Excited Delirium Over Fields

For all things Chicago Bears & the National Football League

Moderator: wab

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Yogi da Bear wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:05 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:22 pm 2) Ryan Pace drafting Mitch was not an act of racism. Mitch was taken for a couple of reasons. I think he reminded Pace of Drew Brees. Pace also did not have a trusted cabinet of people around him to help make a qualified selection. Fox was on the way out. Therefore Loggains was too. Now compare that to Nagy and Flip. While I have my issues with Nagy, he and Flip are night and day v Fox and Loggains as advisors that Pace could trust with drafting a QB for the modern NFL.

The McCaskeys do not strike me as racist. With all the legendary black players they'd had over the years how could they be? The one caution I'd say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a black guy in a prominent role in that front office
There's a difference between racism and racial bias. Racism is intentional--"I'm not taking that player because he's back." Racial bias involves more subconscious determinations, ones where the person doesn't even realize that he's carrying such a bias. I think that might have something to do with Pace's Trubisky decision. There's was no reason whatsoever that Mitchell should have been considered a better prospect than either Mahomes or Watson, particularly Mahomes, but Pace actually traded up to insure he got him. Hard to explain that one.

As to the McCaskeys, we shouldn't forget that the Bears drafted and started Vince Evans back in the seventies. Although Papa Bear was still alive and active back then as was George Jr., so hard to say what kind of voice the McCaskeys would have had. Probably not much.
I don't prescribe to the Orwellian Thought Crime of subconscious bias. I'm not going to judge people by their thoughts.

Also. Just because you've only done it with girls doesn't make you a homophobe. Just because you've only dated white women doesn't make you a racist.

Ryan Pace has shown other actions that proves to me that he doesn't care about skin color. The Mack trade and subsequent contract. EJax got paid. I'm sure he'd love to pay ARob right now, but we've got cap issues.

Please don't think I'm defending selecting Mitch, but there were reasons at the time. Mitch was ranked high on a lot of people's boards. Not just Pace. There were questions about Watson's durability because of his frame. Now with the alleged Hand Job Gate, did the scouts learn something about Watson's alleged promiscuity?

I mean, was Pace really so biased that not only did he draft Mitch, but he spent draft picks to trade up for him when all three were on the board. Besides taking Mitch, do we have any other examples of such behavior? I can't think of a prominent one.

To offset the Mitch pick, Pace paid more to draft Fields, so to me the bias thing doesn't make sense.
The Bear-Anon Sorcerer

Image

Fields' birthday is March 5th. The same date Stairway To Heaven was first played live.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

wab wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:31 pm
IE wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:19 pm Good post, Yogi. Agreed it's a process. Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean there hasn't been improvement (there has). But it isn't fast enough. It is weird to feel bad for Fields for falling to my team (and still being elated about it). LOL

I hope Fields helps tremendously in tearing down the forces that impacted him. It would be fitting. And good for us! :)

My other current beef (lol) is the assumptions surrounding the likelihood of a QB busting - of Fields busting. We hear over & over again that "X percent of first round QBs bust" as a generic, cautionary tale against getting too excited or "delirious" about Justin Fields.

But I reject that high-level proclamation on the grounds that it is context-free. It is comparison of apples and oranges. It isn't "good" QBs fault that "lesser" QBs are over-drafted for whatever reason. Teams are always in need of franchise QBs, so it isn't a surprise that QBs are "reached for" more than other players. So more guys busting DOES make sense. But it is still apples/oranges. You can't lump in the slam-dunk QBs with the guys who are drafted with real red flags. When guys bust you can almost always look back and say "well, we should have seen that because of X Y or Z in college (or their personal makeup)". It is always one or more things on the list below that stick out later as clear reasons they didn't work out.

So... let's play a game. List a first round QB who busted (or seriously disappointed) with the following traits in college:

- Athletically gifted with NFL-level size, strength, speed and big arm
- Good student academically
- No character issues
- Elite college passing stats
- Good judgement/decision-making and ball protection
- Pro level college passing performance (deep accuracy and success, timing, pro throws, zip, touch)
- Multiple years of playoff-level college experience (or regular play against other elite talent)
- Individual elite play on the highest stage, under the highest pressure

I can't think of one disappointing QB who checks all those boxes - Fields' boxes. Matt Leinart is close - but in terms of athleticism and arm he didn't make the transition to the NFL.

Once we make a list and calculate the number of players with attributes and experience similar to Fields who busted, THEN we can look at the total number of QBs drafted and calculate the likelihood of Fields busting.

The point is it isn't 50%. Or 40%. I maintain it is far closer to 2% likelihood that Justin Fields does not turn out to be a pretty good NFL QB.
I would say Marcus Mariota and Josh Rosen are the two recent examples who come close to that criteria.

Maybe Goff if you consider him a disappointment. Bradford maybe too, but injuries are really what did him in.
I think Mariota is a decent/average NFL QB, actually. I think the part he doesn't pass on my list was Pro level college passing performance or ball protection. I think he's a good example of the list and IF he is considered a bust I'll say that's the floor of someone who checks all those boxes. Even missing one box though is disqualifying. Rosen had questions in the draft about his character and leadership (his personality). To me that might explain why teams are so quickly willing to get rid of him.

I don't consider Goff a bust but he's had some disappointing years recently. He's another guy who had some questions about ball protection and his arm. I see him as another "if he was a bust, that's the floor" guy. I don't consider Bradford a bust because of like you said - injuries. He was a good pro when healthy. It happens.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Yogi da Bear wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:05 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:22 pm 2) Ryan Pace drafting Mitch was not an act of racism. Mitch was taken for a couple of reasons. I think he reminded Pace of Drew Brees. Pace also did not have a trusted cabinet of people around him to help make a qualified selection. Fox was on the way out. Therefore Loggains was too. Now compare that to Nagy and Flip. While I have my issues with Nagy, he and Flip are night and day v Fox and Loggains as advisors that Pace could trust with drafting a QB for the modern NFL.

The McCaskeys do not strike me as racist. With all the legendary black players they'd had over the years how could they be? The one caution I'd say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's a black guy in a prominent role in that front office
There's a difference between racism and racial bias. Racism is intentional--"I'm not taking that player because he's back." Racial bias involves more subconscious determinations, ones where the person doesn't even realize that he's carrying such a bias. I think that might have something to do with Pace's Trubisky decision. There's was no reason whatsoever that Mitchell should have been considered a better prospect than either Mahomes or Watson, particularly Mahomes, but Pace actually traded up to insure he got him. Hard to explain that one.

As to the McCaskeys, we shouldn't forget that the Bears drafted and started Vince Evans back in the seventies. Although Papa Bear was still alive and active back then as was George Jr., so hard to say what kind of voice the McCaskeys would have had. Probably not much.
This is exactly right - good explanation. Widespread bias is what put Mitch ahead of the other guys,, and ENABLED the pick even though it was unjustified. It provided rationale and enabled Pace to see what he wanted to see & not question himself. The comparison to Brees was a complete joke. Brees led Purdue to a title over Michigan and Ohio State... and checked all those boxes except for the size one. Actually if you check all the rest the size aspect is less important if you're athletic enough (Brees, Murray, Wilson).

The Bears did pick Vince Evans way back in the day. He just wasn't a good passer. He was also on bad teams for most of his Chicago career (besides handing to Walter). The fact that the Bears drafted Evans way back in the day is not evidence that bias didn't drive the Trubisky selection in the first round 40 years later.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Arkansasbear wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 7:24 pm
RichH55 wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 5:33 pm


That's a bad call on Winston

One of the schools that recruited him hardest: Stanford

http://www.uatrav.com/opinion/article_7 ... 4aa95.html

"According to multiple reports, Winston graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA, juggling multiple honor’s courses, and being one of the most highly recruited athletes in his class- in 2 sports."


https://seminoles.com/winston-and-andre ... ic-honors/

" Heisman Trophy winner Jameis Winston and all-conference freshman safety Nate Andrews were named to the 2013 All-Atlantic Coast Conference Academic Football Team, announced Monday by ACC Commissioner John Swofford."
Fair enough like I said I wasn’t sure but for some reason that was coming to mind. So we can check that box off for him, but no way you check off the character box. He had plenty going on the keeps him from getting credit for that.
For sure Winston doesn't get the character box checked. He had well-known off the field maturity and judgement issues. He also was relatively careless with the football in college. Maybe not to the level of throwing 30 INTs but he never gave the impression he was going to be a 3:1 or 4:1 TD/INT guy. And that's exactly what he is - a really really good passer and great arm who then kills you with turnovers. He's not too different than Jay Cutler.

RGIII took the league by storm until he was devastatingly injured - and he's never been the same. I don't know if it got into his head or what. But I attribute his career since his injury to be similar to Bradford's.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:09 am
Yogi da Bear wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:05 pm

There's a difference between racism and racial bias. Racism is intentional--"I'm not taking that player because he's back." Racial bias involves more subconscious determinations, ones where the person doesn't even realize that he's carrying such a bias. I think that might have something to do with Pace's Trubisky decision. There's was no reason whatsoever that Mitchell should have been considered a better prospect than either Mahomes or Watson, particularly Mahomes, but Pace actually traded up to insure he got him. Hard to explain that one.

As to the McCaskeys, we shouldn't forget that the Bears drafted and started Vince Evans back in the seventies. Although Papa Bear was still alive and active back then as was George Jr., so hard to say what kind of voice the McCaskeys would have had. Probably not much.
This is exactly right - good explanation. Widespread bias is what put Mitch ahead of the other guys,, and ENABLED the pick even though it was unjustified. It provided rationale and enabled Pace to see what he wanted to see & not question himself. The comparison to Brees was a complete joke. Brees led Purdue to a title over Michigan and Ohio State... and checked all those boxes except for the size one. Actually if you check all the rest the size aspect is less important if you're athletic enough (Brees, Murray, Wilson).

The Bears did pick Vince Evans way back in the day. He just wasn't a good passer. He was also on bad teams for most of his Chicago career (besides handing to Walter). The fact that the Bears drafted Evans way back in the day is not evidence that bias didn't drive the Trubisky selection in the first round 40 years later.
That's right Yogi/IE. But the bias IMO is less about Pace and the Bears as it is from the media that set the initial narrative on guys. We've all heard the term "echo chamber" and we kinda know that sports writers and talking heads spend 90% of their time parroting other people's opinions - but I don't think we realize how much that influences the teams behavior. The narratives get set on a guy early and are damn near impossible to shake. Once scout says something, right or wrong, and then some media outlet picks it up, and then more media outlets pick up what the other media outlet just said, and next thing you know "it's a thing". And these GMs don't like to swim against the current and put their jobs/reputations at risk.

So no, Ryan Pace isn't a flippin racist. The Bears aren't a racist organization. That's just not thinking deeply about the problem here and going 1/4 inch deep. This is a much deeper problem than that. And I think the Watson / Lawrence thing shines a pretty bright light on it. The fact that Watson was dinged hard for playing in Clemson's offense and how that might translate, his level of talent advantage, etc but you never heard any of that for "generational" golden boy is blatant. Fields too, who had just as good a career but quickly got dinged as a "one read QB" even though that's a moronic take now that I've studied him closely. One guy said it one time and it's stuck to him.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:12 am
Yogi da Bear wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 8:05 pm

There's a difference between racism and racial bias. Racism is intentional--"I'm not taking that player because he's back." Racial bias involves more subconscious determinations, ones where the person doesn't even realize that he's carrying such a bias. I think that might have something to do with Pace's Trubisky decision. There's was no reason whatsoever that Mitchell should have been considered a better prospect than either Mahomes or Watson, particularly Mahomes, but Pace actually traded up to insure he got him. Hard to explain that one.

As to the McCaskeys, we shouldn't forget that the Bears drafted and started Vince Evans back in the seventies. Although Papa Bear was still alive and active back then as was George Jr., so hard to say what kind of voice the McCaskeys would have had. Probably not much.
I don't prescribe to the Orwellian Thought Crime of subconscious bias. I'm not going to judge people by their thoughts.

Also. Just because you've only done it with girls doesn't make you a homophobe. Just because you've only dated white women doesn't make you a racist.

Ryan Pace has shown other actions that proves to me that he doesn't care about skin color. The Mack trade and subsequent contract. EJax got paid. I'm sure he'd love to pay ARob right now, but we've got cap issues.

Please don't think I'm defending selecting Mitch, but there were reasons at the time. Mitch was ranked high on a lot of people's boards. Not just Pace. There were questions about Watson's durability because of his frame. Now with the alleged Hand Job Gate, did the scouts learn something about Watson's alleged promiscuity?

I mean, was Pace really so biased that not only did he draft Mitch, but he spent draft picks to trade up for him when all three were on the board. Besides taking Mitch, do we have any other examples of such behavior? I can't think of a prominent one.

To offset the Mitch pick, Pace paid more to draft Fields, so to me the bias thing doesn't make sense.
I think you're missing quite a bit of the point on institutional and cultural bias, dude. The examples of Pace's decisions as an NFL GM don't disqualify that he's made some other picks (especially the most important and visible one) largely supported by unjustified bias. The absence of legit justification for Mitch to be rated above Watson indicates that something else was causing it - bias. "What everyone was saying" isn't a justification - it is the exact point we're making & the exact same sort of baseless widespread bias that sunk Fields. Repeating something or "everyone is saying it" isn't compelling or meaningful, unless it is backed by reason and fact.

It isn't Orwellian to delve into the reason opinions are formed and decisions are made. Especially when those things can unfairly impact someone else (or a group of people). It isn't telling someone how or what to think - but it is describing WHY other people sometimes make decisions that are unjustified.

Everyone knows Pace blew it on Mitch. I actually prefer the "fell victim to biases" narrative on Pace, and then the ability to say he appears to have learned from it. He had a chance to snag Mac Jones, and I'm wondering if Pace's own awareness of perceptions of his Trubisky pick factored into him making that such and easy choice.

Then back on the subject of first rounders who bust, vs haven't:

Mitch had good college stats, but like both Wilson and Lance he really played & beat absolutely nobody. And for only one season. I personally believe those two have the highest likelihood of busting, because there are a few really important boxes they didn't check. It doesn't mean they WILL bust - but there are real questions about them being able to perform in the NFL like they did in their clearly non-NFL-level college careers. They didn't even win a Juco National Championship, like Minshew did when he was 18. LOL

I consider the list I made to be complete. There are no other needed boxes. You don't have Fields' experience and success without having ability to read and adjust to defenses and perform well against NFL talent. I consider those nebulous "questions" about Fields but not the other QBs to be just pure examples of unfair bias. Like Plank pointed out with his list of "concerns about Fields" that could easily be applied to the other round 1 guys... but isn't. It is complete bullshit.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:12 am I don't prescribe to the Orwellian Thought Crime of subconscious bias. I'm not going to judge people by their thoughts.

Also. Just because you've only done it with girls doesn't make you a homophobe. Just because you've only dated white women doesn't make you a racist.

Ryan Pace has shown other actions that proves to me that he doesn't care about skin color. The Mack trade and subsequent contract. EJax got paid. I'm sure he'd love to pay ARob right now, but we've got cap issues.
This is why I call it a Racial Bias rather than Racism. If he was to consciously show discrimination against black players generally, that would be racist. How the NFL is treating retired black players is absolutely RACIST and disgusting. With Mitch though, I think it was the particular subconscious idea of the white QB as opposed to the black QB, that the white QB might be smarter, more poised, although less athletic. You know, the Rich Theory of why Mac Jones has better pocket awareness, accuracy, and can work through progressions better than Fields despite DIRECT STATISTICAL EVIDENCE to the contrary. That's an illogical determination not made on any kind objective parameter.

With Pace, I think the Trubisky experience perhaps shocked him into a realization of what his bias might have been during that draft. That's why when he traded up this time, he was prepared to select the better QB rather than the white one in Mac Jones. A race bias on an individual level is much easier to offset once you realize what's happening than racism, which is governed by hatred and irrational feelings of, is. That's just my two cents on that.
Last edited by Yogi da Bear on Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:41 am
IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:09 am

This is exactly right - good explanation. Widespread bias is what put Mitch ahead of the other guys,, and ENABLED the pick even though it was unjustified. It provided rationale and enabled Pace to see what he wanted to see & not question himself. The comparison to Brees was a complete joke. Brees led Purdue to a title over Michigan and Ohio State... and checked all those boxes except for the size one. Actually if you check all the rest the size aspect is less important if you're athletic enough (Brees, Murray, Wilson).

The Bears did pick Vince Evans way back in the day. He just wasn't a good passer. He was also on bad teams for most of his Chicago career (besides handing to Walter). The fact that the Bears drafted Evans way back in the day is not evidence that bias didn't drive the Trubisky selection in the first round 40 years later.
That's right Yogi/IE. But the bias IMO is less about Pace and the Bears as it is from the media that set the initial narrative on guys. We've all heard the term "echo chamber" and we kinda know that sports writers and talking heads spend 90% of their time parroting other people's opinions - but I don't think we realize how much that influences the teams behavior. The narratives get set on a guy early and are damn near impossible to shake. Once scout says something, right or wrong, and then some media outlet picks it up, and then more media outlets pick up what the other media outlet just said, and next thing you know "it's a thing". And these GMs don't like to swim against the current and put their jobs/reputations at risk.

So no, Ryan Pace isn't a flippin racist. The Bears aren't a racist organization. That's just not thinking deeply about the problem here and going 1/4 inch deep. This is a much deeper problem than that. And I think the Watson / Lawrence thing shines a pretty bright light on it. The fact that Watson was dinged hard for playing in Clemson's offense and how that might translate, his level of talent advantage, etc but you never heard any of that for "generational" golden boy is blatant. Fields too, who had just as good a career but quickly got dinged as a "one read QB" even though that's a moronic take now that I've studied him closely. One guy said it one time and it's stuck to him.
Absolutely not - I would never suggest Pace or the Bears are racist. Nor are most of the people who "echo" unjustified bias, or end up making decisions based on it. Although that is still bad and allowing unfair bias to persist is no good.

Bias is real and has enormous impact on people. But it is difficult to pin down because no individuals are conspicuously responsible and we can't usually point out clear root origin of where it starts. That's why it is called "institutionalized" and is so insidious. The solution is to question the narrative when it doesn't fit - or is applied unevenly or unfairly as you pointed out.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:54 am I think Mariota is a decent/average NFL QB, actually. I think the part he doesn't pass on my list was Pro level college passing performance or ball protection. I think he's a good example of the list and IF he is considered a bust I'll say that's the floor of someone who checks all those boxes. Even missing one box though is disqualifying.
As a Duck fan, I'm obviously biased, but I think that Marcus is far from done. I sure wish we had approached him rather than traded for Foles last offseason. He got a bit shell shocked in Tennessee and went through a wide assortment of injuries there, but he performed fairly well (89.8 QB rating) and led them to three straight 9-7 seasons (out of four) and the playoffs with a playoff victory against the Chiefs. I disagree that he didn't have a Pro Level College Passing Performance. He did. He also protected the ball well with only 14 ints in 3 years. What he does struggle with though are fumbles. Has throughout college and the pros. I think when he's given a chance again, he'll shine. He did last year in his one solo performance.
User avatar
LacertineForest
Assistant Coach
Posts: 561
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 12:39 pm
Location: Madison, WI

IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:57 amBias is real and has enormous impact on people. But it is difficult to pin down because no individuals are conspicuously responsible and we can't usually point out clear root origin of where it starts. That's why it is called "institutionalized" and is so insidious. The solution is to question the narrative when it doesn't fit - or is applied unevenly or unfairly as you pointed out.
Well said.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Yogi da Bear wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:36 am
IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:54 am I think Mariota is a decent/average NFL QB, actually. I think the part he doesn't pass on my list was Pro level college passing performance or ball protection. I think he's a good example of the list and IF he is considered a bust I'll say that's the floor of someone who checks all those boxes. Even missing one box though is disqualifying.
As a Duck fan, I'm obviously biased, but I think that Marcus is far from done. I sure wish we had approached him rather than traded for Foles last offseason. He got a bit shell shocked in Tennessee and went through a wide assortment of injuries there, but he performed fairly well (89.8 QB rating) and led them to three straight 9-7 seasons (out of four) and the playoffs with a playoff victory against the Chiefs. I disagree that he didn't have a Pro Level College Passing Performance. He did. He also protected the ball well with only 14 ints in 3 years. What he does struggle with though are fumbles. Has throughout college and the pros. I think when he's given a chance again, he'll shine. He did last year in his one solo performance.
I agree with you. Some will argue he's a bust because he sort of leveled off in Tennessee. But he didn't level off as "bad", really - and in many other offenses he could probably be really good again. I do think he needs to be protected a bit in terms of what he is asked to throw, and definitely needs to protect the ball more. But I don't consider him a bust.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
Moriarty
Head Coach
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm

IE wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:19 pm Good post, Yogi. Agreed it's a process. Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean there hasn't been improvement (there has). But it isn't fast enough. It is weird to feel bad for Fields for falling to my team (and still being elated about it). LOL

I hope Fields helps tremendously in tearing down the forces that impacted him. It would be fitting. And good for us! :)

My other current beef (lol) is the assumptions surrounding the likelihood of a QB busting - of Fields busting. We hear over & over again that "X percent of first round QBs bust" as a generic, cautionary tale against getting too excited or "delirious" about Justin Fields.

But I reject that high-level proclamation on the grounds that it is context-free. It is comparison of apples and oranges. It isn't "good" QBs fault that "lesser" QBs are over-drafted for whatever reason. Teams are always in need of franchise QBs, so it isn't a surprise that QBs are "reached for" more than other players. So more guys busting DOES make sense. But it is still apples/oranges. You can't lump in the slam-dunk QBs with the guys who are drafted with real red flags. When guys bust you can almost always look back and say "well, we should have seen that because of X Y or Z in college (or their personal makeup)". It is always one or more things on the list below that stick out later as clear reasons they didn't work out.

So... let's play a game. List a first round QB who busted (or seriously disappointed) with the following traits in college:

- Athletically gifted with NFL-level size, strength, speed and big arm
- Good student academically
- No character issues
- Elite college passing stats
- Good judgement/decision-making and ball protection
- Pro level college passing performance (deep accuracy and success, timing, pro throws, zip, touch)
- Multiple years of playoff-level college experience (or regular play against other elite talent)
- Individual elite play on the highest stage, under the highest pressure

I can't think of one disappointing QB who checks all those boxes - Fields' boxes. Matt Leinart is close - but in terms of athleticism and arm he didn't make the transition to the NFL.

Once we make a list and calculate the number of players with attributes and experience similar to Fields who busted, THEN we can look at the total number of QBs drafted and calculate the likelihood of Fields busting.

The point is it isn't 50%. Or 40%. I maintain it is far closer to 2% likelihood that Justin Fields does not turn out to be a pretty good NFL QB.
I’m with you in theory when you say: ‘When you want to use past history as a guide, you ideally want the other cases to be as comparable as possible’

But when you get to:
Athletically gifted with NFL-level size, strength, speed and big arm
- Good student academically
- No character issues
- Elite college passing stats
- Good judgement/decision-making and ball protection
- Pro level college passing performance (deep accuracy and success, timing, pro throws, zip, touch)
- Multiple years of playoff-level college experience (or regular play against other elite talent)
- Individual elite play on the highest stage, under the highest pressure
things get shaky
A lot of those things are entirely subjective and different people judging past prospects will give you different answers about whether a prospect met them or not. Plus, you have the issue of letting the already known outcomes affect your judgement of whether a particular trait was there or ‘good enough’ or not. And your list is comprised based on Fields’ strengths. What if some of those variables aren’t really predictive? Or if there are other predictive variables that aren’t in his favor that you’ve left off (like medical concern, for example – or ‘drafted by a team that’s a black hole for offense’)?
And even if you could successfully rate everyone on all the correctly identified important characteristics, once you whittle down to modern (last 20-30 yrs?) QBs who match Fields in all of 10-20 categories, what’s your pool of ‘comparable subjects’ going to be? 5 guys? 3? Less?

By the time you get to calling Fields a 98%, More of a Lock Than Peyton Manning prospect, I’m out. Way out.
Last edited by Moriarty on Fri Jun 04, 2021 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
Moriarty
Head Coach
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm

thunderspirit wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 11:59 am
Moriarty wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 11:17 am
The Fields trade, I like (even though, as any high QB pick, he has a bust potential much higher than most people here are willing to admit).

I don't think anyone is ignoring the prospect that Fields could bust. Certainly there's plenty of precedent for it. That doesn't mean people can't be excited about his potential, though.

Of course you can be excited, while still maintaining a realistic estimate of the likelihood that he fails.

Nonetheless, I firmly maintain that's there's a lot of highly unrealistic near-certainty that he becomes good going on.


IE wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:19 pm The point is it isn't 50%. Or 40%. I maintain it is far closer to 2% likelihood that Justin Fields does not turn out to be a pretty good NFL QB.
for example.
And that's far from the only person sounding like it's a done deal. Just the most recent and most precise.
And this is someone who would rank very near the top in my list of best/most reasonable posters.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Moriarty wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:54 am
IE wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 1:19 pm Good post, Yogi. Agreed it's a process. Just because we're not there yet doesn't mean there hasn't been improvement (there has). But it isn't fast enough. It is weird to feel bad for Fields for falling to my team (and still being elated about it). LOL

I hope Fields helps tremendously in tearing down the forces that impacted him. It would be fitting. And good for us! :)

My other current beef (lol) is the assumptions surrounding the likelihood of a QB busting - of Fields busting. We hear over & over again that "X percent of first round QBs bust" as a generic, cautionary tale against getting too excited or "delirious" about Justin Fields.

But I reject that high-level proclamation on the grounds that it is context-free. It is comparison of apples and oranges. It isn't "good" QBs fault that "lesser" QBs are over-drafted for whatever reason. Teams are always in need of franchise QBs, so it isn't a surprise that QBs are "reached for" more than other players. So more guys busting DOES make sense. But it is still apples/oranges. You can't lump in the slam-dunk QBs with the guys who are drafted with real red flags. When guys bust you can almost always look back and say "well, we should have seen that because of X Y or Z in college (or their personal makeup)". It is always one or more things on the list below that stick out later as clear reasons they didn't work out.

So... let's play a game. List a first round QB who busted (or seriously disappointed) with the following traits in college:

- Athletically gifted with NFL-level size, strength, speed and big arm
- Good student academically
- No character issues
- Elite college passing stats
- Good judgement/decision-making and ball protection
- Pro level college passing performance (deep accuracy and success, timing, pro throws, zip, touch)
- Multiple years of playoff-level college experience (or regular play against other elite talent)
- Individual elite play on the highest stage, under the highest pressure

I can't think of one disappointing QB who checks all those boxes - Fields' boxes. Matt Leinart is close - but in terms of athleticism and arm he didn't make the transition to the NFL.

Once we make a list and calculate the number of players with attributes and experience similar to Fields who busted, THEN we can look at the total number of QBs drafted and calculate the likelihood of Fields busting.

The point is it isn't 50%. Or 40%. I maintain it is far closer to 2% likelihood that Justin Fields does not turn out to be a pretty good NFL QB.
I’m with you in theory when you say: ‘When you want to use past history as a guide, you ideally want the other cases to be as comparable as possible’
But when you get to:
Athletically gifted with NFL-level size, strength, speed and big arm
- Good student academically
- No character issues
- Elite college passing stats
- Good judgement/decision-making and ball protection
- Pro level college passing performance (deep accuracy and success, timing, pro throws, zip, touch)
- Multiple years of playoff-level college experience (or regular play against other elite talent)
- Individual elite play on the highest stage, under the highest pressure
things get shaky
A lot of those things are entirely subjective and different people judging past prospects will give you different answers about whether a prospect met them or not. Plus, you have the issue of letting the already known outcomes affect your judgement of whether a particular trait was there or ‘good enough’ or not. And your list is comprised based on Fields’ strengths. What if some of those variables aren’t really predictive? Or if there are other predictive variables that aren’t in his favor that you’ve left off (like medical concern, for example – or ‘drafted by a team that’s a black hole for offense’)?
And even if you could successfully rate everyone on all the correctly identified important characteristics, once you whittle down to modern (last 20-30 yrs?) QBs who match Fields in all of 10-20 categories, what’s your pool of ‘comparable subjects’ going to be? 5 guys? 3? Less?

By the time you get to calling Fields a 98%, More of a Lock Than Peyton Manning prospect, I’m out. Way out.
I hear you. It's just a model, though - a model I constructed to show why the apples:oranges lumped "bust percentages" should be questioned. I understand it could be considered deterministic because I DID build it to explain why Fields is not AS big risk for a bust as many are implying. They are qualities that Fields has - but they are also qualities that many other really good NFL quarterbacks do have - guys that didn't bust. It is high enough level to be fairly exhaustive while still enabling the right conversation. And for guys that HAVE busted or even disappointed, there were one or more of these clear red flags going in.

We *could* try to make it super-granular and create sub categories and such.... for example the topic of "progressions". But to me that is a "missing the forest for the trees" type refuge for people who are looking desperately to seem potentially right about something, when the opposite is true. What I mean by that is there is no way that Justin Fields had the performances he's had at the level he's played and against the competition he's played without having demonstrated that he's going to find the open guy when he needs to. And not only that but more than one of his checked boxes (NFL arm talent) show that not only can he find an open guy but he can throw them open and get it to where it needs to go. There is plenty of analysis of him making NFL reads and going through his progressions. Over and over again, guys like JT and Warner and many others say "that's an NFL ___ right there". The expressed "concern" about that is just a way to seem like we're discussing details with competence - but really it is a distraction that doesn't withstand any smell test in light of his actual performances. If you pay as much attention to the posters that say that as the detail they want to drag you into, you'll see a consistent narrative they're defending and not really making any case.

I do agree & admit that the model is somewhat subjective, and on each one it is more of a "smell test" than a rigid metric. But in general even a high level comparison on any point helps separate the wheat rom the chaffe so to speak. For example, Fields doesn't have the sort of character or maturity or carelessness concerns of a Winston or Manziel. It is not legit to lump him in with them if we're projecting bust likelihood. OR to lump him in with guys who haven't played on the highest stage and *could* shrink from the task (e.g. Mitch, or potentially Wilson or Lance).
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Yogi da Bear wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 9:36 am
IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 7:54 am I think Mariota is a decent/average NFL QB, actually. I think the part he doesn't pass on my list was Pro level college passing performance or ball protection. I think he's a good example of the list and IF he is considered a bust I'll say that's the floor of someone who checks all those boxes. Even missing one box though is disqualifying.
As a Duck fan, I'm obviously biased, but I think that Marcus is far from done. I sure wish we had approached him rather than traded for Foles last offseason. He got a bit shell shocked in Tennessee and went through a wide assortment of injuries there, but he performed fairly well (89.8 QB rating) and led them to three straight 9-7 seasons (out of four) and the playoffs with a playoff victory against the Chiefs. I disagree that he didn't have a Pro Level College Passing Performance. He did. He also protected the ball well with only 14 ints in 3 years. What he does struggle with though are fumbles. Has throughout college and the pros. I think when he's given a chance again, he'll shine. He did last year in his one solo performance.
I'm really glad we didn't go after Mariota, because I bet we'd still have played Mitch and Mariota would be in line to play this year and would be a huge unknown. I'm very, very happy we have Fields, and IMO we would not have Fields had we pursued and landed Mariota last off season.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
TheWorldBreaker
Player of the Month
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:57 pm

Moriarty wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 3:07 pm
TheWorldBreaker wrote: Thu Jun 03, 2021 2:11 pm

Cutler’s stats weren’t meaningless volume stats, he had to throw a lot because Denver could only win in shootouts because the defense wasn’t good. Shanahan got fired in part because he couldn’t figure out how to fix the defense.
I think you may be misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

It's not that Cutler's stats came in meaningless game situations (like garbage time stat padding).
It's that they are aggregate (volume) based stats, that sound super at first, but when you consider them more carefully, they aren't impressive at all.

It's like getting all excited that your kicker had the most total points of any kicker in the league last year. Then you look closer and see that his FG% and XP% were barely average - he just got that many points because he had the most attempts of anyone in the league.

Cutler getting 3rd most completions or breaking franchise yardage records sounds great...until you also consider that he had 2nd most attempts and also broke franchise attempt records.
And my point is that he wasn’t throwing a lot for the fun of it, he was throwing a lot because Denver wasn’t a good team, and his arm was what was keeping them in games and kept them in games and had them in the playoff hunt to the end of the season.

Cutler obviously had his flaws but he also obviously had an incredible amount of talent which is why there was so much optimism.

The Bears failed to cultivate his talent because they were a clown show organization back then.

My point is that Fields is obviously super talented too but they have to put him in a position to succeed too.

Nagy is obviously a better offensive coach than Lovie and Ron Turner. And investing in the line is a good sign, putting all of their eggs in a rookie that played college RT converting to LT less so. But we’ll see how it pans out.
User avatar
Mikefive
Head Coach
Posts: 3771
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA

IE wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 8:47 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 4:12 am

I don't prescribe to the Orwellian Thought Crime of subconscious bias. I'm not going to judge people by their thoughts.

Also. Just because you've only done it with girls doesn't make you a homophobe. Just because you've only dated white women doesn't make you a racist.

Ryan Pace has shown other actions that proves to me that he doesn't care about skin color. The Mack trade and subsequent contract. EJax got paid. I'm sure he'd love to pay ARob right now, but we've got cap issues.

Please don't think I'm defending selecting Mitch, but there were reasons at the time. Mitch was ranked high on a lot of people's boards. Not just Pace. There were questions about Watson's durability because of his frame. Now with the alleged Hand Job Gate, did the scouts learn something about Watson's alleged promiscuity?

I mean, was Pace really so biased that not only did he draft Mitch, but he spent draft picks to trade up for him when all three were on the board. Besides taking Mitch, do we have any other examples of such behavior? I can't think of a prominent one.

To offset the Mitch pick, Pace paid more to draft Fields, so to me the bias thing doesn't make sense.
I think you're missing quite a bit of the point on institutional and cultural bias, dude. The examples of Pace's decisions as an NFL GM don't disqualify that he's made some other picks (especially the most important and visible one) largely supported by unjustified bias. The absence of legit justification for Mitch to be rated above Watson indicates that something else was causing it - bias. "What everyone was saying" isn't a justification - it is the exact point we're making & the exact same sort of baseless widespread bias that sunk Fields. Repeating something or "everyone is saying it" isn't compelling or meaningful, unless it is backed by reason and fact.

It isn't Orwellian to delve into the reason opinions are formed and decisions are made. Especially when those things can unfairly impact someone else (or a group of people). It isn't telling someone how or what to think - but it is describing WHY other people sometimes make decisions that are unjustified.
I think you're making a subtle assumption here IE that isn't supported by knowledge. Because you can't see the reasons why the Bears valued Mitch over Watson (since the Bears didn't share them) doesn't mean their scouting evaluation wasn't entirely unrelated to racial motivation. For example, Watson wasn't considered a very high character individual in college. Perhaps their value scale on that characteristic dropped him down (and raised Mitch up), which is pretty consistent with their behavior since the Ray McDonald episode.

Reading minds is really a hard thing to do, unless the evidence is clearly expressed or abundantly substantial, which I don't think is the case here.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

It's not about reading Pace's mind, that misses the point entirely. The point is about how easy it is for a narrative to stick on a guy, and the inherent bias that drives that stickiness. One guy says one thing, that kinda sorta lines up with some prior mental bias / narrative that has existed for a long time, a few other people parrot what was said, and BOOM it's now a "thing". At no fault of the player, and no implicit malintent at the root of it - it just sort of evolved that way. We have scores of evidence that supports this.

Attempts to make assertions that "this guy or that guy" is racially motivated in their thinking 100% misses the reality of what's going on, it's easy/simple minded thinking and it is so prevalent that it's a big part of why it continues to happen in the year 2021. For example, why was the line "Fields is a one read QB" EVER A THING. It's clearly not supported by evidence, so how did that thought take root at all? And how many GM's had that thought somewhere buried in their head when evaluating the QB's on their board?

For Mikefive and TMP, try this thought exercise and see if it jars anything loose:

1. I do not believe that race has anything at all to do with Ryan Pace's thinking when he's drafting a player, QB or otherwise. 0%. Nada. Zilch.
2. I do believe that race was a factor in how Deshawn Watson and Justin Fields were valued as QBs coming out in the draft.

Now, a quick read would put these two statements at odds with one another. You need to think a little deeper and try to figure a way that these two statements can actually coexist without conflict. Once you figure that out, you'll understand the point many of us are trying to make.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
Mikefive
Head Coach
Posts: 3771
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA

Point taken dplank. Maybe it's just my own bias (or lack thereof) since I don't view people through a racial lens without contextual relevance, but I struggle with item 2 in your list even though it certainly can exist.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Just for the record I made a crap ton of valid points about the valuation of Mitch and Watson before the draft and they were ignored. If people want to believe in some sort of subconscious conspiracy that's their right. There are conspiracies about this sport that I believe in so who am I to judge here. The biggest one being the officiating. No I'm not upset. I think you guys are awesome.

That being said....

Yes we have two roads.

1) Ryan Pace
2) The media

I categorically reject the notion that race had anything to do with Pace drafting Mitch. Stupidity and lack of an analytical support system (note my comparison of the situation with Fox and Loggains v Nagy and Flip earlier in the thread) had 100% to do with it.

I also think that any accusations about Ryan Pace having a racial bias either consciously, subconsciously or brought out via hypnosis are Fake News.

The media is chock full of drooling hot take morons. Chris Simms being one of them. I saw that video. I don't think Simms watches College Football that takes place in our astral plane. Then sports sites like Sports MOCKERY certainly do live up to their name. Also, anybody and their brother can start a YouTube channel and Dude Bro their way into what they think is "analysis". Those same craft beer drinking Dude Bros can put together montage videos to the rap song du jour and make anybody look great or stupid.

The media is a comedy show. Nothing more. They exist to sell ads and to promote whatever it is happens to be on the TV. They will whore themselves to the highest bidder. This includes their opinions. They will take something that happened once or is a slight flaw and make the guy out to be an axe murderer. It's ridiculous.

Players rise artificially in the draft and they fall artificially in the draft. Shit happens. That's why there's a draft and it just doesn't auto pick using a simulation from FanSpeak.

Are there bigoted pieces of shit in this world? 100% obviously and sadly yes. Like I said before, I'm not a denier. It is my understanding that Fields was called a racial slur while at Georgia and that was part of his decision to go to Ohio State. Thankfully he won't have that problem amongst us. Quite the opposite in fact. There's a reason why his jersey is selling faster than pussy in Tijuana.
The Bear-Anon Sorcerer

Image

Fields' birthday is March 5th. The same date Stairway To Heaven was first played live.
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15177
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Contact:

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:30 pm Just for the record I made a crap ton of valid points about the valuation of Mitch and Watson before the draft and they were ignored. If people want to believe in some sort of subconscious conspiracy that's their right. There are conspiracies about this sport that I believe in so who am I to judge here. The biggest one being the officiating. No I'm not upset. I think you guys are awesome.

That being said....

Yes we have two roads.

1) Ryan Pace
2) The media

I categorically reject the notion that race had anything to do with Pace drafting Mitch. Stupidity and lack of an analytical support system (note my comparison of the situation with Fox and Loggains v Nagy and Flip earlier in the thread) had 100% to do with it.

I also think that any accusations about Ryan Pace having a racial bias either consciously, subconsciously or brought out via hypnosis are Fake News.
agreed ... Pace developed some deep desire for Mitch that has no real explanation other than what you suggest ... I had to actually do a search on him once the Bears drafted him to even know anything about him as he was not on my radar


The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:30 pmThe media is chock full of drooling hot take morons. Chris Simms being one of them. I saw that video. I don't think Simms watches College Football that takes place in our astral plane. Then sports sites like Sports MOCKERY certainly do live up to their name. Also, anybody and their brother can start a YouTube channel and Dude Bro their way into what they think is "analysis". Those same craft beer drinking Dude Bros can put together montage videos to the rap song du jour and make anybody look great or stupid.

The media is a comedy show. Nothing more. They exist to sell ads and to promote whatever it is happens to be on the TV. They will whore themselves to the highest bidder. This includes their opinions. They will take something that happened once or is a slight flaw and make the guy out to be an axe murderer. It's ridiculous.

Players rise artificially in the draft and they fall artificially in the draft. Shit happens. That's why there's a draft and it just doesn't auto pick using a simulation from FanSpeak.

Are there bigoted pieces of shit in this world? 100% obviously and sadly yes. Like I said before, I'm not a denier. It is my understanding that Fields was called a racial slur while at Georgia and that was part of his decision to go to Ohio State. Thankfully he won't have that problem amongst us. Quite the opposite in fact. There's a reason why his jersey is selling faster than pussy in Tijuana.

I think the media has actually gotten worse as a lot of the craft beer dude bros you refer to with a youtube channel are actually being accepted as valid media sources, which is ridiculous ... Chris Simms is so terrible I consider him at the same level as the youtubers ... he sucked as a QB, so maybe his hot takes on college QB's is based on some jealousy to go with his ignorance
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin

Image
BLOG : Emissions from the Bears Nebula
User avatar
Xee
Site Admin
Posts: 2745
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:47 pm
Location: Hoffman Estates, IL

Great post, @The Marshall Plan. Personally, Mitch is no longer with the team so I'm not going to go out of my way to read about him or post about him. Like I said when it was apparent he was no longer going to be with the Bears, I wish him the best but talking about him going forward is just moot.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Several points to various issues raised:

First, I think that DP is right about "narrative." I remember the narrative about Mahomes coming out was that he was like Brett Favre--a gunslinger prone to interceptions. It was all bullshit as I tried to point out at the time. Mahomes only had 10 ints as a senior (only four more than Trubs), yet he had ten more TDs and a whole ton more attempts. Nevertheless, the narrative persisted.

Second, as to unconscious bias, a lot is governed by how you were raised and what you were subjected to. It's like myself. I always preferred blondes, probably because of Farah Fawcett and Olivia Newton John. Damn they were hot. So I married one. It's not that I consciously chose her. Not really. Just that I was predisposed to her. I mean I think all women are hot. I just gravitated more towards blondes. Now, that I've also divorced that one, I avoid them like the plague. I expect that Pace had a similar experience with Trubisky. lol If he didn't have the proper analysts supporting him, all the more reason he might have gravitated towards his unconscious predisposition and the media darling. This time, the media was pumping up Mac Jones as a possible third pick, and Pace ignored them.

Finally, as to the possibility of failure. I think that IE is ignoring one critical factor--injuries. Oh, there's always the possibility of injuries, but there's also rookie mistakes that may magnify that risk. Remember, Joe Burrow tore his ACL last year. Think of Sam Bradford. This is why I want us to wait on Fields. I want the OL to be given time to gel. I want to eliminate some of his inherently risky moves, like the spin move or putting himself out risk to get relatively inconsequential yards (remember Jim McMahon?). I also went him to get an awareness of NFL speed and the timing (or lack thereof) of the NFL while on the sidelines rather than on the field of play. I think that he's probably better than Dalton right now, but I don't think he is all prepared. Let's get him ready and expose him in small doses before throwing him to the wolves. I want to do everything possible to decrease his risk of injury.
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 2952
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona

..I can't wait for the season and we can discuss realities...
User avatar
Mikefive
Head Coach
Posts: 3771
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:33 pm
Location: Valparaiso, IN, USA

The Marshall Plan wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 2:30 pm Just for the record I made a crap ton of valid points about the valuation of Mitch and Watson before the draft and they were ignored. If people want to believe in some sort of subconscious conspiracy that's their right. There are conspiracies about this sport that I believe in so who am I to judge here. The biggest one being the officiating. No I'm not upset. I think you guys are awesome.

That being said....

Yes we have two roads.

1) Ryan Pace
2) The media

I categorically reject the notion that race had anything to do with Pace drafting Mitch. Stupidity and lack of an analytical support system (note my comparison of the situation with Fox and Loggains v Nagy and Flip earlier in the thread) had 100% to do with it.

I also think that any accusations about Ryan Pace having a racial bias either consciously, subconsciously or brought out via hypnosis are Fake News.

The media is chock full of drooling hot take morons. Chris Simms being one of them. I saw that video. I don't think Simms watches College Football that takes place in our astral plane. Then sports sites like Sports MOCKERY certainly do live up to their name. Also, anybody and their brother can start a YouTube channel and Dude Bro their way into what they think is "analysis". Those same craft beer drinking Dude Bros can put together montage videos to the rap song du jour and make anybody look great or stupid.

The media is a comedy show. Nothing more. They exist to sell ads and to promote whatever it is happens to be on the TV. They will whore themselves to the highest bidder. This includes their opinions. They will take something that happened once or is a slight flaw and make the guy out to be an axe murderer. It's ridiculous.

Players rise artificially in the draft and they fall artificially in the draft. Shit happens. That's why there's a draft and it just doesn't auto pick using a simulation from FanSpeak.

Are there bigoted pieces of shit in this world? 100% obviously and sadly yes. Like I said before, I'm not a denier. It is my understanding that Fields was called a racial slur while at Georgia and that was part of his decision to go to Ohio State. Thankfully he won't have that problem amongst us. Quite the opposite in fact. There's a reason why his jersey is selling faster than pussy in Tijuana.
Totally agree.

One point that has come up in this thread talks about Pace honoring outside opinions about players. If I'm Ryan Pace and I have a staff of scouts, I don't know why I would do that unless I had a particular reason to trust another PARTICULAR source of information. It's no secret that teams leak information about players to throw other teams off. You're also right that regular guys who aren't scouts as well as media guys publicize their own opinions. So his listening to outside sources seems non-sensical, at least to me.
Mikefive's theory: The only time you KNOW that a sports team player, coach or management member is being 100% honest is when they're NOT reciting "the company line".

Go back to leather helmets, NFL.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8073
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Yogi da Bear wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:35 pm
Finally, as to the possibility of failure. I think that IE is ignoring one critical factor--injuries. Oh, there's always the possibility of injuries, but there's also rookie mistakes that may magnify that risk. Remember, Joe Burrow tore his ACL last year. Think of Sam Bradford. This is why I want us to wait on Fields. I want the OL to be given time to gel. I want to eliminate some of his inherently risky moves, like the spin move or putting himself out risk to get relatively inconsequential yards (remember Jim McMahon?). I also went him to get an awareness of NFL speed and the timing (or lack thereof) of the NFL while on the sidelines rather than on the field of play. I think that he's probably better than Dalton right now, but I don't think he is all prepared. Let's get him ready and expose him in small doses before throwing him to the wolves. I want to do everything possible to decrease his risk of injury.
Sorry, Yogi - I'm not missing that stuff. I just don't see any of these sorts of examples as being a good argument. It is just a pile of fear. It certainly isn't related to a list of factors that determine whether a QB will likely be successful or bust.

Some of your list doesn't even fit. Burrow and Bradford are not some proof that Fields would get hurt - FAR more rookie QBs have not. Bradford wasn't even a rookie.

The Oline was upgraded and also back healthy. It kind of sucks to hear people say "waiting to see on the Oline" because it is the opposite of how we actually should be - which is "I can't wait to see the Oline this year1"! I can't wait to see Tevin Jenkins out there mauling and knocking guys on their asses! IF they struggle and any QB ends up getting sacked too much ... THEN you react and change things up. You don't go into football fearing you can't be successful.

All QBs are at risk of getting hurt and trotting out a short list of ones that did doesn't make it more likely Fields would. He's not going to learn to not spin by watching - no way. He's either going to get it that he can't do that from the start, or learn by getting dinged. All QBs get dinged. And Fields will be FINE being out there and playing. His mobility will legit help him and help the Oline. The question is whether he'll be GOOD from the start or making mistakes... whether he'll be ready to play with the whole playbook and execute the offense, and react well to what defenses throw at him. He won't learn that last part on the sideline - making him sit is just delaying important learning. So like most are saying... if he demonstrates the readiness and competence in practice and preseason... if he EARNs it... then he should start, regardless of our worst fears.

I GET the fear - but that's what it is... just general fear of the worst case and most marginal things happening. None of the things listed are really likely or a good reason to not have him out there & learning immediately. It's the football equivalent to justifying putting plastic covers on the new couch because think of all the things that could happen. Maybe we shouldn't even sit on it! Or not letting a daughter to date in high school because think of all the bad things that can happen. It SEEMS like pragmatism but it is just excessive fear. And counterproductive.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
AZ_Bearfan
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Image
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3091
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

IE wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 7:55 am
Yogi da Bear wrote: Fri Jun 04, 2021 5:35 pm
Finally, as to the possibility of failure. I think that IE is ignoring one critical factor--injuries. Oh, there's always the possibility of injuries, but there's also rookie mistakes that may magnify that risk. Remember, Joe Burrow tore his ACL last year. Think of Sam Bradford. This is why I want us to wait on Fields. I want the OL to be given time to gel. I want to eliminate some of his inherently risky moves, like the spin move or putting himself out risk to get relatively inconsequential yards (remember Jim McMahon?). I also went him to get an awareness of NFL speed and the timing (or lack thereof) of the NFL while on the sidelines rather than on the field of play. I think that he's probably better than Dalton right now, but I don't think he is all prepared. Let's get him ready and expose him in small doses before throwing him to the wolves. I want to do everything possible to decrease his risk of injury.
Sorry, Yogi - I'm not missing that stuff. I just don't see any of these sorts of examples as being a good argument. It is just a pile of fear. It certainly isn't related to a list of factors that determine whether a QB will likely be successful or bust.

Some of your list doesn't even fit. Burrow and Bradford are not some proof that Fields would get hurt - FAR more rookie QBs have not. Bradford wasn't even a rookie.

The Oline was upgraded and also back healthy. It kind of sucks to hear people say "waiting to see on the Oline" because it is the opposite of how we actually should be - which is "I can't wait to see the Oline this year1"! I can't wait to see Tevin Jenkins out there mauling and knocking guys on their asses! IF they struggle and any QB ends up getting sacked too much ... THEN you react and change things up. You don't go into football fearing you can't be successful.

All QBs are at risk of getting hurt and trotting out a short list of ones that did doesn't make it more likely Fields would. He's not going to learn to not spin by watching - no way. He's either going to get it that he can't do that from the start, or learn by getting dinged. All QBs get dinged. And Fields will be FINE being out there and playing. His mobility will legit help him and help the Oline. The question is whether he'll be GOOD from the start or making mistakes... whether he'll be ready to play with the whole playbook and execute the offense, and react well to what defenses throw at him. He won't learn that last part on the sideline - making him sit is just delaying important learning. So like most are saying... if he demonstrates the readiness and competence in practice and preseason... if he EARNs it... then he should start, regardless of our worst fears.

I GET the fear - but that's what it is... just general fear of the worst case and most marginal things happening. None of the things listed are really likely or a good reason to not have him out there & learning immediately. It's the football equivalent to justifying putting plastic covers on the new couch because think of all the things that could happen. Maybe we shouldn't even sit on it! Or not letting a daughter to date in high school because think of all the bad things that can happen. It SEEMS like pragmatism but it is just excessive fear. And counterproductive.
Couldn’t agree more. Really specious logic on the injury examples. My favorite example of this type of logic:

“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
Grizzled
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm

I don't think any racial bias played into Pace's decision to draft Trubisky. Inexperience as a GM, yes, both in overvaluing a guy based on inadequate data and in giving up unneeded assets to obtain him. Refusal to talk with his own Head Coach regarding potential picks, yes. I think a lot of it was "smartest guy in the room syndrome", of which Pace is often a victim.
User avatar
RustinFields
Head Coach
Posts: 4998
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!

AZ_Bearfan wrote: Sat Jun 05, 2021 10:40 am
I'm not watching that, but the pull quote is pretty funny: "i'm a big fan of starting a rookie, unless he's not ready to start (then presumably i'm not a fan of starting him)..."

that's profound.
Post Reply