Bears sign Trevor Siemian

[dll2000]

Poles said no offers have come in for Foles - per Fishbain.

 

 

[Heinz D.]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Poles said no offers have come in for Foles - per Fishbain.

 

 

That's...really weird. Why on earth didn't they cut him before they paid the roster bonus then?

That makes no sense. What, was Poles surprised by the availability of Trevor Siemian? 😕

[AZBearsFan]

15 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

That's...really weird. Why on earth didn't they cut him before they paid the roster bonus then?

That makes no sense. What, was Poles surprised by the availability of Trevor Siemian? 😕

The roster bonus was fully guaranteed anyway. At least with him on the roster after paying it they might be able to get something for him (since an acquiring team wouldn’t have to pay the bonus and hence would owe him far less money). Probably not, and if so it‘ll be for pennies, but pennies are better than nothing. There’s no cost to pushing that decision down the road. At this point Foles isn’t even taking practice reps away from anyone.

With that said, now that Poles has said (yesterday) that Siemien will be the #2 even fewer people will be willing to trade for Foles since they know we won’t keep him on the roster into the season short of preseason injury. Even if we don’t use the $ we’d save by cutting him we would be able to roll it into next year’s cap space. 

Edited March 29, 2022 by AZBearsFan

[Madmike90]

20 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

That's...really weird. Why on earth didn't they cut him before they paid the roster bonus then?

That makes no sense. What, was Poles surprised by the availability of Trevor Siemian? 😕

A lot still to happen between now and the start of the season.

[Heinz D.]

7 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

The roster bonus was fully guaranteed anyway. 

He was getting it, regardless? 

7 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

With that said, now that Poles has said (yesterday) that Siemien will be the #2 even fewer people will be willing to trade for Foles since they know we won’t keep him on the roster into the season short of preseason injury. Even if we don’t use the $ we’d save by cutting him we would be able to roll it into next year’s cap space. 

Someone could still throw out a pick so that Foles doesn't hit the market. 

But whatever. Weird situation. Still good to know that a break from Foles is likely coming. I was in favor of the trade (realizing that Pace had really screwed things up to that point), but it just hasn't worked out. The sad part of it all is that Foles would probably be a helluva lot better in a non-Nagy offense. 

[AZBearsFan]

21 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

He was getting it, regardless? 

Correct. It became guaranteed at some point earlier on in the abomination of a reworked contract done by Pace’s cap guy. Ugh. 

[Heinz D.]

11 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Correct. It became guaranteed at some point earlier on in the abomination of a reworked contract done by Pace’s cap guy. Ugh. 

I wish I could say I'm surprised by that.

(But you guessed it--I ain't.) 

[JAF-N72EX]

On 3/26/2022 at 6:10 PM, AZBearsFan said:

You know, how Nagy wanted to develop our 1st round QB [because he saw flaws in said 1st round QB that showed he wasn't ready yet and therefore gave him a chance to learn behind a veteran (Dalton) instead of throwing him into the fire too early and killing his confidence. And his evaluation turned out to be 100% correct, since he was very mediocre last season and showed alot of signs of NOT being ready]. 

Corrected.

It cracks me up how much stock you media-following-robots put into offseason reps as if it's the defining factor LMAO.  It's even more funny when you guys use this ridiculous reason to justify and excuse poor play.  What's more, people do all of this without EVER being able to produce ANY evidence to support this claim either--which is absolutely crazy, no matter how you spin it. Seriously, this is teetering on the level of those people who believe bigfoot exists at this point lol.

This is how much offseason reps truly matter.

2021 Rookie QBs

Justin Fields, 11th overall pick, with NO offseason reps:
12 games, 159-270 pass att, 59% comp rate, 1870 yards, 6.9 avg, 71 rush att, 404 rush yards, 13 fumbles, 9 total TDs, 15 total turnovers, 73.2 QB rating

Zach Wilson, #2 overall pick, with ALL offseason reps:
13 games, 213-338 pass att, 57% comp rate, 2334 yards, 6.1 avg, 29 rush att, 179 yards, 5 fumbles, 13 total TDs, 12 total turnovers, 69.7% rating

Trevor Law, #1 overall pick who was widely considered a once in a generation talent, with ALL offseason reps:
17 games, 359-602 pass att, 60% comp rate, 3641 yards, 6.0 avg, 73 rush att, 334 yards, 9 fumbles, 14 total TDs, 22 total turnovers, 71.1 QB rating

But hey, reps, right. 😆

 

Edited April 4, 2022 by JAF-N72EX

[dll2000]

On 4/4/2022 at 2:33 AM, JAF-N72EX said:

Corrected.

It cracks me up how much stock you media-following-robots put into offseason reps as if it's the defining factor LMAO.  It's even more funny when you guys use this ridiculous reason to justify and excuse poor play.  What's more, people do all of this without EVER being able to produce ANY evidence to support this claim either--which is absolutely crazy, no matter how you spin it. Seriously, this is teetering on the level of those people who believe bigfoot exists at this point lol.

This is how much offseason reps truly matter.

2021 Rookie QBs

Justin Fields, 11th overall pick, with NO offseason reps:
12 games, 159-270 pass att, 59% comp rate, 1870 yards, 6.9 avg, 71 rush att, 404 rush yards, 13 fumbles, 9 total TDs, 15 total turnovers, 73.2 QB rating

Zach Wilson, #2 overall pick, with ALL offseason reps:
13 games, 213-338 pass att, 57% comp rate, 2334 yards, 6.1 avg, 29 rush att, 179 yards, 5 fumbles, 13 total TDs, 12 total turnovers, 69.7% rating

Trevor Law, #1 overall pick who was widely considered a once in a generation talent, with ALL offseason reps:
17 games, 359-602 pass att, 60% comp rate, 3641 yards, 6.0 avg, 73 rush att, 334 yards, 9 fumbles, 14 total TDs, 22 total turnovers, 71.1 QB rating

But hey, reps, right. 😆

 

 

It is common sense that reps matter.  They matter in anything, not just football. 

The evidence is in your everyday life and your own lived experience and is overwhelming.  

Practice matters.    This is a classic case of using statistics to come to a wrong conclusion.

Go coach a team this season and then come back and tell me reps don't matter.

 

[Heinz D.]

On 4/4/2022 at 2:33 AM, JAF-N72EX said:

But hey, reps, right. 😆

 

Or maybe Fields is simply the best quarterback, of the three? 

Did you consider that?

Of course reps matter. Nagy did Fields wrong...

[abstract_thought]

1 hour ago, Heinz D. said:

Or maybe Fields is simply the best quarterback, of the three? 

Did you consider that?

Of course reps matter. Nagy did Fields wrong...

He certainly hasn't proven this yet.

[Sugashane]

8 hours ago, dll2000 said:

 

It is common sense that reps matter.  They matter in anything, not just football. 

The evidence is in your everyday life and your own lived experience and is overwhelming.  

Practice matters.    This is a classic case of using statistics to come to a wrong conclusion.

Go coach a team this season and then come back and tell me reps don't matter.

 

Quality of reps matter too. 

Think Urban Meyer was running anywhere near the same level of practice that Jones was getting in NE? 

Speaking of which, he got the first team reps and all from when Newton was released. Didn't take long for him to supplant Newton and get those reps iirc. 

[Heinz D.]

On 4/6/2022 at 7:50 PM, abstract_thought said:

He certainly hasn't proven this yet.

His argument was that reps don't matter because Fields had the best quarterback rating of the three rookies he listed. 

We are then talking "proof" in a limited way, yes? How did Jones and Mills do...with the bulk of first team reps? And no, I'm not looking up their quarterback ratings.

Based on what he laid out as his argument, and watching the three kids in question play, one could EASILY make the assertion that Fields is the best of the three. Now, do I truly believe that? I hope it's true, but I would admit that we don't know yet. Then again, I'm not the one putting forth the initial utterly bizarre and questionable argument.  

Edited April 11, 2022 by Heinz D.

[JAF-N72EX]

22 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

His argument was that reps don't matter because Fields had the best quarterback rating of the three rookies he listed. 

Nope. That wasn't my point at all.

[Heinz D.]

On 4/7/2022 at 5:59 PM, JAF-N72EX said:

Nope. That wasn't my point at all.

Oh.

On 4/4/2022 at 2:33 AM, JAF-N72EX said:

It cracks me up how much stock you media-following-robots put into offseason reps as if it's the defining factor LMAO.  It's even more funny when you guys use this ridiculous reason to justify and excuse poor play.  What's more, people do all of this without EVER being able to produce ANY evidence to support this claim either--which is absolutely crazy, no matter how you spin it. Seriously, this is teetering on the level of those people who believe bigfoot exists at this point lol.

This is how much offseason reps truly matter.

(goes on to post stats...)

So you actually HAD no point you were trying to make, then? Can't say I'm all that surprised, considering the sort of stuff you've been posting since your return.

It's nice that you have fessed up to posting nonsense, though. Good on you.