Training Camp Objectives

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3706
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Moriarty wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:01 am The problem here is that the ESPN article (paywalled) isn't looking at a representative sample or a full sample of rookie performances (with certain criteria). It's looking at the best rookie performances of all time. This is THE DEFINITION OF CHERRY PICKING. That's not how you arrive at a reasonable expectation.


Here's a FULL list of of QBs, within selected criteria
  • Top 5 pick - Going too far down becomes less comparable to a 1.1, taking only 1.1s makes for a small sample
  • Last 15 years of rookie seasons - Again, too far loses comparability, but too short loses sample size
Everyone played their rookie season, so no issues there.
I don't have DYAR available and so am not familiar with its quality, either. Therefore, I'm using passer rating and QBR.



tqb_all = all 22 who met the 2 criteria above
tqp_sorted = rough sorting combining PR and QBR
tqb_19 = took out the 3 who started under half the games that season
tqb_11 = looking only at 1.1s who started at least half
Strange, isn't paywalled in the UK. Simple to get around I expect but it isn't really worth it to be honest, was just the first thing that came up when I searched for best rookie QB seasons as a resource to crib from. Also DYAR is explained here https://ftnfantasy.com/nfl/dvoa-explainer#dyar.

Firstly, if you'll permit a little snark, lol at the bold, big text, all caps call on cherry picking. The article is called "Ranking the best rookie QB seasons of the past 25 years", so, um, I guess it meets the definition of the cherry picking but it isn't as if they're not up front about it!

More seriously, the important factor here is a sense check of the background population you're picking. You've made a decision to only include top 5 picks because otherwise "Going too far down becomes less comparable to a 1.1", fine, but why is that? What is it about it that makes the criteria relevant in this case?

Obviously I'm begging the question and don't agree that it is the correct comparison. Football is a team game and the performance of those picks is absolutely tied to the quality of the team around them. As such most pf those players will be on relatively poor teams by virtue of their having a top 5 draft pick. We're not in that situation, instead coming off the back of a 7-10 season and possessing the #1 due to a trade that worked out incredibly well. Because of that I see no good reason to exclude any rookie QB from the mix. Controlling for some starts is sufficient.

But even ignoring that, there's still no reason for your assertion that Stroud's season is a floor. The claim was that it should be a marker, by virtue of Williams being a better prospect and the Bears having better talent, on paper at least, than the Texans did. Bagent, on backup (or not even backup) reps had 4 starts that projected to 3300 yards last year!

I'm incredibly excited going into this year but, whilst expectation for a rookie QB has to be tempered a little, Williams absolutely needs to have a good year with the talent around him or I'm going to be bricking it about the future. He's coming into a 7-10 team, that was probably a 9-8 team had Sweat been there all year (I'm giving us Denver and the first Minnesota game), that also had the cap space to add significant weapons at receiver and running back.

Outside of really significant injuries or the defence falling off a cliff in some weird way, I think 9 wins is the minimum before I start to get worried!

[EDIT: missed "isn't" above]
Last edited by malk on Sat Jun 29, 2024 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Thx Malk, this is a better explanation. Floor does not equal marker. It's a comparable, and a more than fair one given our circumstances.
User avatar
crueltyabc
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5162
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 7:36 pm
Location: Dallas TX
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 245 times

Grizzled wrote: Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:26 am Select the kick off returner - VJJ, Scott, or Carter
Decide on the punt returner - Carter or Pettis
Choose who will be QB2 - Bagent or Reed
Finalize the OL - C and G. Amegadjie can challenge for both G spots
Get Caleb totally comfortable running an NFL offense against defenses. Make sure he reduces his propensities to turn the ball over by fumbling
Decide on a running back rotation and see if Herbert is part of it
Bring in another DE
Adding one - Safety. The Packers have a shit secondary and they let him Jonathan Owens walk. Hicks doesn't seem to have it. I haven't seen any reports that Smitty is playing safety. What's the plan? Maybe this is another opportunity to add an over-the-hill vet to strengthen the unit.

My predictions

KR = VJJ and Herbert. Carter should stick but he'll be PR1 and KR3
PR = Carter with Odunze subbing in for critical moments (4th quarter in close games etc). I hope we don't need to keep Pettis around
QB2= Bagent for sure! I believe in that guy
RG = Dan Weiderer is usually wrong about things but it's still interesting that he thinks Matt Pryor will be RG1. That would mean that Nate Davis hasn't returned to his TEN form. If Davis AND Pryor suck then it'll have to be Bates starting at RG which would impact the OC discussion. I'm going to assume that won't be necessary...
OC = Bates. I think Sherman has been sorta leading in snaps through the offseason cuz he already knows the system. Bates will overtake him in camp
RB = Swift, Herbert, RoJo, Homer I guess. I just don't think Johnson is good enough to merit cutting Herbert.
DE = It would be a really fun story if DomRob is magically good now or if Booker was good right away but it's doubtful. Nobody interesting got cut after the draft which sorta surprised me. They should bring Ngakuoe back.
Safety = They stick with Hicks and Owens. I'll be worried about it.
xyt in the discord chats
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

#1; No injuries to starters and key backups. I'm sick of starting seasons at less then full strength.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Bearfacts wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 9:55 pm #1; No injuries to starters and key backups. I'm sick of starting seasons at less then full strength.
Always, always a key
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:43 am
Moriarty wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:05 am The average PR and average QBR change very little, whether you use mean/median, or add additional criteria to the list.


The average Passer Rating runs about 79 and the average QBR is roughly 46.5


THAT'S what typical highly drafted QBs look like.
Not what the greatest rookie seasons of all time look like.
How many of those situations look like the situation CW is walking into? I'll wait...
It's still not really the relevant comp - That's just not what Floor means.

We can have better debates/discussions if people can just not always go Full Pendulum
User avatar
Moriarty
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7188
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 824 times

dplank wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:43 am
Moriarty wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:05 am The average PR and average QBR change very little, whether you use mean/median, or add additional criteria to the list.


The average Passer Rating runs about 79 and the average QBR is roughly 46.5


THAT'S what typical highly drafted QBs look like.
Not what the greatest rookie seasons of all time look like.
How many of those situations look like the situation CW is walking into? I'll wait...


I took every instance which meets 2 very black & white criteria to be similar (relatively recent & high pick). Unlike the list of best QB debut seasons ever, that was as fair a snapshot as you can possibly get.


Now, does Caleb come in with unprecedentedly outstanding receiver targets? Yes, he does. And I've said as much before.


But QB success/development is an incredibly complicated thing. There's hundreds of millions of dollars riding on these decisions, and teams still can only hit on about 30% of their high selections, maybe 45ish on top 1-2 picks. There's all kinds of factors involved:

Supporting cast - receiving targets, overall quality
Supporting cast - ground game, overall quality
Supporting cast - OL, overall quality
Supporting cast - C, experience, vision, line calls, snap consistency & accuracy
Supporting cast - changing or consistent
Supporting cast - defense/ST, points yielded, field position, etc
Coaching - HC, overall quality
Coaching - OC, overall quality
Coaching - QB coach, overall quality
Coaching - are the coaches a good match for the QB, in terms of what they expect and what he can do, do their personalities work together, etc
System - does it suit the QB
System - how easy/hard is it to pick up
System - can/will the OC simplify, then grow it to match what the QB can handle?
Situation/Pressure - is the team expecting to Win Now or can they be patient?
Situation/Pressure - is it a big city/media with lots of eyes & pressure or less so
Situation - is the job clearly theirs or are they battling/looking over their shoulder? Who's the 2?
Situation/Pressure - are they replacing someone that was popular and the fans/coaches/team wanted to keep or is everyone happy to have them?
QB themself - arm strength
QB themself - mobility
QB themself - durability
QB themself - confidence
QB themself - desire to win & desire to not lose
QB themself - have they dealt with losing before, are they able to
QB themself - have they dealt with adversity before, are they able to
QB themself - likability
QB themself - leadership
QB themself - ability to learn skills they didn't have or didn't need before
QB themself - willingness to make changes in how they think & play
QB themself - general intelligence
QB themself - number of live reps
QB themself - what their former coach and system demanded of them
QB themself - did they just outtalent opponents or did they have to outthink and outplay them
QB themself - vision
QB themself - recognition & processing speed
QB themself - decision making
QB themself - dedication
QB themself - mechanics
QB themself - accuracy
QB themself - touch


And even what I've listed isn't complete and is a serious oversimplification.
And, with that huge list of factors, that combine in ways no one understands, that no one can predict accurately -

You're saying "Well, Component 1 is the best ever, plus he's got a number of other definite or probable pluses in there - that means we should expect Almost The Best Rookie Season Ever or The Best Rookie Season Ever" and it just doesn't work that way.

There's too many things that could go wrong and just 1 fatal flaw can sometimes be enough.
If everyone could read which situations will and won't work, we wouldn't have JaMarcus Russells, Zach Wilsons, Ryan Leafs, Bryce Youngs, Mitch Trubiskys, Jamis Winstons, Blake Bortleses...

Would they have all been fine, right out of the gate, if they'd just had some great receivers?
Nah. There's more to it. And it's very, very complicated.
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
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Track what I’m saying here Moriarty….

The overwhelming majority reason for CWs rookie season matching Strouds rookie season will be his own performance. That’s the point that’s being made. So extend that logic and cross out all of the QB specific stuff you listed, because his ability to do those things or not is the point I’m making.

At a minimum, the surrounding talent and coaching is a wash (most likely favors CW). So what’s left for him to match Stroud is simply his own performance and doing all those things you listed. He doesn’t get excuses, his circumstances are basically perfect, so it’s on him to achieve the outcome (barring massive injuries).
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:00 pm Track what I’m saying here Moriarty….

The overwhelming majority reason for CWs rookie season matching Strouds rookie season will be his own performance. That’s the point that’s being made. So extend that logic and cross out all of the QB specific stuff you listed, because his ability to do those things or not is the point I’m making.

At a minimum, the surrounding talent and coaching is a wash (most likely favors CW). So what’s left for him to match Stroud is simply his own performance and doing all those things you listed. He doesn’t get excuses, his circumstances are basically perfect, so it’s on him to achieve the outcome (barring massive injuries).
Fantastic going from a QB getting every benefit of the doubt - and absolutely NOTHING being his fault

to - Well - if he doesn't put up the best Rookie QB year of our lifetime - then that's his fault 100%!!!

Just wow.

Political parties are more reasonable than this.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

RichH55 wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 10:04 pm
dplank wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 6:00 pm Track what I’m saying here Moriarty….

The overwhelming majority reason for CWs rookie season matching Strouds rookie season will be his own performance. That’s the point that’s being made. So extend that logic and cross out all of the QB specific stuff you listed, because his ability to do those things or not is the point I’m making.

At a minimum, the surrounding talent and coaching is a wash (most likely favors CW). So what’s left for him to match Stroud is simply his own performance and doing all those things you listed. He doesn’t get excuses, his circumstances are basically perfect, so it’s on him to achieve the outcome (barring massive injuries).
Fantastic going from a QB getting every benefit of the doubt - and absolutely NOTHING being his fault

to - Well - if he doesn't put up the best Rookie QB year of our lifetime - then that's his fault 100%!!!

Just wow.

Political parties are more reasonable than this.
That last line is a bit harsh. :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

I not sure what is the baseline for matching Stroud - stats, wins, making the playoffs?????? But I do think that CW is in a spot that it is reasonable to have expectations that he will match or exceed all those things in comparison to Stroud. It's possible he match or exceed Stroud on the stats but fall short on wins and the playoffs and it could have nothing to do with his performance. We all think the defense will be very good (or at least I think that where most of us are), but what if Byrd is awful and we have no pass rush outside of Sweat and they do everything to stop him and the defense is what keeps us from winning.

Same with the OL. I think most are optimistic that the OL will be much better this year. But in truth all we've done is change the center. That could be why CW cant' match Stroud.

All of that said, I agree with dplank for the most part. If you told me that CW didn't match (or at least come close) to what Stroud did last year, my first guess on why would be that it falls at his feet.
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Thx Ark, it's not a hot take by any stretch. Any fair minded person would see that CW's circumstance is elite and therefore whether he performs similar to Stroud or not is on him, not handicapped by poor circumstances. It's also irrefutable that Fields circumstances were awful, it's been well documented. Fair minded people can see these obvious truths, but not everyone here is fair minded. This is basic math, A=B, B=C, therefore A=C.

It also doesn't mean CW is a bust if he doesn't achieve that level of success his first year. I hope he does, but won't panic if he falls short of that marker. I'll panic if he plays flat out poorly, given his elite surrounding cast that shouldn't be in the cards.
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5294
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 816 times

dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:26 pm Thx Ark, it's not a hot take by any stretch. Any fair minded person would see that CW's circumstance is elite and therefore whether he performs similar to Stroud or not is on him, not handicapped by poor circumstances. It's also irrefutable that Fields circumstances were awful, it's been well documented. Fair minded people can see these obvious truths, but not everyone here is fair minded. This is basic math, A=B, B=C, therefore A=C.

It also doesn't mean CW is a bust if he doesn't achieve that level of success his first year. I hope he does, but won't panic if he falls short of that marker. I'll panic if he plays flat out poorly, given his elite surrounding cast that shouldn't be in the cards.
If he doesn't look the part, I'm going to be VERY worried.
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

Arkansasbear wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:57 pm
dplank wrote: Wed Jul 03, 2024 1:26 pm Thx Ark, it's not a hot take by any stretch. Any fair minded person would see that CW's circumstance is elite and therefore whether he performs similar to Stroud or not is on him, not handicapped by poor circumstances. It's also irrefutable that Fields circumstances were awful, it's been well documented. Fair minded people can see these obvious truths, but not everyone here is fair minded. This is basic math, A=B, B=C, therefore A=C.

It also doesn't mean CW is a bust if he doesn't achieve that level of success his first year. I hope he does, but won't panic if he falls short of that marker. I'll panic if he plays flat out poorly, given his elite surrounding cast that shouldn't be in the cards.
If he doesn't look the part, I'm going to be VERY worried.
That's kind of the point - There is like a MASSIVE Gap between "doesn't look the part" and as good as CJ Stroud was a rookie

(I wouldnt bet on Stroud being better as a 2nd year guy than he was as a Rookie)

Rookie QBs are going to have bumps generally - growth isn't linear - etc

But a fair basis would taking the comparables to Caleb (NOT the biggest outlier you can find ONLY) - seeing what the Median/Mean is - And expecting him to be firmly on the Good side of that

Not - he needs to put up the greatest Rookie Season of the Last 25-40 Years OR WE SHOULD WORRY!!!! (Fair minded pendulum swinging!!!!)
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3706
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 141 times
Been thanked: 232 times

Moriarty wrote: Tue Jul 02, 2024 3:40 pm
dplank wrote: Fri Jun 28, 2024 10:43 am

How many of those situations look like the situation CW is walking into? I'll wait...


I took every instance which meets 2 very black & white criteria to be similar (relatively recent & high pick). Unlike the list of best QB debut seasons ever, that was as fair a snapshot as you can possibly get.
But you still haven't explained the rationale behind the first of those criteria, why just top 5 picks? Or I should say, you haven't justified the assertion "Going too far down becomes less comparable to a 1.1"?

Why does going too far down make it less comparable? You'd expect QB quality to decrease as you look at players drafted later but cutting out those players results in culling many of the best rookie QB seasons. Which begs the question what is that criterion actually doing?

I posit that you want that criteria to control for QB ability and it isn't really doing that. Instead:

1. QB ability is better controlled by starting as a rookie.
2. Draft pick actually controls for ability of the supporting cast but
3. Crucially traded draft picks, like ours are outside the rough control for supporting cast.

If you factor all this in you can build an argument that Stroud's season was a massive outlier for a rookie QB on a previously bad team. But rookie QBs on decent teams are a different background population for which those stats are less of an outlier.

Actually I've just put in the previous season w/l into the 12 seasons from that ESPN article and it doesn't look as clean as I was thinking. Initial thoughts are that this is partially due to a compressed range of wins/losses because teams that win don't change QB often. Then perhaps some of these seasons being a bit overrated (Manning and Newton off the top of my head). Then maybe some oddities like with Prescott, the previous season was 4-12 with Cassell at QB but the year before that was 12-4 with Romo, so perhaps the cast wasn't as bad as a glance indicates (and therefore previous year w/l isn't a great metric?).

Anyway, presented for analysis.

1. Prescott 4-12. Key stats: 77.6 QBR, 3,667 passing yards, 23 TDs, 4 INTs, 67.8% completion rate; 282 rushing yards, 6 TDs
2. Wilson 7-9. Key stats: 74.8 QBR, 3,118 passing yards, 26 TDs, 10 INTs, 64.1% completion rate; 489 rushing yards, 4 TDs
3. Stroud 3-13. Key stats: 57.5 QBR, 4,108 passing yards, 23 TDs, 5 INTs, 63.9% completion rate; 167 rushing yards, 3 TDs
4. Roethlisberger 6-10. 2,621 passing yards, 17 TDs, 11 INTs, 66.4% completion rate; 144 rushing yards, TD
5. RGIII 5-11. Key stats: 68 QBR, 3,200 passing yards, 20 TDs, 5 INTs, 65.6% completion rate; 815 rushing yards, 7 TDs
6. Matt Ryan 4-12. Key stats: 68.8 QBR, 3,440 passing yards, 16 TDs, 11 INTs, 61.1% completion rate; 104 rushing yards, TD
7. Cam Newton 2-14 .Key stats: 56.6 QBR, 4,051 passing yards, 21 TDs, 17 INTs, 60% completion rate; 706 rushing yards, 14 TDs
8. Herbert 5-11. Key stats: 62.6 QBR, 4,336 passing yards, 31 TDs, 10 INTs, 66.6% completion rate; 234 rushing yards, 5 TDs
9. Peyton Manning 3-13 .Key stats: 3,739 passing yards, 26 TDs, 28 INTs, 56.7% completion rate
10. Watson (7 games) 9-7 Key stats: 83.7 QBR, 1,699 passing yards, 19 TDs, 8 INTs, 61.8% completion rate; 269 rushing yards, 2 TDs
11. Mac Jones 7-9 Key stats: 56.9 QBR, 3,801 passing yards, 22 TDs, 13 INTs, 67.6% completion rate
12. Baker Mayfield 0-16. Key stats: 51.2 QBR, 3,725 passing yards, 27 TDs, 14 INTs, 63.8% completion rate
"I wouldn't take him for a conditional 7th. His next contract will pay him more than he could possibly contribute.".

Noted Brain Genius Malk, Summer 2018.

(2020 update, wait, was I right...)
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12743
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1391 times
Been thanked: 2504 times

Thx Malk good stuff. Looking at this list, Stroud's success was the best but it wasn't some major outlier as many have labeled it. 25% of these guys went for over 4,000 yards (Stroud, Newton, Herbert). Several others went for over 3,700. In fact, if you extend Watson to all 16 games, then more than half went for over 3,700. And not one of them had as good a circumstance as CW has. Mac friggin Jones went for over 3800 and had over 67% completion rate FFS, but we are crazy for expecting that from CW? What are we even doing here?
User avatar
Bearfacts
Head Coach
Posts: 2169
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 1216 times
Been thanked: 310 times

The great thing about having low to moderate expectations is that you're seldom disappointed by reality. There's little reason to believe CW won't do well and win us some games. How well statistically? Do we care? I'd rather we win 11-12 games than see CW break Stroud's record and win just 7-8 games. Few if any rookie QBs have ever had a table set for them as well as Poles has set this offensive table. If we can stay healthy we should do fine but even if we lose some people to injury no Bears teams of late have the kind of depth at most positions this team has. Pace has seen to it that we don't need to play rookies if vets get injured.
User avatar
Shadow
Assistant Coach
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:47 am
Has thanked: 90 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Get into Training Camp and out of the Pre-Season without any major injuries!
A new Era begins in the NFC North!

Happily, it finally involves the Bears.... :toast: :headbang: :transform: :jump:
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 552 times
Been thanked: 655 times

dplank wrote: Sat Jul 06, 2024 9:52 am Thx Malk good stuff. Looking at this list, Stroud's success was the best but it wasn't some major outlier as many have labeled it. 25% of these guys went for over 4,000 yards (Stroud, Newton, Herbert). Several others went for over 3,700. In fact, if you extend Watson to all 16 games, then more than half went for over 3,700. And not one of them had as good a circumstance as CW has. Mac friggin Jones went for over 3800 and had over 67% completion rate FFS, but we are crazy for expecting that from CW? What are we even doing here?
Trying to actually be reasonable?
Post Reply