39 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

How did Trubisky hold them back last year?

By not throwing to the left, obviously!

6 hours ago, soxfan49 said:

How did Trubisky hold them back last year?

 

You're probably right but Mayfield, Roethlisberger and Brady all got close to 17 last year iirc. If they believe in Trubisky he'll be throwing even more this season

Brady had 11 picks last year. Rodgers played 12 games and had 2. Rodgers also has the best TD:INT ratio in NFL history. He has 336 TD to 80 INT for his career. 

Edited September 4, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

33 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Brady had 11 picks last year. Rodgers played 12 games and had 2. Rodgers also has the best TD:INT ratio in NFL history. He has 336 TD to 80 INT for his career. 

Roethlisberger had 16. Mayfield had 14 (in 14 games).

I'm not sure what Rodgers has to do with this, since I 1) never mentioned him and 2) I don't think he's the measuring stick for "pay him or don't pay him." If he was, no one would be getting paid besides him and Brady.

6 minutes ago, soxfan49 said:

Roethlisberger had 16. Mayfield had 14 (in 14 games).

I'm not sure what Rodgers has to do with this, since I 1) never mentioned him and 2) I don't think he's the measuring stick for "pay him or don't pay him." If he was, no one would be getting paid besides him and Brady.

Mayfield was a rookie. I think the cutoff is Matt Ryan. Anything less and the answer is no. Maybe I have a really high standard, but that's my opinion. 

Goff is right on that borderline too, but I can clearly see the arguments against him. I wonder how much of his success is McVay. 

Edited September 4, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

42 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

Brady had 11 picks last year. Rodgers played 12 games and had 2. Rodgers also has the best TD:INT ratio in NFL history. He has 336 TD to 80 INT for his career. 

Rodgers played all 16 last year. 

10 minutes ago, GoSox05 said:

Rodgers played all 16 last year. 

He did? I thought he missed a few games. That's even more impressive. 

4 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

He did? I thought he missed a few games. That's even more impressive. 

Just the quarter or so in that first game, that was it. 

Not bad for a guy with a sprained MCL and fractured tibial plateau fracture. 

The lack of INT was good, but it was also because he was throwing so many balls away because he couldn't move that much.

Rodgers is the king of throwing the ball away. He is very careful of his INT stats. Always has been. 

2 minutes ago, SoxAce said:

Rodgers is the king of throwing the ball away. He is very careful of his INT stats. Always has been. 

More QBs should learn from him. 

19 hours ago, Middle Buffalo said:

I know I'm not supposed to say it as a Bears fan, but I've always liked Favre.

You're not alone. Favre was my favorite player growing up. We've had Bears season tickets my whole life. 

38 minutes ago, Sonik22 said:

You're not alone. Favre was my favorite player growing up. We've had Bears season tickets my whole life. 

Favre is the most overrated player in NFL history outside of Joe Namath. 

That Superfans commercial sums up why I think he's overrated. 

If Aaron Rodgers had Bill Belichick as a coach they would never lose. Brady is the GOAT, but Rodgers is the most talented ever. 

Edited September 4, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

13-3.  Lets do this

On 9/3/2019 at 1:14 PM, Chisoxfn said:

I will caveat that our depth at wideout is still pretty unproven. Gabriel isn't great (he had a few really good games, but also some non-existent games) and Miller looked solid for a rookie, but he has had injury issues and hasn't gotten a ton of work during training camp.  Wims and Ridley have proven absolutely nothing at this point and Ridley was missed a ton of training camp.  People are overselling the depth at the position.

In general, I see plenty of reasons this season can be a step or two back.  Part of that is to cool expectations a bit, but we have a tougher schedule, unknowns around health, probably most notably within the secondary (CB & TE) where there is very little proven depth beyond our starters.  Now many of these things are just the nature of the NFL, but just want to point all these things out. We also have people assuming we are going to all of a sudden have a strong ground game, but the Seahawks, a team who likes to run the football, weren't that interested in getting Davis back and Montgomery is still a 3rd round rookie (normally projecting immediate greatness out of a 3rd round pick seems a bit delusional and many fanboys are doing just that).  And of course there is Trubisky, who is still to me squarely in that median range where he could take a big step forward or he could prove that he's not much better than a Tannehil / Marriotta / etc.  

In Gabriel's defense that wasn't really his fault. Once Trubisky had his breakout the defenses took away a lot of his deep routes and forced Trubisky to adjust underneath (his completion percentages deep are below average for a few different reasons, the rest of them are excellent). A lot of that was the limitations of Jordan Howard and the predictability of having Cohen in there.

20 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

17 INTs is unacceptable in the modern NFL. Single digits or let him walk. 10-12INTs is a down year for top QBs. NFL teams are getting really stupid with their QB contracts. You shouldn't get $25 M just because you're a QB. Did you see what Goff got paid? This is getting beyond ridiculous. 

It's gotten to the point that if you don't have a future HOF, you need to keep searching and let the guy you have walk. 

I feel like we (meaning, the broader NFL fandom) have a carbon copy of this discussion every time a QB gets a contract extension. It's just supply and demand. Of guys where there's a consensus among all fans and they are actually "worth" $5 million or more there MIGHT be 5 or 6 guys and they are all perennial Pro Bowlers or first-ballot Hall of Famers, if that's the standard (nobody ever actually says this but it's always implied) then that's absurd, almost everybody will be recycling QBs every year. Of course that's not how it works though, you have a QB who meets a baseline of competence, where at any given time about 20-25 guys starting in the NFL will meet that standard. The other third or so of NFL teams is looking for a QB and as any Bears fan (or Browns fan) knows, that is an awful place to be in. It takes a sustained multi-year effort to put the QB in a position to succeed, and then a fair amount of luck. If you don't pay them then another team will and you're back in the draft starting over hoping you find Aaron Rodgers when even the Packers didn't find him that way.

 

2 minutes ago, lostfan said:

I feel like we (meaning, the broader NFL fandom) have a carbon copy of this discussion every time a QB gets a contract extension. It's just supply and demand. Of guys where there's a consensus among all fans and they are actually "worth" $5 million or more there MIGHT be 5 or 6 guys and they are all perennial Pro Bowlers or first-ballot Hall of Famers, if that's the standard (nobody ever actually says this but it's always implied) then that's absurd, almost everybody will be recycling QBs every year. Of course that's not how it works though, you have a QB who meets a baseline of competence, where at any given time about 20-25 guys starting in the NFL will meet that standard. The other third or so of NFL teams is looking for a QB and as any Bears fan (or Browns fan) knows, that is an awful place to be in. It takes a sustained multi-year effort to put the QB in a position to succeed, and then a fair amount of luck. If you don't pay them then another team will and you're back in the draft starting over hoping you find Aaron Rodgers when even the Packers didn't find him that way.

 

It's better for your cap to recycle those tier 3 guys while trying to find that guy. When Tier 3 guys like Cousins are making 30M then it has become out of control. 

28 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's better for your cap to recycle those tier 3 guys while trying to find that guy. When Tier 3 guys like Cousins are making 30M then it has become out of control. 

The one accountable for that is the GM who gives him all that money but it doesn't really change the overall thought process involved for anyone else. I don't even think Cousins is the most extreme example, I think that's actually Joe Flacco. Ravens tried to extend him, he turned it down, then he literally led them to a Super Bowl and put them in a position where they HAD to give him a huge deal, then he reverted to form the next several years and tied up their cap. (If Jimmy Garoppolo doesn't pan out he'd probably be the best example but it wouldn't be fair to include him before he's had a chance to prove anyone wrong.)

The only real alternative to not paying these guys is to let them walk in FA and start over, and most of the time where fans are mocking whichever team extended their guy that's just not a realistic option. Like why the fuck would the Lions let Stafford walk, or the Cowboys let Prescott walk? We're not talking about, say, Matt Schaub here.

7 minutes ago, lostfan said:

The one accountable for that is the GM who gives him all that money but it doesn't really change the overall thought process involved for anyone else. I don't even think Cousins is the most extreme example, I think that's actually Joe Flacco. Ravens tried to extend him, he turned it down, then he literally led them to a Super Bowl and put them in a position where they HAD to give him a huge deal, then he reverted to form the next several years and tied up their cap. (If Jimmy Garoppolo doesn't pan out he'd probably be the best example but it wouldn't be fair to include him before he's had a chance to prove anyone wrong.)

The only real alternative to not paying these guys is to let them walk in FA and start over, and most of the time where fans are mocking whichever team extended their guy that's just not a realistic option. Like why the fuck would the Lions let Stafford walk, or the Cowboys let Prescott walk? We're not talking about, say, Matt Schaub here.

They should let those guys walk. The difference between say, Dak Prescott and Case Keenum isn't that big. The difference between Prescott and Russell Wilson is huge. It's just stupid to give these guys that type of money. Flacco, Garoppolo, Cousins, etc. They're not good enough to take up that much cap space. The only way to get this done is to give GMs more job security. It's getting to the point where if a GM is doing a good job with the rest of the roster, they should get 2 QBs instead of one. 

Edited September 5, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

2 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

They should let those guys walk. The difference between say, Dak Prescott and Case Keenum isn't that big. The difference between Prescott and Russell Wilson is huge. It's just stupid to give these guys that type of money. Flacco, Garoppolo, Cousins, etc. They're not good enough to take up that much cap space. The only way to get this done is to give GMs more job security. 

Yeah but again Russell Wilson's career is on a HOF trajectory, if you're using him as a measuring stick then nobody has a QB worth paying

4 minutes ago, lostfan said:

Yeah but again Russell Wilson's career is on a HOF trajectory, if you're using him as a measuring stick then nobody has a QB worth paying

That's my point. At current prices, those guys are the only ones worth paying. I think that if your QB isn't on a HOF trajectory they're not worth it. If Matt Ryan was 28 years old I'm not even sure I'd pay him. There are about 8-12 QBs I'd consider paying and most are an easy no. 

Edited September 5, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

Just now, Jack Parkman said:

That's my point. At current prices, those guys are the only ones worth paying. 

lol well at least you actually said this out loud. 90% of the time when I talk to people about this people dance around actually saying that's what they're saying, or try to deflect or say something unrealistic like imply they should be paid relative to how good they (the person making the statement) think the QB is (which is not a thing at any position except for guys like Aaron Donald or Ezekiel Elliott).

8 minutes ago, lostfan said:

lol well at least you actually said this out loud. 90% of the time when I talk to people about this people dance around actually saying that's what they're saying, or try to deflect or say something unrealistic like imply they should be paid relative to how good they (the person making the statement) think the QB is (which is not a thing at any position except for guys like Aaron Donald or Ezekiel Elliott).

Lol. It shouldn't be a radical position to have. Tier 1 QBs should be paid around 30M, tier 2 around 20M and Tier 3 12-15M. 

Edited September 5, 20196 yr by Jack Parkman

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

It's better for your cap to recycle those tier 3 guys while trying to find that guy. When Tier 3 guys like Cousins are making 30M then it has become out of control. 

Like someone else said its supply and demand.  There aren't enough good QBs to go around so if they find a decent one they need to keep them. The price is just the going rate. Coaches and GMs dont have the time or contracts to continually look for new QBs and acclimate them to the system.

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

That's my point. At current prices, those guys are the only ones worth paying. I think that if your QB isn't on a HOF trajectory they're not worth it. If Matt Ryan was 28 years old I'm not even sure I'd pay him. There are about 8-12 QBs I'd consider paying and most are an easy no. 

With this philosophy the team will never win. Its takes the QB a year or two to learn the system. If they do that it will be a continual learning process and no winning.

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

With this philosophy the team will never win. Its takes the QB a year or two to learn the system. If they do that it will be a continual learning process and no winning.

I'd rather be racking up the high draft picks. It's really that simple. QBs mean so much in the NFL. Either you have one or you don't. Unless you have a historic defense, the only thing that a team is doing by paying a mediocre (or even a good) QB is getting themselves in worse draft position. MLB has it right. Either you're in or you're out. If you're not winning anything might as well be awful. 

39 minutes ago, Jack Parkman said:

I'd rather be racking up the high draft picks. It's really that simple. QBs mean so much in the NFL. Either you have one or you don't. Unless you have a historic defense, the only thing that a team is doing by paying a mediocre (or even a good) QB is getting themselves in worse draft position. MLB has it right. Either you're in or you're out. If you're not winning anything might as well be awful. 

the NFL owners woudn't tolerate the way baseball is run. There is far too much revenue sharing for them to put up with a team purposely losing.