Funchess

[NCF]

It's interesting to see the forum change the narrative on Funchess.

I think I have been most vocal for him having a big role. If you go back and read through some of those threads, even though he ended up at #22, it seemed most were not so bullish even back then.

[bud fox]

It's interesting to see the forum change the narrative on Funchess.

I think I have been most vocal for him having a big role. If you go back and read through some of those threads, even though he ended up at #22, it seemed most were not so bullish even back then.

I am just stating the consensus based on our consensus rankings.

Understand posters would've disagreed with the consensus but would be the minority based on how a poll works.

[YoHoChecko]

I am just stating the consensus based on our consensus rankings.

Understand posters would've disagreed with the consensus but would be the minority based on how a poll works.

Actually 9 people voted for guys other than Funchess and 7 people voted for Funchess. A plurality voted for him as good enough to be our last starter. But a majority did not see it that way.

[Pckfn23]

You are mistaking a vocal minority for an opinion of the entire forum. There were many of us that believed he was at best a WR 3 and most likely a WR 4.

[bud fox]

I am just stating the consensus based on our consensus rankings.

Understand posters would've disagreed with the consensus but would be the minority based on how a poll works.

Actually 9 people voted for guys other than Funchess and 7 people voted for Funchess. A plurality voted for him as good enough to be our last starter. But a majority did not see it that way.

Ok consensus but my point still stands. The consensus has shifted now based on the opinions in this thread.

7/16 - I thought it would be less than that.

[Pckfn23]

The consensus hasn't shifted actually. The same 7 people think it will be a hit and the other 9 believe it wasn't that big of a loss.

Have you seen more than 9 people who now believe the latter?

[go pak go]

It's interesting to see the forum change the narrative on Funchess.

I think I have been most vocal for him having a big role. If you go back and read through some of those threads, even though he ended up at #22, it seemed most were not so bullish even back then.

I am just stating the consensus based on our consensus rankings.

Understand posters would've disagreed with the consensus but would be the minority based on how a poll works.

I wasn't part of that "consensus" either but honestly it doesn't matter anyway. Our forum was still right to have him near starting level then while also not being overly sad now. (but make no mistake. We all wish he were playing this year).

Sure we had Funchess at 22. But we also had EQSB at 25...only 3 slots lower. And I think everyone is more optimistic on EQSB's upside over Funchess.

Like YoHo said. Funshess was to replace Allison. Now EQSB is the next obvious one to fill that role. If either EQSB/MVS can fill that role we will be fine. Heck. Even Kumerow.

[YoHoChecko]

I don't understand why he's involved in the conversation about Funchess and the WRs in the least.

Because LaFleur played Lewis and Graham together so much, but Graham WAS NOT a TE, he was a de facto WR. I like playing with different personnel groupings too, but Graham didn't give you TE flexibility, so was just a &%$@ WR 90% of the time.

Yeah but we have two TEs who are receiver-first options (Sterny and Tonyan) to play that role and I seriously doubt we're going to see fewer 2-TE sets. Meanwhile, we also replaced our big slow possession WR who played slightly more snaps than Graham did. If Funchess was the Graham replacement, who was taking Allison's role? If Funchess was the Graham replacement, what are we doing with Sternberger and Tpnyan while keeping Lewis and adding Deguara?

The fact that Graham can't block and wasn't useful in the run game while ALSO being incredibly mediocre in the passing game means we may have upgraded at TE by replacing him with two guys who can do a little of both. But I understand that it's speculation.

I'm just fristrated that we're in this debate of "you replaced a guy who got $9 million with a guy who got $2 million" debate when we CLEARLY replaced a guy who played on a $2M tender and got $1 M this offseason with a guy who we paid $2 M for and who has an incredibly similar skillset. Comparing Funchess to Allison in play style and salary gives you an apples to apples look. Comparing Funchess to Graham leaves ya'll arguing about the wisdom of the Bears' front office. Just seems extraneous.

[NCF]

I'm just fristrated that we're in this debate of "you replaced a guy who got $9 million with a guy who got $2 million" debate when we CLEARLY replaced a guy who played on a $2M tender and got $1 M this offseason with a guy who we paid $2 M for and who has an incredibly similar skillset. Comparing Funchess to Allison in play style and salary gives you an apples to apples look. Comparing Funchess to Graham leaves ya'll arguing about the wisdom of the Bears' front office. Just seems extraneous.

You lay all your points out nicely, but I still think its a more direct link then you allow for. The argument is still stupid, either way. I looked at the per game snap counts for Allison, Graham, and Lewis and there is no real trend up or down for any of the three, so perhaps my opinion is based more on specific situations that I recall versus the reality of the season, but no sense in backing down now.

[TheGreenMan]

Comparing Funchess to Graham leaves ya'll arguing about the wisdom of the Bears' front office. Just seems extraneous.

There's something about taking any opportunity to remind us that the Bears "still suck" though. Even if people find it irrelevant.