I won't go into all of them, but I can comfortably say that Sterling Sharpe and Deandre Hopkins are two of the absolute BEST receivers that I have ever seen. And that would be true regardless of who their QB was. Sterling really should be in the Hall of Fame. If Sayers can make it with his injury, so should Sharpe. I have to say that I was truly sorry with what happened to him, but I also breathed a big sigh of relief. He was a load.
As to the rest of those guys, I'd take ANY of them on the Bears. In fact, aside from Bear team with Brandon Marshall and maybe with ARob for some of them, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those guys would have been the Bears' Number One Receiver. And you can throw in Welker and Amendola as well.
Fields vs Watson
Moderator: wab
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2584
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 401 times
- Wounded Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:13 pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Damn. That gives me a great idea for a new invention.
The universe is under no obligation to make any sense to you...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
- dplank
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12149
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
- Has thanked: 1235 times
- Been thanked: 2205 times
Is this it?
- Wounded Bear
- MVP
- Posts: 1032
- Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:13 pm
- Has thanked: 12 times
- Been thanked: 13 times
Kinda. If it was attached to an actual gate, it would be dead on.
You could keep you and your family secure while getting a hand job from a disembodied hand attached to a gate! Call now!
The universe is under no obligation to make any sense to you...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
- The Marshall Plan
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 8423
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
- Location: Parts Unknown
- Has thanked: 910 times
- Been thanked: 1294 times
Have at it.
The sex bot industry is booming. Or so I hear.
- BreadNCircuses
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2019 1:34 pm
- Has thanked: 26 times
- Been thanked: 83 times
I've said for awhile that the best explanation for the much-publicized "Why didn't the Bears talk to Watson (more than they did)" is their background work uncovered something that gave them pause, or made them nervous, that knocked him down or out of their consideration for the highest pick they'd had in a generation for non-football reasons.IotaNet wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:29 pmHere's something to consider. Did Pace and the Bears' FO know something about Watson's proclivities/peccadillos before the draft and decided to pass on him because of it?Arkansasbear wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 10:10 am I think I go "a" the whole situation with Watson could implode on Houston (not just the teams actions but the legal problems Watson is facing). So maybe passing on him was a blessing to the team.
Before you dismiss that out of hand, please know that people don't just start doing "unusual" things after they graduate from college. Also - the level of investigation & due diligence these teams perform pre-draft is intense, exhaustive, and proctological. There could have been whispers floating about regarding Watson -- the same way "everybody knew" that the Blackhawks coach Bradley Aldrich was not on the up-and-up.
I'm not saying that the Bears' brain trust had this info but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they did.
Just a thought.
And to the question of "if they knew, everyone knew" -- that's not likely, both because not everyone does exactly the same investigations, with the same people, with the same questions, etc. And even if they did, not everyone has the same thresholds of "this character issue takes him off our board." We know the Bengals, for example, have very different "professional standards" than the Bears do.
2023 Preseason Downside prediction:
5-6 wins, never really healthy all season, a constant shuffling.
We're potentially in a position to draft in the Top 5 again, depending on the Carolina team, and probably have a low-teens (or better) pick ourselves.
5-6 wins, never really healthy all season, a constant shuffling.
We're potentially in a position to draft in the Top 5 again, depending on the Carolina team, and probably have a low-teens (or better) pick ourselves.
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
The "best explanation"? Seriously? Um... no. As far as I can tell, there seems to be zero - zero - evidence or even innuendo about this sort of behavior from Watson before the last couple of years. It is the exact opposite of what you're saying. Watson's character coming out of college was pristine. It was "questions" about his game translating to the pros that dropped him. The exact same kind of nonsense that dropped Fields. THAT is the best explanation, even if it was based on BS and uneven comparisons.BreadNCircuses wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:37 amI've said for awhile that the best explanation for the much-publicized "Why didn't the Bears talk to Watson (more than they did)" is their background work uncovered something that gave them pause, or made them nervous, that knocked him down or out of their consideration for the highest pick they'd had in a generation for non-football reasons.IotaNet wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:29 pm
Here's something to consider. Did Pace and the Bears' FO know something about Watson's proclivities/peccadillos before the draft and decided to pass on him because of it?
Before you dismiss that out of hand, please know that people don't just start doing "unusual" things after they graduate from college. Also - the level of investigation & due diligence these teams perform pre-draft is intense, exhaustive, and proctological. There could have been whispers floating about regarding Watson -- the same way "everybody knew" that the Blackhawks coach Bradley Aldrich was not on the up-and-up.
I'm not saying that the Bears' brain trust had this info but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they did.
Just a thought.
And to the question of "if they knew, everyone knew" -- that's not likely, both because not everyone does exactly the same investigations, with the same people, with the same questions, etc. And even if they did, not everyone has the same thresholds of "this character issue takes him off our board." We know the Bengals, for example, have very different "professional standards" than the Bears do.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
- G08
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 20609
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
- Location: Football Hell
- Has thanked: 221 times
- Been thanked: 785 times
None of us really know for sure, but I do recall hearing concerns over his injury history, thin ankles and number of INTs throw in college.BreadNCircuses wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:37 amI've said for awhile that the best explanation for the much-publicized "Why didn't the Bears talk to Watson (more than they did)" is their background work uncovered something that gave them pause, or made them nervous, that knocked him down or out of their consideration for the highest pick they'd had in a generation for non-football reasons.IotaNet wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:29 pm
Here's something to consider. Did Pace and the Bears' FO know something about Watson's proclivities/peccadillos before the draft and decided to pass on him because of it?
Before you dismiss that out of hand, please know that people don't just start doing "unusual" things after they graduate from college. Also - the level of investigation & due diligence these teams perform pre-draft is intense, exhaustive, and proctological. There could have been whispers floating about regarding Watson -- the same way "everybody knew" that the Blackhawks coach Bradley Aldrich was not on the up-and-up.
I'm not saying that the Bears' brain trust had this info but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they did.
Just a thought.
And to the question of "if they knew, everyone knew" -- that's not likely, both because not everyone does exactly the same investigations, with the same people, with the same questions, etc. And even if they did, not everyone has the same thresholds of "this character issue takes him off our board." We know the Bengals, for example, have very different "professional standards" than the Bears do.
If it was me, I would have drafted him at #3 or even traded down a few picks and nabbed him, but at the end of the day I'm happy as fuck we have Justin Fields.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS
"Wallet white, phone is pink, case is clear, nails are clear, lips are pink – your girl LOVE 'em!"
"Wallet white, phone is pink, case is clear, nails are clear, lips are pink – your girl LOVE 'em!"
- Kylo Bearen
- Player of the Month
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2020 8:50 pm
- Has thanked: 116 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Normally I would say this is blind homerism... but you called it on Mahomes. If you nail this one, I am calling you The Soothsayer from here on out.Yogi da Bear wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 6:58 pm I take Fields for one very simple reason--I think that Fields is a better QB than Watson. Period. And I respect Watson. I just think that Fields is that much better than him.
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2584
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 401 times
Have no fear Young Master Po. Let me get my acupuncture needles and a bottle of ESB:
- Grizzled
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 5617
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
- Has thanked: 632 times
- Been thanked: 507 times
Too many B.S. explanations about Watson's college play. Too many INTs. Forget 2 appearances in the national title game, losing one by 5 points and winning the other with a last minute down-the-field drive. Pace apparently totalled closed the head coach out of the discussion for the QB he wanted. No scuttlebut about behavioral peccadillos in college. Supremely talented guy, might have helped the Bears reach the SB in '18 instead of having an offense which pretty much died 1/2 way through the season and doomed the team in the playoffs. C'es la' vie, Fields is very talented, let's see Getsy unlock that potential.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
- Yogi da Bear
- Head Coach
- Posts: 2584
- Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
- Has thanked: 222 times
- Been thanked: 401 times
I think the biggest knock on Watson coming out was his arm strength:
That's what did it for me. But I was wrong on him. Way wrong. But I'd still rather have Fields.Ball Velocity Results Raise Arm Strength Concerns for QB Deshaun Watson
by Mattis Holt March 13, 2017
NFL DRAFT
You can teach a quarterback a lot, but you can’t teach arm strength. That’s why the NFL Combine velocity numbers might send QB Deshaun Watson out of the 1st round.
Deshaun Watson has been the top quarterback on the board for many NFL scouts leading up to this year’s NFL Draft, but his draft stock just took a serious hit. The ball velocity for quarterbacks has been measured at the Combine since 2008. Some say it’s a meaningless stat, other says it’s a matter of life and death in the NFL.
Here’s how the top quarterback prospects in the 2017 draft class ranked in regard to ball velocity, according to CBS draft analyst Dane Brugler:
60 mph: Patrick Mahomes
59 mph: Davis Webb
56 mph: DeShone Kizer
55 mph: Mitchell Trubisky, Jerod Evans
53 mph: Nate Peterman, Brad Kaaya
49 mph: Deshaun Watson
Watson’s Woeful Number
Deshaun Watson’s 49 miles per hour is shockingly bad. The magic number for NFL quarterbacks is 55 mph. Only two quarterbacks with ball velocity below 55 mph have had any success in the NFL: Tyrod Taylor (50 mph) and Dak Prescott (54 mph). Prescott was also reportedly throwing with a minor shoulder injury at the 2016 NFL Combine.
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7995
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
- Has thanked: 516 times
- Been thanked: 605 times
Texans outscored the Bears in 2020 by a grand total of 12 Points (if the season ended in - The much maligned Mitch year where we hated everyone on the Offense except Arob.Grizzled wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:23 pm Too many B.S. explanations about Watson's college play. Too many INTs. Forget 2 appearances in the national title game, losing one by 5 points and winning the other with a last minute down-the-field drive. Pace apparently totalled closed the head coach out of the discussion for the QB he wanted. No scuttlebut about behavioral peccadillos in college. Supremely talented guy, might have helped the Bears reach the SB in '18 instead of having an offense which pretty much died 1/2 way through the season and doomed the team in the playoffs. C'es la' vie, Fields is very talented, let's see Getsy unlock that potential.
We didn't have Cooks, a Pro Bowl LT, a relatively healthy Fuller (especially by his standards), or the relatively easy strength of schedule - They played the Jags twice, and even the Lions once, etc, etc -
And if you want to get into 1st/2nd half splits it will look worse (it WAS a Bad Texans team so you are getting prevent defenses/ garbage time assists here)......22nd in Scoring in the 1st Half (behind even the vaunted Mitch/Chase combo who were 21st)
Yards are nice. They really are. BUT its almost like Points might just possibly matter more....maybe (I know not here because then it doesn't let people call Watson great)
Watson is a good QB not a great one.
I would love to have even a good QB. Hopefully Fields takes a nice step in that direction
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
The Bear D in 2018 Contributed 35 points on TDs alone. Factor in short fields off of an epic # of turnovers and we could also attribute *some* of the regular offensive points to the D, since the volume of turnovers was so high.RichH55 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:49 pmTexans outscored the Bears in 2020 by a grand total of 12 Points (if the season ended in - The much maligned Mitch year where we hated everyone on the Offense except Arob.Grizzled wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:23 pm Too many B.S. explanations about Watson's college play. Too many INTs. Forget 2 appearances in the national title game, losing one by 5 points and winning the other with a last minute down-the-field drive. Pace apparently totalled closed the head coach out of the discussion for the QB he wanted. No scuttlebut about behavioral peccadillos in college. Supremely talented guy, might have helped the Bears reach the SB in '18 instead of having an offense which pretty much died 1/2 way through the season and doomed the team in the playoffs. C'es la' vie, Fields is very talented, let's see Getsy unlock that potential.
We didn't have Cooks, a Pro Bowl LT, a relatively healthy Fuller (especially by his standards), or the relatively easy strength of schedule - They played the Jags twice, and even the Lions once, etc, etc -
And if you want to get into 1st/2nd half splits it will look worse (it WAS a Bad Texans team so you are getting prevent defenses/ garbage time assists here)......22nd in Scoring in the 1st Half (behind even the vaunted Mitch/Chase combo who were 21st)
Yards are nice. They really are. BUT its almost like Points might just possibly matter more....maybe (I know not here because then it doesn't let people call Watson great)
Watson is a good QB not a great one.
I would love to have even a good QB. Hopefully Fields takes a nice step in that direction
Take away that, and the offense itself was anemic or at most average.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
-
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 7995
- Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
- Has thanked: 516 times
- Been thanked: 605 times
I didn't post that as praise of the Bears OffenseIE wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 2:27 pmThe Bear D in 2018 Contributed 35 points on TDs alone. Factor in short fields off of an epic # of turnovers and we could also attribute *some* of the regular offensive points to the D, since the volume of turnovers was so high.RichH55 wrote: ↑Sat May 21, 2022 1:49 pm
Texans outscored the Bears in 2020 by a grand total of 12 Points (if the season ended in - The much maligned Mitch year where we hated everyone on the Offense except Arob.
We didn't have Cooks, a Pro Bowl LT, a relatively healthy Fuller (especially by his standards), or the relatively easy strength of schedule - They played the Jags twice, and even the Lions once, etc, etc -
And if you want to get into 1st/2nd half splits it will look worse (it WAS a Bad Texans team so you are getting prevent defenses/ garbage time assists here)......22nd in Scoring in the 1st Half (behind even the vaunted Mitch/Chase combo who were 21st)
Yards are nice. They really are. BUT its almost like Points might just possibly matter more....maybe (I know not here because then it doesn't let people call Watson great)
Watson is a good QB not a great one.
I would love to have even a good QB. Hopefully Fields takes a nice step in that direction
Take away that, and the offense itself was anemic or at most average.
- IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
Whoops nevermind I read that wrong. I thought i read 2018.RichH55 wrote: ↑Fri May 27, 2022 6:23 pmI didn't post that as praise of the Bears OffenseIE wrote: ↑Sun May 22, 2022 2:27 pm
The Bear D in 2018 Contributed 35 points on TDs alone. Factor in short fields off of an epic # of turnovers and we could also attribute *some* of the regular offensive points to the D, since the volume of turnovers was so high.
Take away that, and the offense itself was anemic or at most average.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!