Bears Beat Byes…, But Lions?

[Soul]

9 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Why is it so hard for him to throw the ball away when he's out of the tackle box? 

He’d be throwing it away too often.  If he’s outside the box chances are good he’s in scramble mode and that’s where I’d rather see him try to create with his legs.

Hes not a pocket passer.  He won’t ever be.  This is it.  He’s playing as good as he ever will.  Only question now is whether this is what the Bears want to move forward with, or start over.

[raw]

17 minutes ago, We Got The Whole 9 said:

Why is it so hard for him to throw the ball away when he's out of the tackle box? 

We've seen the plays he's made outside of the pocket throwing the ball. He knows he can make big plays outside of the pocket. He just needs to know when he can't make those big plays and throw it in the seats. He has gotten better at this.

[raw]

7 minutes ago, Soul said:

He’d be throwing it away too often.  If he’s outside the box chances are good he’s in scramble mode and that’s where I’d rather see him try to create with his legs.

Hes not a pocket passer.  He won’t ever be.  This is it.  He’s playing as good as he ever will.  Only question now is whether this is what the Bears want to move forward with, or start over.

Yall gotta stop saying this. He is a pocket passer. He was at Ohio St. He's just not good enough as a pocket passer, and he's too good of an athlete and creator to be just a pocket passer. The whole reason we are having these QB debates is not because Fields is not a pocket passer, it's because he's not consistent enough of a pocket passer. But he certainly wants to be and he certainly has his moments in the pocket. Hell he had those B2B games earlier that were nearly 100% in the pocket. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Fields still had a sack rate of 8.3% for the game and it should have been higher. 

He's still doing all the things that screw over the rest of the team that don't show up on his stat line, which is why I don't care when his stat line is adequate.

Hop hop hop hop hop hop hop holding call doesn't hurt his stat line.

World's slowest dropback and release into a slant means Moore has to make a catch with a defender draped all over him instead of with a chance to use his elite YAC ability.

I'm willing to call the game adequate because he made enough plays for himself to get it done, especially when the defense kept giving him the ball back, but he's still a job-killer who is going to keep having almost everyone in the offensive meetings with him leaving town with a worse reputation than they arrived with.

Good luck to whoever he's starting for next year, and if it's us then we deserve the Jordan Love-led playoff shellacking we'll get after a defense-fueled 10-7 season.

 

 

 

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Like raw said, Fields is 100% a pocket passer. He's not amazing at throwing on the run (not terrible at it either, but accuracy can definitely be an issue on those throws) and he lacks the pocket awareness to consistently get outside it positively.

He's a pocket passer who happens to have elite straight-line speed if you leave a gap for him up the middle.

 

 

[raw]

39 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Fields still had a sack rate of 8.3% for the game and it should have been higher. 

He's still doing all the things that screw over the rest of the team that don't show up on his stat line, which is why I don't care when his stat line is adequate.

Hop hop hop hop hop hop hop holding call doesn't hurt his stat line.

World's slowest dropback and release into a slant means Moore has to make a catch with a defender draped all over him instead of with a chance to use his elite YAC ability.

I'm willing to call the game adequate because he made enough plays for himself to get it done, especially when the defense kept giving him the ball back, but he's still a job-killer who is going to keep having almost everyone in the offensive meetings with him leaving town with a worse reputation than they arrived with.

Good luck to whoever he's starting for next year, and if it's us then we deserve the Jordan Love-led playoff shellacking we'll get after a defense-fueled 10-7 season.

Agreed. He was adequate. And not adequate for Fields (lower bar), but adequate for a starting NFL QB. Adequate is what Jared Goff typically is. It's the low end of what a guy like Kirk Cousins typically is. If that's Fields for 17 games for 10 years, the Bears probably have 4-7 playoff seasons going forward, but maybe 3 playoff wins and obviously, 0 Superbowls. Would be a far cry from the previous 10 years, but should not be the end goal.

[jersey cubs fan]

12 minutes ago, raw said:

Agreed. He was adequate. And not adequate for Fields (lower bar), but adequate for a starting NFL QB. Adequate is what Jared Goff typically is. It's the low end of what a guy like Kirk Cousins typically is. If that's Fields for 17 games for 10 years, the Bears probably have 4-7 playoff seasons going forward, but maybe 3 playoff wins and obviously, 0 Superbowls. Would be a far cry from the previous 10 years, but should not be the end goal.

I mean come on. You can win a Super Bowl with that level of QB. It happens. 
 

You gotta keep bringing in other guys though, whether it’s 1st rounders or 2nd day guys. Not just UFAs. 

[UMFan83]

16 minutes ago, raw said:

Agreed. He was adequate. And not adequate for Fields (lower bar), but adequate for a starting NFL QB. Adequate is what Jared Goff typically is. It's the low end of what a guy like Kirk Cousins typically is. If that's Fields for 17 games for 10 years, the Bears probably have 4-7 playoff seasons going forward, but maybe 3 playoff wins and obviously, 0 Superbowls. Would be a far cry from the previous 10 years, but should not be the end goal.

That's what makes the upcoming decision so monumental.  If you keep Fields you are settling for a lower ceiling most likely (not saying you can't win with an adequate QB but the margin for error on the rest of the roster is much lower) and you are stuck with him moving forward as I don't expect them to be picking at the top of the draft any time soon.  But if you bail on Fields, you are taking a gigantic risk in an attempt to get a higher ceiling.  If the QB you pick is a bust or you don't develop him properly, you've just wasted the next 3 years...best case you get a 2018 type season with Trubisky.  But obviously if you hit, the entire trajectory of our pathetic franchise changes.

Edited December 11, 2023 by UMFan83

[raw]

8 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

I mean come on. You can win a Super Bowl with that level of QB. It happens. 
 

You gotta keep bringing in other guys though, whether it’s 1st rounders or 2nd day guys. Not just UFAs. 

I'll give you that.

[raw]

6 minutes ago, UMFan83 said:

That's what makes the upcoming decision so monumental.  If you keep Fields you are settling for a lower ceiling most likely (not saying you can't win with an adequate QB but the margin for error on the rest of the roster is much lower) and you are stuck with him moving forward as I don't expect them to be picking at the top of the draft any time soon.  But if you bail on Fields, you are taking a gigantic risk in an attempt to get a higher ceiling.  If the QB you pick is a bust or you don't develop him properly, you've just wasted the next 3 years...best case you get a 2018 type season with Trubisky.  But obviously if you hit, the entire trajectory of our pathetic franchise changes.

The thing is though, Fields isn't necessarily settling either. Fields, IMO, can still be the same level QB that people project Caleb Williams to be. He has that kind of ability. The question is whether you want to pay ~26M for 2 years for a guy that is at least part of the way to releasing his potential, but with more evidence showing he won't vs. ~36M for 4 years of a guy with similar potential but with a completely clean slate to reach it. When you throw in things like: a 3rd offense lowers the chances of Fields reaching his potential and being stuck with Flus because of Fields potentially limits your team's potential, that muddies up the decision.

[bukie]

Knowing the Bears, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they both kept Fields and drafted Williams.

[Soul]

3 hours ago, raw said:

Yall gotta stop saying this. He is a pocket passer. He was at Ohio St. He's just not good enough as a pocket passer, and he's too good of an athlete and creator to be just a pocket passer. The whole reason we are having these QB debates is not because Fields is not a pocket passer, it's because he's not consistent enough of a pocket passer. But he certainly wants to be and he certainly has his moments in the pocket. Hell he had those B2B games earlier that were nearly 100% in the pocket. 

OK.  FWIW I don’t think you are saying something all that different.

[raw]

40 minutes ago, Soul said:

OK.  FWIW I don’t think you are saying something all that different.

You said he's not a pocket passer and never will be. I'm saying he is a pocket passer. That's exact opposite.

If you meant he's not a "good" pocket passer, then we are saying the same thing, but the context and actual text didn't lead me to believe you were saying that.

[SpongeWorthy]

1 hour ago, bukie said:

Knowing the Bears, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they both kept Fields and drafted Williams.

i wouldn't hate this

it'll be endless fodder for the talking heads shows and maybe a bit (or a lot) awkward in the locker room but the odds off whatever trade capital fields can net contributing right away in 2024 doesn't seem to obviously outweigh the benefits of having a good backup QB in whoever doesn't start, letting williams sit and watch, creating a huge amount of competition etc

[WrigleyField 22]

1 hour ago, bukie said:

Knowing the Bears, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they both kept Fields and drafted Williams.

I mean it's a totally reasonable Idea that NFL teams are way too fearful of despite the failure rate on such an arrangement lacking any evidence (1/1 success rate in past ~40 years, by my lazy count)

[profisme]

1 hour ago, bukie said:

Knowing the Bears, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they both kept Fields and drafted Williams.

That would be the worst-case scenario in my opinion.  This team has plenty of talent and the defense has decided to play like it means business, finally.  If Fields is the guy (my preference) then the draft capital/traded players you acquire for the #1 overall pick are necessary to continue building the team.  If Williams or Maye are the decision that Poles makes, then Fields is traded for something that will hopefully help round out the team.  

Resetting the QB clock is great and all, but it would come at a high opportunity cost in losing the ability to trade the #1 overall pick.  

[BigbadB]

15 hours ago, profisme said:

That would be the worst-case scenario in my opinion.  This team has plenty of talent and the defense has decided to play like it means business, finally.  If Fields is the guy (my preference) then the draft capital/traded players you acquire for the #1 overall pick are necessary to continue building the team.  If Williams or Maye are the decision that Poles makes, then Fields is traded for something that will hopefully help round out the team.  

Resetting the QB clock is great and all, but it would come at a high opportunity cost in losing the ability to trade the #1 overall pick.  

Yeah, I see that as highly unlikely. I could see them draft a QB later while still trading down and accumulating picks. If they take a QB with the first pick. Fields is likely being traded or was already traded and a new coaching staff (or at the very least a new OC).

I also think that if they are going to replace Getsy, it might give away that they will move on from Fields. I can't imagine they would want to stick with Fields while putting him through a 3rd OC.

[WrigleyField 22]

No other team would ever say a #1 pick is NECESSARY for a QB they believed building around.  Or the trade haul from it.  Would it be nice if you were already going down that route?  Sure, but it'd be like a bonus.  If you're using that haul around Fields, I want to know when the extension is coming, and if you aren't ready for that I don't see how you can pass on using the #1/2 on the next QB.

 

Letting him possibly bridge (as I've pushed) it is a whole separate thing.  Is 3rd OC in 4 years ideal? No. But arguably Jay Curler's two best years (at least 2 of top 3) came with his respective 4th and 5th OCs in the first year of those coordinators which were also years 5 and 7 total.  If you hire the right guy, those concerns get smoothed over a ton.  Not saying continuity doesn't help, but if you want a bridge QB for a rookie who knows how good any of the FA are, if they have any system/coach familiarity anyways and how much they'll cost.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Watching the every throw video, I have to think fields thumb isn't 100%.  He's always graded at below-average accuracy but it usually isn't that bad 

[Brian707]

19 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Watching the every throw video, I have to think fields thumb isn't 100%.  He's always graded at below-average accuracy but it usually isn't that bad 

He kept favoring his shoulder too during the Det game

[WrigleyField 22]

20 minutes ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Watching the every throw video, I have to think fields thumb isn't 100%.  He's always graded at below-average accuracy but it usually isn't that bad 

Also some of his less accurate throws were some of his seemingly quickest.  The thumb could be playing a role, but in the connection of mechanics, footwork, timing  and processing (plus now thumb) you wonder the follow-on affect of each step and to what extent that can be sped up with consistent good reps.  His best dime of the day was on that dart to Mooney and you definitely saw him hold it a tick long there to get set.

[BigSlick]

5 hours ago, WrigleyField 22 said:

No other team would ever say a #1 pick is NECESSARY for a QB they believed building around.  Or the trade haul from it.  Would it be nice if you were already going down that route?  Sure, but it'd be like a bonus.  If you're using that haul around Fields, I want to know when the extension is coming, and if you aren't ready for that I don't see how you can pass on using the #1/2 on the next QB.

 

Letting him possibly bridge (as I've pushed) it is a whole separate thing.  Is 3rd OC in 4 years ideal? No. But arguably Jay Curler's two best years (at least 2 of top 3) came with his respective 4th and 5th OCs in the first year of those coordinators which were also years 5 and 7 total.  If you hire the right guy, those concerns get smoothed over a ton.  Not saying continuity doesn't help, but if you want a bridge QB for a rookie who knows how good any of the FA are, if they have any system/coach familiarity anyways and how much they'll cost.

Maybe I'm underrating how big of a deal a new OC is but I just don't see why it's a huge impediment to Fields. Great, good, whatever QBs get new OCs all the time. It's maybe the coaching position that changes the most from year to year. Players manage it. 

Far more important to me is finding an OC that is able to develop their scheme to best fit the talent than anything else. 

[WrigleyField 22]

Also, on a new OC, the two major O trees they'd likely hire from are the Shannahan tree (a offshoot of which they were running past two years) or Reid tree (what he ran his rookie year).  Unless he went to like the Daboll/NE offense tree, no one coming in is gonna be speaking a foreign language.  So it comes more to like comfort with nuance of concepts and timing, but shouldn't be a major mental leap (you hope). Adjusting concepts and refining timing probably happens a lot year to year even with consistent Os since stake Os just get figured out as Ds adapt.