It is currently Thu May 23, 2024 11:52 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 ... 14  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:29 pm
Posts: 39856
Location: Everywhere
pizza_Place: giordanos
No matter how inept you feel the Bears have been for however long you have thought that you forget one thing in the NFL draft reality. Luck. Eventually a team falls ass first into a legend. Hope it is this time.

_________________
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 8:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48782
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
Where is this mythical Quarterback University?

That's the laziest argument going. I heard it on WSCR at least 3 times driving in.

I couldn't think of one off the top of my head. So a quick Google search comes up with.......Purdue. Here's their argument.

Notable QBs: Drew Brees, Scott Campbell, Len Dawson, Jim Everett, Jeff George, Bob Griese, Mark Hermann, Kyle Orton, Gary Danielson and Mike Phipps

Mike Phipps in the argument. Jeff George only played there like 1 year.

_________________
https://twitter.com/DrKenCast


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 11:36 pm
Posts: 18983

_________________
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 8:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55900
First strength listed is his arm.

Rube is an idiot

_________________
"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 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 32351
Location: Wrigley
pizza_Place: Warren Buffet of Cock
Bowen does all that but does not have a foot speed rating on him?

_________________
Hawaii (fuck) You


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
WaitingforRuffcorn wrote:

I would feel better about the pick if it wasn't made by the same talent evaluators that had to trade picks because Mitch (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky was certainly better than Mahomes or Watson. I have no idea if Fields will be great or terrible. He's a great athlete. Hope that translates to NFL quarterback.




Now this I get. And I even agree to an extent as well. I’m worried about the people developing him tho, not spotting/evaluating his talent.

_________________
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 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89286
Location: To the left of my post
It's not really about one specific university being good or bad at developing quarterbacks. It's about a quarterback who spends their entire career playing on easy mode with elite skill players who will be starters in the NFL playing against guys who are hoping to play their way into a practice squad. Notre Dame, OSU, USC, LSU, Alabama, Florida.

I do think those schools have improved their qb development programs though to make up for it.

_________________
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 8:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55900
you can make arguments against any pick with stuff like this. One of the knocks on Mahomes was he came from Texas Tech. What good QBs come from there and their gadget passing game, yadda yadda.

_________________
"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 8:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater wrote:
Where is this mythical Quarterback University?

That's the laziest argument going. I heard it on WSCR at least 3 times driving in.

I couldn't think of one off the top of my head. So a quick Google search comes up with.......Purdue. Here's their argument.

Notable QBs: Drew Brees, Scott Campbell, Len Dawson, Jim Everett, Jeff George, Bob Griese, Mark Hermann, Kyle Orton, Gary Danielson and Mike Phipps

Mike Phipps in the argument. Jeff George only played there like 1 year.





Yeah I’m with you Doc. It’s ridiculous. Like I said a few posts back Texas Tech couldn’t produce QB’s either.. then Mahomes happened (the same knock was used against Mahomes prior to the draft btw).


It’s lazy. Nothing more. It also ignores the fact that Fields played in a different system with a different HC than the others too.

My all time favorite is ‘but he was surrounded by NFL talent!!’

lol

Cool, then it shouldn’t be a problem because.. he’ll be surrounded by ‘NFL talent’ in.. the NFL


Is what it is

_________________
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 8:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 10789
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
i'm excited. im also nervous as he's far from a lock. but i'd rather gamble on fields than wilson or lance. the bears only had to give up 1 extra first and not 2 to get him.

the thing that makes me most nervous is the coaching staff. i fully expect them to do jalen hurts things by giving fields a few snaps a game early in the season instead of just turning over the keys to him game 1 like they should.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
RFDC wrote:
you can make arguments against any pick with stuff like this. One of the knocks on Mahomes was he came from Texas Tech. What good QBs come from there and their gadget passing game, yadda yadda.




Yep. Rodgers came from a ‘gimmick’ offense in Cal too.. this type of analysis is plug and play for people that don’t want to read articles and watch tape/videos to see what the actual differences are.

_________________
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 8:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2013 6:09 pm
Posts: 10789
pizza_Place: Generic Pizza Store
also worth noting i heard a sound clip from louis riddick last night on ESPN heavily implying that matt nagy made this pick. implying nagy had fields ranked highly. then finally he made comments implying that he had spoken to nagy and nagy had indicated he had the 2017 QB class ranked appropriately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89286
Location: To the left of my post
RFDC wrote:
you can make arguments against any pick with stuff like this. One of the knocks on Mahomes was he came from Texas Tech. What good QBs come from there and their gadget passing game, yadda yadda.

In most cases, the elite quarterbacks in the NFL didn't come from traditional powers. Brady, who is the exception to pretty much every rule in terms of draft strategy, is a lone exception.

Take a look at this list. https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/the_25_best_quarterbacks_of_the_2010s/s1__29728982#slide_12

QBs from traditional powers:
Brady
Carson Palmer
Cam Newton maybe.
A case could be made for Russell Wilson.
Deshaun Watson though he seems to be as much of the reason that Clemson became a traditional power.

So of the 25 on the list, you have 5 of them at best if we stretch the definition on a traditional power to include Wisconsin and Auburn.

_________________
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 9:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Brick wrote:
RFDC wrote:
you can make arguments against any pick with stuff like this. One of the knocks on Mahomes was he came from Texas Tech. What good QBs come from there and their gadget passing game, yadda yadda.

In most cases, the elite quarterbacks in the NFL didn't come from traditional powers. Brady, who is the exception to pretty much every rule in terms of draft strategy, is a lone exception.

Take a look at this list. https://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/the_25_best_quarterbacks_of_the_2010s/s1__29728982#slide_12

QBs from traditional powers:
Brady
Carson Palmer
Cam Newton maybe.
A case could be made for Russell Wilson.
Deshaun Watson though he seems to be as much of the reason that Clemson became a traditional power.

So of the 25 on the list, you have 5 of them at best if we stretch the definition on a traditional power to include Wisconsin and Auburn.



This list doesn’t tell the whole story tho.. 1st of all you have to include power house conferences too (Peyton Manning shows up on the list when you do that for example).

You also have to consider there were many cases over the years where certain power schools (like Nebraska back in the day) didn’t place emphasis in recruitment of a future NFL prototype QB because the system they ran so they targeted players that fit into their system, rather than change their system to fit a future NFL QB -Tommy Frazier (and Tebow more recently) are good examples of this.


There’s so much more that goes into college teams going after highly touted NFL style QB’s historically than simply using a chart to show which teams produced which guys. Charts like this don’t provide that context.

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


Last edited by NME on Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
BRick, I could also point out trends offensively that made the differences between the NFL and College vastly different for decades, as well as rule changes to enhance offense/passing that have changed over the years recently which changes this conversation too.


There’s far more cross pollination between NFL and College offenses now from a scheming perspective that makes the transition from college QB to NFL QB much easier than ever before.

_________________
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 9:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89286
Location: To the left of my post
NME wrote:
This list doesn’t tell the whole story tho.. 1st of all you have to include power house conferences too (Peyton Manning shows up on the list when you do that for example).
No you don't, or it's a meaningless list if you are including all power 5 schools. The P5 has a significant amount of talent disparity even among the good teams. It's not the same being the qb at Texas Tech as it is being the qb at Alabama.

NME wrote:
You also have to consider there were many cases over the years where certain power schools (like Nebraska back in the day) didn’t place emphasis in recruitment of a future NFL prototype QB because the system they ran so they targeted players that fit their system rather instead.
That's true but it's also why Nebraska quarterbacks could be Heisman finalists and have to switch positions to have a shot at the NFL.


NME wrote:
There’s so much more that goes into college teams going after highly touted NFL style QB’s historically than simply using a chart to show which teams produced which guys. Charts like this don’t provide context.
I only used the list to make it easier to have a starting point on quarterbacks that succeeded in the decade of the 10s, but it is a pretty big deal that of the true traditional powers in college football, you only have for certain Tom Brady and Carson Palmer as successful quarterbacks.

It doesn't mean that OSU quarterbacks can't ever be good in the NFL but it's a solid consideration with valid reasoning behind it about players who play on easy mode for most of their college career.

_________________
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 9:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89286
Location: To the left of my post
NME wrote:
BRick, I could also point out trends offensively that made the differences between the NFL and College vastly different for decades, as well as rule changes to enhance offense/passing that have changed over the years recently which changes this conversation too.


There’s far more cross pollination between NFL and College offenses now from a scheming perspective that makes the transition from college QB to NFL QB much easier than ever before.

You could, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you take what is considered a traditional college football powerhouse you don't find many quarterbacks who had great success from them.

That may be changing though.

_________________
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 9:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 6:47 am
Posts: 1097
pizza_Place: Bennys
I have no idea if this guy is any good but after listening to a bunch of analysys on the pick I havent heard anyone talk negative about the pick other than on here. I think there was more negative on Peyton Manning than on Fields and I dont think this guy will be Peyton Manning. It just doesnt seem right to me.

_________________
rogers park bryan wrote:
Mulli is Howard Stern in his prime compared to Haugh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 2:32 pm
Posts: 4543
Location: What buisness is it of yours, where I'm from
pizza_Place: Tombstone
Brick wrote:
NME wrote:
BRick, I could also point out trends offensively that made the differences between the NFL and College vastly different for decades, as well as rule changes to enhance offense/passing that have changed over the years recently which changes this conversation too.


There’s far more cross pollination between NFL and College offenses now from a scheming perspective that makes the transition from college QB to NFL QB much easier than ever before.

You could, but it still doesn't change the fact that if you take what is considered a traditional college football powerhouse you don't find many quarterbacks who had great success from them.

That may be changing though.




It is changing, and it’s changing for reasons I mentioned above.


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.


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.

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.

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’.


It’s nonsense.

_________________
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 9:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:18 pm
Posts: 27463
Location: Rizzo fo Shizzo
pizza_Place: Pizza Villa in DeKalb.
The bottom line is that you have to be able to read the damn defense. You can not have your coach doing it for you at this level. The only success I have seen with that was with Goff and even that wore out quickly and they dumped him eventually. Let's look at what he did at OSU. He played behind an elite offensive line where he was sacked an astonishing amount of times, had elite wr talent, played a shit sandwich conference and played in an offense that required him to make very few reads. One of his biggest knocks was throwing a poorly timed deep ball. You can get away with that shit in college but you are not getting away with underthrowing a deep ball and making the wr wait for it. That will get picked every time.

If you were going to burn this years and next years 1st rd picks and then blow 10 mil on Dalton why the hell wouldn't you just trade for stafford? Congrats on drafting a guy who looks to be a clone of mitch. Oh and Ian Book torched the shit out of Clemson too this year.

_________________
That's my purse! I don't know you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 89286
Location: To the left of my post
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.

_________________
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 9:42 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77255
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Not locking up Golladay just seems criminal right now. There was no need to waste money in Dalton when you already were wasting money on Foles. Rookie/Young quarterbacks need protection and elite players around them to help them be successful. Having Hunt, Hill, Kelce and a quality offensive line helped Mahomes develop. Fields isn't walking into the same disaster as (Pro Bowl QB) Trubisky, but it's not close to Mahomes situation either.

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

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

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55900
Yeah the Dalton signing is baffling. THere is no need to sign him when you still have Foles around. He can serve the same purpose. That money should have been invested in the OL or WR

_________________
"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 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:15 pm
Posts: 48782
Location: Bohemian Club Annual World Power Consolidation Conference & Golf Outing
pizza_Place: World Fluoridation Conspiracy Pizza & WINGS!
I don't put a lot of weight on his sacks. He had over 200 carries in the RPO motion so I'd like to see the sacks vs. TFL statistics because even a lousy pump fake and run is a sack if I understand the stat.

A lot of those sacks were likely run-first plays that didn't develop.

But, even if the sack number is still high and I saw him hold the ball too long at times, that can be cleaned up.

_________________
https://twitter.com/DrKenCast


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:48 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102141
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
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

_________________
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 9:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 55900
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

I think the consensus has to be it is a good pick. YOu get the guy who for most of the year was considered the #2 player in the draft. And you get him outside of the top 10.

_________________
"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 9:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22706
pizza_Place: A few...
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16012
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
RFDC wrote:
Yeah the Dalton signing is baffling. THere is no need to sign him when you still have Foles around. He can serve the same purpose. That money should have been invested in the OL or WR


Pace was playing chess while the other GMs were playing checkers. He fooled them into thinking he was set with Dalton.

_________________
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 9:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:05 pm
Posts: 20765
pizza_Place: Pizanos
RFDC wrote:
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

I think the consensus has to be it is a good pick. YOu get the guy who for most of the year was considered the #2 player in the draft. And you get him outside of the top 10.

For what seems like a reasonable price.

_________________
Peter Clavin wrote:
Because you are stupid, maybe read some books educate yourself.
Nardi wrote:
We walk, talk, and won't shit our pants


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Better be fields
PostPosted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:55 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 77255
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
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?

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

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

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU


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 ... 14  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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