Bears vs Vikings on MNF

[WrigleyField 22]

I actually think the ~23M of guarantees for Fields option year is overstated.  Even in the worst downside scenario, it's kind of meh on downside risk to me. The cap is primed to get two big increases based on all we know.

 

Luckily any trade should happen well before the deadline so it's the trading teams to choose, but if it extended beyond that time I would really maybe consider throwing that option on there and figuring it won't deter his trade value and could increase it.

Edited November 28, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[raw]

2 minutes ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

I actually think the ~23M of guarantees for Fields option year is overstated.  Even in the worst downside scenario, it's kind of meh on downside risk to me. The cap is primed to get two big increases based on all we know.

 

Luckily any trade should happen well before the deadline so it's the trading teams to choose, but if it extended beyond that time I would really maybe consider throwing that option on there and figuring it won't deter his trade value and could increase it.

Yeah, it is overstated by fans, but historically speaking, teams aren't picking up 5th year options for guys they aren't 100% sure are really good players. Even guys like Patrick Queen who is "good" didn't get his 5th year picked up because he's not a level above. I didn't mean to imply it's a big deal toward the cap, but it's a huge part of what goes into the decision to draft a QB or not. 

[WrigleyField 22]

11 minutes ago, raw said:

Yeah, it is overstated by fans, but historically speaking, teams aren't picking up 5th year options for guys they aren't 100% sure are really good players. Even guys like Patrick Queen who is "good" didn't get his 5th year picked up because he's not a level above. I didn't mean to imply it's a big deal toward the cap, but it's a huge part of what goes into the decision to draft a QB or not. 

Well we don't have much history to go on.  Teams used to be pretty liberal with it cuz it was only injury guaranteed and you only lost out on CFA status if you cut a guy later (assuming health).  We're a few years in on the fully guaranteed version and teams probably overcorrected on it imo.  There's plenty of good data showing how movable QBs are and how expensive even small extensions are.  Granted, GMs are known to be unnecessarily conservative. So they probably won't change their thinking, but they should.  I'd probably say eff it but it's be a 51/49 call and it's have to be informed decision based on real trade talks. Ideally their hand isn't forced and he's traded early - well before the deadline. But even for like a 3rd rounder, it'd be silly for trading team to not take that 23M option at that cost imo (unless they could get him on a Love-like extension, which, maybe they could). There shouldn't be a big cross section of willing to trade decent capital but unwilling to make a 23M option on him.

Edited November 28, 2023 by WrigleyField 22

[BigSlick]

I will say this: I think we make a little too much of the power of OCs to make an offense look bad/good and don't put enough emphasis on the players on the field executing. There are very few OCs that are just so inept or so stubborn they don't know what to do if the opponent is blitzing. 

Football may feel like chess, but it's still a sport, a professional sport with world class athletes going at each other. There's only so much the OC can do to influence things, strictly with playcalling. And of course, there's a lot we don't know. How many of those 18 wide receiver screens were dialed up by Getsy or were checked to by Fields? We have no way of knowing. 

I'm gonna be the annoying person but....I still don't feel confident in making a call on Fields until I watch the next 5 games. The last two have provided more data, some good, some bad. The evaluation process continues. 

[CubinNY]

15 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

. 

I'm gonna be the annoying person but....I still don't feel confident in making a call on Fields until I watch the next 5 games. The last two have provided more data, some good, some bad. The evaluation process continues. 

I don't think that is annoying, but on the other hand, what do you expect to change? I mean, the Bears and Fields have been consistently inconsistent all season. 

[jersey cubs fan]

4 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

I don't think that is annoying, but on the other hand, what do you expect to change? I mean, the Bears and Fields have been consistently inconsistent all season. 

Good games to finish out with no blowups should change some minds. An upset or two and beating the bad teams would help. 3-2 with close losses, or god forbid 4-1 to end including a win vs GB to finish with quality performances THAT INCLUDE TOUCHDOWN PASSES would be nice. 

[Outshined_One]

The one thing I don't want is to be having this exact same argument a year from now regarding Fields and Flus/Getsy.

If they want to trade Fields, draft Williams, and give a clean slate to Flus/Getsy, fine. Not ideal, but fine. Same goes for them keeping Fields, drafting MHJ, and launching Flus/Getsy into the sun, fine. Also not ideal, but fine. If you want to launch all of them and start over, also also fine.

[Rex Buckingham]

#TeamLaunchThemAll

mostly because I feel this roster just hasn't been improved enough, the coaching hasn't been good enough, and Fields has enough limitations that you can't really tell if he will ever be good enough to lead you where you need to go. Might as well clean house and start over with the Carolina pick being a QB. If your QB is good, you can find good enough WRs (not on Harrison's level probably, but good ones) later in the draft. Wouldn't even mind Rome Odunze or Malik Nabers or Brock Bowers around the 7-10 slot the Bears might end up with. Find a way to beef up the pass rush in FA, especially on the interior and you should have enough on D to compete with a good offense.

[minnesotacubsfan]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

I will say this: I think we make a little too much of the power of OCs to make an offense look bad/good and don't put enough emphasis on the players on the field executing. There are very few OCs that are just so inept or so stubborn they don't know what to do if the opponent is blitzing. 

Football may feel like chess, but it's still a sport, a professional sport with world class athletes going at each other. There's only so much the OC can do to influence things, strictly with playcalling. And of course, there's a lot we don't know. How many of those 18 wide receiver screens were dialed up by Getsy or were checked to by Fields? We have no way of knowing. 

I'm gonna be the annoying person but....I still don't feel confident in making a call on Fields until I watch the next 5 games. The last two have provided more data, some good, some bad. The evaluation process continues. 

I tend to wholly disagree. In HS an OC wont matter because of the huge variation in talent, but in the NFL where the talent pool is far more even, schemes, play calling, preparation can make ALL the difference, both sides of the ball.

Edited November 28, 2023 by minnesotacubsfan

[minnesotacubsfan]

19 minutes ago, Rex Buckingham said:

#TeamLaunchThemAll

mostly because I feel this roster just hasn't been improved enough, the coaching hasn't been good enough, and Fields has enough limitations that you can't really tell if he will ever be good enough to lead you where you need to go. Might as well clean house and start over with the Carolina pick being a QB. If your QB is good, you can find good enough WRs (not on Harrison's level probably, but good ones) later in the draft. Wouldn't even mind Rome Odunze or Malik Nabers or Brock Bowers around the 7-10 slot the Bears might end up with. Find a way to beef up the pass rush in FA, especially on the interior and you should have enough on D to compete with a good offense.

Bowers will be top 5

[mul21]

16 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

I tend to wholly disagree. In HS an OC wont matter because of the huge variation in talent, but in the NFL where the talent pool is far more even, schemes, play calling, preparation can make ALL the difference, both sides of the ball.

Yeah, whether you think it's because Fields can't execute or not, there is absolutely no excuse for calling the exact same play to opposite sides of the field back to back when it's a WR screen that's been sniffed out the entire game.

[BigSlick]

50 minutes ago, minnesotacubsfan said:

I tend to wholly disagree. In HS an OC wont matter because of the huge variation in talent, but in the NFL where the talent pool is far more even, schemes, play calling, preparation can make ALL the difference, both sides of the ball.

That parity of talent level is true of every position except QB - where the variation in quality of play determines much, though far from all, of the difference in quality between teams.  

[jersey cubs fan]

2 hours ago, BigSlick said:

I will say this: I think we make a little too much of the power of OCs to make an offense look bad/good and don't put enough emphasis on the players on the field executing. There are very few OCs that are just so inept or so stubborn they don't know what to do if the opponent is blitzing. 

Football may feel like chess, but it's still a sport, a professional sport with world class athletes going at each other. There's only so much the OC can do to influence things, strictly with playcalling. And of course, there's a lot we don't know. How many of those 18 wide receiver screens were dialed up by Getsy or were checked to by Fields? We have no way of knowing. 

I'm gonna be the annoying person but....I still don't feel confident in making a call on Fields until I watch the next 5 games. The last two have provided more data, some good, some bad. The evaluation process continues. 

Regardless of the exact number, there is no way in hell that Getsy didn’t call for the vast majority of wr/te screens. OCs take a lot of heat when plays don’t work. Often times the complaints are unwarranted. When you call the same run and pass combos all game long, that’s on the OC. You cannot get away with that in the NFL. It’s not a surprise that it didn’t work. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

The reason they called so many screens is that it's the only anti-blitz play fields can reliably execute 

[jersey cubs fan]

1 minute ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

The reason they called so many screens is that it's the only anti-blitz play fields can reliably execute 

That’s simply not true Jonny simpleton.  And the plays were not executed reliably by anybody. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

That’s simply not true Jonny simpleton.  And the plays were not executed reliably by anybody. 

It is completely, unavoidably true 

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the most likely reason that Getsy called such a bad game is two fold. 
 

1) He took it personally when Fields (stupidly) called out coaching early in the year and has not liked Fields having big games in primetime after he seeded the ProBagent nonsense against LA. 
2) they knew they could win a game against an actually bad NFL QB whose ride turned into a pumpkin last week.

So they called a game that would give Fields no chance for glory through the air, but enough of a chance to score some points and maybe get Fields hurt on designed runs. I think Getsy would like nothing more than win in spite of Fields. It worked on Kyle and it would work on other non thinkers. 

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by jersey cubs fan

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's unbelievable how many conspiracies against him Fields has had to overcome at this point. Almost trumpian.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For those keeping score at home;

Fields was a generational 1b who only fell to outside of the top 10 and to 4th QB taken because of a conspiracy by Dan orlovsky to spread lies about his work ethic, and a separate conspiracy by NFL teams to take their scouting advice from orlovsky. Maybe that only counts as one.

 

Then his rookie year was tanked by nagy who both held him out of no. 1 reps and then later forced him into a starting job before he was ready as a conspiracy to save his job.

And now Eberflus and Getsy are conspiring to run suboptimal but still winning game plans to try to make sure they can keep their jobs but not give fields any credit so they can still draft his replacement.

So many different people enacting separated, complicated conspiracies to make him seem to be to casual observers a bad QB who can't execute pro-level game plans.  Most of which would appear to be against the self-interest of the people enacting them but that's just how deep the conspiracies against him go.

 

 

Edit: oh wait I almost forgot about Poles' secret plot in year 2 to give him no weapons so that it would ruin him so that poles could draft his own QB, which he then declined to do in order to make the conspiracy extra sneaky 

Edited November 28, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[Brian707]

Did Fields kick your dog or something? 

[Have a seat, Neifi]

I think I'm just at the point where, sure, Fields has his moments, probably still has some upside, and eventually could become a more dynamic Ryan Tannehill or "prime" Colin Kaepernick if he has the right scheme and is able to stay healthy.  But I think we've seen enough to know he's not Hurts or Allen, and his rookie-scale contract is coming to an end such that he's about to get expensive no matter what.    

It is increasingly looking like the Bears will have the #1 overall pick in a draft with arguably 2 potential franchise QBs.  That is an opportunity that doesn't come around often and, IMHO, Fields has not shown anything close to enough to justify passing on that opportunity--particularly with the fifth-year option decision only a year away. 

Again, I'm not a Fields hater or anything, and this entire organization is a complete tire fire such that I totally sympathize with criticisms of the coaches and scheme he's had to deal with, but if you polled all 32 NFL GMs I'd love to know how many would keep Fields (and pay him in a year) instead of taking Williams or Maye at #1.    

Edited November 28, 2023 by Have a seat, Neifi

[raw]

12 minutes ago, Brian707 said:

Did Fields kick your dog or something? 

The universe consistently kicks his proverbial dog

[raw]

1 hour ago, mul21 said:

Yeah, whether you think it's because Fields can't execute or not, there is absolutely no excuse for calling the exact same play to opposite sides of the field back to back when it's a WR screen that's been sniffed out the entire game.

Between 2 drives, there were 5 screens called in a row at one point.

[WrigleyField 22]

Just now, raw said:

Between 2 drives, there were 5 screens called in a row at one point.

They would have caught them sleeping on the sixth I bet.

[Have a seat, Neifi]

I definitely 100% think the screen passes are the coaches telling the world they don't think Fields can read the field or process what he's seeing quickly enough (a critique I think I largely agree with), but yea at least mix it up a little.