Caleb Williams News and Rumor thread

[Hema2.0]

No one was worried about the $6M - it's the long term contract that would ensue. If JF's next contract would get be $15M ... guess what? He sucks.

If that was the outcome, guess what? I wouldn’t pay him 15M either. The point is that for 6M we could have found out. Everything else is conjecture.

Plank, you know who didn't want to find out...Ryan Poles. Ryan Poles and a few of us disagree with your premise. It doesn't matter anymore though

[dplank]

If that was the outcome, guess what? I wouldn’t pay him 15M either. The point is that for 6M we could have found out. Everything else is conjecture.

Plank, you know who didn't want to find out...Ryan Poles. Ryan Poles and a few of us disagree with your premise. It doesn't matter anymore though

I understand that. I’ve moved on but still disagree and think he could’ve handled it differently.

[Z Bear]

Montez knows who the Bears are drafting, lol

[RichH55]

Plank, you know who didn't want to find out...Ryan Poles. Ryan Poles and a few of us disagree with your premise. It doesn't matter anymore though

I understand that. I’ve moved on but still disagree and think he could’ve handled it differently.

Dplank - Assuming we draft Caleb -

How many Reps do you want him getting?

[RichH55]

What you don't want to do is find yourself over-paying for a Daniel Jones/Russ Wilson/Kyler Murray .... or, sigh, even a Justin Fields. (Still love him, but I am logical).

6M is overpaying for JF1?

We don't know what his next deal would have looked like, it always felt like a big red herring argument when people would say "you don't want to pay JF1 40-50M!" - the statement is true, I wouldn't pay him 40-50M either, but it's based on a false premise. For all we know his next deal might be 15M per, and he could be undervalued. If he took off and played great and then his price was actually that high, well, that would have been a fine outcome also. But this sentiment that at his current play he'd demand that type of salary was always logically incorrect IMO.

For those of us that wanted to keep him another year, it was based on the 6M price and the possibility that he'd take off and increase his overall value (either for us or trade). We basically gave him away for nothing, which I still feel was the wrong move. I just disagree with the locker room aspect being the reason for not keeping him and drafting CW.

It's not a Red Herring at all though. Contract wise. That's the market. And as Wulfy said - if he's making $15 million a year the GM screwed up. Backups don't cost that. It was always a legit worry

The contract thing was huge. Though I actually LIKE the argument of the QB who is JUST good enough to put you into purgatory once the new contract kicks in.

Russell Wilson works both as a good example of the Rookie Contract QB benefit AND Just Good Enough purgatory.

There are essentially two ways to go to the Super Bowl in regards to your QB. Rookie Contract and being one of the Best. Fields was trending the wrong way on both accounts.

Caleb gives you the chance for BOTH. This was always something of a no-brainer.

[dplank]

I understand that. I’ve moved on but still disagree and think he could’ve handled it differently.

Dplank - Assuming we draft Caleb -

How many Reps do you want him getting?

Well, given how things have shaken out, I want him getting every rep possible as it's obvious he's going to be our starter. No reason to do anything other than fully prepare him for the job.

[RichH55]

Dplank - Assuming we draft Caleb -

How many Reps do you want him getting?

Well, given how things have shaken out, I want him getting every rep possible as it's obvious he's going to be our starter. No reason to do anything other than fully prepare him for the job.

That's what I was getting at -

Wouldn't keeping Fields - especially if one was either expecting him to start with a New Offense and/or "Compete" mean markedly less Reps for Caleb?

[dplank]

Well, given how things have shaken out, I want him getting every rep possible as it's obvious he's going to be our starter. No reason to do anything other than fully prepare him for the job.

That's what I was getting at -

Wouldn't keeping Fields - especially if one was either expecting him to start with a New Offense and/or "Compete" mean markedly less Reps for Caleb?

Yes. If we had kept Fields as I would have preferred, then I'd have a very different opinion on how many snaps CW should get. I'd bring him a long like KC brought Mahomes along, slowly mixing him in but in no particular rush. As it stands though, with no Fields, it's clear CW will be asked to start Day 1 and so you give him every snap to get him as ready as possible.

I would not have had a competition. It would have been Fields job.

[Arkansasbear]

For fuck's sake how many thread to we need to derail into this tired ass argument we've been through already.

dplank, yogi and I all to some degree think trading Fields for a 6th wasn't a good move. We've heard all the arguments why on both sides enough that it's gotten threads locked.

Can we all please move the fuck on!!!!!!!!!! Come here to see if anything new to ready about during this slow point. Nope same old arguments.

[dplank]

Why can’t we have a friendly, on going discussion without upsetting people? There’s really very little to talk about, and it’s completely cordial.

Maybe the ones who “need to move on” are the ones who are still triggered by a cordial conversation? I’d understand if there was bickering and all that nonsense, but that’s not happening here.

[Arkansasbear]

Why can’t we have a friendly, on going discussion without upsetting people? There’s really very little to talk about, and it’s completely cordial.

Maybe the ones who “need to move on” are the ones who are still triggered by a cordial conversation? I’d understand if there was bickering and all that nonsense, but that’s not happening here.

dplank, I'm not triggered. I'm simply tired of seeing the back and forth on this issue in so many threads. Nothing new is being said, it's the same old argument.

That being said, when you or Yogi start a post with "I don't like the trade, but . . . ' that's fine but then someone has to chime in about how it's dumb to think that way, they you respond with your points showing it's not, they come back with points of why it was good and we rehash the whole thing.

The other day I posted that CW dad as his "agent" was still a bit of a worry to me and some pointed out the rookie scale, next contract is years down the road, blah blah blah. I simply said we've done that once and I'm not doing it again.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking you will get a different result. The arguments for both sides have been laid out (and I think people on both sides made great points) and at this stage no one is changing their stance. I simply don't see the need to rehash it all.

Wait, maybe I'm the insane one. I keep coming here and thinking there will be change and it never happens.

[Bearfacts]

Cordial or not it kinda sidetracks a thread about CW. A number of us, myself included wish we would have gone a different route and given JF another shot with a far better OC and better support but the lure of CW and resetting the contract clock was just too inviting to ignore again. JF's play just wasn't enough to overcome that and that fact won't ever change even if he becomes an all pro in Pitt because he wasn't able to do it in Chicago before the sand in the hourglass of his development ran out. We can't change that.

[HurricaneBear]

How are we going to hit 100 pages before he's a Bear if we don't derail the thread a few times? Can we consolidate all things Caleb into this one thread? That will get us closer to 100

[Yogi da Bear]

Why can’t we have a friendly, on going discussion without upsetting people? There’s really very little to talk about, and it’s completely cordial.

Maybe the ones who “need to move on” are the ones who are still triggered by a cordial conversation? I’d understand if there was bickering and all that nonsense, but that’s not happening here.

dplank, I'm not triggered. I'm simply tired of seeing the back and forth on this issue in so many threads. Nothing new is being said, it's the same old argument.

That being said, when you or Yogi start a post with "I don't like the trade, but . . . ' that's fine but then someone has to chime in about how it's dumb to think that way, they you respond with your points showing it's not, they come back with points of why it was good and we rehash the whole thing.

The other day I posted that CW dad as his "agent" was still a bit of a worry to me and some pointed out the rookie scale, next contract is years down the road, blah blah blah. I simply said we've done that once and I'm not doing it again.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and thinking you will get a different result. The arguments for both sides have been laid out (and I think people on both sides made great points) and at this stage no one is changing their stance. I simply don't see the need to rehash it all.

Wait, maybe I'm the insane one. I keep coming here and thinking there will be change and it never happens.

Are you going to lock us up for contempt if we refuse? lol

[docc]

We could go back to discussing "Nails Williams ®" crying..and reset the clock..

[dplank]

Counter point - maybe now that the die has been cast, emotions aren’t driving discourse and maybe we can actually understand each others POV.

Regardless, I’m not going to engage in any bickering but I’m happy to continue a discussion that, quite frankly, I feel was near impossible to have sanely “in the moment”.

[UOK]

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

Montez knows who the Bears are drafting, lol

He’s the man - I love Montez Sweat, what a deal Poles did here. A R2 pick for this guy, legendary.

[dplank]

He’s the proof on how important DL pressure is to this defense, my primary reason for leaning DE at 9

[Rusty Trombagent]

How do you watch him run for his life all year behind a porous OL and say he's never faced adversity. The fuckin take industrial complex, man.

[RichH55]

How do you watch him run for his life all year behind a porous OL and say he's never faced adversity. The fuckin take industrial complex, man.

Heroic?

[RichH55]

That's what I was getting at -

Wouldn't keeping Fields - especially if one was either expecting him to start with a New Offense and/or "Compete" mean markedly less Reps for Caleb?

Yes. If we had kept Fields as I would have preferred, then I'd have a very different opinion on how many snaps CW should get. I'd bring him a long like KC brought Mahomes along, slowly mixing him in but in no particular rush. As it stands though, with no Fields, it's clear CW will be asked to start Day 1 and so you give him every snap to get him as ready as possible.

I would not have had a competition. It would have been Fields job.

This feels like you should have wanted a different QB than Fields than as a placeholder IMHO

And I guess I'm just not getting why people wants Reps for the Rookie? It seems to be a moving target.

Like when Fields was drafted and we had a Vet in place - People were angry (in my view - justifiably) in real time in CAMP when Fields wasn't getting the Reps. And that's when he was expecting to Sit (ideally the whole year)

Nagy got called every name in the book for stunting Fields "development" - I.E. It was not seen then as merely getting him ready for Week 1 - it was literally about developing him for the long term.

Has something changed in for Caleb? Is it not about Development anymore?

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

How do you watch him run for his life all year behind a porous OL and say he's never faced adversity. The fuckin take industrial complex, man.

Heroic?

[o-pus #40 in B major]

Well, if we're gonna debate all things Fields for the next eon, I call dibs on the "anticipation" thing.

Can't get Carly Simon off my mind.

[dplank]

Yes. If we had kept Fields as I would have preferred, then I'd have a very different opinion on how many snaps CW should get. I'd bring him a long like KC brought Mahomes along, slowly mixing him in but in no particular rush. As it stands though, with no Fields, it's clear CW will be asked to start Day 1 and so you give him every snap to get him as ready as possible.

I would not have had a competition. It would have been Fields job.

This feels like you should have wanted a different QB than Fields than as a placeholder IMHO

And I guess I'm just not getting why people wants Reps for the Rookie? It seems to be a moving target.

Like when Fields was drafted and we had a Vet in place - People were angry (in my view - justifiably) in real time in CAMP when Fields wasn't getting the Reps. And that's when he was expecting to Sit (ideally the whole year)

Nagy got called every name in the book for stunting Fields "development" - I.E. It was not seen then as merely getting him ready for Week 1 - it was literally about developing him for the long term.

Has something changed in for Caleb? Is it not about Development anymore?

Nope. I wanted Fields. What I didn't want was a "placeholder".

In scenario 1, my preferred scenario that is now gone, we keep Fields and he's the #1 and getting the reps. CW is developed in the same manner that QB's used to be developed before we started rushing them onto the field. So no, I don't want a "different placeholder" - I didn't want a placeholder at all. I wanted Fields to play, develop CW in practice, then make our most informed decision next offseason. I saw a possible world where Fields lit it up in 2024 and the next move wasn't entirely clear, but we were dealing from a massive position of strength.

In scenario 2, the one we are living in now, it's obvious that CW is going to be our starter Day 1. Therefore, I'd give CW every rep possible to be ready for opening day.

I'm not a fan of the placeholder concept at all, it never works unless you have a guy already established in the role and he's just timing out (Alex Smith). What Nagy did was idiotic, he waffled and caved to pressure. The moment he decided to give Dalton all the practice reps he should have admitted right there that he was sitting Fields the entire year. When Dalton got hurt, he should have put another placeholder in there - but don't throw an unprepared rookie to the wolves.

So the point here is, the "reps" and "development" question changes based on circumstance. If you are intent on starting a rookie QB, then give him all the reps. I just don't think that's the right way to develop a QB, but there's plenty of evidence both ways so there's no one right answer.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

[HisRoyalSweetness]

I'm not a fan of the placeholder concept at all, it never works unless you have a guy already established in the role and he's just timing out (Alex Smith). What Nagy did was idiotic, he waffled and caved to pressure. The moment he decided to give Dalton all the practice reps he should have admitted right there that he was sitting Fields the entire year. When Dalton got hurt, he should have put another placeholder in there - but don't throw an unprepared rookie to the wolves.

So the point here is, the "reps" and "development" question changes based on circumstance. If you are intent on starting a rookie QB, then give him all the reps. I just don't think that's the right way to develop a QB, but there's plenty of evidence both ways so there's no one right answer.

Poles said he was going to break the cycle and at least he's doing something different to his predecessor who twice signed a veteran to start, who needed all the first team reps to prepare, then drafted a QB in the first round who conversely didn't get the preparation needed to start but was thrown in a few games into the season anyway.

Oh and Poles has actually made an effort to provide his young QB with quality NFL WRs. I mean Moore and Allen are just a tad better than Mooney and a washed up Allen Robinson or a pairing of Kendall Wright and Josh Bellamy.

There remain a few concerns about the OL and the WR depth, both of which could be alleviated to at least some degree in the upcoming draft, but we can all agree that Williams is going to be in a situation unprecedented in recent team history. He's actually being set up to succeed rather than to fail.

[RichH55]

This feels like you should have wanted a different QB than Fields than as a placeholder IMHO

And I guess I'm just not getting why people wants Reps for the Rookie? It seems to be a moving target.

Like when Fields was drafted and we had a Vet in place - People were angry (in my view - justifiably) in real time in CAMP when Fields wasn't getting the Reps. And that's when he was expecting to Sit (ideally the whole year)

Nagy got called every name in the book for stunting Fields "development" - I.E. It was not seen then as merely getting him ready for Week 1 - it was literally about developing him for the long term.

Has something changed in for Caleb? Is it not about Development anymore?

Nope. I wanted Fields. What I didn't want was a "placeholder".

In scenario 1, my preferred scenario that is now gone, we keep Fields and he's the #1 and getting the reps. CW is developed in the same manner that QB's used to be developed before we started rushing them onto the field. So no, I don't want a "different placeholder" - I didn't want a placeholder at all. I wanted Fields to play, develop CW in practice, then make our most informed decision next offseason. I saw a possible world where Fields lit it up in 2024 and the next move wasn't entirely clear, but we were dealing from a massive position of strength.

In scenario 2, the one we are living in now, it's obvious that CW is going to be our starter Day 1. Therefore, I'd give CW every rep possible to be ready for opening day.

I'm not a fan of the placeholder concept at all, it never works unless you have a guy already established in the role and he's just timing out (Alex Smith). What Nagy did was idiotic, he waffled and caved to pressure. The moment he decided to give Dalton all the practice reps he should have admitted right there that he was sitting Fields the entire year. When Dalton got hurt, he should have put another placeholder in there - but don't throw an unprepared rookie to the wolves.

So the point here is, the "reps" and "development" question changes based on circumstance. If you are intent on starting a rookie QB, then give him all the reps. I just don't think that's the right way to develop a QB, but there's plenty of evidence both ways so there's no one right answer.

The second you draft Caleb #1 overall - even with Fields still on the roster - Every other QB is a "placeholder" - It's one of the reasons its probably good to have moved off a likeable locker

I understood the argument about trading #1 for a King's Ransom - I did not think that was the move - but there is a logical argument for it.

Once you pick Caleb that HAS to change the calculus.

And you kind of skirted the question. People - including you IIRC - and me - were upset in Training Camp on the number of Reps Fields was getting. Hurting his development as he's the future.

This was when Fields was not supposed to start early in the season either.

You draft Caleb #1 - and you need to give him all/most of the Reps - even if you are going to sit him - especially in Training Camp.

It would have no longer been about Fields (or any other Vet QB that was the placeholder)

But ultimately these Reps are either important or they are Not. The general consensus has been they are important. And if they are - its hard to argue they shouldn't go to the guy you pick #1 regardless of your other QB optiuons

[dave99]

https://theathletic.com/5390475/2024/04 ... directed=1

Which of the NFL Draft’s top QBs has the best mechanics? Experts grade each passer - The Athletic

Here is the setup:

I got some of the top private quarterback coaches in the country to rate and comment on how Caleb Williams, Drake Maye, Jayden Daniels, J.J. McCarthy, Michael Penix Jr., Bo Nix and Spencer Rattler throw the ball. They will remain anonymous because they have worked with some of the discussed prospects in some capacity and could in the future.
They graded efficiency, speed, adaptability and overall mechanics on a scale of 1-5. I averaged their overall grades for a final grade. Efficiency is the ability to transfer force from their hips, speed is how quick their release is, and adaptability is how well they can adjust their mechanics to overcome external factors. The overall grade isn’t a cumulative score of the other three categories but just a grade on the quarterback’s overall mechanics that could include factors outside of the listed categories.

Here is the payoff:
• 1 – Problematic
• 2 – Will take a lot of work to fix
• 3 – Fixable
• 4 – Good
• 5 – Excellent

Caleb Williams
Efficiency: 4.8
Adaptability: 5
Speed: 4.25
Overall: 4.9
Williams is hailed for his off-script highlights, but his mechanics make him special. The overwhelming consensus is that Williams is a uniquely efficient thrower. One coach compared his mechanics to Aaron Rodgers’. Another said he’s one of the most efficient back-hip rotators he’s seen, which is the speed at which his hips rotate into the throw combined with his ability to quickly stabilize his front to create a great amount of force into his throw.

“Regarding NFL readiness, no prospect has a foundation for throwing and movement efficiency like Caleb,” one coach said. “Although his arm strength is the 99th percentile, he can throttle and adapt his throw at a similar level to (Patrick) Mahomes.”

“You’ll see guys like Caleb and Mahomes; they have crazy external rotation,” another coach said. “So what I mean by that is when they start their throw motion from the horizontal L. When they get to this vertical point and start going forward, their arm is able to go so far past 90 degrees that it allows them to change arm angles with their spine angle. If you notice, C.J. Stroud, who’s a great thrower of course, doesn’t have that same external rotation.”

This comment wasn’t meant to be a dig at Stroud but rather to differentiate and highlight Williams’ special ability to change his arm angles and still throw accurately. One criticism of Williams’ mechanics is that he tends to slow his arm too much when he’s trying to layer throws, which can affect ball placement, but that can be fixed.

Unsurprisingly, Williams’ mechanics were rated by far the highest, but don’t let that skew how the others are graded. No other quarterback finished with an overall grade above 4.0, which is more realistic for young quarterbacks entering the league.

[dplank]

I wanted to give Fields the reps day 1 because I wanted him to start. I did not want Andy Dalton. I have since changed my opinion on starting rookie QBs, in part due to what we did to Fields which was criminal. That thought was bolstered by Mahomes and Love showing out the way they have. I’ll just keep pointing back to Mahomes, Rodgers, and Love as examples where the heir apparent QB was drafted but not started, it can absolutely be done.