OT: Bears Talk - Justin Fields era begins

[Susan]

Read on Twitter

lmao

[TheFinishSniper]

Read on Twitter

lmao

You hate to see it

[Dresden]

I think Belichek's role in what the Pats accomplished is more significant that what some people are saying. Yes, the side by side comparison that Brady won a title without Bill, but Bill has not had a good record without Tom is pretty strong evidence in favor of Tom. But knowing some rabid NE fans, as well as just hearing commentators talk about Belichek's methods, how hard he works, etc, I do think there are a lot of subtle but important things he does that contributed quite a bit to the Pats success.

Let's not forget, the Pats didn't just win on SB- they've won 5 or 6, have been in the AFC title game a record number of times, and have won their division an unprecedented number of times. I'm not convinced Brady would have had the same success with other organizations. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what Belichek did to make the Pats so dominant, but IMO, his system, his way of evaluating players, the way he had his team prepared each week, how disciplined and smart they play, his ability to swap players in and out around Brady- all that speaks to Bill's organizational acumen and his coaching smarts. There's no way to prove that, and I"m no football expert. That's just my general sense of watching the Pats over the year, and hearing what analysts, writers and fans say about the team, about Brady and about Belichek. In other words, I don't think any "semi competent noob" could come close to doing the same thing.

[dougthonus]

I think Belichek's role in what the Pats accomplished is more significant that what some people are saying. Yes, the side by side comparison that Brady won a title without Bill, but Bill has not had a good record without Tom is pretty strong evidence in favor of Tom. But knowing some rabid NE fans, as well as just hearing commentators talk about Belichek's methods, how hard he works, etc, I do think there are a lot of subtle but important things he does that contributed quite a bit to the Pats success.

Let's not forget, the Pats didn't just win on SB- they've won 5 or 6, have been in the AFC title game a record number of times, and have won their division an unprecedented number of times. I'm not convinced Brady would have had the same success with other organizations. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what Belichek did to make the Pats so dominant, but IMO, his system, his way of evaluating players, the way he had his team prepared each week, how disciplined and smart they play, his ability to swap players in and out around Brady- all that speaks to Bill's organizational acumen and his coaching smarts. There's no way to prove that, and I"m no football expert. That's just my general sense of watching the Pats over the year, and hearing what analysts, writers and fans say about the team, about Brady and about Belichek. In other words, I don't think any "semi competent noob" could come close to doing the same thing.

I think any semi-competent noob could create a good roster if they start with the greatest QB of all time on a contract that pays him about half of what contemporary great QBs make. I don't think that any semi-competent person necessarily wins as many superbowls just to be clear as to my argument. If you start with best player in history playing for about 10% of the cap instead of 25% of the cap like all his contemporaries then not only do you have a massive talent advantage right off the bat, but you also have an extra 15% of the salary cap vs anyone even in teh same ballpark as you.

I think do think Belichick gets some credit, just the fact that people made this 50/50 was always ridiculous. If Belichick was really 50% of this situation, some NFL team should hire him away and pay him 50M a year to coach their team up to a superbowl, but no one will do that because they know it wouldn't work that way or happen that way and that he doesn't really have that much value. Elite QBs do, and their value actually goes against the cap whereas coaching value doesn't so you can spend infinity on a head coach without impacting your roster.

If we were to give Belichick some credit, let's say X, then Brady simply deserves somewhere between 3-10X.

[Bulls69]

Read on Twitter

lmao

You hate to see it

I could careless about Packers and their cocky base

[Bulls69]

I think there is no pressure to start Fields until he is "ready". And by that I mean, they will likely assess that during camp and preseason. He doesn't need to show he's better than Dalton, but he likely needs to show that he isn't going to lose games for them. I expect a scenario where Dalton starts the first 2-5 games, depending on performance...unless the Bears are playing great, I could see Fields coming in then (ideally after the bye week if not too late so he has 2 weeks to prepare). I could see him playing week 1 on gimmick plays like Hill in NO.

Wait until the Preseason when Fields looks great again vanilla def. and Dolton has a bad game Nagy needs to stick with the plan and not bow to fans pressure.

[Dresden]

I think Belichek's role in what the Pats accomplished is more significant that what some people are saying. Yes, the side by side comparison that Brady won a title without Bill, but Bill has not had a good record without Tom is pretty strong evidence in favor of Tom. But knowing some rabid NE fans, as well as just hearing commentators talk about Belichek's methods, how hard he works, etc, I do think there are a lot of subtle but important things he does that contributed quite a bit to the Pats success.

Let's not forget, the Pats didn't just win on SB- they've won 5 or 6, have been in the AFC title game a record number of times, and have won their division an unprecedented number of times. I'm not convinced Brady would have had the same success with other organizations. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what Belichek did to make the Pats so dominant, but IMO, his system, his way of evaluating players, the way he had his team prepared each week, how disciplined and smart they play, his ability to swap players in and out around Brady- all that speaks to Bill's organizational acumen and his coaching smarts. There's no way to prove that, and I"m no football expert. That's just my general sense of watching the Pats over the year, and hearing what analysts, writers and fans say about the team, about Brady and about Belichek. In other words, I don't think any "semi competent noob" could come close to doing the same thing.

I think any semi-competent noob could create a good roster if they start with the greatest QB of all time on a contract that pays him about half of what contemporary great QBs make. I don't think that any semi-competent person necessarily wins as many superbowls just to be clear as to my argument. If you start with best player in history playing for about 10% of the cap instead of 25% of the cap like all his contemporaries then not only do you have a massive talent advantage right off the bat, but you also have an extra 15% of the salary cap vs anyone even in teh same ballpark as you.

I think do think Belichick gets some credit, just the fact that people made this 50/50 was always ridiculous. If Belichick was really 50% of this situation, some NFL team should hire him away and pay him 50M a year to coach their team up to a superbowl, but no one will do that because they know it wouldn't work that way or happen that way and that he doesn't really have that much value. Elite QBs do, and their value actually goes against the cap whereas coaching value doesn't so you can spend infinity on a head coach without impacting your roster.

If we were to give Belichick some credit, let's say X, then Brady simply deserves somewhere between 3-10X.

Personally, I would put it more in the realm of Brady 65/ Belichick 35%, or 2/1. You could look at the 49'ers under Bill Walsh in a similar vein. Montana might be the #2 QB, but Walsh also surrounded him with Jerry Rice, Taylor, Solomon, Dwight Clark, etc, and built a tremendous defense as well. And he developed a system that revolutionized offenses, that Montana was a perfect fit for. While not as revolutionary as Walsh was, I think the way Belichick built the Pats roster, and the systems he implemented, with stout defenses and a ball control offense, were equally as brilliant in how they fit talent to a system

And your point about Brady's salary is well taken, that of course played a significant part, too. I'm not certain but I think the 49'er dynasty occurred before the modern salary cap structure was in place. And they had an owner who was not afraid to spend money.

[Dresden]

I think there is no pressure to start Fields until he is "ready". And by that I mean, they will likely assess that during camp and preseason. He doesn't need to show he's better than Dalton, but he likely needs to show that he isn't going to lose games for them. I expect a scenario where Dalton starts the first 2-5 games, depending on performance...unless the Bears are playing great, I could see Fields coming in then (ideally after the bye week if not too late so he has 2 weeks to prepare). I could see him playing week 1 on gimmick plays like Hill in NO.

Wait until the Preseason when Fields looks great again vanilla def. and Dolton has a bad game Nagy needs to stick with the plan and not bow to fans pressure.

I thnk its likely that Dalton gets injured sometime in the first 4-6 games. Then the question will be- do you play Foles, or Fields. My guess is it will be Foles. Until he gets hurt too, or has a few bad games, and then we'll see Fields.

[Jimako10]

I would just start Fields from week 1 and give him as much experience as possible. If Rodgers gets traded, it's likely the division will be wide open, and this Bears defense isn't getting any younger. Might as well throw him in there and see what happens before the opportunity of having a great defense, a rookie contract QB, and a wide open division disappears.

[Michael Jackson]

I would just start Fields from week 1 and give him as much experience as possible. If Rodgers gets traded, it's likely the division will be wide open, and this Bears defense isn't getting any younger. Might as well throw him in there and see what happens before the opportunity of having a great defense, a rookie contract QB, and a wide open division disappears.

If the division is trash... I think Dalton is they way I would go, instead of a shaker start to the season with a rook. The downside is that Dalton performs well it’s harder to move him out of QB#1 even going into next year. The rookie deal absolutely is a benefit though and maximizing that is important.

[Michael Jackson]

I think Belichek's role in what the Pats accomplished is more significant that what some people are saying. Yes, the side by side comparison that Brady won a title without Bill, but Bill has not had a good record without Tom is pretty strong evidence in favor of Tom. But knowing some rabid NE fans, as well as just hearing commentators talk about Belichek's methods, how hard he works, etc, I do think there are a lot of subtle but important things he does that contributed quite a bit to the Pats success.

Let's not forget, the Pats didn't just win on SB- they've won 5 or 6, have been in the AFC title game a record number of times, and have won their division an unprecedented number of times. I'm not convinced Brady would have had the same success with other organizations. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what Belichek did to make the Pats so dominant, but IMO, his system, his way of evaluating players, the way he had his team prepared each week, how disciplined and smart they play, his ability to swap players in and out around Brady- all that speaks to Bill's organizational acumen and his coaching smarts. There's no way to prove that, and I"m no football expert. That's just my general sense of watching the Pats over the year, and hearing what analysts, writers and fans say about the team, about Brady and about Belichek. In other words, I don't think any "semi competent noob" could come close to doing the same thing.

I think any semi-competent noob could create a good roster if they start with the greatest QB of all time on a contract that pays him about half of what contemporary great QBs make. I don't think that any semi-competent person necessarily wins as many superbowls just to be clear as to my argument. If you start with best player in history playing for about 10% of the cap instead of 25% of the cap like all his contemporaries then not only do you have a massive talent advantage right off the bat, but you also have an extra 15% of the salary cap vs anyone even in teh same ballpark as you.

I think do think Belichick gets some credit, just the fact that people made this 50/50 was always ridiculous. If Belichick was really 50% of this situation, some NFL team should hire him away and pay him 50M a year to coach their team up to a superbowl, but no one will do that because they know it wouldn't work that way or happen that way and that he doesn't really have that much value. Elite QBs do, and their value actually goes against the cap whereas coaching value doesn't so you can spend infinity on a head coach without impacting your roster.

If we were to give Belichick some credit, let's say X, then Brady simply deserves somewhere between 3-10X.

Personally, I would put it more in the realm of Brady 65/ Belichick 35%, or 2/1. You could look at the 49'ers under Bill Walsh in a similar vein. Montana might be the #2 QB, but Walsh also surrounded him with Jerry Rice, Taylor, Solomon, Dwight Clark, etc, and built a tremendous defense as well. And he developed a system that revolutionized offenses, that Montana was a perfect fit for. While not as revolutionary as Walsh was, I think the way Belichick built the Pats roster, and the systems he implemented, with stout defenses and a ball control offense, were equally as brilliant in how they fit talent to a system

And your point about Brady's salary is well taken, that of course played a significant part, too. I'm not certain but I think the 49'er dynasty occurred before the modern salary cap structure was in place. And they had an owner who was not afraid to spend money.

I don’t know how much credit Bill should get but it is something. He is really in the Phil Jackson situation with the Bulls. Yet Phil went on to great success but he did go to the next dominant players of the era. Say the Pats get Rodgers somehow it would be a good way to judge him. The best player is always going to outweigh the coach but Doug Collins wasn’t winning 6 championships with Jordan imho. Phil counts for a good amount of the success. Belichick has also gotten a lot of retreads (ie Moss) and has definitely built a good culture.

[Jeffster81]

Your opinion is the exact opposite of how things played out.

Tom Brady just won a superbowl without Belichick. Belichick has not won anything without Brady.

Oh come on. Do you honestly believe that Brady would have won that Super Bowl with any other team other than an absolutely LOADED TB team? No, he would not have. Tom NEEDED the absolute perfect situation to be successful and he found it in Tampa. Yeah he won a title without BB but he needed the perfection sitation to make it work.

Phil Jackson has won a lot of championships without MJ, something MJ hasn't done without Phil.

And what exactly Phil Jackson do before he got his hands on Jordan? Like any great HC/Star player combo, there is a symbiotic relationship. Without Jordan, Jackson would not have been a HOF coach (so no coaching Kobe/Shaq and winning those championships). With that said, with a guy like Jackson, Jordan would have been the Russ Westbrook on his day, the very difficult but extemely talented player who falls short of reaching the pinnacle to the sport. I grant you that Jordan needed Jackson but Phil needed Jordan more.

NFL cannot really have a "GOAT" of the sport because there are too many varibles to take into account. Being a great player in the NFL more so than any other sport, takes a tremendous amount of luck and opportunity. It's why I cannot call Brady or anybody the "GOAT" of the NFL.

[CjayC]

If Fields comes to camp and he's blowing the competition away in the name of fair competition they should give it to him. I'd prefer Dalton take some lumps for a few games while they're working out the best combination of Oline. The last thing I want to see is the kid running for his life instantly, which is a pretty familiar scene for Chicago QB's.

[wickywack]

And what exactly Phil Jackson do before he got his hands on Jordan? Like any great HC/Star player combo, there is a symbiotic relationship. Without Jordan, Jackson would not have been a HOF coach (so no coaching Kobe/Shaq and winning those championships). With that said, with a guy like Jackson, Jordan would have been the Russ Westbrook on his day, the very difficult but extemely talented player who falls short of reaching the pinnacle to the sport. I grant you that Jordan needed Jackson but Phil needed Jordan more.

I think you're actually selling Jordan short here. In terms of advanced stats - WS/48, BPM, PER, etc - Jordan is dominant in both regular season and playoffs (and was before Jackson showed up). Statistically, when you look at total impact, he's just on another level than guys like Westbrook (despite the latter's shiny triple doubles). The *only* guy that's in Jordan's ballpark across the board is Lebron. And, the past decade has shown that once you've got a guy like Lebron, there are many paths to the pinnacle.

It's harder to map that to football, but franchise quarterbacks seem to have that similar "many paths to the pinnacle" property. It terms of supply, there are just fewer Jordan-esque players or (truly) franchise level QBs to go around. There are just (IMO) more options as far as coaches: they're not all great, but there is a bigger pool of potentially great coaches.

[Bulls69]

I think there is no pressure to start Fields until he is "ready". And by that I mean, they will likely assess that during camp and preseason. He doesn't need to show he's better than Dalton, but he likely needs to show that he isn't going to lose games for them. I expect a scenario where Dalton starts the first 2-5 games, depending on performance...unless the Bears are playing great, I could see Fields coming in then (ideally after the bye week if not too late so he has 2 weeks to prepare). I could see him playing week 1 on gimmick plays like Hill in NO.

Wait until the Preseason when Fields looks great against vanilla def. and Dolton has a bad game Nagy needs to stick with the plan and not bow to fans pressure.

[Bulls69]

I think there is no pressure to start Fields until he is "ready". And by that I mean, they will likely assess that during camp and preseason. He doesn't need to show he's better than Dalton, but he likely needs to show that he isn't going to lose games for them. I expect a scenario where Dalton starts the first 2-5 games, depending on performance...unless the Bears are playing great, I could see Fields coming in then (ideally after the bye week if not too late so he has 2 weeks to prepare). I could see him playing week 1 on gimmick plays like Hill in NO.

Wait until the Preseason when Fields looks great again vanilla def. and Dolton has a bad game Nagy needs to stick with the plan and not bow to fans pressure.

I thnk its likely that Dalton gets injured sometime in the first 4-6 games. Then the question will be- do you play Foles, or Fields. My guess is it will be Foles. Until he gets hurt too, or has a few bad games, and then we'll see Fields.

Unless both Foles and Dalton both get hurt Fields will not see the field because this is Nagy and Pace get out of jail card selling to the fanbase wait until we release Justin Fields.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Your opinion is the exact opposite of how things played out.

Tom Brady just won a superbowl without Belichick. Belichick has not won anything without Brady.

Oh come on. Do you honestly believe that Brady would have won that Super Bowl with any other team other than an absolutely LOADED TB team? No, he would not have. Tom NEEDED the absolute perfect situation to be successful and he found it in Tampa. Yeah he won a title without BB but he needed the perfection sitation to make it work.

Phil Jackson has won a lot of championships without MJ, something MJ hasn't done without Phil.

And what exactly Phil Jackson do before he got his hands on Jordan? Like any great HC/Star player combo, there is a symbiotic relationship. Without Jordan, Jackson would not have been a HOF coach (so no coaching Kobe/Shaq and winning those championships). With that said, with a guy like Jackson, Jordan would have been the Russ Westbrook on his day, the very difficult but extemely talented player who falls short of reaching the pinnacle to the sport. I grant you that Jordan needed Jackson but Phil needed Jordan more.

NFL cannot really have a "GOAT" of the sport because there are too many varibles to take into account. Being a great player in the NFL more so than any other sport, takes a tremendous amount of luck and opportunity. It's why I cannot call Brady or anybody the "GOAT" of the NFL.

Loaded? That Tampa team went 7-9 the year before and didn't added anything of significance other than Tom aside from JPP and role players? The loaded team that had 1 pro bowler last year? The Bears beat that team last year. Calling that team loaded is pretty revisionist history. They matched up well with the Packers, got hot at the right time, and yeah, Tom Brady.

The Lakers championships have nothing to do with MJ. And he won Lakers championships with two different sets of cores, 5 total. If your argument is he got the opportunity because of the Bulls, you can play that game all day with everyone that was ever successful in a team oriented setting. That's a waste of time.

[dougthonus]

Oh come on. Do you honestly believe that Brady would have won that Super Bowl with any other team other than an absolutely LOADED TB team? No, he would not have. Tom NEEDED the absolute perfect situation to be successful and he found it in Tampa. Yeah he won a title without BB but he needed the perfection sitation to make it work.

The loaded team that went 7-9 the previous season with the primary change being Tom Brady at QB? Yes, I think Tom Brady probably could have won the super bowl with other teams. Would he have won it with every team? No, of course not, but at his age, WAY past his prime, to even win won with _any_ team is eyepopping. TB was a good fit, because they generally had good skill players, but this wasn't KD joining the 73 win Warriors by any stretch.

NFL cannot really have a "GOAT" of the sport because there are too many varibles to take into account. Being a great player in the NFL more so than any other sport, takes a tremendous amount of luck and opportunity. It's why I cannot call Brady or anybody the "GOAT" of the NFL.

That can certainly be your opinion, but QB so obviously moves the needle more than every other position in the NFL by such a massive amount that it is pretty obvious the GOAT NFL player is a QB, and it's also pretty obvious that Tom Brady is that player. I don't even like Tom Brady and have rooted against him his whole career, but this is about as open and shut a case as Jordan in the NBA, maybe even more so.

[2018C3]

If Fields does start day one, I won't be upset. Its just not how I would have started the season. Like someone mentioned above, Id like to see how the line performs first in real games, and if necessary make adjustments to help protect the new QB before he becomes the starter.

My only fear is if the Bears start dropping games early, the media pressure on Fields could be a lot for him to handle. Some people in Chicago have become upset with Pace and Nagy. If things get messy early Fields could be grouped in with the frustration towards them.

If Dalton or Fields starts, and the team goes on a role. There is really nothing to complain about.

If Dalton starts and is just average or fails, pulling him and starting Fields will allow him to come in with less pressure and lower expectations. I think this is a better plan, and a more safe bet against protecting his confidence for the long run.

________________________________________________________________________

Another concern I have, and am not sure how it will effect performance or if its even valid. But I will put it out there anyways. Fields recently became a vegan. I have read that meats more easily provide some missing nutrients then a plant based diet.

I don't want upset any Vegans here, but it is something I thought about. I do not know how much is based on science.

A quick search "vegan and neurological disorders" and "vegan and epilepsy" pulled these quotes up on the first page in a google search.

"Vegetarians can have Vitamin B12 deficiency and are more prone to developing neuropsychiatric and neurological problems".

"On the one hand, recent concern about the nutritional gaps in plant-based diets has led to a number of alarming headlines, including a warning that they can stunt brain development and cause to a person's nervous system.Jan 28, 2020"

Given his condition. I'm not sure if switching to a vegan diet is the best choice for him, but who knows it might be great and help. At least he is making active efforts to stay healthy, and now will have the advice from some of the best nutritionists in the world.

[TheJordanRule]

Oh come on. Do you honestly believe that Brady would have won that Super Bowl with any other team other than an absolutely LOADED TB team? No, he would not have. Tom NEEDED the absolute perfect situation to be successful and he found it in Tampa. Yeah he won a title without BB but he needed the perfection sitation to make it work.

The loaded team that went 7-9 the previous season with the primary change being Tom Brady at QB? Yes, I think Tom Brady probably could have won the super bowl with other teams. Would he have won it with every team? No, of course not, but at his age, WAY past his prime, to even win won with _any_ team is eyepopping. TB was a good fit, because they generally had good skill players, but this wasn't KD joining the 73 win Warriors by any stretch.

NFL cannot really have a "GOAT" of the sport because there are too many varibles to take into account. Being a great player in the NFL more so than any other sport, takes a tremendous amount of luck and opportunity. It's why I cannot call Brady or anybody the "GOAT" of the NFL.

That can certainly be your opinion, but QB so obviously moves the needle more than every other position in the NFL by such a massive amount that it is pretty obvious the GOAT NFL player is a QB, and it's also pretty obvious that Tom Brady is that player. I don't even like Tom Brady and have rooted against him his whole career, but this is about as open and shut a case as Jordan in the NBA, maybe even more so.

Tom Brady is someone I've always rooted against, including last year so there is no pro-Brady bias coming from me by any stretch of the imagination. But what we watched last year was undeniable all-time greatness. During the Belichek era, we were always told that Tom was winning because of the conservative game plan. That Tom's arm was alright or above average but certainly not elite. That New England's coaching, and running game, and defense elevated Tom. Then, at an age when most NFL QBs are not only put to pasture but have BEEN in the pasture for half a decade, Tom went out and proved that no, HE was the one who had been elevating THEM. Tom was asked to air it out on almost every play with a brand new playbook and offensive philosophy that was the polar opposite of anything the Patriots had dreamt up. There were huge stretches when Tampa completely abandoned the running game. And in this crazy offense that kept going deep, with brand new teammates at almost every major position, Tom kicked major ass on his way to winning an unprecedented 7th Super Bowl. No NFL franchise has ever won seven chips. Brady has. Let that sink in. I wanted Tom to fade. He was too corny and clumsy in interviews, he bagged one of the hottest chicks ever, and after about four years I got sick of bandwagon NFL fans screaming about him every five seconds. But Tom's greatness is undeniable at this point. He had next to no time to prepare for the season with his new team. He was too freaking old. He chose a bottom rung team that its own fans called the "Suckaneers". And within a few months Brady imposed his will on that roster, finding the greatness in them. It's unreal. About as unreal as the offseason that the Bucs have had, with Brady convincing every impact player to return for one more season. Whether Brady wins another chip or not, NOBODY has ever played the game at his level, and based on the seven Super Bowl rings alone, it'll be a hundred years before we find another one that does.