BearFan PHX

I think Daventry is less saying that keeping Fields is dumb, and more saying that the way Stinger argues it, his arguments are dumb. For example immediately after saying Daventry only has 1,000 posts - as a way to dismiss his argument on another thread. It's just so personal all the time, and illogical. And I agree that it's best to just keep to the arguments themselves. I might say someone's argument makes no sense, but I cant say if Fields will be superman next year, that's opinion of course. But if someone says "Fields will be great next year because the moon is made of cheese" then i can say "the moon is not made of cheese, so that's not a good argument for why Fields would be good next year" and then if the response is "well you dont know everything, youve never been to the moon. you act like you know everything, but you dont. youre not the smartest person that ever lived ya know, youre just being arrogant" and then some snotty fighty stuff - that's where it goes off the rails, having nothing to do with Fields, and little to do with cheese. AND in any case, instigation is better served with whiskey and wit, as you do it. It's more entertaining that way than just pure homeristic hysteria. Maybe he invested big in Bears Fields jerseys?

Thank you first of all. Secondly, he is saying your argument makes no sense. That IS contributing! If a scientist makes a discovery, thats great, but it isnt science yet. Then he (or she) has to publish exactly what they did and why they think it happened. And then other "mean" scientists try to disprove the first one. They try as hard as they can to find holes in anything the first scientist said. Then even more "mean" scientists try to tell the first mean group why they were wrong. And eventually, if an idea survives all of that, it is thought to be of higher value because it survived the critiquing. Rather than just taking the first scientist's word for it. Often the first scientist is mostly right, but the critiques force him to present the ideas in a more specific way to avoid oversweeping claims. The claims are then stronger for having been damaged. Theyre tighter, and fully formed. and if the idea doesnt withstand the heat, then the process successfully weeded out a poor idea. I learn more about the Bears here than most places. People here say all kinds of stuff here, some is smart, some is not. Some is right, some is downright false. But it frames questions for me to think about and prove or disprove in my own mind too. And when I advance a theory of my own, and people argue against it, I listen. If I think they made sense, it may change my mind, or force me to recalculate exactly what I'm saying. it doesn't make me mad if someone simply disagrees with me. For example, I WAS saying "we need to trade Fields or we are screwed" and I am now saying "we need to draft a top rookie QB or we are screwed, and I dont think we should keep Fields, but as long as we get the rookie QB, thats really where the risk is most for me" That nuance came from people arguing with what I was saying. The opposition HELPs. It's the emotional right-fighting, and appeals to authority that frustrate. The anecdotal evidence presented as predictive. That's the kind of stuff this discourse is meant to filter out! To clear up the picture. But if in the middle of this great parallel processing experiment of opinions, people start feeling like they need to defend their individual selves, as if the arguments were their actual selves, or if they feel they need to defend the assumed feelings of a player or coach that someone is a "fan" of, then it gets more like "what did you say to my girlfriend!?!" and less like "well, maybe Poles should do _______" And that's when it gets personal, and soon everyone actually IS defending their "self" and that's when it gets awful and crosses the line.

imagine thinking this makes any sense in a debate: "You dont talk enough. You dont have enough standing." You gotta take on the ideas on their own merits. Make valid arguments against them. Dont get mad if your arguments dont add up and get beaten, and dont refuse to engage the value of someone elses arguments based on authority or credentials, or social standing. "Hey Guys! I can prove the Earth is round! Look at this math! "Well, Froederick here has transcribed Homer's Iliad like 1,000 times, so I'm just gonna listen to him. He's the authority on writing stuff. No need to look at your proofs or anything like that. If you want us to take what you say seriously, you need to say a lot more stuff first." It's the appeal to authority over and over. That and anecdotal evidence. Two classic logical fallacies, but I've never seen them used exclusively to all other possible arguments. Just say what you mean and why. The rest of this is awful.

yeah thats not what Im saying in this silly hypothetical point of mine here. Im not saying we could be winning and Flus be fired on his own performance. Im saying if we did well, and then Waldron was getting offers from other teams, would you rather have Flus and lose Waldron, or promote Waldron and lose Flus. Youre taking it like Im suggesting Flus would have done something really wrong, or whether it'd be fair to Flus. So as weird an unlikely what Im talking about is - its just a dumb topic for discussion, but is it more important to be fair to Eberflus, or to do what's best for the Bears even if it's a totally unfair thing that happens to Eberflus. This comes down to our basic disagreement: you're loyal to and a fan of players and coaches on the team, my loyalty is in what's best for the team overall. If 40 year old Mike Ditka walks in the door, or maybe you prefer 40 year old BIll Belichick or whoever your favortie coach is in their prime, and they want the job, and Eberflus has 2 more years left on his deal, and went 11-6 last year, do you turn the GOAT coach away because there's no particular reason to fire Flus? And this is the crux of my Poles hugging point too. I think people may be getting too close to the players and coaches, and not making tough decisions in the best interest of the team as a result. Who cares what's fair? What does it take to become dominant and win multiple superbowls? That's what I'm interested in.

yeah I agree, it'd be really weird. But weirdness aside, which would you rather have as HC if you could just make the decision with no consequences other than the change right now. I would hate to see Waldron go, and then have the now 2nd year QB have to adjust. I guess I feel like Waldron is going to be more important to the offense than Eberflus is to the defense, and I dont think Eberflus is particularly good as a HC in situational football. But it aint gonna happen for a while. I think the defense will play well if you had a ham sandwich as head coach, because the players are great, and the DC on down are all good coaches. It'd have to be Flus losing some games for us by forcing the coordinators to be too safe. Or maybe Flus will get arrested for having been part of whatever WIlliams was doing last year LOL Damn, the topics that are worth discussing in early February are wild and all fiction LOL

So his narrative is that he doesnt pay attention? Despite the poor grammar, which I dont care about, what did this MEAN? Or are you saying his narrative is to paint you as only having one point of view? Either way it's confusing, because his narrative is obviously not to keep Justin, not to make you look like you want to keep Justin, which incidentally you do, so I really don't get it. What doesn't fit his narrative, and mine too, is WHY you want to keep Justin. 10,000 words written, but the only reason you ever give is "I think he's going to get better" and i keep asking you why. What do you see in Justin that makes you think he is going to get better at pulling the trigger on open guys across the middle in rhythm? What makes you think that? I'm really asking. Is it just a gut feeling, or do you have any reasons? Anyway it seems silly to me, but everyone is entitled to their opinions, even if they cant explain why they have them. I think another point here is when people point out the illogic of some of your arguments, it quickly becomes so personal. We have to understand the difference between "the thing you just said is really dumb" and "I hate you and I think youre a poo poo head" When you make an argument, you birth it into the world and people will take shots at it. At that point the idea has to be able to stand for itself, or it is defeated. This is how debate, and science and the legal system works. But we cant be helicopter parents for arguments we make and become personally offended when someone beats the crap out of a bad argument we make. It's best to see where the argument got beaten, and see if you can either tighten it up so it will survive the complaints and remake it, now fixed from that critique, or change your own mind that it isn't a very good argument. There are 100 valid logical arguments for keeping Fields or whatever, and a million bad ones. If you make a bad one and it gets destroyed, that doesnt mean that keeping Fields (or whatever) is wrong or disproved, it just means that argument for it is defeated. But if it gets personal, it can be a real problem. When someone is attacking arguments and getting personal responses, it can add up over years until it's too much. And if you just make bad arguments all the time, it's probably frustrating.

yeah Im just pulling his name outta the air as an example of a dark horse. Im saying if our staff identifies someone other than Williams or Maye as the steal of the draft, and it'd have to be someone more out there than Daniels, because I was saying they could potentially get them at pick #9? But yeah, Rattler's on my list of guys i dont know anything about but want to research more. Same with Milton. Before you say pick #9 is too early, we absolutely have to get a rookie QB that can realistically become a franchise QB for us. Whether that's Nix, or Penix, or McCarthy - if one of these second tier guys is uncovered by our scouts as the hidden gem, but is projected to go in the 3rd round, I think we CANT miss on him if weve already gone another way with pick #1, and if you go all that way, sitting on an island without Justin, without Williams, Maye and Daniels, and only one of the guys is your secret gem, and the rest are considered 2nd and 3rd tier, you gotta take him, even if most think it's "Early" - so you gotta take him on the value you see him as, not plkay chicken too much with the value others see him as, becasue you never know if one other team is seeing it the way you are too and snags him. Then you've got Eberflus playing QB.

right, I totally agree. So at that point, would you rather keep Waldron as HC, and maintain offensive cohesion all the way to the top with that, or keep Eberflus, because it was his job first, and it isnt really fair to fire him, keep cohesion with the defense, and lose Waldron to another team? All hypothetically that Waldron had made whoever the QB is look great, and was getting offers for HC on other teams.

good point! the big question is, is it Caleb, Maye, or maybe a darkhorse like Rattler at #9 (I dunno, I'm just saying someone from left field, I have a lot more film watching to do over the next several months before i can even say who that could/should be) But this is the most significant decision for the Bears in a long long time. And the outcome will ripple through our future for the next 15 years. They have to get this one right. Can you imagine if we are on the precipice of a Hall Of Fame QB for the Bears? We've all been fighting so much about Justin (me a lot!) that maybe we've (or I've) forgotten to get excited for a hero in Chicago at QB. What if it does end up being as simple as taking Caleb Williams at #1, and he becomes the star of the league and we dominate for a decade? It is not a rare outcome here at all. It's gotta be at least 1 out of 3 that that happens if we take him. That's pretty f*cking exciting.

interesting from Jason Sigler. If Eberflus isn't stable, one ownders if Poles isn't thinking about promoting Waldron. It's so interesting he got so many ready-to-move-up guys from his own tree. I'm talking after this coming year, but if candidates really were turned off by Eberflus' job security, maybe Waldron saw the opportunity differently. I mean, we all like the staff thats been assembled on both sides of the ball. If they do well, it's hard to see how Eberflus can get singled out as a problem, because we'd be winning games. But it just makes me wonder what Poles might have up his sleeve. Anyway, I thought the article was interesting, and spoke to both sides. https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/report_chicago_bears_oc_candidates_were_turned_off_by_instability_of_matt_eberflus_staff/s1_17081_39900732

Green Bay has cracked the secret sauce, or has just been caught in the momentum of good QB play, that it has worked out that all their QBs sit for a while and learn from someone whos been in the system for a while. There's no substitute for being able to learn from a QB like Favre or Rodgers and see how they execute the same plays you're gonna run over the course of several years. Consistency is really important, but of course it needs to be consistency with something thats good, and not just continuity with some crap LOL I hope the "Waldron tree" takes root in Chicago and we go through several generations of coaches that come out of it, through our system. That would certainly help with QB development no matter who it is in the future. A freakin men. This sure does look like the start of something great. It's very exciting, and it looks logically built. Maybe this is how Poles builds a staff, and not say, by meeting a guy who is force fed to him 3 days earlier that he kinda has to accept to get the job? If Waldron does well with whoever the Bears QB is next year, who here would rather keep Eberflus and let Waldron go to be a HC somewhere else, rather than replacing Eberflus with Waldron? And Im gonna say - if that happens, then that will remove my only black mark on Poles' record, and I will consider him to be a cool customer indeed.

This is so true. It shouldn't necessarily matter, but it does. We are all human. And just logistically, if you keep Justin, and pass on Williams, and Williams burns up the league, and Justin doesnt, Poles is likely fired right then and there. He created the perfect situation with a 2022 tank year and a roster rebuild, and then he have blown the big moment he'd paid all that for. But, if you move on from Justin, and he balls out, and Williams has a slow start, you've got a couple more seasons to try to develop him into something, and you're not immediately on the chopping block. Those of us who want to move on from Justin weren't haters from the beginning. I was extremely excited for him, and we gave him three years to show something. I know they were tough years. I understand why everything couldnt go the way Fields wanted it to, but for me, I didnt really even see many flashes. But fair or not, we did give Fields three years of enthusiastic hope. And a rookie QB will get the same here. I won't be calling for a rookies head if he makes mistakes. Ill be complaining about them and saying he has to get them cleaned up. And looking and hoping for progress. All this to say that keeping Fields is much more dangerous to Poles' job short term than drafting a rookie would be. And like you say, it'd be "his guy" - you'd hope the GM makes the best decisions they can without thinking about those things, but i think anyone would.

You're right that does set the floor on his value. I keep forgetting about that compensatory pick. Cool Do you know if we get that 3rd rounder automatically, or can it be offset by us signing other teams' free agents? It will be interesting in the 2025 draft to have a 3rd for Fields (or better in trade) two more 3rds for losing Ian Cunningham and an extra 2nd from the Carolina trade. Poles certainly has milked the draft. He's gotten a lot of value for last years first. Quite a difference from Pace burning picks to move up and acquire free agents. We've sent a lot of first rounders away for Cutler, Mack, Trubisky etc. I want the one we traded for Rick Mirer back too. LOL And what team (that doesnt have a top 5 QB) wouldnt be thrilled to get Williams (or their top QB pick) AND the #9 pick for whatever. If we dont trade the #1 for a huge haul, we've still gotten a treasure trove in all of this.

This is what I think too, and if our scouts make a good choice, I'm OK if it isn't Williams, and if it isn't with the #1 pick, as long as it's a true likely franchise QB. So not some guy in the 4th round. If they love Williams so much the better. I don't really think Fields will ever be a consistently successful pocket passer, and the incredible improvisational plays he makes don't end up making 4th quarter comebacks that win the game. they just make really amazing highlight reels. He's like a pile of parts to make a Ferrari - the potential is there, all the rare pieces are right in that pile, but if you cant get them all connected as they need to be to actually be a Ferrari, you cant drive it anywhere.

Good point. This board being a perfect example too of how much support Fields still has. Lemme ask you Grizz, since you're probably in that camp? If Poles had fired Eberflus and gotten, say Shane Waldron as head coach to replace him, would that have been OK with you? And if not, would it make moving on from Fields tougher to take? Im seriously asking, because it's a feelings question, and there is no wrong answer, and since i dont see it from that perspective in the first place, Im interested to hear your thoughts on it? Does keeping Eberflus make you feel better, or less bad about moving on from Fields? (if that hypothetically happens?)

I cant imagine theyre coming here to risk it all on Justin Fields, so this is a strong indication that we are drafting a rookie QB. Now which one? It does look like they're loading up for promotion (or for Waldron to get a HC job) If Eberflus is just the face of the organization, and he lets his coaches do their jobs, and doesnt try to constrain them into being too safe, he could be a successful executive coach. I still worry about his situational errors, like when to go on 4th down and when to take a FG, but i do think they could be successful around Eberflus. Some of these guys look like they might be difference makers. I dont think Eberflus gives you any particular positive edge in winning, but i think we can be successful around him. But if Waldron unlocks the rookie QB, and gets HC offers, Id rather make him our HC than to keep Eberflus.

competition definitely makes players reach down deep. and if we take a rookie, we wont want to throw him out there on day one anyway. so there is an argument for having Fields play the role of the veteran who is keeping the seat warm with the rookie waiting to eventually take over. And youd get the added benefit of giving Fields one more chance to blow us all away, so I see the argument for it. Ive been trying to word a lot of my conclusions to say "Poles better draft a hi pick franchise QB type" rather than "Poles better dump Fields" to allow for this exact scenario. The down side is though that you want your rookie to be learning good habits, and learn from the mentoring of the placeholder vet ahead of him, and with Justin, it could get messy. Also, there is the issue of the offensive scheme. If you want to throw Justin into a regular offensive scheme, it's fine with me. The fans will be chanting for the rookie by week 5. But if you really wanted to give Justin the best chance to be successful, youd have to design a running, improvising friendly offense, and then you'd be putting your rookie into that too. If it's Caleb, it might work with him too, but I think it would go against the coaching Caleb is gonna need to dial into a more structured NFL typeoffense. And if it's Maye or McCarthy or something, then you just cant have two totally different offenses being installed at once. I hope we get a 2nd rounder for Justin just so we dont have to weigh that kind of thing out. I wouldnt mind Bagent being that guy for 4 or 5 games until the rookie was ready. Gives him a shot to show what he can do in the new offense too. Hopefully he will have increased his arm strength in the gym too.

Here's a thought. Maybe Poles felt he needed to keep Eberflus so he doesn't lose the locker room when he moves on from Fields. Maybe he needs Flus to sell it to the players. Maybe making both the right moves (in my opinion); firing Eberflus and moving on from Fields, would each be dangerous from a morale point of view and doing both at once was too dangerous. If he knew he had to move on from Fields, and didnt want to blow everything up, then maybe he felt it wise to keep Eberflus. Maybe Eberflus will work out with all these assistants around him. It does seem like a hell of a staff. If everyone finds a niche. But if Flus is forcing everyone else to be too safe, and making dumb situational errors as HC, Poles could fire him next year, and move Waldron to HC and everyone up a rung on offense. That'd be one way to handle the change without losing momentum with a rookie QB going into his second year? Layers on layers of intrigue and options.

thats so odd. the whole point of statistics and likelihoods is that they take the exceptions into account, and express them as a percentage of likelihood too. So they are the opposite of dealing in absolutes. If I say there is an 80% chance of something happening, it also implies that I know there is a 20% chance it wont. Statistics are how you try to handle multiple possibilities, so you can see which ones are more likely and weight them accordingly. Specifically so you DON'T have to think in absolutes. You seem to think all possible outcomes are equally likely? That if there are 2 QBs, you never know which one could be better so there is no reason to prefer one over the other? But what if one has a 20% chance to be great and the other one has an 80% chance to be great? Is it possible that the 20%er will be great, and the 80%er will bust? Sure. But that's only gonna happen 16% of the time. 80% of the time the expected one WILL succeed. and 64% of the time the 80%er will succeed AND the 20%er will fail. So you should want to go with the 80% guy. Just because the 20%er is possible, doesnt mean it's likely. To support keeping Justin, you gotta say why it's LIKELY that he's gonna take a huge step next year. "It's possible" isn't enough. And showing a few anecdotal examples of other QBs who did it only proves it's POSSIBLE, but not that it's LIKELY. Justin doesnt just need to improve his play overall, he specifically needs to take a HUGE jump in a skill he has barely shown an ability in. The pocket passing in structure in tempo thing. We saw the tiniest glimpses of it, never a lot, never consistently. We didnt see it in 4th quarter comebacks, or lifting the team on his shoulders to win in the 4th? So what on earth do you see that tells you he is gonna make a huge jump next year at that? Dont tell me it's POSSIBLE, tell me why you'd EXPECT it enough to pass on a rookie QB who has a good chance to be good or great for us? What indication is there that we should trade that #1 pick QB away and keep Justin?

yeah its very true. its the McCaskey middle way. Cheap, safe, stuck in the vortex between 6-11 and 10-7, sells seats, and cicks on and on it goes. We are all so brainwashed to keep going around with it. It's been 30+ years of this nonsense. I'll say this though - if Kevin Warren sits around and lets it just happen ongoing into the future, then I dunno what he's even doing here. I know he probably cant shake everything up right now, has to let Poles play his vision out. Come on Poles. You gotta know we need that QB. Come on dude.

All options don't have the same chance of happening! When you flip a coin, there are three options; heads, tails and landing on the edge and standing there. But almost all the time it's heads or tails, even though the edge landing IS an option. But its not a likely option. You keep arguing whats possible. ANYTHING is possible. That's not the basis of a strategy! You gotta think one outcome is more LIKELY than another. Otherwise, why not trade Fields and sign Trubisky? It's because Fields has a much better chance to be great than Trubisky does. And I dont think Fields has much of a chance to be great. It's not equally likely that Caleb or Maye will be great as Fields. Fields has three years in the league. Hes had a chance. Hes not new and unknown like a rookie. He's already a lot more known. Yes there is a chance that Fields will play better somewhere else and our rookie will bust. But it isnt an equal chance. The smart bet is to take a rookie QB in the draft. And if he busts, you do it again until you have that guy. Poles will do what he THINKS is the best choice for the future, but he could be wrong. If he doesn't draft a top rookie QB that has a good chance to be a franchise QB, then I think that's a huge mistake that should cost him his job.

So taking a top pick QB is a mistake because Trubisky didn't work out? Can we have that conversation again about statistics and likelihoods again? You cant take a single example and assert that it stands for the most likely outcome. We've got to understand this basic stuff. We agree that Poles did a great job tearing down. We agree that Poles has done a great job in acquisition. I think Poles should have moved on from Eberflus, but he has done a great job of bringing in coordinators and assistants. I still think Poles needs to take a top QB in the draft. If he misses on this, we are going to be stuck in the same old cycle until we can have a 3 win season and can try again. And with this defense, that could be quite a while. This is an inflection moment for the Bears, and it will determine Poles' future and the next 5 or 10 years for our franchise. Otherwise we get caught in the endless 6-11, 9-8 loop that half the teams in the league cant escape. You say that Poles has a different vision than the past. But that doesnt rebut the dynamic of that whirlpool, it exists, and if Poles doesnt get that QB, he just takes us right back there - even if he found a different way to do it, we will still be stuck there. We have all lived through it. Havent we had enough? Are we really gonna step up for another chapter of McCaskey safe middle ball? "Oh if only a fumble goes our way we might..." I've been happily playing along with that for years. I posted on this board with excitement for Jerry Angelo, and Mark Trestman, and Matt Nagy and so many others. "If we can just build on the good stuff from last year..." I cant just walk down that path again. Some franchises insist on excellence. You can fired for a 9-8 season there. They dont care if you're "doing pretty good" or "keep the team together through a long losing streak" they insist on excellence, and they keep trying people until they find it. Why does ESPNs Courtney Cronin say she has personally spoken to a handful of NFL GMs and none say Fields is worth even a single first round pick? There's the sportswriters narrative "Justin stay of go?" that generates a lot of clicks. But it's a mirage. This isn't about hating on Justin. It's about hating on mediocrity - it's about having a commitment to excellence. It's about real accountability. It's about telling the truth about what's working and what isn't. Insist on excellence. It's hard to find. You try, and it doesnt work out, so you try again, and you keep trying until we have one of the baddest MFers throwing the ball and the story changes from "maybe if we can add some pieces and grow a little" to " The Bears are the clear favorites to win the Superbowl in August" Dont you want to be like the 49ers and Cowboys in the 80s and 90s? Or the Patriots with Brady? Or the Chiefs? Isnt that the goal? Is incremental progress and hope ever gonna get us there? We need to be looking for a dominant QB. There are several options in this years draft. Poles needs to identify one and get him.

I have no doubt Poles is doing what he thinks is right. What I said was that if he keeps FIelds and is wrong, then we will be stuck in that cycle because THIS is the year we have the #1 pick, not every year. Ask yourself this - why have the Bears been stuck in mediocrity for so long? What are the common factors about the cycle we have been trapped in? I think it's because we held on to mid level stuff that kept us JUST good enough to not be able to get a top pick to find a great QB. We tried and whiffed with Trubisky, but before that? We were trapped in the middle layer like a lot of teams. But then we paid the price to get out of the cycle - we tanked the 2022 season hard. It was miserable. But we bought ourselves a chance to swing for the fences and be GOOD. We had the #1 pick last year. And Poles thought that passing on Young and Stroud was the right move and giving Fields another year, and a Pro Bowl level WR, and help on the OL would give him the chance to prove himself. And that made sense. But that experiment ran last year already. And the results are in. Now we have the #1 pick again. And interestingly there are a bunch of intriguing QBs this year - more than most years, so we might even find our stud in a pick below the #1 pick, if we find a guy other than Williams to believe in. So Poles can play the draft and still get a top QB, so Im not dogged that it has to be Williams (yet?) or with the #1 pick. But if we walk away from this draft without a true candidate for franchise QB, and stick with Fields instead, and it doesnt work out, we wont be in a position to have a #1 pick again. If we end up there, were are doomed to sit in the middle again for several years unless we tank again, which pretty much would bring us then to 2026 or 2027 before we had a functional starting QB and all the players we all like would be going to free agency not to mention wed have to trade them to tank hard, we arent winning 3 games with this defense, we will win more *OR* we will have to mortgage a future draft to get up to get a guy if the teams who have those picks are even willing to let go of a #1 guy in trade, and they usually arent. That's what we usually do. Cutler, Mack, Trubisky. And it kills our future drafts for 2 or 3 years without any number one pick. Both tickets out of purgatory are awful. So this is the moment. Its not always going to be like this. The train is leaving the station, and if you keep Fields and it doesn't work out, Poles is possibly fired, and the whole roster is into their second deals. We simply HAVE to take a shot at a great QB right now. if you keep Fields you gotta think he is going to be great fast, better by far than hes ever been, or it all goes to hell for another several years. With the defense we have, even if Fields sucks we will NOT have the #1 pick again. And you've watched that movie with me for the past 30 years. I cant just McCaskey this again for another 30. Arent we all sick to death of that?! Playing it safe right now is the absolute wrong thing to do - and Fields is not a safe choice to be great anyway. When you think about the haul of players and picks wed get from trading the #1 pick, ask yourself - why would the team giving all that to us think it's a winning move for them to give all that for just a single pick? It's because it's WORTH it because they can take a swing at a franchise QB who might take you to the promised land. That should be us doing that.

He was run game coordinator under Carrol in Seattle, and worked with Waldron there. The staff is filling out really nicely! And unlike the first wave of hires, these people all had a specific connection to Waldron, so the chemistry is known already. Hopefully Morton has the juice to make Waldron run the ball more than he did previously. If Waldron can adapt, and there's no reason to doubt that, and get a fully dimensional and modern offense in Chicago, then we will be on our way up the ladder, with a whole Waldron tree waiting in the wings ready to move up if Waldron is hired away as a HC, or if he is promoted to our HC some time. That is one developing insurance policy scenario if Eberflus doesnt work out that wouldnt cost us any momentum. If Poles is hedging his bet that way, then good job! https://www.windycitygridiron.com/2024/1/30/24053144/chicago-bears-hire-chad-morton-running-back-coach-nfl-offseason-2024-seattle-seahawks-shane-waldron

yeah, thats the crux of it. Ive seen enough Fields, and Im done waiting for the light to come on for him. He had this year to show it and he just didnt. There are reasons or excuses why perhaps, but he hasnt done it. He had his chance. There is a reason that everyone except Mel Kiper (lol) says that he isnt worth more than a 2nd round pick. I dont think the league values him as a top 10 starter, or his future development to be that. To your point, who the non tier 1 QBs who won superbowls in the last 20 years, and then lets see if they are better than Fields? You gotta try for a Mahomes, but if you get a Josh Allen, you can work with that. But yes, in everything I say on here you can add something that says "I have made up my mind that Fields will never be the guy for us. I admit i cant predict the future, but this is my strong opinion and I believe there is more than enough evidence to make a strong case that it is extremely unlikely that Fields will be the guy in the admittedly unknowable future." That's just what i think. And I dont think it's close really, it seems blatantly obvious to me. And I think its obvious to the rest of the league too. If we get great trade offers for him, or hear teams talking about trying hard to get him, then that will be evidence that I was wrong about this.