Official 2018-19 NFL Thread

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Tony said:

Big Cat actually nailed this: https://www.barstoolsports.com/chicago/the-bears-are-500-for-the-first-time-since-2014-dare-i-say-theyre-back?_branch_match_id=558287322477223244

 

Yes...what Big Cat said. I've been on this bandwagon for a long time.  I will also point out that the schedule might be a nice favor for us these next couple weeks as we could win these games without a fully humming offense and that could buy more time. That said, the defense should feast and if we lose those games because the offense and QB aren't ready (very possible)...that mounting pressure to win now could cause major issues in Mitch's development.

All of this goes back to where I was pre-season, we were a year away from truly loading up and getting Mack was the right move since he clearly is a difference maker but the Bears need to take the "long" view with Mitch and we need to keep that long view.  At some point things will have to slow down and Mitch will have to just start flinging the football (and hopefully that will be a good thing), however, it shouldn't shock anybody that 2 weeks in to a brand new system with almost entirely new weapons you are seeing that tendency to overthink. Its natural for young QB's, especially for ones who have pretty limited experience at higher levels (i.e., NCAA / NFL).  

Next year will be what I call Mitch's make it or break it season...this year is all about development and hopefully we see that forward looking curve where he keeps getting better to where we can be excited about what he could be and hopefully that getting better gets better faster as that would help us "win now".  

And Big Cat nailed it on another point, its just fun to see competitive football again. First time in a long time where I don't feel we are outmanned.  

[soxfan49]

2 hours ago, Chisoxfn said:

Yes...what Big Cat said. I've been on this bandwagon for a long time.  I will also point out that the schedule might be a nice favor for us these next couple weeks as we could win these games without a fully humming offense and that could buy more time. That said, the defense should feast and if we lose those games because the offense and QB aren't ready (very possible)...that mounting pressure to win now could cause major issues in Mitch's development.

All of this goes back to where I was pre-season, we were a year away from truly loading up and getting Mack was the right move since he clearly is a difference maker but the Bears need to take the "long" view with Mitch and we need to keep that long view.  At some point things will have to slow down and Mitch will have to just start flinging the football (and hopefully that will be a good thing), however, it shouldn't shock anybody that 2 weeks in to a brand new system with almost entirely new weapons you are seeing that tendency to overthink. Its natural for young QB's, especially for ones who have pretty limited experience at higher levels (i.e., NCAA / NFL).  

Next year will be what I call Mitch's make it or break it season...this year is all about development and hopefully we see that forward looking curve where he keeps getting better to where we can be excited about what he could be and hopefully that getting better gets better faster as that would help us "win now".  

And Big Cat nailed it on another point, its just fun to see competitive football again. First time in a long time where I don't feel we are outmanned.  

No, he already sucks. That's what @Jack Parkman and @StrangeSox say so that's the final determination. It's funny how those two posters likely think Moncada will be fine and to be patient but meanwhile Trubisky already blows. What a concept.

[bmags]

What do we think about this antonio brown situation and they won't trade him to the patriots right?

[GoSox05]

6 minutes ago, bmags said:

What do we think about this antonio brown situation and they won't trade him to the patriots right?

They shouldn't trade him, especially to the Patriots.  I doubt they would actually trade.

So, he will definitely be traded.

[Jack Parkman]

27 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

No, he already sucks. That's what @Jack Parkman and @StrangeSox say so that's the final determination. It's funny how those two posters likely think Moncada will be fine and to be patient but meanwhile Trubisky already blows. What a concept.

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said when evaluating a Bears QB you start out from "this guy sucks" and evaluate from there. They suck until proven otherwise. Simple as that. Too much history that says that Bears QBs suck. I give zero benefit of the doubt with anyone playing QB for the Bears, and give zero shits what anyone thinks. It is my schtick and I'm sticking to it. Mitch has to prove he doesn't suck, and he sucks until proven otherwise.  What is so hard to understand about that? No matter where a QB is drafted by the Bears, the default is "this guy sucks" until they don't suck anymore....Right now Trubisky has been anywhere from Suck to Meh on the suck-o-meter. I reserve the right to change my mind when the evidence presents itself. Luckman in the 40s was blind squirrel finds nut syndrome. 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[soxfan49]

3 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said when evaluating a Bears QB you start out from "this guy sucks" and evaluate from there. They suck until proven otherwise. Simple as that. Too much history that says that Bears QBs suck. I give zero benefit of the doubt with anyone playing QB for the Bears, and give zero shits what anyone thinks. It is my schtick and I'm sticking to it. Mitch has to prove he doesn't suck, and he sucks until proven otherwise.  What is so hard to understand about that? 

Everything.

[Jack Parkman]

18 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Everything.

?????

What is so hard about this statement:

All Bears QBs have sucked for at least 30 years, if not 70 years. Therefore, all Bears QB's suck until proven otherwise. 

The bar is so low they have to prove even a minimal level of competence before you can even consider the idea they are or might be good at football. 

There are 3 steps in the Bears QB evaluation process, rather than two for other teams:

Bears QB Evaluation Flowchart:

Suck=> Meh=>Good to great

Remainder of NFL QB Evaluation Flowchart:  

Good to Great

^

Meh => Suck

 

This is the K.I.S.S. version

 

On another note, fanbase expectation of winning affects evaluation, so fans are much more critical of a guy like Trubisky than Moncada. With the Sox, t the team and fans can afford to be patient because there is no expectation of winning. Time is ticking with the Bears on Mitch's rookie deal so they must take advantage immediately. Therefore, fans will be more critical of Trubisky than anyone on the Sox. 

 

Edited September 18, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Chisoxfn]

Its funny...when it comes to Trubisky, I was largely pretty happy with his decision making. Really two things bugged me, one was that horrendous decision he made throwing a near pick at the end of the 1st half (literally that was just awful...I have no idea what he was looking at when he made that throw and he wasn't under "that much duress" at the time).  Definitely one you'd want back.  Probably his second worse decision, imo, came on the 1st drive of the game where he made a throw to Howard that turned into a good play but was just as likely to be a pick 6.  

His miss to Gabriel was bad and driven by poor footwork at the time, but the right read and a decisive read (that is a 30 yard play and if Gabriel makes someone miss, could have been a TD).  Similarly, the pick he threw down the field to Robinson....right read, right decision, just awful throw.  I'm really not worried about either of those though...he's so freaking accurate when you get him on the run and not thinking, that his footwork will calm down as he gets more comfortable (its just natural) and I believe in his accuracy.

The interesting piece to me will be when Nagy and company watch the tape and we see what progressions he didn't make and what was left out there. I also want to see how we can start to stretch the field a bit more, because I think we are playing too much of a horizontal game and not enough vertical game.  

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Haven't been in this thread in awhile due to personal problem (my 6 year old husky died in May and just been working a lot to forget about it and forgot about this thread). Now, first I want to say as a Chiefs fan, THANK YOU FOR TRADING FOR MACK!! Got him out of the AFC West. Now my Chiefs can dominate the division still and not have to worry about him breaking Mahomes in half. Can't believe how fucking dumb Gruden is. I love Nagy because he was in KC and very good. Be patient with him and Mitch. He'll do wonders for him I honestly believe. I'm not a huge Mitch fan dating back to the draft but that doesn't mean shit and shouldn't because I'm no expert. I do think he'll still be pretty good like Alex Smith but he's frustrating to watch right now like Smith was in KC. My problem with him and Nagy is after the first 15 scripted plays where he looks great, he's been hit or miss. But I do know this offense is very large in volume and will take some time to master. KC sat Mahomes behind Smith so he could just study and learn the playbook. I love what Pace and Nagy did in the offseason. The Bears had probably the best offseason a team could ever ask for. Love that Pace had the balls to trade (smartly) the picks for Mack and got a 2nd round back (LOL only Gruden would trade his best player and include a 2nd round pick). Sadly, however, watching the Green Bay game gave me deja vu with the blown lead. Saw it all too well in KC. Gota keep the pedal to the metal and not let up. Nagy and Mitch HAVE to stay aggressive. Can't let up. So good luck guys rooting for y'all! Go Chiefs and da Bears

[Bigsoxhurt35]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:57 PM, soxfan49 said:

Now google Lombardi's thoughts on the Doug Pedersen hire. I'll see my way out.

Lombardi is a blowhard moron. Front office guy in Cleveland and Oakland lol. He's a New England guy that worked under Belichick so he thinks he knows everything. He clowned Pederson, like you imply, and that blew up in his face. He shit on the Mack trade some because "Bill would have traded him because he traded Chandler Jones." That's 100% false. He traded Chandler Jones because he went into a police station high off synthetic marijuana naked. Mack is the perfect player on and off the field. Gives it his all every play. Lombardi is to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Bigsoxhurt35]

On 9/17/2018 at 3:54 PM, Jose Abreu said:

Replace "Mahomes" in every post with "Watson" and that's what you had last year. NFL fans are so reactionary. We're literally years from knowing who's better between Mahomes, Watson, and Trubisky. 

The difference between Watson's year in 2017 and Mahomes in 2018 is that Mahomes has a very high football IQ and isn't just throwing up stupid 50/50 jump balls like Watson does. Mahomes is very different from your typical 23 year old QB. He has really good touch, timing and anticipation. His pocket presence and poise is really good for his age. He simply doesn't panic in the pocket like Alex Smith or a young guy like Mitch does. It's still really early but the small sample size with Mahomes is far better than Watson. I also have 2017 week 17 to go back on when Mahomes played with backups and third stringers and won in Denver on the 5th coldest game in Broncos history. Oh and he won that game after the 3rd string QB blew his 24-10 lead and Mahomes led them right down the field on a game winning drive against Von Miller. So, to me, that's the difference between he and Watson. Mahomes beat out Watson on the whiteboard with Andy Reid. That's the rumor to why they chose him over Watson. I still think Watson will be really good but he's the turnover machine right now not Mahomes. People think Mahomes is some Jay Cutler INT gumball machine. He's protecting the ball really well so far. Still really early though. 

 

What I want to see Nagy work on Mitch with two things. His pocket presence and poise. Gota get him to settle down and not feel phantom pressure. The second is after the 15 scripted plays needs to be more consistent. I seen it far too often with Alex Smith. He'd look like an all-pro during those scripted plays. After he looked like Alex Smith. How he accomplishes this is by staying aggressive and not letting up. Keep Trubisky aggressive and in rhythm. Just my two cents. 

[SoxAce]

Nagy pretty much nails it with Mahomes and Trubisky in the first 4 minutes. 

 

[Chi Town Sox]

18 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

?????

What is so hard about this statement:

All Bears QBs have sucked for at least 30 years, if not 70 years. Therefore, all Bears QB's suck until proven otherwise. 

The bar is so low they have to prove even a minimal level of competence before you can even consider the idea they are or might be good at football. 

There are 3 steps in the Bears QB evaluation process, rather than two for other teams:

Bears QB Evaluation Flowchart:

Suck=> Meh=>Good to great

Remainder of NFL QB Evaluation Flowchart:  

Good to Great

^

Meh => Suck

 

This is the K.I.S.S. version

 

On another note, fanbase expectation of winning affects evaluation, so fans are much more critical of a guy like Trubisky than Moncada. With the Sox, t the team and fans can afford to be patient because there is no expectation of winning. Time is ticking with the Bears on Mitch's rookie deal so they must take advantage immediately. Therefore, fans will be more critical of Trubisky than anyone on the Sox. 

 

To be fair, a lot of the White Sox offensive players coming up from their system have sucked just like Bears QB's.  

[Jack Parkman]

10 minutes ago, Chi Town Sox said:

To be fair, a lot of the White Sox offensive players coming up from their system have sucked just like Bears QB's.  

Yes, but the track record is much longer with the Bears. They brought up guys like Rowand, Crede, Maggs, Konerko, basically most of the core hitters of the 2005 team was from within the org. They CAN do it, yes, it has been 15 years but the Bears haven't had a decent QB in 70 seasons. Kind of hard to do. 

[southsider2k5]

 

[Jose Abreu]

If I had to make a complaint re:Nagy, his clock management on the drive to end the 2nd quarter was abysmal. The Seahawks' field goal to end the half is 100% on him. 

[Jose Abreu]

22 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

?????

What is so hard about this statement:

All Bears QBs have sucked for at least 30 years, if not 70 years. Therefore, all Bears QB's suck until proven otherwise. 

 

Because that logic just doesn't work in reality. The Bears could trade for Aaron Rodgers this afternoon. With your logic, Aaron Rodgers would then "suck". You just can't use the "because X happened before, X is going to happen once again" line of thinking when it's just not something that can be proven mathematically, but rather is more likely just sheer luck. 

 

[Jose Abreu]

7 hours ago, Bigsoxhurt35 said:

The difference between Watson's year in 2017 and Mahomes in 2018 is that Mahomes has a very high football IQ and isn't just throwing up stupid 50/50 jump balls like Watson does. Mahomes is very different from your typical 23 year old QB. He has really good touch, timing and anticipation. His pocket presence and poise is really good for his age. He simply doesn't panic in the pocket like Alex Smith or a young guy like Mitch does. It's still really early but the small sample size with Mahomes is far better than Watson. I also have 2017 week 17 to go back on when Mahomes played with backups and third stringers and won in Denver on the 5th coldest game in Broncos history. Oh and he won that game after the 3rd string QB blew his 24-10 lead and Mahomes led them right down the field on a game winning drive against Von Miller. So, to me, that's the difference between he and Watson. Mahomes beat out Watson on the whiteboard with Andy Reid. That's the rumor to why they chose him over Watson. I still think Watson will be really good but he's the turnover machine right now not Mahomes. People think Mahomes is some Jay Cutler INT gumball machine. He's protecting the ball really well so far. Still really early though. 

  

What I want to see Nagy work on Mitch with two things. His pocket presence and poise. Gota get him to settle down and not feel phantom pressure. The second is after the 15 scripted plays needs to be more consistent. I seen it far too often with Alex Smith. He'd look like an all-pro during those scripted plays. After he looked like Alex Smith. How he accomplishes this is by staying aggressive and not letting up. Keep Trubisky aggressive and in rhythm. Just my two cents. 

Don't get me wrong, I really like Mahomes. Way more than Watson or Jimmy G, in fact. My point was more that every week, there's a new young QB that Trubisky is being unfavorably compared to, and now it happens to be Mahomes. 

[soxfan49]

11 minutes ago, Jose Abreu said:

If I had to make a complaint re:Nagy, his clock management on the drive to end the 2nd quarter was abysmal. The Seahawks' field goal to end the half is 100% on him. 

I was at the game, and when he was rushing the offense to the line of scrimmage on 1st & 2nd and Goal, I was utterly confused. But, maybe one of their better players was off the field and he wanted them to stay on the sideline by hurrying.

[Jack Parkman]

1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

Because that logic just doesn't work in reality. The Bears could trade for Aaron Rodgers this afternoon. With your logic, Aaron Rodgers would then "suck". You just can't use the "because X happened before, X is going to happen once again" line of thinking when it's just not something that can be proven mathematically, but rather is more likely just sheer luck. 

 

Theoretically, yes. In that case it would be an exception. I am talking about mostly unproven players via the draft or with less than 32 games of starting experience. I have zero faith in anyone associated with this organization to properly scout the QB position until they hit on one. However, if by some chance the Bears traded for or signed an experienced, proven QB I'd assume they're about to fall off of a cliff performance wise or get hurt because the Bears aren't allowed to have nice things at that position. When there is a track record of failure this long at some point it isn't bad luck anymore. It is pretty hard to just have "bad luck" for 70 years. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Bigsoxhurt35]

2 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

Don't get me wrong, I really like Mahomes. Way more than Watson or Jimmy G, in fact. My point was more that every week, there's a new young QB that Trubisky is being unfavorably compared to, and now it happens to be Mahomes. 

Agreed. I'm not crowning Mahomes, but was merely trying to give a different point of view why he is different. He'll have his struggles, throw some INTs and lose some games. These guys are compared to each other, fairly or unfairly, because they were all drafted in the top 12. For me, I always compare KCs picks to guys they passed on because they are in the "get it right" business. 

[soxfan49]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Theoretically, yes. In that case it would be an exception. I am talking about mostly unproven players via the draft or with less than 32 games of starting experience. I have zero faith in anyone associated with this organization to properly scout the QB position until they hit on one. However, if by some chance the Bears traded for or signed an experienced, proven QB I'd assume they're about to fall off of a cliff performance wise or get hurt because the Bears aren't allowed to have nice things at that position. When there is a track record of failure this long at some point it isn't bad luck anymore. It is pretty hard to just have "bad luck" for 70 years. 

Your final sentence implies that you believe it isn't bad luck anymore that the majority of the franchise's QB's have stunk, and therefore (assuming we're not going into higher powers) what you're saying is that the men who tried to develop the QB's in- let's say 1948- have some effect/bearing on the 1968, 1988, and now the 2018 Bears QB's. Am I reading this correctly?

[Jack Parkman]

36 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Your final sentence implies that you believe it isn't bad luck anymore that the majority of the franchise's QB's have stunk, and therefore (assuming we're not going into higher powers) what you're saying is that the men who tried to develop the QB's in- let's say 1948- have some effect/bearing on the 1968, 1988, and now the 2018 Bears QB's. Am I reading this correctly?

No, but ownership and the people hiring the football talent(or lack thereof)  had a lot do do with everything from roughly 1990-present. I'll give Papa Bear the benefit of the doubt from 1950-83 when he died on the luck factor, but the McCaskeys and their buddy Ted Phillips have been around since they fired Ditka, and their record over that span is horrible. They're picking the GMs, and I'm not sure they know what they're looking for. Pace has done a really good job for the most part, I won't deny that, as they probably had the worst talent in football when he took over. I was never a fan of the Trubisky pick, and am still waiting for the evidence to appear that will change my mind. He showed more in the 2nd half Monday night than he had in the previous 13.5 games he played in. A step in the right direction, but still not enough evidence to upgrade from suck to meh on the Bears QB Suck-O-Meter. 

To answer your question, each regime has nothing to do with the previous one. However we have to look at the lowest common denominator, which is ownership and Ted Phillips. I don't trust them to identify football people with a keen eye for talent. 

Maybe going back 70 years is too harsh, but starting with the hiring of Wanne prior to the 1993 season is fair game. 

The huge what if moment is the 1999 draft, where I believe Hatley wanted Culpepper, they traded down with Washington, and then Washington screwed them by trading the pick in front of them to Minne for Brad Johnson, who sniped Culpepper. They then panicked and drafted McNown, who probably wouldn't have been drafted until the mid-2nd round in any other scenario. 

Edited September 19, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Chisoxfn]

6 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

No, but ownership and the people hiring the football talent(or lack thereof)  had a lot do do with everything from roughly 1990-present. I'll give Papa Bear the benefit of the doubt from 1950-83 when he died on the luck factor, but the McCaskeys and their buddy Ted Phillips have been around since they fired Ditka, and their record over that span is horrible. They're picking the GMs, and I'm not sure they know what they're looking for. Pace has done a really good job for the most part, I won't deny that, as they probably had the worst talent in football when he took over. I was never a fan of the Trubisky pick, and am still waiting for the evidence to appear that will change my mind. He showed more in the 2nd half Monday night than he had in the previous 13.5 games he played in. A step in the right direction, but still not enough evidence to upgrade from suck to meh on the Bears QB Suck-O-Meter. 

To answer your question, each regime has nothing to do with the previous one. However we have to look at the lowest common denominator, which is ownership and Ted Phillips. I don't trust them to identify football people with a keen eye for talent. 

Maybe going back 70 years is too harsh, but starting with the hiring of Wanne prior to the 1993 season is fair game. 

The huge what if moment is the 1999 draft, where I believe Hatley wanted Culpepper, they traded down with Washington, and then Washington screwed them by trading the pick in front of them to Minne for Brad Johnson, who sniped Culpepper. They then panicked and drafted McNown, who probably wouldn't have been drafted until the mid-2nd round in any other scenario. 

McNown sucked in the pros but he was going to get drafted in the 1st round. He was absolutely sensational in college and there were a lot of reasons to be excited. He didn't cut it because he didn't want to put in the work and had attitude problems that emerged (plus a drug issue and Primadonnism).  Of course Champ Bailey sure would have looked nice.  

[Jack Parkman]

16 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

McNown sucked in the pros but he was going to get drafted in the 1st round. He was absolutely sensational in college and there were a lot of reasons to be excited. He didn't cut it because he didn't want to put in the work and had attitude problems that emerged (plus a drug issue and Primadonnism).  Of course Champ Bailey sure would have looked nice.  

He was also 5-10 which was a big red flag at that time, and short QBs don't work out that well unless they're super athletic and fast. I still don't believe he would have been drafted in the 1st round by anyone else.