Bears trade 4th rd pick to Chargers for WR Keenan Allen

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8424
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

Heinz D. wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:46 pm
grendel2000 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:37 pm I think you could put together a heck of a team around JF1 if you traded out of 1.1. Then again, I can also see a great team being built around what we have now + CW and a few more pieces... It's a tough call.
It certainly is. If only Fields had made it easier by playing better...or worse. :D

Bringing this all back to the thread topic--this trade cements they're moving on from Fields, most likely with Williams. You don't make the trade if you're keeping Fields. You attempt to drop down and snag Harrison.
OK that’s an interesting interpretation and you could be right.

My thought was that Poles decided to go DL at 9 and realized the Big Three WRs would be gone.
Image
User avatar
Boris13c
Hall of Famer
Posts: 15969
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
Location: The Bear Nebula
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 113 times

I think Mr. Williams will be a happy welcome addition, teaming with DJ Moore and Cole Kmet to make life easier for whoever the QB ends up being
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
User avatar
VA_Mountain_Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 798
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:19 am
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 44 times

wab wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:50 am
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:47 am

To be fair, view this situation through the lens of somebody who

- has routinely viewed and played football through the lens of high school/collegiate levels
- grew up in times when the NFL was much less QB-driven and not nearly as valuable

I think there's a lot of logical, if not old-fashioned posturing that is afforded to fans who prefer a particular era or mentality or philosophy in terms of football ops. It's uncomfortable, especially for much older fans, to accept that the amount of power players, much less rookies, have, especially quarterbacks, in the modern game.
Agreed. The concept of "you gotta sit and earn this position/respect" is nostalgic and all, but honestly no longer applies to #1 overall picks who happen to be superstar QBs
100%
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

Heinz D. wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:40 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:40 pm The CW Cult will think that's crazy and go nuts but if Poles does decide to trade out of #1 he could do far worse than taking J J as a guy to groom while giving JF more time to see how well he can do with all of the offensive improvements made. That would be two QB's who've won national titles while in college. I believe McCarthy is a sleeper and he's a local kid to boot.
I think if Poles is super convinced that J.J. can be a better franchise QB than Fields, then he pretty much needs to take him at #1. As any other path wouldn't ensure you got him. But that's besides the point.

If Poles is going to make a switch from Fields, Fields pretty much has to go. The dynamic just doesn't work, and it's hella dangerous to mess with a young team that way.
I would agree with that more or less as far as drafting a QB out of the top 2-3. I don't believe McCarthy is ranked that highly although I could be wrong. If Poles can draft a QB later in round one or early in round two I would not be as quick to agree.

I also believe any of these QBs will all need time to adapt to new offenses and the speed of the NFL, even CW. JF won a national championship against a damn good team and he's still not there as far as his ceiling goes. Let's look at how GB has succeeded with their QBs over the years. Rodgers was drafted later in round one and sat for 3 years behind Favre. That had to irritate him but he managed it. Love sat for two years behind Rodgers before he started and only because Rodgers was moved to the Jets.

This idea that newly drafted QBs must come in and start immediately is a new way of doing things and if you look around overall it's not worked out all that well for many of them. Stroud is far more an exception than the rule. But I will admit that few rookie QBs have had a table as well set for them as Poles has for CW if he decides that's his path if you will also admit that the same is true of JF if Poles decides he deserves more time under better coaching and with a far better roster in support of him.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6009
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 1813 times

Rusty Trombagent wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:52 am this really fucks my barrel
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6009
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 1813 times

Heinz D. wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:46 pm Bringing this all back to the thread topic--this trade cements they're moving on from Fields, most likely with Williams. You don't make the trade if you're keeping Fields. You attempt to drop down and snag Harrison.
Not necessarily. A key reason for keeping Fields rather than drafting a replacement with the #1 pick would be to maximise the return not just to pick up a couple of extra picks.
Last year Poles traded down to #9 which if he were to make a similar move this year would put Harrison well out of reach.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:51 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:43 pm

You are barking at the wrong guy here brother. I'm as neutral as can be as far as what Poles actually does. I'm just pushing out whatever options I believe make some sense and what I believe Poles may also be considering. Since a majority seem to favor drafting CW above all else as does the media what I'm doing is presenting alternatives that I feel also make sense. And I've been challenged on them as well which is fine with me. That's why I've been posting them.

And I've been a Bears fan since before Ditka was catching passes from Bill Wade you can bet your ass I've been through far worse which is why I'm not sweating this QB decision to be as crucial as many others are. If you object to my wording then please edit it. I moderate a forum myself and it's what I would so if a member in good standing posted something I felt needed to be edited. My use of the word cult only means to define those whose minds are so made up they are blind to any other facts.

The word stoned is a figure of speech not meant to be taken literally or in any other way than somewhat in jest. It's just how I phrase things at times. I did not create a binary civil war. If that's what it is it began here and elsewhere long before I began posting here again. It also not my intent to make anyone feel bad or insult them for their opinion and if you read my posts, all of them, I don't believe you'll find that I have even when I'm disagreeing or countering their opinions. I'm not feeling hostile about this at all.

If we need to discuss this further I'd prefer we do it privately in a PM so it's a matter between just the two of us not the entire forum.
Image
LOL....I am relaxed. Truth be known I have visions with either CW or JF playing QB and I could just as easily debate from the other perspective but it's been so well covered I just wanted to present other ideas that I believe make sense. I trust Poles to make the best decision possible for his team. He's proven to be a very competent GM so far and he's committed to building a winning team so I'll back his play which ever way he goes. :toast:

I lived in Chicago for less time than I lived in or around Green Bay and I've lived in Denver since 1983. I didn't covert to a Packer fan when I lived in Green Bay and while I do back the Broncos as well they are not really MY team. The Bears are and always will be.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25168
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:16 pm
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:51 pm

Image
LOL....I am relaxed. Truth be known I have visions with either CW or JF playing QB and I could just as easily debate from the other perspective but it's been so well covered I just wanted to present other ideas that I believe make sense. I trust Poles to make the best decision possible for his team. He's proven to be a very competent GM so far and he's committed to building a winning team so I'll back his play which ever way he goes. :toast:

I lived in Chicago for less time than I lived in or around Green Bay and I've lived in Denver since 1983. I didn't covert to a Packer fan when I lived in Green Bay and while I do back the Broncos as well they are not really MY team. The Bears are and always will be.
Apologies if I came across as pointed or projecting. I'm simply fatigued. QB talk over the years has worn me down. Grossman vs. Orton, Cutler vs. his face and interceptions, Trubisky vs. himself. It's left me a mess.
Image
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

grendel2000 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:37 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:40 pm

The CW Cult will think that's crazy and go nuts but if Poles does decide to trade out of #1 he could do far worse than taking J J as a guy to groom while giving JF more time to see how well he can do with all of the offensive improvements made. That would be two QB's who've won national titles while in college. I believe McCarthy is a sleeper and he's a local kid to boot.

I agree with the idea that Poles cannot draft CW and sit him behind JF, or vice versa. But he could with a kid like J J and should with a kid like J J. I would truly like to see what JF can do with better coaching, a better scheme tailored to his strengths, and the players he'd have supporting him in this new offense. But I also would not completely ignore drafting another top QB.

As good as CW may be QBs don't win championships on their own. Teams do and more often than not it's defense that wins them. In my lifetime the Bears have gotten to two SB with less than top shelf QBs because their defense was good enough to help get them get there without a GOAT QB. Even Aaron Rodgers only got GB to one SB and that was in the year Cutler was so beat up he couldn't finish the NFCC Game and GB went instead. Tom Brady didn't win multiple SB with the best offenses in the NFL either.

I would hope that Poles is at least asking himself whether or not they can win with JF and how much better he might become now that he's gone a long way toward fixing many of the flaws in the offense JF has dealt with and whether Waldron can do for JF what he was able to do with Geno Smith. The potential for Poles be to add even more top tier talent to his team over the next couple of years could be phenomenal. If it was still Ryan Pace doing the drafting I'd have my doubts but with Poles and Co I have none.

I'm 100% certain to get stoned for this kind of thinking but IMHO it's not all at invalid.
You said this well!

I've been trying to figure out the right way to point out that it's not a black or white JF1 vs CW argument about ONLY their potential for success - it's about that risk/reward situation for each viewed in the context of what you give up or GET as a result of choosing each option. It's not enough necessarily to believe CW is the lower risk and higher reward guy between the two if you happen to believe that, it also has to factor in other considerations like who can you put around him vs. how that looks if you keep JF1.

I think you could put together a heck of a team around JF1 if you traded out of 1.1. Then again, I can also see a great team being built around what we have now + CW and a few more pieces... It's a tough call.
It is a tough call. I agree and I think it's why Poles wants to take his time to collect all the data he can before he decides. He not only wants to get it right he needs to get it right.

I spent a whole lot of my professional life learning to manage risk while managing money. Purely on a statistical basis the highest risk choice is drafting any QB in the top five picks since roughly 50% of them fail to live up to their draft status. You can only hedge against that so much but from all I can see Poles is doing his best to hedge against failure by building as strong a situation for a rookie to come into as he can. Most top picks end up like JF did with a team torn down to it's timbers needing to be rebuilt.

But in doing so he's also built a far better situation for JF going forward as well should he decide to go that route. It's also his least riskiest route since JF is far more of a known quantity than CW. We just don't know yet exactly how he or Shane Waldron view him in that regard but they sure as hell know by now. With the picks/players? he may get from trading down Poles is also effectively spreading his risk among several more players and their eventual success or failure so it's the same as diversification.

In money managers terms CW is like having gone all in on MicroSoft where as the trade down and sticking with JF is more like a diversified portfolio of tech stocks. In this case MS would win over the diversified portfolio. But say you believed DOS was it as far as an OS goes and you went all in on IBM? Oooops. That's how money managers get fired and NFL GMs too.....LOL. So I have a natural preference for diversification which is why I may lean toward the trade but I'm trusting Poles to make the final call.
User avatar
Otis Day
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:43 pm
Location: Armpit of IL.
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Reminder, this is a Keenan Allen thread. Eff JF and CW. They have their own place.

Can we talk about Allen's righteous beard? Amazing.
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11042
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 518 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:22 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:16 pm

LOL....I am relaxed. Truth be known I have visions with either CW or JF playing QB and I could just as easily debate from the other perspective but it's been so well covered I just wanted to present other ideas that I believe make sense. I trust Poles to make the best decision possible for his team. He's proven to be a very competent GM so far and he's committed to building a winning team so I'll back his play which ever way he goes. :toast:

I lived in Chicago for less time than I lived in or around Green Bay and I've lived in Denver since 1983. I didn't covert to a Packer fan when I lived in Green Bay and while I do back the Broncos as well they are not really MY team. The Bears are and always will be.
Apologies if I came across as pointed or projecting. I'm simply fatigued. QB talk over the years has worn me down. Grossman vs. Orton, Cutler vs. his face and interceptions, Trubisky vs. himself. It's left me a mess.
Every Chicago Bears fan has QB PTSD. We all need therapy.
Image
User avatar
grendel2000
Journeyman
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2019 12:01 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:37 pm
grendel2000 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:37 pm

You said this well!

I've been trying to figure out the right way to point out that it's not a black or white JF1 vs CW argument about ONLY their potential for success - it's about that risk/reward situation for each viewed in the context of what you give up or GET as a result of choosing each option. It's not enough necessarily to believe CW is the lower risk and higher reward guy between the two if you happen to believe that, it also has to factor in other considerations like who can you put around him vs. how that looks if you keep JF1.

I think you could put together a heck of a team around JF1 if you traded out of 1.1. Then again, I can also see a great team being built around what we have now + CW and a few more pieces... It's a tough call.
It is a tough call. I agree and I think it's why Poles wants to take his time to collect all the data he can before he decides. He not only wants to get it right he needs to get it right.

I spent a whole lot of my professional life learning to manage risk while managing money. Purely on a statistical basis the highest risk choice is drafting any QB in the top five picks since roughly 50% of them fail to live up to their draft status. You can only hedge against that so much but from all I can see Poles is doing his best to hedge against failure by building as strong a situation for a rookie to come into as he can. Most top picks end up like JF did with a team torn down to it's timbers needing to be rebuilt.

But in doing so he's also built a far better situation for JF going forward as well should he decide to go that route. It's also his least riskiest route since JF is far more of a known quantity than CW. We just don't know yet exactly how he or Shane Waldron view him in that regard but they sure as hell know by now. With the picks/players? he may get from trading down Poles is also effectively spreading his risk among several more players and their eventual success or failure so it's the same as diversification.

In money managers terms CW is like having gone all in on MicroSoft where as the trade down and sticking with JF is more like a diversified portfolio of tech stocks. In this case MS would win over the diversified portfolio. But say you believed DOS was it as far as an OS goes and you went all in on IBM? Oooops. That's how money managers get fired and NFL GMs too.....LOL. So I have a natural preference for diversification which is why I may lean toward the trade but I'm trusting Poles to make the final call.
This is an interesting way of looking at the issue, and while I know you didn't;t imply that the factors are identical in money management and the NFL, on thing that strikes me as a HIGE difference is player "perishability". No matter how good a player turns out to be (meaning you made the "right" choice in your diversification vs risk options) they will be gone before long whether due to injury or skill decline over the years and you will be back to making new choices. Seems like there's not much parallel in the money world since once you've made a good choice you often just need to let it ride, and often the longer you do that the better...
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 988 times
Been thanked: 168 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:15 pm Not necessarily. A key reason for keeping Fields rather than drafting a replacement with the #1 pick would be to maximise the return not just to pick up a couple of extra picks.
Last year Poles traded down to #9 which if he were to make a similar move this year would put Harrison well out of reach.
I'm confused. Explain?
Otis Day wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:39 pm Reminder, this is a Keenan Allen thread. Eff JF and CW. They have their own place.

Can we talk about Allen's righteous beard? Amazing.
It is amazing.

And I absolutely love the trade. Been an Allen fan forever. It's going to be a lot of fun having him and Moore and Scott zipping around out there...
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:22 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:16 pm

LOL....I am relaxed. Truth be known I have visions with either CW or JF playing QB and I could just as easily debate from the other perspective but it's been so well covered I just wanted to present other ideas that I believe make sense. I trust Poles to make the best decision possible for his team. He's proven to be a very competent GM so far and he's committed to building a winning team so I'll back his play which ever way he goes. :toast:

I lived in Chicago for less time than I lived in or around Green Bay and I've lived in Denver since 1983. I didn't covert to a Packer fan when I lived in Green Bay and while I do back the Broncos as well they are not really MY team. The Bears are and always will be.
Apologies if I came across as pointed or projecting. I'm simply fatigued. QB talk over the years has worn me down. Grossman vs. Orton, Cutler vs. his face and interceptions, Trubisky vs. himself. It's left me a mess.
No problem at all. While the forum I moderate is a music gear forum where no one debates much about the brand it features previous to that and long ago I was on the admin staff of a start up Bears forum while the official corporate sight still existed. We had our share of delinquents from that forum coming over then years later it was a bunch from ChiCitySports. Nuff said right?

What you do is a tough job and I do get it. I have a dry sense of humor and there are times my attempts at using it are misunderstood. Just ask my ex-wife. I'm never intentionally trying to be sarcastic or poke the bear but it does happen and when it does I do at least try to explain myself. I promise I am not here to cause trouble or intentionally troll for disputes. I'm truly presenting alternatives I also believe in and am willing to debate and defend.....but fairly. The last thing I want it to be some Mod or Admins nightmare, trust me. :D
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25168
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:49 pm What you do is a tough job and I do get it. I have a dry sense of humor and there are times my attempts at using it are misunderstood. Just ask my ex-wife.
I'm also reading through like 8 different threads simultaneously while keeping an eye on Bears Twitter (which is bad for one's health) and listening to The Score, so maybe I need to unplug.
Image
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11042
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 79 times
Been thanked: 518 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:59 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:49 pm What you do is a tough job and I do get it. I have a dry sense of humor and there are times my attempts at using it are misunderstood. Just ask my ex-wife.
I'm also reading through like 8 different threads simultaneously while keeping an eye on Bears Twitter (which is bad for one's health) and listening to The Score, so maybe I need to unplug.
Do you have one eye on the Players Championship as well?
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8424
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1294 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:03 pm
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:59 pm

I'm also reading through like 8 different threads simultaneously while keeping an eye on Bears Twitter (which is bad for one's health) and listening to The Score, so maybe I need to unplug.
Do you have one eye on the Players Championship as well?
Why can’t Scheffler put?
Image
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4916
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 473 times
Been thanked: 687 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:59 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:49 pm What you do is a tough job and I do get it. I have a dry sense of humor and there are times my attempts at using it are misunderstood. Just ask my ex-wife.
I'm also reading through like 8 different threads simultaneously while keeping an eye on Bears Twitter (which is bad for one's health) and listening to The Score, so maybe I need to unplug.
So when you are looking at the 8 different threads, do they all at some point turn to a Fields vs. Williams debate? :evilgrin:
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29885
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:44 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:40 pm The CW Cult will think that's crazy and go nuts

I'm 100% certain to get stoned for this kind of thinking but IMHO it's not all at invalid.
This PICK A SIDE, binary civil war of Bears QB thought is awful, and some of you need to calm the hell down. This is not life or death. You have survived much worse as a fan. It shouldn't mean THIS much to you, and making somebody else feel bad because you disagree with their Quarterback Opinion really, really sucks.
I'm glad the Bears didn't have the first pick when Manning, Newton, Burrow, Stafford, or Luck were available.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

grendel2000 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:46 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:37 pm

It is a tough call. I agree and I think it's why Poles wants to take his time to collect all the data he can before he decides. He not only wants to get it right he needs to get it right.

I spent a whole lot of my professional life learning to manage risk while managing money. Purely on a statistical basis the highest risk choice is drafting any QB in the top five picks since roughly 50% of them fail to live up to their draft status. You can only hedge against that so much but from all I can see Poles is doing his best to hedge against failure by building as strong a situation for a rookie to come into as he can. Most top picks end up like JF did with a team torn down to it's timbers needing to be rebuilt.

But in doing so he's also built a far better situation for JF going forward as well should he decide to go that route. It's also his least riskiest route since JF is far more of a known quantity than CW. We just don't know yet exactly how he or Shane Waldron view him in that regard but they sure as hell know by now. With the picks/players? he may get from trading down Poles is also effectively spreading his risk among several more players and their eventual success or failure so it's the same as diversification.

In money managers terms CW is like having gone all in on MicroSoft where as the trade down and sticking with JF is more like a diversified portfolio of tech stocks. In this case MS would win over the diversified portfolio. But say you believed DOS was it as far as an OS goes and you went all in on IBM? Oooops. That's how money managers get fired and NFL GMs too.....LOL. So I have a natural preference for diversification which is why I may lean toward the trade but I'm trusting Poles to make the final call.
This is an interesting way of looking at the issue, and while I know you didn't;t imply that the factors are identical in money management and the NFL, on thing that strikes me as a HIGE difference is player "perishability". No matter how good a player turns out to be (meaning you made the "right" choice in your diversification vs risk options) they will be gone before long whether due to injury or skill decline over the years and you will be back to making new choices. Seems like there's not much parallel in the money world since once you've made a good choice you often just need to let it ride, and often the longer you do that the better...
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Even a guy like Warren Buffett whose a king of buy and hold of good companies understands the need to shift gears and trade in and out of positions over time. A really great mutual fund can be great as a buy and hold over time but within that fund it's portfolio is always turning over too. Index funds are about the only ones with little turn over.

So NFL GMs manage their rosters somewhat like a money manager because as you point out all players have "use by" dates and some last far longer than others. Ordinarily I use a three year cycle to evaluate most NFL players. By the end of their 3rd season they are usually all they're ever gonna be. But there are always exceptions and with QBs especially we need to make some.

Top ranked draftees often end up on shitty teams much like JF did. With some maybe that cycle should begin once a team has been built around them that can function well enough to win. Other offensive skill positions seem to be able to get around this more easily since no one ever holds a RB or a WR responsible for his teams W/L record. It's always on the QB. So they need to be seen differently.

I also don't believe stats are the sole measure of a QBs efficiency any more than I do a MLB pitcher. A guy could throw great games and have a very low ERA but if the defense behind him sucks and his team never provides him with runs he ends up with a losing record despite his skills. So in my world there's both qualitative and quantitative analysis that needs to happen along with a trend analysis. That part isn't all that different from money management either. And IMHO the goal is the same. How do I and a NFL GM get the best risk adjusted return we can out of the investments we select. Me with securities and him with his players.

Sorry if this sounds kinda screwy but it's the way I'm kind of programmed to think.
User avatar
Bearfacts
MVP
Posts: 1846
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:33 am
Location: Colorado
Has thanked: 850 times
Been thanked: 212 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:59 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:49 pm What you do is a tough job and I do get it. I have a dry sense of humor and there are times my attempts at using it are misunderstood. Just ask my ex-wife.
I'm also reading through like 8 different threads simultaneously while keeping an eye on Bears Twitter (which is bad for one's health) and listening to The Score, so maybe I need to unplug.
Yeah, it is kinda crazy at the moment isn't it? I don't do Twitter so I can eliminate that one but I do watch few YouTube programs with guys who are well respected and produce a good show. I can watch and/or listen to hear what they have to say and match it up with my own beliefs. Some I agree with and some I don't but I always learn something useful from the good ones.

But there's also political and economic stuff I'm following too so it can get overwhelming to a point where at times it impacts my attitude and behavior too. Then I have to unplug. I get it. I really do. Stuff is moving very fast right now. Trying to stay on top of it and analyze and interpret it is a challenge and we still have around six weeks to go. So we all have to unplug at times.
Chifaninca
Journeyman
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:22 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 23 times

wab wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 3:22 pm
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:44 pm

This PICK A SIDE, binary civil war of Bears QB thought is awful, and some of you need to calm the hell down. This is not life or death. You have survived much worse as a fan. It shouldn't mean THIS much to you, and making somebody else feel bad because you disagree with their Quarterback Opinion really, really sucks.
I'm glad the Bears didn't have the first pick when Manning, Newton, Burrow, Stafford, or Luck were available.
Interesting but I don't think it would've mattered as much.

The thing is, most of us love Fields as person/player and that is the complexity of this. You have this unique opp and now you have the heated debate. I'm down for Caleb for many reasons and am also rooting for the Bears QB to be the best ever regardless of the name on their back. I'll also root for Fields if he is traded, except when it impacts Da Bears!
User avatar
Arkansasbear
Head Coach
Posts: 4916
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:41 am
Has thanked: 473 times
Been thanked: 687 times

Would have preferred to make a run at his former running mate - Mike Williams. No picks given up and he wouldn't count vs the comp pick formula (Allen doesn't either). With that said, I like the pick other than he's only got one year left and his age (31). Next year really could be something special with him and Moore. But the issue becomes where do we go after that? Extend him?

I don't follow other teams/players as close as other do. But I've always kind of assumed he was more of the speed guy out of the duo. But looking at his measurables, he is listed at 6'2" 212 pounds and ran a 4.7 40 time at his pro day. So that makes me feel a bit better. Smaller fast guys tend to fall much faster when age catches up to them.

With that said, I think the best we get out of a 4th round pick is 3 years of top level performance at the WR1/2 spot. I think that a solid, but not exceptional return for the pick. Worst case we get one year of that level of performance and he leaves. (Not getting into the whole what is a players floor debate - yes he could get hurt and not play a down, yes it's possible his game falls completely off).

It appears 4th round draft picks get a second contract about 50% of the time (22% with the drafting team and 28% with another team - that an estimate looking at the graph here https://www.dailynorseman.com/2022/4/26 ... -very-high). So it appears this is the saver return on the pick. You miss out on your pick being Chris Carter, Steve Largent or Jared Allen, but you pretty much assure yourself he isn't a bust.

Also, since all the tea leafs appear to be that the Bears will be moving on from Fields and drafting a QB (likely CW), I think it's a great move to make sure that guy has the pieces in place to be successful. (They've never done that). So even if he is here a year and walks, if he helps the new QB develop, it's a great trade.
User avatar
HisRoyalSweetness
Hall of Famer
Posts: 6009
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 1813 times

Heinz D. wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:49 pm
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:15 pm Not necessarily. A key reason for keeping Fields rather than drafting a replacement with the #1 pick would be to maximise the return not just to pick up a couple of extra picks.
Last year Poles traded down to #9 which if he were to make a similar move this year would put Harrison well out of reach.
I'm confused. Explain?
You said you don't make the trade for Allen if you're keeping Fields but attempt to drop down and draft Harrison. I don't see how that's a conclusion that can be reached. Harrison isn't the be all and end all. Poles could trade the #1 pick to a team outside the top 3 expecting the Cardinals will take Harrison with #4 because the return is higher. In fact if he's going to trade the pick then trading back further is the move to make. Passing on a top QB prospect for a couple of picks is foolhardy. Passing on a top QB prospect for a large haul of R1 and R2 picks for the next two or three years sets the franchise up for the rest of the decade.

I just don't see the acquisition of Allen gives any indication of Poles intentions regarding the QB position or #1 pick.
Plak1989
Rookie
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:30 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:47 am
wab wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:33 am

Yeah, the weird concept of punishing Williams after taking him seems strange.
To be fair, view this situation through the lens of somebody who

- has routinely viewed and played football through the lens of high school/collegiate levels
- grew up in times when the NFL was much less QB-driven and not nearly as valuable

I think there's a lot of logical, if not old-fashioned posturing that is afforded to fans who prefer a particular era or mentality or philosophy in terms of football ops. It's uncomfortable, especially for much older fans, to accept that the amount of power players, much less rookies, have, especially quarterbacks, in the modern game.
Just say it: this board is filled with boomers pining for the days of dick butkus and Mike ditka. It's 2024. The game of football has changed drastically.
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 25168
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL
Has thanked: 109 times
Been thanked: 939 times

Plak1989 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:15 pm
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 10:47 am

To be fair, view this situation through the lens of somebody who

- has routinely viewed and played football through the lens of high school/collegiate levels
- grew up in times when the NFL was much less QB-driven and not nearly as valuable

I think there's a lot of logical, if not old-fashioned posturing that is afforded to fans who prefer a particular era or mentality or philosophy in terms of football ops. It's uncomfortable, especially for much older fans, to accept that the amount of power players, much less rookies, have, especially quarterbacks, in the modern game.
Just say it: this board is filled with boomers pining for the days of dick butkus and Mike ditka. It's 2024. The game of football has changed drastically.
I’d rather roll my eyes at table-pounding old-timers than appeal to the “LETS GOOOO”/“that’s fire!🔥 “/no cap/bet youth demographic.
Image
User avatar
Heinz D.
MVP
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri May 06, 2022 4:29 pm
Location: Tri-State area
Has thanked: 988 times
Been thanked: 168 times

HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:20 pm Passing on a top QB prospect for a large haul of R1 and R2 picks for the next two or three years sets the franchise up for the rest of the decade.
That's...not a thing? And, it won't be a thing?
HisRoyalSweetness wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 5:20 pm I just don't see the acquisition of Allen gives any indication of Poles intentions regarding the QB position or #1 pick.
So, you think the decision was made in a vaccuum? They'd be getting Keenan Allen no matter what?
UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:44 pm I’d rather roll my eyes at table-pounding old-timers than appeal to the “LETS GOOOO”/“that’s fire!🔥 “/no cap/bet youth demographic.
Your new sig is awesome, by the way...
My mother's love was inexplicably linked to kickball.
User avatar
Umbali
MVP
Posts: 1047
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 10:32 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 87 times

I saw this last night. I am on board with this. I came back after work today and saw 7 pages. I tried to read them all , I really did. I crapped at mid page 3.

Look no matter who is at QB this is a huge upgrade. Name the last pair of WRs we have had that is better than Allen and DJ? I could only think of the the potential of Alshon and Marshall.

Also surely Poles has designs in mind and maybe even a tentative agreement with Allen to extend.

I like this deal and the one thing I havent seen yet but may have missed is I think Allen had those 1200 yards and 7 tds and 100 plus reception in only 13 games.

that is great productivity. We just have to make sure we have a plan in place to make Allen and DJ both 1k yard wrs !
Fantasy Team: Peanut Punchers
User avatar
malk
Head Coach
Posts: 3630
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:10 am
Has thanked: 133 times
Been thanked: 208 times

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:22 pm
Bearfacts wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:16 pm

LOL....I am relaxed. Truth be known I have visions with either CW or JF playing QB and I could just as easily debate from the other perspective but it's been so well covered I just wanted to present other ideas that I believe make sense. I trust Poles to make the best decision possible for his team. He's proven to be a very competent GM so far and he's committed to building a winning team so I'll back his play which ever way he goes. :toast:

I lived in Chicago for less time than I lived in or around Green Bay and I've lived in Denver since 1983. I didn't covert to a Packer fan when I lived in Green Bay and while I do back the Broncos as well they are not really MY team. The Bears are and always will be.
Apologies if I came across as pointed or projecting. I'm simply fatigued. QB talk over the years has worn me down. Grossman vs. Orton, Cutler vs. his face and interceptions, Trubisky vs. himself. It's left me a mess.
Can't believe you left off my boy Matt Barkley!

On topic, I kind of love this. I do not care about the 4th rounder and whilst initially the big chunk of cap allocated raised my hackles, um, our skill positions look pretty great on paper right now and I'm in full squeee excitement mode. 5 years of Williams on a rookie deal; and he gets to walk into the league with two great receivers, two very good pass catching tight ends and a back that has some pop and safe hands. If Bates or Shelton work out decently there isn't a liability on the line so we can hope it's solid. And the defence was ascending last season and we only have to replace Jones' production, so you'd think Williams will get a lot of manageable situations.

And the team is still young, nearly everyone is in their prime. We've got what, Allen, Byard, Walker and Everett in their 30s? Outside of special teams anyway. I'm probably missing someone but still I'm fukken stoked man, this is great!
Last edited by malk on Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:55 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...)
Plak1989
Rookie
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:30 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

UOK wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:44 pm
Plak1989 wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 6:15 pm

Just say it: this board is filled with boomers pining for the days of dick butkus and Mike ditka. It's 2024. The game of football has changed drastically.
I’d rather roll my eyes at table-pounding old-timers than appeal to the “LETS GOOOO”/“that’s fire!🔥 “/no cap/bet youth demographic.
Those aren't the only 2 options but ok
Post Reply