BearFan PHX

for sure.

yeah I think that might be true. And I think McCaskeys were on Poles side this time. Maybe just as simple as "we just never fire a head coach with more than 1 year left ont heir contract." Warren can fire Poles, but i think he would rather wait and see and give Poles enough rope to prove or hang himself. Think of it this way - GMs usually get 2 QBs to prove themselves, and Presidents usually get 2 GMs to prove themselves, so IF Warren disagreed, he could be taking the long view and letting Poles get a little further with his plan before he burns one of his GMs? But yeah, the President should generally let the GM hire and fire whoever they want, unless its so bad youre willing to fire the GM.

i think he's saying watch the all 22 tape and then you can see it with your own eyes. No one here is saying they are an expert and should be trusted blindly. Check it out for yourself, and then youll have your own opinion and that will be cool.

It could definitely happen. If the defense plays well, if Waldron and the QB get the offense going. Im not saying that because anecdotal evidence isnt predictive it means Flus CAN'T succeed. I'm just saying that anecdotal evidence doesn't prove he WILL succeed. Im saying anecdotal evidence doesn't prove either side or anything. That's all Im saying. we're all sports fans, we all know this already dont we?

Sorry, but the earth isnt flat and anecdotal evidence isnt predictive. It just isnt. In any century, at any time, on any subject. No matter who asks nicely and or tries to apply social pressure or whatever you cant make me say it - its wrong to even try. I know that that is a well known logical fallacy. It just is. It was true before any of us were born. We can move on, that's fine. But google it and find out.

lol, I see what you're doing, but no, it's not.

I think we see him the same way? Hes a total weirdo. He wants to win way too bad, it's not mentally healthy. I'm not being sarcastic, I really think that. But I'd love it for us. I hear Michael Jordan is miserable as a person. He needs to be beating everyone at everything just to feel comfortable. It's like how Madonna needed to be a star. She's sick - there was NO stopping her, and she used whoever she needed to to get to the top. Shes weird as hell, and probably no fun to be around. But there was no stopping her from achieving her goal. I miss the 85 team and the swagger and dominance. I want to aim for that, but I don't think the McCaskeys do. They want to win, sure, but not at any cost, and I don't think they feel comfortable with swagger. Then again that team wasn't able to stay together and win more either. So i do admit the risk of pushing the pedal down that hard. But Harbaugh has won everywhere he's gone.

I'm not sure Warren didn't want Harbaugh, but I do know about their clash when Warren was the Big 10 Commissioner. So it could be that you're right about this too. Either way though I definitely think youre right and that's what Poles and McCaskey were thinking. Avoiding risk and big personalities. I personally think it's too safe, and winning matters more than that. But the history of who the Bears have hired since Lovie has been of safe personalities that dont threaten the McCaskeys power or image. I had thought that was something we were all criticizing them for and why we hired Warren as a buffer to it? I would love a young Mike Ditka for this team. I dont deny any of the risk that comes with Harbaugh and I know he can be an SOB, so I get it. But I sure would love a young Mike Ditka for this team.

we'll see. If they keep Fields, and it ends up like i think it will as a result, then it'll be time for the flower that squirts water. I just don't personally understand keeping Flus on his own merits, no less when Harbaugh was available. But I do know that Harbaugh is a hard ass, and a lot of people dont like him, and so i understand concerns that he burns people out, and that pro players arent like college kids, and dont take as much of it. Still and all, we'll see how the Chargers fare after this, and how we do too from here. If we take Caleb Williams and he works out for us, that will cover for a lot of everything else. I dont see Eberflus adding much, but I do think if the defense continues to improve, and Waldron dials up Williams into a potent offense, we could go places, possibly even winning the Super Bowl. I dont think Fields will ever win a Super Bowl for us, but i do think we could win a Super Bowl because of everyone around Eberflus even if he doesn't add much in giving us any kind of winning edge. I still think keeping Flus was a mistake, and especially missing out on Harbaugh. Up until now I have really liked Poles, his acquisition phase has been really great. I am just worried that hes too loyal to his friends, and wont be able to trade, cut or fire people he likes and considers part of the team when it needs to be done. If Im right and they keep Fields too, then I think it's a clown show. If they draft a rookie QB, then it might just be a missed opportunity to be factored in with everything else that might bring the average up. For the record, I really didnt blame Poles for Claypool or Velus Jones. I understood those reaches, and pretty much everything else hes touched has turned to gold. Hes doing great. But now from here, where you gotta be able to cut dead weight, Im starting to be concerned. Well see what the draft brings.

I read this too, and I expect youre right. They dont want the NFL to be a way coaches avoid sanctions for college actions.

This is where I'm at too. I don't disrespect the players or pundits who think Justin is the right answer. I don't think they need to be stupid in my eyes for me to just not agree with them. I don't need to discount them, I just think they're wrong. I just do what you said. I watch the tape, and I see what I see. i don't think Fields is the answer, and I certainly don't think you walk away from a chance to have your pick of a strong rookie QB class. I'm not 100% on Williams yet, but I'm leaning more and more that way the more I am learning about him. But even if the scouts think Williams is a risk, and take another rookie in the top 3 picks or so, I still think that's preferable to sticking with Justin. I totally get the value of the haul we can get for the #1 pick too. It equals about 3 first round picks, and since not all the value will be in the first round, it will be more than three players. That's a lot of good players. Then I ask myself, if I was Kansas City, how many first round picks would it take to trade Mahomes away? 3 wouldnt do it, that's just the price of getting the #1 pick to try to find him again. I'd think it would take at least 5 or 6 first rounders worth of value to realistically even consider something like that. Bill Polian famously said that Peyton Manning was worth 10 first rounders, for example. Whether we agree or disagree, that's not outlandish. That's in the neighborhood of what an all time great QB is worth. So let's say finding a franchise QB is worth 5 first rounders. If there is an 80% chance that that player will hit and be a franchise QB, then that means the pick to us right now is worth at least 4 first rounders (5 x 0.8). And no one is offering us 4 first rounders for the #1 pick, so even though you dont get all those players, one successful Caleb Williams is worth more (5+). And so is one lottery ticket on Caleb being successful (4). And we actually have the pick. That's not likely to happen again for a while.

I dont think Im smarter than anyone else. Thats silly. I also think its OK to like Flus or not like Flus. There must be 50 arguments for keeping Flus. Most of them are decent arguments. I dont agree with the conclusion, but they are fine logical arguments. One of them is dumb, and makes no sense, and keeps getting repeated. That's the ONLY thing I'm talking about. Most bad coaches never get good. A few do. Bringing up one is anecdotal evidence and doesnt suggest anything about what will happen to Eberflus. That's all Im saying. One of the arguments is illogical, that does not mean the entire idea of keeping Eberflus is illogical, just that one reason. Im saying its a logical fallacy and the argument is dumb. Not that there arent other arguments for keeping Flus that arent logical fallacies. Im not disrespecting peoples overall opinions. I'm discounting just one of the arguments, because it is objectively flawed. Anecdotal Evidence, from Wikipedia Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[2][3] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[4] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.

If they are going to keep Eberflus and Fields, we're gonna see who was right... and then live with that for the next several years after. I guess it just comes down to whether people are fans of the team or the players. I want the team to win, i want good players to stay and bad ones to go. But if youre a fan of a bad player, then I can see why you'd want to give up the team to help the player.

So youd rather keep Poles powerful than get Harbaugh? You think future Bears success is more likely with Poles at GM than Harbaugh at HC if you had to pick one? This place is getting really weird.

yeah this would be ridiculously good.

Eh you guys are just being stupid. Youre caught on one side of an argument and you cant back off the territory you staked out. You got into it because youre defending Eberflus which is FINE. That's an opinion. Dick Vermeil was a bad coach who became a good coach. There is a list a mile long of bad coaches who stayed bad. Youre right its not 95/5 that would be WAAAAAYYYYY too high. It's more like 99.99/ 0.01 - almost all bad players and coaches stay bad. And you all know it. NOW, if you can actually listen and get past your egos, there are PLENTY of good arguments for keeping Eberflus. So Im not saying youre dumb for wanting that. YOURE NOT. That's just a simple difference of opinion. But if youre gonna seriously pick this hill to die on - that Vermeil did it so it's POSSIBLE, and that anything thats POSSIBLE is worth doing, then what about all the other coaches? They could POSSIBLY win a Super Bowl for us too. Maybe we should hire Matt Nagy or Mark Trestman. They were bad, so Vermeil means they could be good in the future! Hooray! That's just is not a logical argument. If 3 of you or 5 of you or all of you insist that the earth is flat, youre not gonna get me to agree. because its WRONG. Its not an opinion. Its just wrong. Saying you want to keep Eberflus for all the reasons that you wrote before Pix is FINE. It's not dumb at ALL. Keeping Eberflus is an opinion. Saying Vermeil predicts his future is DUMB and WRONG. Saying that anything that's possible is a good strategy is WRONG. It's actually shocking that you'd say it with a straight face. But now youve picked a side and cant admit youre wrong, and the silliness starts.

I think that's a really true statement. Whether about Harbaugh or whatever, they surely will disagree about something, and they do project a united front to the outside world for sure. I'll say this too: If Waldron is allowed to run the offense, and we get Caleb Williams, I do believe this team can do well. I still think Harbaugh would have been a MUCH better choice, and is a real missed opportunity. Poles has done well building the roster and playing the draft game so far. I keep saying that. But my concern is whether he will have the character to get rid of people when better alternatives come along. I think he may be too loyal. If he keeps Fields, that will be the final straw for me, and I'll know which way we are headed. If he trades Fields, and takes another QB, I will go along for the ride and see how Eberflus is. But even if he does well, I would bet that the Chargers win a Super Bowl before the Bears do. And that will be because we kept Eberflus, and didn't get Harbaugh. Loyalty and fandom aside, if you were Bears GM and you could choose between Eberflus and Harbaugh, how many here would actually choose Eberflus?

right, so the first point is: does it prove it's LIKELY or just POSSIBLE. That something is possible doesnt mean it is likely. We can all find many more examples of coaches and players who were bad and stayed bad. So it is a logical fallacy to say one predicts the other? That's what's inane. It is possible Trubisky will be a better QB next year. Other QBs have gotten better after being bad. Is that a reason to sign Trubisky, just because it is possible? Of course not. Youd want some reason why it was likely hed be better. Saying you have some indication Trubisky is going to grow is a fine opinion. Saying it's because another QB grew isnt a logical argument. My beef is with the argument, not the conclusion. Again, if I say "Cows are blue, so I think it's a good idea to keep Eberflus" and someone says "Cows arent blue, thats dumb" that doesnt mean they are saying that keeping Eberflus is dumb. It means that promoting that reason as WHY is dumb. When I say "Fields is bad because hasnt done well in the passing game" and someone else says "thats because he hasnt had protection" are they disrespecting me or my opinion? Of course not. They are arguing with whether my assertion is true, that he is bad BECAUSE of his passing stats. And they are saying those STATS arent a predictor because of OTHER factors. It's normal, it's how debates work. Dick Vermeil does not predict Matt Eberflus, and you need more than the idea that something is POSSIBLE to argue for doing it, you need to support the position that it is LIKELY. That is why it is a logical fallacy, and as repeated so many times, inane. If people cant win their points with logical arguments and have to resort to pretending to be offended, thats silly and weak.

It's not in the mainstream press, but I am a Patreon follower of a guy who has a YouTube channel. He often has Bears beat reporters like Adam Rank and Courtney Cronin on his show, and he has been on Adam Ranks show too, he also has current and former players on his show. He does excellent tape breakdown too. I've followed him for quite a while, and he doesnt usually do breaking news type stuff, and he hasnt been wrong about anything hes reported in the last few years Ive been watching him. He's never been a click baiter that I have seen, and hes not a narrative guy - he gives even handed analysis and says both good and bad things about whoever he is discussing. He says he had two separate sources inside Halas Hall that told him that Warren disagreed strongly with Poles about keeping Eberflus and that is got "heated" between them, and McCaskey and Poles overruled him. There was nothing specific about Warren and Harbaugh in the report. He also said he couldnt reveal his sources. We do know that Warren is angry about leaks, and that was part of Cliff Steins firing. People can dismiss it if they like, but personally I bet it's true. Like I said, he is not known for sensational stories or inside info or anything like that, and he let it slip inside a discussion, it wasnt the headline or anything, so it wasnt clickbait, because no one would have seen it unless they were already reading his article which didnt say anything about it in the headline. He kind of let it slip as evidence that he thought Eberflus was coming back (this was before the announcement).

I hope so because if it isn't a ridiculously high number, then Im gonna be even more mad that we didnt snag him.

Reports say that Warren was heated with Poles about Poles keeping Eberflus. If those reports are true then maybe Warren wanted Harbaugh? I agree that if we offered Harbaugh the job he would have seriously considered it.

For the record, again, I did not call anyones opinion inane or insane. I simply said that arguing that because Dick Vermeil was bad then good means that Eberflus who has been bad must then then be good is inane. If you like Eberflus that fine. I respect and disagree with it. Especially given other options like Harbaugh. But if you say "cows are usually blue so therefore Eberflus will be good" THAT would be inane. Not the Eberflus will be good part, the cows are blue part. Is literally no one understanding my point? And choosing instead to misunderstand me as being disrespectful to people's opinions? I am calling the logical argument if A then B inane, not the opinion it supports.

OK. We really suck. Jim Harbaugh was actually available and we didn't persue him. We didn't even try. Wow. This IS a clown show. Whatever you think about Eberflus you can't tell me Harbaugh wouldn't be better. Is this who Kevin Warren wanted when he supposedly argued with Poles? Did Poles not want to give up on his hug friend? This is such a giant error. How many years will we need to wait until we can fire Poles? I'm telling you right now, you may think I'm crazy right now, but you will all eventually wish we had Harbaugh instead of Eberflus. Every one of us will eventually know this no matter what you think now. And we can fire Eberflus, but Harbaugh is gone forever to us. And yes, if you can't tell this is my opinion. I can see it now. Harbaugh is winning, we're mired in mud, and the discussion here will be "Well if Eberflus had the Chargers roster and Justin Herbert..." Clown show.

no I have never said that anyones opinion doesnt count. You just never understand anything i say on here. Opinions are awesome. No one knows the future. Ive said that about a million times. Bad logical arguments like Dick Vermiel was bad then good, so Eberflus will be too are inane. Not because they support or reject Eberflus, just because they are illogical. For example, I wanted Eberflus fired. OK. If I say "he made bad decisions and lost games" thats a logical argument for firing him. But if I say "We kept Nagy a year too long and that didn't work out, so it cant possibly work out for Eberflus either" THAT would be inane. Can you understand the subtlety of the difference between rejecting someones opinion, and saying some particular argument or evidence is illogical regardless of which outcome it supports?! It's like all you hear is "Eberflus good / Eberflus bad" and no attention at all to the various facts, arguments, reasoning etc. "Mitch Trubisky was bad and didnt get better so we should definitely trade Fields" - does that make any sense? No right? Because it's anti Fields you can see that the logic is faulty. Well its just as faulty to say that Dick Vermeil means anything about Eberflus. And you gotta admit it is POSSIBLE that Fields will be much better next year, just as it is POSSIBLE that Trubisky will be better next year. But that's not a reason to go sign Trubisky. Now if the reasons are that you like some aspect of Fields' game, or his leadership or whatever those are VALID arguments. I dont agree with them, but they are not illogical. That's about balancing various true things about Fields good and bad to come to a decision. Is that getting through at ALL? No one needs to agree with my opinion, no one needs my approval for anything. You're just not understanding what Im saying at ALL. If you say "2+2=5, therefore we should keep Fields" thats not an opinion, it's a logical fallacy that supports an opinion, and while I only disagree with you opinion, that reasoning is whats WRONG. And not because Im arrogant or know better about the future than anyone or that my opinions are fact and everyone elses are trash. That's totally misunderstanding me - it's just that 2+2 does not equal 5. So you can't use it as evidence in supporting your opinion - even as you have every right to your opinion and Ive never said otherwise. The argument that is repeated a million times a day by Grizz that is illogical is "some player or coach used to be bad then became good so it is LIKELY that Eberflus or Fields will be good" The argument that you repeat a million times a day that makes no sense is "Poles isnt listening to us, so our opinions mean nothing" because no one thinks Poles is reading this, and we give our opinions and debate stuff here because its fun and we learn from each other. I am not, and never have been, the guy you misunderstand me to be. I have said a million times: Everyone has a right to their opinion Fields has a lot of athletic and leadership skills No one can predict the future, and Fields might become a good QB, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance No one can predict the future and Eberflus might become a good HC, I just doubt it will happen based on previous performance So if you still read everything to say that Im disrespecting peoples opinions, and being arrogant about thinking I know the future, then reread what I just wrote above, and if you still cant get past it, then maybe youre the one not respecting people who disagree with you, and not me.

So while I disagree with all or most of this, everything you said are all still valid opinions and arguments. What is inane is offering as evidence that some bad players and coaches became good later, so it is likely that these players and coaches will too. Now you may well disagree that either or both are bad in the first place, and that is also a valid opinion. The only thing that's inane here is the argument that "some bad players got better, so therefore most or all bad players will get better." in other words giving evidence of some coach or player who was good after being bad. It only proves it's POSSIBLE, but not that it's LIKELY. Disagreeing with me about Fields or Eberflus is not inane. I think you're wrong, but thats just MY opinion too, but either way, youre not saying "2+2=5, so we should keep Fields" instead youre saying "I see talent, and he didnt have great protection or WRs, so Id give him another shot" and thats FINE, and not inane at all. It's just that particular argument that keeps getting repeated here that is inane. Not anyones guess at Fields or Eberflus' future. No one can predict the future, all we have are these opinions. Thats all cool. I was just saying the argument that is someone is bad then they WILL LIKELY be good later is inane, and if the point is only to prove that its POSSIBLE, then i think you need more than that to justify keeping either of them. And as a great example, you gave a bunch of reasons why you believe what you do above. And that's all cool. You didnt say it was because Dick Vermeil did it, that means Eberflus WILL. And if it just meant that he MIGHT, well anything is POSSIBLE and that's not a reason either. Dick Vermeil is not Matt Eberflus, and bad coaches mostly stay bad. Only a rare few were bad and then great. Vermeil is not evidence of anything about Eberflus at all. Only that it's POSSIBLE. And I think you need more reasons (like the ones you gave!) to argue that Eberflus will be better and should be kept, than just that it's POSSIBLE he will be better.. What you gave, were actual reasons, and thats fine. Agree or disagree, nothing you wrote was inane.