Week 2 - Bears @ Packers, SNF

[gflore34]

If we lost 48-30 and fields went 20-32 with 240 yards, 3 TDs and 2 INTs, I would be ecstatic.

 

Fields is putting up historically bad performances and the coaching staff doesn't trust him to throw. That is literally the worst case scenario for the season

Heck, even being bad on more throws would have at least been more develop-y. Now I gotta worry about running a high school offense all season

This, to me, is the fundamental problem.

 

I fully expected us to get stomped playing @ Packers in prime time, like we always do. But the fact that we spent almost the entire game down double digits and the coaching staff apparently still didn't trust Fields enough to call plays that theoretically would've involved a forward pass is, at least to me, rather concerning.

 

Really doesn't make sense to take that approach, you're probably going to lose so, by running the ball, eating some of the clock, you lose by two scores instead of three? Big horsefeathering deal. You also don't help your shaky young QB gain any confidence with that BS.

[UMFan83]

pre-building is fine as long as you hit on QB. but, if its a dead QB year in the draft, you end up having to reach. best policy: BPA. The bears did not do that this past year, Gordon was a wiff and should have been a WR

 

You say the best policy is BPA but in the next sentence say the Bears should have drafted a WR. Which is it? My understanding is Gordon was BPA for them based on their board entering the 2nd round. Also seems silly to call Gordon a wiff after 2 games, even with how bad he's looked.

 

Edit: Wrigley just basically said the same thing. Anyways I'm not sure any of the WRs picked between Gordon and Velus Jones are worth lamenting right now (yes even Pickens). But like with Gordon there's still plenty of time to be wrong on that. So far the 6 have combined for 4 receptions in 2 weeks (though one is on IR and another has leukemia)

 

should have been in retrospect, could have been during the draft. Gordon wasn't BPA, PFF had our own Brisker as well as Pickens and Tolbert higher then Gordon

 

That doesn't mean Gordon wasn't BPA for Poles. I don't think any FOs rely on PFF rankings to determine their drafting

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

You say the best policy is BPA but in the next sentence say the Bears should have drafted a WR. Which is it? My understanding is Gordon was BPA for them based on their board entering the 2nd round. Also seems silly to call Gordon a wiff after 2 games, even with how bad he's looked.

 

Edit: Wrigley just basically said the same thing. Anyways I'm not sure any of the WRs picked between Gordon and Velus Jones are worth lamenting right now (yes even Pickens). But like with Gordon there's still plenty of time to be wrong on that. So far the 6 have combined for 4 receptions in 2 weeks (though one is on IR and another has leukemia)

 

should have been in retrospect, could have been during the draft. Gordon wasn't BPA, PFF had our own Brisker as well as Pickens and Tolbert higher then Gordon

 

That doesn't mean Gordon wasn't BPA for Poles. I don't think any FOs rely on PFF rankings to determine their drafting

 

I never said it was for Poles....hell I never said Poles drafted BPA and I'm not sure he did

[UMFan83]

 

should have been in retrospect, could have been during the draft. Gordon wasn't BPA, PFF had our own Brisker as well as Pickens and Tolbert higher then Gordon

 

That doesn't mean Gordon wasn't BPA for Poles. I don't think any FOs rely on PFF rankings to determine their drafting

 

I never said it was for Poles....hell I never said Poles drafted BPA and I'm not sure he did

 

I'm not even sure what you are saying anymore lol

 

You: Bears should have drafted BPA

Me: Gordon may have been BPA for Poles

You: But PFF has other guys higher

Me: Gordon may have been BPA for Poles

You: I never said Poles drafted BPA

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

That doesn't mean Gordon wasn't BPA for Poles. I don't think any FOs rely on PFF rankings to determine their drafting

 

I never said it was for Poles....hell I never said Poles drafted BPA and I'm not sure he did

 

I'm not even sure what you are saying anymore lol

 

You: Bears should have drafted BPA

Me: Gordon may have been BPA for Poles

You: But PFF has other guys higher

Me: Gordon may have been BPA for Poles

You: I never said Poles drafted BPA

 

 

sounds like we dont disagree

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I still think that the Green Bay game was winnable and GB isn't very good. I just didn't realize we had a historically incompetent passing game.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I still think that the Green Bay game was winnable and GB isn't very good. I just didn't realize we had a historically incompetent passing game.

 

I dont understand that. It wasn't winnable with a historically incompetent passing game. GB isnt as good as they were last year but honestly, neither are we.

 

Maybe later in the year when GB still has no WR's to speak of and somehow JF takes off, we can beat them in Chicago

[WrigleyField 22]

Bpa isn't a thing after the top of the first round.

 

You aren't looking at the 65th pick and thinking "ok this DB is worth 7.32 footballs but the WR is only 7.34, better take the DB"

 

Dont ask me why lower footballs is better it just is

BPA to me, has always been more a scouting/preparation thing. If you go in looking for a WR you can definitely justify it, but you're just opening yourself up to bad confirmation biases. So you kind of have to do the whole "7.34 v 7.32" rating thing with no positional/need bias and then when it actually comes down to it have more esoteric value based decision making. And it might actually be somewhat intuitive to directly "BPA" a WR and CB as an example, but is pretty impossible for a FS verse a G.

 

Eta a guy I know online only and has pretty reputable claims to have done some contract work with nfl teams on systems design (mostly playbook stuff but has some exposure to draft systems) told me that the grading systems don't do nearly that level of granular grading. Probably more analogous to a 5 star rating system than a baseball type WAR metric. A little more complex, but not down to declaring 100th perctible variances across players.

[raw]

Isn't Hurts a much better natural runner than Fields (and a weaker passer).

 

I think Fields is still more the mold of a moving pocket guy who punishes you when you leave the run open, but he has the arm talent to develop into a primary passing threat more than a run-led threat. It's the recognition that isn't up to par with the arm talent right now though. That still has to be developed (with lots of reps and coaching).

 

Hurts is bigger. He's a more willing runner, I wouldn't necessarily say more natural. Fields is a step faster, maybe more agile too.

 

Seems like teams are playing for the moving pocket. Part of the reason the Bears are running the ball well is because when they show run action, the weakside DE is basically playing for the reverse pivot, taking a man out of the run play. They know the OL isn't good enough to keep the other 3 out of the pocket consistently if he does drop straight back. I feel like good teams with mobile QBs, don't do the naked bootleg stuff and leave their QB 1-on-1 with a DE. They actually commit an extra blocker to him so the QB has time and a lane to throw, even if on the move. Like I want to see Fields outside the pocket, but actually move the linemen, have a TE come across the formation to pick up that guy keeping contain.

 

 

Hurts is bigger in what way? hes 6-1 223, Fields is 6-3 227 according to NFL.com

 

https://www.nfl.com/players/jalen-hurts/

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/4362887/justin-fields

 

223 on a 6'1" frame is bigger (aka thicker) than 227 on a 6'3" frame. Thicker frame means more willing/able to take a hit.

[raw]

Bpa isn't a thing after the top of the first round.

 

You aren't looking at the 65th pick and thinking "ok this DB is worth 7.32 footballs but the WR is only 7.34, better take the DB"

 

Dont ask me why lower footballs is better it just is

BPA to me, has always been more a scouting/preparation thing. If you go in looking for a WR you can definitely justify it, but you're just opening yourself up to bad confirmation biases. So you kind of have to do the whole "7.34 v 7.32" rating thing with no positional/need bias and then when it actually comes down to it have more esoteric value based decision making. And it might actually be somewhat intuitive to directly "BPA" a WR and CB as an example, but is pretty impossible for a FS verse a G.

 

Eta a guy I know online only and has pretty reputable claims to have done some contract work with nfl teams on systems design (mostly playbook stuff but has some exposure to draft systems) told me that the grading systems don't do nearly that level of granular grading. Probably more analogous to a 5 star rating system than a baseball type WAR metric. A little more complex, but not down to declaring 100th perctible variances across players.

 

Yeah, BPA is in the eye of the beholder. One of the funny things was when the Cowboys draft board leaked this spring. They had a list of guys that would potentially fall to them, had a group with 1st round grades and then had a group after with 2nd round grades. They took Tyler Smith, who was their top 2nd round grade over their last 1st round grade on the board (I don't remember if it was a RB- Breece Hall or a safety). But that showed me, teams will claim BPA all day, but when it comes down to it, need plays a bigger role. Most teams would take a 4-star at a need position over a 5-star player at a deep position

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Hurts is bigger. ......

 

 

Hurts is bigger in what way? hes 6-1 223, Fields is 6-3 227 according to NFL.com

 

https://www.nfl.com/players/jalen-hurts/

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/4362887/justin-fields

 

 

 

223 on a 6'1" frame is bigger (aka thicker) than 227 on a 6'3" frame. Thicker frame means more willing/able to take a hit.

 

 

 

,,,,is it tho? awfully similar physiques. I feel like "willing/able to take a hit" is more mental or personal style of play with regards to these two specifically

[JudasIscariotTheBird]

 

 

 

223 on a 6'1" frame is bigger (aka thicker) than 227 on a 6'3" frame. Thicker frame means more willing/able to take a hit.

 

 

 

,,,,is it tho? awfully similar physiques. I feel like "willing/able to take a hit" is more mental or personal style of play with regards to these two specifically

No, really, it is. I kinda doubt Fields can do this:

[minnesotacubsfan]

Hurts has strong legs, not saying he doesn't

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't know, just thought Hurts came in already having done a lot more running and RPO stuff than Fields ever did and had more natural running instinct.

 

Fields best runs are still usually just beating guys to a spot in a straight line and not creative running more like a RB (which a guy like say Lamar, or maybe Hurts, provide)

[minnesotacubsfan]

I don't know, just thought Hurts came in already having done a lot more running and RPO stuff than Fields ever did and had more natural running instinct.

 

Fields best runs are still usually just beating guys to a spot in a straight line and not creative running more like a RB (which a guy like say Lamar, or maybe Hurts, provide)

 

 

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown

[17 Seconds]

If we lost 48-30 and fields went 20-32 with 240 yards, 3 TDs and 2 INTs, I would be ecstatic.

 

Fields is putting up historically bad performances and the coaching staff doesn't trust him to throw. That is literally the worst case scenario for the season

 

Heck, even being bad on more throws would have at least been more develop-y. Now I gotta worry about running a high school offense all season

 

as a casual fan, it feels like there's almost nothing to be optimistic about with this organization. i'm not writing off fields, but my excitement over him is gone.

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't know, just thought Hurts came in already having done a lot more running and RPO stuff than Fields ever did and had more natural running instinct.

 

Fields best runs are still usually just beating guys to a spot in a straight line and not creative running more like a RB (which a guy like say Lamar, or maybe Hurts, provide)

 

 

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown

Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive.

[raw]

I don't know, just thought Hurts came in already having done a lot more running and RPO stuff than Fields ever did and had more natural running instinct.

 

Fields best runs are still usually just beating guys to a spot in a straight line and not creative running more like a RB (which a guy like say Lamar, or maybe Hurts, provide)

 

 

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown

Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive.

 

I actually want him to run more at times. Granted, I can't see All-22, but whenever he holds onto the ball more than like 2.5 seconds, I think he should just take off. Even if the D has a spy on him, it's not a guarantee he's going to get caught by that guy, especially not before 3-4 yard gain. IMO, that's way better than him holding onto the ball, being more likely to be sacked or to force a throw that's not coming open.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

 

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown

Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive.

 

I actually want him to run more at times. Granted, I can't see All-22, but whenever he holds onto the ball more than like 2.5 seconds, I think he should just take off. Even if the D has a spy on him, it's not a guarantee he's going to get caught by that guy, especially not before 3-4 yard gain. IMO, that's way better than him holding onto the ball, being more likely to be sacked or to force a throw that's not coming open.

 

I'd tend to agree, I wonder how much of it is Getsy in his ear telling him to be patient and look for the open guy.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

 

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown

Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive.

 

I actually want him to run more at times. Granted, I can't see All-22, but whenever he holds onto the ball more than like 2.5 seconds, I think he should just take off. Even if the D has a spy on him, it's not a guarantee he's going to get caught by that guy, especially not before 3-4 yard gain. IMO, that's way better than him holding onto the ball, being more likely to be sacked or to force a throw that's not coming open.

I mean, purely from an immediate value add, I guess so, but I'd also like to see growth where he can stick around in a less that perfect pocket if it means he can get a guy open downfield. Right now he's pretty binary about sticking in the pocket or bailing on it completely. I think a lot of that is just how young QBs get taught this way. Including the best young QBs in the game, the young ones all love that spinout maneuver, whatever its called. It works well, but it changes the whole pass progression to do so.

[minnesotacubsfan]

right now isn't he spending the most amount of time between snap and throw/sack on average? It seems like his natural tendency is to take too long..or his WRs cant get open for him.

 

cant vouch for the accuracy of this site, but it seems to be that way

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/advanced-stats-qb.php

 

eta: yup https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

 

he's spending too much time in the pocket

[WrigleyField 22]

right now isn't he spending the most amount of time between snap and throw/sack on average? It seems like his natural tendency is to take too long..or his WRs cant get open for him.

 

cant vouch for the accuracy of this site, but it seems to be that way

https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/advanced-stats-qb.php

 

eta: yup https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2022/passing_advanced.htm

 

he's spending too much time in the pocket

Well he definitely seems to take more time to process, but in times of pocket distress he has seemed a little panicked this year. But it's also been obviously really low volume and noisy.

 

That stat is somewhat confusing. It's time to throw or to pressure. So a guy could get pressure and navigate it and still throw a half second later. It doesn't measure that I guess. Last year Fields wasn't really near the top of that metric, so if you'd ask me then I'd assume it's because he was getting quick pressure then, not that he was getting out the ball particularly quick either.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Didn't hear about this, but nice op-Ed

 

https://apple.news/AkyNu4dGQRhWMzeRRdKdIpQ

[Old Style]

Anyone who has a problem with what Fields said is a horsefeathering moron. He's 100% right.

 

And Portnoy is a Grade A toolbag.

[Soul]

Anyone who has a problem with what Fields said is a horsefeathering moron. He's 100% right.

 

And Portnoy is a Grade A toolbag.

 

Yeah, meatball fans are ubiquitous and Portnoy knows it, and uses that to generate reactions and ultimately followers which can be monetized.