BearFan PHX

I give Poles an A+ right up until the Eberflus decision, and one decision doesn't equal all the good he's done, so yes in general he's still doing OK. But I dont even look at Claypool or Velus, and I think hes done an outstanding job. At least until this Eberflus decision. We'll see where we go from here, but yes in terms of talent acquisition and gaming the draft, he's killing it.

when you win a big playoff game its one thing, when you win a regular season game in a season you went 7-10? Also he's not going into a season where the fate of the guy he is hugging is hanging by a thread? Justin was definitely a hero in my eyes for what he did about COVID

A defensive oriented head coach like Wannstedt or Eberflus will absolutely tell the offense to run more, eat more clock, take fewer risks and play field position. Look at Tony Dungy. That's the blueprint. Unfortunately, the rules have changed in the NFL and the days of smothering a good opponent 13-7 are much fewer. To realistically win in the NFL youve got to be able to put 30 points up on a somewhat regular basis. And that doesnt work with safe zone, eat clock, possession football of 30 years ago.

this is 100% right. I bought into it for a long time, but eventually, I realized it was just a circle going around and around making the same bad structural errors over and over for decades. I hope Kevin Warren will eventually have enough juice in the building and perspective to fix some of these things. That would probably mean hiring a new GM, so Poles has to run his experiment first. And dont get me wrong, I have loved Poles up until his decision to keep Eberflus. I feel like he is good at identifying talent and bringing people here, now we get to see if he will fire, cut or trade "his" people. I never thought Velus or Claypool were picks Poles would have made if he didnt feel pressure to being in WRs. When you have positional needs like that, you reach. I think Poles knew he was reaching too at the time, but he had to do it. So I think getting rid of those two is easier for him. But YES, if this crashes and burns, Warren needs to get all the pieces in order top down. Dont hire a linebackers coach before the coordinator. Dont hire the coach before the GM etc etc. And get a QB who is synchronized with the coaching staff. Dont take a rookie and dazzle him with the last year of an outgoing loser. It just makes them confused.

it does seem so, and if Eberflus lets them do their jobs, we have every shot at winning as far as our roster can take us. I hope Eberflus doesnt make them too strategize too safely. or maybe they will be over-agressive and Eberflus will balance them out perfectly. With good coordinators, Eberflus wont necessarily hurt the team. I do think that we missed an opportunity to bring in someone who gives us an edge in winning, but I dont think Eberflus will detract at all unless he makes them play too safe.

there is merit to this point for sure. But only if Poles is a cold calculating two faced poker player. And if he is, man do we have the right guy! But if on the other hand, the young former player wants to be part of the team, loved by the players, share in the glory of a regular season victory in a losing season, then he is getting high on his own supply and will be less able to cut and trade players because of loyalty and and wanting to belong as a part of the team? If Poles cuts or trades Fields this year, then I will know that even if I'm right about the psychology of this, that Poles can still separate himself from the influence when decision making time comes, and that will put my concern to rest. i think I see evidence that it may have played into keeping Eberflus, but if we move on from Fields, then I'll think that Poles shuts out this possible internal noise when he makes the decision. Now if he keeps Fields it doesn't PROVE me right about this of course, but I personally will think it's an issue.

Oh this 100%. A true franchise QB is worth whatever you have to pay him. Hopefully he takes a little less so you can afford one more weapon for him (like Brady did) but even if not, they are worth every penny. That's why if Williams is the next great, he's worth much more than all the amazing things you could get with the #1 pick by trading down, and it'd be a LOT. A young Peyton Manning just coming into his prime is worth at least 8 first rounders in value. You don't know when you pick a guy if he will be that though, so a lottery ticket on, say, 66% likely to get Peyton Manning is worth 5+ first rounders in value. And our number 1 pick is worth about 3 first rounders in total trade value. Now if you don't think they guy has a 66% chance to be Peyton Manning, then that's a whole different story. Or if you think there are several QBs in the draft that all have an equal chance to be a good franchise QB, then that can affect the decision too. But the whole game in the NFL is having one of those 5 top QBs going into their prime. If you can build around them while theyre on their rookie contracts, you can get one or two superbowls, like Mahomes did. But then they really earn their money when they start to get paid big. That's when they dont have a flawless team around them, because theyre eating up the cap, but they are SO good that if you're down 6 with 2:30 to go in the 4th quarter, and they get the ball in their hand you almost KNOW theyre gonna score. A guy like that you pay all day. That's the holy grail of the NFL and winning championships. Mahomes is on the cusp of making the argument that he's that guy - win another one this time not on your rookie deal. The harder calculation is when you have a QB who's OK, but not that world beating hero, and he needs $40M or $50 Million a year. He's not gonna take that depleted roster (because youre paying HIM) down the field on his back, and he isnt gonna be Peyton Manning, even if hes the 10th best QB in the league. Do you pay a guy like that, and then never get over the hump, or do you draft a rookie and hope you got a GOAT, and then build a team around him to start the winning going until you get to that 5th year decision. One note - it takes two or three years for the impact of your huge non rookie deal to cause players to leave via free agency for money that their current team now cant afford. So I know Mahomes won one already with his larger deal, but this is the year where his roster is really starting to get more bare. Can he win it anyway on his own abilities? if he can, he's on track to challenge Brady's record of 7-10 in the SB. And we need to find a guy to compete with THAT for the next ten years. If we arent doing that, then we arent serious about winning superbowls.

yeah thats what Im saying - it could be strategic to get himself back into the NFL scouting game. if youre wrong, no one expects you to be right if youre the town contrarian, your value is there just to check the general consensus, and if youre right, youre a genius and the only one with a crystal ball. I read an article once about an amazing investment brokerage scam. They'd identify, say 10,000 people and mail then a mailer that said they were making a BOLD prediction on a volatile stock. And giving it away as a FREE tip. Half of the 10,000 got a mailer that said it would go up and half got one that said it would go down. After the outcome, they had a list of 5,000 people they'd sent the right prediction to. Then they did it again on another volatile stock with a FREE tip, and got a pool of 2,500 people theyd been right 2 in a row on. Did it again, and now you've got an audience of 1,250 people to whom youve given three incredibly risky free stock picks that each paid off big. Three for three! Wanna pay for more tips?! LOL But I still appreciate the contrary narrative on Williams, so I can keep my eyes open for that pattern. And I never would have taken a few of those guys seriously enough to even look at, and now I will. Not because I believe him, but just because he makes an argument, and proving it or disproving it widens my knowledge. And he's hoping an NFL scouting department would think so too!

LOL perfect. I guess he is a contrarian, and there is a need for one in every NFL draft room. Plus, no one blames you when youre wrong, because thats your role: to go against common wisdom. And when youre right, you were the only one that saw it - pretty good gig! I am glad to have some new names to look at, and a short rationale to prove or disprove. It's great to see some contrary opinion on Williams too. Not saying it's true, but it's great to have questions to look for and answer. I don't know about his ranking of Williams, but to take it seriously that the guy will need to take coaching in the NFL and to question how he will react to that is a big deal, and we've all said it before this article too. I think that's Poles' biggest challenge in evaluating Williams - his mental state and openness to being tamed. My first off the cuff reaction to the article was "I guess there are more QB candidates than the five i was focused on," and this increases the possibility of trading the #1 pick overall and still getting a good QB at #9 - since there are now more names to consider, perhaps there will be more that are top 10 pick worthy. Maybe we trade #1 down to #3, grab MHJr and then a QB at #9 if we arent on the Williams train. I also think that Penix has injury histories, is older and sucked against Michigan, but before the Michigan game, I thought that if his medicals came back good, he'd be my #1 choice.

My guess is the media department doesnt know anything about what Poles might do re: Justin. They probably just react to the demand for cool Justin social media stuff. An interesting question is whether Poles should care what the media department is doing. On one hand, you dont want any action you take to tip your hand, but on the other it potentially gives really mixed messages if you're gonna move on from him. Then again, so does hugging him in the locker room. I still don't understand how you can do that as a GM.

I agree Pix, it certainly could be gathering intel on Chicago's draft plans. It could also be gathering info on Justin Fields' trajectory and value in case they want to trade for him too. But if they are serious, i think this is how the argument would go. Just as some people blame Getsy for Fields, I think other people around the league may blame Fields for Getsy's failures. I'm not saying they are right at all, but the argument would go like this: Getsy had to limit his playbook because Fields wouldn't pull the trigger. He called too many screens because a screen pass doesnt have a read and it forces the ball out of Justin's hands. He had guys open across the middle and Justin just didn't throw to them. He had a lot of plays that worked, but Justin improvised instead. Look how good he was with Rodgers in GB. That's what people who are considering Getsy might say.

Ok this is awsome. I can't even react to it yet because of all the names Ive seen nothing on - but this is the kind of non-echo chamber stuff that reinvigorates the whole discussion. And I dunno if Im gonna think this guy is a genius or a moron, but it's gonna provoke many more hours of film watching on new candidates. NICE.

I wish you were the GM of the Packers.

You keep saying you get your opinions from other people, I am encouraging you to have your own opinions.

Je pense que nous sommes d'accord sur beaucoup de choses en fait. J'étais en colère contre un autre membre, mais pas contre toi. Seulement à propos du seul argument de preuve anecdotique. J'utilise également Google Translate, car j'étais nul en français au lycée.

that scout worked for the Jets, and wrote a book about a fan making it into the NFL. We dont know how high ranking a scout he was, just some guy. And his own judgement is that Justin is inconsistent. He says he barely leans to keeping Justin. Barely is his word. But I think the best way to put what he said into perspective was this comment someone in the thread made: "Your first positive is Justin running. Bad for a QB. Your 2nd positive is "Downfield minded" but only had 4 plays of 40+yards. 3rd "positive" is he's inconsistent in 11-19 yards throws. And you want to keep him? Those aren't positives." and he later clarified that he didnt mean running is bad for QBs, but for it to be the FIRST positive is a bad sign.

I didnt even read the article, I just found the link as I was researching various studies on first round QBs. I just saw the number and thats all I saw. The link I pasted on the next reply from twitter, that chart is very eye opening to me. And also, way to class up the place with French

JJ is an excellent CB. I LOVE D'onta Foreman, he should be our starter. I've been saying it since training camp last year. Roschon Johnson is still growing, so he could well push for starting time too, so I guess I'm just saying I like them both more than Herbert, and I'd re-sign Foreman. Patrick Scales has done a decent job, but I admit I'm not up on the current gold standard for long snappers lol If Mercedes Lewis has another year in him, I like him for his limited role too. The rest are yawns. You can't fill all those holes so some will come back, but I dont really care which.

and here's another study / chart - this one really shows the difference of a #1 pick overall, and again remember my point is not every year has a great QB who is expected to be generational, so it stands to reason that the numbers will be even higher when that #1 pick is expected to be generational. And to be clear, even if it's 90%, that still means 1 in 10 is a miss, so nothing is assured. But still the numbers are hard to deny. https://twitter.com/DaveKluge/status/1747397144204472367/photo/1

there were two studies, both long term studies, adam's 20 year study, and the 30 year one from Harvard that ended in 2011 or something. So they covered two different time periods, but they overlapped. I had thought that adam's number was 80% too or close to it, if Im mis-remembering, then fair enough and I stand corrected. I'm pretty sure the Harvard study was at 80%? (EDIT, it says only 20% bust, not all 80% will be elite) I just googled and found this third study, and it claims 83% of #1 pick QBs are successful https://football.pitcherlist.com/pessimists-guide-to-the-nfl-draft/ of course the thresholds for successful, elite, franchise etc are arbitrary, and people could adjust them to increase or decrease the numbers, but a few facts remain no matter how you crunch the numbers: Fact 1) #1 overall pick QBs are more likely to meet any given thresholds of greatness than picks #2 thru #10. There is no pick range, including #2 thru #5 that perform as well as #1 pick QBs. Fact 2) whether it be 70% or 83% or somewhere in between, it is better than 2 to 1 that a #1 pick QB will be successful, elite whatever Fact 3) Some years have QBs that are touted as generational and some don't, and yet all those years figure into the 70% or 83% figures above, so it stands to reason that #1 pick QBs thought of as generational before the draft will have an even higher chance of being elite, successful etc. (I numbered them so if you disagree, you can tell me which link in the chain we're talking about) So that says to me that Caleb Williams, barring some bad info that isnt currently known to the people who call him generational, has a better chance at being elite or successful than the average #1 pick QB. It's probably somewhere like a 90%+ chance to be great. And a 90%+ lottery ticket on winning a great franchise elite (etc) QB is worth more than 5 good players you can get trading out of #1.

Im not asking you to trust my opinion. We share very little in our points of view. If this is your process, and it results in the conclusions you regularly come to, then i dont trust it either. If you dont want to do your own work and just constantly say that some pundit say XY and Z, then Id say you are a consumer of narratives, and i dont trust that opinion. If you watch the actual film, you might find that you have your own thoughts, and maybe we'd even agree.

Knowing that you need a franchise QB for real and long term success isnt the same thing as knowing who that player will be. The idea that you dont need a franchise QB to be a Superbowl winner because they are hard to identify doesnt add up. It's two different things.

theyd better!

do the pundits see character issues either? That's the problem. and the way you explained how you watch the pundits that agree with you more is exactly how someone gets trapped in a narrative.

No doubt. Picking rookie QBs is a very difficult thing to do. You can see if theie negatives, and those are real. You wonder if you can straighten them out with coaching, but you can probably predict with pretty good certainty who is going to suck based on how they already suck. But when you see them do great things on film, you still wonder if it will translate against NFL defenses. No college defense looks like an NFL defense, and ALL rookie QBs HAVE to grow in the league to survive, and predicting future growth at a new higher level is really hard. I do think you can critique non-rookie NFL QBs though. The film is there, and it's not rocket science. So I feel very comfortable saying Fields has to go, but I can only hope the Bears do a good job of picking the right rookie to replace him. Also, like you've said, some years the QBs are in a group, and sometimes you get players who are universally thought to be sure things. Now there is some failure rate among that group, but logically, they will go #1 overall. We know that #1 pick QBs have an 80% success rate over time, and that includes the years where there is no "sure thing" candidate. So it stands to reason that "sure thing" candidates taken #1 overall have a better than 80% chance to work out. Unless they find some personality issues that are really worrisome, I'd buy a lottery ticket with a better than 80% chance to pay off.