Bears have worst pass pro in NFL

[G08]

I don't care if they're out of shape, hurry the fuck up and get here!

[IE]

The "going to ruin him" stuff is just so tiresome. Just... no.... that's not what happens. He's either able or he is not. The timing of him becoming "good/better" may vary due to circumstances but there's no dramatic left turn into oblivion because of a few sacks. It's just hyperbole. The kid is getting valuable reps AND he is frequently showing great stuff - even if the offense is sputtering.

[Burl]

The "going to ruin him" stuff is just so tiresome. Just... no.... that's not what happens. He's either able or he is not. The timing of him becoming "good/better" may vary due to circumstances but there's no dramatic left turn into oblivion because of a few sacks. It's just hyperbole. The kid is getting valuable reps AND he is frequently showing great stuff - even if the offense is sputtering.

Is your argument that, given enough reps, a QB prospect will eventually realize whatever potential he has regardless of surrounding talent, coaching and organizational investment in his development?

[UOK]

[The Cooler King]

I know I wasn't asked directly, but my two cents:

Proper development does matter. Put a great prospect in a great environment and it will show. That doesn't mean a bad environment will ruin them. It may mean their development stalls or isn't optimized, but I don't think there is a ton of risk in being run out in less than ideal circumstances in most cases.

Exceptions:
If the player has major mechanical work, probably best they start with lots and lots of practice reps before live game.

A player should have a solid understanding of the playbook and schemes. Not perfect mind you, but has to be enough to be functional where they aren't just winging it, particularly if combined with the first exception above.

[G08]

The "going to ruin him" stuff is just so tiresome. Just... no.... that's not what happens. He's either able or he is not. The timing of him becoming "good/better" may vary due to circumstances but there's no dramatic left turn into oblivion because of a few sacks. It's just hyperbole. The kid is getting valuable reps AND he is frequently showing great stuff - even if the offense is sputtering.

It's a legit concern, try counting to 2 Mississippi and getting obliterated by 295+ lbs men who are looking to break your body. That will fuck up your internal clock as a QB, it literally ruined David Carr's career.

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I don’t have a problem whichever QB starts. Dalton is steady, Fields is getting experience.

Maybe we should mix it up. 1 half each?

[dplank]

The "going to ruin him" stuff is just so tiresome. Just... no.... that's not what happens. He's either able or he is not. The timing of him becoming "good/better" may vary due to circumstances but there's no dramatic left turn into oblivion because of a few sacks. It's just hyperbole. The kid is getting valuable reps AND he is frequently showing great stuff - even if the offense is sputtering.

It's a legit concern, try counting to 2 Mississippi and getting obliterated by 295+ lbs men who are looking to break your body. That will fuck up your internal clock as a QB, it literally ruined David Carr's career.

David Carr is like the only example of this though - a massive outlier / extreme example.

I just don't want to see him get injured in what appears to be a lost season with a clueless staff that can't develop a case of herpes.

[IE]

The "going to ruin him" stuff is just so tiresome. Just... no.... that's not what happens. He's either able or he is not. The timing of him becoming "good/better" may vary due to circumstances but there's no dramatic left turn into oblivion because of a few sacks. It's just hyperbole. The kid is getting valuable reps AND he is frequently showing great stuff - even if the offense is sputtering.

Is your argument that, given enough reps, a QB prospect will eventually realize whatever potential he has regardless of surrounding talent, coaching and organizational investment in his development?

Yes - that is my argument, in general. Extreme examples don't make good arguments. I'll maintain that If a guy is good, the sacks won't discourage him much over time. If he ISN'T really that good, then sure - I can see the sacks getting in his head. It is far more reasonable to assume based on history that the sacks won't deter a good QB than to assume it 100% will and call to pause his development when he's already doing some good things. This is assuming that they don't experience a serious injury because of the sacks. It happens. But you can't assume it will happen.

It's a legit concern, try counting to 2 Mississippi and getting obliterated by 295+ lbs men who are looking to break your body. That will fuck up your internal clock as a QB, it literally ruined David Carr's career.

David Carr is like the only example of this though - a massive outlier / extreme example.

I just don't want to see him get injured in what appears to be a lost season with a clueless staff that can't develop a case of herpes.

That's right, Plank. G - I don't disagree with you and agree it is definitely something to watch & try to avoid. One way is to go with the heavy packages and moving pocket and all that stuff. IF the coaches aren't going to do what it takes to mostly protect the guy then yeah I'm concerned along with you. I think they have & will. And although JF1 leads the league in sacks this season so far, almost half of them are from that one game when Nagy lost his friggin' mind. Other than that, he's averaging getting sacked about 3 times a game which is not a good thing but still in a normal range.

(sort by percentage to flip it and see the bad ones - a good number of superbowl QBs and hall of famers have over an 8% sack rate for their entire careers)
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... career.htm

[The Cooler King]

Pressure rate is likely an imperfect stat, but this was still an enlightening few charts.

[mmmc_35]

If QBs are the only people on the planet that are not influenced by their surroundings, then the theory you can't ruin a QB has merit.

Otherwise its its pretty clear player development can either have positive or negative influence on a player.

Derek Carr is an example because it was so obvious. I think Rex Grossmans injures stunted his development. There are a lot of qbs who become backups and years later look okay as starters. Why because there development was retarted early on.

I personally think starting players to soon can stunt their growth. Some of yall can disagree, but I dont think of QBs as deities, they are normal people like you and me.

[dave99]

Steve Palazzolo of PFF says only 5 of Fields 22 sacks can be charged directly to the QB rather than the blockers.
Fields may hold the ball too long and he makes his share of rookie mistakes but he is given almost no help from his OL and scheme.

[dplank]

If QBs are the only people on the planet that are not influenced by their surroundings, then the theory you can't ruin a QB has merit.

Otherwise its its pretty clear player development can either have positive or negative influence on a player.

Derek Carr is an example because it was so obvious. I think Rex Grossmans injures stunted his development. There are a lot of qbs who become backups and years later look okay as starters. Why because there development was retarted early on.

I personally think starting players to soon can stunt their growth. Some of yall can disagree, but I dont think of QBs as deities, they are normal people like you and me.

Why then do so many argue that QB is the only position where you learn more by watching than by doing? Every other position the common sense refrain of “let them play and learn” applies, except QB?

[G08]

"I'm seeing ghosts" -- Sam Darnold

These aren't robots, they're human beings. I don't care who you are, you keep getting your ass kicked in 2.5 seconds, as a QB, your internal clock will break.

[G08]

If QBs are the only people on the planet that are not influenced by their surroundings, then the theory you can't ruin a QB has merit.

Otherwise its its pretty clear player development can either have positive or negative influence on a player.

Derek Carr is an example because it was so obvious. I think Rex Grossmans injures stunted his development. There are a lot of qbs who become backups and years later look okay as starters. Why because there development was retarted early on.

I personally think starting players to soon can stunt their growth. Some of yall can disagree, but I dont think of QBs as deities, they are normal people like you and me.

Why then do so many argue that QB is the only position where you learn more by watching than by doing? Every other position the common sense refrain of “let them play and learn” applies, except QB?

There is a metric shit-ton more that goes into playing QB than any other position in the NFL. Are you trying to argue otherwise or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

[mmmc_35]

I think given roster and talent pool forces the players you talk about onto the field early, and the positional requirements are completely different.

Rookie centers often have players help with protection calls. Rookie running backs often are bad in pass pro. Why because those aspects of the game are different in the pros. But then general job isnt super foriegn. 2 steps at a 45 get hand off look for the guards block read off him.

A QBs job is much more involved. They dont have cue cards anymore. Those weaknesses are exploited at a higher degree. The most resolute person can be beaten down enough to waiver.

Why do world class amateurs start off fighting tomato cans? Partially a record partially build the skill set. Loma fought for a belt in his 2nd pro fight. 2 time gold medalist, 300 amateur wins. Lost to a good pro. Give him a few real pro fights before that, he wouldn't have lost.

[Burl]

Why then do so many argue that QB is the only position where you learn more by watching than by doing? Every other position the common sense refrain of “let them play and learn” applies, except QB?

I think you're framing this a little bit incorrectly, at least from my standpoint.

I don't think a QB learns more necessarily from watching, but rather that absorbing a full conceptual (or at least highly functional) knowledge of the offense would be an advantage before attempting to physically execute it. Obviously the relative complexity of the offense would relate to the need for such an approach. And I'd also add that the knowledge of what literally every teammate and defender is supposed to be doing on a given play isn't required to play the other positions and that is why such is unique to QB.

And additionally, that a full understanding of a given subject inspires confidence in any profession, and that confidence leads to success. A lack of knowledge leads to a lack of confidence, which leads to a lack of success.

[dplank]

I'm paying half attention today, been busy. But if the discussion is around READINESS, then yea I agree 100% that QB is the toughest position to b ready to play and succeed at right away. That's not what I was talking about tho, I was speaking directly to a particular school of thought that says QB's must develop by sitting for a year because you'll damage them by playing them before complete readiness. And QB is the only position that gets talked about in that way. I think that's dead wrong. Every position is learned by doing moreso than by watching. I don't buy the confidence angle one bit - zilch. If having a rocky rookie experience is enough to crush your confidence, you were never destined to be a great player anyways because you're a mental midget. People cite David Carr without citing Peyton Manning, who threw an ungodly amount of INT's his rookie year. Did that shatter his confidence such that he couldn't develop into a HOF player? Obviously not. It's about the PLAYER, who is he and what's he made of - that's what dictates future performance. Why can't OT's suffer from confidence being shot after getting their ass kicked at the LOS their rookie year? Why can't a corner suffer from confidence being shot if they get burned repeatedly their rookie year? It's EXPECTED. And it's EXPECTED that they are man enough to take it, learn from it, and come out better next year. But ONLY QB's are different? Sorry, no.

Every player pointed to that started early and ended up sucking isn't a valid argument because, you know, maybe that player just sucks? Or maybe the situation they were in was untenable? Mitch falls into one of these categories, not sure which. But I can damn sure say that his failure had nothing to do with playing 12 games his rookie year. Was Peyton Manning still "seeing ghosts" in his 4th season? LOL.

My only concern with playing Fields right now is his health. Our OL is literally the worst in the NFL at pass pro, and I don't want to see a major injury occur in what appears to be a lost season.

[IE]

Pressure rate is likely an imperfect stat, but this was still an enlightening few charts.

I've interacted with them before. Sometimes I don't like their views and think they can be misleading. These I like.

Someone asked them to show data for only games 3-7. That focus on Fields is good/fine but Dalton was sacked 4 times in 1.5 games - really the same rate as JF1 other than one game.

I just asked them to exclude one outlier game for each team - sampling the best 6 of 7 and assuming some teams have one really bad clunker and others don't - but the 6 game view is really more "who they are", and with 2 more games of data. Of course for the Bears it is Cleveland. But I think that data would be more reflective of where we are now.

[The Cooler King]

At this stage though, restricting data really hits the sample size.

[G08]

@dplank @IE

[GSH]

It's such a simultaneous train wreck.

How do you know how much to blame:

Bad WR separation?
Bad protection?
Holding the ball too long?
Finding the open man?
Bad playcalling?
Terrible play design?


You have to do multiple flushes and start over

one word: scheme

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I understand why our O line is not ready and therefore exposes Fields to defenders.

What I don’t understand is why he wouldn’t be “ready” to start?
Is it your position that it was never the intention to start him and therefore he had no pre-season with the starters? Is that why he’s not ready?

The thing that’s bugging me is why is Fields “not ready” but Lawrence, Wilson, Lance and Jones are ready to start?

Is it just the line thing or the unscheduled start?
Or is there something else?

Thanks

[dplank]

@dplank @IE

Agree with everything there. Nothing they said talked about ruining him as a future player because he’s playing now.

[G08]

@dplank @IE

Agree with everything there. Nothing they said talked about ruining him as a future player because he’s playing now.

Did you even hit play?

[The Marshall Plan]

Yeah but Rich says Fields holds onto the ball too long.

Somebody make up my mind for me.

I’ll trust my own lying eyes.

The OL blows.

[IE]

At this stage though, restricting data really hits the sample size.

It does reduce the sample size by 14%. But I don't think that changes the picture as much as one 9-sack game out of 7. It is just throwing out the noisy data that paints the wrong picture. I've posted about this before but I like to use median as a measure for who somebody really is, because averages get skewed too much by true outliers.

Do we really think the Bears will give up 26 sacks in the next 7 games? I don't think so.

Anyway I just thought it would be interesting to see the relative impact by taking out some noise for all teams. But regardless the Bears don't look *that* bad in those charts.

[mmmc_35]

I understand why our O line is not ready and therefore exposes Fields to defenders.

What I don’t understand is why he wouldn’t be “ready” to start?
Is it your position that it was never the intention to start him and therefore he had no pre-season with the starters? Is that why he’s not ready?

The thing that’s bugging me is why is Fields “not ready” but Lawrence, Wilson, Lance and Jones are ready to start?

Is it just the line thing or the unscheduled start?
Or is there something else?

Thanks

Not having watched those other QBs as close, it would be hard to judge their readiness. I dont know if we can judge Fields readiness 100% either. If we judge Fields based on Daltons limited play I say he was behind Dalton. Dalton is a starting level QB.

There are several reasons why a QB might not be ready to start. The big one is the play book. Some coaches are clearly better then others. I personally dont think the Bears have done much to help Fields. You dont see quick routes, clearing routes, 2 read or run schemes, half Field reads/ a moving pocket.

Fields may have an abbreviated play book. We dont really know as fans. But I dont see things in the offense that are designed to give him some rookie QB opportunities.

[IE]

@dplank @IE

Yeah - that's pretty ugly to hear isn't it. I think those guys tried to stay balanced. It is pretty powerful when so many talking heads are slamming the incompetence of the coaching staff and the formations for a lot of it (even if they are rightly blaming JF1 for making rookie mistakes & needing to own that and get better). Everyone now has moved on to "this is not new - we saw the same thing with Trubisky and Foles". I just don't see how Nagy can survive this. I personally thought he'd do more for JF1... more boots and moving pockets and such. The run % is good but they still need to understand he needs an extra second at this point. I'm prepared to be shocked when Nagy is back after the Bye.

What I didn't like was when I was watching that show earlier and someone there busted out the "But Nagy's regular season record..." ... and I nearly threw my beer through the screen in the garage. Defense gets no credit. They get honorable mentions, and everything is about the offense.

I don't agree that the Bear Oline is the worst in the league, even though they're last in Pass Pro. The Bear running game has won them 3 games.

[dplank]

@dplank @IE

Agree with everything there. Nothing they said talked about ruining him as a future player because he’s playing now.

I watched it yea, what am I missing? They talk about how he's struggling behind the worst OL in football, and how him as a rookie being rushed has this compounding effect on his performance where he's stacking mistakes. They talk about playing more max protect and stuff, they don't say "sit him" and they don't say "his future is in trouble" or that this current problem of making him read/react too fast will carry with him into next year or beyond - Greeny even tried to get them there the way he phrased the question and they clearly didn't go there with their answers. Where in there do they talk about his future getting ruined by this experience? You're reading into that part - they never say it. Point me directly to the spot where they say it pls.