Gird Your Loi(o)ns - 11/19 noon on Fox

[Outshined_One]

2 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

Fields has been good to very good in 3 of his last 4 games. The last handful of games is going to be the decision maker.

Last 4 games RTG

Detroit 105.2

Minnesota 36.7

Washington 125.3

Denver 132.7

 

I think Fields can be the QB of a perennial playoff contender so long as he's healthy and on a coaching staff that can maximize his contributions and minimize his mistakes.

However, the Bears' front office has consistently shown a complete incapability of providing Fields with a coaching staff that can actually use him properly. It sucks thinking about it, but it might be better for both sides if he gets traded in the offseason and the Bears pick up a shiny new toy at QB in the top 5 picks this offseason.

[SpongeWorthy]

another development from today, staley has to be cooked which means kellen moore is probably going to need another job after this season

slowik, johnson, moore et. al. should be a pretty good pool of young offensive gurus to choose from

[SpongeWorthy]

2 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

I think Fields can be the QB of a perennial playoff contender so long as he's healthy and on a coaching staff that can maximize his contributions and minimize his mistakes.

However, the Bears' front office has consistently shown a complete incapability of providing Fields with a coaching staff that can actually use him properly. It sucks thinking about it, but it might be better for both sides if he gets traded in the offseason and the Bears pick up a shiny new toy at QB in the top 5 picks this offseason.

someone smarter about the cap than me should explain why having a high 1RP QB AND fields on the roster would be a terrible thing--wouldn't we still be pretty underweight on dollars spent on QB

is the logic better than it Feels Weird and the qb room might be awkward because i don't find that terribly convincing

[Hairyducked Idiot]

12 minutes ago, SpongeWorthy said:

someone smarter about the cap than me should explain why having a high 1RP QB AND fields on the roster would be a terrible thing--wouldn't we still be pretty underweight on dollars spent on QB

is the logic better than it Feels Weird and the qb room might be awkward because i don't find that terribly convincing

For me, what happens in that situation is you're accepting that fields isn't an upside play, he just is who he is.  

So the question becomes: is he better than whatever other random stopgap veteran QB is out there.  The Dalton Line.

 

I'd lean toward no but he might convince me if he keeps playing as ok as he has recently.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

If I’m a Bears fan - I’m encouraged by JF’s progression this year. I hope for Carolina to keep losing, and I don’t care what happens with my pick.  I’m tempted to trade down from 1 again if Carolina ends there, and I make a commitment to getting more complementary pieces around him with my 2 picks.

If I’m a Falcons fan - Give up on him. Draft Caleb or take another chance on a QB from North Carolina, and let JF come home.

Man, I really think the Bears should let him go home.

[UK]

Watch Fields go to GB and destroy the Bears. 

I'd be out permanently.

[UK]

If I'm the Bears, I draft Harrison & McKinstrey and trade Johnson. Let it ride with Fields and a another new staff.

[WrigleyField 22]

29 minutes ago, SpongeWorthy said:

someone smarter about the cap than me should explain why having a high 1RP QB AND fields on the roster would be a terrible thing--wouldn't we still be pretty underweight on dollars spent on QB

is the logic better than it Feels Weird and the qb room might be awkward because i don't find that terribly convincing

Yea there's defintiely no cap argument against it.  And while marginally so, a standard bridge QB or decent backup money is more money than Fields hit would be anyways. 

 

So it really would only be a question of talent and locker room dynamics, not one of any cap issue.

[Wilson A2000]

Fields played very well and if he keeps on playing like this it will make Poles' decision more difficult. The loss was on the defense. With that said, I would have liked the offense to finish a few more drives. They settled for too many FGs. 

[UMFan83]

 

record breaking Chicago Bears team

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Yeah I think this is the one that tips me over from "they should probably clean house on the coaches but I won't see it as tragedy if they don't" to "they absolutely must."

[raw]

1 hour ago, SpongeWorthy said:

someone smarter about the cap than me should explain why having a high 1RP QB AND fields on the roster would be a terrible thing--wouldn't we still be pretty underweight on dollars spent on QB

is the logic better than it Feels Weird and the qb room might be awkward because i don't find that terribly convincing

I mean, that's what it is though. It's optics, it's a lockeroom thing. You can't have your previous franchise QB on the roster with your future franchise QB. 

We've seen the Jets and 49ers kinda do this, and it had no positive effect on the potential franchise QB. Just seems like a waste of time. If you draft a QB (or sign a FA QB in the Jets case), you aren't sold on your current QB. If you aren't sold, rip the bandage off. Don't waste time trying to salvage something. 

Bears also have Bagent, and regardless of how you feel he played, you can't in good faith demote him to 3rd on the depth chart, which keeping Fields and drafting a rookie would do.

[jersey cubs fan]

Didn’t watch this one. Listened to some. Seems like fields played decently enough in his return. The extra time may have helped them prep for a potential lions letdown game, but the in game coaching, as it pretty much always has with this group was lacking. 
 

you’re gonna need to see fields do this well at least in every remaining game then bring him back. 
 

that to me is much more preferable than allowing poles to bring back Eberflus with a new qb. If they aren’t going to clean house like they should, then sink or swim with these 3 guys in 2024

[Soul]

3 minutes ago, raw said:

I mean, that's what it is though. It's optics, it's a lockeroom thing. You can't have your previous franchise QB on the roster with your future franchise QB. 

We've seen the Jets and 49ers kinda do this, and it had no positive effect on the potential franchise QB. Just seems like a waste of time. If you draft a QB (or sign a FA QB in the Jets case), you aren't sold on your current QB. If you aren't sold, rip the bandage off. Don't waste time trying to salvage something. 

Bears also have Bagent, and regardless of how you feel he played, you can't in good faith demote him to 3rd on the depth chart, which keeping Fields and drafting a rookie would do.

Silver linings, were set at backup QB now.

[jersey cubs fan]

3 minutes ago, raw said:

I mean, that's what it is though. It's optics, it's a lockeroom thing. You can't have your previous franchise QB on the roster with your future franchise QB. 

We've seen the Jets and 49ers kinda do this, and it had no positive effect on the potential franchise QB. Just seems like a waste of time. If you draft a QB (or sign a FA QB in the Jets case), you aren't sold on your current QB. If you aren't sold, rip the bandage off. Don't waste time trying to salvage something. 

Bears also have Bagent, and regardless of how you feel he played, you can't in good faith demote him to 3rd on the depth chart, which keeping Fields and drafting a rookie would do.

One of the big concerns with fields is if he plays his game, he’s going to get injured. It’s not a long term style. I think you let him play his game the rest of 2023, if he makes it out alive, and you can’t get something big in a trade, let him win the job to start 2024, and see how long he lasts. Odds are by midSeason the draft pick will be starting and Bagent will be the backup. Bagent has not earned a guaranteed backup role. If you can upgrade you do it and let him prove you wrong. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

With fields next year if we draft another qb, the question to me isn't "why not" it's "why?"

What am I gaining from continuing to employ Justin Fields as a QB if I'm not doing it with the hope that he snaps it together and becomes a franchise QB?

The only scenario I can think of where it's useful is we fall out of maye/Williams range and need a veteran stopgap but somehow the veteran stopgap market is even worse than normal 

 

[jersey cubs fan]

25 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

With fields next year if we draft another qb, the question to me isn't "why not" it's "why?"

What am I gaining from continuing to employ Justin Fields as a QB if I'm not doing it with the hope that he snaps it together and becomes a franchise QB?

The only scenario I can think of where it's useful is we fall out of maye/Williams range and need a veteran stopgap but somehow the veteran stopgap market is even worse than normal 

 

It’s two part for me:

1) I hate the narrative that rookie QBs have to start immediately. 
2) you are partially hoping he pulls it together. If he finishes 2023 strong, why not hope on that? Guys take different paths to stardom. Tom Brady wasn’t Tom Brady until years into his career. It only costs money and the bears aren’t spending it anywhere else. Double and triple down on the qb search until you luck into one. There’s a weird narrative that you just don’t do it but there’s no real reason why that has to be the case. Wilson failing on the Jets is more about Wilson sucking and never showing anything of value than any sort of vindication for giving up on guys. 
 

and then 3) fields does have a little “different enough look” to him to just have it be an advantage in a couple games. That’s not a long term plan but it’s an option to help 2024 bears win more games than they lose. 

[raw]

Interesting that Fields only had 23 pass attempts today. Bagent never had fewer than 29, and that was his 1st career start when his team played with a lead all game. They repeatedly let him throw on 3rd and 4th and short last week. 

Pretty clear this staff doesn't trust Fields. Also seemed to be more plays with guys running the same/wrong route or lining up wrong, issues with the C who didn't know when to snap, and maybe even getting the play in with all the late huddle breaks.

Not trying to absolve Fields of blame because maybe he doesn't take charge enough to get guys in the right spot. Maybe he's slow calling the play in huddle. But it seems the offense is more dysfunctional when he's in there for whatever reason.

[raw]

46 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

It’s two part for me:

1) I hate the narrative that rookie QBs have to start immediately. 
2) you are partially hoping he pulls it together. If he finishes 2023 strong, why not hope on that? Guys take different paths to stardom. Tom Brady wasn’t Tom Brady until years into his career. It only costs money and the bears aren’t spending it anywhere else. Double and triple down on the qb search until you luck into one. There’s a weird narrative that you just don’t do it but there’s no real reason why that has to be the case. Wilson failing on the Jets is more about Wilson sucking and never showing anything of value than any sort of vindication for giving up on guys. 
 

and then 3) fields does have a little “different enough look” to him to just have it be an advantage in a couple games. That’s not a long term plan but it’s an option to help 2024 bears win more games than they lose. 

I think Bagent serves the same purpose as 1 and 3 though. 2 I will give you. He's still on his rookie deal so the money isn't an issue. But I also think if you can get picks for him, those picks > a shot he pulls it together. 

[Irrelevant Dude]

Today's game didn't really do anything to convince me Fields is the guy, but I'm not entirely opposed to using multiple high draft picks to strengthen everything else around him.  In the somewhat likely event that Fields doesn't get the Bears where they need to go in the next 1-2 years, and Bagent continues to be nothing more than a respectable backup, then presumably they will have built up the surrounding core to the point where they can go out and do whatever it takes to sign/trade for whatever QB is available at the time to plug into a good situation.  There is a lot of risk involved in drafting QB's, so I'm coming around to the idea of the Bears maybe deciding "let's not draft another one."

[jersey cubs fan]

10 minutes ago, raw said:

I think Bagent serves the same purpose as 1 and 3 though. 2 I will give you. He's still on his rookie deal so the money isn't an issue. But I also think if you can get picks for him, those picks > a shot he pulls it together. 

I don’t think Bagent is a guy you start in front of a 1st round pick and I don’t think Bagent gives you any sort of look as a 1(B) starter. He’s a placeholder backup that can fill in as needed. Not as wanted. Bagent played against the soft underbelly of this schedule and did okay. He got one head coach fired and barely squeaked out a win over the worst team in football. 
if he actually can be a quality NFL backup, he can live with being 3rd in line for half a season and come out on the other side as a clear #2. Or we can never hear from him again and chuckle over the storyline 

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 hour ago, Irrelevant Dude said:

Today's game didn't really do anything to convince me Fields is the guy, but I'm not entirely opposed to using multiple high draft picks to strengthen everything else around him.  In the somewhat likely event that Fields doesn't get the Bears where they need to go in the next 1-2 years, and Bagent continues to be nothing more than a respectable backup, then presumably they will have built up the surrounding core to the point where they can go out and do whatever it takes to sign/trade for whatever QB is available at the time to plug into a good situation.  There is a lot of risk involved in drafting QB's, so I'm coming around to the idea of the Bears maybe deciding "let's not draft another one."

I agree with you. What’s the risk the 2024 draft becomes the 1983 draft? Next to zero, so if there aren’t enough sure thing qbs, find a coaching staff that can actually gameplan instead

[Derwood]

Week after week we talk about Fields/Bagent and the struggles of the offense while ignoring the fact that the defense has given up the 2nd most points in the league (behind only Washington)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I like Bagent more than most but I can't imagine any scenario where I make a roster decision based on his existence or where I intentionally have him starting games going into a season.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

55 minutes ago, Derwood said:

Week after week we talk about Fields/Bagent and the struggles of the offense while ignoring the fact that the defense has given up the 2nd most points in the league (behind only Washington)

Because QB is more important.

Fix the defense and you have a good defense that might win a playoff game or two before it gets housed by someone with a good QB, then the whole thing falls apart after a couple of years.

Fix QB and you can start winning these shootouts