It is currently Sun Nov 10, 2024 3:17 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 402 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48800
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
Yes, it is a good pick. Like RFDC said, he was undervalued in this draft for some reason.

He's not a sure thing but has incredible skills. I don't know what else you want from an athlete at that position. The main question seems to be can he make decision at NFL speed.

I don't see why he couldn't. For all the talk against him playing chumps, they were also playing the best teams at the end of the year with NFL-level talent and had success.

If you don't take a QB this year, you are likely piecing together the QB position for the next 2-3 years, hoping Dalton is decent, getting a project next year at QB in a mid-late round R1 pick from a crop that is not as good, and trying to develop that guy for 2023-2024.

Fields is the right pick and they were lucky to get him. I didn't even consider him really because I didn't think he'd drop out of the top 8 or so and the Bears would not have enough draft capital to go get him.

_________________
You know me like that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
Nas wrote:
Peoria Matt wrote:
I can't believe Belechik took Mac Jones. Last good Alabama QB was Stabler. And what's with the Bengals and Burrow? Did JaMarcus Russell not teach them anything?


What issue do you have with Burrow?


My post was sarcasm.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57176
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Yes, it is a good pick. Like RFDC said, he was undervalued in this draft for some reason.

He's not a sure thing but has incredible skills. I don't know what else you want from an athlete at that position. The main question seems to be can he make decision at NFL speed.

I don't see why he couldn't. For all the talk against him playing chumps, they were also playing the best teams at the end of the year with NFL-level talent and had success.

If you don't take a QB this year, you are likely piecing together the QB position for the next 2-3 years, hoping Dalton is decent, getting a project next year at QB in a mid-late round R1 pick from a crop that is not as good, and trying to develop that guy for 2023-2024.

Fields is the right pick and they were lucky to get him. I didn't even consider him really because I didn't think he'd drop out of the top 8 or so and the Bears would not have enough draft capital to go get him.

I dont think anyone considered him for the Bears because it seemed like such a lock that the top 2 were set in stone and the draft started at 3. Crazy things happen. Hopefully this one works out well

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:02 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102656
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
Thank you. I appreciate the candor.

It sucks to give up that much in a trade, but if he ends up being a solid QB then who cares. If he sucks, then yes giving up those picks will set the franchise back even further. </CaptainObvious

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4948
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Brick wrote:
NME wrote:
And again, that list is pretty much useless because it lacks context. That list doesn’t tell you that Tommy Frazier (for example) was recruited by Nebraska (a traditional powerhouse school back then) simply because he fit their system. No one thought he’d be Joe Montana at the next level tho.
I don't know what you mean by context here. You are correct that Nebraska quarterbacks weren't a good choice to draft. That helps my point.

NME wrote:
It also doesn’t seem to account for ‘traditional powerhouse schools’ changing every once in a while. I mean, Clemson was never considered a ‘traditional powerhouse’ till the last few years. Bama decades ago was, but wasn’t shit again till Saban showed up.
Strange to use the Clemson example when I considered them a powerhouse in my list.

NME wrote:
It also doesn’t seem to want to include the ‘powerhouse conference’ as a whole which shows top tier talented QB’s having to compete routinely against these factory schools.
The discussion isn't "Should you draft a P5 QB?". It's should you draft a quarterback from a traditional power. It's not context to completely change the entire discussion.

NME wrote:
I’m sorry, but that list was put together by someone who set out to make a certain point and so they tailored the subject matter as much as they could leaving out any context so they could draw their preconceived conclusion that ‘good QB’s mostly don’t come from big schools’.
I provided a list that was decent enough of the top 25 quarterbacks of the 2010s. Only two clearly come from traditional powers. 3 others are borderline but you have to include Wisconsin and Auburn in there.

Your counterpoint to pointing out that of the 25 best quarterbacks of the 2010s, only 2-5 of them came from traditional powers, is to repeat "context" a bunch of times and say I'm wrong.




1. My lord you are either actually dense or willfully obtuse. The recruiting for scheme -not prototype QB- is part of ‘context’ there. That changes success rate at the next level, and your article doesn’t account for that.


2. No, Clemson backs up my point -that I single out by the way- that the definition of ‘powerhouse school’ changes on the regular and this article cherry picks. LSU is a powerhouse some years, Florida, is a powerhouse some years, Auburn is a powerhouse some years, Oregon is a powerhouse some years.. does this really have to be explained to you? Really?


3. And my point is it’s irrelevant to use ‘P5’ school as any sort of outlier when A. P5 school vary’s every few seasons, and B. The school is irrelevant to the player as an individual and what their actual skill set is -especially these days. Coaches change, schemes change, rules change.. this article talks about none of this. Accounts for none of this.


4. No you brought up an irrelevant list consisting of a grab bag of gobbledygook that doesn’t provide any reason for rate of success or failure outside of ‘here’s a bunch of names from schools we think are awesome but didn’t produce good QB’s at the next level’.


Oh, well, gee whiz, thanks for the ground breaking analysis there Mr Wizard. Why don’t you throw up an article about how most shark attacks occur closer to shore while you’re at it.


That article lacks ‘context’, and I called it out for that. You can throw your hands up and claim my use of context here is just weird all you want to but the fact is -that list is meaningless if there’s no dive into the ‘why’ part of it. And that is my point.

_________________
If the rule you followed lead you to this, of what use was the rule?


Last edited by NME on Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 33063
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
You hit it on the head Frank. If he is a franchise QB, who cares what they gave up? If not, then we are just screwed more than before.

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 2:12 pm
Posts: 2865
pizza_Place: maciano's
Very happy with the pick as you just don’t know until you have them in camp.

If he played the title game like the semi-final game against Clemson; we aren’t having this conversation because he went number 2 or 3 in the draft.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57176
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Thank you. I appreciate the candor.

It sucks to give up that much in a trade, but if he ends up being a solid QB then who cares. If he sucks, then yes giving up those picks will set the franchise back even further. </CaptainObvious

I did not want them to trade up going into the draft, but I assumed it would have to be trading up to the top 5 to get their guy. Trading to the 11 while not ideal is not nearly as bad. You can live with 1 future first rounder being dealt. If they had made this trade to get Mac Jones I would have been furious. But for the guy who was considered a lock for #2 all year I can deal with it. You roll the dice and see if this is a true franchise QB.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:11 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:
The story was that Nagy loved (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky, and that's one of the reasons he wanted to come to Chicago. Who knows though? I'm pretty sure Nagy pushed to get Foles though, which seems like an error in talent evaluation.


He liked (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky, but not as much as the other two.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:49 pm
Posts: 4491
pizza_Place: Rosati's
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 91811
Location: To the left of my post
NME wrote:
1. My lord you are either actually dense or willfully obtuse. The recruiting for scheme -not prototype QB- is part of ‘context’ there. That changes success rate at the next level, and your article doesn’t account for that.
You are arguing that you shouldn't draft Nebraska quarterbacks or at least shouldn't have when they would have been considered a powerhouse. How is that different than looking at the history of what previous quarterbacks have done at other schools and drawing a conclusion?


NME wrote:
2. No, Clemson backs up my point -that I single out by the way- that the definition of ‘powerhouse school’ changes on the regular and this article cherry picks. LSU is a powerhouse some years, Florida, is a powerhouse some years, Auburn is a powerhouse some years, Oregon is a powerhouse some years.. does this really have to be explained to you? Really?
This is just a strange tangent. I account for that in my analysis I already did with regards to Clemson that seems to have established itself as a powerhouse. You do understand there is a difference between being a good team and being a college football powerhouse?


NME wrote:
3. And my point is it’s irrelevant to use ‘P5’ school as any sort of outlier when A. P5 school vary’s every few seasons, and B. The school is irrelevant to the player as an individual and what their actual skill set is -especially these days. Coaches change, schemes change, rules change.. this article talks about none of this. Accounts for none of this.
Yet, the numbers still indicate that very few quarterbacks from traditional powerhouses have done well in recent times. Tom Brady and Carson Palmer are the only ones who definitely played at a traditional power and had strong NFL success. Three others you could argue it, but as I said, you have to include schools like Wisconsin and Auburn as powerhouses and that's borderline.


NME wrote:
4. No you brought up an irrelevant list consisting of a grab bag of gobbledygook that doesn’t provide any reason for rate of success or failure outside of ‘here’s a bunch of names from schools we think are awesome but didn’t produce good QB’s at the next level’.
I don't know what this is even arguing here.


NME wrote:
Oh, well, gee whiz, thanks for the ground breaking analysis there Mr Wizard. Why don’t you throw up an article about how most shark attacks occur closer to shore while you’re at it.
This is around the time you have realized that you can't argue with me providing a list of 25 successful quarterbacks from the previous decade, and that somewhere between 20-23 of them didn't come from traditional powers. There is a reason for that. Either made an argument as to why that is the case or don't.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16439
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
TurdFerguson wrote:
Very happy with the pick as you just don’t know until you have them in camp.

If he played the title game like the semi-final game against Clemson; we aren’t having this conversation because he went number 2 or 3 in the draft.


I think he would have if not for the sore ribs.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

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

Bears are back baby!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:21 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81454
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI


Needs a little (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky in him. Working hard and having your teammates love you can't hurt a quarterback.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share


“We cannot turn away from this truth in this election, putting patriotism ahead of partisanship is not an aspiration —it is our duty.” -Liz Cheney


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57176
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

I guess that is possible.

Watching him on the QB1 show on netflix a couple years ago I did not get that vibe. He seemed like a guy who was willing to work. But I know that show does not provide a real look at guys, but they pick and choose stuff really carefully. But I came away from the show impressed with him, and there were other guys who have been on that show that I would want nothing to do with. I may have to go back and rewatch that show now

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41373
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
In all seriousness, lets touch on JBills absurd theory about building the offensive line then trying to find a QB. I actually think you should devote nothing but resources to the QB position until you solve it. If Fields looks like shit next year and you have an opportunity to add another QB with promise you do it. (at that point I do hope Pace would be fired)...but I actually love going right back to the QB well right after Mitch left. It's how you do it...because nothing gets started wtihout the QB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:23 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102656
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
RFDC wrote:
You can live with 1 future first rounder being dealt.
And if the Bears are good, its really like a second round pick anyway!

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41373
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Nas wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI


Needs a little (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky in him. Working hard and having your teammates love you can't hurt a quarterback.


He's putting in the work somewhere, because you don't have that body without the work. Wow gay post...lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 7:43 pm
Posts: 20537
pizza_Place: Joes Pizza
Good pick for Bears.

Great pick for Pace. Bought himself another 3 years of job security.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57176
One of the things I like the most about him is that he is considered an accurate passer. That is critical. It maybe the most important trait for a successful NFL QB.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41373
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
Kirkwood wrote:
Good pick for Bears.

Great pick for Pace. Bought himself another 3 years of job security.


They still need to fire Pace. Keep Nagy because you want QB/Coach continuity, and promote Champ Kelly(director of player personal) who has been getting GM interviews around the league to see what he's got.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 19309
RFDC wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

I guess that is possible.

Watching him on the QB1 show on netflix a couple years ago I did not get that vibe. He seemed like a guy who was willing to work. But I know that show does not provide a real look at guys, but they pick and choose stuff really carefully. But I came away from the show impressed with him, and there were other guys who have been on that show that I would want nothing to do with. I may have to go back and rewatch that show now


I thought QB1 made Tate Martell and Spencer Rattler both look like kids with terrible attitudes that would fail in college. Correct on Tate.

_________________
Frank Coztansa wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
Not over yet.
Yes it is.


CDOM wrote:
When this is all over, which is not going to be for a while, Trump will be re-elected President.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57176
conns7901 wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

I guess that is possible.

Watching him on the QB1 show on netflix a couple years ago I did not get that vibe. He seemed like a guy who was willing to work. But I know that show does not provide a real look at guys, but they pick and choose stuff really carefully. But I came away from the show impressed with him, and there were other guys who have been on that show that I would want nothing to do with. I may have to go back and rewatch that show now


I thought QB1 made Tate Martell and Spencer Rattler both look like kids with terrible attitudes that would fail in college. Correct on Tate.


Completely agree. I would want nothing to do with either of those guys.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41373
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
RFDC wrote:
conns7901 wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

I guess that is possible.

Watching him on the QB1 show on netflix a couple years ago I did not get that vibe. He seemed like a guy who was willing to work. But I know that show does not provide a real look at guys, but they pick and choose stuff really carefully. But I came away from the show impressed with him, and there were other guys who have been on that show that I would want nothing to do with. I may have to go back and rewatch that show now


I thought QB1 made Tate Martell and Spencer Rattler both look like kids with terrible attitudes that would fail in college. Correct on Tate.


Completely agree. I would want nothing to do with either of those guys.


That interview sounds like they just stole the plot of Bo Callahan in Draft Day.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4948
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Brick wrote:
NME wrote:
1. My lord you are either actually dense or willfully obtuse. The recruiting for scheme -not prototype QB- is part of ‘context’ there. That changes success rate at the next level, and your article doesn’t account for that.
You are arguing that you shouldn't draft Nebraska quarterbacks or at least shouldn't have when they would have been considered a powerhouse. How is that different than looking at the history of what previous quarterbacks have done at other schools and drawing a conclusion?


NME wrote:
2. No, Clemson backs up my point -that I single out by the way- that the definition of ‘powerhouse school’ changes on the regular and this article cherry picks. LSU is a powerhouse some years, Florida, is a powerhouse some years, Auburn is a powerhouse some years, Oregon is a powerhouse some years.. does this really have to be explained to you? Really?
This is just a strange tangent. I account for that in my analysis I already did with regards to Clemson that seems to have established itself as a powerhouse. You do understand there is a difference between being a good team and being a college football powerhouse?


NME wrote:
3. And my point is it’s irrelevant to use ‘P5’ school as any sort of outlier when A. P5 school vary’s every few seasons, and B. The school is irrelevant to the player as an individual and what their actual skill set is -especially these days. Coaches change, schemes change, rules change.. this article talks about none of this. Accounts for none of this.
Yet, the numbers still indicate that very few quarterbacks from traditional powerhouses have done well in recent times. Tom Brady and Carson Palmer are the only ones who definitely played at a traditional power and had strong NFL success. Three others you could argue it, but as I said, you have to include schools like Wisconsin and Auburn as powerhouses and that's borderline.


NME wrote:
4. No you brought up an irrelevant list consisting of a grab bag of gobbledygook that doesn’t provide any reason for rate of success or failure outside of ‘here’s a bunch of names from schools we think are awesome but didn’t produce good QB’s at the next level’.
I don't know what this is even arguing here.


NME wrote:
Oh, well, gee whiz, thanks for the ground breaking analysis there Mr Wizard. Why don’t you throw up an article about how most shark attacks occur closer to shore while you’re at it.
This is around the time you have realized that you can't argue with me providing a list of 25 successful quarterbacks from the previous decade, and that somewhere between 20-23 of them didn't come from traditional powers. There is a reason for that. Either made an argument as to why that is the case or don't.




You’re an idiot who lives in a fantasy world where you believe you’re some next level debate savant. You aren’t, you’re just another guy with a keyboard and bad opinions that you can’t explain or justify so you type as much as you can in hopes the other person just shrugs and walks away.



Here’s another problem -and piece of ‘context’ that should matter- so it’s only the schools fault? No blame is to be placed at their landing spot in the NFL, the coaching they receive (or lack there of), the talent around them (or lack there of) at the next level? Really? How about injury at the next level, has that ever prohibited next level success?


Again, there are so many outliers, moving parts to whether or not a guy succeeds at the next level that simply making a list of names can’t possibly be meaningful in any way anyone should take serious.


Bottom line? That list doesn’t mean shit. Literally every single players situation is different. If you want to tell me you don’t think Justin Fields or Trevor Lawrence will be any good at the next level I want a detailed breakdown of why you think this way that doesn’t simply begin and end with ‘well, he went to Ohio State, here’s a list of guys, I rest my case’. Because that is stupid. And it makes you look stupid when you try and use it to justify your take. It’s also not how you conduct a productive conversation that uses actual analysis to prove your point -which I already know you’re incapable of.

_________________
If the rule you followed lead you to this, of what use was the rule?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72375
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Frank Coztansa wrote:
Is this a good pick? I'm legitimately asking. I really distanced myself later in the year from the Bears, and I don't really follow college sports at all. I don't care about the Bears QB history or the trade. I just want to know if this is a good draft pick. MANY of you here follow college FB and the NFL overall a lot closer than I do, so I appreciate the insight.

TIA

It's an awesome pick. The Bears were the biggest winners last night.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72375
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

That's pretty hard to believe if you watched him vs Clemson while clearly significantly hurt and also remember he was one of the players leading the push to play this year.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 40578
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
NME wrote:
You’re an idiot who lives in a fantasy world where you believe you’re some next level debate savant. You aren’t, you’re just another guy with a keyboard and bad opinions that you can’t explain or justify so you type as much as you can in hopes the other person just shrugs and walks away.


Sorry Brick this is funny. :lol: The only thing he could have added was your ability to include 30 quotes flawlessly. :lol:

_________________
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2015 3:49 pm
Posts: 4491
pizza_Place: Rosati's
FavreFan wrote:
Ron Wolfley wrote:
One of the reasons he dropped may be what Dan Orlovsky mentioned on Pat McAfee's show last month. He said he had heard from some NFL people that Fields was sometime "the last guy in, first guy out" kind of player.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmXLzIaHvZI

That's pretty hard to believe if you watched him vs Clemson while clearly significantly hurt and also remember he was one of the players leading the push to play this year.


I thought it was hard to believe as well. I just wanted to share that, sort of interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 402 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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