raw

He's had awful games. He's had a couple good games. He's had a couple mediocre games. I don't have the metrics either (except PFF, which people love to point out they pay no attention to) but I'd guess he's been average overall. Unfortunately, he's not in a place where it makes sense to cut him. Definitely by midseason next year, if he's not clearly above average, I'd like to see JaTyre Carter and/or a Day 2 pick taking his snaps with him being cut after the season.

Well, LT is certainly NOT the 2nd highest paid position on offense. WR is. There are 6 OTs getting paid 20M or more, with the top being Tunsil at 25M. There are 13 WRs getting paid 20M or more with Tyreek Hill's 30M at the top. There's 3 WRs higher than the highest OT, 1 with the same AAV, and then 4 more WRs before you get to the 2nd highest paid OT. So, if that's the only logic for taking LT, then my earlier logic wins because replacing an average LT with a great one is not as valuable as replacing Tyler Scott with a great WR, especially considering if Scott somehow becomes great, you can still play Scott, DJ and the draft pick at the same time, whereas if Braxton somehow becomes great, you don't ever see it because he's not seeing the field without an injury.

I think guards you typically want to have strong anchors to be able to stand the bullrush against guys who are 40-50lbs heavier than most of their edge counterparts. Also, because Jones has long arms, he won't be able to extend them to get the leverage he can better get in space. Not that he can't play guard, but I don't think he'd be as good of a fit there as he is at tackle.

Yeah, I want an OL in the first 3 rounds every year as well. Ideally, they'd get a guy with some C/G flexibility, after signing a FA center, in the 3rd....if not in the 2nd because of a trade down with the 2nd first or from a Fields trade. But yeah the cycle should be: 2024 Draft Rds 1-3: interior potential starter quality depth, wouldn't hate some OT depth as well 2025- Jenkins is a FA, Davis is cuttable w/ minimal guarantees, Braxton is a year away from free agency, could see multiple in rounds 1-3 2026- Jones is a FA, Davis is a FA if not cut beforehand, if they sign a FA center, he's probably nearing early 30s and the end of his guarantees, probably drafting 2 2027- Wright a year away from free agency, along with 2024 pick, maybe only draft 1 depending on guys getting long-term deals. Yeah, they need to replenish the talent on the OL pretty consistently. The Bears finally have a semblance of a professional OL and they've only spent 3 top 3 rounds picks on the position in the last 7 years. That should probably be a 1/year average.

It's a concussion. Jenkins'll be fine. If he plays this week, that'll only be 4 games missed each of the last 2 years since the initial back/neck issue. That's not terrible to the point you have to bench him (and you certainly would for a top 8 pick). You just gotta build the depth. Don't be in a hurry to re-sign him. If he gets hurt again, he risks losing his spot. But I don't see the need to worry about that until Day 2 at the earliest.

I mean, it's kind of unfair to point out individual plays. Tonyan's probably a slightly better route runner and Kmet is a better blocker. It was 1 play Tonyan should have caught. You can't blame the OC that the guy didn't catch it. It's not like it was designed directly for him or that Tonyan is overly used. Scott on the endaround is the same. They used Velus on that a couple times to success. So you're giving the same look, but with a different guy with similar speed. The defense would have been looking for Velus there as that's all he can do. We've seen DJ attract too much attention for that play to succeed. And Mooney has never been the end-around guy. If there is 1 play that stands out it's Mooney blocking the edge on the 4th down Fields run. Part of the reason he's there is because DJ gets too much attention to be there (he draws defenders closer to the edge if he's blocking). Also, St. Brown being out hurt there as he's the blocker that makes that work. And it was a run/pass option and Fields thought he could break that tackle (which is on him, not Mooney for being wrong). Not to absolve Getsy, but its only so much he can do with his personnel/talent. Those 1-off plays wouldn't stick out if the Bears had better talent and probably better QB play. Everything is magnified because the Bears aren't good enough to where a few mistakes don't matter. I see teams drop passes, miss blocks, call bad plays every week....yet they still win because those teams don't need 100% of everything to work to win games. The Bears margin for error is extremely low because of the talent level.

Went under 200 per game Sunday. Granted, that 1/2 game vs Minnesota is a key to keeping it under 200, but it's not like we're talking about a huge jump in his numbers. It's definitely not all on Getsy. There's a reason why Fields doesn't or isn't able to check out of plays, had 20 screens called agains the Vikings, and why the playcalling is stale. Part of it is Getsy not knowing how to call a game (as far as we know, and the Bagent games help support this theory). But the most frustrating part of it is Fields doesn't do things consistently enough for Getsy to know what to call in key spots. For example, Fields should be deadly running RPOs, he ran them at Ohio St, but he sucks at them in the NFL. Getsy will run 1 concept early in the game, get the same look later in the game, and Fields will miss the same exact throw later in the game. It's gotta be tough to not have anything to be able to cling to as an OC. But yeah, Getsy does stink.

If 2 years and 14 games isn't enough to make you hesitate, then IDK why this 1 particular game would.

This actually doesn't seem that difficult of a path. The only upsets would be mild ones like Pittsburgh, who always finishes .500 or better winning in Seattle and NYG, who just came off a 3-game win streak, beating the Rams team traveling across the country,.

I don't even think it matters if Williams or Maye end up as studs. Because logically speaking, it's going to be cheaper if they fail than if Fields fails, ultimately. If the draft pick fails, even a high one, you're just back in the same cycle the Bears have been in for 100 years. If Fields fails, the worst case is you've signed him for 40-50M/year for several years. The best case you've paid him 26M+ (by accepting the 5th year option) for 2 years vs similar money for 4 years of the #1 pick. And you're likely still in the same cycle. But when you do actually take your next QB, you are likely taking a lesser prospect by virtue of not having prospects as highly rated as Williams/Maye or by not having the #1 overall pick. And you add that money to whatever Fields makes over the next couple years. Sure you can find QBs outside of the #1 pick, but the chances get slimmer the further down you go.

This is what I've been arguing on Twitter. Everyone talking about losing against top teams and his numbers being down against top 25 defenses....but isn't that why they are top 25 defenses? They are doing that against everybody. But the traits haven't changed. He was in so much pressure so soon this year. UCLA has a top 10 pick and another pick or 2 upfront. Washington has a couple mid round edges. Utah always has guys. Oregon has multiple top 100 guys on their front. He's playing with an OL that has no guys that are going to get drafted in the top 200. Not saying draftable talent is the end-all be-all of whether you have good protection or not, but he still averaged 300 passing in those games, just didn't have the big TD numbers. They did score 20+ in all those games I named and 27+ in all but UCLA. The Notre Dame game was just a bad game. It happens. Justin Fields had a similarly bad game vs IU in 2020.

Yeah, that's my concern too. He's rail thin. 210 may be an exaggeration. He left multiple games this year with injuries as well and all of them from taking brutal hits. And like Kyle said, he doesn't have Justin's arm either. At least a guy like Caleb Williams, while he may be 6', he has a thicker build and a rocket arm and quick release. He'll likely take too many hits too, but can better withstand them and isn't as quick to run....so far.

I hate this sentiment. I hate the thought that the Bears need 1 certain player in a draft where 256 prospects will be drafted. The same thing was said about Jalen Carter last year and George Pickens the year before that. Both are good players, but they are fine without both. They'll be fine without Harrison. It's a loaded WR class. I'd love to have him but saying it's a failure to not have him is asinine.

I'd like them to bring Foreman back. But I'd also like a speed back brought in. Someone with that dynamic breakaway ability out of the backfield. Potentially even a guy you can line up wide or in the slot and can moonlight as a WR. Obviously, Devon Achane is all the rage this season and he's that exact type of guy I'm thinking. Of course, he's not available and this looks to be a bigger, slower RB class in general. But there is quite the FA market with guys like Barkley, Pollard, Ekeler, and Jacobs all hitting the market again, But there's also guys like Jerrick McKinnon and Antonio Gibson who could fill that role as well. Those big names may not hit the market, but I wouldn't shy away from them, especially with a rookie QB. The Bears stand to lose Mooney, ESB and already lost Claypool at WR so they could use 1 more guy in case a draft pick or Scott don't take on as big of a role as we'd like them to,

Eh, that makes sense. I just value Williams more than that line of thinking seems to. I do think Harrison is the best prospect in this draft, but Williams is 2nd for me and when they are that close, defaulting to the QB especially when you have a stud WR already makes the most sense to me. But I can buy the logic here.

I think the Atlanta fit is just to get dynamic playmakers everywhere. That'd give Atlanta a top 3 athlete at QB, RB, TE and a 6'5 freak at WR who makes insane catches every week. They aren't throwing to Pitts anyway, so no big deal if Justin doesn't either, I guess.

In this scenario there would hopefully be a new coach, so he's starting out from square 1 again, but I think Bagent showed enough to be the bridge QB. He's probably not as good as those guys, but the difference isn't worth the money, even if you have a ton of it.

I think too much is made on those high throws. I don't think there were many yards lost and they were all 1st down completions for the most part anyway. Extra yards are nice, but gravy. And I think the Mooney throws were fine. Justin could have put more touch on them, but those are catches a good WR should make. 19-33 isn't a great completion percentage, but for a guy that goes down the field as much as Fields, that's not horrible, especially with the throwaways he had as well. Justin showed anticipation. Threw in tight windows. Found wide open WRs. And finally got a free play TD. Expecting a whole lot more than that is expecting perfection for a QB that is just shooting for competence at this point.

why would the best use of assets be to NOT take the best QB?

This is an interesting game. And it's been interesting on paper since the schedule came out. The Browns defense is good. Really good. Top pass D in the league. They aren't the best at run D, rushing the passer or turning the ball over, but they are top 10 in all of those. This is a big game for me personally for Justin Fields. Not that I have any say so, but this is a team that probably isn't going to allow him to do the things he wants to do. They aren't going to let him get comfortable in the pocket. They probably aren't going to let the Bears lean too heavily on the run. They probably aren't going to let him run around and make plays with his legs (face Lamar 2x/year and have done decently stopping him from running the last 3 years against him). He's going to have to make plays from the pocket. He's going to have to be quick and decision. And he absolutely cannot make mistakes against a team that is capable of forcing them. This was always a huge measuring stick game to me. If Fields was showing he was definitely the guy, this would be a good game to see how real that was. If Fields was a disaster, assuming he made it as the starter to this point, this would be a good game to put the nail in his coffin. But since Fields is toeing that gray area, this is a good game to see if he really has it in him to be the QB the Bears need him to be. The Browns don't scare you on offense. Flacco will come down to Earth, Bears seem like they are able to make that happen as well. So, it's going to come down to Justin being able to put enough points on the board to win what has the potential of being a very ugly slugfest.

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.

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.

I'll give you that.

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.

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.