Bears 12.0

[Peelboy]

i think you are the only human on earth who thinks the bears approach to investing in their offensive line this season is consistent with their approach the previous few seasons.

acting like draft capital is the only metric for evaluating Where The Team's Priorities Lie is really weird, because it's definitely not the only way teams acquire players! you can quibble with individual moves all you want, but it's hard to look at how the bears have built their o-line and say they didn't care about allocating resources to the position group:

lt - invested a second- and third-round pick into the position despite having an adequate starter in-house on a rookie contract
lg - traded for an all-pro
c - signed the consensus top free agent to a top-5 contract at the position
rg - traded for a guy who was highly regarded enough to earn $17m/year in free agency
rt - used a top 10 pick

I'd also add that in this particular draft, the board fell in an unfavorable way for the Bears (IMO). Three OTs in the first 10, next ones available went 29/32 (Conerly/Simmons). Basically, the only real support for this draft as evidence they don't prioritize OL is the move at 39 to take Burden over Ersery.

I agree in all past years under Poles they've underinvested in the OL. Wright as the obvious counter. But this offseason they clearly prioritized it in FA and then it's hard to gauge because of the way the draft fell (and I don't think it would have been useful to trade up for an OT given what it seems like they'd have had to give up).

[nomorezorro]

yeah saying "they value pass-catchers over linemen" as a rule because of the last few drafts is completely ignoring the context of all of those moves

they tried to get 3 guys from carolina in the bryce young trade, and 2 were DL - the panthers just happened to be most willing to let go of DJ. rome over olu was pretty much consensus, and the bears had no long-term WR depth behind moore at that point, so it was still very much a position of need. bears were in an OT dead zone for the loveland pick as mentioned, and burden was pretty obviously a "we didn't expect this guy to be here and we have him ranked a lot higher than anyone else on the board" pick.

what exactly is the imagined alternative course of action where the bears show the proper level of dedication to the o-line. did you want them to massively overdraft josh connerly? are you mad because the burden pick left them in a situation where they ended up with the OT who went 56 overall instead of the OT who went 48 overall? do you think preferring rome odunze to olu fashanu is somehow the sign of a hopelessly flawed evaluation process?

[jnrjr79]

i think you are the only human on earth who thinks the bears approach to investing in their offensive line this season is consistent with their approach the previous few seasons.

acting like draft capital is the only metric for evaluating Where The Team's Priorities Lie is really weird, because it's definitely not the only way teams acquire players! you can quibble with individual moves all you want, but it's hard to look at how the bears have built their o-line and say they didn't care about allocating resources to the position group:

lt - invested a second- and third-round pick into the position despite having an adequate starter in-house on a rookie contract
lg - traded for an all-pro
c - signed the consensus top free agent to a top-5 contract at the position
rg - traded for a guy who was highly regarded enough to earn $17m/year in free agency
rt - used a top 10 pick

I'd also add that in this particular draft, the board fell in an unfavorable way for the Bears (IMO). Three OTs in the first 10, next ones available went 29/32 (Conerly/Simmons). Basically, the only real support for this draft as evidence they don't prioritize OL is the move at 39 to take Burden over Ersery.

I agree in all past years under Poles they've underinvested in the OL. Wright as the obvious counter. But this offseason they clearly prioritized it in FA and then it's hard to gauge because of the way the draft fell (and I don't think it would have been useful to trade up for an OT given what it seems like they'd have had to give up).

Yeah, I think the criticism of Poles is the order of operations - spending big on LB early, for instance, rather than investing in the trenches. But at this point, he's made huge investments in the OL and significant investments in the DL. Obviously it would have been nice to see more OL support for Caleb in his rookie season, but better late than never, I guess.

[dougthonus]

Not gonna debate how Goff was seen in 2022, he fell off in the last two years with the Rams and the common thought wasn't that he was a franchise QB.

Agree Goff was viewed that way in 2022, but he was on a superstar trajectory, fell off, then regained a previously shown trajectory. That is very different than Fields, whose best season is worse than Goff's worst season, and in Goff's worst season, he was viewed as a bridge guy.

Agree with the rest of your points, but I'd be mildly surprised if Fields is ever more than a fringe / bridge starter at this point in his career.

[Dresden]

i think you are the only human on earth who thinks the bears approach to investing in their offensive line this season is consistent with their approach the previous few seasons.

acting like draft capital is the only metric for evaluating Where The Team's Priorities Lie is really weird, because it's definitely not the only way teams acquire players! you can quibble with individual moves all you want, but it's hard to look at how the bears have built their o-line and say they didn't care about allocating resources to the position group:

lt - invested a second- and third-round pick into the position despite having an adequate starter in-house on a rookie contract
lg - traded for an all-pro
c - signed the consensus top free agent to a top-5 contract at the position
rg - traded for a guy who was highly regarded enough to earn $17m/year in free agency
rt - used a top 10 pick

I'd also add that in this particular draft, the board fell in an unfavorable way for the Bears (IMO). Three OTs in the first 10, next ones available went 29/32 (Conerly/Simmons). Basically, the only real support for this draft as evidence they don't prioritize OL is the move at 39 to take Burden over Ersery.

I agree in all past years under Poles they've underinvested in the OL. Wright as the obvious counter. But this offseason they clearly prioritized it in FA and then it's hard to gauge because of the way the draft fell (and I don't think it would have been useful to trade up for an OT given what it seems like they'd have had to give up).

Yeah, I think the criticism of Poles is the order of operations - spending big on LB early, for instance, rather than investing in the trenches. But at this point, he's made huge investments in the OL and significant investments in the DL. Obviously it would have been nice to see more OL support for Caleb in his rookie season, but better late than never, I guess.

I'm not sure about this, but I seem to recall the justification for spending on two FA LB's was that Eberflus's defense required long, athletic LB's. that first FA of Poles was pretty weird- not spending much at all on either of the lines, but Poles seemed to be overly cautious about not overpaying for anyone (although you could argue he did for Edmunds anyway).

[Susan]

i think you are the only human on earth who thinks the bears approach to investing in their offensive line this season is consistent with their approach the previous few seasons.

acting like draft capital is the only metric for evaluating Where The Team's Priorities Lie is really weird, because it's definitely not the only way teams acquire players! you can quibble with individual moves all you want, but it's hard to look at how the bears have built their o-line and say they didn't care about allocating resources to the position group:

lt - invested a second- and third-round pick into the position despite having an adequate starter in-house on a rookie contract
lg - traded for an all-pro
c - signed the consensus top free agent to a top-5 contract at the position
rg - traded for a guy who was highly regarded enough to earn $17m/year in free agency
rt - used a top 10 pick

Jackson snap counts year by year:
2020 95.9
2021 94.1
2022 75.1
2023 67.7
2024 24.4

Dude's got Tevan Jenkins syndrome.

Thuney has just played a **** ton of football, you're not concerned with his age/health going forward, I am. We'll see but this reminds me of when Ben Wallace was signed here, maybe let's hold off celebrating a 33 year old past his prime player coming here.

LT is another concern, I've already posted why but Poles track record in drafting has been awfully concerning so I'll reserve the right to withhold my excitement because I've seen enough of his previous ideas for the OL turn out to be absolute dog ****.

We'll see in the fall!

[biggestbullsfan]

Read on Twitter

We must be pretty confident in our current RB. I don’t see us trading for one.

Honestly, if he gets cut, I wouldn’t mind bringing back Khalil Herbert. He may be the odd man out in the Colts as the 3-4th RB

[fleet]

An odd way to answer to a direct question. Oh kayy.

Read on Twitter

[nomorezorro]

there is absolutely nothing remarkable about that video

[nomorezorro]

"i think the qb will play on time when wrs are open and can extend the play and make something happen when they aren't" what the HELL does he mean by that????? jesus christ

[Hold That]

"i think the qb will play on time when wrs are open and can extend the play and make something happen when they aren't" what the HELL does he mean by that????? jesus christ

It means if the WR are running their routes properly and making themselves open he can play on time.

If not and they are struggling to get open, then Caleb is capable of using his legs and getting them the ball of schedule. It’s pretty simple

[nomorezorro]

i know. i was making a joke

[fleet]

"i think the qb will play on time when wrs are open and can extend the play and make something happen when they aren't" what the HELL does he mean by that????? jesus christ

It means if the WR are running their routes properly and making themselves open he can play on time.

If not and they are struggling to get open, then Caleb is capable of using his legs and getting them the ball of schedule. It’s pretty simple

Obviously. But that’s not really the answer to the question. Why add the second part, ‘If receivers present themselves that way.’ Its just an unnecessary add on.

[nomorezorro]

he's saying that he believes caleb will play on time when the receivers are open in a timely manner, but also he can succeed when the conditions don't allow him to get the ball out quickly because his ability to extend plays is an asset for the offense. i truly cannot begin to imagine where you would try to find something unusual in that thoroughly mundane statement.

[fleet]

he's saying that he believes caleb will play on time when the receivers are open in a timely manner, but also he can succeed when the conditions don't allow him to get the ball out quickly because his ability to extend plays is an asset for the offense. i truly cannot begin to imagine where you would try to find something unusual in that thoroughly mundane statement.

Dude, curb your anger bro.

[nomorezorro]

(moments after inventing a thing to get mad at) crazy how other people can be so quick to anger...

[Hold That]

"i think the qb will play on time when wrs are open and can extend the play and make something happen when they aren't" what the HELL does he mean by that????? jesus christ

It means if the WR are running their routes properly and making themselves open he can play on time.

If not and they are struggling to get open, then Caleb is capable of using his legs and getting them the ball of schedule. It’s pretty simple

Obviously. But that’s not really the answer to the question. Why add the second part, ‘If receivers present themselves that way.’ Its just an unnecessary add on.

I really don’t think he liked what he saw on film out of the receivers last year in their ability to get open. We all saw Keenan and Moore half assing routes time to time. Even Cole Kmet.

A lot of that you can blame on coaching for allowing that to slide.

[fleet]

It means if the WR are running their routes properly and making themselves open he can play on time.

If not and they are struggling to get open, then Caleb is capable of using his legs and getting them the ball of schedule. It’s pretty simple

Obviously. But that’s not really the answer to the question. Why add the second part, ‘If receivers present themselves that way.’ Its just an unnecessary add on.

I really don’t think he liked what he saw on film out of the receivers last year in their ability to get open. We all saw Keenan and Moore half assing routes time to time. Even Cole Kmet.

A lot of that you can blame on coaching for allowing that to slide.

So, an instance of BJ cracking the whip on route- running. I can understand, but the inquiry was about the quarterback’s ability to run the pass play designs. Anyway… Cole Kmet needs a lot of coaching speaking of that, and some other mistakes, and somehow he’s under the radar

[fleet]

Hey, maybe we should have traded down for McCarthy and gotten a haul!

McCarthy gets boatloads of faith that I don’t quite understand. Especially coming off a serious injury. If his coach is the reason, well that’s pretty impressive of the coach. Caleb gets close to zero faith, relative to being responsive to his new coach as an article of faith. I think the sack problem and the ball holding is regarded by observers as unfixable flaws to a certain extent, and will be interesting if Ben Johnson is able to approach the thing as well as we hope. But something doesn’t add up. Caleb and McCarthy should be closer, unless I don’t know enough about McCarthy.

Read on Twitter

[Hold That]

Obviously. But that’s not really the answer to the question. Why add the second part, ‘If receivers present themselves that way.’ Its just an unnecessary add on.

I really don’t think he liked what he saw on film out of the receivers last year in their ability to get open. We all saw Keenan and Moore half assing routes time to time. Even Cole Kmet.

A lot of that you can blame on coaching for allowing that to slide.

So, an instance of BJ cracking the whip on route- running. I can understand, but the inquiry was about the quarterback’s ability to run the pass play designs. Anyway… Cole Kmet needs a lot of coaching speaking of that, and some other mistakes, and somehow he’s under the radar

I believe Ben is just reinforcing everything can’t fall on Caleb. Before we point the finger at Caleb let’s make sure the parts around him are making his job easier. All of his answers have always gone back to holding the entire team accountable. He’ll highlight the individual and always brings it back to the “team” in some fashion. He’s been consistent in answering this way.

As far as Kmet, I think if he doesn’t take that leap this year and Loveland is who Ben think he is, it’ll be another Laporta/Hockenson situation where Detroit moved on from Hockenson. This is a make or break year for Kmet.