2022-2023 NFL Season

[lawdog77]

1. I never said it was guaranteed to succeed.
2. You limited the scope to the top 3.

Of course you didn't say it was guaranteed to succeed, because it clearly doesn't. I limited it to the Top 3, because, to me, tanking insinuates we are going to lose to get a better chance to get the Top pick. Nobody tanks with the hope of getting in the back half of the lottery.

[WhiteTrash]

Honestly I would much rather be 7-7 at this point if I were a Bear fan. First, because winning is fun. Second, you may actually make the playoffs this year. But third and most importantly, it actually shows progress!

I disagree, 7-7 would show no progress and the team would be a year older, if the Bears made the playoffs they would not be a serious contender for the SB. I do agree winning is fun, which is the goal of this rebuild process.

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the merit of the Bears' strategy. There are good arguments on both sides.

Rejecting what the Bears' strategy is, was confusing for me. I don't think the Bears could do any more other than have a press conference saying "we are tanking and welcome the loses, stock piling draft choices and clearing record amounts of cap space". The NFL would fine them for that.

[MUBurrow]

I think reasonable minds can disagree about the merit of the Bears' strategy. There are good arguments on both sides.

I think everyone pretty much agrees with the Bears' strategy in that the front office is saying "we are building to be successful in 2-3 years, and we are indifferent to the results in the meantime."  I think the disagreement boils down to: after you accept the front office's decision to punt on near-term results, is the Bears future brighter if they go 4-13 instead of 8-9?

I'm in the camp that no, the Bears' future is not materially impacted by whether they win or lose these games.  As a Dolphins fan, I had to deal with this exact issue during the 2019 tank for Tua year.  Flores and Fitzmagic went on a meaningless heater, and I was in fan no man's land about whether winning those games was a good thing.  That was even more pronounced because the front office's indifference to winning was in service of getting a specific QB, whereas the Bears debate is just about the value of picking 4-6 spots earlier with no particular draft target in mind. 

My two cents is that a front office punting games is the hardest position to be in as a fan - its actually easier to root for your team to lose than to be told that the games don't matter.  But fortunately in the NFL, the value of losing games just isn't significant enough to ever actually root against your team (e.g., Tua got hurt, slipped, and the Dolphins got him anyway, which never would have happened in the NBA).  So just root for your team to win with the standing disclaimer that you know the front office isn't putting the players and coaches in the best position to succeed, in service of future success.

[DegenerateDish]

Honestly I would much rather be 7-7 at this point if I were a Bear fan. First, because winning is fun. Second, you may actually make the playoffs this year. But third and most importantly, it actually shows progress!

They have a bottom three roster, I mean I’d like to be a millionaire too, but the reality is I’m not, and a bottom of the league roster isn’t going 7-7 at this point. They now have a young good QB, which is what they haven’t had. Drafting at 2 doesn’t guarantee anything, they have to still make good decisions in the draft and free agency. But I guess we agree to disagree on the value of picking at 2 instead of 6 or 7 or wherever, fair enough, I do respect your opinions on here.

[Hards Alumni]

Belichick is the GOAT, but his decision to turn his offense over to Matt Patricia and Joe Judge is as inexplicable as it gets.

Belichick is 78-86 without Tom Brady under center.

He's a damn good coach, but great players can make coaches appear better than they are.

For an example see:  McCarthy, Mike

I am ready for the heat this take will bring.

[MU82]

Belichick is 78-86 without Tom Brady under center.

He's a damn good coach, but great players can make coaches appear better than they are.

For an example see:  McCarthy, Mike

I am ready for the heat this take will bring.

It's the right take, so there should be little if any heat.

Not only does Belichick have a losing record sans Brady ... but Brady promptly won the Super Bowl sans Belichick. TB didn't need BB, but BB has yet to prove he doesn't need TB.

None of which means Belichick hasn't been one of the best coaches ever; it's all opinion anyway. I mean, those regarded as the most accomplished (a term I prefer to "best") coaches in history, regardless of sport, have always had lots of talent. Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman, Casey Stengel, Joe McCarthy, etc etc etc ... tons of talent.

There's little question that Belichick is the most accomplished NFL coach of the Super Bowl era. He's got the most Super Bowl victories -- that's the ultimate accomplishment in his sport. GOAT? That's a matter of opinion.

[JWags85]

Is Belichick the GOAT or is he a very good coach who was lucky to have the Goat on his team?

What is his percentage making the Playoffs minus Brady? In fact, in a quite large sample size, I believe he is a sub-.500 coach without Tom.

I’d take Parcells any day.

He was under 40 when he took over a bad Browns team, with a terrible defense that gave up like 450 points the year before.  And a roster put together by a GM who would get canned the next year.  And still he turned them into the best defense in the league and won 11 games 3 years later.

Then he figured it out, as many coaches do after a failure, by the time he got to NE.  Those early NE teams won cause of BB's system and defense.  Brady wasn't a superstar when they went 14-2 and won the SB in 2003, he was rather average that year.  2004 he made a Pro Bowl, but wasn't other worldly.  I'd argue he didn't start carrying BB or the Pats until 2007, and then the next decade he was the Brady we all know.

We all know the 11-5 with Matt Cassell.  But they won 10 games and made the playoffs last year with a pretty shmeh roster.

Belichick is the GOAT, but his decision to turn his offense over to Matt Patricia and Joe Judge is as inexplicable as it gets.

This is it. And I think speaks to a larger problem with BB and the Patriots. Their staff is ridiculously inbred. Any fired coach who used to be an assistant there is brought back into the fold. And two of his kids are defensive assistants!

This just feels like its not ending well for him.

Yea, I feel any post-Brady lull is less about Brady and more about hubris.  His personnel decisions have been pretty horrible.  Both with players, and much more so with coaching.  The Matt Patricia moving to OC is a quintessential "I'm smarter than everyone else, my track record proves it".

Brady went to a stacked team that just didn't have a QB.  2 Pro Bowl WRs already, then added a a HOF WR in Brown and a HOF TE in Gronk, plus 2 good RBs to a team that had none.  And a gnarly defense.  Brady didn't lift up a bunch of also rans.

Also, Parcells as the GOAT?  The same Parcells who basically alternated playoff contending years with sub .500 seasons?  Great coach and football mind but wildly inconsistent.

[Jockey]

Also, Parcells as the GOAT?  The same Parcells who basically alternated playoff contending years with sub .500 seasons?  Great coach and football mind but wildly inconsistent.

Not quite accurate.

He was below .500 3 times and in the Playoffs 9 times. The other times he was below .500 were in his 1st season on rebuilding teams. And every losing team that he took over was in the playoffs by his 2nd season.

[Pakuni]

Belichick is 78-86 without Tom Brady under center.

He's a damn good coach, but great players can make coaches appear better than they are.

For an example see:  McCarthy, Mike

I am ready for the heat this take will bring.

Bill Walsh was 17-23-1 without Joe Montana under center.
I imagine that if we dive in, we'd find that most coaches seen as great look a lot less great when forced to play below average quarterbacks.

[JWags85]

Not quite accurate.

He was below .500 3 times and in the Playoffs 9 times. The other times he was below .500 were in his 1st season on rebuilding teams. And every losing team that he took over was in the playoffs by his 2nd season.

I was thinking the NE/NJ years which was Bad, Playoffs, Bad, Super Bowl appearance...then Decent, AFC Champ, win 4 straight to finish the year at 8-8.  Still, not a paragon of consistency throughout his career.  Even his Giants stretch was very good, not GOAT worthy.

But we all know Parcells was carried by Jeff Hostetler, not his coaching

[MU82]

Bill Walsh was 17-23-1 without Joe Montana under center.
I imagine that if we dive in, we'd find that most coaches seen as great look a lot less great when forced to play below average quarterbacks.

Absolutely.

Don Shula did have a pretty nice record with fill-ins, though.

Many don't remember that during the Dolphins' perfect season 50 years ago, they lost Bob Griese to injury in Game 5. Earl Morrall, himself a former star but a 38-year-old retread by 1972, took over and led Miami to wins in the rest of their regular-season games and also in their playoff opener. When Morrall struggled in the first half of the AFC title game (which was inexplicably played in Pittsburgh despite the Dolphins having been 15-0), Shula pivoted back to Griese, who led them to victory in that game and then in the Super Bowl.

As the young Baltimore head coach in 1965, with both Unitas and his backup hurt, Shula plugged in RB Tom Matte at QB. The Colts beat the Rams in Matte's first game (which was the regular-season finale) but then lost to the eventual champion Packers in overtime in the playoffs.

But yes, Shula was a lot smarter when Unitas, Griese and Marino were healthy and at their best. Bradshaw, Montana, Aikman and Brady made their coaches look pretty smart, too.

[Uncle Rico]

One could argue Parcells won two super bowls because he had Belichick on staff

[MU82]

One could argue Parcells won two super bowls because he had Belichick on staff

Parcells did win one of those with a backup QB who was mediocre at best.

[Uncle Rico]

Parcells did win one of those with a backup QB who was mediocre at best.

With a great defensive game plan

[WhiteTrash]

They have a bottom three roster, I mean I’d like to be a millionaire too, but the reality is I’m not, and a bottom of the league roster isn’t going 7-7 at this point. They now have a young good QB, which is what they haven’t had. Drafting at 2 doesn’t guarantee anything, they have to still make good decisions in the draft and free agency. But I guess we agree to disagree on the value of picking at 2 instead of 6 or 7 or wherever, fair enough, I do respect your opinions on here.

There is clear statistical data to show higher draft picks preform better than lower picks (pick 1-5 about 50% All Pro, pick 15-20 about 30% All Pro and so on). NFL GMs have placed high value on draft picks and there is trade data to prove even slightly better picks are worth material draft/player capital. I hope there is no disagreement on these facts.

Teams who are starting a rebuild prefer draft position over wins because the need for a large infusion of talent is needed to build toward a championship. Those teams, like the Bears, have a many players who will not be on the team long term because they are not good and there is little value in developing them as players or team mates.

Teams, again like the Bears, increase the likelihood of getting better talent (in all rounds of the draft) by picking higher or picking more, as the data proves out.

But again, if the GM and coaches are not good, then all the loses, draft picks and cap money are a waste.
 

[withoutbias]

The posts in this thread on October 24th are hilarious. Bears fans certainly weren’t explaining how much they wanted to lose games and how valuable their 4th place schedule and 2nd pick were going to be. Same with 9/11 posts. Very cold takes…that appear to have been not so cold.

[JWags85]

The posts in this thread on October 24th are hilarious. Bears fans certainly weren’t explaining how much they wanted to lose games and how valuable their 4th place schedule and 2nd pick were going to be. Same with 9/11 posts. Very cold takes…that appear to have been not so cold.

You're trying too hard.  The Bears beat the hell out of NE, in NE, on primetime TV.  People rightly called that out and gave the Bears props for the performance.

I assume you're talking about Dish saying the Bears were in the playoff race in the NFC.  Which was true at the time.  Though nobody thought then, or any time in the season, that they were a playoff team, even in a bad NFC.

Bears fans can be exciting by a dominating performance and good play from their franchise QB, but also not give a damn about losses as they build for the future.  Its not that complicated.  I also can't fathom why you care so much.  Is Jimmy Butler a Bears fan?  That would explain your obsessive devotion.

[Pakuni]

Willie McGinest seems to have taken the Patriots' loss pretty hard.

[DegenerateDish]

WithoutBias probably shouldn’t look at the posts in here from after the Packers week 1 loss to the Vikings.

“The Packers will be fine.”

“They’re still going to easily win the NFC North.”

Dude is absolutely obsessed with the Bears, it’s hilarious.

[DegenerateDish]

You're trying too hard.  The Bears beat the hell out of NE, in NE, on primetime TV.  People rightly called that out and gave the Bears props for the performance.

I assume you're talking about Dish saying the Bears were in the playoff race in the NFC.  Which was true at the time.  Though nobody thought then, or any time in the season, that they were a playoff team, even in a bad NFC.

Bears fans can be exciting by a dominating performance and good play from their franchise QB, but also not give a damn about losses as they build for the future.  Its not that complicated.  I also can't fathom why you care so much.  Is Jimmy Butler a Bears fan?  That would explain your obsessive devotion.

JWags is of course right here, and what I said was true at the time. The Bears were 1 game out of the wild card, and held the tiebreaker over San Fran at the time I said “they were in the playoff hunt”. I mean, if at the time, almost halfway through the season, a team is a game out of the playoffs, I’d consider that “in the hunt”. And they did totally kick the Pats around the building that night. This doesn’t have to be so hard for some around here to comprehend.

[Uncle Rico]

JWags is of course right here, and what I said was true at the time. The Bears were 1 game out of the wild card, and held the tiebreaker over San Fran at the time I said “they were in the playoff hunt”. I mean, if at the time, almost halfway through the season, a team is a game out of the playoffs, I’d consider that “in the hunt”. And they did totally kick the Pats around the building that night. This doesn’t have to be so hard for some around here to comprehend.

None of this should distract us from the Packers being trash, too.

[WhiteTrash]

The posts in this thread on October 24th are hilarious. Bears fans certainly weren’t explaining how much they wanted to lose games and how valuable their 4th place schedule and 2nd pick were going to be. Same with 9/11 posts. Very cold takes…that appear to have been not so cold.

You got me!

I went back to 10/24 to see the posts you referenced. I played right into your hands. You "made me look".

Of course there were no such posts, a couple expressing surprise at the Bears win, that's it. And, of course, posts of kudos for  trading Robert Quinn the very next day. Genuine satisfaction with unloading older talent.

You should lighten up, you are not a Bears fan, sit back and enjoy them losing. Theses ARE the good ol' days for Packer fans.   

[Jockey]

It's the right take, so there should be little if any heat.

Not only does Belichick have a losing record sans Brady ... but Brady promptly won the Super Bowl sans Belichick. TB didn't need BB, but BB has yet to prove he doesn't need TB.

None of which means Belichick hasn't been one of the best coaches ever; it's all opinion anyway. I mean, those regarded as the most accomplished (a term I prefer to "best") coaches in history, regardless of sport, have always had lots of talent. Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Vince Lombardi, Chuck Noll, Bill Walsh, Toe Blake, Scotty Bowman, Casey Stengel, Joe McCarthy, etc etc etc ... tons of talent.

There's little question that Belichick is the most accomplished NFL coach of the Super Bowl era. He's got the most Super Bowl victories -- that's the ultimate accomplishment in his sport. GOAT? That's a matter of opinion.

I do not rank Belichick #1. I do not have any issue with anyone who does.

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

None of this should distract us from the Packers being trash, too.

Yeah it’s manifesting itself with a lot of redirection of frustration around here.

[withoutbias]

You're trying too hard.  The Bears beat the hell out of NE, in NE, on primetime TV.  People rightly called that out and gave the Bears props for the performance.

I assume you're talking about Dish saying the Bears were in the playoff race in the NFC.  Which was true at the time.  Though nobody thought then, or any time in the season, that they were a playoff team, even in a bad NFC.

Bears fans can be exciting by a dominating performance and good play from their franchise QB, but also not give a damn about losses as they build for the future.  Its not that complicated.  I also can't fathom why you care so much.  Is Jimmy Butler a Bears fan?  That would explain your obsessive devotion.

The proper response to those wins would’ve been, “HORRIBLE RESULT!”

We should’ve been more concerned with getting a top 2 pick and not concerned with what the Playoff outlook was. Winning games did nothing but hurt the Bears this year. 0-17 would’ve been great.