**OFFICAIL** Bears 2024 Regular Season News & Schleisse - FTO Preferred - No ALTS! Derailing Is Discouraged!

[remydat]

So, this is you agreeing you were implying. Got it.

Reductionist. Yes. Ignoring the context. Yes. So, facts removed from context are not quite facts now are they?

No, that was a refutation. You missing it and not acknowledging the context doesn't change the fact that it was a refutation due to you ignoring context.

This is funny. Again, reductionist argumentation. It is also a false equivalence. In case you don't know, that's a fallacy. So, no, I am not saying a lie to refute a fact, which would be the analogy you're giving; instead, I'm pointing out how your use of data is disingenuous and fallacious, intentional or not, due to you misusing the data. You ignoring the context of how things occur, the way things occur, and the reality of things is a closer equivalent to "the dog eating the homework" idiom you clumsily advanced. Let's try again, shall we?

The context of the way that CMC, who is slower and smaller than Bijan, getting his quantity is a different context than Bijan. And, actually, the fact that Bijan has less wear on him than CMC should also elevate his worth. So, once again, Bijan is a generational talent who I think is on the level of CMC, Faulk, and many others. You don't have to agree. Please try to avoid clumsily juxtaposing stats outside of context and without the epistemological foundation of reality. Thank you.

Your original claim was I was moving goalposts. This is incorrect. It was always implicit in my responses the fact I was saying he was not worth such a high pick so again no goalposts were moved.

Facts are still facts with or without context. Context may change how we perceive or interpret those facts but they are still facts.

Nope I never claimed the dog eating the homework is a lie. I am stating it doesnt change the fact your homework wasnt turned it. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant as my only stated concern is the fact you did not turn it in. Just like the reasons behind the lower production are irrelevsnt to me as my only concern was the lower production.

Speaking of using data/facts incorrectly. CMC isnt slower in any provable sense. 4.48 and 4.46 is so close that it would be quite quite disingenuous to conclude BJ is faster than CMC based on that and that alone. In fact one might argue it is quite reductionist even to base who is faster solely on such a small sample size with such a small difference. You would need them to have run several 40s and analyze the results not to mention it still wouldnt prove who is faster on the football field in pads.

Quite ironic to claim I am stating facts without context and then using facts without context yourself. Please dont chastise people for the very flaws in logic you yourself employ.

 

[RubberBanMan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639285692600557568

Nice. Very nice.

I dont know what it means but im gonna use it to say draft this man. Then spend the rest of the draft on the lines. And a corner.

 

[KittiesKorner]

I am on board with JSN as well even though I am a "trenches" guy. I think for 2023 we can make do with Braxton Jones and a FA RT

 

[HeHateMe]

I am on board with JSN as well even though I am a "trenches" guy. I think for 2023 we can make do with Braxton Jones and a FA RT

when is FA over?

 

[KittiesKorner]

when is FA over?

I think it has to finish before the draft but definitely before the no trade clause

 

[The Doctor]

Suppose that Poles cant find a partner to trade down in the first round another time, and he values an OL that is deemed a reach over a DL that would make the defense work far better. Where are you guys on the "reach" at tackle to ensure Fields stays healthy?

I ask because I am of the opinion that Broderick Jones would be the best pick in the first round as it stands. I know he started at LT at Georgia so either he could push Braxton Jones to the right or move to the right side himself. All the same, I am coming around on the idea that he is the best prospect at tackle in the draft for Chicago given that Poles aims for the more athletic linemen.

Can any of the 3 (?) top OL be a plug and play starter from day 1? From what I've been reading Skoronski is that guy. I don't know about the others.

 

[msadows]

Can any of the 3 (?) top OL be a plug and play starter from day 1? From what I've been reading Skoronski is that guy. I don't know about the others.

Skoronski and paris for sure. Paris played three different spots on the oline at OSU(I think?). Played on both the left and right, interior and outside. He should be plug n play at either guard or either tackle spot.

Jones, I'm not certain as much. I've read he's a fantastic athlete but his technique isn't great.

 

[dennehy]

Can any of the 3 (?) top OL be a plug and play starter from day 1? From what I've been reading Skoronski is that guy. I don't know about the others.

I'd say that Wright is probably a plug and play RT, esp in a gap-power system.

 

[dentfan]

Your original claim was I was moving goalposts.

Not original. Follow up.

This is incorrect. It was always implicit in my responses the fact I was saying he was not worth such a high pick so again no goalposts were moved.

So, you agree. That’s a fact.

Facts are still facts with or without context. Context may change how we perceive or interpret those facts but they are still facts.

Fair enough. I am using information to hypothesize, with context, and to show potential. You see numbers. We disagree here. Facts divorced from context lose their factual merit.

Nope I never claimed the dog eating the homework is a lie. I am stating it doesnt change the fact your homework wasnt turned it. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant as my only stated concern is the fact you did not turn it in. Just like the reasons behind the lower production are irrelevsnt to me as my only concern was the lower production.

Speaking of using data/facts incorrectly. CMC isnt slower in any provable sense. 4.48 and 4.46 is so close that it would be quite quite disingenuous to conclude BJ is faster than CMC based on that and that alone. In fact one might argue it is quite reductionist even to base who is faster solely on such a small sample size with such a small difference. You would need them to have run several 40s and analyze the results not to mention it still wouldnt prove who is faster on the football field in pads.

So, you’re using context to disprove a fact. Interesting. Where have I seen this before. What kind of sorcery is this?

Quite ironic to claim I am stating facts without context and then using facts without context yourself. Please dont chastise people for the very flaws in logic you yourself employ.

Ironic indeed. Wherever does one get these ideas?

So, you’d agree that relative to the data you discussed, BR is faster, but one should look at the context for further clarification. Good idea. Carry on.

 

[dentfan]

I'd say that Wright is probably a plug and play RT, esp in a gap-power system.

This is why he is probably going top 15.

 

[Quik_7_Devin]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1638575725828603906

should Poles take PJ or maybe get the 32nd back from PIT (presuming they'd move up)?

 

[Dejo]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1639344110132772865

 

[remydat]

Not original. Follow up.

So, you agree. That’s a fact.

Fair enough. I am using information to hypothesize, with context, and to show potential. You see numbers. We disagree here. Facts divorced from context lose their factual merit.

So, you’re using context to disprove a fact. Interesting. Where have I seen this before. What kind of sorcery is this?

Ironic indeed. Wherever does one get thes ideas?

So, you’d agree that relative to the data you discussed, BR is faster, but one should look at the context for further clarification. Good idea. Carry on.

Yeah you still ignoring the point. If something is implicit then goalposts are not being moved.

But they arent divorced from context. I understand there may be reasons for the lesser production. I just dont consider those reasons significant enough to justify taking him at 9.

I am not using context to disprove a fact. I am saying the fact he timed faster in a single 40 doesnt mean he is actually faster as the sample size is too small. By contrast the production I am citing was not just one carry or one game but over the course of a season so the sample size is actually much higher.

I am also saying the fact he was 0.02 seconds faster in a single 40 in shorts doesnt have much bearing on the football field. By contrast the production I am citing did in fact occur on the football field with defenders trying to stop them.

I would hope I dont have to explain the difference between production on a football field over the course of a season vs times while in shorts in a single 40. Or that just because Usain Bolt lost a race once doesnt mean he is not the fastest man alive given all the other races he has won.

 

[monkforasia]

The only way I'm drafting jsn is if we traded one of Mooney or claypool.

 

[dentfan]

Yeah you still ignoring the point. If something is implicit then goalposts are not being moved.

Fair enough. An ambiguous claim is still a claim. You win.

But they arent divorced from context. I understand there may be reasons for the lesser production. I just dont consider

Don’t consider, as in opinion, as in not agree. Cool. We agree. You disagree as to how I see him.

those reasons significant enough to justify taking him at 9.

And I say not only should they, it’s a no-brainer.

I am not using context to disprove a fact. I am saying the fact he timed faster in a single 40 doesnt mean he is actually faster as the sample size is too small. By contrast the production I am citing was not just one carry or one game but over the course of a season so the sample size is actually much higher.

So, would you call this moving the goalposts? I mean, you can hedge that you’re clarifying, but it sure seems like moving the goalposts…

I am also saying the fact he was 0.02 seconds faster in a single 40 in shorts doesnt have much bearing on the football field. By contrast the production I am citing did in fact occur on the football field with defenders trying to stop them.

I would hope I dont have to explain the difference between production on a football field over the course of a season vs times while in shorts in a single 40. Or that just because Usain Bolt lost a race once doesnt mean he is not the fastest man alive given all the other races he has won.

So, context is important to understand and clarifying data. Got it. Good stuff. So, in that sense, CMC and BR have different stats because of different context and usage and context should be taken into account. Got it. Carry on.

So, to clarify, Bijan Robinson is a generational talent on par with Faulk, and the bears should take him at 9 because he’d give us a monster offense due to being an an offensive weapon paralleling Deebo and CMC in SF.

Carry on.

 

[redgrange19]

The thing is you draft for the long term, if they feel that Mooney and/or Claypool won't be brought back after this season, you draft JSN on a rookie deal who will potentially (has every single key trait you look for) be an elite NFL receiver. I'm all for building the trenches, but if they take JSN I would trust their plan. Lots of 2nd and 3rd round picks to build the trenches. It just depends how the draft unfolds and who they like.

 

[dentfan]

 

[rawdawg]

This just explains why he doesnt have the kind of production CMC did. It does not change the fact that his numbers in college arent all that special.

Again if I am taking a RB in the top 10 he better have elite talent and elite production.

I mean, yeah....the whole point was to explain why he didn't have CMC's production. If his numbers aren't special at a higher YPC and YPR than McCaffrey's special season, then that makes no sense. By that logic, guys like Donnel Pumphrey and Bailey Zappe should have been top 10 picks.

 

[remydat]

Fair enough. An ambiguous claim is still a claim. You win.

Don’t consider, as in opinion, as in not agree. Cool. We agree. You disagree as to how I see him.

And I say not only should they, it’s a no-brainer.

So, would you call this moving the goalposts? I mean, you can hedge that you’re clarifying, but it sure seems like moving the goalposts…

So, context is important to understand and clarifying data. Got it. Good stuff. So, in that sense, CMC and BR have different stats because of different context and usage and context should be taken into account. Got it. Carry on.

So, to clarify, Bijan Robinson is a generational talent on par with Faulk, and the bears should take him at 9 because he’d give us a monster offense due to being an an offensive weapon paralleling Deebo and CMC in SF.

Carry on.

Not sure what was ambiguous about it as again why would I respond to you if I wasnt questioning whether he was worth it?

No it is not moving goalposts as my position is unchanged. A single 40 time that is 0.02 seconds faster doesnt make one faster on the football field. As long as that position remains the same then anything else I said is in fact clarifying that position not changing it.

Well of course they have different stats because of different contexts. The issue is that one of those differing contexts could in fact be that CMC is simply a better player. Nothing you have said has removed that as a possibility.

And of course you are entitled to your opinion. You could very well be correct. It is just not a gamble I would take for a position that is easily filled cheaply and that isnt mission critical. How many teams have won Super Bowls recently due to having elite RBs?

 

[remydat]

I mean, yeah....the whole point was to explain why he didn't have CMC's production. If his numbers aren't special at a higher YPC and YPR than McCaffrey's special season, then that makes no sense. By that logic, guys like Donnel Pumphrey and Bailey Zappe should have been top 10 picks.

But there is no guarantee that if you gave him more carries he would maintain that YPC or YPR. Case in point when CMC had a similar carry load to Bijan ie 253 carries vs 258 for Bijan he averaged 6.3 a carry vs 6.1 for Bijan. So making a big deal out of CMC's 6.0 YPC over a whopping 337 carries as if Bijan's was significantly better is odd.

Likewise 16.3 YPR on just 19 receptions isnt as impressive as 14.3 over 45 receptions. Particularly when the year before Bijan's YPR was 13.1 on 26 receptions. Ergo this is likely just small sample size noise.

So no what CMC did is still more impressive as he had ridiculous YPC and YPR that held up across a lot more touches than Bijan. Proving you can do something across large sample sizes is of greater value IMO.

Humprey and Zappe are not top 10 picks because I said elite production and elite talent. The point is I need to see both not one or the other. CMC had both elite production and elite talent. I am not convinced Bijan is the elite talent being claimed and certainly his production was not elite.