*OFFICIAL* Offseason Rumors, Signings, and Shenanigans

[nc0gnet0]

Umm no you were not correct. The actual results show they were just as bad. That is the reality. Also, Peters had a higher grade this year than Decker or Penei at LT. Daniels had a higher grade this year than Vaitai at RG. Jackson graded out slightly higher than Whitehair but Whitehair was the better pass blocker. So depending on scheme any of those 3 guys could start. The only places the Lions were clearly better was a C and RT.

Newsflash spanky, you don't have Daniels or Peters anymore. The results only show that there were as bad as the Bears in Ragnows and Deckers absence. However, it was quite clear I was using Ragnow and Decker in my comparison. Don't pretend like I would have made the same claim without them, it really is quite disingenuous.

 

[greg23]

Not that I am aware of. Take the 1999 Rams for example, they brought Martz for his system and added his QB Green in free agency, traded for Faulk, and added Holt in the draft. All great moves, but their best pick was Warner as a UDFA. It was not a matter of massive infusion of talent, just a few right players at the right time.

Yeah definitely the coaching for the Rams as they only added 3 hall of famers.....all on offense.....that off season.

 

[SpinachTeeth]

The most recent example of a solid turn around where it included a new coaching staff and scheme change without too much personnel change was probably the LA Rams when McVay took over from Fisher (2016 to 2017). They went from 4-12 to 11-5 the following year, making the playoffs. Funny enough, Quinn was on that team. 2017 was Cooper Kupp's rookie year. They didn't have a 1000 yard receiver and Gurley was the 2nd leading receiver on the team.

So, if you want parallels, IMO, that is probably the best one of what could happen if everything clicks. But keep in mind, that Rams team had Aaron Donald and Quinn on defense and they had Whitworth at LT. So, while the Bears literally have the same Robert Quinn, they sure as hell don't have an Aaron Donald or Andrew Whitworth to solidify both the lines. And while I like Montgomery, I would never mistake him for an uninjured, prime Todd Gurley.

The Bears had 6 wins last year and they are still playing in the weaker NFC conference. I think it's odd that people think they will do worse this season than the disfunction that was last season. I don't expect the Bears to make the playoffs, but I do expect them to compete and not really be anywhere near last place.

The 2017 rams also added pro bowl left tackle Andrew withworth and also 2 WRs cupp and woods who combined for 1600 yards.

I’ll give you that as a good example of a nice marriage between scheme and talent that together gave the rams a significant improvement that demonstrates your point well.

My original point with the bears however, are that they are hoping for an improvement with only a scheme change and much less improvement in talent (nothing close to a pro bowl tackle and two 800 yard receivers). And again I think talent way overweighs scheme (even though both are important as your example shows, but to different extents)

 

[onebud34]

Didn’t he say 1999 rams? Just looked back and the 1999 rams essentially added Kurt Warner starting for the first time who put up 4300 yards, 41 TD and 13 Int and was MVP. They also added faulk who won MVP the following year.

My argument is that adding 2 MVP players in 1 season would probably explain the record improvement more so than any coaching change.

When was Warner a MVP before 1999?

You’re essentially countering your own argument

 

[SpinachTeeth]

When was Warner a MVP before 1999?

You’re essentially countering your own argument

I think you misunderstood. My reply was to the other guy who said “scheme change from Martz without massive talent infusion”, that improved the rams from a bad team to a good team in 1 year from 4-12 in 1998 to 13-3 in 1999.

In 1998 the rams QB was Tony Banks who put up 2500 yards 7TD and 14 Int. My counter-argument is that replacing him with an MVP Kurt Warner in 1999 and adding a future MVP Marshall Faulk caused the improvement in 1999, not the scheme change. My hypothesis as above is that although both are important, talent outweighs scheme significantly.

 

[Canth]

The 2017 rams also added pro bowl left tackle Andrew withworth and also 2 WRs cupp and woods who combined for 1600 yards.

I’ll give you that as a good example of a nice marriage between scheme and talent that together gave the rams a significant improvement that demonstrates your point well.

My original point with the bears however, are that they are hoping for an improvement with only a scheme change and much less improvement in talent (nothing close to a pro bowl tackle and two 800 yard receivers). And again I think talent way overweighs scheme (even though both are important as your example shows, but to different extents)

While not trying to really compare Kupp and Woods to the current Bears WRs...I will just say that Mooney had 1055 yard in 2021 and Pringle had 568. So those two combined for 1600 yards, granted with Pringle on a different team. Kmet also had 612 yards, and Montgomery had over a 1000 yards from scrimmage between rushing and receiving in just 13 games.

And when you look at Cooper Kupp, the guy had a year for the ages in 2021 with 1947 receiving yards - nearly 1000 more yards receiving than he had in 2020 and nearly 800 more yards than his previous best in 2019. But, he wasn't that guy yet in 2017.

Again, I am not saying that the Bears will be a playoff team but I don't see them close to being the worst either. I think people are being a bit too harsh on the receiver talent. They lack a true #1, but they have options as a group. I will also be interested to see how much more the runningbacks get involved in the receiving game and whether or not Getsy can coach an actual screen game. All things that can help to keep the ball moving and make it easier on the qb to slow down the rush.

The other issue for the Bears this year is that they are not going to have much depth. So while I believe they have options with their projected starters, I also realize there is little to no depth yet behind it when guys get hurt and miss time - especially at the WR and OL positions.

 

[onebud34]

I think you misunderstood. My reply was to the other guy who said “scheme change from Martz without massive talent infusion”, that improved the rams from a bad team to a good team in 1 year from 4-12 in 1998 to 13-3 in 1999.

My counter-argument is that adding an MVP Kurt Warner in 1999 and a future MVP Marshall Faulk caused the improvement in 1999, not the scheme change. My argument is that although both are important, talent outweighs scheme significantly.

The offensive scheme change was the biggest factor that year. Faulk was a key piece. But, Warner was an unknown journeyman and on the roster in 1998

 

[remydat]

Newsflash spanky, you don't have Daniels or Peters anymore. The results only show that there were as bad as the Bears in Ragnows and Deckers absence. However, it was quite clear I was using Ragnow and Decker in my comparison. Don't pretend like I would have made the same claim without them, it really is quite disingenuous.

You really can't be this dumb. This is not the argument.

1. Your claim was they were much better than the Bears. The reality is they were not. It doesn't not matter why they were not as the point being made is that the games are played in real life not on paper and in real life things like injuries can happen.

2. Your claim was no one on the Bears would start if you combined the teams. This is not correct. Old Ass Jason Peters graded out higher than any LT you guys played last year including Decker. James Daniels graded out higher than both your LG and RG last year. It does not matter that they are no longer on the team because that was not the argument. The argument was about your claim no one on the Bears last year would start for the Lions. You are wrong.

3. I am aware you were using Ragnow and Decker in your comparison. That is precisely the point. You are no psychic so your opinions in the offseason are just that opinions. Reality proved you wrong this year due to injuries you did not anticipate. You stupidly acknowledge you did not take Decker and Ragnow being injured into account last year but fail to grasp that there are things this year you also may not be taking into account. So the point is your opinion can never be proof. You aren't smart enough to account for all the possible variables in the future. So just accept that however certain you are of your opinion you can be proven wrong just like you were this past year.

 

[nc0gnet0]

You really can't be this dumb. This is not the argument.

1. Your claim was they were much better than the Bears. The reality is they were not. It doesn't not matter why they were not as the point being made is that the games are played in real life not on paper and in real life things like injuries can happen.

2. Your claim was no one on the Bears would start if you combined the teams. This is not correct. Old Ass Jason Peters graded out higher than any LT you guys played last year including Decker. James Daniels graded out higher than both your LG and RG last year. It does not matter that they are no longer on the team because that was not the argument. The argument was about your claim no one on the Bears last year would start for the Lions. You are wrong.

3. I am aware you were using Ragnow and Decker in your comparison. That is precisely the point. You are no psychic so your opinions in the offseason are just that opinions. Reality proved you wrong this year due to injuries you did not anticipate. You stupidly acknowledge you did not take Decker and Ragnow being injured into account last year but fail to grasp that there are things this year you also may not be taking into account. So the point is your opinion can never be proof. You aren't smart enough to account for all the possible variables in the future. So just accept that however certain you are of your opinion you can be proven wrong just like you were this past year.

No, clearly you are the idiot here. If I predict the Bucs to win the Super bowl, and Tom Brady gets injured the first week, you do not think that is a reason to no longer assume they will win it? Come on man, really, you can't be this stupid.

Old ass Jason Peters was not on the team at the time we had the discussion last year, so you lose again.

Keep trying with your vortex, it really is quite amusing.

 

[SpinachTeeth]

The offensive scheme change was the biggest factor that year. Faulk was a key piece. But, Warner was an unknown journeyman and on the roster in 1998

Warner played 1 game in 1998 and was the starting quarterback in 1999. So no, he is not a constant between the seasons, he was very much a confounding variable.

Do you think Tony banks would have been an MVP and put up 4300-43-11 with the scheme change if he had stayed on as starting quarterback? If that was the case, even with Faulk, then you have yourself an argument. Otherwise Warner will always be the confounding variable.

 

[SpinachTeeth]

While not trying to really compare Kupp and Woods to the current Bears WRs...I will just say that Mooney had 1055 yard in 2021 and Pringle had 568. So those two combined for 1600 yards, granted with Pringle on a different team. Kmet also had 612 yards, and Montgomery had over a 1000 yards from scrimmage between rushing and receiving in just 13 games.

And when you look at Cooper Kupp, the guy had a year for the ages in 2021 with 1947 receiving yards - nearly 1000 more yards receiving than he had in 2020 and nearly 800 more yards than his previous best in 2019. But, he wasn't that guy yet in 2017.

Again, I am not saying that the Bears will be a playoff team but I don't see them close to being the worst either. I think people are being a bit too harsh on the receiver talent. They lack a true #1, but they have options as a group. I will also be interested to see how much more the runningbacks get involved in the receiving game and whether or not Getsy can coach an actual screen game. All things that can help to keep the ball moving and make it easier on the qb to slow down the rush.

The other issue for the Bears this year is that they are not going to have much depth. So while I believe they have options with their projected starters, I also realize there is little to no depth yet behind it when guys get hurt and miss time - especially at the WR and OL positions.

I actually don’t mind you comparing them to Mooney. Mooney is probably as good as them. However, the situations are only similar if we ADDED Mooney this off-season, along with another receiver and left tackle.

My only argument here is that I wanted to see teams that have improved significantly with just scheme change and no talent infusion, and again would love to be (actually hoping to be) proven wrong. I’m looking for situations with no confounding variable of significant major talent addition on offense to make it comparable to where the bears are at). Trying to keep it scientific and see if any comparable situations where only the one variable of scheme is changed instead of multiple variables.

But adding a pro bowl left tackle and 2x 800 yard receivers is I would classify some significant talent upgrade, that may help explain the significant improvement in offense/record (in addition to scheme, I have said multiple times I agree that both are important, just not to the same extent). The bears may no great additions in talent. Mooney is a constant, unless he takes another jump - but then again that would be a talent increase by definition.

I would say the biggest example is the years long Brady-bellichek debate. Brady with his massive talent left and joined another team with massive talent in the bucs and kept winning. Bellichek (some would argue best system/scheme in the game) got much worse with newton.

 

[Dejo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528697405570437120

 

[Canth]

I actually don’t mind you comparing them to Mooney. Mooney is probably as good as them. However, the situations are only similar if we ADDED Mooney this off-season, along with another receiver and left tackle.

My only argument here is that I wanted to see teams that have improved significantly with just scheme change and no talent infusion, and again would love to be (actually hoping to be) proven wrong. I’m looking for situations with no confounding variable of significant major talent addition on offense to make it comparable to where the bears are at). Trying to keep it scientific and see if any comparable situations where only the one variable of scheme is changed instead of multiple variables.

But adding a pro bowl left tackle and 2x 800 yard receivers is I would classify some significant talent upgrade, that may help explain the significant improvement in offense/record (in addition to scheme, I have said multiple times I agree that both are important, just not to the same extent). The bears may no great additions in talent. Mooney is a constant, unless he takes another jump - but then again that would be a talent increase by definition.

I would say the biggest example is the years long Brady-bellichek debate. Brady with his massive talent left and joined another team with massive talent in the bucs and kept winning. Bellichek (some would argue best system/scheme in the game) got much worse with newton.

Oh, no argument from me that you need great players to win. You can have the best playbook in the world and it won't matter if your players suck.

I will say though that a great scheme and coaching allows very good players to maximize their potential and it can make great players look truly elite. But yeah, if their potential is not much then the scheme is not going to suddenly make them a probowl caliber player.

Another great example of that is actually Fangio. He is widely regarded as one of the best defensive coordinators in the NFL. But, his defenses have been bad when he doesn't have the players to run his scheme.

 

[Dejo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528697405570437120

Bro has the fastest hands in the MFing West. We were all wrong. It wasn’t Pace that never slept, it was in fact ? EL.

About 15 min apart lol

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528706860617977857

 

[Bearly]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1528697405570437120

Poles saw what we saw. His tape from last year which showed some fundamental flaws. Morgan has actually worked with him and likes his potential which is encouraging . He's got good feet and size. His arm/hand technique was pretty bad and he appeared to lack some strength which was understandable considering his weight loss and injury situation last year though that part wasn't so bad and had more to do with looking that way because of bad arm/hand usage/leverage.

I've said it before, it's difficult to project what Borom will be this year. The Bear obviously think they have their key block in outside zone for a RB to break off of with KJ at RT. Borom has the traits to be a LT with some cleaning and training but it's difficult to project him there yet.

 

[remydat]

No, clearly you are the idiot here. If I predict the Bucs to win the Super bowl, and Tom Brady gets injured the first week, you do not think that is a reason to no longer assume they will win it? Come on man, really, you can't be this stupid.

Old ass Jason Peters was not on the team at the time we had the discussion last year, so you lose again.

Keep trying with your vortex, it really is quite amusing.

SMH, yes it is a reason to assume they will no longer win it which is precisely the point. Again you seem too stupid to understand the argument. The whole point is your claims about the Bears and Lions are not proof because the games have not been played yet.

Corect Old Ass Peters was not on the team which is yet another reason your statements are not proof or facts. Things change. This was explained to you last year and now I am having to explain it again.

So once again you cannot claim you have proof or facts about what is going to happen in 2022. Stop being an idiot. On one hand you are claiming proof and facts and then on the other you are saying dont blame me when those facts and proof end up being wrong because you are too stupid to account for all variables.

 

[remydat]

Warner played 1 game in 1998 and was the starting quarterback in 1999. So no, he is not a constant between the seasons, he was very much a confounding variable.

Do you think Tony banks would have been an MVP and put up 4300-43-11 with the scheme change if he had stayed on as starting quarterback? If that was the case, even with Faulk, then you have yourself an argument. Otherwise Warner will always be the confounding variable.

Your comment was not about a constant. You said massive infusion of talent. Warner was not a massive infusion of talent as he was already on the roster and no one expected him to be that good.

It would be as if Dazz Newsome suddenly became an All Pro WR. No one looking at the Rams prior to 1999 would have said the Rams are poised to blow up because Warner is an All Pro talent.

 

[SpinachTeeth]

Your comment was not about a constant. You said massive infusion of talent. Warner was not a massive infusion of talent as he was already on the roster and no one expected him to be that good.

It would be as if Dazz Newsome suddenly became an All Pro WR. No one looking at the Rams prioe to 1999 would have said the Rams are poised to blow up because Warner is an All Pro talent.

I think we can agree to disagree here.

I think when you have a future hall of famer sitting on your roster and not playing, then you give him his first opportunity and he puts up an MVP season then a hall of fame career both within and outside Martz’s coaching scheme, you can’t consider that not a talent upgrade. Additionally, you ALSO add an MVP RB/receiver the same year, it’s hard to reasonably argue that that situation was all due to “scheme change” more so than the talent infusion, and also even harder to say it is comparable to the bears this year.

My whole point in the beginning is not to say scheme ISNT important. It is, I just think it’s way less important than talent. My question has always been to ask has any team done what the bears have done in terms of making no major talent infusions on offense, but expect a major improvement with just scheme change. Replacing a backup QB in 1998 with a future hall of famer in 1999 and adding an MVP RB/receiver (Faulk put up 1300 rushing yards and 1000 receiving yards that season), even if you don’t consider a massive infusion of talent, is still a significant upgrade to talent level, and does not seem at all comparable to the bears.

It would be equivalent to if the bears had an unknown UDFA on the roster last year, suddenly replace fields with that UDFA and also add prime 2019 Christian Mcaffrey, and that UDFA puts up 4500-43-11 in his first opportunity and the bears go 13-4. Would anyone really say it’s getsy’s system which caused the improvement? Or is it that Mccaffeey + new QB were just that good? Or both? Hard to say is all I’m saying. Heck, I think most people on this board would consider that a big talent improvement when all they were hoping for this year was someone like Jarvis Landry or george Pickens to improve the offense.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I sure hope Velus Jones plays up to how much press he's getting.

 

[remydat]

I think we can agree to disagree here.

I think when you have a future hall of famer sitting on your roster and not playing, then you give him his first opportunity and he puts up an MVP season then a hall of fame career both within and outside Martz’s coaching scheme, you can’t consider that not a talent upgrade. Additionally, you ALSO add an MVP RB/receiver the same year, it’s hard to reasonably argue that that situation was all due to “scheme change” more so than the talent infusion, and also even harder to say it is comparable to the bears this year.

My whole point in the beginning is not to say scheme ISNT important. It is, I just think it’s way less important than talent. My question has always been to ask has any team done what the bears have done in terms of making no major talent infusions on offense, but expect a major improvement with just scheme change. Replacing a backup QB in 1998 with a future hall of famer in 1999 and adding an MVP RB/receiver (Faulk put up 1300 rushing yards and 1000 receiving yards that season), even if you don’t consider a massive infusion of talent, is still a significant upgrade to talent level, and does not seem at all comparable to the bears.

Think you are missing the point. You can't ask if anyone has done what the Bears have done because you are assuming there has been no massive talent infusion but we dont know if there is a currently obscure player who will blow up.

Yours is a hindsight argument. At the time no one considered Warner a massive talent hence why the Rams had signed Trent Green to start. He was a complete unknown. So your question can only be answered after the season once we see if there are any people currently not projected to be great that take a leap no one was expecting.