I’ll just start with the first paragraph. Those players are “starters” for this team. Would Braxton Jones start for any other offensive line in the division? No.
And, like I put in the article, he drafted the secondary with his first choices. He chose not to trade Quinn to get better value in the draft. He failed to get Bates. These are legitimate criticisms if his o line fails. Poles wanted a slim offensive line. He’s made it very clear, that as a former offensive lineman, he has his own ideas for that position. If that offensive line fails Fields, he shoulders the responsibility. Teven Jenkins deliberately said he’s not going to be as strong because of Poles plan.
You tell me what the results look like right now.
These are indeed valid points that follow the overall common theme that none of us know until we see how things play out.
Losing out on Bates really sucked and I also wish he'd have bid higher to bring him in. He did end up with Lucus Patrick however, who knows the offense already and is a true plug n play C. Sucks we've not been able to see him yet.
My point is that declaring things and players such as Braxton Jones as
fails simply because they are unproven is jumping the gun with negativity. You and I are not NFL scouts or coaches. Perhaps he really is startable; IDK?
. All reports are that his tape so far says yes. Bears staff are clearly saying he is better than Reiff, who they brought to be a plug n play experienced LT. Do you have a reason to say he is not?
It's impossible to stamp anything as a result right now. We can only discuss the moves made and not made and the tape that is or isn't good so far.
It certainly costs a lot more to bring in previously proven premier talent, and this cost is more than is currently available (without gutting other positions of strength such as Quinn). In essence, Poles is trying to have his cake and eat it too by retaining Quinn and $$ while also trying to squeeze fieldable talent from the limited unknown guys he does have + drafted with his 11 picks.
Just because the new OL guys haven't done it yet doesn't = doing nothing. Just because some haven't started before doesn't = unstartable / not able to protect Fields / start on another team. You now say your criticisms are "
IF his OL fails", but the narrative is absolutely being presented to the masses that Poles already has and continues to fail Fields.
=======================
What's ironic is that ESPN, whose commentators ripped CHI on Sat, also put out that Bears have 11th best OL. Might be a good one for you to write a response article to!? I'm interested in your take on this overly rosey report. The reality will play itself out likely somewhere between this and the "OL will be the worst in the league" takes.
*Note Seth Walder's ESPN rankings claiming 11th best is behind a paywall, so here's one of many re-hash articles:
Surprise! ESPN ranks Bears offensive line among best in NFL
We've yet to see Lucus Patrick play center in CHI, but he's certainly better than Mustipher, who is proven bad. 3/5 of last year's OL has been replaced with 3 FA guys who have been starters. Then 2 of them replaced again with homegrown Bears; who are unproven but with upside.
Further yet, they go to this overly positive grade
while including Reiff and Shoefield as starters, who are now relegated to backups now that Braxton Jones is the #1 LT and Tevon Jenkins is the #1 RG. I admit that Reiff while an improvement from last year, was let go by CIN whose line was trash last year.
Like I said, the moves have been made, but claiming the OL to be bad and neglected is a narrative that plays on previous OL failures without current substance.
Unless you will break down tape and show that these new FA pick ups AND Braxton & Jenkins are trash like last years departures?