Poles positive report card

[adam]

22 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

You know how we get focused on the “what ifs” of this conversation?  What if we miss on a generational talent? What if Justin gets exponentially better if given the right opportunity?  Each of those scenarios can be explained away by stats and in some cases, logic. My fear is that “#1 overall talent” doesn’t always equal success.  Just like your explanation of how three years of tape on Justin shows he can’t/won’t get any better.  
 

We could go down any number of rabbit holes to prove or disprove each other’s point.  We’ll of course drive ourselves crazy until the 25th of April trying to figure out exactly what it is that Poles and the team plan on doing. Oh yes, if only we could be a fly on that wall.  

If they do trade Fields and he excels somewhere else, that doesn't necessarily mean if the Bears held onto him, he would've done the same thing here. Sometimes guys just need some new scenery, maybe get knocked down a rung, a reality check. 

I am trying to look at it from a broader perspective in terms of where a player's ceiling and floor could be. To me, Fields never got to the level of play in college that Williams did. Fields best year would be Williams 3rd best.

The volume was just not there from Fields. In his only full season, in 14 starts, Fields only had 4 games with more than 240 passing yards. Does that sound familiar? He did that with a WR Corps of Olave, Wilson, and Williams, and Dobbins at RB. He only averaged 233 passing yards a game with that group of WRs. So if he only averaged 233 yards per game in college with weaker competition and that group of receivers, what did anyone expect him to do with Mooney, ESB, Pettis against NFL defenses? LMAO!

Guess how many times Justin hit 240 yds in his first 28 NFL starts? 3 times. 

Stats don't necessarily perfectly correlate, but rarely have I seen them go UP in the NFL. Remember Mitch? In his best season in college, he averaged 288 passing yards a game. In 2018, he peaked at 230 yds a game, but is down to 181 for his career.

I thought the percentage drop was interesting. Guys with a ton of yards have more to lose, so I think it is a little skewed the higher you go, so Mahomes normalized (using all college numbers) would be only down 16%.  Either way, just looking at the 5 guys below, all went down in the NFL. So why did the Bears think Fields production would go up?

262 - Fields (Jr Year) (167 for NFL career) -36.3%
288 - Trubisky (Jr Year) (181 for NFL career) -37.2%
306 - Watson (253 for NFL career) -17.4%
315 - Lawrence (Jr Year) (235 NFL for career) -25.4%
421 - Mahomes (296 for career) -29.7%

324 - Williams (So Year) >>> (projected range: 241 yds - 267 yds per game)

 

[BearFan PHX]

23 minutes ago, adam said:

If they do trade Fields and he excels somewhere else, that doesn't necessarily mean if the Bears held onto him, he would've done the same thing here. Sometimes guys just need some new scenery, maybe get knocked down a rung, a reality check. 

I am trying to look at it from a broader perspective in terms of where a player's ceiling and floor could be. To me, Fields never got to the level of play in college that Williams did. Fields best year would be Williams 3rd best.

The volume was just not there from Fields. In his only full season, in 14 starts, Fields only had 4 games with more than 240 passing yards. Does that sound familiar? He did that with a WR Corps of Olave, Wilson, and Williams, and Dobbins at RB. He only averaged 233 passing yards a game with that group of WRs. So if he only averaged 233 yards per game in college with weaker competition and that group of receivers, what did anyone expect him to do with Mooney, ESB, Pettis against NFL defenses? LMAO!

Guess how many times Justin hit 240 yds in his first 28 NFL starts? 3 times. 

Stats don't necessarily perfectly correlate, but rarely have I seen them go UP in the NFL. Remember Mitch? In his best season in college, he averaged 288 passing yards a game. In 2018, he peaked at 230 yds a game, but is down to 181 for his career.

I thought the percentage drop was interesting. Guys with a ton of yards have more to lose, so I think it is a little skewed the higher you go, so Mahomes normalized (using all college numbers) would be only down 16%.  Either way, just looking at the 5 guys below, all went down in the NFL. So why did the Bears think Fields production would go up?

262 - Fields (Jr Year) (167 for NFL career) -36.3%
288 - Trubisky (Jr Year) (181 for NFL career) -37.2%
306 - Watson (253 for NFL career) -17.4%
315 - Lawrence (Jr Year) (235 NFL for career) -25.4%
421 - Mahomes (296 for career) -29.7%

324 - Williams (So Year) >>> (projected range: 241 yds - 367 yds per game)

 

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.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

5 hours ago, adam said:

If they do trade Fields and he excels somewhere else, that doesn't necessarily mean if the Bears held onto him, he would've done the same thing here. Sometimes guys just need some new scenery, maybe get knocked down a rung, a reality check

Some time ago I asked you the question if you thought he could do better elsewhere (you indicated he might) why couldn't he do better if he had a new system to work with in Chicago?  Like with the arrival of Waldron? You never answered that.

5 hours ago, adam said:

To me, Fields never got to the level of play in college that Williams did.

Did you really type this with a straight face?  Understanding your premise that Williams had a better (overall) passing game I'll ask again, who was he playing against?  Michigan?  Clemson?  How many FCS playoff games did he appear in?  What was his overall record against top-25 teams?  While at Ohio State, Fields was 20-2.  The two losses being in the playoffs.  And while with USC, Williams was 18-8. And since we're talking regression, besides his overall win/loss record getting worse he threw for over 4,500 yards the year he won the Heisman and dipped to just over 3,600 last season.  How does that translate to the NFL?  What formula are you using to come up with the "247-361 per game"?  Did you take into the account of the ~20% drop in passing yards from the two seasons above?  

 

5 hours ago, adam said:

So if he only averaged 233 yards per game in college with weaker competition and that group of receivers, what did anyone expect him to do with Mooney, ESB, Pettis against NFL defenses?

First point..."weaker competition"?  Seriously Adam?  And yes, your point about him having less than stellar receivers to work with is a valid point that I could agree with.  If you don't have a passing game threat (which involves good receivers) then the focus goes against the skill players that can produce.  

This post brought to you courtesy of Maker's Mark ?‍♂️

[adam]

8 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Some time ago I asked you the question if you thought he could do better elsewhere (you indicated he might) why couldn't he do better if he had a new system to work with in Chicago?  Like with the arrival of Waldron? You never answered that.

Did you really type this with a straight face?  Understanding your premise that Williams had a better (overall) passing game I'll ask again, who was he playing against?  Michigan?  Clemson?  How many FCS playoff games did he appear in?  What was his overall record against top-25 teams?  While at Ohio State, Fields was 20-2.  The two losses being in the playoffs.  And while with USC, Williams was 18-8. And since we're talking regression, besides his overall win/loss record getting worse he threw for over 4,500 yards the year he won the Heisman and dipped to just over 3,600 last season.  How does that translate to the NFL?  What formula are you using to come up with the "247-361 per game"?  Did you take into the account of the ~20% drop in passing yards from the two seasons above?  

 

First point..."weaker competition"?  Seriously Adam?  And yes, your point about him having less than stellar receivers to work with is a valid point that I could agree with.  If you don't have a passing game threat (which involves good receivers) then the focus goes against the skill players that can produce.  

This post brought to you courtesy of Maker's Mark ?‍♂️

I think Fields can be a top 10 QB, but in my opinion, he would almost need to sit for a year as a QB2 (which I doubt ever happens), and allow him to just concentrate solely on improving his weaknesses.  Even without that, he can marginally improve anywhere. If Fields comes back, with the new coaching staff, and new weapons, he will be better. I just don't know how much.

It is such a fascinating situation because they Bears are weighing so many variables that in the end, I don't think you really can go historically wrong. Like if the Bears draft Williams, at worst he is a taller Kyler Murray. If they keep Fields, at worst, he is the same player with better surroundings. Either one makes this a team with at least a winning record and the cusp of the playoffs. The flip side is what is the ceiling? That is the biggest question. Can the new offensive coaches unlock something in Fields that has not been unlocked by the last two staffs? If they can, what is the new ceiling? For Williams, can they translate his success and make it work in the NFL framework in 4 months, and what does that potential look like?

Mahomes sort of nullified the QB record in college, and because conferences vary in terms of competition level, it's hard to equalize that. So I have actually never used that in comparing prospects as far as I know. What I was implying was the volume again. That has always been a concern of mine and rarely do QBs with such low volume in terms of passing attempts succeed in the NFL. Mainly because you really don't know who they are yet. Fields really got screwed by the COVID year. Williams threw 481 more passes in college than Fields. It took Fields almost 2 years in the NFL to hit that number. 

241-267 is the correct range, it was a typo. That is the most likely projection of yardage based on the reduction in yardage by percentage from college QBs to the NFL. He could be worse, but 225 seems like the absolute lowest, but he could also be higher, somewhere in the low 280s, which would put him at 4,800 passing yards on the season. The median is 254 which is 4,318 in a 17-game season or 4,064 in 16 games assuming they rest him in Week 18 for the playoffs.

For weaker competition, I am saying Ohio State plays weaker opponents compared to the Chicago Bears. Fields had a stacked offense in Ohio State and he played weaker opponents than he has seen playing with the Bears. However, outside of 4-5 games (both Clemson games), he hasn't really dominated the competition with his arm. So why would anyone expect him to do that in the NFL, especially with guys like Mooney and Pettis?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, adam said:

What I was implying was the volume again. That has always been a concern of mine and rarely do QBs with such low volume in terms of passing attempts succeed in the NFL

You used that analogy once for Bagent, and it made sense.  I actually like that measurement.  But then why did he end up as an UDFA?  ??‍♂️ I know part of the answer has to do with D2 competition and now I’m wondering how he compared to  Wentz or Lance.  Curious what Purdy’s volume was?  I’ll have to take a look. 
 

Good sound content as always Adam . Thanks for the replies.  And keep slinging those numbers.  ?

[Stinger226]

For good or bad if Poles rolls back with Justin, the traded first pick will be a better haul than last yr and is part of the transaction. If he can trade back a couple of times, he could add 6 blue chip players and may still get MHJ or Bowers. One of them could be a QB not named Maye or Williams. 

[adam]

1 hour ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

You used that analogy once for Bagent, and it made sense.  I actually like that measurement.  But then why did he end up as an UDFA?  ??‍♂️ I know part of the answer has to do with D2 competition and now I’m wondering how he compared to  Wentz or Lance.  Curious what Purdy’s volume was?  I’ll have to take a look. 
 

Good sound content as always Adam . Thanks for the replies.  And keep slinging those numbers.  ?

For Bagent, simply D2. He got a lot of reps, but the opponents were so much slower, weaker. I don't know any other way to equate it other than his games were more like a friendly or a scrimmage. So you know what he can do, I would say Bagent's ceiling and floor are much closer together than Fields. The only way for Bagent to improve significantly would be for the rest of the team to get better around him thus making things easier for him.

Wentz was good for a year and sort of flamed out. Ironically, he was good on a team that won the Super Bowl without him. So he probably wasn't that good to begin with. Lance was never going to be good, or if he does, he would need 2-3 years of a ton of playing time. He hasn't gotten that, and you can only improve so much in practice.

Purdy had 1467 attempts in college, which is great D1 volume. You sort of know what a QB is after 1000 attempts or so. They don't change that much. He is clearly a game manager. In college, his last two years, he played very pedestrian. His college career average yards per game was 253. That would translate to a 200 yard passer in the NFL on average. He is averaging 226 yards per game in the NFL in the perfect situation. I figure he will settle in to be a 220-230 yard per game guy for his career. The one thing that carried over for him is the INTs, he had basically a 2.5% INT rate in college and that is what he has in the pros. That is not bad, but not elite. Williams has a 1.2% and 21% of his career INTs came in one game. Rodgers has a 1.4% for his career.

Looking back, I missed the eval on Mahomes. I listened to the media and didn't look at the numbers. I kept seeing he was careless with the ball, and he had a ton of picks. Nope. His last year in college he had a 1.7% INT rate and for his college career it was 2.1%. He had 1349 attempts in D1, check. He had some monster games, check. He had a high TD rate, check. Everything carried over to the pros, its comical. He averaged 351 passing yards per game for his college career. I only used his best season above. He is down to 296 in the NFL, down 15.7%. He had 2.9 TD/g, down to 2.3 in the NFL, down 21%. So Mahomes isn't doing anything that couldn't be projected. Take his college numbers and reduce by 15-25% and you have his pro numbers. That is what he is doing. 

What we don't know is how far they will fall. Every player drops, how much is the question. Elite guys are under 20%, or guys that are game managers that have been very consistent in college over several years. Then you got tier 2 guys in the 20's to 30%, then everyone else above 30%. 

 

[adam]

If Williams drops by 20%, here would be his average pro numbers per game: 251 yds/g (4,273/season), 2.2 TD/g (38/season), 0.46 INT/g (8/season). 

4,273, 38 TD, 8 INT

If he drops 30%: 220yds/g (3,736/season), 1.9 TD/g (33 TD/season), 0.5 INT/g (9/season)

3,736, 33 TD, 9 INT

The INTs for him were so low that 20 or 30% don't move it too much, so I would say those could increase by 1 or 2 more just based on other factors, 17 game season (longer), playing teams twice, etc. Other than that, those are honestly realistic numbers just based off a generic projection. 

 

[adam]

For Fields to hit Williams high numbers, he would have to improve this offseason by 28%, to hit Williams low numbers Fields would have to improve by 12%. 

So what are the odds that Williams hits his high number, or his low number, and what are the odds that Fields hits the 28% and or the 12%. Poles is going to go with the more likely probability, whatever he determines that to be.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, adam said:

For Fields to hit Williams high numbers, he would have to improve this offseason by 28%, to hit Williams low numbers Fields would have to improve by 12%. 

So what are the odds that Williams hits his high number, or his low number, and what are the odds that Fields hits the 28% and or the 12%. Poles is going to go with the more likely probability, whatever he determines that to be.

Maybe the simple answer is one “known” commodity with NFL experience and drive vs an “unknown” nfl commodity and questionable drive?  ??‍♂️

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, adam said:

Lance was never going to be good, or if he does, he would need 2-3 years of a ton of playing time. He hasn't gotten that, and you can only improve so much in practice.

You know what’s crazy (and revisiting that quick turn to success discussion) is how just a few years ago SF GM John Lynch traded the farm for Lance and as recent as the beginning of this season was on the hot seat for it (below).  Yet he’s now on his way to another Super Bowl with ‘Mr Irrelevant’ as his QB.  Absolutely nuts . 
 

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/trading-trey-lance-could-be-the-demise-of-john-lynch-and-kyle-shanahan-in-san-francisco

[adam]

57 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

You know what’s crazy (and revisiting that quick turn to success discussion) is how just a few years ago SF GM John Lynch traded the farm for Lance and as recent as the beginning of this season was on the hot seat for it (below).  Yet he’s now on his way to another Super Bowl with ‘Mr Irrelevant’ as his QB.  Absolutely nuts . 
 

https://www.si.com/nfl/49ers/news/trading-trey-lance-could-be-the-demise-of-john-lynch-and-kyle-shanahan-in-san-francisco

Their roster was strong enough to survive that. One other thing, they absolutely fleeced Carolina without having to give up a 1st for McCaffrey. They then had a top 5 O-Line, top 3 RB, top 5 TE, and a top 10 WR Duo in Deebo and Aiyuk. Couple that with a top 5 defense and you can whiff on a pick like that, especially when you hit on a 7th rounder that is good enough and predictable.

[BearFan PHX]

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.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

1 hour ago, adam said:

Their roster was strong enough to survive that. One other thing, they absolutely fleeced Carolina without having to give up a 1st for McCaffrey. They then had a top 5 O-Line, top 3 RB, top 5 TE, and a top 10 WR Duo in Deebo and Aiyuk. Couple that with a top 5 defense and you can whiff on a pick like that, especially when you hit on a 7th rounder that is good enough and predictable.

Hmm.  Sounds eerily familiar in some context.   At least headed in that direction.  ?

[adam]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Hmm.  Sounds eerily familiar in some context.   At least headed in that direction.  ?

I think the Bears are a year away. They haven't had 1st rounders for so long because of Trubisky and Mack that the foundation was bare. 

[BearFan PHX]

with all luck we wont have a top ten pick again for many years!

[Stinger226]

14 hours ago, adam said:

I think the Bears are a year away. They haven't had 1st rounders for so long because of Trubisky and Mack that the foundation was bare. 

i think we will be a winning  team this year but agree we are a year away from contending for a SB, if that was your intention.