the Bears gave up to get him.

The Bears gave Solomon Thomas and some mid round draft picks. According to the draft chart, they overpaid by the same value as a 5th round pick. They didn't give up a lot.

The Bears are opening a window, leveraged pretty heavy in Tru working out. 

But what if he's as good as last year but guys on the D like Roquan Smith and Bilal Nichols get better? What if Shaheen is healthy and Miller and Montgomery are studs? Does it then really rely as much as you think on Trubisky?

With respect, we've seen these Bears teams before. Great, opportunistic defenses, win a division, loose in the playoffs and don't make it back for a few years save their 05-06 teams.

You can't be serious. Now you're comparing a team to another from 14 years ago just because it fits your narrative and they played for the same organization? Come on now. You're better than that. 

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by beardown3231

[topwop1]

I don't care that this guy has us finishing behind both Minnesota and Green Bay because that's not a far fetched scenario....but Detroit?  LOL c'mon man that's trash.

[beardown3231]

51 minutes ago, topwop1 said:

I don't care that this guy has us finishing behind both Minnesota and Green Bay because that's not a far fetched scenario....but Detroit?  LOL c'mon man that's trash.

Benoit is also the guy who inexplicably tweeted back in the spring that Jackson is overrated and not even close to the best FS in football

[dll2000]

6 hours ago, big_palooka said:

I personally have to no dog in the fight.

Sure you do.  Raiders fan aren't you?   They are on schedule and draft pick numbers are at stake.

 

[dll2000]

15 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

1)defensive DVOA, you have to deep dive as to why the regression from #1, but you are correct.that historically that has happened, and likely will again this year, bc when you are #1 you can only go down.  I will correct you in the defense living off of turnovers.  That's simply not true, yes they lead the league in TOs, they also lead the league in 3 and outs forced.  They were #1 in points allowed and #3 in yards allowed.  They were 3rd in sacks.  They dominated up front and on the back end.  Is the turnover # sustainable? Probably not, but truthfully they didnt need the turnovers to be a great defense, they took the ball away BECAUSE they were a great defense.  They were a great defense because top to bottom, they were the best defensive roster in the league and #2 really wasnt close.  #2 is probably closer this year, but they are still the best defensive roster in the league.  Even with regression, they will probably be top 5 in DVOA at the end of the year.

I'm so glad you brought up the Jags, and were honest enough to try to compare Tru and Bortles.  Let's take a look at that:

2017 Bortles: 60.2% comp

2018 Mitch: 66.7% comp

2017 Bortles 21 TD 4%

2018 Mitch 24 TD 5.5

2017 Bortles 11 INT 2.5%

2018 Mitch 12 INT 2.8%

2017 Bortles 84.7 passer rating

2018 Mitch 95.4 passer rating

2017 Bortles 59.2 QBR

2018 Mitch 74.2 QBR (3rd in the NFL)

As you can see the comparisons arent close.  And what's missing from this is that Bortles was I. His 4th year and Mitch was in his 2nd.  We havent even touched on their first playoff appearances where Bortles was an absolute joke completing 52% for 87 yards and a 72 passer rating.  Against Mitch's 60% for 303 yards and and an 89 rating. 

But do you want to know the real funny thing?  Bortles didnt really regress in 2018 very much, his comp% was the same, his TD% dipped from 4 to 3.5, his INT% went up 2.8, his passer rating barely dropped to 79.  So what really happened in JAX?  That's a pretty easy answer really, Leonard Fournette went from 1000 yards to 400 yards.  He went from 13 games to 8.  10 TDs to 6 TDs.  Bortles WRs left or regresses dramatically.  The defense actually remained top 5, but the offense lost its luster bc of personnel around the QB.

In 2019 the only player missing from the offense that contributed in 2018 will be Jordan Howard.  And he is being replaced by 2 RBs, one of which may have been the best back in college football last year.  Is it possible the run game regresses, sure.  But I'd say its doubtful.

 

Great points. Not sure about best back in CFB, but other points stand and Montgomery can certainly make a case for one of best given circumstances at Iowa St.  

Jacksonville had a complete offensive collapse and took the defense with it to an extent.   Only so many 3 and outs you can take.  That used to happen to Bears in 60s and 70s on the regular I understand.  Only in Rams game can you say MT ever looked as bad Bortles did on regular basis.  Rams defense at that time was nothing to sneeze at either.  Further, Bortles in 2017 never played closed to MT at his best in 2018 (Detroit and Tampa Bay and 2nd half of Eagles).   

There is no reason whatsoever to think Bears offense will be that level of bad talent wise or have a collapse like Jacksonville even if a 2nd year QB who who was in first year of an offense doesn't improve a lick and even regresses a little.  On contrary they appear to be much more balanced on paper over a year ago.  More than that, improved in both run and pass and O line.

• Run - Better talent on paper overall.  Montgomery, Davis and Patterson vs. Howard and Mizzell.  Cohen is common to both.  Howard couldn't run option routes and Mizzell simply lacked talent to play in NFL.  This is a significant improvement for this scheme which uses the RB option route to set up so many other plays.  Every back they have can run the option route now from backfield.  There is no easy predictability anymore.   
• Oline - Healthier Long and 1 year older Daniels.  Should be better if can stay healthy.   
• Pass - 2nd Year in system QB.  Healthier #1 WR in Allen Robinson.  2nd year in system rest of receivers minus U TE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[big_palooka]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Sure you do.  Raiders fan aren't you?   They are on schedule and draft pick numbers are at stake.

 

I am Raider fan, but I actually like the Bears and have rooted for them over the years. Yes, it would be nice to have a higher draft pick, but I'm trying to take that out of the argument here and look more at the correlation of teams like the 2016 Raiders who replaced their OC, upgraded talent and fell completely flat the following year. 7th in scoring to 23rd.

[beardown3231]

5 minutes ago, big_palooka said:

I am Raider fan, but I actually like the Bears and have rooted for them over the years. Yes, it would be nice to have a higher draft pick, but I'm trying to take that out of the argument here and look more at the correlation of teams like the 2016 Raiders who replaced their OC, upgraded talent and fell completely flat the following year. 7th in scoring to 23rd.

Those Raiders teams had some good players, but I'm not sure I wouldn't take the 2019 Bears RB's, WR's, TE's, DL, OLB's, ILB's, and DB's over the 2016 Raiders. I may take Carr over Trubisky right now and I'd think the OL's are about even with perhaps an edge to Oakland's.

[big_palooka]

4 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

The Bears gave Solomon Thomas and some mid round draft picks. According to the draft chart, they overpaid by the same value as a 5th round pick. They didn't give up a lot.

3rd, 67, 111 and a 3rd (70) the following year are not "some mid round picks". That's nearly 4 top 100 picks. And who the 9ers drafted doesn't change who they could have drafted in that spot.