CBears019 Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 1 hour ago, Ty21 said: I wish he was still around so we understood the expected quota Just trying to be real. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Romen Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 2 hours ago, chisoxguy7 said: Oh, you know he’s around and reading… just not writing. "I wish I could quit you!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbear72 Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 That last rant by JAF must have been the equivalent of a drunk text. I'm not kidding either. It was so random and angry for no reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 On 10/7/2022 at 10:21 PM, StLunatic88 said: Poles & Co are not tied to Fields, he is a sunk cost to a prior regime. Entering the season, Fields was the Bears’ most valuable asset. Developing him was their most logical path to success. Every player Poles inherited can be viewed as a sunk cost. It only benefits the new regime to help inherited players succeed. On 10/7/2022 at 10:21 PM, StLunatic88 said: They weren’t going to mortgage anything (picks/salary) this year. To me this is a false dichotomy. There were several short-term options available with negligible impact on the Bears’ future resources. On 10/7/2022 at 10:21 PM, StLunatic88 said: You know, the type of things that a guy like Joe Burrow showed very quickly. Rookie Burrow was surrounded by 3 good WRs and played under an offensive HC hand-picked to develop him. It’s impossible to say if Burrow would succeed in the Bears’ situation. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 22 hours ago, abstract_thought said: Entering the season, Fields was the Bears’ most valuable asset. Developing him was their most logical path to success. Every player Poles inherited can be viewed as a sunk cost. It only benefits the new regime to help inherited players succeed. To me this is a false dichotomy. There were several short-term options available with negligible impact on the Bears’ future resources. Rookie Burrow was surrounded by 3 good WRs and played under an offensive HC hand-picked to develop him. It’s impossible to say if Burrow would succeed in the Bears’ situation. If Bears have to restart at QB in draft their odds GM/coach of seeing a second contract go way down. Way easier path to success if Fields is successfully developed and they spend resources building around him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 1 hour ago, dll2000 said: If Bears have to restart at QB in draft their odds GM/coach of seeing a second contract go way down. Way easier path to success if Fields is successfully developed and they spend resources building around him. Very much disagree. Dont think that decision (Fields vs different QB) impacts their future at all. Again, Fields isnt their guy, they are just evaluating him to see if he is worth the time. If anything, when they hit that reset button at QB, it can reset their timeline, especially if they have done well elsewhere on the roster. The thing that could sink them on a second contract is who they would select to be their guy at QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 12 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said: Very much disagree. Dont think that decision (Fields vs different QB) impacts their future at all. Again, Fields isnt their guy, they are just evaluating him to see if he is worth the time. Paying the price to acquire another QB means fewer resources to build out the roster. Fields might leave the Bears no choice. But the best-case scenario still involves him becoming a long-term QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 9 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said: Very much disagree. Dont think that decision (Fields vs different QB) impacts their future at all. Again, Fields isnt their guy, they are just evaluating him to see if he is worth the time. If anything, when they hit that reset button at QB, it can reset their timeline, especially if they have done well elsewhere on the roster. The thing that could sink them on a second contract is who they would select to be their guy at QB. I don't believe it will reset their timeline. Bears historically only give 4 - 5 years to succeed or new people come in. They can conceivably be good next year with a 3rd year QB in Fields and a large influx of added draft and FA talent. That is their best path. If instead they do as you suggest they may, they spend a first round pick or likely multiple picks on a QB in draft. All that talent going toward that QB pick is talent you aren't adding to a deficient roster. In addition that new QB has to be trained which probably takes at least 2 years in best case scenario. So you have this bad year, next bad year with rookie and probably one more bad year. There is no way they survive all that as fans are already pissed this year. They aren't going to get a new extended honeymoon with a new rookie QB. They will be blamed instead for not developing this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 Since Halas who was owner and owners can coach as long as they want: Dooley - 4 years Gibron - 3 years Pardee - 3 years Armstrong - 4 Ditka 11 Wannstedt - 6 Jauron - 5 Lovie - 9 Trestman - 2 Fox - 3 Nagy - 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 8 minutes ago, abstract_thought said: Paying the price to acquire another QB means fewer resources to build out the roster. Fields might leave the Bears no choice. But the best-case scenario still involves him becoming a long-term QB. 6 minutes ago, dll2000 said: They can conceivably be good next year with a 3rd year QB in Fields and a large influx of added draft and FA talent. That is their best path. You guys are talking about their "Best Path". That is not at all what Im disputing, ofcourse Fields panning out is best for anyone, but if he doesnt, then that doesnt hurt this regime. He isnt on their ledger. Its all positive to them if he works out, and a hand washing if he doesnt. 8 minutes ago, dll2000 said: I don't believe it will reset their timeline. Bears historically only give 4 - 5 years to succeed or new people come in. Yea but it very possibly (likely even) could be brand new ownership in very short order. 9 minutes ago, dll2000 said: If instead they do as you suggest they may, they spend a first round pick or likely multiple picks on a QB in draft. All that talent going toward that QB pick is talent you aren't adding to a deficient roster. In addition that new QB has to be trained which probably takes at least 2 years in best case scenario. You are now extending this scenario to something I never said. Giving up multiple Firsts for this supposed QB right now would be a bad move. But what if they stick with Fields into next year, as well as bring in a real backup (Garnder Minshew or someone like that) and he doesnt advance as a QB as you continue to add OL pieces, and a few more weapons with all the Cap space we have in 2023. So much that the same fans you are so worried about, are clamoring to see the backup get some starts. So then thats on this regime? No not at all, thats all on Justin Fields. And they will move on from him. And yes they will be allowed to draft their own guy, and pretty much whatever it takes to go get that guy. And they will also be givin the time to get that guy up to speed (2/3 years). So right there we are already at 5 years of this regiem. So, sure if they fail everywhere else around the roster; theres no defense built, they never find weapons, or build an OL, then sure their tenure will come to an end. But if they do most of those things (lets just say build a Top 10 D, and a well respected OL) and even if the next QB doesnt blossom, that alone isnt going to sink their ship. Poles was not brought in to make Justin Fields a star. He was brought in to build back up the franchise. He needed to evaluate Fields, and make a decision on him as part of that process. But until he makes that decision, he isnt sinking or swimming with Justin Fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abstract_thought Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 1 minute ago, StLunatic88 said: You guys are talking about their "Best Path". That is not at all what Im disputing, ofcourse Fields panning out is best for anyone, but if he doesnt, then that doesnt hurt this regime. He isnt on their ledger. Its all positive to them if he works out, and a hand washing if he doesnt. It doesn't hurt them in the sense that Fields isn't "their selection." It hurts them in the sense that they'll use resources on another QB instead of rebuilding the rest of the roster. Acquiring a QB is usually very expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbear72 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 20 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said: Yea but it very possibly (likely even) could be brand new ownership in very short order. This, I believe, would work against them. If they are not winning and have to start over at QB yet again, I don't think that new ownership is going to be that patient. Why would they be? I think they will want to get their guys in and start over fresh for a couple of reasons. 1. They aren't their guys and if they need to "fix" things it will likely be a fix from top to bottom if things are progressing as it is perceived that it should be. 2. Starting over from scratch with a new owner will generate buzz, hope, and excitement from the national media and the fanbase which is exactly what new ownership would want from a business perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 20 minutes ago, abstract_thought said: It hurts them in the sense that they'll use resources on another QB instead of rebuilding the rest of the roster. Acquiring a QB is usually very expensive. Again, youre assuming a specific scenario here. What if Fields peaked yesterday? (I dont want that, but thats also a scenario out there) and we only end up with 3 wins and a Top 2 pick? I dont know if Stroud or Young is the guy, but if they are, that only costs you one pick, and you have another Top 33 pick in the same draft. There are ways to get a QB without Selling the farm, but they dont come around as often. 8 minutes ago, Bigbear72 said: This, I believe, would work against them. If they are not winning and have to start over at QB yet again, Definitely could. but what if they are playing well on Defense and its the QB spot holding us back? The new owners would have just shelled out the money to buy the team, they arent going to buy out a Front Office if they dont have to. Again, we can all spin a scenario that fits what we want to say, because its all hypothetical. All I was saying was, Justin Fields is not what is going to sink this regiem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbear72 Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 1 minute ago, StLunatic88 said: Again, youre assuming a specific scenario here. What if Fields peaked yesterday? (I dont want that, but thats also a scenario out there) and we only end up with 3 wins and a Top 2 pick? I dont know if Stroud or Young is the guy, but if they are, that only costs you one pick, and you have another Top 33 pick in the same draft. There are ways to get a QB without Selling the farm, but they dont come around as often. Definitely could. but what if they are playing well on Defense and its the QB spot holding us back? The new owners would have just shelled out the money to buy the team, they arent going to buy out a Front Office if they dont have to. Again, we can all spin a scenario that fits what we want to say, because its all hypothetical. All I was saying was, Justin Fields is not what is going to sink this regiem. You are correct that at this point it is all speculation. All of our evaluations come from a "what I would do" point of view. Best case scenario is that we don't even have to have this conversation by the end of year because measurable progress has taken place and we have a smart off season. Honestly, I don't care if the plan falls in line with how I think it should be done or not. I just want something to work. This franchise has been broken for a long time. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dll2000 Posted October 10, 2022 Author Share Posted October 10, 2022 31 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said: You guys are talking about their "Best Path". That is not at all what Im disputing, ofcourse Fields panning out is best for anyone, but if he doesnt, then that doesnt hurt this regime. He isnt on their ledger. Its all positive to them if he works out, and a hand washing if he doesnt. Yea but it very possibly (likely even) could be brand new ownership in very short order. You are now extending this scenario to something I never said. Giving up multiple Firsts for this supposed QB right now would be a bad move. But what if they stick with Fields into next year, as well as bring in a real backup (Garnder Minshew or someone like that) and he doesnt advance as a QB as you continue to add OL pieces, and a few more weapons with all the Cap space we have in 2023. So much that the same fans you are so worried about, are clamoring to see the backup get some starts. So then thats on this regime? No not at all, thats all on Justin Fields. And they will move on from him. And yes they will be allowed to draft their own guy, and pretty much whatever it takes to go get that guy. And they will also be givin the time to get that guy up to speed (2/3 years). So right there we are already at 5 years of this regiem. So, sure if they fail everywhere else around the roster; theres no defense built, they never find weapons, or build an OL, then sure their tenure will come to an end. But if they do most of those things (lets just say build a Top 10 D, and a well respected OL) and even if the next QB doesnt blossom, that alone isnt going to sink their ship. Poles was not brought in to make Justin Fields a star. He was brought in to build back up the franchise. He needed to evaluate Fields, and make a decision on him as part of that process. But until he makes that decision, he isnt sinking or swimming with Justin Fields. I assumed you meant draft a QB. Which means first rounder and often means multiple picks unless you have a top 2 - 3 selection. But I will use your scenario. Stick with Fields next year with a real back up like Gardner Minshew (or someone like that). Then draft someone year after right? Assuming Gardner doesn't light world on fire. So drafting a new in 2024 and hitting reset and then giving Eberflus and Poles 3 more years after that? I think there is no way. In last 10+ years Bears fans have had 2018 and 2010 (last two years they won division). Rest of seasons have been bad or disappointing. And 2018 was disappointing because it was one and done. They have been disappointing since 2018. So we are already 4 years into that feeling right now. If Fields doesn't look good next year they are screwed in my opinion. They have to improve dramatically next year and make playoffs following year or they are all on hot seat. Especially if Rodgers retires in next two years. Drafting a rookie two years hence is a nail in coffin and incidentally puts next regime in exact same position this one is in. Playing someone else's QB draft pick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.