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

[rawdawg]

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.

Cutler got Marshall, Jeffery and Bennett after years of Hester, Knox, and Roy Williams and giving away Greg Olsen. Trubisky got ARob after having to work with a historically bad WR group as a rookie. Graham was a corpse when he came in. Mooney was drafted after they brought in Foles to basically take the job from Trubisky. Trubisky was given Miller, Shaheen and Gabriel.

But I agree with the premise. Fields hasn't shown he's the guy yet. I'm sure Poles and Eberflus trust him to be the guy, but they aren't assuming he already is, which is probably the right move for them and their careers. That being said, there is a middle ground here between what Poles has done and what the Jags did this offseason. Having a strong starting RG on a 4-year deal isn't as waste even if Fields isn't the guy. I get the weapons thing, because you want to give Fields weapons that he fits with but those guys might not fit with the next QB. But there's really no reason to forgo OL talent because of the QB.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

There is a huge , grand canyon sized difference between Kelce and Mooney lol are you kidding me ? Yes, Mooney is a fringe 1b WR probably. Awesome. And then ? 2021 he also had Allen Robinson on the other side of the field. Robinson's production dipped because Nagy is a fucking moron, he is still a great receiver and teams had to account for him.

You are basing that off an assumption. Yes, there is hope that Getsy isn't a moron. I feel like he will be an upgrade that still doesn't matter if the quaterback is on his back., whether that is guys not getting open or protection ala 2021.

What are you reading???? I am not comparing Kelce to Mooney.

 

[DaaBears]

This was actually an interesting conversation to read through, and I do mean all of the different perspectives.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Cutler got Marshall, Jeffery and Bennett after years of Hester, Knox, and Roy Williams and giving away Greg Olsen. Trubisky got ARob after having to work with a historically bad WR group as a rookie. Graham was a corpse when he came in. Mooney was drafted after they brought in Foles to basically take the job from Trubisky. Trubisky was given Miller, Shaheen and Gabriel.

But I agree with the premise. Fields hasn't shown he's the guy yet. I'm sure Poles and Eberflus trust him to be the guy, but they aren't assuming he already is, which is probably the right move for them and their careers. That being said, there is a middle ground here between what Poles has done and what the Jags did this offseason. Having a strong starting RG on a 4-year deal isn't as waste even if Fields isn't the guy. I get the weapons thing, because you want to give Fields weapons that he fits with but those guys might not fit with the next QB. But there's really no reason to forgo OL talent because of the QB.

Yeah I tend to think there is a lot of hyperbole from the crowd claiming Fields has no weapons or isn't protected.
Fields was protected fairly well last year when they schemed to help the line more.
I just don't think that not spending on the top free agents means that the WR room and Oline room didn't improve. I think in this off season we got better than we were last year. And you really don't want to spend big in a year when we all know the team is trying to fix the cap situation.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Cutler got Marshall, Jeffery and Bennett after years of Hester, Knox, and Roy Williams and giving away Greg Olsen. Trubisky got ARob after having to work with a historically bad WR group as a rookie. Graham was a corpse when he came in. Mooney was drafted after they brought in Foles to basically take the job from Trubisky. Trubisky was given Miller, Shaheen and Gabriel.

But I agree with the premise. Fields hasn't shown he's the guy yet. I'm sure Poles and Eberflus trust him to be the guy, but they aren't assuming he already is, which is probably the right move for them and their careers. That being said, there is a middle ground here between what Poles has done and what the Jags did this offseason. Having a strong starting RG on a 4-year deal isn't as waste even if Fields isn't the guy. I get the weapons thing, because you want to give Fields weapons that he fits with but those guys might not fit with the next QB. But there's really no reason to forgo OL talent because of the QB.

They tried that… the Bills matched. Poles is trying guys. You just can’t redo the whole roster in one off-season with no first rounder and 50 million in dead cap space.

 

[Enasic]

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

Flus is all about running the rock. Monty split his touches here with Cohen and Patterson as well. The difference this year is there will actually be a commitment to the run. Monty will have a big year

 

[MikeDitkaPolishSausage]

I definitely think we'll see improvement because lets be honest, you cant get much worse. Id like to see a big step forward but i just dont see how that's possible when you still have such a poor offensive roster. We saw so many instances last season where no one could make a play for Fields. I don't see how that's any different now. I don't want to watch 17 games of kid gloves and them treating him like a game manager because they just dont have the talent to effectively run what he wants to.

I think the biggest difference on paper between this year and last year is Getsy will cater the offense towards Fields strengths. It sounds like he will at least do his best to put him in the position to succeed. That alone could allow Fields to make surprising improvements. Whether if that happens or not, we won’t know for a while. But at least it doesn’t sound like we will get a repeat of a Nagy ran offense.

I personally prefer the offensive weapons this year compared to last year, especially with ARob being non existent. I think the offensive line will be similar to last year as well but have more upside. Only because of the new system and there is a chance Jenkins/Borom improve.

 

[Nelly]

When a new GM and/or coach comes in, everyone who was brought in by the previous regime are under review. Fields falls into that category. So just because the previous guy gave up first round picks for Fields doesn't mean he's the guy, and thus doesn't mean you should throw all of your limited assets at trying to "help" him just to find out. Josh Allen is one example of a guy who probably had less to work with in year 2 than Fields does now and he made it. Poles has already done the best thing he can for Fields by bringing in a new OC who'll build the offense around what he does well. You don't need Fields to make the pro-bowl this year and pilot the team to the super bowl: you just need to see if he can play before you make a much bigger commitment to him in 2023 with a full complement of picks and a ton of cap space. No need to go balls to the wall on it so soon, especially when they team is so devoid of talent across the board.

It'll be interesting to see how Fields does here vs. Tagovailoa in Miami. Tua is arguably a bust already but that didn't stop Miami from throwing the kitchen sink at surrounding him with weapons. So what happens if Tagovailoa proves out to be a bust with all that weaponry around him? Miami is then still largely fucked despite having Hill/Waddle on the roster due in part to having Hill on the roster eating up $30 mil in cap space limiting their ability to bring in a big-name QB or limiting his prime on a potential rookie.

With the benefit of hindsight knowing Raimann was there for us in the 3rd, it would have been cool to see us draft Moore with the 49th pick and Raimann in the 3rd. But, it is what it is. I think it's pretty cool that Fields sorta hand-picked Velus Jones Jr. and Poles went and got him. In the draft though, needs really don't matter (contrary to popular belief). All that matters is if the guy can play. If Brisker/Gordon can play, no one will really remember this "coulda/shoulda" nonsense and rightfully so. Looking back in a year, if one or both of those guys sucks and Pickens/Moore are looking like studs then we've got reason to question Poles and his scouting department's ability for nothing other than having failing to get good players through the draft (regardless of which position they play).

 

[rawdawg]

They tried that… the Bills matched. Poles is trying guys. You just can’t redo the whole roster in one off-season with no first rounder and 50 million in dead cap space.

Who said anything about re-doing the whole roster? I mentioned 1 position.

 

[remydat]

You win by building a good team. Sometimes the way things fall you get the O players first. Sometimes you get the D players first. Sometimes it is a mix. Neither is more right than the other.

Brady has never won a SB without a top 10 D. He has all those Super Bowls because in the games where he has faltered the D has kept him in it long enough for him to right the ship in the end.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Who said anything about re-doing the whole roster? I mentioned 1 position.

Because everyone is cunting if their pet position isn't addressed. Clearly Poles has addressed some positions. He can't however fix them all.

 

[rawdawg]

Because everyone is cunting if their pet position isn't addressed. Clearly Poles has addressed some positions. He can't however fix them all.

I'm not everybody. And nothing in my post that you quoted was anything close to cunting. I gave an example of 1 position that could've been filled without the QB being for sure the guy.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

I'm not everybody. And nothing in my post that you quoted was anything close to cunting. I gave an example of 1 position that could've been filled without the QB being for sure the guy.

The first sentence was meant for you when I said they tried that. (And they’ll probably try again).

The second part should have been a second paragraph as it was more a comment to everyone. I’m not attacking you. It’ll be OK.

 

[Myk]

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.

There's your problem, you think it's only a QB and WRs. Keep your QB clean and you can get by with less at those positions. Keep your QB clean and have a good QB and good receivers and you have a team that can hang with the best. Hang with the best while your defense can screw up their plans to score and you've won.
Papa Bear may have said defense wins championships but he did not practice it to the exclusion of offense. It's also very outdated.
We've gone from having great RBs to OK RBs while continuing to have bad WRs, bad oline, our change other than not wanting great RBs has been to try for slightly better QBs.

Look at the other defensive teams that actually go to and win Super Bowls. They don't ignore their offense like the Bears. If you want to continue being as bad as the Browns used to be continue doing what we've been doing.
At some point in this long losing history you have to figure out to do something different if you want something to change.

The Packers could’ve kept Davante Adams if they wanted to and they did not trade for Darren Waller it was just a rumor. You’re giving the Packers credit for keeping/acquiring wide receivers when they simply did not do that.

As a matter of fact, the Packers are an absolute prime example of doing exactly the opposite of what people on this board say is the only thing the Bears can do.

The Packers have not drafted an offensive player in the first round during the Rodgers era in over 15 years. And they still have an offense.

No I don’t think Fields is going to be as good as Rodgers and that’s not the point. But the point is you can have an offense without drafting offensive players with your first rounder just because you like the quarterback.

I would like to have seen a wide receiver drafted in Round 2, and yet I’m fine that one was not drafted in the second round. I trust the GM to build the team not just the offense.

Correct me if I'm right, hasn't their great QB been mad about that because they make his job harder? Isn't that what he pegs their lack of Super Bowl wins on? So while you're saying ignoring the offense is a great plan you have the great QB you're using as an example telling you it's not!

 

[remydat]

There's your problem, you think it's only a QB and WRs. Keep your QB clean and you can get by with less at those positions. Keep your QB clean and have a good QB and good receivers and you have a team that can hang with the best. Hang with the best while your defense can screw up their plans to score and you've won.
Papa Bear may have said defense wins championships but he did not practice it to the exclusion of offense. It's also very outdated.
We've gone from having great RBs to OK RBs while continuing to have bad WRs, bad oline, our change other than not wanting great RBs has been to try for slightly better QBs.

Look at the other defensive teams that actually go to and win Super Bowls. They don't ignore their offense like the Bears. If you want to continue being as bad as the Browns used to be continue doing what we've been doing.
At some point in this long losing history you have to figure out to do something different if you want something to change.




Correct me if I'm right, hasn't their great QB been mad about that because they make his job harder? Isn't that what he pegs their lack of Super Bowl wins on? So while you're saying ignoring the offense is a great plan you have the great QB you're using as an example telling you it's not!

Rodgers scapegoats. He missed a wide open WR against San Fran right before they gave up the lead. He has had more than enough talent on O to succeed but simply is not clutch.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

There's your problem, you think it's only a QB and WRs. Keep your QB clean and you can get by with less at those positions. Keep your QB clean and have a good QB and good receivers and you have a team that can hang with the best. Hang with the best while your defense can screw up their plans to score and you've won.
Papa Bear may have said defense wins championships but he did not practice it to the exclusion of offense. It's also very outdated.
We've gone from having great RBs to OK RBs while continuing to have bad WRs, bad oline, our change other than not wanting great RBs has been to try for slightly better QBs.

Look at the other defensive teams that actually go to and win Super Bowls. They don't ignore their offense like the Bears. If you want to continue being as bad as the Browns used to be continue doing what we've been doing.
At some point in this long losing history you have to figure out to do something different if you want something to change.




Correct me if I'm right, hasn't their great QB been mad about that because they make his job harder? Isn't that what he pegs their lack of Super Bowl wins on? So while you're saying ignoring the offense is a great plan you have the great QB you're using as an example telling you it's not!

Again you and many others are not accurate here. The BEars didn't ignore the offense, they just didn't go for broke doing so. This years offense is already better on paper than last year.

 

[Toast88]

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.

Sure, but if Fields isn’t good, you’re not growing into a contender with him anyway.

“Hey, at least we’ll have a good defense” doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

If Fields isn’t good, wouldn’t you want to know sooner rather than later? Hard to know, when the assessment process is diluted by a bad O-Line and underwhelming receivers. And the longer you hold onto him if he’s not the guy, the more you waste everyone’s time.

In any case, I tend to agree with Ryan Poles on how best to help a young quarterback succeed:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498708356021825545

 

[remydat]

Sure, but if Fields isn’t good, you’re not growing into a contender with him anyway.

“Hey, at least we’ll have a good defense” doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

If Fields isn’t good, wouldn’t you want to know sooner rather than later? Hard to know, when the assessment process is diluted by a bad O-Line and underwhelming receivers. And the longer you hold onto him if he’s not the guy, the more you waste everyone’s time.

In any case, I tend to agree with Ryan Poles on how best to help a young quarterback succeed:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498708356021825545

It is not hard to know at all. Fields will evaluated on whether he made the right read within the context of the play call. That is independent of the OL and WRs.

You realize coaches have tape they can watch to see if a WR was open or not on a given play.

Also perhaps after watching tape they are comfortable that Mooney is in fact a guy that can bail him out. Or maybey they decided VJJ can shit underneath and be that guy while also getting YAC.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Sure, but if Fields isn’t good, you’re not growing into a contender with him anyway.

“Hey, at least we’ll have a good defense” doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

If Fields isn’t good, wouldn’t you want to know sooner rather than later? Hard to know, when the assessment process is diluted by a bad O-Line and underwhelming receivers. And the longer you hold onto him if he’s not the guy, the more you waste everyone’s time.

In any case, I tend to agree with Ryan Poles on how best to help a young quarterback succeed:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498708356021825545

Poles also said he wasn't going to spend FA on mega deal for a WR, or draft one that would be considered a reach or not on their board.
All of these things can be true simultaneously.

 

[rayer kay]

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

Agreed. Everyone has a right to question and should question. But questioning and criticizing almost everything because ideology is based in distrust, regardless of the rationality of action, doesn't make someone smart or a free thinker.