Laissez les Bears temps rouler (saints game)

[We Got The Whole 9]

Fields just plainly puts his line and his receivers in a lot of lose-lose situations on passing downs. Is it fair to say that? 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

19 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Fields just plainly puts his line and his receivers in a lot of lose-lose situations on passing downs. Is it fair to say that? 

Yes.  Bagent runs the offense and gives everyone a chance, but every 10th throw is a turnover.

Fields plays Fieldsball.  You have no idea what you're going to get on any given play.  Could be a dime deep ball, could be a game-breaking scramble, could be a completely unnecessary sack.

[jersey cubs fan]

17 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Fields just plainly puts his line and his receivers in a lot of lose-lose situations on passing downs. Is it fair to say that? 

I think that’s just a very strange way of just saying Fields hasn’t played well enough. 

[jersey cubs fan]

2 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Yes.  Bagent runs the offense and gives everyone a chance, but every 10th throw is a turnover.

Fields plays Fieldsball.  You have no idea what you're going to get on any given play.  Could be a dime deep ball, could be a game-breaking scramble, could be a completely unnecessary sack.

But how is that lose-lose? 

[We Got The Whole 9]

3 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

I think that’s just a very strange way of just saying Fields hasn’t played well enough. 

I'm basically saying I have a sliver of confidence remaining that he will ever play well enough 

[jersey cubs fan]

7 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

I'm basically saying I have a sliver of confidence remaining that he will ever play well enough 

I get that. I have very little hope that’ll he ever play well consistently enough to be nfl starter quality.

[gflore34]

10 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

But how is that lose-lose? 

With Fields it's one step forward, two steps back.

[jersey cubs fan]

2 minutes ago, gflore34 said:

With Fields it's one step forward, two steps back.

That’s different from lose-lose 

[UMFan83]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

There are a few stats that I think show something quite telling about the difference between Bagent and Fields and why some (extremely dumb people) might have gotten enamored with Bagent. 

Pro-Football-Reference keeps a stat called 'Success %' - it measures how often a QB makes a play on 1st down that gets at least 40% of the yardage needed on 1st down, 60% of the yardage needed on 2nd down, and 100% of yardage for 3rd and 4th down. Bagent has a 52.2% success percentage, Fields, in contrast, has a 38.7%. That's really bad. A good QB seems to hover around 50%, give or take a few percentage points. Bagent's 52.2% success percentage is actually up there with the top line QBs ---of course I'm not saying he's playing like a top line QB, I'm drawing a distinction between the two---

Justin Fields' sack per drop back percentage? 12.9%. Tyson Bagent's? 4.3%. This is playing behind the same damn line. Tyson Bagent's completion percentage is 6% higher than Fields. 

A 14% difference in successful plays is a huge differential. That's a huge chunk of opportunities where Fields is not doing the job while this undrafted kid is. That kid is also turning the ball over faster than hotcakes, but he's facilitating the functioning of an offense that is, when its not turning the ball over lol, significantly more efficient than Fields was. Now, that may come down to a bunch of factors, it could come down to coaching, the offensive line finally gelling, improvements in the run game, etc. But, well, in stark numbers, there's a huge failing right there.

 

 

 

Clearly Bagent should be our early down QB, and Fields for the other downs.

But seriously interesting numbers.  The sack number makes sense but he's also getting an improving Wright and Braxton Jones back last game.  But clearly he's more adept at avoiding sacks due to things we've discussed endlessly here.  Completion percentage is good but its just one metric and likely a effect of playcalling mostly asking him to make short easy throws.  The downside of that is his YPA is over 1 full yard lower than Fields.  You can live with a completion percentage around 62-63% for Fields because he's going to be taking deep shots.  But then again, Fields' inability to accurately make short easy throws is an issue that partially explains his lower success rate on 1st down.

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

17 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

That’s different from lose-lose 

Because it puts you in long passing situations where the defense is prepared to deal with the two things he does well: long scrambles and deep throws 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

5 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

Clearly Bagent should be our early down QB, and Fields for the other downs.

But seriously interesting numbers.  The sack number makes sense but he's also getting an improving Wright and Braxton Jones back last game.  But clearly he's more adept at avoiding sacks due to things we've discussed endlessly here.  Completion percentage is good but its just one metric and likely a effect of playcalling mostly asking him to make short easy throws.  The downside of that is his YPA is over 1 full yard lower than Fields.  You can live with a completion percentage around 62-63% for Fields because he's going to be taking deep shots.  But then again, Fields' inability to accurately make short easy throws is an issue that partially explains his lower success rate on 1st down.

 

Point of order: it's pretty much the same playcalling afaict.

Bagent chooses to take those short throws. Sometimes at the expense of longer ones that might be there (or might not with his arm).

 

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 hour ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Point of order: it's pretty much the same playcalling afaict.

Bagent chooses to take those short throws. Sometimes at the expense of longer ones that might be there (or might not with his arm).

 

Bagent makes short throws because that’s all he CAN do

[UMFan83]

1 hour ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

Bagent makes short throws because that’s all he CAN do

And its an area of weakness for Fields.  Basically Bagent has all the qualities we wished Fields had, and Fields has all the qualities we wished Bagent had.  Leave it to the Bears to finally have all the traits needed for a franchise QB but have those traits split evenly between 2 QBs.

[WrigleyField 22]

5 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

 

Honestly I think the decision to throw was defensible on all three ints. He just doesn't have the consistency in his throws to make them 

I don't know if I can get behind the idea that certain decisions are defensible if that brain making the decision is attached to an arm incapable of making it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

21 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

I don't know if I can get behind the idea that certain decisions are defensible if that brain making the decision is attached to an arm incapable of making it.

That's fair and fine, but I still like to differentiate between "JFC nobody should ever try to make that throw" and "Tyson Bagent you personally cannot make that throw."

[minnesotacubsfan]

27 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

That's fair and fine, but I still like to differentiate between "JFC nobody should ever try to make that throw" and "Tyson Bagent you personally cannot make that throw."

What’s the difference? Nobody isn’t playing, Bagent is

 

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

55 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

What’s the difference? Nobody isn’t playing, Bagent is

 

 

Because it speaks to what he's doing wrong. You don't think there's a difference between a QB making bad reads and a QB making bad throws?

[Tim]

3 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Because it speaks to what he's doing wrong. You don't think there's a difference between a QB making bad reads and a QB making bad throws?

They're saying it is a bad read *for him* if he can't make the throw. Still poor decision making.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

8 minutes ago, Tim said:

They're saying it is a bad read *for him* if he can't make the throw. Still poor decision making.

OK?  I don't see how that makes the distinction uninteresting. 

This is gonna be one of those dumb things where you're not supposed to say it because it feels like saying the thing ("The receivers were open and that was where the ball should go against that defense") is somehow absolving someone who should be blamed so people get all weird about you saying it.

[minnesotacubsfan]

56 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Because it speaks to what he's doing wrong. You don't think there's a difference between a QB making bad reads and a QB making bad throws?

A bad read that results in a throw IS a bad throw.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

13 hours ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

A bad read that results in a throw IS a bad throw.

I have no idea what this sentence means tbh.