fleet wrote:IMO he has indicated that he can lead a team. That’s a big one that’s not even universal to “starters”
what on earth could you possibly be basing this on
Moderators: HomoSapien, AshyLarrysDiaper, coldfish, Payt10, Ice Man, dougthonus, Michael Jackson, Tommy Udo 6 , kulaz3000, fleet, DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, RedBulls23
fleet wrote:IMO he has indicated that he can lead a team. That’s a big one that’s not even universal to “starters”
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
dougthonus wrote:_txchilibowl_ wrote:Dresden wrote:
Why should they play someone at the most important position who is worse than someone else they have on the team?
Because one is the #1 pick in the draft, franchise QB talent and the other is........Case Keenum.
You have to let Caleb grow in to the position and that's not happening from the bench.
If Caleb can't beat out Case Keenum and Tyson Bagent, then does it matter that he was the #1 pick in the draft?
It feels awfully contradictory to me to think that this guy can be a meaningful NFL player and at the same time you are also too scared to let him compete against another young QB that's never played meaningful time in the NFL, and a career backup QB that's way past his prime and near retirement.
If Bagent is the next Brock Purdy and Caleb is just Trey Lance then you are sure as hell better off finding that out then letting Bagent go and keeping Caleb aroundbecause you drafted him high. I'm not saying that is the case, but no one should be scared about letting these guys really compete.nomorezorro wrote:
these are tyson bagent's career passing stats.
Caleb should kick everyone's butt in this competition.
Hold That wrote:If Baegent was Brock Purdy he’s going to show that when he’s getting 2nd and 3rd team reps. When he’s not making any mistakes with that group is when coaches often take notice and toss him in there with the 1st unit for a snap or two and usually noise begins internally.
Baegent has been here for 3-4 years now. He’s not Purdy hell he’s not even a Kenny Pickett.
molepharmer wrote:Bears media can be so terrible during the pressers. They've asked Brisker about 30 straight questions for ~10min regarding his concussion; P Finley is especially annoying.
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
dougthonus wrote:Hold That wrote:If Baegent was Brock Purdy he’s going to show that when he’s getting 2nd and 3rd team reps. When he’s not making any mistakes with that group is when coaches often take notice and toss him in there with the 1st unit for a snap or two and usually noise begins internally.
Baegent has been here for 3-4 years now. He’s not Purdy hell he’s not even a Kenny Pickett.
1: I also don't think he's Brock Purdy
2: But he's been here two years, not 3-4, he's probably got less reps than Williams
3: Why should I be excited about Caleb if he beat out guys on merit that are barely hanging on in the league
Hold That wrote:Nobody is telling you to be excited. It’s ok to have a wait and see approach.
Even in Baegents two years he’s shown he’s nothing more than a back up at best. There’s absolutely nothing special about his game that tells you he should even be in a competition with Caleb for a starting spot.
Yes Caleb is entitled to start as the #1 pick. And no they aren’t going to throw him in a QB competition with a career journey man in Keenum who’s never proven he can be a starter for 17 games in any season of his career. Not with Baegent who has a career 3 TDs and 6 INTs in the few reps he has gotten.
Honestly what sense would that make after Caleb just threw for 3500 20TDs and 6INTs despite a coaching carousel happening mid season?
nomorezorro wrote:fleet wrote:IMO he has indicated that he can lead a team. That’s a big one that’s not even universal to “starters”
what on earth could you possibly be basing this on
nomorezorro wrote:
these are tyson bagent's career passing stats.
fleet wrote:nomorezorro wrote:
these are tyson bagent's career passing stats.
He came out of jerkwater university ffs off the bench, middle of the year, his rookie season in the middle of a garbage team that was imploding year after year. What on earth are you basing your limited sample size conclusions on?
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
nomorezorro wrote:i haven't made any conclusions about bagent other than it's silly to assert that he can "lead a team" based on 4 emergency starts in which he played adequately for a rookie backup, or to suggest he should get consideration to get any playing time ahead of last year's no. 1 overall pick
WookieOnRitalin wrote:Game 1. It's where the series is truly 0-0.
fleet wrote:nomorezorro wrote:fleet wrote:IMO he has indicated that he can lead a team. That’s a big one that’s not even universal to “starters”
what on earth could you possibly be basing this on
Things that teammates, coaches, guys like Case Keenam, NFL people say about him? Media talking about his demeanor around the team?
dougthonus wrote:Hold That wrote:Nobody is telling you to be excited. It’s ok to have a wait and see approach.
Even in Baegents two years he’s shown he’s nothing more than a back up at best. There’s absolutely nothing special about his game that tells you he should even be in a competition with Caleb for a starting spot.
Yes Caleb is entitled to start as the #1 pick. And no they aren’t going to throw him in a QB competition with a career journey man in Keenum who’s never proven he can be a starter for 17 games in any season of his career. Not with Baegent who has a career 3 TDs and 6 INTs in the few reps he has gotten.
Honestly what sense would that make after Caleb just threw for 3500 20TDs and 6INTs despite a coaching carousel happening mid season?
I agree with all of that.
Maybe it is just semantics, I wouldn't start camp going "Caleb, Case, and Tyson should all get 1st team reps", I think Caleb should go in as the starter. Just if for some reason, someone else is kicking his ass up and down the field, I don't care if we go with that guy.
Again, I think there is almost no chance that happens. I was really arguing against my perception of the stated belief that Caleb should start even if he can't outperform these guys rather than meaning they should all start out on equal footing in terms of the org or that we should try different QBs and see what happens in real games.
jnrjr79 wrote:IMO, the problem with this viewpoint is that Caleb turning into a long-term success is a more important goal for the franchise than wins and losses in 2025. So they are obviously going to give Caleb at least the entire season to show what he can do, barring some sort of injury or absolute disaster. If you can make a developmental argument that riding the pine is better for Caleb in the long-term, ok. But whether or not he starts should not be a function of how he performs in training camp or the first few games of the season or whatever.
I agree it's a discouraging sign if he isn't clearly the best QB on the roster, I just don't think you bench him if that's the case.
dougthonus wrote:jnrjr79 wrote:IMO, the problem with this viewpoint is that Caleb turning into a long-term success is a more important goal for the franchise than wins and losses in 2025. So they are obviously going to give Caleb at least the entire season to show what he can do, barring some sort of injury or absolute disaster. If you can make a developmental argument that riding the pine is better for Caleb in the long-term, ok. But whether or not he starts should not be a function of how he performs in training camp or the first few games of the season or whatever.
I agree it's a discouraging sign if he isn't clearly the best QB on the roster, I just don't think you bench him if that's the case.
If he can't outplay better than Tyson Bagent or Case Keenum, then he's not going to be a success regardless of how much you hope to develop him.
jnrjr79 wrote:I think he can outplay them (and reportedly has been), but even just conceptually, I do not agree with this.