BearFan PHX

Grizz, you gotta understand, hes not saying he can guarantee what will happen, hes saying he has the best ODDS of succeeding. like I said before, between a coin flip or rolling 6 on a dice, the coin flip is more likely. It has the best ODDS of winning. That doesnt mean you cant lose the coin flip and win the dice toss, you can, but if youre gonna bet $100 on one of them even up, youre a fool if you choose the dice over the coin flip. Im sure you can see that. He's not guaranteeing you win the coin flip - hes guaranteeing it has the better ODDS and youre more LIKELY to win.

I personally like a lot of the people on this board, but I am surprised at how some of the ones I think are good guys are so stuck on Justin, and keep making arguments that I feel like they must know arent factual/logical after we go around a few times and it gets explained. Now I dont mean that for example everyone has to share my view on Caleb, but if the narrative is based on a statistical argument and the stats dont add up, then I would hope those people would shift to a different anti Caleb argument. Its OK to be anti Caleb, and it's OK to not have a reason other than a gut feel too, but if youre gonna put the reasons, and then the reasons get objectively logically disproved, especially stats that are just mathematically unsound, then doubling down on them turns everything into noise in a way. And people sure do resent being proven wrong, as if id said they dont have a right to their gut instinct when I just said that 2+2 doesnt equal 5. For example: Person A "I think Tremaine Edmunds is going to play better this year because Ray Lewis won four superbowls." Person B "Ray Lewis didnt win four superbowls, here a link to prove that" Person A "You think you know everything, well youre wrong about Edmunds" Person B "Im just saying that you cant use the Ray Lewis thing to predict Edmunds" Person A "Dont disrespect my opinion" Person B "I dont disrespect your opinion, I just think youre not making sense in your argument" Person A "Youre being mean, youre a jerk" Person B "no Im not" Person C "hahahah Person B is a jerk!" Person A "Despite your ego, Ray Lewis won four superbowls and Tremaine is awesome" Person B "Hey C, I just challenged the math, not A as a person, look at the link..." Person C "hahaha did he hurt your feelings B?" Person B "no, it just doesnt make sense" Person A "B is trolling, and Ray Lewis won 4 superbowls..." and scene.

Well Id say that Poles vision of building through the draft is a long term one, and these hole fillers are short term deals while Poles catches up and can build even more through the draft. To me it points to taking Williams #1, and making sure that even though you need another year to fully stock through the draft, you dont want to do what we did to Justin and throw a rookie in without weapons and protection. It might even say that ideally youd draft your QB after this year (as you say) but that Williams is a rare opportunity here and now, and so to take him, you need to fill some holes for him. It also points to having flexibility with the #9 pick depending on whether one of the WRs we want is there or a great OT or DE falls instead. Now I admit that my scenarios arent the only ones that fits this set of facts, yours does too Jason, but since they both fit the fact set, we cant use this fact set to say that it tips Poles hand one way or the other?

To be fair stats are confusing and not just common sense sometimes. But when someone explains it, hopefully if you understand them, then you come off the argument instead of doubling down. But in the end, you gotta ask yourself, why would teams not take the best (most likely to succeed) option at #1? They wouldnt. So the professionals make the best bets they can. And like any gambler, you lose and you win, but losing a bet doesnt mean it wasnt a good bet, and winning a bet doesnt mean it was a smart bet either. And all you know when you make the bet is the odds of winning, not what the singular outcome will be.

right, I just laid out the statistical error above, hopefully clearly enough for everyone to see what I mean?

No, what youre proving is: the odds of #1 pick QBs winning the Super Bowl is less than **ALL** other players not chosen #1 overall, not **ANY** thats the whole point. You dont get to draft ALL the non #1 QBs and add them together. You can only draft ONE, and the odds of any SINGLE NON #1 drafted QB winning a superbowl is MUCH lower than any SINGLE #1 QB pick. You cant take only the best out of every non #1 pick and put them all together into a single frankenstein stat - that's what I'm saying. Maybe Daniels or Maye will have a better NFL career than Caleb - but from right here the odds are better that Williams will have a better career - and thats why if given the choice a team would pick Williams #1 and not one of the others. Hypothetically, let's say these are the odds of a player becoming great in the NFL (I will exaggerate the numbers to make the point, these arent real numbers): Williams 60% Daniels 20% Maye 20% McCarthy 20% Nix 20% Penix 20% If you could draft Daniels, Maye, McCarthy, Nix AND Penix, then you'd have a much better chance of getting a great QB than if you draft only Williams. The odds are, on average, one of those players would be great, whereas Williams only has a 60% to be great. 20% + 20% + 20% + 20% + 20% = 100% and 100% is 160% better than 60% That's what your stat is proving. BUT if you can only draft ONE of those guys, then Williams has a 300% greater chance to be great than any of the others alone. 60% is 300% better than 20% That's why you cant do the stats the way youre doing them and then come to the conclusion that youre better off drafting a QB lower in the first round. And if you think about it, why would lower picks be more likely to be great? It wouldnt make sense, because it doesnt. In other words, youre not factoring in all the lower picks that DIDNT win a superbowl in your numbers. Does that make sense?} Oh and I'll also say that I havent done any homework on Nix, so while I can say that Williams has a very good chance to be NFL great based on the film I've seen, I cant say Nix doesnt also have the same or better chance. I don't have any kind of educated opinion on Nix.

oh absolutely! Fields was great at Ohio State - I didnt mean that - youre right. And I'm not saying he doesn't have a winning attitude or anything like that either. Hes a "winner" of a person for sure - not like Cutler or Jeff George or something that didnt care. i get the feeling Justin cares a lot. I just mean that with the specific skills he lacks, there is no way to repurpose the admittedly amazing skill set he DOES have into an NFL QB who can win regularly. He reminds me of Devin Hester as a WR. We all know Hester is one of the best open field runners ever. he was Gale Sayers-like in his ability. But at the same time he lacked other skills in route running that made his athletic skill set not transfer to the NFL in terms of playing a specific position (other than being a hall of fame kick returner) There are lots of QBs I like personally less than Justin and lots that have a lot less athletic talent too, but as a QB, they might still be better than Justin. Justin runs int he open field as well as anyone. But now we tell him to slide instead of making a move on defenders. So, great athlete, but doesn't fit into an NFL QB position. Same with his arm. He has a real gun and can throw a very accurate ball. Better than most! But he doesn't process defenses fast enough to fulfill the demands of the NFL QB position. A lot of QBs that arent good arent great athletes, or theyre lazy or have attitude problems, weak arms etc. Those guys everyone can see are bad and few defend them. Justin on the other hand is a hard worker, great attitude, leader, TONS of physical talent from his legs to his arm. He's big, he's tough and when he scrambles he can make big highlight plays. I totally see why people like him. he's not a loser of a person at all. I didnt mean to imply that. But now that NFL defenses know what he cant do, so they can cheat to deal with what he can do, he's cooked. I say its like playing rock, paper scissors but you cant throw scissors for some reason. You might be the best at rock and pretty good at paper, but if your opponent figures out you dont have any scissors, they throw paper all day and you cant win. That's why i dont think Justin will be winning a lot of games, and what i meant by "not a winner" To your other point, I think if other teams wanted him, we'd know it. It's a guess, like all football talk, but i think it's a good one. And i don't think we want him either. i suppose we will find out which was the truth soon enough.

Well I love the idea of bets, but I don't actually disagree with you. Im just saying the book isnt over on Maye, but if I had to bet, I don't think he OR Daniels are NFL quality. But they will each get their chance to grow. Fields got his, and we agree he didnt grow into the position. In this last year or so my thoughts about QBs have really changed. I think now that most of the league is playing exhibition football to sell tickets and merch, but most teams have zero chance of winning a superbowl, and a handful only have a chance if incredible luck happens. There are probably less than five teams each year that actually have a superbowl run in their own hands, and they always have excellent QB play. Most QBs in the league, and in the draft each year, are never going to win a superbowl. Looking back I now realize that most years, our Bears have had no chance whatsoever of winning a SB. Is it fun to root for incremental progress and a playoff appearance? I get that, but it's like you're hoping the best five teams get the flu so you can stand tall with the trophy in your arms. But if you do that, are you a champion? or did you just get lucky and feed on some crumbs when the champions were too full to finish the meal? Justin has experience. Right now Justin is better than Maye and Daniels. And that's a sad state for anyone starting any of them. At least Daniels and Maye have a chance to grow, but I wouldn't bet big on any of them at this point.

the problem is, Fields doesn't have what it takes to be a winner. it's not about chances, and timing, situations etc - he has a fatal flaw that was known to all coming out of college. He's had three years to show improvement in that area, and if he has shown any at all, it's been the smallest amount. Not enough. Other teams dont want him and neither should we. The morale issues of a QB controversy and all that are only a small part of it - the main thing is - he isn't good at playing QB.

LOL love it - and pass the dutchie please

He has his problems for sure. His accuracy for one, and that intangible leadership quality to take a team on your back in the 4th quarter might be another. So from where he is today, youre probably right. He's young though and has physical tools and does read defenses, so there is reason to think he might develop into something, but until you see it on the field, it's always an unknown I agree.

I'm not trolling, I'm participating in the discussion. I think the pro Justin crowd is so sure they're right that when I disagree it's seen as somehow wrong or antisocial - but I think that's projection. There's nothing wrong with thinking what I think, and i don't think I need to stop or let it go or anything else. You say you will support any QB under center - It's the offseason - I'm saying I want a GOOD one, not just any one. As for the statistical arguments, if you didnt make it, then my apologies - my point has been that people are doing the math incorrectly and using it to support arguments that are not correct logically. (edit - I scrolled back, you quoted my rebuttal to a statistical argument and said let it go, so thats why im saying the statistical argument is wrong) That doesnt mean there arent logical ways to like or dislike Williams. People can look at the film, and think whatever they like. But for example, saying only 2 #1 picks won multiple superbowls, and the rest were won by NON #1 picks implies that NON #1 picks each have a higher chance to win multiple superbowls, and while it is true that more NON #1 picks have won more superbowls, the error is that the odds of any single NON #1 pick winning a superbowl is much lower than any #1 single #1 pick. Meaning there have been many more NON #1 picks that never won a superbowl. So IF the question is "would you rather have Caleb or every other QB in the draft?" then you might have a point. Having 30 QBs to develop would probably give you the best chance to find greatness. But that isn't the question. The question is Caleb or ONE of the other QBs. You cant say "Brady, the best ever, was a 6th round pick, so 6th round QBs have the best chance to become great, so I'm only gonna pick QBs in the 6th round" All rookie QBs have a chance to be a bust - it's always a gamble. That's true. But the chances of a QB succeeding increase the higher they are chosen. And not because you chose them higher - you cant choose a crap QB #1 and make him great because you drafted him 4 rounds early, but because you have 32 teams all doing homework, and they tend to identify the better prospects and take them earlier. Anyone who has been in gym class choosing teams knows the better athletes get picked first. It's obvious of course. And some years a #1 QB is a much better prospect than others. Williams is an excellent prospect - better than any in a long time. There is no such thing as a sure thing, but there is such thing as a more LIKELY good outcome. And that is Caleb for sure. So, as per usual, Ive laid out a logical and substantive argument here. Doesnt mean Im always right, but it's kind of the opposite of trolling.

Im sure Poles has a pretty clear idea of what he thinks will happen, but its always good when both scenarios support the same move - youre covered either way. I agree with your analysis.

no, you gotta take all the #1 picks, and figure the percentage, and then figure the percentage of ALL the QBs not taken #1, the good ones and the bad ones. Then you see the ODDS of the #1 pick are better. What youre proving is that the odds of a QB not taken #1 (any one out of ALL of them) are better, and thats probably right because there are so many of them, but you cant draft them all, you can only draft one, so the question is what are the odds of any single player not drafted #1, and they are lower than any single player drafted #1.

lol - once we are past this Justin thing, we will probably agree more.

no one should let go of what they believe. Why would they? I dont expect you to either. So im baffled why you think I should. Also, Caleb Williams has never heard of me. He is not great because I say so. Two months ago I had never even seen him play. It's not because I say it that it's true, it's that its true and now I say it because i have watched the tape and it's easy to see. But if you think Caleb is a bust for some reason, thats an opinion for sure. But the statistical argument you tried to make is just incorrect. Tell me why you dont like Caleb, and thats cool. I might disagree but i cant predict the future. But I can say the statistical argument you were making was wrong though - even if Caleb is a bust the stats still say he is a better chance at being great than a 2nd rounder would.

He could start games, but it would be as a backup due to injury or something. I just dont see anyone making him their starter. He has such incredible upside in so many ways, but he has a fatal flaw and defenses have figured it out, so if you take him now, its because you think you can coach him out of the thing theyve been saying about him since college, and i dont think most teams want that risk?

If you mean Hunter, he signed with the Texans

your math is ridiculous. youre literally not smart enough to understand.

Not sure I understand. In my analogy correctly calling the coin or rolling a six on the dice would correlate into having your pick become a great QB in the league i.e. a successful outcome from the risk. Im saying when you decide whether to take the risk or not, you can measure how risky something is. So while top picks have failed, and 6th round picks have excelled, it is more likely that a top pick will excel and a 6th round pick will fail. It's the difference between something being possible and likely.

nah youre not understanding the math here. You can throw ten dice and have them all land on six, but its not likely. You can get Tom Brady int he sixth round, but it's not likely. Youre much much more likely to get a bad QB in the sixth round. You're still arguing that all risks are the same, and they arent. And since they arent the rest of the argument falls apart? True. If we had Peyton Manning, I would not be drafting Caleb Williams. Then again, Peyton was nearing retirement. Even the Patriots moved on from Brady. The vast majority of the last 25 superbowls were won by 4 QBs, Mahomes, Brady, Manning and Eli Manning. Before that it was Montana, and Bradshaw etc. You cannot reliably win the superbowl without a top 2 (in the league) QB. You might get lucky once, but its not a plan for winning - it's extremely unlikely. I think Fields is awful, and cant read defenses. I dont think he could take any team to the Superbowl. Where are his 300 yard games? His 4th quarter comebacks? His consistent passing in structure and tempo? The guy makes great highlight reels running, but he will never take a team to the superbowl, and he will probably be out of the league soon. I dont think he will ever even be a starter for anyone again. And if so, they wont win 10 games in a season.

your trade scenarios the past week have been excellent dude. Good work being creative. This is exactly the right answer to the Justin problem. If you cant get a 3rd for him, then trade our third and Justin for a second. What a smart idea.

With Shelton on the team, I think it tells you a few things. First off, it tells you that Pryor is going to compete at guard, and probably end up the backup for the guard and center slots. He will push Davis for the starting role at RG. Secondly, it tells you that we aren't going to trade down in order to target JPJ in the bottom of the first. Thirdly, so far hes signed an OT, an OG AND an OC, and getting all three tells you that it's more likely that he isn't going to trade down the #1 pick, because he is filling so many holes, as if he isn't expecting to have a ton of extra picks this year. I expect a receiver (incl Bowers) at #9, and we would still have needs at DE and DT. This rebuild still has a year left, so it won't be perfect this year. The defense is looking pretty good, so I'd say we target QB with #1 and WR with #9. With these other holes all addressed, you wouldnt need a haul of picks. It's not "proof" but it's starting to lean that way for sure.

Yes and no. Every pick is a risk, but some QBs clearly have a better chance to be great than others. It's not completely random.You have to factor that in. Caleb Williams has a better chance to be great in the NFL than anyone in a while. That doesnt mean that he is guaranteed or that he couldnt bust while another prospect thrives. But it's like this. Imagine two games. One is a coin flip. Guess it right and you win. Another is a dice roll. Roll a six and you win. You play the coin flip and your friend plays the dice game. You lose, but he wins. That doesn't mean that playing each game gives an equal chance to win or that the next time you play you shouldnt choose the dice game, because you should. Some would say "but half the time you lose, so it's just as much of a gamble as the dice game" but it isnt. it is quantifiably 3 times more likely that you win the coin toss than the dice game. "But there was a time that the dice game won, so it's all a gamble" right, but its not the SAME gamble - its still three times better bet to play the coin flip. First pick overall QBs have a much higher chance to be great than the rest of the top ten. And top ten picked QBs have a better chance than any others. First rounders have a better chance than second rounders, and second rounders have a better chance than third rounders etc. We posted a ton of analysis here a couple months back proving that beyond any doubt. And Williams is a better prospect than the average #1 pick QB too. Just because something isnt 100% predictable doesn't mean that all gambles are the same. Thats the error in your logic. Yeah I really do. I still think he should have fired Eberflus, but we can get around that. Assuming he picks Caleb WIlliams with the #1 pick, I'm giving him an A overall. Maybe not an A+ (Eberflus, Velus Jones, Claypool) but still a solid A for sure. If he passes on taking a top pick QB and rolls with Justin, then I think that will be an epic error that will doom us for a decade (we wont have another #1 pick to get a GREAT QB) and Poles will get fired.

interesting I wouldnt be mad at that, but keep Bagent too pls