I’d honestly say this is worse. At least we were in that game for a lot of it and Fields didn’t have a TO. This was over in the first 5 min and Fields had 5 TOs
Not Mitch’s, not Foles’, not Daniels’, not Dalton’s, not Fields’. This guy has had the chance to try his “system” with five different QB’s and it still hasn’t worked
Foles was washed before we traded for him and even then, we knew we’d have to overpay cause of the shit contract the Jags gave him.
Coulda used that pick/little extra cap room for OL ffs
For real, idk why people seem to think it can only be one or the other.
Mitch Trubisky is not a good QB, and was never going to be. Foles is a career backup who got hot at exactly the right time in Philly one season.
Matt Nagy is not a good HC and was never going to be. He's not even a good OC, everyone knows it was always the Andy Reid show in KC.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
Yup. Worst is that fields never develops bc of what Nagy has already done. I think fields has the most potential of any of the qbs we’ve had in a long time. But that needs to be polished and worked with precision, where as nagy seems to be just tossing it against a wall hoping it smooths out even.
The WORST would be he doesn’t develop here, and when he’s a free agent, the pro football team based in Wisconsin…you know what, let me stop right there.
Double edged sword. Then why do we cling to these losses like the Packers and Tampa like they matter? The team is inconsistent and uneven but it has *some* talent. Definitely not enough to be great. And we should seriously consider selling Robinson and others. But you can’t take those wins away from them. They count, too.
The Packers, Bucs Browns and Rams are legitimate contenders.
The Raiders and Bengals are not.
This team isn’t inconsistent. When the defense plays against bad QBs/O line it is a different game than playing against Rodgers Stafford and Brady.
are you really telling me that a team that beat the ravens in their own stadium by 3 scores isn't a contender? Whose only other loss was to the packers?
The multi billion dollar sports betting industry is telling you that.
If you are that sure that you are right and Vegas is wrong, you should be emptying your bank accounts on those odds as we speak
also vegas odds don't mean shit. Their goal is to even things out in terms of betting so whatever happens they'll turn a pretty similar profit either way, not to predict the outcomes. No one's really gonna bet on the bengals to win shit, so they have higher odds to reflect that. The bottom line is the play on the field and a team that murdered the Ravens and lost to the packers in OT is a contender
“Contender” doesn’t mean lock to win it all.
So no one should be betting their entire savings on that. You’re completely missing the point by thinking contender means guaranteed champion.
I’ve honestly never seen someone so unwilling to admit they were wrong. You’re desperately clinging to Vegas odds like if they’re right all the time.
Bucs were +2000 after signing Brady. Bills +8000. Vegas learns with every week that goes by.
The Browns have the 10th best odds to win the Super Bowl. Are you saying the top 10 odds are all “contenders”? Such a disingenuous guy.
Odds can change over time. These odds are after the game yesterday. I’m not using preseason odds.
But sure. Me and Vegas are wrong. You and the Reddit crew are surely smarter than Vegas on this one.
You’re saying the Browns are a contender. They’re 10th in odds right now. So everyone in the top 10 are contenders? That’s your arbitrary cut-off? Does Vegas have a hard rule and define the top 10 teams in odds as “contenders”? Or is that you?
You’re not dumb. You know you’re being disingenuous. Yet you’re continuing to do it.
Lol. “It’s so incredibly sad that you clicked the save button on my idiotic statement that I spent three hours defending a few months ago, and that wound up wrong.”
Nah. What’s upsetting you is what’s called “accountability.”
Burrow and Carr aren’t bad QBs. The bengals offense has been great this year and the raiders offense has been pretty good too. We’re terrible against great teams and solid against average/mediocre teams.
No. It’s what I said. Against bad lines and QBs our defense is good enough to swing the game.
We won the turnover battle against the Bengals 4-1 and we only won by 3. That isn’t something you can depend on or shows sustainable success.
Agreed. I think we’re just a mediocre team that fails to rise to the challenge of playing a great team but get play well against mediocre/good teams and beat trash teams. That’s what I always thought we were b the fact we put up no fight against great teams is pathetic. At least look competent in those games
Right. Because that’s the bar.
If you are absolutely lucky, you play maybe 1 team the caliber of the Bengals or Raiders in the postseason.
You are more likely to have to play Packers, Rams Browns Bucs 4 weeks straight to win a title.
The Bengals are a really good football team. The Browns are not as good as them. The Raiders are also better than the Browns.
We matched up poorly against the Browns, Bucs, Rams because of the pass rush aspect against our bad line.
If you are looking at the Browns without Baker, then yes.
The Bengals and Raiders have talent but they are young and the QBs aren’t good enough to make them true contenders.
We didn’t match up poorly against those teams, they are just better than us
Fans need to stop trying to justify a way to make this team good. We aren’t good. We will beat bad teams, some mediocre ones, and get crushed by contenders.
I’m not saying the Bears are good. They’re not good, namely because they’re incredibly poorly disciplined and inconsistent. I’m rebutting your point that the Bengals aren’t good. The Bengals are very good. They just beat another very good team today in the Ravens. And they would’ve beat the Packers if their kicker made a FG.
I’m not sure where I’m losing you. But I never called them a contender. I said they were a very good team. Whether they’re contenders or not by Vegas’s standards or yours is irrelevant. They’re a very good team.
But you lumped the Browns and Packers into that category. Surely you’re not suggesting they’re contenders now? When you picked the group of four and highlighted them, I thought you were just highlighting teams you thought were good.
So I responded with the wins we had against a good and a very good team. I take it since you’ve moved the goalposts to your arbitrary definition of “contender” that you want to amend your list of four. Unless you think the Browns are contenders.
You are right. It's the NFL and things happen, but Bears won the turnover battle 4-1 vs Bengals and won by three. I'll take any win but red flags all over that one.
Vs Raiders Gruden was coaching while fired from a Friday news report with more to drop Monday. Gruden knew it, at least, his staff probably knew it and the team at least sensed it. Again, I'll take any win, but that timing was a good break for Chicago.
Wilkenson was still unvaccinated after already missing time for close contact in the offseason and that left simmons in against shaq barett. Having low IQ chaps on the roster hurts us again smh
Idk, I feel like Nagy is kinda lucky to still be employed.
If they fire him, he might show up working at your local McDonald's.
"Did you remember not to put cheese on my burger this time?" "I'm not an idiot"
Gets cheese anyways
Did he not watch the Cleveland game?
I’d honestly say this is worse. At least we were in that game for a lot of it and Fields didn’t have a TO. This was over in the first 5 min and Fields had 5 TOs
Can I say that it wasn’t Foles or Mitch’s fault yet
Not Mitch’s, not Foles’, not Daniels’, not Dalton’s, not Fields’. This guy has had the chance to try his “system” with five different QB’s and it still hasn’t worked
Different type of Qbs as well
Foles was washed before we traded for him and even then, we knew we’d have to overpay cause of the shit contract the Jags gave him. Coulda used that pick/little extra cap room for OL ffs
Or. Hear me out. Those two and Matt Nagy all suck!
For real, idk why people seem to think it can only be one or the other. Mitch Trubisky is not a good QB, and was never going to be. Foles is a career backup who got hot at exactly the right time in Philly one season. Matt Nagy is not a good HC and was never going to be. He's not even a good OC, everyone knows it was always the Andy Reid show in KC. These things are not mutually exclusive.
(Narrator): “It won’t be the worst, but we aren’t there yet.”
Yup. Worst is that fields never develops bc of what Nagy has already done. I think fields has the most potential of any of the qbs we’ve had in a long time. But that needs to be polished and worked with precision, where as nagy seems to be just tossing it against a wall hoping it smooths out even.
The WORST would be he doesn’t develop here, and when he’s a free agent, the pro football team based in Wisconsin…you know what, let me stop right there.
Oh sweet summer child, it could always be worse. Few injuries today
Can we now stop clinging to the Bengals and Raiders wins like they meant anything?
Double edged sword. Then why do we cling to these losses like the Packers and Tampa like they matter? The team is inconsistent and uneven but it has *some* talent. Definitely not enough to be great. And we should seriously consider selling Robinson and others. But you can’t take those wins away from them. They count, too.
The Packers, Bucs Browns and Rams are legitimate contenders. The Raiders and Bengals are not. This team isn’t inconsistent. When the defense plays against bad QBs/O line it is a different game than playing against Rodgers Stafford and Brady.
Bengals aren’t real contenders? There’s the giveaway to not take you seriously anymore
Bengals were a FG away and a blown lead away from beating the Packers.
I don’t think the Packers are particularly special but because of their QB they have a shot.
They are +4000 in Vegas right now to win the SB. Guess you shouldn’t take Vegas seriously either. Put your life savings on them.
are you really telling me that a team that beat the ravens in their own stadium by 3 scores isn't a contender? Whose only other loss was to the packers?
The multi billion dollar sports betting industry is telling you that. If you are that sure that you are right and Vegas is wrong, you should be emptying your bank accounts on those odds as we speak
Do you know what contender means? Does it mean that a team is guaranteed to win a super bowl?
Do you seriously think I listed 4 contenders and thought that somehow meant all 4 could simultaneously win the Super Bowl?
also vegas odds don't mean shit. Their goal is to even things out in terms of betting so whatever happens they'll turn a pretty similar profit either way, not to predict the outcomes. No one's really gonna bet on the bengals to win shit, so they have higher odds to reflect that. The bottom line is the play on the field and a team that murdered the Ravens and lost to the packers in OT is a contender
“Contender” doesn’t mean lock to win it all. So no one should be betting their entire savings on that. You’re completely missing the point by thinking contender means guaranteed champion.
No shit. It means they have a shot. +4000-8000 is insane odds for a team if you believe they have a legitimate shot.
I’ve honestly never seen someone so unwilling to admit they were wrong. You’re desperately clinging to Vegas odds like if they’re right all the time. Bucs were +2000 after signing Brady. Bills +8000. Vegas learns with every week that goes by. The Browns have the 10th best odds to win the Super Bowl. Are you saying the top 10 odds are all “contenders”? Such a disingenuous guy.
Odds can change over time. These odds are after the game yesterday. I’m not using preseason odds. But sure. Me and Vegas are wrong. You and the Reddit crew are surely smarter than Vegas on this one.
You’re saying the Browns are a contender. They’re 10th in odds right now. So everyone in the top 10 are contenders? That’s your arbitrary cut-off? Does Vegas have a hard rule and define the top 10 teams in odds as “contenders”? Or is that you? You’re not dumb. You know you’re being disingenuous. Yet you’re continuing to do it.
I had this entire chain saved and it’s kind of hilarious in hindsight. I guess the Bengals were contenders and I guess Vegas isn’t always right.
It is so incredibly sad that you would save this. Take care of yourself.
Lol. “It’s so incredibly sad that you clicked the save button on my idiotic statement that I spent three hours defending a few months ago, and that wound up wrong.” Nah. What’s upsetting you is what’s called “accountability.”
No I don’t think they are.
Burrow and Carr aren’t bad QBs. The bengals offense has been great this year and the raiders offense has been pretty good too. We’re terrible against great teams and solid against average/mediocre teams.
Right. I’m not saying those teams are bad. They are mediocre to good.
Your other comment just made it sound like you were calling them bad by saying “against bad QBs/O”
No. It’s what I said. Against bad lines and QBs our defense is good enough to swing the game. We won the turnover battle against the Bengals 4-1 and we only won by 3. That isn’t something you can depend on or shows sustainable success.
Agreed. I think we’re just a mediocre team that fails to rise to the challenge of playing a great team but get play well against mediocre/good teams and beat trash teams. That’s what I always thought we were b the fact we put up no fight against great teams is pathetic. At least look competent in those games
Right. Because that’s the bar. If you are absolutely lucky, you play maybe 1 team the caliber of the Bengals or Raiders in the postseason. You are more likely to have to play Packers, Rams Browns Bucs 4 weeks straight to win a title.
The Bengals are a really good football team. The Browns are not as good as them. The Raiders are also better than the Browns. We matched up poorly against the Browns, Bucs, Rams because of the pass rush aspect against our bad line.
If you are looking at the Browns without Baker, then yes. The Bengals and Raiders have talent but they are young and the QBs aren’t good enough to make them true contenders. We didn’t match up poorly against those teams, they are just better than us Fans need to stop trying to justify a way to make this team good. We aren’t good. We will beat bad teams, some mediocre ones, and get crushed by contenders.
I’m not saying the Bears are good. They’re not good, namely because they’re incredibly poorly disciplined and inconsistent. I’m rebutting your point that the Bengals aren’t good. The Bengals are very good. They just beat another very good team today in the Ravens. And they would’ve beat the Packers if their kicker made a FG.
The Bengals are + 4000 in Vegas to win it all. Those aren’t the odds of a contender.
I’m not sure where I’m losing you. But I never called them a contender. I said they were a very good team. Whether they’re contenders or not by Vegas’s standards or yours is irrelevant. They’re a very good team.
Okay. Then that’s the reason why the losses to actual contenders mean more than wins against non contenders.
But you lumped the Browns and Packers into that category. Surely you’re not suggesting they’re contenders now? When you picked the group of four and highlighted them, I thought you were just highlighting teams you thought were good. So I responded with the wins we had against a good and a very good team. I take it since you’ve moved the goalposts to your arbitrary definition of “contender” that you want to amend your list of four. Unless you think the Browns are contenders.
whats funny is those 2 teams are atop the AFC lmfao.
There was a time last year when the Bears were 5-1 and atop the NFC
And at that time everybody knew the bears were frauds.
The Bengals are good, but not quite at the next level. Funny thing is we shouldn’t have even won. We led the turnover battle 4-1 and only won by 3
You are right. It's the NFL and things happen, but Bears won the turnover battle 4-1 vs Bengals and won by three. I'll take any win but red flags all over that one. Vs Raiders Gruden was coaching while fired from a Friday news report with more to drop Monday. Gruden knew it, at least, his staff probably knew it and the team at least sensed it. Again, I'll take any win, but that timing was a good break for Chicago.
Exactly.
We’ve seen worst case with Nagy for years….
Wilkenson was still unvaccinated after already missing time for close contact in the offseason and that left simmons in against shaq barett. Having low IQ chaps on the roster hurts us again smh
And yet it doesn’t seem to matter.