Official 2018-19 NFL Thread

[Kyyle23]

49 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

People are talking crazy this past week.

Nothing in that bolded is crazy.   The packers sink or swim based on rodgers.  Their defense has been terrible for a while, and they have already lost multiple starting linebackers.

[GoSox05]

6 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Nothing in that bolded is crazy.   The packers sink or swim based on rodgers.  Their defense has been terrible for a while, and they have already lost multiple starting linebackers.

They have a new defensive coordinator, added 4 new CB this off season and Muhammad Wilkerson.  They have one LB who is going to miss 1-2 games.  They will be fine. 

NFC North is a tough division.  The Vikings and Packers are both power houses in the NFC and the Lions are at the very least a decent football team. 

 

[Jack Parkman]

44 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

They have a new defensive coordinator, added 4 new CB this off season and Muhammad Wilkerson.  They have one LB who is going to miss 1-2 games.  They will be fine. 

NFC North is a tough division.  The Vikings and Packers are both power houses in the NFC and the Lions are at the very least a decent football team. 

 

Under the assumption that Trubisky is at the very least a decent QB, I'd put the Bears right up there with GB and Minne. They had the #9 defense last year and just added Mack. It isn't crazy to think that if they stay reasonably healthy, they could vault to #1. With Mack and reasonable health, I think they're a lock for a top 5 D. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Dick Allen]

2 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

People are talking crazy this past week.

It was the exact same talk when they traded for Cutler. But the difference is, this guy is legit. Cutty right now is the best QB in team history, but a turnover machine. He was what many thought he was, Jeff George 2. 

 

Health and Trubisky. That's what still matters. But now, Trubisky doesn't have to be a Pro Bowler. If they stay healthy, a huge if, the defense is nasty, and Mack is exactly the guy they needed, that never would have been available to draft or sign as a free agent. The price was high, but they did what they had to do. It was the only way.

[GoSox05]

Even besides me being a Packers fan.  I think the Packers will be pretty good this year, but the Vikings have a scary team.  They are the favorites to win the division and this idea that the Bears are just going to jump three teams, one of which might be the best team in the NFL is crazy to me. 

Not saying they won't be better, but they have a lot of ground to cover.  People keep comparing them to the Rams, but the Rams were in a awful division with the better teams(Seahawks and Cardinals) at the end of their windows.

[soxfan49]

1 hour ago, GoSox05 said:

They have a new defensive coordinator, added 4 new CB this off season and Muhammad Wilkerson.  They have one LB who is going to miss 1-2 games.  They will be fine. 

NFC North is a tough division.  The Vikings and Packers are both power houses in the NFC and the Lions are at the very least a decent football team. 

 

Wilkerson got paid and no longer gives a s*** about football. They added all young players/rookies in the secondary and lost both their SS and FS (Randall & Burnett). Matthews is no longer any good and Clark stinks. Besides Daniels, their defense is pretty blah but with a ton of potential.

Edited September 4, 2018 by soxfan49

[TheTruth05]

10 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Even besides me being a Packers fan.  I think the Packers will be pretty good this year, but the Vikings have a scary team.  They are the favorites to win the division and this idea that the Bears are just going to jump three teams, one of which might be the best team in the NFL is crazy to me. 

Not saying they won't be better, but they have a lot of ground to cover.  People keep comparing them to the Rams, but the Rams were in a awful division with the better teams(Seahawks and Cardinals) at the end of their windows.

The NFC North is a gauntlet that's for sure but the Bears, as bad as the offense was last year, had pretty competitive games with all 3 North opponents. A returning (and improved) top 10 defense, a whole new offense that we've seen glimpses of with the Rams and Eagles, and a 2nd year Trubisky are all major factors as to why the Bears can leapfrog their NFCN opponents. 

[bmags]

13 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Even besides me being a Packers fan.  I think the Packers will be pretty good this year, but the Vikings have a scary team.  They are the favorites to win the division and this idea that the Bears are just going to jump three teams, one of which might be the best team in the NFL is crazy to me. 

Not saying they won't be better, but they have a lot of ground to cover.  People keep comparing them to the Rams, but the Rams were in a awful division with the better teams(Seahawks and Cardinals) at the end of their windows.

It's a tough division, but football happens. All 4 teams are in a position to capitalize and that's all you can ask for, then just mercy from injuries.

[Chisoxfn]

2 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

People are talking crazy this past week.

I agree with you. Packers with Rodgers will always be a tough beat (best QB in the league means you compete and can contend as long as he stays upright).  Vikings are legit good (elite defense combined with good weapons at wideout and a more than serviceable QB). Lions have a solid to good QB and decent players. Probably most suspect team as I think their ability to be anything but solid is dependent on major improvements in their offensive weapons and/or defense and I don't know how possible that is. 

The NFL always has a bit of crapshoot but the NFC North is one of the strongest divisions in the league with three quality veteran QB's (one of which is the arguably the best QB in the league) and you have one elite defense in the league and maybe a 2nd one (albeit, I think the Bears are probably a year away from that albeit, I can certainly see scenarios where they take major steps forward...I can also see scenarios where our secondary falls apart and becomes a sieve). Fuller becomes a contract year wonder and Eddie Jackson get hurt, etc.  

[Jose Abreu]

I think people underestimate how big of a role coaching played with the Bears last year. If they were consistently getting blown out then I would agree that they still have a long way to go. But this is a team that ran the most predictable offense (run, run, pass, punt) ever, didn't let their quarterback take shots, and, with the exception of the Eagles game, generally only lost Trubisky's games by one or two scores despite these limitations. They may have gone 5-11, but they played more like a 7-9/8-8 team with Trubisky around. Now that we've added Mack/Smith/the offensive weapons and system, I wouldn't consider a 9 or 10 win season that big of a jump. 

[bmags]

1 minute ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think people underestimate how big of a role coaching played with the Bears last year. If they were consistently getting blown out then I would agree that they still have a long way to go. But this is a team that ran the most predictable offense (run, run, pass, punt) ever, didn't let their quarterback take shots, and, with the exception of the Eagles game, generally only lost Trubisky's games by one or two scores despite these limitations. They may have gone 5-11, but they played more like a 7-9/8-8 team with Trubisky around. Now that we've added Mack/Smith/the offensive weapons and system, I wouldn't consider a 9 or 10 win season that big of a jump. 

I agree though I will say one thing that would obscure the blowouts is everything fox did was to merely keep games close. More than win, he just wanted them close.

That was more effective when we had gase, who designed an offense to keep d off field. Loggains designed a bad, predictable offense because he had less ability to convince fox that trying to score was better than trying to slowly punt.

I just think a productive offense makes our d even better, in addition to mack. KC's offense is not actually a fast pace one, it controls the clock though and moves the chains. 

Anyway, I can't predict things. I just know this year I expect to win every game and will be upset when they lose.

Regarding offense needing time to adjust. Probably true, but, if the offense isn't good I won't be thinking "man they just need time to adjust". It will mean both trubisky sucks and nagy isn't very good.

I have a hard time believing this team of offensive minds won't scheme our way to much more potent scoring and yardage.

[Chisoxfn]

34 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

It was the exact same talk when they traded for Cutler. But the difference is, this guy is legit. Cutty right now is the best QB in team history, but a turnover machine. He was what many thought he was, Jeff George 2. 

 

Health and Trubisky. That's what still matters. But now, Trubisky doesn't have to be a Pro Bowler. If they stay healthy, a huge if, the defense is nasty, and Mack is exactly the guy they needed, that never would have been available to draft or sign as a free agent. The price was high, but they did what they had to do. It was the only way.

Technically, when they got Cutler he was an ascending young QB with all of the talent in the world. It was the right move and they should have done it every time.  I actually think that move was significantly better than the Mack move. The Mack move might ultimately have the better result (even significantly better) but from a pure "decision making" perspective, on paper the Cutler trade was a brilliant and necessary move. Unfortunately it didn't work out and that is part on Jay and part on the front office(s) who handled Jay with such ineptness.  Either way, moot point. Pace seems to not be making those "same" mistakes as we've made all the "right" on paper moves to support Trubisky. Again, results might not pan out, but the right moves have been made on the offensive side of the football at the very least.

While I can see the vision for the Mack move, I don't see it as a slam dunk no-brainer in the sense that real downside risks exist and the true ability to unlock a consistent contender will be on the offense improving. The defense to me is what it will take to be an elite team....good offense + elite defense and we are talking potential superbowl team in the future.  

[Chisoxfn]

1 hour ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think people underestimate how big of a role coaching played with the Bears last year. If they were consistently getting blown out then I would agree that they still have a long way to go. But this is a team that ran the most predictable offense (run, run, pass, punt) ever, didn't let their quarterback take shots, and, with the exception of the Eagles game, generally only lost Trubisky's games by one or two scores despite these limitations. They may have gone 5-11, but they played more like a 7-9/8-8 team with Trubisky around. Now that we've added Mack/Smith/the offensive weapons and system, I wouldn't consider a 9 or 10 win season that big of a jump. 

I also think that "coaching" style kept them in a lot of games as well.  By and large Fox played to try and keep the game close. With that we probably hung around some games we shouldn't have and ended up winning, but also lost some very winnable games. We also really had minimal offensive weapons so I don't think it was "purely" a system thing and I think part of the reason we ran the system we had was a lack of belief in the weapons and experience necessary to "open things up".  

I think Nagy has the ability to take this franchise to levels it hasn't seen/explored in a long time, but I still think that vision takes time, but optimistically hope we see flashes of that emerge this year and than some and maybe we do squeak into the playoffs, etc.  

[Jack Parkman]

7 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

I also think that "coaching" style kept them in a lot of games as well.  By and large Fox played to try and keep the game close. With that we probably hung around some games we shouldn't have and ended up winning, but also lost some very winnable games. We also really had minimal offensive weapons so I don't think it was "purely" a system thing and I think part of the reason we ran the system we had was a lack of belief in the weapons and experience necessary to "open things up".  

I think Nagy has the ability to take this franchise to levels it hasn't seen/explored in a long time, but I still think that vision takes time, but optimistically hope we see flashes of that emerge this year and than some and maybe we do squeak into the playoffs, etc.  

In order for this move to work, Trubisky has to ascend this season or in 2019. If Trubisky busts or doesn't peak until 2021, then this was a dumb move regardless of the value of the player. It is all about #10. I hope he can do much better with a modern offense and finally having real weapons, but I'm not holding my breath. While I was excited over the weekend, the excitement has waned and reality has set in. Trubisky plays QB for the Bears, and you must assume he sucks until proven otherwise. Been burned way too many times before. Still, the defense should be good enough to win as many games as they did from 2007-09 under Lovie. Those teams had great defenses and shit offenses, and still won 7 to 9 games every season. 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Balta1701]

10 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

In order for this move to work, Trubisky has to ascend this season or in 2019. If Trubisky busts or doesn't peak until 2021, then this was a dumb move regardless of the value of the player. It is all about #10. I hope he can do much better with a modern offense and finally having real weapons, but I'm not holding my breath. While I was excited over the weekend, the excitement has waned and reality has set in. Trubisky plays QB for the Bears, and you must assume he sucks until proven otherwise. Been burned way too many times before. Still, the defense should be good enough to win as many games as they did from 2007-09 under Lovie. Those teams had great defenses and shit offenses, and still won 7 to 9 games every season. 

With the way the cap works, Trubisky not breaking out for 3 or 4 years could certainly hurt you're right, I guess one thing I thought of in response though is last year's Jags. They were a good, solid, tough team, gave the Patriots a legit run for it in the AFC championship game, and they were there because of their defense and in spite of their QB play. With Mack in the fold can the Bears outdo that?

[Dick Allen]

Mack is on the 1st team on the official depth chart for Sunday. Roquan is listed as a back up. 

[bmags]

The reason I think this is a good move, and this was discussed on the nfl ringer pod this weekend, is you only get 4 years of a cheap rookie QB. If you wait and they are good, you are already hamstrung by the QB deal on the roster.

You may as well anticipate them being good and load up the roster with the additional cap space and elite pieces, and if Trubisky is a good qb, you are a legit contender immediately for a few years. Then you figure out post QB extension what team you can consistently put out there around him.

[GoSox05]

1 hour ago, soxfan49 said:

Wilkerson got paid and no longer gives a s*** about football. They added all young players/rookies in the secondary and lost both their SS and FS (Randall & Burnett). Matthews is no longer any good and Clark stinks. Besides Daniels, their defense is pretty blah but with a ton of potential.

Are you referring to this Kenny Clark?

NFL welcomes young players on the cusp of elite status for 2018

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

9 minutes ago, bmags said:

The reason I think this is a good move, and this was discussed on the nfl ringer pod this weekend, is you only get 4 years of a cheap rookie QB. If you wait and they are good, you are already hamstrung by the QB deal on the roster.

You may as well anticipate them being good and load up the roster with the additional cap space and elite pieces, and if Trubisky is a good qb, you are a legit contender immediately for a few years. Then you figure out post QB extension what team you can consistently put out there around him.

Totally agree. I don't understand people against this. There is literally no downside other than cash. And who cares? it's not our money and the McCaskey's are swimming in it. 

The entire franchise is tied to Trubisky for the next 2-3 seasons regardless. If he sucks, they're not winning anything. They're not picking a QB with those picks. Best case they get two quality starters for a team with no QB, e.g., they'll still suck. 

Plus, above all else, this kind of move is exactly what we fans constantly scream for. We want teams to make trades and take risks and do SOMETHING. I'd rather the Bears (and the Bulls, Sox, etc) swing and miss than not swing at all.

 

[southsider2k5]

36 minutes ago, bmags said:

The reason I think this is a good move, and this was discussed on the nfl ringer pod this weekend, is you only get 4 years of a cheap rookie QB. If you wait and they are good, you are already hamstrung by the QB deal on the roster.

You may as well anticipate them being good and load up the roster with the additional cap space and elite pieces, and if Trubisky is a good qb, you are a legit contender immediately for a few years. Then you figure out post QB extension what team you can consistently put out there around him.

Draft picks are the NFL's version of prospects in MLB.  When you get a chance to get a very top notch player, you do it, because at the of the day your HOPE is that your draft picks ends up close to as good as a guy like Khalil Mack.  If Mitch is going to have a chance while he is still on a rookie contract, having a Monsters of the Midway defense and keeping the pressure off of him is a good way to do it.  What we have seen from the NFL is that a great defense can carry a bad offense to the super bowl, but the odds aren't nearly as high the other way.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, Jose Abreu said:

I think people underestimate how big of a role coaching played with the Bears last year. If they were consistently getting blown out then I would agree that they still have a long way to go. But this is a team that ran the most predictable offense (run, run, pass, punt) ever, didn't let their quarterback take shots, and, with the exception of the Eagles game, generally only lost Trubisky's games by one or two scores despite these limitations. They may have gone 5-11, but they played more like a 7-9/8-8 team with Trubisky around. Now that we've added Mack/Smith/the offensive weapons and system, I wouldn't consider a 9 or 10 win season that big of a jump. 

The predictable conservative offense was part of the reason the Bears defense looked good though. Fox made sure the offense didn't put the defense in a bad position very often. With a more wide open offense, the defense will be put in a worse position more often with the turnovers from an inexperienced QB.

This is why they played the close games so often, the game plan dictated it. Not that I don't disagree with the game plan with the wide receivers they has available. Pace really put Fox in a bad position.

[ptatc]

43 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Mack is on the 1st team on the official depth chart for Sunday. Roquan is listed as a back up. 

My guess is that Mack plays mostly just obvious passing downs whereas Smith plays mostly on 1st and 2nd downs.

[LittleHurt05]

5 minutes ago, ptatc said:

My guess is that Mack plays mostly just obvious passing downs whereas Smith plays mostly on 1st and 2nd downs.

They aren't listed at the same position.  Mack is OLB, Smith is ILB behind Kwiatkowski

[soxfan49]

41 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Are you referring to this Kenny Clark?

NFL welcomes young players on the cusp of elite status for 2018

 

 

Same website that lists Adrian Amos as one of the league's best safeties? Come on. That site is a joke. Go on a Packers message board. Almost all of their fans think he's no better than average.

[Kyyle23]

1 hour ago, Chisoxfn said:

Technically, when they got Cutler he was an ascending young QB with all of the talent in the world. It was the right move and they should have done it every time.  I actually think that move was significantly better than the Mack move. The Mack move might ultimately have the better result (even significantly better) but from a pure "decision making" perspective, on paper the Cutler trade was a brilliant and necessary move. Unfortunately it didn't work out and that is part on Jay and part on the front office(s) who handled Jay with such ineptness.  Either way, moot point. Pace seems to not be making those "same" mistakes as we've made all the "right" on paper moves to support Trubisky. Again, results might not pan out, but the right moves have been made on the offensive side of the football at the very least.

While I can see the vision for the Mack move, I don't see it as a slam dunk no-brainer in the sense that real downside risks exist and the true ability to unlock a consistent contender will be on the offense improving. The defense to me is what it will take to be an elite team....good offense + elite defense and we are talking potential superbowl team in the future.  

Im really struggling to make sense of these two comments.   There was downside risk to cutler, everyone knew he threw picks and that he was a prickly character who had some perceived locker room issues.   Going into the draft, pretty much everyone to a man in this thread wanted outside pressure to put across from Floyd and take some of the pressure off of him(unfortunately for the Bears, the draft didnt line up to where elite talent at OLB/DE was available.  Not that Roquan was a bad pick)

This guy is already a DPOY, 2 year all pro and 3 year pro bowler.    This is as no brainer as it gets.