Moderators: HomoSapien, GimmeDat, RedBulls23, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN
Of course you want more wins today. Barring injury Fields has 15 seasons of pro football ahead of him. If he doesn't give you the best chance to win today why would you give him the reins? What is the rush?dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Nagy is always full of crap. Did he say what they learned?
It's sort of funny, I've been in the "Start Fields from day 1" camp since we drafted him for the precise reason that it is the only way to give him all the 1st team reps all the time. Many people (including many on this forum) have been opposed to that because they think it may ruin Fields and won't do anything for his growth. I think it's the opposite. To grow he needs reps. Game reps, practice reps, more reps. He gets those (in both cases) by being the starter rather than a backup.
I don't think he'll be very good early on. I think Dalton is a better QB today. I think if you wanted wins, that starting Dalton would give you more of them in the short term. However, you don't draft Justin Fields so you can have more wins today. You draft a franchise QB to try and lead your franchise. He will take his lumps, now or later, I'd rather have it be now so the later where he's a stud comes earlier.
fleet wrote:Imagine a world where, since the Bears were always going to target a QB early, they were smart enough not to issue a 10 million dollar deal to Dalton. Instead they draft Mac Jones, or Davis Mills, or trade up for Justin Fields and have money to spend. On top of that money, Imagine a world where since the Bears were targeting a QB early, the team is smart enough not to go on the hook for years to come for Jimmy Graham. So easy to surround a rookie with a solid left tackle (Leno) able to play every day, and Kyle Fuller on the D. So effing simple with just 2 brain cells put together. Quite frankly, Nick Foles was your (regrettable) natural, financially responsible, roster responsible bridge to the rookie if you are bound and determined to have one. The team would actually be better, and more balanced as a roster. But noooo.
Stratmaster wrote:Of course you want more wins today. Barring injury Fields has 15 seasons of pro football ahead of him. If he doesn't give you the best chance to win today why would you give him the reins? What is the rush?
And of course he can learn, in myriads of ways, and develop by working on the sidelines. Until recently that was "how it is done" in the NFL. I am not saying I agree with the old approach; I think every situation is different.
But I don't know where this idea came from that he is somehow going to be stunted by watching a few games from the sideline. That's silly.
I will be happy to see him play. I hope he lights it up. If he doesn't it won't be because he didn't start the first two games of the season. It will likely be because he is running for his life.
[/quote]Except your scenarios are just made up hypotheticals. What if the hypothetical were:dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Of course you want more wins today. Barring injury Fields has 15 seasons of pro football ahead of him. If he doesn't give you the best chance to win today why would you give him the reins? What is the rush?
This gets into theory, so these numbers are fictional but they should represent the basis of what I'm saying.
If I could choose these Scenarios:
2021: Fields starts full time, gets all 1st team reps, Bears win 4 games
2022: Due to Fields getting so many reps last year, he is 25% further along to his ultimate upside, Bears win 10 games
or
2021: Dalton is better so Bears start him and win 8 games
2022: Fields hasn't gotten all those reps, learned something on the sidelines obviously, but still needs to take his lumps now, Bears win 8 games
I will take the 1st of those scenarios.And of course he can learn, in myriads of ways, and develop by working on the sidelines. Until recently that was "how it is done" in the NFL. I am not saying I agree with the old approach; I think every situation is different.
I am sure he will learn something on the sidelines and with 2nd team reps and with some share of 1st team reps. I'm sure he will learn a lot more with full 1st team reps and starting. The fact that it was done some other way until recently doesn't really matter to me. Until recently, NBA teams didn't understand the math behind shooting lots of 3s and talked about how it was a terrible idea. I was literally screaming at my TV in the 90s that teams should shoot more threes and wanted to strangle all the announcers that said otherwise (which happened constantly).But I don't know where this idea came from that he is somehow going to be stunted by watching a few games from the sideline. That's silly.
He won't be "stunted" which would imply he will be permanently worse. I don't think his ultimate ceiling will be lower for watching from the sidelines. He will just take longer to get there.I will be happy to see him play. I hope he lights it up. If he doesn't it won't be because he didn't start the first two games of the season. It will likely be because he is running for his life.
Sure, and I wouldn't say otherwise. Getting him more reps in both practice and games is about next year, not this year. It makes him a better player next year.
Take any skill in the world you want to learn that is a competitive skill. Do you think you will get better practicing 2 hours a week with no or minimal competition or 4 hours a week with and full competition. This isn't differential equations here, this is plain old common sense about how people learn things and it applies to literally anything you want to learn. I can't think of a single thing I learned way better by watching someone else do it than by practicing and doing it myself. The idea is simply absurd on the surface.
Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app
IliketheBullsNBearstoo wrote:fleet wrote:Imagine a world where, since the Bears were always going to target a QB early, they were smart enough not to issue a 10 million dollar deal to Dalton. Instead they draft Mac Jones, or Davis Mills, or trade up for Justin Fields and have money to spend. On top of that money, Imagine a world where since the Bears were targeting a QB early, the team is smart enough not to go on the hook for years to come for Jimmy Graham. So easy to surround a rookie with a solid left tackle (Leno) able to play every day, and Kyle Fuller on the D. So effing simple with just 2 brain cells put together. Quite frankly, Nick Foles was your (regrettable) natural, financially responsible, roster responsible bridge to the rookie if you are bound and determined to have one. The team would actually be better, and more balanced as a roster. But noooo.
They panicked. They couldn't pull off a trade for a QB like Watson, Darnold, or maybe even Wentz, thank god. So they panicked and overpaid for Dalton before they ran out of better options. Then they tried to sell it like he's the QB1 thats going to lead us to the promised land. They knew he wasn't though and snuck in and took JF. Just a recap.
Susan wrote:IliketheBullsNBearstoo wrote:fleet wrote:Imagine a world where, since the Bears were always going to target a QB early, they were smart enough not to issue a 10 million dollar deal to Dalton. Instead they draft Mac Jones, or Davis Mills, or trade up for Justin Fields and have money to spend. On top of that money, Imagine a world where since the Bears were targeting a QB early, the team is smart enough not to go on the hook for years to come for Jimmy Graham. So easy to surround a rookie with a solid left tackle (Leno) able to play every day, and Kyle Fuller on the D. So effing simple with just 2 brain cells put together. Quite frankly, Nick Foles was your (regrettable) natural, financially responsible, roster responsible bridge to the rookie if you are bound and determined to have one. The team would actually be better, and more balanced as a roster. But noooo.
They panicked. They couldn't pull off a trade for a QB like Watson, Darnold, or maybe even Wentz, thank god. So they panicked and overpaid for Dalton before they ran out of better options. Then they tried to sell it like he's the QB1 thats going to lead us to the promised land. They knew he wasn't though and snuck in and took JF. Just a recap.
I'll take a couple million overpay for one year of Dalton than giving up picks and having to pretty much give up on getting a future QB in the draft with Wentz/Darnold who were reclamation projects. You can easily move away from Andy to start Fields (like they are currently) but giving up capital to get those other guys would have been a big issue.
We're lucky we got Fields and for all of the hand winging about starting him week 1 or not - we haven't lost any extra games because of this decision. Nobody was beating the Rams week 1.
Stratmaster wrote:Except your scenarios are just made up hypotheticals.
What if the hypothetical were:
A) Dalton starts the first 6 games and the Bears are 4-2. The Bears end up squeaking into the playoffs at 10-7. Fields gets actual playoff experience his very first year in the league and the Bears actually win the first playoff game. Overall, Fields starts 13 games.
B) Fields starts from day 1. He struggles and the Bears lose their first 5 games. He finds his footing a bit and the bears go 3-2 their next 5, then 5-2 to end the season but the Bears miss the playoffs at 8-9... but Fields starts all 17 games.
And this is not about numbers. There is no calculations on Fields development like there are 3 point efficiency vs. 2 point. Really bad analogy.
Your examples of learning that you state like they are common sense are unsubstantiated. Of course the more practice the better. But this isn't practice, it's the regular season. You act like Fields not starting means he isn't "practicing and doing it himself".
You ever heard of internships? If you hire a computer programmer out of college do you hand him your newest brainchild with a deadline on it and just send him on his way correcting his numerous mistakes as he goes along?
I have taught salespeople. You don't hand the new kid your biggest accounts and send them out unaccompanied. You take them on appointments with you and over time they start taking more of the lead.
I have taught people to play guitar. Practice is everything. But I don't take my best intermediate player and throw him on stage with a professional band. That band isn't dumping their guitarist who already knows all the songs and letting the new kid step up and butcher things for a month until he learns how to play. They might, however, let him come up and play songs as he learns them and after he has watched the show a few times. Maybe a couple songs night 3. A few more the next weekend. I have learned more playing 2nd fiddle on stage to a couple guitarists the last 8 weeks than I learned playing paid gigs every weekend as the only guitarist for 4 years straight.
Would any of those examples learn slightly more quickly just thrown to the wolves. I guess it is possible depending on the person. But you don't risk your success based on it.
The other thing, this whole board seems to always, in every sport, be worrying about 2 or 3 seasons from now and is willing to throw away any success now for the sake of future success. It is comical.
But people have to learn to be successful too. If the Bears win 4 games this season with Fields starting all of them I will bet you whatever sum you would like that the Bears are not in the playoffs the next 2 seasons.
Respectfully, you are misrepresenting my positions and then arguing against them. Allow me to clarify, then please do the same and I will agree to disagree from there.dougthonus wrote:Stratmaster wrote:Except your scenarios are just made up hypotheticals.
Agreed, and I was up front about that and said they were for illustration purposes.What if the hypothetical were:
A) Dalton starts the first 6 games and the Bears are 4-2. The Bears end up squeaking into the playoffs at 10-7. Fields gets actual playoff experience his very first year in the league and the Bears actually win the first playoff game. Overall, Fields starts 13 games.
B) Fields starts from day 1. He struggles and the Bears lose their first 5 games. He finds his footing a bit and the bears go 3-2 their next 5, then 5-2 to end the season but the Bears miss the playoffs at 8-9... but Fields starts all 17 games.
In the end, I find this set of scenarios to be radically less likely than something closer to what I had. If the gap between Fields and Dalton is 4 wins in the first 6 games, then Fields isn't going to come on after 6 games while not having played and getting minimum 1st team reps to lead the team to an over .500 in the next 11 games.
If the gap is that big, especially given the very difficult early schedule, then Fields is going to still miss the playoffs most likely.
That said, my second favorite scenario after start Fields from day 1 is to start him as early as possible. I'd rather start him week 2, then week 3, then week 4, then week 5, etc.. etc.. etc.. Every additional game he is the full time starter and has full practice 1st team reps is a bonus for me.And this is not about numbers. There is no calculations on Fields development like there are 3 point efficiency vs. 2 point. Really bad analogy.
The analogy there is that people doing things one way for a long time doesn't mean it was a good way. Teams have progressively learning to put rookie QBs on the field earlier and earlier as time has gone on and are abandoning that old methodology, which was the purpose of the analogy. Clearly QB development can't be measured statistically in as trivial a fashion as a three point shot efficiency can be.Your examples of learning that you state like they are common sense are unsubstantiated. Of course the more practice the better. But this isn't practice, it's the regular season. You act like Fields not starting means he isn't "practicing and doing it himself".
You realize that by not starting, he is not working with the 1st team and is not getting the benefit of practice nearly so much as if he was right? I mean there is a huge difference in the way he would practice if he were the starter and who he would develop chemistry with than if he is the back up. This isn't some weird hypothetical, his practice reps will be much better as the starter.You ever heard of internships? If you hire a computer programmer out of college do you hand him your newest brainchild with a deadline on it and just send him on his way correcting his numerous mistakes as he goes along?
I happen to have spent the last decade managing software developers and have hired tons of new ones, and yes, with every single one I put them on real projects as soon as I can. I do not have them stand on the sidelines and watch other people code or do practice coding problems. They do real work immediately. They get guidance and feedback to improve, much like all players on the team (new and old) will from the coaching staff.I have taught salespeople. You don't hand the new kid your biggest accounts and send them out unaccompanied. You take them on appointments with you and over time they start taking more of the lead.
I have taught people to play guitar. Practice is everything. But I don't take my best intermediate player and throw him on stage with a professional band. That band isn't dumping their guitarist who already knows all the songs and letting the new kid step up and butcher things for a month until he learns how to play. They might, however, let him come up and play songs as he learns them and after he has watched the show a few times. Maybe a couple songs night 3. A few more the next weekend. I have learned more playing 2nd fiddle on stage to a couple guitarists the last 8 weeks than I learned playing paid gigs every weekend as the only guitarist for 4 years straight.
Would any of those examples learn slightly more quickly just thrown to the wolves. I guess it is possible depending on the person. But you don't risk your success based on it.
1: In almost all of these examples with constant coaching and practice, the person would learn faster. You are concerned about sacrificing the whole in the process. The band will flop, you will lose some sales, but the individual will learn and grow faster. To get back to my point, I don't care about sacrificing the whole in the short term.
2: These aren't really similar comparisons. Fields isn't someone who has never picked up a guitar or never made a sale in this case. HE's played QB in front of 80k people on national television and has been working on this craft for a long time. It'd be more like ife he was the superstar salesman at a 100m dollar company and then started on big accounts immediately at a 1b dollar company and absolutely that billion dollar company would do that. Every other position in the NFL has people routinely do the same thing (go from college to starting in the NFL) without even a moments thought about whether it is a good idea. The QB position is the outlier not the normal for people progressing from college to the NFL. It be more like you wanted to train the drummer, base player, and guitar player one way, but said you know what the guy on keyboard, that's a whole different thing, with the keyboard player he should wait around 3 years.The other thing, this whole board seems to always, in every sport, be worrying about 2 or 3 seasons from now and is willing to throw away any success now for the sake of future success. It is comical.
If I thought Dalton had even a remote chance to lead this team anywhere, I may feel different about it. If we were the 49ers, I would be good starting Jimmy G because I believe they can make the playoffs with him and possibly go far. I think the Bears little shot of the playoffs this year and if they did make it as a borderline .500 team they'd get clobbered in the 1st round anyway.But people have to learn to be successful too. If the Bears win 4 games this season with Fields starting all of them I will bet you whatever sum you would like that the Bears are not in the playoffs the next 2 seasons.
They'll have higher odds of being in the playoffs next year the more experience and more improved Fields is by playing more this year. They may not make it next year for many reasons. Due to the Trubisky era, they jacked up their cap pretty badly and have lots of holes they can't fill, another reason why not worrying about the short term when you have limited chances of success is a good option.
Stratmaster wrote:As far as the hypothetical scenarios, I think we both agree they were simply picked out of the air. If I understand it your position is that if Justin Fields doesn't start a few games he will be less of a quarterback next season. My position is that Justin Fields will be just as good a quarterback next season after starting 13 games as he would be after starting 17. Now if he only starts two or three then we have a different discussion. And if that happens I'll be calling for Nagy's head. Of course, I'm already calling for nagy's head.
Fields is running the same plays and getting the same reps with the second team, who are all professional football players, that he would get with the first-team. The one area I would agree with you on is developing chemistry with the wide receivers. I think a dozen (minimum) starts and another offseason will provide plenty of time for that, and who knows who the receivers will be next season anyway?
In my examples I never said anything about "never playing a guitar" or never having been a salesperson. I specifically mentioned an intermediate level young talent. I was in the tech field also and I am sorry, you don't give your most important project to the new kid just out of college when you have a veteran who has some track record of delivering. Of course you give them SOMETHING to work on. I never insinuated otherwise.
And no. No. No. I managed salespeople in the tech field for decades and it would be VERY, VERY rare that you would take a star salesperson handling 100 million dollar businesses, bring them in, and give them the FedEx account (which I, and then my salesperson, had a significant piece of for some time).
Stratmaster wrote:Fields is running the same plays and getting the same reps with the second team, who are all professional football players, that he would get with the first-team