It is currently Sat Nov 09, 2024 7:37 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: 2023 was not a tank year
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Once the Bears got DJ and Carolinas pick it was not a tank year. They really went for it I think. The Bears gave Fields some weapons and needed to see for themselves if he could put it together and win some games. They wanted him to break out. I agree the o line was ignored, but overall they performed quite admirably given their expectations and the fact that an RPO offense has to be tough for any line.

If you want to talk about 22 being a tank year I can't say I wouldn't agree with the caveat that in general, tanking for an NFL player is like asking him to cut off his own thumb. But some serious talent was traded away and sure I'll buy winning wasn't a priority in 22.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33063
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Fields made it feel like one.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41373
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:37 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102656
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Neither was 2021 (Fields first year), but Nagy and Pace were horrid.

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 8:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Darko, largely agree but the o-line was not bad. The cult wants to push an offensive line sucks narrative out there to prop up their guy but that's fake news. I've demonstrated this by sharing widely available data but of course the cult is allergic to data since it would shatter their worldview. Two summarized points from the data:

ESPN research ranks the Bears #4 or #5 overall in pass block win share, which assesses if the line provides their QB with at least 2.5 secs or more to throw on passing plays. The Bears passed that test with flying colors per ESPN.

The Bears sack rate drops considerably once a non-Fields QB takes over. It's staggering - Fields gets sacked around 12% of the time on pass plays which is abnormally high, like unprofessionally high. That rate drops to league average to below average 2-3% once someone else takes over, again proving that Fields sack rate is a problem he creates, it's not on the line.

There are other stats from OSU that paint the same pic - Stroud took way less sacks than Fields for example even though they largely played behind the same lines - and all of the concerns about sacks and taking too long to throw is documented in Fields pre draft scouting reports. Anyway, that's all to say the narrative about a bad line is fake news pushed out by the cult to cover up one of Fields' fatal flaws.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14896
pizza_Place: Grazianos
veganfan21 wrote:
Darko, largely agree but the o-line was not bad. The cult wants to push an offensive line sucks narrative out there to prop up their guy but that's fake news. I've demonstrated this by sharing widely available data but of course the cult is allergic to data since it would shatter their worldview. Two summarized points from the data:

ESPN research ranks the Bears #4 or #5 overall in pass block win share, which assesses if the line provides their QB with at least 2.5 secs or more to throw on passing plays. The Bears passed that test with flying colors per ESPN.

The Bears sack rate drops considerably once a non-Fields QB takes over. It's staggering - Fields gets sacked around 12% of the time on pass plays which is abnormally high, like unprofessionally high. That rate drops to league average to below average 2-3% once someone else takes over, again proving that Fields sack rate is a problem he creates, it's not on the line.

There are other stats from OSU that paint the same pic - Stroud took way less sacks than Fields for example even though they largely played behind the same lines - and all of the concerns about sacks and taking too long to throw is documented in Fields pre draft scouting reports. Anyway, that's all to say the narrative about a bad line is fake news pushed out by the cult to cover up one of Fields' fatal flaws.


This stat freak is really starting to go overboard with his "factoids". Now he is introducing something called PASS BLOCK WIN SHARE BY ESPN in order to convince us that the Oline wasn't as bad as our EYES AND BRAIN TOLD US THAT IS WAS. than he tells us also that probably the 2nd and 3rd more mobile qb in the NFL is somehow unprofessionally high and one of "Field's FATAL FLAWS". MY GOODNESS, little vegan, calm down with your absurd barrage of football minutia that nobody gives a crap about.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Quote:

Bears Offensive Line

The sack rate said it all. Sure, there are times when pass blocking completely breaks down at the start. But Fields never had a sack rate less than the 10.6% this year. He had the worst sack percentage in the NFL his first two seasons and this past season was better only than Zach Wilson and Ryan Tannehill. Normally you could look at that figure and say they need better pass blocking but they were running the ball better than any team in the league over the last two years and using an extensive amount of play-action or RPO action. Play-action freezes a defense, yet Fields was being sacked an inordinate amount of times. This is because he held the ball too long. What happened when Fields wasn't playing and Tyson Bagent, an undrafted Division II rookie, was playing? The sack percentage came down to 3.4% for his 4 1/2 games. That was lower than any NFL starter in 2023

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2024 9:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:29 am
Posts: 65731
Location: Darkside Estates
pizza_Place: A cat got an online degree.
Hawk if your eyes told you that line was any less than average you should see an optometrist. I will readily admit that the center was pretty bad. But ultimately Fields had time to move around and hit targets. But everyone knew once he broke out he's running and he got collapsed on as a result. His line wasn't the problem, he had time.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014
bigfan wrote:
Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:35 pm
Posts: 82060
unique take. No one said "no more excuses" before this season started.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2018 11:26 am
Posts: 14896
pizza_Place: Grazianos
Darkside wrote:
Hawk if your eyes told you that line was any less than average you should see an optometrist. I will readily admit that the center was pretty bad. But ultimately Fields had time to move around and hit targets. But everyone knew once he broke out he's running and he got collapsed on as a result. His line wasn't the problem, he had time.


Baloney. The only good lineman was the right tackle. The truth really is that the first half of the year, the injuries were really pretty bad and the center position and the two guards were weak, very weak particularly in the first half of the year. I don't think by the way that it is fair to try and compare Fields to classic pocket quarterbacks in terms of sacks. YOU IGNORE AND NOONE MENTIONS the terrific runs that FIELDS made for first downs and yes touchdowns. These happened frequently after he went through some progressions, the pocket broke down and FIELDS made somethng out of nothing.

For you and the Williams cult to really say that the Bear's offensive line was somehow at least :"AVERAGE" is really weird. That opinion is really not factual.IF you love Williams for whatever reason, that is certainly your perogative. If he is successful, good for him. But don't put Fields down and do things like lying about the worth of the offensive line.

_________________
An Ode to the Texas man who shot an Antifa terrorist:

Oh, he might have went on livin'
But he made one fatal slip
When he tried to match the Ranger
With the big iron on his hip


Last edited by The Hawk on Mon Mar 18, 2024 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 27055
We all said it's make or break for fields in year 3. We all saw the talent they had overall. That was a playoff team. No doubt about it. Fields was the only one that clearly didn't not do what we expected him to.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2024 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am
Posts: 6829
The Hawk wrote:
Darkside wrote:
Hawk if your eyes told you that line was any less than average you should see an optometrist. I will readily admit that the center was pretty bad. But ultimately Fields had time to move around and hit targets. But everyone knew once he broke out he's running and he got collapsed on as a result. His line wasn't the problem, he had time.


Baloney. The only good lineman was the right tackle. The truth really is that the first half of the year, the injuries were really pretty bad and the center position and the two guards were weak, very weak particularly in the first half of the year. I don't think by the way that it is fair to try and compare Fields to classic pocket quarterbacks in terms of sacks. YOU IGNORE AND NOONE MENTIONS the terrific runs that FIELDS made for first downs and yes touchdowns. These happened frequently after he went through some progressions, the pocket broke down and FIELDS made somethng out of nothing.

For you and the Williams cult to really say that the Bear's was somehow at least :"AVERAGE" is really weird. That opinion is really not factual.IF you love Williams for whatever reason, that is certainly your perogative. If he is successful, good for him. But don't put Fields down and do things like lying about the worth of the offensive line.


If it really was just the line play and coaching then why did the entire league pass on Fields as their starter and go with guys like Donald and Lock instead?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group