Building a good team is better than building for a specific player.

[JP Hochbaum]

The arguments on this board about not giving Fields weapons is quite fallacious.

Every single previous GM in recent Bears history has tried building around the quarterback and it has failed. We gave Cutler Marshall/Jeffery/Bennett and Mike Martz and that didn't work. Why? The QB wasn't good. We did the same with Trubisky with Arob/Graham/Mooney, and it didn't work because the QB was bad. Angelo, Emery, Pace were all fired because they kept spending on FA and reaching in drafts to supply a QB and help make the QB look better. This formula doesn't work.

Teams that had good QB's didn't always have great offensive lines and receivers when they won super bowls. Just look at Russel Wilson, Tom Brady (won a SB with Branch and Givens) and Aaron Rodgers (35 year old Driver and Greg Jennings, and a TE no one remembers). At some point in time these QB's showed how great they were, even when they didn't have surrounding talent.

If we draft for weapons around Fields, and he isn't a good QB, then we will have a bad defense and a bad offense. Whereas if you draft best player available, you start to build a complete team that can be loaded with all-pros who win regardless of bad or average QB play (Lovies Bears era as an example, winning with Grosmman and Cutler). If Fields is a legit QB, he is going to make the receivers around him look better.

That being said, last year Fields had a horrible situation where he had bad coaching. So there isn't really any indication on what he is yet, therefore building around a player who may not be here after his rookie deal, is setting us up for another rebuild. It was unfortunate the Nagy didn't do this as it would have allowed the Bears to do what Cincy did for Burrow, but we aren't there yet. Fields needs to prove that he is worthy to invest in, and he hasn't done that yet.

 

[gilder121]

The arguments on this board about not giving Fields weapons is quite fallacious.

Every single previous GM in recent Bears history has tried building around the quarterback and it has failed. We gave Cutler Marshall/Jeffery/Bennett and Mike Martz and that didn't work. Why? The QB wasn't good. We did the same with Trubisky with Arob/Graham/Mooney, and it didn't work because the QB was bad. Angelo, Emery, Pace were all fired because they kept spending on FA and reaching in drafts to supply a QB and help make the QB look better. This formula doesn't work.

Teams that had good QB's didn't always have great offensive lines and receivers when they won super bowls. Just look at Russel Wilson, Tom Brady (won a SB with Branch and Givens) and Aaron Rodgers (35 year old Driver and Greg Jennings, and a TE no one remembers). At some point in time these QB's showed how great they were, even when they didn't have surrounding talent.

If we draft for weapons around Fields, and he isn't a good QB, then we will have a bad defense and a bad offense. Whereas if you draft best player available, you start to build a complete team that can be loaded with all-pros who win regardless of bad or average QB play (Lovies Bears era as an example, winning with Grosmman and Cutler). If Fields is a legit QB, he is going to make the receivers around him look better.

That being said, last year Fields had a horrible situation where he had bad coaching. So there isn't really any indication on what he is yet, therefore building around a player who may not be here after his rookie deal, is setting us up for another rebuild. It was unfortunate the Nagy didn't do this as it would have allowed the Bears to do what Cincy did for Burrow, but we aren't there yet. Fields needs to prove that he is worthy to invest in, and he hasn't done that yet.

Quite Fellatious indeed. As in ignoring the QB in the modern NFL is a good way to ensure you suck.

 

[Zvbxrpl]

Didn’t we say this bullshit with Ryan Pace in 2015?

 

[Anytime23]

Im at a loss.

 

[SugarWalls]

The thing this argument lacks is that regardless of what Fields needs to develop, the offense needs good players to be passable. There needs to be pro bowl caliber players on both sides of the ball.

Can we name 1 potential pro bowl or outstanding offensive player on the bears?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

The thing this argument lacks is that regardless of what Fields needs to develop, the offense needs good players to be passable. There needs to be pro bowl caliber players on both sides of the ball.

Can we name 1 potential pro bowl or outstanding offensive player on the bears?

Why are you expecting pro-bowlers in year 1 of a rebuild?

 

[napo55]

Anyone who downplays the importance of the QB in the NFL is out of touch with reality.

 

[SugarWalls]

Why are you expecting pro-bowlers in year 1 of a rebuild?

Coming into this draft which side of the team had more talent? I'd argue defense and it isn't even close. I like the Gordon pick but imo the offense is so trash they had to at least take BPA on offense with their 2nd 2nd rounder.

Offense has no one.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

Coming into this draft which side of the team had more talent? I'd argue defense and it isn't even close. I like the Gordon pick but imo the offense is so trash they had to at least take BPA on offense with their 2nd 2nd rounder.

Offense has no one.

Pro bowlers are usually selected from winning teams. When you are rebuilding, its a bad standard to go off of - that's my point.

 

[Brownie]

I don't think we're done adding pieces yet this offseason. But even so, I don't think the offense will be as good as some want or as bad as some think this coming year.

Some fans and media either a) will get bent out of shape if moves aren't being made as fast or obvious as they want; or b) just like to pile on the Bears specifically. I get it. At the end of the day all you can really do is wait to see what actually happens and base your opinions on actual results, wins and losses. Not paper losses.

This FO and staff saw an opportunity to shore up a position group/side of the ball based on BPAs where the draft fell, which I didn't understand as it was happening but am cool with atm. I think things will work out one way or the other.

 

[nc0gnet0]

The arguments on this board about not giving Fields weapons is quite fallacious.

Every single previous GM in recent Bears history has tried building around the quarterback and it has failed. We gave Cutler Marshall/Jeffery/Bennett and Mike Martz and that didn't work. Why? The QB wasn't good. We did the same with Trubisky with Arob/Graham/Mooney, and it didn't work because the QB was bad. Angelo, Emery, Pace were all fired because they kept spending on FA and reaching in drafts to supply a QB and help make the QB look better. This formula doesn't work.

Teams that had good QB's didn't always have great offensive lines and receivers when they won super bowls. Just look at Russel Wilson, Tom Brady (won a SB with Branch and Givens) and Aaron Rodgers (35 year old Driver and Greg Jennings, and a TE no one remembers). At some point in time these QB's showed how great they were, even when they didn't have surrounding talent.

If we draft for weapons around Fields, and he isn't a good QB, then we will have a bad defense and a bad offense. Whereas if you draft best player available, you start to build a complete team that can be loaded with all-pros who win regardless of bad or average QB play (Lovies Bears era as an example, winning with Grosmman and Cutler). If Fields is a legit QB, he is going to make the receivers around him look better.

That being said, last year Fields had a horrible situation where he had bad coaching. So there isn't really any indication on what he is yet, therefore building around a player who may not be here after his rookie deal, is setting us up for another rebuild. It was unfortunate the Nagy didn't do this as it would have allowed the Bears to do what Cincy did for Burrow, but we aren't there yet. Fields needs to prove that he is worthy to invest in, and he hasn't done that yet.

So, what your saying is that putting good players around a young QB does not help his chances of success?

Really?

Even if you think the 2nd rounds picks of the Bears were "good Picks" , you don't think there were any picks on the offensive side of the ball that were close, or just as good?

 

[Brownie]

I think our running game and the 3-4 backs that we have can be really good if we commit to it. Plus the system really seems to cater towards that.

In turn, I think leaning on that running game while JF, the WRs and TEs also get acclimated to the passing game will be an asset. I don't agree that we have no talent, although of course I'd love an explosive, game-breaking WR. But we have other pieces there now.... And I think this staff is smart enough to not put them in bad or obvious situations to fail like the past regime.

 

[Camden Cutler]

no...you build around the QUARTERBACK
especially if you're a team that's been thirsty for one since Moses headed off for the desert

you're acting as if the collective is mad about the team not building around a running back

bunch of company yes men dudes around here that don't question things and just go along with whatever upper management says..its ok to criticize the gm..you don't have to blindly agree

 

[Bearly]

Don't understand these semi-mutually exclusive takes. More needs to done to help Fields. I doubt Poles is done.

 

[Brownie]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521153679923032069

 

[dabears70]

We should build around Velus Jones.

 

[napo55]

no...you build around the QUARTERBACK
especially if you're a team that's been thirsty for one since Moses headed off for the desert

you're acting as if the collective is mad about the team not building around a running back

bunch of company yes men dudes around here that don't question things and just go along with whatever upper management says..its ok to criticize the gm..you don't have to blindly agree

e

 

[JesusHalasChrist]

I didn't realize OL/weapons vanish into the ether if the quarterback busts.

 

[Omeletpants]

Quite Fellatious indeed. As in ignoring the QB in the modern NFL is a good way to ensure you suck.

Best post of the day

 

[Britbuffguy]

Coming into this draft which side of the team had more talent? I'd argue defense and it isn't even close. I like the Gordon pick but imo the offense is so trash they had to at least take BPA on offense with their 2nd 2nd rounder.

Offense has no one.

Who could they have drafted that is an automatic HOFer?