Fields-O-Meter

[Daventry]

I am really surprised some still hold onto coaching as the reason for Fields problems.  In my view, it is clear that regardless of the coaching, he is not close to being a starting quarterback in the NFL.

[Stinger226]

47 minutes ago, Daventry said:

I am really surprised some still hold onto coaching as the reason for Fields problems.  In my view, it is clear that regardless of the coaching, he is not close to being a starting quarterback in the NFL.

Actually both can be true at the same time.

[Daventry]

32 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

Actually both can be true at the same time.

To be clear, I don’t believe coaching can be blamed for all of Fields problems.  That’s what they said about Trubisky and he went to some other teams with other coaches and hasn’t set the world on fire.  Fields would struggle regardless of who was coaching him.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, Daventry said:

To be clear, I don’t believe coaching can be blamed for all of Fields problems

I would say the current issues with Fields is a microcosm of the systemic issues that are the current Chicago Bears.  I would think the macrocosm is the overall system (aka organization).  How far up does the dysfunction go is the question to ask. To the pic below I would add that there are a bevy of other issues that factor into the equation to include injures and third stringers starting in key positions (oline and def secondary for sure).  

[Daventry]

1 hour ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I would say the current issues with Fields is a microcosm of the systemic issues that are the current Chicago Bears.  I would think the macrocosm is the overall system (aka organization).  How far up does the dysfunction go is the question to ask. To the pic below I would add that there are a bevy of other issues that factor into the equation to include injures and third stringers starting in key positions (oline and def secondary for sure).  

I can’t disagree with the overall dysfunction, but you could have Jesus coaching Fields and he still wouldn’t be kicking any ass.  

[adam]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I would say the current issues with Fields is a microcosm of the systemic issues that are the current Chicago Bears.  I would think the macrocosm is the overall system (aka organization).  How far up does the dysfunction go is the question to ask. To the pic below I would add that there are a bevy of other issues that factor into the equation to include injures and third stringers starting in key positions (oline and def secondary for sure).  

That tells me there is a disconnect between GM and HC. 

[ASHKUM BEAR]

42 minutes ago, Daventry said:

I can’t disagree with the overall dysfunction, but you could have Jesus coaching Fields and he still wouldn’t be kicking any ass.  

Do you think Patrick Mahomes would have made it in Chicago like he has in KC?  If Fields was in KC would that team be trash because of him?  I think that is how some of us view it.

I agree Fields has regressed.  I also have seen experts point out why he is not excelling and they state because the plays just don't work.  I am giving him the benefit and want to see how it goes once Carter and Patrick are back to being reserves.  The Bears supposedly upgraded how many starters and the defense has looked almost worse.  

This runs deeper than just Fields in my opinion.

[BearFan PHX]

Fields is bad and the coaching is bad.

I don't think Fields would be good with other coaches. I dont think the coaches would be great with another QB.

[adam]

DVOA for Fields thru 3 weeks is -51.8% (last), he passed Jake Luton to become the 2nd worst QB in the last 5 years with over 400 passing attempts. He is nearing Mike Glennon the Giant territory, who is dead last:

20 Luton -48.6% w/ 117 attempts
23 Fields -51.8% w/ 101 attempts
21 Glennon -59.2% w/ 173 attempts

To understand how bad Glennon was, he only lasted 4 games. He had 4 TD and 10 INT, a QB Rating of 49.7 and averaged 131 passing yards a game while being sacked 9 times.

If we go up in passing attempts, the next two QBs ahead of Fields with more attempts is 20' Dwayne Haskins (-40.1% w/ 261 attempts) and 20' Alex Smith (-39.7% w/ 274 attempts), interestingly enough, both on the Commanders.

Fields current QBR is 21.0, 34/34 in the NFL. Fields has had a bottom-5 QBR every week this season.

For PFF, Fields has a 62.3 (27th) OFF Grade and a 54.3 Passing Grade (31st).

His traditional QB Rating is 67.7 (30th)

So the eye test is matching the stats, all of the stats.

I think the worst possible combination all hit at the same time, weak roster (GM), bad HC, bad/inexperienced OC and play caller, and a QB that really needs a super strong development environment to progress. This is clearly not a system built for Fields, nor is it play to his strengths, that is 100% on Getsy, and should be a fireable offense (no pun intended).

The only thing saving Fields right now is that the entire roster around him is terrible and his OC can't draw up a play to get anyone open. Guys like Burrow, Pickett, Lawrence, and even Hurts have a lower than normal QBR. So it could just be an early season thing, but if he ever needed a slump buster, I hope he finds one this week and gets all his frustrations out, just don't pull a hammy.

 

 

[adam]

1 hour ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Do you think Patrick Mahomes would have made it in Chicago like he has in KC?  If Fields was in KC would that team be trash because of him?  I think that is how some of us view it.

I agree Fields has regressed.  I also have seen experts point out why he is not excelling and they state because the plays just don't work.  I am giving him the benefit and want to see how it goes once Carter and Patrick are back to being reserves.  The Bears supposedly upgraded how many starters and the defense has looked almost worse.  

This runs deeper than just Fields in my opinion.

Patrick Mahomes is a generational talent, and outside of Kelce and Jones, the Bears may have had a better roster. Mahomes it football jesus, he can literally make any player look good.  The team would not have had the success KC did, but that is relative to the entire team, not just Mahomes. Mahomes in a vacuum will probably end up as the best QB of all-time, and he will eclipse numbers set by Brady, Favre, and Rodgers long before they hit the same numbers. Now he just needs to keep winning championships and catch or surpass Brady. Would he have won a SB in Chicago? Yes, in 2018, easily. That would've completely changed how 2019 was handled, so who knows how many more he would've won. Nagy is doing pretty good with him right now.

If Fields was with Reid, I think he would be much better than he is now with Getsy, but I assume every young QB would be. Look at what Stroud is doing in HOU, name his top 2 WRs, TE, and RB off the top of your head. Love has been playing solid in QB without his WR1 and RB1, and he doesn't throw for 99 yards. Regardless of the players around him, Fields himself, is not producing. As the biggest contributor in a football game, his impact is the greatest and has a domino effect. If the Bears had Andy Dalton back, the Bears are probably 2-1, and the offense would look a lot more in fluid. Fields is making the offense clunky right now and unfortunately, until he improves, I don't see this changing. 

[ASHKUM BEAR]

10 hours ago, adam said:

Patrick Mahomes is a generational talent, and outside of Kelce and Jones, the Bears may have had a better roster. Mahomes it football jesus, he can literally make any player look good.  The team would not have had the success KC did, but that is relative to the entire team, not just Mahomes. Mahomes in a vacuum will probably end up as the best QB of all-time, and he will eclipse numbers set by Brady, Favre, and Rodgers long before they hit the same numbers. Now he just needs to keep winning championships and catch or surpass Brady. Would he have won a SB in Chicago? Yes, in 2018, easily. That would've completely changed how 2019 was handled, so who knows how many more he would've won. Nagy is doing pretty good with him right now.

If Fields was with Reid, I think he would be much better than he is now with Getsy, but I assume every young QB would be. Look at what Stroud is doing in HOU, name his top 2 WRs, TE, and RB off the top of your head. Love has been playing solid in QB without his WR1 and RB1, and he doesn't throw for 99 yards. Regardless of the players around him, Fields himself, is not producing. As the biggest contributor in a football game, his impact is the greatest and has a domino effect. If the Bears had Andy Dalton back, the Bears are probably 2-1, and the offense would look a lot more in fluid. Fields is making the offense clunky right now and unfortunately, until he improves, I don't see this changing. 

That is what Mahomes became. But was it Reid, his staff, and the roster that gave Mahomes the support to become a great.  Fields has not had anything close.  All I am saying is having the right system and support help elevate and build confidence or the opposite can crush a player and we see that every QB that bring in.  The Bears either go with defensive minded coaches or they try a new up and comer offensive guy.  

With saying this and seeing what Mahomes has become, I do not think Fields could have became all that but I think he would be better than he is now.

[adam]

23 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

That is what Mahomes became. But was it Reid, his staff, and the roster that gave Mahomes the support to become a great.  Fields has not had anything close.  All I am saying is having the right system and support help elevate and build confidence or the opposite can crush a player and we see that every QB that bring in.  The Bears either go with defensive minded coaches or they try a new up and comer offensive guy.  

With saying this and seeing what Mahomes has become, I do not think Fields could have became all that but I think he would be better than he is now.

I think Mahomes would not have as good of numbers as he does now, and Fields would be better, for sure. I am just saying there are very few cases where a player is either really bad or really good on one team, then goes to another team and is the complete opposite, just because of the coaching and other players. It does happen, but it is the outlier. 

If you look around the league, having the Offensive Guru as the HC makes the most sense, because you don't have to worry about losing him every season to another team if he was just the OC. The HC can be the play caller and have a named OC that is more of an Asst. Head Coach. Then you bring in an established name as the DC, who can also act as an Asst. HC. That way the HC who is calling the plays has some cover for other parts of the duties that he may not be able to do while calling plays.

Also, the game is super analytical now. The coaches don't even need to make their own plays. All they have to do is put there own wrinkle on the same concepts. There are only some many routes to run, route combinations that work against specific defenses, etc, etc. Everything is plotted and graphed, so there should be very little need for major decisions within the game. You make them before the game. That is why the Getsy stuff is so alarming at this point. The Texans have a rookie QB, new coaching staff throwing to Nico Collins and Tank Dell, and both of those WRs have more receptions and yards than any WR on the Bears. 

Getsy was the biggest mistake for the Bears. Knowing the Bears had Fields, he was the polar opposite of Rodgers, a young QB vs a HOFer, Rodgers can pretty much do anything on every play as long as the other players don't make a major mistake. Fields is a mobile QB who has a hard time reading the MoF. That is like oil and water. What could Getsy impart on Fields? Getsy didn't call plays and was just a spectator. I think that was the Bears biggest mistake.

Off topic a little, does it ever feel like to you that Fields is shorter than advertised. Fields hits OLine helmets and gets balls batted down like he is 5'10", and when he stands in the pocket he looks shorter than guys like Watson, etc, and he is taller. Hurts even crouches down very low and still makes throws of the middle. I always felt that they should measure eye height vs overall height, because if you have a 5-head like Glennon, you will be 2 inches taller than a normal cranium, but your eye level will be that of someone 2 inches shorter.

[Mongo3451]

1 hour ago, adam said:

Off topic a little, does it ever feel like to you that Fields is shorter than advertised. Fields hits OLine helmets and gets balls batted down like he is 5'10", and when he stands in the pocket he looks shorter than guys like Watson, etc, and he is taller. Hurts even crouches down very low and still makes throws of the middle. I always felt that they should measure eye height vs overall height, because if you have a 5-head like Glennon, you will be 2 inches taller than a normal cranium, but your eye level will be that of someone 2 inches shorter.

His arm slot is low.  That's why he has a hard time throwing over the line.  Drew Brees was the best short QB at throwing over the line due to his extremely high release.  Drew would literally stretch himself vertically while throwing to overcome it.  Fields makes no effort to raise, combined with the slowest release in the NFL.  That fearfully combination creates a huge window that he cannot hit.  It happens to be the area where most QB's make their money.  If you imagine a pocket and draw a line from fields to each furthest blocker, fifteen yards beyond that radius is the area he fails to hit.  It's a fatal flaw.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2 hours ago, adam said:

Off topic a little, does it ever feel like to you that Fields is shorter than advertised. Fields hits OLine helmets and gets balls batted down like he is 5'10", and when he stands in the pocket he looks shorter than guys like Watson, etc, and he is taller. Hurts even crouches down very low and still makes throws of the middle. I always felt that they should measure eye height vs overall height, because if you have a 5-head like Glennon, you will be 2 inches taller than a normal cranium, but your eye level will be that of someone 2 inches shorter.

Drew Brees was notoriously short at 6’0 (although really I think it might’ve been shorter). I remember reading a number of years ago about he often had to stand on his toes to make throws. Then of course there was Doug Fluite.  Its all about making adjustments. And maybe a reason why they design more rollout options for Justin.  

[Alaskan Grizzly]

13 hours ago, adam said:

Fields current QBR is 21.0, 34/34 in the NFL. Fields has had a bottom-5 QBR every week this season.

Because I was curious, Hurts’ QBR (whatever that is) is 44.2 and his team is 3-0.  Kirk Cousins QBR is 59.5 (ranked 12th) and his team is 0-3 like us.  

[madlithuanian]

You guys all made great and valid points here after going through all the posts...  I think the answer is kind of "all of the above."

Seem to me it's:

1.  (GM) We keep drafting the wrong guys.  For all the, it's the coach, it's the GM, it's the ownership...all of that noise goes away if we draft the correct players.  (or get the correct FA's for that matter).  This is intrinsically on the GM.  Who is out bet drafted player right now by the current regime?  I'd maybe say Wright.  Brisker had flashes, Gordon is MIA, our 2 DT's are fair.  Stevenson has some flashes.  Bottom line, we don't have a star.  In the trade, we did get Moore.  He is our only legit "Superstar".  Our GM can make trades w draft picks.  Maybe he just can't pick well?  We all know through the posts here who he missed out on taking Velus, etc instead.

2.  (GM and Ownership) We keep hiring the wrong coach.  From missing out on Dave McGinnis to Arians, to Daboll (besides Lovie), we've whiffed every single time.  We always seem to hire the "nice" guy.  I think the McCaskey's didn't like Ditka, so everything now has to be polar opposite.  Except, it doesn't seem to be working.  I think McCaskey keeps feeding the GM, you must hire A, B or C, and better not hire D, or you'll not get hired or lose your job.  But, if the GM really wanted to keep his job, he'd hire a good coach no matter the demeanor.  So, blame goes to both GM and Ownership.

3.  (HC) In game, a lot goes to blame on the HC.  He picked his coordinators, etc.  He's game planned or not game planned as it would appear often.   We constantly have tiddywinks players vs Gary Kasperov in chess.  Our coaching is historically and epically horrific since Lovie.  AD (After Ditka), at least Wanny has pedigree, Jauron was an ample defensive guy.  After Smith...oh man.  Just a cavalcade of rotten. 

4.  (Players) Once you get to the Bears, guys seem to now want to suck as they continue on.  Fun and flashy rookie turn into mistake prone whiners complaining that they don't like fans booing because the team sucks.  Tremaine Edmunds looked strong in Buffalo.  Comes here and makes rookie errors every Sunday.  I don't care that the DL sucks...do your job.  Allow the first because you have no choice.  Don't F up and allow a TD. 

That's pretty much it.  It's everything and all at once.

Maybe Warren is the difference.  With Sweaty Teddy, we know it'll be rinse repeat.  With Warren, I still think it'll be rinse repeat.  But, there's a chance it won't.  We as a fan base have been burned too many times, too often, and too consecutively to not fear the worst when it comes to this franchise.  Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume more of the same. 

 

[Mongo3451]

57 minutes ago, madlithuanian said:

You guys all made great and valid points here after going through all the posts...  I think the answer is kind of "all of the above."

Seem to me it's:

1.  (GM) We keep drafting the wrong guys.  For all the, it's the coach, it's the GM, it's the ownership...all of that noise goes away if we draft the correct players.  (or get the correct FA's for that matter).  This is intrinsically on the GM.  Who is out bet drafted player right now by the current regime?  I'd maybe say Wright.  Brisker had flashes, Gordon is MIA, our 2 DT's are fair.  Stevenson has some flashes.  Bottom line, we don't have a star.  In the trade, we did get Moore.  He is our only legit "Superstar".  Our GM can make trades w draft picks.  Maybe he just can't pick well?  We all know through the posts here who he missed out on taking Velus, etc instead.

2.  (GM and Ownership) We keep hiring the wrong coach.  From missing out on Dave McGinnis to Arians, to Daboll (besides Lovie), we've whiffed every single time.  We always seem to hire the "nice" guy.  I think the McCaskey's didn't like Ditka, so everything now has to be polar opposite.  Except, it doesn't seem to be working.  I think McCaskey keeps feeding the GM, you must hire A, B or C, and better not hire D, or you'll not get hired or lose your job.  But, if the GM really wanted to keep his job, he'd hire a good coach no matter the demeanor.  So, blame goes to both GM and Ownership.

3.  (HC) In game, a lot goes to blame on the HC.  He picked his coordinators, etc.  He's game planned or not game planned as it would appear often.   We constantly have tiddywinks players vs Gary Kasperov in chess.  Our coaching is historically and epically horrific since Lovie.  AD (After Ditka), at least Wanny has pedigree, Jauron was an ample defensive guy.  After Smith...oh man.  Just a cavalcade of rotten. 

4.  (Players) Once you get to the Bears, guys seem to now want to suck as they continue on.  Fun and flashy rookie turn into mistake prone whiners complaining that they don't like fans booing because the team sucks.  Tremaine Edmunds looked strong in Buffalo.  Comes here and makes rookie errors every Sunday.  I don't care that the DL sucks...do your job.  Allow the first because you have no choice.  Don't F up and allow a TD. 

That's pretty much it.  It's everything and all at once.

Maybe Warren is the difference.  With Sweaty Teddy, we know it'll be rinse repeat.  With Warren, I still think it'll be rinse repeat.  But, there's a chance it won't.  We as a fan base have been burned too many times, too often, and too consecutively to not fear the worst when it comes to this franchise.  Until proven otherwise, I'm going to assume more of the same. 

 

How bout we just blame Bears fans while we are at it?  Every game I've ever been to, the fans are the most negative I've ever witnessed.  It's depressing to spend all of that money and hear all of the negative shit.  Last game I went to, I almost got into two separate fights "with fellow Bears fans", over their crap attitudes.

[madlithuanian]

41 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

How bout we just blame Bears fans while we are at it?  Every game I've ever been to, the fans are the most negative I've ever witnessed.  It's depressing to spend all of that money and hear all of the negative shit.  Last game I went to, I almost got into two separate fights "with fellow Bears fans", over their crap attitudes.

Ha!  While I do think there are a ton of crappy fans (we aren't alone...every single franchise has 'em...some more than others), I think there is some justification.  We've been mediocre to awful for like 20 years.  I personally can't understand going to a game and not trying to enjoy it.  And if you're not, leave.  Or just don't go to the game.  People that go to the games and are that negative need to simply not go, or just sell their tickets if they can't enjoy it.  Life is too short to spend upwards of a grand on going to a gem with one's family and not have some fun.  Hell, at minimum, I'd just wander Soldier and look at the history.  This current iteration makes me numb, but seeing history of Walter or Butkus will always put a smile on my face. 

[madlithuanian]

46 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

How bout we just blame Bears fans while we are at it?  Every game I've ever been to, the fans are the most negative I've ever witnessed.  It's depressing to spend all of that money and hear all of the negative shit.  Last game I went to, I almost got into two separate fights "with fellow Bears fans", over their crap attitudes.

FYI -  I almost put fans down!  But I ultimately thought they were justified being negative creeps (anyone catch the Nirvana reference there?) 

[adam]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Because I was curious, Hurts’ QBR (whatever that is) is 44.2 and his team is 3-0.  Kirk Cousins QBR is 59.5 (ranked 12th) and his team is 0-3 like us.  

Majority of the QBs fall into the average category 40-60 for QBR, as 50.0 is exactly average. It's the guys above 60 and below 40 that standout. So Hurts is doing nothing for his team to be 3-0 and Cousins is doing more than average though his team is really bad. The top 2 teams in the league have the top 2 QBs: Tua and Purdy in terms of QBR. 

Fields and Wilson are winless and the last 2 QBs, so they are actually bringing their teams down and their teams are playing bad. They are both playing worse than a normal QB in the same situation. So if Fields was above 40, and the Bears were 0-3, most of the fault would be on others. If he had a QBR like Cousins, he would not be the problem. 

The way I see it:

Below 40: Hurting team, playing too far below average
40-50: Not helping, but not hurting
50-60: Helping team
60-70: A huge contributor to the team's success
70+: Carrying team, making others around him better

[Alaskan Grizzly]

56 minutes ago, adam said:

Fields and Wilson are winless and the last 2 QBs, so they are actually bringing their teams down and their teams are playing bad.

Admittedly I don't watch much Jets football but I had a hard time thinking that they would be this bad after losing Rodgers.  This was more what I expected the Packers to do once he left. At any rate, the Jets seemed legitimately one piece (or two) away from putting it all together.  In that regard, having Rodgers there it logically made sense that would have made them more a contender.  Their defense isn't as spectacular as you'd think but they are 12th overall in allowed scoring. Otherwise they're middling at best in every other category.

The Bears are a mess in just about every category both for offense AND defense.  About the only redeeming quality on defense is their 18th overall ranking in rush defense. Otherwise they are bottom 5 in just about all the other categories.  

[adam]

I think one of the overarching problems is, once you get to that level (the NFL), there is a limit on the amount of humans that can do what they do at that level. Like in reality, Mahomes is probably the only generational QB talent currently playing (not counting Rodgers who is past his prime and on IR). After that you have that 2nd tier that have great games but are just not at the sustained success as Mahomes has been at, guys like Hurts, Allen, Burrow, Herbert, Jackson, maybe Tua, Prescott, but that's it. Just a handful of guys. Most of them will end up like Matt Ryan and Philip Rivers, a ton of yards and TDs, and not much else to show for a 20-year career. 

Same goes for coaching, how many true offensive gurus are coaching in the league today? McDaniel, Shanahan, McVay, LaFleur, and maybe Johnson and Canales? That's it. I don't count Belichick or Reid as they are grandfathered in. So if you don't have one of those 6-8 guys on your staff as at least OC or HC, and one of the QBs mentioned above, the odds of you winning anything is slim to none. The Bears have neither, and I don't know the last time they had either, Ditka and peak McMahon?

[Mongo3451]

2 hours ago, madlithuanian said:

FYI -  I almost put fans down!  But I ultimately thought they were justified being negative creeps (anyone catch the Nirvana reference there?) 

Seriously, the players hear that crap at the stadiums, clubs and restaurants.  Negativity is a slow destroyer of positivity.  It's demoralizing.  DJ Moore couldn't believe the fans were booing in the second quarter.  I'll also say, today's players are way too sensitive, as compared to those of the past.  It's not even close.

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, adam said:

I think one of the overarching problems is, once you get to that level (the NFL), there is a limit on the amount of humans that can do what they do at that level. Like in reality, Mahomes is probably the only generational QB talent currently playing (not counting Rodgers who is past his prime and on IR). After that you have that 2nd tier that have great games but are just not at the sustained success as Mahomes has been at, guys like Hurts, Allen, Burrow, Herbert, Jackson, maybe Tua, Prescott, but that's it. Just a handful of guys. Most of them will end up like Matt Ryan and Philip Rivers, a ton of yards and TDs, and not much else to show for a 20-year career. 

Same goes for coaching, how many true offensive gurus are coaching in the league today? McDaniel, Shanahan, McVay, LaFleur, and maybe Johnson and Canales? That's it. I don't count Belichick or Reid as they are grandfathered in. So if you don't have one of those 6-8 guys on your staff as at least OC or HC, and one of the QBs mentioned above, the odds of you winning anything is slim to none. The Bears have neither, and I don't know the last time they had either, Ditka and peak McMahon?

Exactly. This is the thing no one thinks about, but it's everything.

If you go 8-9 and you're in most games, you think "the coach and QB are doing a pretty good job" but you're not winning a Super Bowl. This isn't like other jobs where if you're doing a decent job, that's pretty good. in this job you either win a Super Bowl, or you're one of the 31 teams that didn't.

The ugly truth is that the top 30 quarterbacks that aren't in the league would all be pro bowlers if they had 5 seconds of protection reliably. There are thousands of head coaches that can organize a team, and do a decent job of leadership and providing a professional product.

That's awesome for kitchen remodeling. Every day across the world many kitchens are being well remodeled, and the client will be happy with the good work. They wont be upset if their remodel job isn't the literal #1 best in the world. If it's really good, that's a win.

This is competence and professionalism. It's rare enough, but it's out there to be found easily if you can pay the going rate in most professions.

But winning Super Bowls takes difference makers. Quarterbacks and Head Coaches that regularly improve your team's chances of winning over competent opponents. Reliable 12+ win seasons. Identity. All Pros. Hall of Famers. Champions.

If you have someone struggling to provide competence, it's easy enough to see that you need to fire them. But the thing no one thinks about is that if someone is competent, but could easily be replaced by another competent coach or QB without missing a beat, that should be fire-able too in the NFL. We aren't searching for #16, we are hunting for rare outliers that create dominant outcomes.

You need to be buying a lottery ticket on greatness when you hire in the NFL. Often they will fall short. There aren't many to go around. The best chance of finding one is often to take a chance on a young kid that isn't ready yet. Look at Belichick with the Browns. So there is reason to hang with someone for a few seasons to see what they become I will admit.

But in the end you are hunting outliers with the strong will to dominate and lead others around them to follow. That means strong personalities, weird geniuses - the kind of people that just wouldn't belong at a McCaskey catered summer lawn party.

Mike Ditka willed his Bears to legendary status. The McCaskeys hated it. This is why we've hired polite and political competence ever since. if we had a Buddy Ryan, we might have been able to draft and control Jalen Carter. etc.

Now, Kevin Warren is in the house. For the first time we have an organizational structure that contemplates someone above the GM who can take the right risks and disagree with the ownership. Is Warren that kind of guy? Is he rough enough to challenge the powers that be? Is this kind of difference maker even in his vision? Or does he prefer competent professionals that don't make waves?

One wonder if Ryan Poles understands this. If he and Warren get this the next time we hire a coach, we have a chance. If they value cohesive structure and their own status above the HC, then we're doomed. Again.

Put it this way. Can this team hire a guy like Jim Harbaugh? Can we tolerate a QB with the competitive fire of Jim McMahon?

Because until we are willing to think like that, we will be struggling to provide average outcomes, and call it professional. And when that's your goal, no wonder you fall this short.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

2 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

I'll also say, today's players are way too sensitive, as compared to those of the past.  It's not even close.

I’ll second this to infinity.  Being booed is nothing new.  Just how the players (and coaches) deal with it is different.  I still remember the time when Ditka chucked his gum at some fans after they’d been taunting him. Ah…the good ol days.