BearFan PHX

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.

well Belichick did innovate a lot on defense, and as different skill players came in and out around Brady, Belichick changed the style of the offense year to year to fit with what he had. He also wasnt afraid to trade good players before the last years of their deals to keep young talent in the pipeline and keep the cap healthy. So while I wont say that Eberflus keeps us from going to the Superbowl, i dont think he gives us any edge in that, and that's a lost opportunity. Yes, this is everything. It's why trading down to get a ton of picks to build around Justin is a flawed strategy. A chance at a franchise QB is worth more than 3 first rounders of draft value.

this is excellent data, and it just reaffirms what I've thought. The NFL is all about the franchise QB. Some may make the conclusion that stability is the secret sauce, but here's another angle: when you have a great QB, and win games, no one gets fired. So maybe stability in an of itself isn't the thing, but having a franchise QB MAKES your franchise stable. I worry about our clown cycle too. I know we were trapped in a pattern where the coach and the QB were out of sync. I know that we were stuck for decades trying to hold on to some small part of what was good the year before and build on it. And that doesn't work. You have to build something from the ground up. I thought the 2022 season was the painful price we'd pay to finally break that cycle. And we'd give Fields 2023 to show whether he could be that QB or not. After this year, it should be obvious that Fields is not ever going to be one of the names on that list. He may become a 6 or a 7 out of 10, and so I understand why people like him. He's better than a 4! And we've never had a 9 in our franchise. Fields is probably right now one of the top three all time Bears QBs. But we are also the only franchise that has never had a 4,000 yard passing season. So our bar is low, and we are so thirsty, that Fields looks good to us. If we keep Fields, I strongly believe the whole thing will come crashing down. If we draft a Caleb Williams or top rookie QB prospect that we believe in, then the roster will be on the right schedule in terms of collective timeline. While I don't believe Fields will ever take us to a Superbowl, I do believe that we could win one despite Eberflus, but I dont think he gives us any edge in that. I think having a head coach who brings a competitive advantage to the table is a huge upside, and that's a lost opportunity we have just whiffed on. All in the name of one extra year of coaching salary. Ugh. If Waldron is a genius and the rookie QB is the real deal, perhaps it will all work. But then Waldron's gone to be a HC somewhere. And all youve still got for coaching is a vanilla run of the mill defensive playcaller who makes tons of mistakes in situational football. So I also think it's likely that Eberflus wont be around in a couple years. If Waldron is good and Poles has the balls to do it, he could fire Eberflus and promote Waldron and keep continuity. That's probably the only way to keep from the OTHER scenario. And the OTHER scenario is the one we've seen over and over - a new Head Coach and offense for a QB in their 2nd or 3rd year AGAIN. And THAT IS the clown show. And yet, if we draft Caleb Williams, and he can ball out and survive a coaching change, then maybe we can finally get out of this pit of despair that we've inhabited for decades. So your chart, and all this ends up with: the most important thing in the NFL is a franchise QB, and if you get that right you can survive anything else. And if we keep Fields, and we dont get to the promised land, then maybe we trade or cut him after next year along with an Eberflus firing. That could synchronize the QB and HC, but that foolish adventure will have cost us an extra year of Sweat's window for nothing, and there is no guarantee that we'll have the draft capital to get a franchise QB at #1 without mortgaging the farm going forward. We really should have fired Eberflus this year, and we had really better draft a top rookie QB.

when you hire someone and intend a 3 year project, then youre expecting them for at least 3 years. But that doesnt mean you dont notice stuff during year one and two. And I dont care what's fair to the coach or player, I only care about what's best for the team. And if after 2 years, you know a guy isnt who you thought hed be, then hanging on for the last year just because thats what you thought two years ago before you got this extra information seems wrong.

just use your own eyes. watch the all 22. watch each play three times so you know what the play is supposed ot be and then see how people executed. It doesnt take a genius, it's actually pretty easy, you just have to do the work. And when you do, you end up with opinions that you know where they came from and that you can believe in. Anyone can do it. It's not like you need to be a football genius to see it - you just need to actually spend a few hours and do it. The only problem is that when you think for yourself, you often find yourself out of sync with common media narratives, and then people who only read those things think I'm dumb, or angry, or hate the team or something. But if you do just a little actual work, you'd be surprised how fast you stop believing the narratives. Doctors can be swayed by narratives too, as we've all recently seen. And nothing is ever all good or all bad either when you do that. You see the positives and the negatives, and you see when a player isnt getting it done, and on any particular play who's fault it is. It's easy to say that a team has no open receivers or poor pass protection for example, but then when you see it on tape, that breaks the narrative. It can be true sometimes, but not on every play. This is for judging non rookie players in the league. Projecting college players before the draft is a lot harder to do. You can still see the tape, and what they can't do. But it's hard to know if the things they can do will still be working at the next level, for any QB.

When I'm driving to a doctor's appointment, and the cabbie tells me Deshaun Watson is the best QB, but the doctor tells me Trubisky is the best one, I just listen to whatever the doctor says. And neither one of them got it right.

That's statistical evidence though, and as i dont need to tell you - extremely predictive.

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.