2023 Around the League

[StLunatic88]

5 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

This is good news for Bears if they would be trading first pick.

They were always going to be in the QB market unless Howell took them on a Playoff run. 

New Owner + New Coach means it was inevitable

If the Cards are sticking with Kyler, it would be nice if they snag that Week 18 game vs the Seahawks, knocking them down to #4. That way anyone who wants their QB, they would have to jump to #1 over WAS/NE

 

I do think Sam Howell will be useful in the NFL going forward, but something happened to him this year (probably shell shock from all the sacks)

[dll2000]

On 12/24/2023 at 7:54 PM, Sugashane said:

Urban Meyer is like a franchise herpes. They're just dealing with a flare up from him.

That dude is in argument for greatest college coaches of all time.   He won everywhere and won bigly.  That isn't an easy accomplishment.  

He really screwed pooch in NFL, but for people to remember him as a total bum of a coach is strange. 

Saban's experience wasn't all that different.  Nor was Lou Holtz's.  Nor was Steve Spurrier's. They rehabilitated their coaching image going back to college.  

Jimmy Johnson without the Herschel Walker trade may have gone down same way.   He got enough time to prove himself after a horrendous start.

I think the college coaches with the HUGE reputations' suffer for it a bit.  Both in way they come in and demand to be dictator's they were when they left college and the long knives that come after them.   People rebel and in football there are so many moving parts if everyone isn't pulling rope in same direction results are most often disastrous.  

It is easier in a lot of senses to come out of college ranks and not already be a legend to succeed in NFL.

 

 

[dll2000]

2 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

They were always going to be in the QB market unless Howell took them on a Playoff run. 

New Owner + New Coach means it was inevitable

If the Cards are sticking with Kyler, it would be nice if they snag that Week 18 game vs the Seahawks, knocking them down to #4. That way anyone who wants their QB, they would have to jump to #1 over WAS/NE

 

I do think Sam Howell will be useful in the NFL going forward, but something happened to him this year (probably shell shock from all the sacks)

Yes.  This just cemented it.  

Obviously Wash originally went with Howell and resigned Payne didn't trade Sweat and/or Young earlier because they were trying to make some kind of miracle run with a found rookie QB and 'loaded' team around him.  

It was a long shot plan that didn't work.  Then they got to point where they weren't going to let a lame duck staff make any more big moves.

 

[Sugashane]

7 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

It is easier in a lot of senses to come out of college ranks and not already be a legend to succeed in NFL.

 

 

I don't disagree at all about Meyer's legacy in college. In what seems like a lifetime ago I was emailing Billy Gonzalez about going to FLA to try and be a volunteer assistant in hopes of eventually being a graduate assistant under him and Meyer. Instead I chose to be a mediocre DIII athlete (Terrible choice in hindsight. Lol)

Unless college coaches had some sort of previous coaching experience (positional or coordinator usually) in the NFL they seem to be almost guaranteed busts. I'm likely missing someone but since Jimmy Johnson who has been a 100% pure college coach who was successful? Guys like Chip Kelly made impacts with innovations and such but who has actually been a winner? I can't think of any since Johnson to have a career win percentage of over .500 right now. That's been one reason I've been out on Riley. He may have pedigree, respect of NFL coaches for his offensovr acument, and has helped a number of QBs grow but he is a pure college coach.

[dll2000]

4 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I don't disagree at all about Meyer's legacy in college. In what seems like a lifetime ago I was emailing Billy Gonzalez about going to FLA to try and be a volunteer assistant in hopes of eventually being a graduate assistant under him and Meyer. Instead I chose to be a mediocre DIII athlete (Terrible choice in hindsight. Lol)

Unless college coaches had some sort of previous coaching experience (positional or coordinator usually) in the NFL they seem to be almost guaranteed busts. I'm likely missing someone but since Jimmy Johnson who has been a 100% pure college coach who was successful? Guys like Chip Kelly made impacts with innovations and such but who has actually been a winner? I can't think of any since Johnson to have a career win percentage of over .500 right now. That's been one reason I've been out on Riley. He may have pedigree, respect of NFL coaches for his offensovr acument, and has helped a number of QBs grow but he is a pure college coach.

I think the better path to success is to come into NFL out of college and be a coordinator then be a HC.  The legends can't do that though.  They go straight to HC and the learning curve wrecks most of them. You would think they would learn and see the pattern.  But they all think they are different and special.  

Fun fact about me:  I was offered some kind of financial assistance to play for St. John's in MN and play for John Gagliardi.  Though recruiter never mentioned Galiardi or his record.  That may have swayed me.  Who knows?  

I had never heard of either and I declined.  I figured I was never going to be a pro football player so why wreck my body playing football in college?  

Later when I started volunteer coaching I discovered a love for coaching.  Then I started researching coaching and coaching theory as part of that.   I quickly came across the name John Gagliardi who is winningest football coach of all time in college football.  Then I remembered the recruiter and the school.  

He was very different coach and never went to a big school because he wanted to remain very different.  He wanted to do things his way and not be interfered with in any way.  

Had I known I loved coaching at time, I would have jumped at chance to learn from a guy like that even if I didn't adopt all his methods.

Alas God had another fate in mind for me and getting paid to coach was not the plan for me.   But it is fun to think about the what ifs sometimes.

I don't love coaching like I used to as a younger man anyway.  I have new loves now.

[dll2000]

Looks like Broncos are out on Wilson.  That ordeal was almost us on top of our other issues.  

We would have been league bottom feeders for two decades.  

[beardown3231]

50 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Looks like Broncos are out on Wilson.  That ordeal was almost us on top of our other issues.  

We would have been league bottom feeders for two decades.  

What's another decade or two?

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, beardown3231 said:

What's another decade or two?

Right? 

But we have a good chance of getting number 1 pick which gives us another bite at QB apple without a massive trade of resources.

The trade last year of number 1 is looking like a tremendous value at the moment.

[chisoxguy7]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

But we have a good chance of getting number 1 pick which gives us another bite at QB apple without a massive trade of resources.

I still believe we haven't done enough for Fields to get a true evaluation. My perspective is this: if we land #1 and trade down again (and replace Getsy), we will accomplish (1) getting a true evaluation of Fields, and (2) position ourselves so that the team is stronger for the next guy, whether that is through FA or the draft.

Even IF Fields turns out to not be the guy, and IF we end up having to trade up to take a QB, it doesn't really cost us anything, assuming we trade down this year. We would essentially be shipping out resources we had received previously. The net value doesn't change. But by doing this and keeping Fields, the potential net value increases because Fields may perform such that we don't need to draft a QB at all.

Not to mention the idea of throwing a rookie QB into this offense with this surrounding cast horrifies me. To me it makes much more sense to fix the remaining issues on the OL, bring in a competent and consistent WR2 and some depth pieces you aren't horrified to put on the field, and go from there. The bottom line is the team isn't in a position to add a rookie QB right now. We'd be making the same mistake we made with Trubisky and with Fields--bringing the QB in when there are too many other holes.

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, chisoxguy7 said:

I still believe we haven't done enough for Fields to get a true evaluation. My perspective is this: if we land #1 and trade down again (and replace Getsy), we will accomplish (1) getting a true evaluation of Fields, and (2) position ourselves so that the team is stronger for the next guy, whether that is through FA or the draft.

Even IF Fields turns out to not be the guy, and IF we end up having to trade up to take a QB, it doesn't really cost us anything, assuming we trade down this year. We would essentially be shipping out resources we had received previously. The net value doesn't change. But by doing this and keeping Fields, the potential net value increases because Fields may perform such that we don't need to draft a QB at all.

Not to mention the idea of throwing a rookie QB into this offense with this surrounding cast horrifies me. To me it makes much more sense to fix the remaining issues on the OL, bring in a competent and consistent WR2 and some depth pieces you aren't horrified to put on the field, and go from there. The bottom line is the team isn't in a position to add a rookie QB right now. We'd be making the same mistake we made with Trubisky and with Fields--bringing the QB in when there are too many other holes.

I agree it wasn't an ideal evaluation, but unfortunately the decision is now forced due to contract and our draft status with Carolina pick.

I think Fields not being better at this point is more of an institutional failure than a Fields failure.  But Fields bears his share of blame as well.  I think other QBs would have succeeded (moreso) where he did not this season.   

I think you cannot pass on #1 college QB at this stage in game unless you are sure of your QB.  Last year was a different story.  Now we are 1 year later in contract and the prospects are more highly thought of.  

I still think Fields can be a great QB in this league.  But I cannot keep wishing and hoping the light goes off for him the next year when I have another cheaper option and Fields is due to be paid.

He needed to show me more this year than he did.   The greater value for the Bears was for him to be the unquestioned guy and we trade the pick for a king's ransom.   

That was my ideal and preferred scenario from the Carolina trade until Cleveland game. 

If it is me - Fields is traded and I am taking the college QB.   But obviously whatever Bears do I will have to live with it and root for it.  

[dll2000]

11 minutes ago, chisoxguy7 said:

I still believe we haven't done enough for Fields to get a true evaluation. My perspective is this: if we land #1 and trade down again (and replace Getsy), we will accomplish (1) getting a true evaluation of Fields, and (2) position ourselves so that the team is stronger for the next guy, whether that is through FA or the draft.

Even IF Fields turns out to not be the guy, and IF we end up having to trade up to take a QB, it doesn't really cost us anything, assuming we trade down this year. We would essentially be shipping out resources we had received previously. The net value doesn't change. But by doing this and keeping Fields, the potential net value increases because Fields may perform such that we don't need to draft a QB at all.

Not to mention the idea of throwing a rookie QB into this offense with this surrounding cast horrifies me. To me it makes much more sense to fix the remaining issues on the OL, bring in a competent and consistent WR2 and some depth pieces you aren't horrified to put on the field, and go from there. The bottom line is the team isn't in a position to add a rookie QB right now. We'd be making the same mistake we made with Trubisky and with Fields--bringing the QB in when there are too many other holes.

Further this team is much, much further along for a rookie QB or Fields in 2024.  

Oline is leaps and bounds better than its disastrous lows of two years ago.  DJ is a top weapon.  Kmet has improved drastically.

And I understand this is a very good college WR and TE class. 

The defense is dramatically improved from two years ago.   And is arguably looking to be one of better units in league in 2024 and at its best in 2023 was one of best in league.

The Sweat trade radically changed the defense.  Now you have legit pieces at each level of defense. 

 

[dll2000]

Further still adding a rookie QB will allow for a few more bigger FA signings to shore things up (theoretically).

 

[AZBearsFan]

2 hours ago, chisoxguy7 said:

I still believe we haven't done enough for Fields to get a true evaluation. My perspective is this: if we land #1 and trade down again (and replace Getsy), we will accomplish (1) getting a true evaluation of Fields, and (2) position ourselves so that the team is stronger for the next guy, whether that is through FA or the draft.

Even IF Fields turns out to not be the guy, and IF we end up having to trade up to take a QB, it doesn't really cost us anything, assuming we trade down this year. We would essentially be shipping out resources we had received previously. The net value doesn't change. But by doing this and keeping Fields, the potential net value increases because Fields may perform such that we don't need to draft a QB at all.

Not to mention the idea of throwing a rookie QB into this offense with this surrounding cast horrifies me. To me it makes much more sense to fix the remaining issues on the OL, bring in a competent and consistent WR2 and some depth pieces you aren't horrified to put on the field, and go from there. The bottom line is the team isn't in a position to add a rookie QB right now. We'd be making the same mistake we made with Trubisky and with Fields--bringing the QB in when there are too many other holes.

If we ride with Fields for 2024 and trade down and Fields flames out we’ll have, at minimum, two 1sts and 2 2nds (including CAR’s) in 2025 with which to move up to get whatever QB we might want in next year’s draft if so inclined without compromising any future drafts. If Poles is not sold on Williams/Maye but also not sold on Fields  the punt on Williams/Maye doesn’t have to be the full blown tie to Fields most think it is. 

[chisoxguy7]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

If we ride with Fields for 2024 and trade down and Fields flames out we’ll have, at minimum, two 1sts and 2 2nds (including CAR’s) in 2025 with which to move up to get whatever QB we might want in next year’s draft if so inclined without compromising any future drafts. If Poles is not sold on Williams/Maye but also not sold on Fields  the punt on Williams/Maye doesn’t have to be the full blown tie to Fields most think it is. 

Thanks for being more articulate than I. This is what I was trying to say. Sticking with Fields in 2024 doesn't mean mortgaging the future Rams-style to get a QB in 2025 if Fields doesn't work out. And presumably we have even fewer holes heading into 2025 where either Fields or a rookie QB should have us poised for a playoff run.

[chisoxguy7]

The way I see it, if Fields takes another step and we go Getsy ourselves a new offensive coordinator, we're a playoff team in 2024 and beyond. If Fields is not H1M in 2024, we're poised for a playoff run in 2025 and beyond.