Hairyducked Idiot

Watching the videos, I like Fields' Sunday performance a little more. It wasn't good, but it wasn't as horrible as weeks 2 and 3. Im not 100% sold on Dilfer's analysis. Fields was a high profile graduate of his QB program. He's got an interest in fields being perceived as on track to be successful

I'm willing to come around a little on fields on Sunday and blame him less and the rest of the offense more

I don't think the short passing game is there. The few we have tried have gone poorly. We don't have the personnel for it, and teams are going to be taking it away because they're up to stop the run anyway

Just for perspective. 49 dropbacks under pressure and he only has 67 passing attempts overall. Granted, that includes sacks (16) and scrambles. But the man under constant duress. Again, not trying to excuse Fields, but this is David Carr esque OL play in front of him. Not so much yesterday, but the first three weeks he played himself into a lot of those pressures

Also, has he executed a hot read successfully a single time this season? A free blitzer shouldn't be an automatically dead play with an NFL offense

I don't think Fields is a bust because he's not putting up elite stats with bad teammates I think he's a bust because he can't move well in the pocket, looks like he has no idea what he's looking at against man or hybrid defenses, has trouble getting rid of the ball and suddenly has accuracy issues as well. None of which are caused by poor teammates

Before this game, when the offensive line pooped the bed, I thought the offense outside of fields has looked better than I expected. Not good, but not sub-replacement level. It's not unreasonable to want fields to be good enough to elevate an offense in his second year, and he's not close to that good.

Fields looked like the same old dog poop to me today. Can't make reads, can't move in the pocket, and the bad throws are becoming way more frequent. The only downfield throw he's comfortable making is when it's against zone and his first read is wide open in a soft spot. He's really really bad at pulling the trigger against man defense. In the NFL, 1 on 1 with no help in man defense *is* open even if there's little separation. You throw to where the receiver has leverage. I don't think I've seen fields do that a single time this season.

Honestly a defensive touchdown is more likely than an offensive one. 2000 IQ play.

We don't have a quarterback either.

The fact that Kasparov has never apologized to Polgar still irks me. When are we going to play, btw? Iunno. I haven't actually played in forevers.

The fact that Kasparov has never apologized to Polgar still irks me.

There's a reason blitz and bullet are a million times more popular than longer time controls for most players. Even the pros only play long for major tournaments, they play fast games for stream and fun. I don't think I could sit and play a four hour tournament game anymore. I'm old and my brain isn't as sharp as it was

I don't wanna make it sound like you can't disagree with me. I'm a known idiot. To me it's just known (online) cheater puts up an incredibly improbable result that includes a suspicious move he can't explain.

USCF keeps pretty good records, I could probably find him.

He did. Only game I lost at that tourney across multiple years

Two more chess cheating stories. My favorite all time was when a lower level master was having a great tournament and had beaten several much higher rated players. His final opponent noticed that whenever the position got complicated, he would take a bathroom break, which is a pretty big giveaway. He followed his opponent to the bathroom, sat in the adjacent stall, and reported to the tournament director that he "didn't hear any bathroom noises.". The td waited until the guy was finished, inspected the toilet and found a smartphone taped to the underside like a gun in a mob movie. I was playing in a small tournament in Springfield, Ill., like 12 years ago. Way smaller and less serious than pro level stuff, just renting out a banquet hall, setting up some tables everyone pays $20 and the top prize is like $120. I had won the tournament the year before and was 2-0 this time. I got paired with a young teenage kid whose dad sat on the sidelines with a laptop. We were playing a rather famous opening that most serious chess players would know 15+ moves deep (Ruy Lopez marshal counter), and the kid was slamming down each move instantly, showing he knew the line really well. I happened to know a divergence around the 10th move that isn't quite optimal but it gets players out of their comfort zone of memorized lines. I play that move, and the kid immediately frowns and stops playing instant responses. He tanks for about 5 minutes, then his dad comes over, shows him a page from the Harry Potter book his dad had on his person for some reason, and they both leave the playing hall. They were gone for over 20 minutes, and I couldn't find them in the bathroom or anywhere else in the building. When they finally came back, the kid played the rest of the divergent line perfectly. It was incredibly obvious what happened, but I figured if I complained, they would just deny it and there's not really anything that could be done, and the TD is just some dude who rented the hall and reports results to the USCF, he doesn't need a bunch of drama. So I let it go.

Nope. That's the problem. Until they actually find the cheating mechanism, it's going to be hard to justify direct action. To anyone who actually knows chess, it's pretty blatant that he's cheating. So we have computer programs that are far beyond what any human can match in terms of quality of play. Most of the time, these computers are just insanely good at differentiating between several possible moves that a human would just consider roughly equal. Over the course of a game, that small advantage every move eventually becomes decisive. Once in awhile, the computer-certified best move in a position is one that a human being would never consider playing because it doesn't look right according to traditional principles, but the computer can calculate every possible response many moves down the line and see that it actually works. When commentators are doing analysis they'll call them "computer moves.". They'll have the engines running and sometimes say "ok the computer is suggesting this move, but obviously that's a computer move, no human would play that." Niemann's win against Carlsen included at least one such move, and when asked to explain it in post game analysis, he couldn't explain why the move was good and show the proper follow up to some of the obvious responses from Carlsen. Making a computer move, and not being able to explain why, is a 100% dead to rights giveaway. There are essentially two ways to have computer recommendations fed to you in a match, both of which have been used in the past. One is to have a computer on your person, undetected. A famous incident happened over a decade ago now when an unknown player entered a tournament and beat several master-level players. A tournament director noticed that his shoes seemed to be oversized and asked him to remove them for inspection. The player refused, walked out of the playing hall and was never heard from again. The second way is to be signalled from the audience somehow. The French team at the chess equivalent of the world cup was found to be doing this 10 years ago. Their coaches were being fed computer moves from someone on the outside, then they would signal the moves to the players via a code they had worked out based on where the coaches stood in the playing hall. The vibrating anal beads thing was just a dumb internet meme that the press took seriously, but he almost certainly figured out a way to conceal a device under his clothes or in his ear that the metal detector couldn't detect. And if he didn't, he was being fed moves from the audience via an accomplice. Ive been to the st. Louis chess club to watch and play. You have to walk through a metal detector in order to get into the playing area. I don't know a ton about metal detector technology but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not foolproof.

First drop back of the game, iirc. I was glad it worked out on a long run, but it looked so bad even live.

First drop back of the game, iirc. I was glad it worked out on a long run, but it looked so bad even live.

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. Disagree. the pass blocking has been frequently adequate. Probably because the defenses don't care if we pass, but still.

That’s not going to be an issue. They won’t beat 4 more teams playing like they’ve played so far. I'm not so sure. I've seen this show before. Shorten the game, keep it close, hope to get lucky. You can beat some bad teams that way with luck, and we have had teams on the schedule.

I want fields to look good. You can look good in a bad offense. He's not. He can't make reads, he can't move in the pocket, he's not seeing open receivers and somehow his accuracy is gone. The rest of the offense has actually been a pleasant surprise, give or take a kmet

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'll be honest, I assumed the Grossman/Minnesota game was a partial game just glancing at the stat line. . But nope, it was full, and we won 23-13. I hate bears football

Which specific Grossman game was as bad as 8-for-17 for 106 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs? Closest I can find is 10-for-18 for 132 yards, 1 TD/1 INT Some of you are in total denial as to how badly fields is playing