raw

I would have liked 1 of the top guards. I wanted dude from the 49ers or the Rams C. But like I said, Poles had 20M and 30 spots to fill when free agency started. Of course, he tried to use a chunk of that space to sign a DT so...... But yeah, an elite OG on a 4-year deal would be nice. That's a guy that can still be around when Fields or the next QB is ready to lead the team to the playoffs. That's a guy that can stabilize the line until you get to that point. As for WR, I think drafting a guy in the 2nd would have been nice, but you were already getting like the 7th/8th best guy by that point anyway. No guarantee it would have made much difference thus far. The WRs they could have had over Velus Jones have put up: 1 catch, 5 yards 0-0 (and out for the year with cancer) 0-0 5-65 3-61 (all yesterday) 1-30 And I have no issue with Pringle. That's the type of guy they should've signed. Coming off a strong year, his 1st year getting a chance to contribute, productive, but cheap enough to not break the bank. Pringle hasn't stayed healthy. Sucks, but it happens.

No it hasn't. Just the run game. All the pass blocking has been bad, by all 6 OL that have played. All the WRs have had trouble getting open. Even Herbert has had trouble pass blocking. The only things good about this offense has been Montgomery all around, Herbert running the ball, and the OL run blocking.

I mean I get it. I'm not trying to cope with Fields being bad. I'm just trying to bring some common sense to this discussion. He's been worse than "regular bad", I will admit. But it's been 2 games. He was pretty solidly average Week 1. He was bad in Week 2, but he literally had 9 throws before the final drive when the game was over. He was 7-9, 70 yards, 0 TD, 0 INTs. That 0-2 with INT final drive vs. GB took his QB rating from 99.07 to 43.7. So, we're talking a sample size so small that 1 late INT took his stats from what would be considered an OK game to a bad game. And yeah, yesterday he was ASS as he even said. But it's not unprecedent. Matt Ryan was 16-30, 195 3 INTs just last week. Dude's a borderline HOF in his age 37 season Russell Wilson has been below average all year. Not disasterous in any 1 game, but obviously 2x Super Bowl QB who should be better It's hard to complete passes that you aren't throwing. I'd guess the Bears also have the fewest passing attempts thru the first 3 games of the season as well.

I don't think that at all. I didn't think that when everyone said it this offseason. I don't think that now. I think it's the exact opposite, actually. [highlight=yellow]Those 3 know their OL isn't an ideal pass blocking line. They know their WRs aren't very good[/highlight](there were rumors yesterday that they will be active at the trade deadline to add a WR). They know Fields is learning a new offense. Setting him up for failure would be letting him get beaten down by dropping back 35 times per game with this personnel. I know I have complained about the lack of passing attempts, but they are perfectly justified in them. They have won 2 of the 3 games by running the ball like crazy. They are clearly geared to pound the ball on the ground, and they are playing to literally their only offensive strength right now. I know everyone wants Fields to sink or swim, because everyone wants an answer NOW if he is a franchise QB or not. But I don't think the 3 in charge (GM, HC, OC) are concerned about that. They are trying to win games now, develop Fields along the way, and find out by the end of next year if he's the guy or not. I really don't understand how everyone was convinced this team would be bad and knew the offense would struggle. They are bad and struggling and now everyone is upset because it's "too bad". If Fields was going 14-22, 200 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT per game, guess what? They wouldn't be bad like we all knew they would be (and the personnel says they should be) before the season. It's like the Ray Rice video. "Oh he punched a girl in the face, he's suspended". Then the video comes out, "oh he hit her really hard" Well, that's what a punch is. It's really hard. IDK why people needed video to see it was bad. I don't know why we needed actual game film to see how bad the talent on this offense is. Sure I'd like Fields to do his part better, but this regime is delusional if they are watching this and saying, "see, he's not the guy. Can't elevate this poor talent, let's move on" I know what you're trying to say, but the highlighted was in their control. If Fields was their draft pick they would have aggressively added pieces with him all else being exactly the same. They punted on that opportunity, so from the beginning, that kind of forced a decision, "their commitment to him is lukewarm" or "they just think he's the guy and will elevate play around him" . Obviously it's not the latter. If they're running at this rate all year, then we know what we have in Fields. For me, it's less about being impatient and needing to know what Fields is now, 3 weeks in. I expected uncertainty for this year. But the trajectory and seeing there really isn't opportunity for growth is what sucks. Long story short, there sprotecting your QB. And then there is laying down on almost low probably 2nd and 3rd down because you don't have any apparent trust in the QB. It's not fun to watch as a fan and seems awfully doomy for the prospect of the QB. It was in their control. But it's not like he had a ton to work with. When Poles took the job he had like 20Mil in cap space and 5 draft picks and like 30 roster spots to fill. I hate to be making excuses for Poles, because he 100% should have done more to help Fields. But again, I don't think their commitment to him is lukewarm. It's cautiously optimistic, instead of blind trust like Pace had with Trubisky in 2018 (also his 2nd year). Everyone is making this an all or nothing situation. The Bears love Fields without completing staking their NFL livelihoods in his success. It can be both.

I don't think that at all. I didn't think that when everyone said it this offseason. I don't think that now. I think it's the exact opposite, actually. Those 3 know their OL isn't an ideal pass blocking line. They know their WRs aren't very good (there were rumors yesterday that they will be active at the trade deadline to add a WR). They know Fields is learning a new offense. Setting him up for failure would be letting him get beaten down by dropping back 35 times per game with this personnel. I know I have complained about the lack of passing attempts, but they are perfectly justified in them. They have won 2 of the 3 games by running the ball like crazy. They are clearly geared to pound the ball on the ground, and they are playing to literally their only offensive strength right now. I know everyone wants Fields to sink or swim, because everyone wants an answer NOW if he is a franchise QB or not. But I don't think the 3 in charge (GM, HC, OC) are concerned about that. They are trying to win games now, develop Fields along the way, and find out by the end of next year if he's the guy or not. I really don't understand how everyone was convinced this team would be bad and knew the offense would struggle. They are bad and struggling and now everyone is upset because it's "too bad". If Fields was going 14-22, 200 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT per game, guess what? They wouldn't be bad like we all knew they would be (and the personnel says they should be) before the season. It's like the Ray Rice video. "Oh he punched a girl in the face, he's suspended". Then the video comes out, "oh he hit her really hard" Well, that's what a punch is. It's really hard. IDK why people needed video to see it was bad. I don't know why we needed actual game film to see how bad the talent on this offense is. Sure I'd like Fields to do his part better, but this regime is delusional if they are watching this and saying, "see, he's not the guy. Can't elevate this poor talent, let's move on" Ok. Design plays to his strengths then. They aren't doing that. They aren't developing whatever talent he has and when he's been given a little opportunity, he's not delivered. They do not look like they are trying to develop a QB. At all. Ok? I get that. But it might not be because they already know they are moving on from Fields. It may be because they don't actually know how to do that (first time OC) or know what he does well yet (3 games into 1st season together).

I really hate defending Brady, but he had his WR group out today. That said, he’s been looking more like late career Peyton Manning the past two seasons. As bad as Tampa looked, it wasn't on Brady at all. Most of the turnovers were by his offensive weapons after the catch. Evans, Godwin and Julio Jones all sat in this game. Brady needs to send out the bat signal for Gronk. Gronk would have re-retired today. Brady would have given him like 51 targets yesterday. Hell, Russell Gage had like 17 and Brady probably didn't even know who he was on Tuesday.

I don't think that at all. I didn't think that when everyone said it this offseason. I don't think that now. I think it's the exact opposite, actually. Those 3 know their OL isn't an ideal pass blocking line. They know their WRs aren't very good (there were rumors yesterday that they will be active at the trade deadline to add a WR). They know Fields is learning a new offense. Setting him up for failure would be letting him get beaten down by dropping back 35 times per game with this personnel. I know I have complained about the lack of passing attempts, but they are perfectly justified in them. They have won 2 of the 3 games by running the ball like crazy. They are clearly geared to pound the ball on the ground, and they are playing to literally their only offensive strength right now. I know everyone wants Fields to sink or swim, because everyone wants an answer NOW if he is a franchise QB or not. But I don't think the 3 in charge (GM, HC, OC) are concerned about that. They are trying to win games now, develop Fields along the way, and find out by the end of next year if he's the guy or not. I really don't understand how everyone was convinced this team would be bad and knew the offense would struggle. They are bad and struggling and now everyone is upset because it's "too bad". If Fields was going 14-22, 200 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT per game, guess what? They wouldn't be bad like we all knew they would be (and the personnel says they should be) before the season. It's like the Ray Rice video. "Oh he punched a girl in the face, he's suspended". Then the video comes out, "oh he hit her really hard" Well, that's what a punch is. It's really hard. IDK why people needed video to see it was bad. I don't know why we needed actual game film to see how bad the talent on this offense is. Sure I'd like Fields to do his part better, but this regime is delusional if they are watching this and saying, "see, he's not the guy. Can't elevate this poor talent, let's move on"

Not that QB rating is super accurate but I can think of multiple games off the top of my head that were worse. 2006 at home vs Vikings. I believe his qb rating was 3. Also 2006 at home vs Packers. It was 0.0 in that game. The “horsefeathers it I’m throwing it downfield game” against the Patriots was really bad too Edit: just looked up those specific games MIN - 6/19 for 34 passing yards, 0 TD, 3 INT GB - 2/12 for 33 passing yards, 0 TD, 3 INT (only played the first half) NE - 15/34 for 176 passing yards, 0 TD, 3 INT Heck the famous MNF game against Arizona he was 14/37 for 144 yards, 0 TD, 4 INT 2007 vs Dallas - 15/32 195 yards 0 TD, 3 INT What about Cutler? 2009 vs BAL: 10/27 for 94 yards, 0 TD, 3 INT 2010 vs NE: 12/26 for 154 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT 2011 vs CAR: 9/17 for 102 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT 2012 vs GB: 11/27 for 126 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT I thought the question was a joke. Grossman literally had 5 games worse than Fields' today in a 13-3, Superbowl season.

That’s not going to be an issue. They won’t beat 4 more teams playing like they’ve played so far. Exactly. Non issue because they won't win games if Fields is this bad. And Fields won't be this bad, because he isn't this bad. Bad Rex certainly had worse games. McNown only had 3 games with 250 yards and multiple TDs, and he threw 5 INTs in those games. And they aren't going to bench him. A 6-6 team shouldnt complain about not making the playoffs. They don't have Jimmy G waiting in the wings. They have Trevor Siemien, with no future and very little past. This is a stupid hypothetical. They won't be 6-6. There won't be anyone too look in the eye. Fields will play better and they'll still lose games. Will he play good enough? Who knows but certainly will be better than today.

I mean, nobody rational thought it was Nagy alone that was the issue. The GM wasted money on over the hill vets and traded draft picks like Pokémon cards while neglecting the OL in the process. The QB didn't progress from Year 2 to Year 4 (and still looks the same in Year 6).

There's not really a ton of examples in any particular way of getting a good QB. A 6th round pick became the greatest QB of all time. Rodgers and Steve Young sat multiple years. Guys like Mahomes were considered raw and soon as he saw the field started to perform. Justin Herbert wasn't ready to play, but was great right away. Ryan Tannehill was a bust, then was good, then is kinda bad again. Jared Goff had a terrible rookie year then was an mvp candidate that took his team to a SB. Josh Allen and Tua are very recent examples of QBs that looked pretty bad early in their 2nd years. Allen got Diggs. Tua got Tyreke/Waddle and both took offer exponentially. Basically, yeah it's entirely possible that Fields is just bad. But it's not because of history. QBs are defying odds and setting precedents all the time now. If Justin is the guy we thought he was when he was drafted, he will do the same. He has 13 starts. He'll hopefully get 14 more this year and 17 next year to prove what he is. We're only 1/3 of the way thru this book. It was this time in his 4th year when we figure Trubisky probably wasnt the guy. Idk why we're in such a rush to figure out Fields already.

Like that SF TD. Same play Packers ran on the goaline today. Basically a pick and a wide open WR on an easy throw/read for the QB.

Lol @ this thread. I get that you can't just throw out last year, but everyone readily admits the disaster that was Matt Nagy's offense. But this was always going to be a huge learning experience on all sides. This is a 1st time head coach, with a 1st time playcaller, and a 1st time GM who put together an offensive side of the ball full of guys that are either 1st time or were 1st time starters last year. The only real experience that has anything to do with offense is Cody Whitehair. Fields is averaging 15 throws a game. Granted he's also being intercepted on 9% of those throws. But it has to be tough to get into a rhythm when you simply aren't getting the reps. The QB is struggling. The OL is struggling to pass block. The WRs and TEs are struggling to get open and have also dropped more than their fair share of catchable passes. And the OC is struggling. There's no layup throws other than screens, which are usually slow developing and get him hit. I saw GB today and last year when Adams was out scheme little easy, quick throws to get him in a rhythm. Now a lot of it is Fields not seeing things well enough or overthinking in general. And he absolutely has to get MUCH better. But it's definitely premature as hell to talk about drafting a guy early next year. RELAX.....I won't guarantee Fields will be fine, because he certainly may not be. But it's been 13 starts. 10 under the Nagy disaster with no 1st team reps in camp. I understand the Bears need to know what they have soon with rookie contracts and 5th year options and all. But let's chill a little bit for now. Fields will get this and next year, assuming he isn't this bad all year (even if he is, you don't have him looking over his shoulder for Trevor horsefeathering Siemien).

Not to defend the Bears per se, but that used to be more common. The GM role also changed a lot in the past 30 years and became highly player personnel/scouting focused with the advent of the salary cap in the mid 90s. But I don't think the Bears were the last team to adopt a GM title (or reestablish, after firing Finks). A funny alternative history maybe exists where Michael doesn't eff up the McGinnis hiring and stays on as Pres until 2011, when George replaced him. Phillips never becomes CEO and they operate old-school with no GM even longer than they did. But Michael gets demoted and Phillips first big moves as CEO/Pres are the Soldier Field deal and hiring Angelo as GM. Angelo then tries recruiting Saban who turns him down mostly because he wanted GM duties. IIRC, Lovie was seen as like 3rd choice behind Saban and someone else. Fun sequence of events leading to a failed McGinnis hiring and then the best stretch of the Bears in the past 30 years. This made me look back because I don't remember that coaching search too well. Looks like the Bears interviewed Saban, Lovie, Jim Mora Jr, Romeo Crennel, Mike Nolan and Russ Grimm. Wow. Didn't remember those names. I probably wanted Lovie or Romeo, but I really don't know if I had a preference back then

Yea. I'm not sure some of his defense of Fields i.e. the missed ESB route is totally legit or not, but the system simplicity stuff, and defining his reads more seems legit. I'm sure that comes with the downside of simplifying the defenses options too, but then that's where you just allow Fields to bail and create outside the pocket and the normal professions. And I loved when he laughed at the question about not having a good bail out target. Like yea, duh, that makes a difference. Yeah, he looked right at ESB. I think he saw the safety and thought he would make it there by the time he unleashed it. But yeah, I took the same things from it you did.

IDK if anyone posted this in this or the other thread. But this actually makes me feel really good about Justin. Obviously, he's saying a lot of what we want to hear, but it makes a ton of sense.

This doesn't surprise me at all. mentally I have been expecting to not see Lonzo until January at the earliest. If the surgery is 7 days from now and he's re-evaluated in 4-6 weeks that would put his re-evaluation in November. Even if he's cleared then, he'll probably need a few more weeks to get into basketball shape. Not seeing him til spring at best.

thats been my impression as well. I get the impression that Fields is more inclined to be a passer first, where Hurts and/or Jackson are much more willing to channel their inner Jim Brown Maybe. But at the same time Fields isn't super inclined to be a pocket passer. I don't think that was true at Ohio State, but obviously he's still getting accustomed to the speed and bailing on the pocket. He still ends up running at times when a pass probably did exist. But then when he runs he isn't "looking to create" on the run. I guess it feels more reactive. I actually want him to run more at times. Granted, I can't see All-22, but whenever he holds onto the ball more than like 2.5 seconds, I think he should just take off. Even if the D has a spy on him, it's not a guarantee he's going to get caught by that guy, especially not before 3-4 yard gain. IMO, that's way better than him holding onto the ball, being more likely to be sacked or to force a throw that's not coming open.

If Fields can't have success in this game, I'll be pretty worried. This is the same defense he's facing in practice. Same defensive scheme, probably similar level of talent which is young and talented on the backend.

Add it to the list of Bears offensive futility. I swear that since I first remember watching the Bears regularly (1994) we've had about 10-12 offensive seasons that would be on most teams bottom 5 offensive seasons ever. Change the players, change the coaches, change the FO and we just cant figure out how to have any sort of success offensively, particularly passing offense. Dating back to 1994 they’ve had a defensive minded head coach in all but 6 seasons. The rest have all been defensive first and the bulk of those were guys in their final job, with minimal prior head coaching success. You can say they’ve changed coaches and still same results, but those changes have rarely shown a concerted effort to prioritize offense. It’s not some weird hex, it’s organizational but philosophy. Defense first. Maybe hire an offensive coach on occasion but if that fails go right back to defense first. We are back in a defense first situation and have to pray they magically find a qb or have a Ron Turner situation where the OC cobbles together a good season once or twice. Nope. It's a curse. Are we sure a goat never walked across the endzone in Soldier Field?

BPA to me, has always been more a scouting/preparation thing. If you go in looking for a WR you can definitely justify it, but you're just opening yourself up to bad confirmation biases. So you kind of have to do the whole "7.34 v 7.32" rating thing with no positional/need bias and then when it actually comes down to it have more esoteric value based decision making. And it might actually be somewhat intuitive to directly "BPA" a WR and CB as an example, but is pretty impossible for a FS verse a G. Eta a guy I know online only and has pretty reputable claims to have done some contract work with nfl teams on systems design (mostly playbook stuff but has some exposure to draft systems) told me that the grading systems don't do nearly that level of granular grading. Probably more analogous to a 5 star rating system than a baseball type WAR metric. A little more complex, but not down to declaring 100th perctible variances across players. Yeah, BPA is in the eye of the beholder. One of the funny things was when the Cowboys draft board leaked this spring. They had a list of guys that would potentially fall to them, had a group with 1st round grades and then had a group after with 2nd round grades. They took Tyler Smith, who was their top 2nd round grade over their last 1st round grade on the board (I don't remember if it was a RB- Breece Hall or a safety). But that showed me, teams will claim BPA all day, but when it comes down to it, need plays a bigger role. Most teams would take a 4-star at a need position over a 5-star player at a deep position

Hurts is bigger. He's a more willing runner, I wouldn't necessarily say more natural. Fields is a step faster, maybe more agile too. Seems like teams are playing for the moving pocket. Part of the reason the Bears are running the ball well is because when they show run action, the weakside DE is basically playing for the reverse pivot, taking a man out of the run play. They know the OL isn't good enough to keep the other 3 out of the pocket consistently if he does drop straight back. I feel like good teams with mobile QBs, don't do the naked bootleg stuff and leave their QB 1-on-1 with a DE. They actually commit an extra blocker to him so the QB has time and a lane to throw, even if on the move. Like I want to see Fields outside the pocket, but actually move the linemen, have a TE come across the formation to pick up that guy keeping contain. Hurts is bigger in what way? hes 6-1 223, Fields is 6-3 227 according to NFL.com https://www.nfl.com/players/jalen-hurts/ https://www.espn.com/nfl/player/_/id/4362887/justin-fields 223 on a 6'1" frame is bigger (aka thicker) than 227 on a 6'3" frame. Thicker frame means more willing/able to take a hit.

Hurts is bigger. He's a more willing runner, I wouldn't necessarily say more natural. Fields is a step faster, maybe more agile too. Seems like teams are playing for the moving pocket. Part of the reason the Bears are running the ball well is because when they show run action, the weakside DE is basically playing for the reverse pivot, taking a man out of the run play. They know the OL isn't good enough to keep the other 3 out of the pocket consistently if he does drop straight back. I feel like good teams with mobile QBs, don't do the naked bootleg stuff and leave their QB 1-on-1 with a DE. They actually commit an extra blocker to him so the QB has time and a lane to throw, even if on the move. Like I want to see Fields outside the pocket, but actually move the linemen, have a TE come across the formation to pick up that guy keeping contain.

What Philly has done with him is put him behind the best OL in the league. Also drafted and traded for WRs with 1st round picks. Bears are a long way from being able to emulate that. I wanted us to go that route so bad. I didn't even want to draft a QB until we started rebuilding the situation around the QB. Because I didn't want to end up exactly where we have ended up. The only good thing about losing to the Packers is it gets the rest of the fan base on board with my doom bonering 1. That's not necessarily the best route either, especially for a team like the Bears who have had seasons where everything is good enough, except the QB. They also kinda are building both at the same time (as WF said). They drafted 2 OL right after Fields in 2021. Both are currently starting. They also have a 3rd recent draft pick starting and a FA signing splitting time and eventually starting at C. Obviously, it's not good enough, especially combined with the lack of offensive weapons. But what's the alternative? Maybe you use a couple of the picks used to take/trade for Fields and got a lineman and a WR.....but the Bears were able to add young OL help, and a young WR with Nick Foles and Trevor Siemien throwing to him probably wouldn't instill a ton of confidence that we just needed a QB. 2. The doom bonering is pretty pointless. Nobody thinks this team is going to be any good. We've seen pretty good Bears teams get their asses beat in primetime in Lambeau. This was a game in May when the schedule came out that everyone marked as a loss. It wasn't any uglier than it usually is. I'm actually pretty stunned by the reaction. Well not really, but I think people were hoping that Fields would at least look good in a loss. But the bottom line was, this was going to be a loss. We all knew it well before kickoff.

The off target % is bad there, but we're also dealing with such a small sample. Like the Mooney bomb was way off and that's 10% of his throws. Must have an impact. Over the course of last year, I believe advanced stats showed him to be a pretty accurate deep passer. The time to throw and target separation make sense based on what we've always known about Fields, even as a prospect. There's still a lot to work with and the O just has to meet him where he is and make marginal improvements in those araas over time. The Mooney throw, I'm sure counts as off-target, but it wasn't a bad throw. Mooney slowed down because he assumed the ball wasn't coming to him. That allowed the DB to get on top of him and make it look like a severe overthrow. If Mooney is going full speed the whole play, it may be a pass breakup, but I do think the throw is on target. But yeah, all these stats are grains of salt at this point.