Rapaport: Expect Bears to retain Eberflus as head coach in 2024

[dll2000]

25 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

 

And its a lame excuse. If Justin Fields fails out of the league, its not because of the way the HC/OC were handled. Trubisky proves that point, it just means they werent good enough

I disagree and agree to a degree (poetic).

So when Kurt Warner failed out of league was it because he just wasn't good enough?

Everything matters for success or failure.  Coaching, situation, surrounding talent, competition at same position, draft status, opportunity, practice reps, game reps - these things matter for success and development.  

All that being said, Trubisky likely is who he is regardless if he got best of all worlds from jump or his career went way it did. 

Fields maybe same.  His story isn't finished though - he could still emerge as a stud.   

I think there is no question Fields would be a better football player right this moment if:

1) He got number 1 reps from draft.

2) He had better talent around him from start. 

3) He had same coaching and system from draft to today (assuming it is competent).  

But life isn't fair or perfect.

I think I would be very much in favor of retaining Fields without money commitment looming and solid college prospects available to replace him.  I still love his potential.  

[dll2000]

If injuries don't happen in SF do any of us know who Purdy is?

I think that dude deserves more credit than he gets.  Especially coming off a horrific injury.

 

[AZBearsFan]

18 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I think I would be very much in favor of retaining Fields without money commitment looming and solid college prospects available to replace him.  I still love his potential.  

All of them have elite potential. You know more about Fields’ NFL floor though (a middle tier NFL starter) though, where you’re left to guess that for the prospects. How much value that holds for Poles is another piece of the great unknown. 

Edited January 3 by AZBearsFan

[AZBearsFan]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

All of them have elite potential. You know more about Fields’ NFL floor though (a middle tier NFL starter) though, where you’re left to guess that for the prospects. How much value that holds for Poles is another piece of the great unknown. 

There’s a non-zero chance that a prospect (even a highly touted one) gets to the NFL and is just abysmal. You already know that’s not the case with Fields, and he’s almost certainly not going to get worse with more talent around him. That is not insignificant. 

[dll2000]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

All of them have elite potential. You know more about Fields’ NFL floor though (a middle tier NFL starter) though, where you’re left to guess that for the prospects. How much value that holds for Poles is another piece of the great unknown. 

Good point.  You also don't know ceiling of prospects, but have a better idea of Fields ceiling.

I think Poles knows now.   What he knows I don't know.   I feel like if I was at practices and meetings throughout I would have a much better idea.

We lack a lot of context and information.

 

[dll2000]

Just now, AZBearsFan said:

There’s a non-zero chance that a prospect (even a highly touted one) gets to the NFL and is just abysmal. You already know that’s not the case with Fields, and he’s almost certainly not going to get worse with more talent around him. That is not insignificant. 

Yes, in that sense the risk of drafting a QB is greater overall risk.

But the goal isn't to be good and competitive.   The goal is championships.

The bottom line question they have to answer is can Fields win a SB and not just that, be the reason they won a SB because you will have to pay him bigly even if he is average before long.

 

[AZBearsFan]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

Good point.  You also don't know ceiling of prospects, but have a better idea of Fields ceiling.

I think Poles knows now.   What he knows I don't know.   I feel like if I was at practices and meetings throughout I would have a much better idea.

We lack a lot of context and information.

 

Exactly, and when Fields is on like he was against WSH and DEN and ATL he’s as good as anyone. We’ve seen that against NFL competition. Do we see more of that with more talent around Fields? If so, how much more? 

[AZBearsFan]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

But the goal isn't to be good and competitive.   The goal is championships.

The goal is always to win, but the realistic goal is to be a contender to win every year. SF and BAL are the absolute models for that, and yet neither has actually won a title in the past 10 years. 

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, AZBearsFan said:

Exactly, and when Fields is on like he was against WSH and DEN and ATL he’s as good as anyone. We’ve seen that against NFL competition. Do we see more of that with more talent around Fields? If so, how much more? 

He has high highs and low lows.  He does things only he can do.   He has all the tools.  

Since defense started filling statline with turnovers a lot of games should have been blowouts and some have been losses. 

He is getting a lot of defensive help.

 

 

[dll2000]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

The goal is always to win, but the realistic goal is to be a contender to win every year. SF and BAL are the absolute models for that, and yet neither has actually won a title in the past 10 years. 

SF had a loaded team and went all in for Trey Lance rather than stay with Jimmy G. who had a good floor.  They totally screwed that choice up and got lucky with Purdy, but I think the reasoning was fine.  

BAL is interesting.  They took a radical chance and built team and offense around a run first QB or at least a dual threat QB.   Nobody else has done that or been willing to that.   I admire that.      

Everyone could have drafted Lamar Jackson and everyone could have traded for him during contract dispute and injuries.  People forget he wasn't playing great for awhile.   Everybody passed both times.  

They also consistently draft pretty well and develop talent.

KC traded up for Mahomes with a loaded team and a solid QB coming off a great year.  By trading up for Mahomes and not selecting two position players they robbed a contending team of some potentially great talent to help Alex Smith.

They knew Alex Smith's floor at time as well and it was quite good.  Better player than Fields is now I would argue though ceiling not nearly as high. 

Obviously that was right choice in hindsight.

All those teams are still taking big chances to be great is my point.  

 

[AZBearsFan]

9 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

He has high highs and low lows.  He does things only he can do.   He has all the tools.  

Since defense started filling statline with turnovers a lot of games should have been blowouts and some have been losses. 

He is getting a lot of defensive help.

 

 

Why is it viewed as a negative for Fields that the defense is playing better? Does it not benefit Purdy or Mahomes or Lamar that their defense puts them in more advantageous positions at times? What about Hurts last year? Whether our QB is a finished product or not we should always want that, no? 

[dll2000]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Why is it viewed as a negative for Fields that the defense is playing better? Does it not benefit Purdy or Mahomes or Lamar that their defense puts them in more advantageous positions at times? What about Hurts last year? Whether our QB is a finished product or not we should always want that, no? 

Don't make it a whataboutism. 

If defensive puts ball inside 10 off a turnover that is an advantage for anyone.  Fields has failed to convert many turnovers into points this year.

A 4 turnover game should seldom be close.  

I am willing to give credit where it due, but he also gets blame where it is due.  

 

[AZBearsFan]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

SF had a loaded team and went all in for Trey Lance rather than stay with Jimmy G. who had a good floor.  They totally screwed that choice up and got lucky with Purdy, but I think the reasoning was fine.  

BAL is interesting.  They took a radical chance and built team and offense around a run first QB or at least a dual threat QB.   Nobody else has done that or been willing to that.   I admire that.      

Everyone could have drafted Lamar Jackson and everyone could have traded for him during contract dispute and injuries.  People forget he wasn't playing great for awhile.   Everybody passed both times.  

They also consistently draft pretty well and develop talent.

KC traded up for Mahomes with a loaded team and a solid QB coming off a great year.  By trading up for Mahomes and not selecting two position players they robbed a contending team of some potentially great talent to help Alex Smith.

They knew Alex Smith's floor at time as well and it was quite good.  Better player than Fields is now I would argue though ceiling not nearly as high. 

Obviously that was right choice in hindsight.

All those teams are still taking big chances to be great is my point.  

 

KC’s situation with Smith was different because Smith was already like 32 years old at that point and is what he is. Fields is 24 and growing. SF is, IMO, a prime example of why building as fortress of talent around the QB sets them up for success. Purdy has been really good there, but how many guys would plug and play into that group and have a lot of success? 

[Sugashane]

7 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Why is it viewed as a negative for Fields that the defense is playing better? Does it not benefit Purdy or Mahomes or Lamar that their defense puts them in more advantageous positions at times? What about Hurts last year? Whether our QB is a finished product or not we should always want that, no? 

Agreed. 

I tend to look at what the QB is solely (so to speak, someone has to catch for him, block for him, etc) responsible for. Is Fields a 10-27 QB? Yes. Is he a guy that SHOULD be a 10-27 QB? Hell no. His defense being bad for 1 year and downright pathetic for 1.5 years of his career has led to his win/loss total. Just as Tru is a 29-21 QB in CHI, he wasn't WHY they were in the position as much as a beneficiary of elite defense for a good time. 

I think the concern is as always that when he gets his megadeal (assuming he would be extended at some point) could you surround him with the talent he needs to succeed while also affording an average or better defense. Hard to really factor since there are so many variables. 

[AZBearsFan]

3 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Don't make it a whataboutism. 

If defensive puts ball inside 10 off a turnover that is an advantage for anyone.  Fields has failed to convert many turnovers into points this year.

A 4 turnover game should seldom be close.  

I am willing to give credit where it due, but he also gets blame where it is due.  

 

So when he’s set up to succeed it’s the defense that gets all the credit, but when things don’t succeed it’s blanketed a QB failure? That’s not how that works. I’ve never said Fields is without blame when things haven’t gone well on offense but he has unquestionably played better at the same time as the defense has played better. Both things can be (and are) true at the same time.