Bears projected to start 3 rookies

JPPT1974

April Showers and Easter 2024!
Joined:
Jun 28, 2013
Posts:
322
Liked Posts:
68
My favorite teams
  1. Seattle Mariners
  1. Los Angeles FC
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Tennessee Titans
  1. St. Louis Blues
  1. Kentucky Wildcats
When the rookies that are going to be in the starting line up. Are playing it shows how that they will be there for years to come. The future is now.
 

BearsFan51

Well-known member
Joined:
Jun 13, 2013
Posts:
9,247
Liked Posts:
4,727
Lets hope Deon Bush is better then Brock Vereen was otherwise we're starting some scrub off the street at S.

I thought Brock Vereen was the fourth round Emery savior because he ran fast and used to play CB?
 

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
Bullard won't start.

They will save him for sub packages and passing downs.

Let Ego/Unrien suck up double teams and play the run. Keep Bullard as fresh as possible for obvious passing downs.
 

Washington

Well-known member
Joined:
Mar 22, 2016
Posts:
3,722
Liked Posts:
2,682
When rookies are in the starting line up, it shows that they will be there for years to come.

fify but that English gibberish was a challenge. Your comment is not necessarily true when some are starting out of necessity due to no other valid options.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
Bullard won't start.

They will save him for sub packages and passing downs.

Let Ego/Unrien suck up double teams and play the run. Keep Bullard as fresh as possible for obvious passing downs.

That makes logical sense ("save him" for obvious passing downs). But there's also logical reasons to start him.

First of all, just because he's likely the best passrushing DE, doesn't mean he isn't also likely one of our two best run-game DEs. Bullard had more Tackles and Tackles For Loss than both Ego & Unrien (Sr Yr & Career), and he's by no means a small 3-4 DE at 6'2" 290lbs.

For the sack of argument, let's just say he's as good as Ego & Unrien against the run, & the best passrusher.

1. More 3-&-outs wins more games, & keeps every D player fresh, including Bullard. Best player = more 3-&-outs.

2. These days, we see a lot more passing on 1st and 2nd down.

3. He's a rookie who needs game experience anyway. Give it to him and see how it does in run & pass.

4. To a lesser degree... substitutions during the game aren't always an easy option (hurry-ups), and can negatively impact player's awareness of the game situation and his feel for the game.

If Bullard is the second best DE, I would start him. If the Defense can't get off the field, or Bullard isn't staying very fresh, it's a given we are going to rotate players, but that's not a reason not to start him and give the team it's best chance at 3-&-outs.

I think Fangio will do what he says he does -- he'll throw everything at Bullard and see how he handles it. If he can progress with both run D & pass, start him.
 

modo

Based
Donator
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
29,162
Liked Posts:
25,104
Location:
USA
lol just because the Bears aren't going to win the SB this year does not at all mean the loss of vet talent is overrated. Total non sequitur.

Yes it is overblown...the point of this is to win the Superbowl....If the Bears had hung on to Forte and Marshall they still would not win the superbowl...moving on.
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
Yes it is overblown...the point of this is to win the Superbowl....If the Bears had hung on to Forte and Marshall they still would not win the superbowl...moving on.

Your implication is that keeping them would hamper the bears winning a SB which is absurd.

Maybe Bennett, Forte, and Slauson don't put the bears in the SB, but they DO make them a better team and do not hurt future SB efforts. Especially Slauson and Forte. Keeping those two in no way hurts the bears to any significant extent.
 

mecha

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
12,849
Liked Posts:
10,172
Your implication is that keeping them would hamper the bears winning a SB which is absurd.

Maybe Bennett, Forte, and Slauson don't put the bears in the SB, but they DO make them a better team and do not hurt future SB efforts. Especially Slauson and Forte. Keeping those two in no way hurts the bears to any significant extent.

I don't think he really meant Forte and Marshall would keep them out. I think he meant if they were still on the team, the Bears aren't going to the Super Bowl regardless. that's how I interpreted it. Marshall's been a baller and a gamer and one of the best at his position for multiple teams now, and not one made the playoffs. I enjoy that tired narrative that he, one player, is somehow the reason none of those teams made the playoffs because he's psychotic, however.

Forte has a limited shelf life by position; Marshall's almost my age, he has less years left than he has played. it sucks, but it's reality.

still don't understand the Bennett or Slauson moves. with the personnel mentioned, I feel like they had a window during the Trestman years and it was squandered due to horrible management. the team was stuck in a rotation where they kept trying to bandaid problems with FAs, and the draft picks either weren't getting retained or just sucked, and the team really had no identity of its own. the shit teams like the Dallas Cowboys do things like that; great teams like the Packers (vomit) and Patriots don't, they grow their own talent. Pace is trying to start it over from ground zero. commendable, but I don't think unloading some of the best talent in the league for no other reason than "oh, there's a story at CCS that this guy's a shithead, we need to get rid of him" is the best approach. (my best explanation for these batshit moves)
 

botfly10

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Jun 19, 2011
Posts:
32,868
Liked Posts:
26,844
I don't think he really meant Forte and Marshall would keep them out. I think he meant if they were still on the team, the Bears aren't going to the Super Bowl regardless. that's how I interpreted it. Marshall's been a baller and a gamer and one of the best at his position for multiple teams now, and not one made the playoffs. I enjoy that tired narrative that he, one player, is somehow the reason none of those teams made the playoffs because he's psychotic, however.

Forte has a limited shelf life by position; Marshall's almost my age, he has less years left than he has played. it sucks, but it's reality.

still don't understand the Bennett or Slauson moves. with the personnel mentioned, I feel like they had a window during the Trestman years and it was squandered due to horrible management. the team was stuck in a rotation where they kept trying to bandaid problems with FAs, and the draft picks either weren't getting retained or just sucked, and the team really had no identity of its own. the shit teams like the Dallas Cowboys do things like that; great teams like the Packers (vomit) and Patriots don't, they grow their own talent. Pace is trying to start it over from ground zero. commendable, but I don't think unloading some of the best talent in the league for no other reason than "oh, there's a story at CCS that this guy's a shithead, we need to get rid of him" is the best approach. (my best explanation for these batshit moves)

Yeah, I get what logic there was for the different moves. And yeah I get the fan sentiment that hey, the shit is done, fucking move on already. I get it.

But that doesn't mean we all have to retroactively look back and accept all the moves as all perfectly reasonable, obvious choices that clearly made the team better without question.

(not that you are saying this, but just sayin)

Oh, and finally, the no SB this year holds zero sway. Its a dumb line of reasoning. Only a handful of teams can really have high expectations of going deep into the post season each year. Not going to the SB provides zero incentive to dump productive vets on reasonable contracts. Dumb line of reasoning. And either way, the Bears still have to take the field and I still have to watch them even if there is no chance at a SB.
 
Last edited:

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
That makes logical sense ("save him" for obvious passing downs). But there's also logical reasons to start him.

First of all, just because he's likely the best passrushing DE, doesn't mean he isn't also likely one of our two best run-game DEs. Bullard had more Tackles and Tackles For Loss than both Ego & Unrien (Sr Yr & Career), and he's by no means a small 3-4 DE at 6'2" 290lbs.

For the sack of argument, let's just say he's as good as Ego & Unrien against the run, & the best passrusher.

1. More 3-&-outs wins more games, & keeps every D player fresh, including Bullard. Best player = more 3-&-outs.

2. These days, we see a lot more passing on 1st and 2nd down.

3. He's a rookie who needs game experience anyway. Give it to him and see how it does in run & pass.

3. To a lesser degree... substitutions during the game aren't always an easy option (hurry-ups), and can negatively impact player's awareness of the game situation and his feel for the game.

If Bullard is the second best DE, I would start him. If the Defense can't get off the field, or Bullard isn't staying very fresh, it's a given we are going to rotate players, but that's not a reason not to start him and give the team it's best chance at 3-&-outs.

I think Fangio will do what he says he does -- he'll throw everything at Bullard and see how he handles it. If he can progress with both run D & pass, start him.

I do not doubt that he can play the run, but he needs a break.

If Bullard is going to play 35 snaps a game, which would be a lot, I would rather pick and choose where I use him. Rather than have him play on 1st and 2nd down and then have 3rd and 12 and he is sucking wind. Or have him play a lot of snaps early and not have no fresh for the final 2 minutes of for a hurry up game winning drive by the other team.

I am okay using up Ego and Unrien early, because they are not going to play later in crunch time.
 

Sculpt

Well-known member
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
8,498
Liked Posts:
2,896
I do not doubt that he can play the run, but he needs a break.

If Bullard is going to play 35 snaps a game, which would be a lot, I would rather pick and choose where I use him. Rather than have him play on 1st and 2nd down and then have 3rd and 12 and he is sucking wind. Or have him play a lot of snaps early and not have no fresh for the final 2 minutes of for a hurry up game winning drive by the other team.

I am okay using up Ego and Unrien early, because they are not going to play later in crunch time.
Oh sure, I agree with all of that. I'm just saying players aren't functionally depleted after the (literal) first two downs of the game.

What if having Bullard start directly leads to 3 back-to-back three-&-outs? That's 9 snaps with 3 sufficient rests in-between.

After the opening possessions... I agree, you count his snaps, rotate Unrien and Ego in, making sure Bullard is functionally fresh for passing downs for all the quarters. We can still accomplish this goal while also starting him.

If he's one of the two best DEs, it pays dividends to deflate your opponent's offense in the 1sr qtr.

Similarly, you're not suggesting Goldman shouldn't start just because he's a better passrusher than Sutton (who subbed NT and had the same # of tackles)?
 

WindyCity

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Dec 12, 2011
Posts:
30,816
Liked Posts:
35,721
Whether the Bears will miss Forte, Bennett and Slauson are missed will be found out in the opening weeks of the season.

If Langford studs out, making 500k, then it looks like a huge win. But if none of the young RBs play well it will be a big mistake considering the cap room we have.

It is tough because we want to grade things immediately.


From Pace's short tenure he seems competent. I will give him the benefit of the doubt until his moves start to flop.
 
Last edited:

Burrberry

New member
Joined:
Feb 7, 2016
Posts:
1,542
Liked Posts:
707
Not necessarily. Harold Jones-Quartey or DeAndre Houston-Carson could surprise. I would not be shocked to see Harold Jones-Quartey get the start day 1.

Houston-Carson seems to be pegged as a Day 1 Special Teams contributor. Maybe he has more potential than Special Teams because of his youth, but right now I only see either Bush or HJQ as the realistic options(outside of starting some career special teamer like Prosinski or Demontre Hurst).
 

gallagher

Nothing left to do but smile, smile, smile
Donator
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
6,242
Liked Posts:
5,496
Location:
Semi-Nomadic
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Ohio Bobcats
HJQ played well enough last season that I think he opens as the starter. He isnt a world-beater by any means, but he showed enough and has room to improve. Bush will have to take the job away from him.

I think the one we should be most excited about is Bullard - an improved DL will be key to improving our standing in the division. Lacy has a fumble problem, but he still gets big games against us. AP is the best RB since Tomlinson played for San Diego, and Detroit sans Calvin Johnson will have to lean more heavily on their running game to have any kind of success.

Take way the running game and the only person we have to fear in our division is Rodgers
 

Top