BearFan PHX

ahahahaha AGREE

After all the years we got burned in cover 2 by the TE up the seam, youd wish it went our way for once hahahaha

Right, I totally agree, I'm not even talking about whether the stat is right or predictive. You're totally right about the factors etc. But yes, I think even in the situation you've said, the second QB does complete 69% more of his passes than the first one. You can say his completion percentage is 30 points higher. But if you use percent to qualify the amount, then it has to be a percentage?

Agree with all of this. The OL was SOOOOOO bad, and they had zero flexibility. That is coaching. So much of the Bears' problems is coaching. What is the upside to keeping Nagy? What does he do better than average?

Yeah we may keep Trubisky on a cheap deal to play until a rookie is ready, if Trubisky is even willing to stick around for that. But in no way shape or form should we sign Trubisky to any kind of longer deal with starter money.

no, 77% more. just as you would win 77% more money int he dice game I mentioned above. You can certainly say "an additional 10% of the first 10 picks will become impact players" but the word additional, is one that says that percentage of the total added to. Without that, it's gotta be 77%. If you're gonna say 10%, you have to follow it with "of the total" and THEN add it to the figure. If youre speaking directly of the proportion of the two figures, it's 77%, the 10% applies to the percentage of the total, not the proportion between the two numbers.

This is the last I'll say it - there is no need to fight with you guys about this, we are all on the same team, and there is nothing personal about this, but your math is wrong. If you have a 13% chance in A, and a 23% chance in B, then B is not 10% more likely. B is 77% more likely. For example, if you roll one dice, the odds of rolling a 1 are 1 in 6. The odds of rolling a 1 or a 2 are 1 in 3 - roughly the same relationship we have here between the first 10 picks, and the second ten picks. If you win $1 every time you roll a 1 in game A, and you win a dollar every time you roll a 1 or a 2 in game B, you don't win 1/6 more dollars in game B, you win 100% more (for the same number of throws). So, Lucky's point that success in the first 10 picks is much higher is true, and his math was wrong and the actual math makes his point even more. You are 77% more likely to hit on a player of impact in picks 1-10 of the draft than you are to hit on a player of impact in picks 11-20. 23% vs 13%.

What's worse, is on that play the most obvious thing you see if you are reading the safeties at ALL is that they split into a cover two look, and you have Kmet running a seam for an obvious and easy touchdown. QBs are supposed to read safeties as one of the most important parts of understanding what coverage you're seeing. Rogers hits Kmet for the TD 10 out of 10 times. Trubisky is not an NFL QB.

I don't think so. I'm open to hearing why of course. The point is that you have a 77% better chance to land an impact player in the first ten picks of the draft, than you do in the next 10.

mathematically, 23 *IS* 77% larger than 13. If you had a 13% chance of picking a winner out of a green hat, and a 23% chance of picking a winner out of a different blue hat, you would rightly say that you have a 77% better chance to pick a winner out of the blue hat than the green one. That is correct.

nice data - for what it's worth, when you say "23% is 10% better than 13%" it actually should say 23% hit rate is 77% better than 13% hit rate, because you'd have to better 13 by 77% to get to 23, so your point is actually that much stronger. You have a 77% better chance to draft a quality player in the first ten picks, than in the next ten.

Let him go, he's performed semi good in front of two horrible defenses, and one mediocre one. He also threw into triple coverage. No one caught it, so we forgot it. Had the DB caught it, you'd be thinking about the interception. Trubisky is bad. I understand the last few weeks he's looked better than the garbage we saw before. That is no baseline though. He is not GOOD.

Preach. This has been a constant and repeated error.

I have always been a David Montgomery fan - I think he remains drastically underrated. He's tough, has great vision, and always finished his runs. That extra yard at the end means everything to keep the chains moving. Theoretically, if you could get exactly 4 yards on every run, you'd never lose a game and be the most feared offense in history, even if you never threw the ball even once. I'm not saying that is possible, but I am saying that a consistent 4yard run is more fearsome than an 80 yard touchdown pass. They both end in a touchdown, but one takes 8 minutes off the clock and fatigues the opposing defense. Montgomery's fight at the end of runs adds an extra yard or more to every carry, and that is everything in football. I understand why he has been under the radar - he had some of the all time worst run blocking any back has ever seen in front of him. And the play calling did nothing to help either. No one got rhythm, no one got moved and Montgomery had no chance at all. It's nice to see him get a chance, and what he can do with it.

I see him missing assignments constantly. I think he should be out of the NFL.

Whatever else we do, we absolutely need an OLT and to get Leno away from this team. I have said for over a year now that he is the main reason for this team's failure, and I still believe that.

Not saying I WANT this to happen, but there is some chance I suppose that the Bears could fire Nagy, and move Lazor up to HC, and possibly replace Pagano. With the cap shrinking and all the money tied up, it's hard to think you'd get a top notch GM or HC interested in coming in next year. The year after, sure. What if they dumped Nagy, and signed Trubisky cheap and moved Lazor to HC? Im not saying this is a GOOD idea, Im saying it is an idea they might be considering.

I agree

We will miss Hicks if we let him go. I think we can survive Robinson leaving better than Hicks.

and more carnage in a Bear tree...

ugh.

yes, as mad as I am, I see no reason why doing it now is any better than doing it at the end of the season. Except Leno.

Well remember that Ernie Accorsi picked Pace, and he has as much NFL cred as anyone. I think the thing is, whether you're looking for a GM or a franchise QB, that there are no proven winners available. You either have to take someone who's won before but has been in decline, or you have to take someone young who has promise but hasn't proved it yet. And that means that you take a risk. I think you take that younger guy and you give him a few years to grow, and then you find out if you found the next superstar or not. Pace, Nagy, Trubisky, Philips - none of you is a superstar. Thanks for trying. Let's take another swing of the bat. No one know for sure, but once youve evaluated them in the NFL for a few years THEN you do know. So I cant say who the right pick is, and we might swing and miss again, but it's time to trade in the cards we have and take new ones.

but with a good GM and coach, we'd be totally different of course

we should have fired Nagy mid season last year, and determined that Trubisky sucked then too, like i said, and it cost us a year and the window on the defense, like I said too. And to think, how much better might this have looked if they had a player at OLT...