BearFan PHX

sorry. he did start it tho. and still sorry.

LOl youre such a _______ i wont even bother using any word for that. Your takes are ridiculous, and youre so fighty and nasty. I honestly think you just dont understand half of why what you say is so weird. But I'm not here to fight with you. Since I told you to cut out the truly nasty stuff, and then kicked your rhetorical butt enough that it did stop, I don't really care anymore what you have to say about me. You've been exposed, and now the weight of what you say about me is greatly lessened. Who cares. But here's a hint, i said what you SAID was dumb. If you want to understand before you go through this with someone else, understand the difference between attacking an argument, and attacking a person. But yeah, be as nasty as you need to - it just looks bad.

I think Bagent is really underrated. I love the way he reads defenses and gets the ball out fast. it seems that he is lacking some arm strength, which in time can be improved. Im not suggesting that the Bears should consider him an option as a full time starter right now (unless it's just for a few weeks until a rookie is ready to supplant him) but I will say that I wouldnt be shocked if Bagent turns out to be pretty good in a couple years. He has a lightning fast release. The threw some INTs like all rookies do, but I think he's actually got it in him to be a really good QB. I'm still all for drafting a high pick rookie QB this year and rolling with them of course.

Colin Cowherd was repeating a narrative we all had heard 8 weeks earlier - that Caleb didnt want to go to Chicago. This is before we fired Getsy for context. Cowherd also reported yesterday that Williams' camp contacted him and told him it wasnt true, and he would play for whoever drafts him.

in this case she isnt giving an opinion though, shes reporting what people in the league told her.

nah, youre goofy. I didnt say you said he cant pass the ball ever. I said he isnt a great passer and never will be. YOu said youre not arguing hes a great passer. So you think a team can win with a not so great passer. Thats crazytown. This isnt about me misreading you, youre just trying to model what I say to you when you do that. It's getting silly now. Sometimes you gotta know when youve been beaten and move on to the next thing dude. And going for the nasty when youre so wrong is just cringe.

Mistah math. Love it. I think unless Caleb is a head case, even if he doesnt reach his ceiling, he will still be very good.

lol perfect

The NFL is a passing QBs' league. Also, water is wet and dinosaurs were real.

Well this is good news, and I'll just take it on face value going forward. But the cynical part of me says they said they "didnt want to be painted as anti Bears" not that Caleb "would love to play for Chicago" or "is excited to join the NFL and will play for any team that picks him" - the language is clumsy and sounds nuanced and lawyered. So like, they might still want to drop subtle hints to Poles that they dont want to be there without the media firestorm. OK I heard it, I said it, now I'll file it away under "if more stuff fits this pattern I'll look at it again then" and now I'll proceed as if we are going to draft CW and have a 10 year future we've never seen in Chicago. We're so consumed with all the Fields stuff, no one is really yet realizing what this could be. This could be the greatest thing to happen to the Bears since 1985, maybe even greater.

I am speechless. This is literally the dumbest thing I've ever read. I can't take anything you say seriously at all if you want to roll with a QB who "isn't a great passer." wtf.

fair enough at least in this case, shes reporting what (all the?) pros said instead of what her analysis is? she said it was unanimous? I wouldnt make a decision based on their opinions. I prefer to just use my own eyes, but it does seem like the media narrative is starting to change. Then again, Colin Cowherd said today that Williams doesn't want to play for Chicago and may force a trade specifically to Washington. Of course if Williams did that, it would kill the trade value too, since thered be no competition anymore. If Caleb says he'd only play in Washington, no one else would be able to trade up for him either. I really hope we end up preferring someone else, but Williams is pretty damned good. I sure hope hed play for us if we drafted him. that would be a nightmare if he forced us out of the #1 pick, without getting proper trade value because he dictated the trade and killed the market. I wonder what the NFL would do in that case.

It seems like even the media narrative is starting to change in the light of so much truth. Shes saying not a single person in the league that shes talked to, and that must be a LOT of people. Carmen Vitali covers not just the Bears, but the entire NFC North for FOX Sports. THink of how many people in the NFL she must talk to, and everything she hears is unanimous.

one can be a homer without being prone to hysteria I love me so Jim Harbaugh. People said some negative things about him. That wouldn't make me mad

yeah its a weird play for sure, but I dont think Eberflus really adds much on defense. There no innovation, hes not even particularly aggressive. The roster is great, and most of the defensive glory we attribute to Eberflus is probably better attributed to Sweat and Poles. I dont want to lose Waldron in 2025 (after unlocking a QB) just so we dont do something weird to Flus. Anyway, like I said, these are my exceedingly silly scenarios that only make sense to talk about in February when we have nothing else LOL

I worry that youd need two different offenses, one for Fields, and one for the new guy, even if it's Caleb. Because the playing off script problem is the thing we need to reel in about Justin, and the coaching points that Caleb needs too. Having both seems like a recipe for disaster in trying to instill a disciplined passing game. Imagine Fields and Williams battling it out and not playhing in structure, while Bagent has his hand up in the back of the room with the right answer every time, but he just doesnt have the physical talents these guys have. What a total mess! Now, if you're taking Maye for example, it's OK to keep Justin I guess, but it has to be in the Maye type offensive system, and I dont see Justin thriving that way. We'd say that we werent constructing an offense just for Justin, and that's why hes failing. But, I have heard your point, and others who make it too, and it helped to sort out my feelings a little about it, and I have come to understand that what I REALLY mean is that we need to draft a top QB prospect, not necessarily at #1, but we cant risk not getting our guy, so probably in the top ten. And if we keep Fields, i just think he will fail, but as long as we have the rookie waiting in the wings, and an offense that helps the rookie thrive, keeping Justin wont kill me. It's not Justin hate as some on this board take it, it's just that I want a real QB But you said above that some fans will take losing Fields a little better because we didnt fire Eberflus, so I was just asking if it worked on you too. And you said no. And that makes sense to me. I think *IF* Poles kept Flus to make the transition away from Fields smoother with the players, that would be an angle i hadnt considered earlier. maybe really smart too if he can dump Flus later if need be. And I was just wondering if losing Waldron hypothetically AFTER he'd unlocked whoever our QB is next year would be worth it to keep Flus. I dont think so, but its weird to fire a guy for no reason other than that you think someone else is better. That's really hard to do. If Poles did that, then he can bloody well hug whoever he likes, because he's obviously got ice water in his veins.

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.