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

[SugarWalls]

Who could they have drafted that is an automatic HOFer?

So you think the safety they drafted is an automatic HOFer? You mean any WR or OL drafted after the bears safety is a bust? Was there absolutely no offense left to draft in the middle of the 2nd round?

 

[bears5150]

How many pro bowl lineman have we had in the last15 years? Work on fixing that first.

 

[Enasic]

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?

Could see Mooney and Montgomery making the pro bowl this year. Jenkins also has that type of potential if he develops. Not saying it’ll be happen, but the potential is there.

 

[Myk]

You need an offense period. Getting one would be there no matter who the QB is. You don't need to do that specific for a QB. Not only would getting an offense now give Fields a chance and not getting it now lessens that chance, getting an offense now would help the next QB be something their first year if Fields doesn't work out.
I know, strange concept for Bears fans who believe in 5 year rebuilds every time a player retires.

The only reason you claim we built for QBs is because we never have an offense worth mentioning and we refuse to pay the ones that are. You're claiming every player brought in too late is building for a QB. Martz didn't like Cutler, he certainly wasn't building for him, he was a friend of Lovie willing to come to this shit show of a team because his ego had him thinking he could do it alone. The offense we actually built for him was 4 years later.

At this point I think Bears fans deserve the yearly washed up vet QB carousel. Most are not willing to have a winning team and all we're doing is destroying young QB's careers before they have one.

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

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

Robert Quinn and Jakeem grant send you their best

 

[JP Hochbaum]

I knew many here would have a tough time reading, or read into things that weren't there....

I didn't say the QB was not important, in fact quite the opposite. As if Fields is a great QB we don't need to give out massive FA deals or reach in drafts to get him talent (hence why you see GB and KC letting expensive WR's go). We can rely on guys like Mooney, Pringle and Jones as weapons for him, if he is good. If he isn't good, then it wouldn't matter if we had traded for Davante Adams or drafted two WR's in the second round.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

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

You really have a hard time reading eh?

 

[JP Hochbaum]

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?

No I didn't say any of those things.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

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?

Pro Bowls? That certainly helped Mitch....

But yeah we have Mooney, and Monty as outstanding offensive players. And we hope Fields is as well, or building around him would be pointless.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

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

Never did such a thing. I specifically said we shouldn't give out massive FA contracts or reach in drafts to get a WR or olinemen, especially when we are trying to shed salary so we can sign mega deals when the team is ready to win.

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

I knew many here would have a tough time reading, or read into things that weren't there....

I didn't say the QB was not important, in fact quite the opposite. As if Fields is a great QB we don't need to give out massive FA deals or reach in drafts to get him talent (hence why you see GB and KC letting expensive WR's go). We can rely on guys like Mooney, Pringle and Jones as weapons for him, if he is good. If he isn't good, then it wouldn't matter if we had traded for Davante Adams or drafted two WR's in the second round.

Yes because the chiefs don’t have the best tight end in the NFL and Rodgers is one of the very best to play the position lol . And fwiw the packers tried to keep Adams and then tried trading for Darren Waller.

Such an ignorant take

 

[Warrior Spirit]

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.

I'd agree you need a good overall team but still a lot of ignorance in there. QBs mentioned were aided by top defenses. All those WRs mentioned for Brady and Rodgers were very good. But as is the case with casual fans, all credit given to QB regardless. It's a team thing. Formula for Pats was same throughout, all 3 phases very good and limit turnovers. Pats had top 8 defense in all 6 SB winning seasons during the B&B era.

Think of all the credit Brady gets for all those SB wins. In fact, the first 3 wins came down to a Vinatieri FG in the last quarter, couple of those in the final seconds. 4th SB win came by way of Butler's amazing int when Seattle was on the 1 yard line and afraid to run the Beast. 5th win was the one when Atlanta folded and blew/threw the 25 point lead. Last SB win with NE was the snoozefest in which Rams could only manage 3 points while Pats got 1 TD and 2 FGs. SBs don't come down to who has the better QB as often as lay people think. Sometimes all you need is a clutch kick here, a tuck rule there, deflated ball, some spying or just that 1 big play in any of the 3 phases of the game.

 

[mecha]

I'd agree you need a good overall team but still a lot of ignorance in there. QBs mentioned were aided by top defenses. All those WRs mentioned for Brady and Rodgers were very good. But as is the case with casual fans, all credit given to QB regardless. It's a team thing. Formula for Pats was same throughout, all 3 phases very good and limit turnovers. Pats had top 8 defense in all 6 SB winning seasons during the B&B era.

Think of all the credit Brady gets for all those SB wins. In fact, the first 3 wins came down to a Vinatieri FG in the last quarter, couple of those in the final seconds. 4th SB win came by way of Butler's amazing int when Seattle was on the 1 yard line and afraid to run the Beast. 5th win was the one when Atlanta folded and blew/threw the 25 point lead. Last SB win with NE was the snoozefest in which Rams could only manage 3 points while Pats got 1 TD and 2 FGs. SBs don't come down to who has the better QB as often as lay people think. Sometimes all you need is a clutch kick here, a tuck rule there, deflated ball, some spying or just that 1 big play in any of the 3 phases of the game.

that's what I've been saying, you need a complete team. obviously you're not going to have All Pros at every position. all teams are deficient in some area, it's how they make up for it elsewhere that wins the games. the Bears had strong defense with Lovie Smith and nitwits running the offense; they didn't win the Super Bowl. the Bears had average offense with Trestman and all-time worst defense; they didn't make the playoffs. they had a trick play offense with Matt Nagy and a potent defense with Vic Fangio; the playcalling and kicker got them eliminated from the playoffs.

I think even the geniuses here can maybe potentially follow along with what I'm saying. Brady got his 7th ring because the Buccaneers defense could knock teams dicks in the dirt and made the CCS-anointed-best-quarterback-ever Patrick Mahomes ineffective. for those that keep saying you need super mega elite QB play, yeah, that guy got fucking demolished after the Chiefs cut him a contract worth 1 billion dollars for winning 1 Super Bowl against a team that probably shouldn't have made it that far.

sound the words out if you don't understand what I'm saying.

 

[KittiesKorner]

so we need a complete team? thanks

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

that's what I've been saying, you need a complete team. obviously you're not going to have All Pros at every position. all teams are deficient in some area, it's how they make up for it elsewhere that wins the games. the Bears had strong defense with Lovie Smith and nitwits running the offense; they didn't win the Super Bowl. the Bears had average offense with Trestman and all-time worst defense; they didn't make the playoffs. they had a trick play offense with Matt Nagy and a potent defense with Vic Fangio; the playcalling and kicker got them eliminated from the playoffs.

I think even the geniuses here can maybe potentially follow along with what I'm saying. Brady got his 7th ring because the Buccaneers defense could knock teams dicks in the dirt and made the CCS-anointed-best-quarterback-ever Patrick Mahomes ineffective. for those that keep saying you need super mega elite QB play, yeah, that guy got fucking demolished after the Chiefs cut him a contract worth 1 billion dollars for winning 1 Super Bowl against a team that probably shouldn't have made it that far.

sound the words out if you don't understand what I'm saying.

He got demolished in that super bowl because he was down both tackles and running for his life

 

[mecha]

He got demolished in that super bowl because he was down both tackles and running for his life

ah, see, you need a great offensive line too! like the Patriots always have. my point still remains, the quarterback isn't going to be the sole difference maker. you need the other shit around him. will the Bears be one of the worst teams in the league with the cast they're fielding? we'll have to wait a few months to see. everyone pulling their dicks speculating that the sky is falling or if it will be sunshine and rainbows is literally fucking masturbation.

go live your lives and stop worrying about shit beyond your control or find a new team to follow.

 

[KittiesKorner]

Yeah guys stop talking about the team. But if you want to tell others to stop talking about the team, that’s okay. Otherwise go live your lives!

 

[Anytime23]

In 2018 the Bears had a running game and the leagues best D in two key stats(points and takeaways) and none of it mattered because they had a poopy pants QB who was lost for 50 minutes in their home playoff game. They couldn't score 16 points. What has happened since then? They kept stacking defensive talent on defensive talent and having an ineffective offense kept putting the defense back on the field until they were run down and injured. Nothing tanks your franchise like a bad offense.

I can't comprehend how people would choose building the defense again over giving more support to the QB who desperately needs it right now. I don't get it at all. We literally just went through this.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

In 2018 the Bears had a running game and the leagues best D in two key stats(points and takeaways) and none of it mattered because they had a poopy pants QB who was lost for 50 minutes in their home playoff game. They couldn't score 16 points. What has happened since then? They kept stacking defensive talent on defensive talent and having an ineffective offense kept putting the defense back on the field until they were run down and injured. Nothing tanks your franchise like a bad offense.

I can't comprehend how people would choose building the defense again over giving more support to the QB who desperately needs it right now. I don't get it at all. We literally just went through this.

i get what youre saying

but fields isnt the poopy pants QB. we should still be able to see improvement. and Nagy is gone too so theres that

 

[bamainatlanta]

Could see Mooney and Montgomery making the pro bowl this year. Jenkins also has that type of potential if he develops. Not saying it’ll be happen, but the potential is there.

Montgomery will be splitting his touches by a much wider margin than years past. He won't come close to a probowl. No one on the offense will