Week 4 embarrassment thread: Broncos (0-3) @ Bears (0-3)

[Sugashane]

22 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Im sorry to break this to you, but the Bears arent the laughing stock, Bears Fans are. Because for some reason the overwhelming majority of Bears Fans started pounding their chest in late summer that we were suddenly a playoff team and wasted all their betting money on Fields for MVP. While everyone else looked at the collective fan base and asked "what are y'all on?"

And once again, expecting some massive progress in week one was also a false hope. Then ontop of that, our OC apparently beat the playmaker out of our QB and decided we should call nothing but screens... Progress is a long game, not instant gratification. I miss the times when we actually let that happen. 

That sounds like a stretch but I'm not into the betting game. Wasn't he a stretch option that could result in a big return? Were people really chucking significant money on that? 

[dll2000]

No tank.  Let's win this game.

 

 

[Bigbear72]

33 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

That sounds like a stretch but I'm not into the betting game. Wasn't he a stretch option that could result in a big return? Were people really chucking significant money on that? 

This. It is also an assumption that all of those bets came from Bears fan, unless of course, StLunatic88 runs a sports book and verified that most of those bets came from bears fans.

[beardown3231]

2 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

No tank.  Let's win this game.

 

 

For what

[beardown3231]

Just now, Bigbear72 said:

This. It is also an assumption that all of those bets came from Bears fan, unless of course, StLunatic88 runs a sports book and verified that most of those bets came from bears fans.

He's right that Bears fans are ******* morons

He's wrong that the Bears aren't a laughing stock

[dll2000]

7 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

For what

Because winning is the point of playing a game.

A tank is strategic losing for long term advantage.   But losing, even in a tank, has consequences and is not generally desirable.  

I don't see a tank as an advantage all factors considered at this time.   It may become one shortly.  

I was all for tank second 3rd of season last year.

 

[dll2000]

Of course they can try their hardest to win and fail. 

Which is a distinct possibility and what they have been doing already in 2023.

 

 

[Ty21]

1 hour ago, dll2000 said:

Because winning is the point of playing a game.

A tank is strategic losing for long term advantage.   But losing, even in a tank, has consequences and is not generally desirable.  

I don't see a tank as an advantage all factors considered at this time.   It may become one shortly.  

I was all for tank second 3rd of season last year.

 

If winning is the point of the game, what have we been doing the last couple decades? Win a few every year  and be a ~.500 team forever. I prefer the long term advantage of tanking here. 

[StLunatic88]

1 hour ago, Bigbear72 said:

That doesn't discount the fact that player development has been disappointment to say the least. 

That is a fair complaint. I dont agree with alot of the whining that goes on in here, but that one has merit to it. 

I will say, I still dont think that those in charge are worried about winning at this point. And while I know there are posters here who still think that they really care what the fans think as an overall, I can tell you that they dont. They came in with a plan, they pretty much outlined to everyone that it was a 3+ year plan (depends how much that first offseason was a punt or it actually started the clock) and they have been sticking to it. So lets just burn it all down again halfway (or less) through it?

A bunch of you are already ready to throw in the towel on this regime, and to that I ask; What makes you think the next one is any better? I just put it out there, this has been a DECADE of one of the worst Franchises in the entire NFL, in essence since Jerry Angelo left, there is no quick fix to that. It needs to be pulled up root and stem, that is a long and painful process, that only a handful (at best) of guys who were on the roster last year would survive. And we are only through the first few innings of this overhaul, I say lets not just start the game over because we didnt hit Grand Slams in the first at bat or two.

And maybe the change thats actually needed is the McCaskey's? But until they sell, playing musical chairs for GMs and HCs and whatever other front office positions is only going to keep the wheels spinning in the mud of the dregs of the NFL. It might all be a momentary injection of hope, but the actual good franchises are built over the long haul. Warren+Poles+Eberflus might not be the ones to do that, but to me its worth seeing if what they laid out as a plan (even though they were awkwardly pieced together) can work out, because in theory what they want to do/the moves they are making make sense, but we didnt turn the entire thing around immediately like the Jaguars... oh wait

[StLunatic88]

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

That sounds like a stretch but I'm not into the betting game. Wasn't he a stretch option that could result in a big return? Were people really chucking significant money on that? 

This is from early august, but it persisted with alot of bets on him up through the pre-season.

He was Doubling up MAHOMES...

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by StLunatic88

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

Anybody remember when Russell Wilson carved up Lovie's Bears and broke out? Absolutely blew the doors off urlacher and those other stars.

What defense do we run here again?

[chisoxguy7]

3 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Anybody remember when Russell Wilson carved up Lovie's Bears and broke out? Absolutely blew the doors off urlacher and those other stars.

What defense do we run here again?

We run the Present defense, no not a typo, not prevent, present. As in, we present the end zone to the opponent for them to score a touchdown

[beardown3231]

4 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Because winning is the point of playing a game.

A tank is strategic losing for long term advantage.   But losing, even in a tank, has consequences and is not generally desirable.  

I don't see a tank as an advantage all factors considered at this time.   It may become one shortly.  

I was all for tank second 3rd of season last year.

 

What does a 6-11 record get them?

[dll2000]

6 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

What does a 6-11 record get them?

As opposed to 0-17?

It means they tasted at least some success.  Confidence and success breeds success and failure brings more failure.  There is a psychology to it.

Success comes primarily from talent and more talent comes from losing in NFL draft system, but there is a balance to it.   It is sometimes necessary, but tough to do it two years in a row.

Just like a super bowl team begets too many overpaid players, an overly losing team loses too many serviceable or good players caught up in bad circumstances.

I guess it depends on if we need a new QB.   If you need a new QB then I suppose you need us to be last place or hope Carolina is.   I think Fields is sufficiently talented that he can be a franchise QB in this league.   I have not left that opinion yet.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

[dll2000]

But a new QB is never going to work, unless it's Peyton Manning who is a Unicorn, until you learn to properly develop one.  

In their first two years from drafting: 

1) You need an offensive coach who knows how to teach a good young QB and has done it before in NFL himself.  Not just watched someone else do it or been in the room.   2) You need sufficient offensive talent that they don't lose confidence and/or don't get overly rushed and hit.   Getting hit too much too early seems to result in seeing ghosts forevermore.    3)  You can't change the coach and systems in those first two years.   Otherwise you are starting over.   4) You need at least two years of majority reps, offseason included, with all of the above in place. 

Yes, there are exceptions to above that have been great and even having all that is no guarantee of success.  Most QBs fail after all.   

But I would think above would improve your odds considerably.  And I want to eliminate other variables.  

Can you think of a time in modern era, when Bears did all that?  Now maybe every QB would have still failed.  Maybe.  But you aren't giving best path to success.  

But if I was a GM and I was drafting a rookie QB that criteria would be a must. 

 I would not pair a rookie first round QB with a defensive HC unless his name was Belichick or possibly Pete Carroll.  An all around experienced winner.   I would change HCs if I needed to if I planned to go QB in first.  

 If I drafted a QB and my Oline sucked (which would never happen if I was a GM unless it was my first or second year, as it would probably always be my first or second priority) - I would invest heavily in changing that immediately.   I know how vital it is.

I would make sure they had at least one dynamic weapon on outside.

I would build offense first and then defense.

If I did all that and at the end of two years he still stinks, I draft a new QB and try again.   But I would have eliminated other variables that may have caused him to fail. 

1) I know the coach can coach.

2) I know he wasn't ruined by a bad oline.

3) I know he had at least one guy who could get open.

4) I know he had sufficient reps to learn the same system.

I know odds are then he just wasn't good enough.  

BUT

If I give him an inexperienced coach, a crappy oline, change systems etc.   How do I know it wasn't mainly my fault?   People say, well he later went to another org. and still failed, so we know he is bad regardless   Yeah, but the other org. doesn't have same investment or interest as drafting team.   And damage has already been done in any event.   That doesn't tell you much to me.   It is one of those you will never know what might have been things.   Not a good process.