Is This a Reason for Concern?

[Pixote]

I've been reading some articles by some naysayers who question the positive outlook many of us have for the Bears offense in 2024. After all, we got a new OC to replace the dumbass we had last year. We added dynamic skill players to our offense. So why are they so negative? Do they dislike the Bears? So, I did some fact-checking.

Last year, the Bears offense ranked #18 in points scored (360). Where did Seattle rank? They were #17 (364). I know we have a dynamic set of skill players, but we also have a rookie quarterback. Geno Smith, Metcalf, & Lockett are certainly a good set of players. So should we be concerned that they, with our new OC, were basically tied with us as middle-of-the-road offenses when viewed by points scored? After all, KC was #15 (371), and they won the SB AGAIN.

So I checked the time of possession, another point of concern by some of the naysayers.

I was surprised that the Bears were second in TOP (31.58 min p/g avg), only behind Cleveland (32.19). KC was 14th (30.28), and Seattle, with our OC in charge, was dead last (26.39). 

The naysayers point out that we may rack up more receiving years, but that will be offset by a drop in production from our running offense, which in turn will drop our time of possession, which was fueled last year by our rushing offense. (And Seattle's TOP was terrible the past two years because of a more aggressive passing game.)

So, is this a reason for concern? Looking at KC's rankings, maybe points scored and TOP rankings are overrated? There are obviously other factors involved.

Maybe it's a good thing we drafted a punter. LOL

 

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, Pixote said:

I've been reading some articles by some naysayers who question the positive outlook many of us have for the Bears offense in 2024. After all, we got a new OC to replace the dumbass we had last year. We added dynamic skill players to our offense. So why are they so negative? Do they dislike the Bears? So, I did some fact-checking.

Last year, the Bears offense ranked #18 in points scored (360). Where did Seattle rank? They were #17 (364). I know we have a dynamic set of skill players, but we also have a rookie quarterback. Geno Smith, Metcalf, & Lockett are certainly a good set of players. So should we be concerned that they, with our new OC, were basically tied with us as middle-of-the-road offenses when viewed by points scored? After all, KC was #15 (371), and they won the SB AGAIN.

So I checked the time of possession, another point of concern by some of the naysayers.

I was surprised that the Bears were second in TOP (31.58 min p/g avg), only behind Cleveland (32.19). KC was 14th (30.28), and Seattle, with our OC in charge, was dead last (26.39). 

The naysayers point out that we may rack up more receiving years, but that will be offset by a drop in production from our running offense, which in turn will drop our time of possession, which was fueled last year by our rushing offense. (And Seattle's TOP was terrible the past two years because of a more aggressive passing game.)

So, is this a reason for concern? Looking at KC's rankings, maybe points scored and TOP rankings are overrated? There are obviously other factors involved.

Maybe it's a good thing we drafted a punter. LOL

 

well it IS a good thing we drafted a punter in any case! LOL

I would say that you showed with KC there, that those stats, in a vacuum, don't really tell the story. KC won 11 games, and lost 6, but the won the right games, and they know how to win as a team. They know when they need points, and they know how to score when they need to - that elusive trait that all the winners have. Put the ball in their hands down 6 with 2 minutes left, and you figure they are going to score and win. This is also where stats for Fields didn't tell the full story too, for example.

I think this is going to come down to what Caleb Williams becomes in the NFL, and how his supporting cast can make that more likely. And for that reason and our new additions, I cant take much from last years stats except to say that if we were already in the middle of the pack then, i expect us to be pretty high up there by the end of the season. At least if you only count the last 8 games, for example.

I cant wait to see where this roster starts, and how they grow from there!
 

[Mongo3451]

Look at the EPA stat for football.  It's complicated, but very accurate when it comes to success.  The top 5 teams over the last five years have the five best records over that period of time.  As far as the Bears are concerned, the worst five EPA teams were five of the six worst teams in the NFL over the same period.(Bears 31st) The Bears can help themselves rocket up the line by converting a greater percentage of second and third downs.

[BearFan PHX]

Heres a season by season chart for offensive and defensive EPA.

https://www.nfeloapp.com/nfl-power-ratings/nfl-epa-tiers/

Did you find one that does five years at the same time?

[Stinger226]

There is always questions going into camps for every team. What makes me optimistic is our last 7 games. We looked like a different team which has been added too. Adding better players and better coaches can only add to, not subtract from. The largest stat site is PFF, how many trust all of their stats? They dont figure in intangables.

[Mongo3451]

15 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

Heres a season by season chart for offensive and defensive EPA.

https://www.nfeloapp.com/nfl-power-ratings/nfl-epa-tiers/

Did you find one that does five years at the same time?

Carmen and Jurko had the stats.  It's midway through the Thursday show, if you want to listen on the app.

[AZ54]

6 hours ago, Stinger226 said:

There is always questions going into camps for every team. What makes me optimistic is our last 7 games. We looked like a different team which has been added too. Adding better players and better coaches can only add to, not subtract from. The largest stat site is PFF, how many trust all of their stats? They dont figure in intangables.

There are tipping points in sports where the individual stats don't matter as much as the collection of talent, and then teams start to dominate.  The EPA metric might be very good at capturing that but it's still a historical trend.   Each team each season is different.  I think what happened in Detroit last year captures that.  Nobody was talking about them until after the first quarter of the season, or more.  In 2022 they were in bottom right quadrant and last year they moved up (just barely) into the top right where it seems the good teams exist.   That also kinda backs up my point that Detroit isn't all that elite.   

What is noteworthy is the massive jump up the Bears made last year from way down in the bottom left quadrant (low D, low O) to center of the chart.  If Caleb can avoid the deer-in-the-headlights crap we saw on offense in the first 6 games last year, and our D can avoid the cluster of injuries we had to the DBs early on there is no reason not to expect us to move up on D and O this year.   Plus we have better depth on both sides of the ball this year.   

[adam]

21 hours ago, Pixote said:

I've been reading some articles by some naysayers who question the positive outlook many of us have for the Bears offense in 2024. After all, we got a new OC to replace the dumbass we had last year. We added dynamic skill players to our offense. So why are they so negative? Do they dislike the Bears? So, I did some fact-checking.

Last year, the Bears offense ranked #18 in points scored (360). Where did Seattle rank? They were #17 (364). I know we have a dynamic set of skill players, but we also have a rookie quarterback. Geno Smith, Metcalf, & Lockett are certainly a good set of players. So should we be concerned that they, with our new OC, were basically tied with us as middle-of-the-road offenses when viewed by points scored? After all, KC was #15 (371), and they won the SB AGAIN.

So I checked the time of possession, another point of concern by some of the naysayers.

I was surprised that the Bears were second in TOP (31.58 min p/g avg), only behind Cleveland (32.19). KC was 14th (30.28), and Seattle, with our OC in charge, was dead last (26.39). 

The naysayers point out that we may rack up more receiving years, but that will be offset by a drop in production from our running offense, which in turn will drop our time of possession, which was fueled last year by our rushing offense. (And Seattle's TOP was terrible the past two years because of a more aggressive passing game.)

So, is this a reason for concern? Looking at KC's rankings, maybe points scored and TOP rankings are overrated? There are obviously other factors involved.

Maybe it's a good thing we drafted a punter. LOL

 

Fields left so many plays on the field, especially in crunch time. That is why his stats were OK, but close and late, he was the worst QB in the NFL. All Williams has to do is be league average and the Bears offense jumps to top 15, then you add Allen, Odunze, Everett and Swift (who replaced Foreman), and you easily have a top 10 offense. 

With our new punter, we won't be losing the field position battle anymore.

The defense should be at least the same, if not slightly better with a full season of Sweat, no Jackson, and 2nd years from Dexter, Stevenson, and Pickens. 

All of that and almost everything would have to go wrong (Williams struggles, O-Line takes a step back, injuries, the defense doesn't cause turnovers, and Taylor turns into Gill 2.0. I just doubt all of that will go wrong at the same time. 

Essentially they just have to survive the first month while they get their timing down in game speed. Once that occurs, I think they are going to go on a run. At this point 8 or fewer wins and I would be disappointed. 9 is sort of the even ground for me, and double digits is sort of where I expect them to be. 

[BearFan PHX]

4 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

Carmen and Jurko had the stats.  It's midway through the Thursday show, if you want to listen on the app.

thank you

[Pixote]

6 hours ago, adam said:

Essentially they just have to survive the first month while they get their timing down in game speed. Once that occurs, I think they are going to go on a run. At this point 8 or fewer wins and I would be disappointed. 9 is sort of the even ground for me, and double digits is sort of where I expect them to be. 

With all our roster additions and changes to our coaching staff, anything less than ten wins and a wildcard slot would be disappointing.

[Mongo3451]

I read an article in The Atlantic a few minutes ago that refocused my eyes.  It was a comprehensive write up of our entire roster, with player evaluations, opponents and record projections from execs and scouts throughout the league.  The results are mixed, but the consensus has us going 8-9 and finishing third in the division.  They argued the why of it and delivered.  They also say we are definitely on the rise. It was a great piece.  If anyone can attach it, that would be great.  Buckle up boys!

[BearFan PHX]

56 minutes ago, Mongo3451 said:

I read an article in The Atlantic a few minutes ago that refocused my eyes.  It was a comprehensive write up of our entire roster, with player evaluations, opponents and record projections from execs and scouts throughout the league.  The results are mixed, but the consensus has us going 8-9 and finishing third in the division.  They argued the why of it and delivered.  They also say we are definitely on the rise. It was a great piece.  If anyone can attach it, that would be great.  Buckle up boys!

if you put the (unreadable) link here, I can probably hack it so everyone can read it.

[adam]

1 hour ago, Mongo3451 said:

I read an article in The Atlantic a few minutes ago that refocused my eyes.  It was a comprehensive write up of our entire roster, with player evaluations, opponents and record projections from execs and scouts throughout the league.  The results are mixed, but the consensus has us going 8-9 and finishing third in the division.  They argued the why of it and delivered.  They also say we are definitely on the rise. It was a great piece.  If anyone can attach it, that would be great.  Buckle up boys!

If you do a position-by-position comparison with a team like GB, the Bears are comparable. However, everyone says it's a 2-dog race for the North. GB only won 2 games more than the Bears and were only 3-2 in their last 5 regular season game (4-3 with playoffs). These teams are a lot closer than the Bears are getting credit for.

Love played a solid 8 game stretch, but we have seen QBs do that and then go poof (NE backups were notorious for this). He might be the real deal but he is not a sure thing just yet. Teams had zero tape on him, and now have an entire season of tape to pick up on tendencies. 

[Mongo3451]

2 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

if you put the (unreadable) link here, I can probably hack it so everyone can read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5744706/2024/09/05/bears-2024-roster-scouting-report?source=user-shared-article

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5744706/2024/09/05/bears-2024-roster-scouting-report?source=user-shared-article

cool, here's a link where everyone (including me) can read it.

https://archive.is/RNTjp

[BearFan PHX]

It's an interesting read, but it also sounds like some regurgitation of old debunked narratives about Caleb not throwing in rhythm. We've seen him do it in college and in preseason. Obviously pocket passing in the NFL is a skill every rookie QB has to get better at, and Caleb does too, but he's not any more challenged at that than any other rookie. Even less so in my opinion.

I do hear them saying that we need more pass rush on the defensive line, and we have some names, but we need to see it from Dexter, Williams, Booker, Walker and Taylor.

We have a talented but raw and newly former roster and coaching staff. I can't wait to see what team develops from these ingredients. Trying to guess where they might end up in the division is difficult. They do have the talent now to be a top 5 team, but they will need time to develop and gel - how much time is the question, and how bad do they want it.

This is a fantastic situation, but 7 wins is possible and so is 12 - and I think the Bears set of realistic outcomes this year is probably more spread out than any other team in recent memory. If they want to fight for it, they can have it.

[Bill]

No, I'm not worried.  I believe this team and the GM are poised for the long term.   

[Mongo3451]

17 minutes ago, Bill said:

No, I'm not worried.  I believe this team and the GM are poised for the long term.   

Totally agree.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

I still believe we are on the rise, but Poles is on my shit list for the moment.

[Stinger226]

 

[Stinger226]