Realistic Expectations

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, Bfan said:

Just so you know I'm not so certain Feilds is a guanteed quality QB.  I do think its likely but but not certain.  I also belive  if Fields turns out to be less then a legitimate starter Poles will get anther bite as long as he does a good job of getting talent.  Feilds being a bust will set us back to the next chance to brant another QB high, but if Poles buggers building the rest of team that will set us back to looking for a decent GM.  You tell me how long it has been since we had a decent GM.  My first thought is maybe Angelo's first few years but you could also make the argument for Finns and Vainisi.

I think jury is very much still out on everyone involved from GM to coaches to QB.

I like Fields talent though.  I don’t love what process has been for him to start his career.  

[Bfan]

33 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I think jury is very much still out on everyone involved from GM to coaches to QB.

I like Fields talent though.  I don’t love what process has been for him to start his career.  

I agree on Fields talent and at least on process of the first year.  As for the rest I think if the coaching and the play calling is good Feilds talent, good, bad , or indifferent, will show through if you know what to look for.  If we have the right GM and HC we are at least 2/3 of the way to the promised land.  If Feilds is all we hoped he is then we are in nervona.  Excuse me I need to find some wood to bash my head on to negate any jinx I may have put on all this😬

[JAF-N72EX]

9 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I am saying a lot of things outside of player/roster talent went into making last year not great.

I think the overall roster talent is less than last year, however; my point is various factors that went into making last year bad may not be present this year.

My feeling or argument is not that all the coaches last year were super horrible and all the coaches this year are the bees knees therefore this year will be better.  These coaches are unproven.   

 It was that a totality of circumstances and decisions led to last years on field performances; lame duck, contracts, injuries, attitude, coaching, practice time, playing time ...

Facts are we no longer have Robinson, Hicks, Peters, Daniels, Mack, Nichols or Goldman and those are talented football players no longer on roster.

But facts are also that due to age, injury, attitude or some combination many of them did not contribute to their paper talent level in 2021.  Probably all of them excepting Nichols.  

Peters for example performed admirably much of time, but had he come in in Spring rather than off a retirement fishing boat in August I imagine he would have been better and Oline as a whole would have been better. 

Had Robinson been happy with his contract/coaches and Fields been unquestioned starter from jump maybe they have a connection and Robinson has a much better season, but neither of those happened.

I don't have to go through each individual circumstance, but you all get the picture.

Their will be plusses and minuses with this staff and injury and circumstance too.  There always is.

But major plusses are that Fields is getting reps this year with starters.  He is getting 98% of coaching attention in offseason rather than watching Dalton and learning that way.  He should still struggle some, given it is new system and new coaches and he is still newbie QB.   He also has less proven talent at WR around him.   But even given that, it is hard to believe he will play worse than last year given totality of circumstances.   

So my argument based on all of above is season may not necessarily be worse than last year even though talent is less as a whole.  It may be a disaster.  The national media is certainly predicting that based on power rankings and polls.

But more I look, and it may be rose colored glasses and optimism, more I think team may be slightly improved relative to 2021 - not based on roster talent, but based on the whole.

I say that with cavaet that I also think GB, MN and Detroit are all better than Bears at this time and Detroit was much worse than Bears last year.   So even though I think 2022 Bears may be better than 2021 Bears, I also think 2022 Lions are much better than 2021 Lions, MN is probably roughly same leaning a bit better and GB is probably a little worse due to loss of Adams, but still much better than Bears.

Easier overall schedule should help with record though.

The biggest mistake was starting Fields at all. Same with Mitch. And look at how eerily similar they looked statistically in year 1. You could even make an argument that Mitch actually outplayed Fields with a much worse supporting cast.

 

I'm saying, if not working with the 1s without pads or contact in a few off season practices was the difference between him playing well and playing like he did last year then he's just not the guy we all think he is in the first place.  He worked with the 1s all season long in practice and his play didn't change much from weeks 3-6 to 7-10.

 Also, Robinson didn't have a good year because he was in Nagy's doghouse and Nagy went out of his way to scheme away from Robinson to prove a point. So Fields working with him in the offseason would have been a moot point since it wasn't ever going to change this either.

I also wouldn't go as far as to say we have an easy schedule either. I mean, 4 out of 5 'easiest games' are played away (DET/NYG/NYJ/ATL), those and HOU are the only games I would even consider gimmes.

But I do agree there was a lot of locker room noise last year from top to bottom and that kind of stuff is contagious. That being done and out the way should create a better environment and in turn better results --even if only minor.

[Bfan]

18 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

... You could even make an argument that Mitch actually outplayed Fields with a much worse supporting cast.

...

This is why we need to see Feilds show on tape he can be at least a good starting QB before we go all in on him.  Until then building the team the best way possible is the best plan imho.

[JAF-N72EX]

7 hours ago, Bfan said:

This is why we need to see Feilds show on tape he can be at least a good starting QB before we go all in on him.  Until then building the team the best way possible is the best plan imho.

I get this perspective, but it's also a double edge sword in this case because how are we ever going to know if he's any good or not with very little weapons around him and playing in a system for a new OC who is also entering his first stint? 

If he doesn't show very much progress next year then there's still going to be two ways to look at it. Either 1) He's just not very good, or 2, he just didn't have much support around him and the jury is still out.

I don't know, we'll see. I just hope we have more answers than questions by this time next year.

[dll2000]

On 5/20/2022 at 9:35 PM, JAF-N72EX said:

The biggest mistake was starting Fields at all. Same with Mitch. And look at how eerily similar they looked statistically in year 1. You could even make an argument that Mitch actually outplayed Fields with a much worse supporting cast.

 

I'm saying, if not working with the 1s without pads or contact in a few off season practices was the difference between him playing well and playing like he did last year then he's just not the guy we all think he is in the first place.  He worked with the 1s all season long in practice and his play didn't change much from weeks 3-6 to 7-10.

 Also, Robinson didn't have a good year because he was in Nagy's doghouse and Nagy went out of his way to scheme away from Robinson to prove a point. So Fields working with him in the offseason would have been a moot point since it wasn't ever going to change this either.

I also wouldn't go as far as to say we have an easy schedule either. I mean, 4 out of 5 'easiest games' are played away (DET/NYG/NYJ/ATL), those and HOU are the only games I would even consider gimmes.

But I do agree there was a lot of locker room noise last year from top to bottom and that kind of stuff is contagious. That being done and out the way should create a better environment and in turn better results --even if only minor.

 

The idea of sitting a qb for a year is so that he can learn position at NFL level without pressure of playing games and observe someone doing it right.   There is value in that as many QBs have attested to. 

There is also value in getting full attention of coaches, reviewing your own reps on film and getting vast majority of reps in low pressure of offseason leading into season. Then the high pressure of season and making mistakes and learning from them.  Many have attested to value of that as well.  

I would go with the latter every time.  One, because I believe it is faster and also better.  Doing with coaching is better than watching with less coaching.   Two, because guy you are watching may not be great and may not play the same as you. Three he may get hurt and then you get thrown in without the reps and all that comes with them, timing, muscle memory, etc. - which is exactly what happened to Fields. 

There are more pluses and minuses with each approach that can be theorized, but I don’t have time to hash them all out.  

I think both can work, both have worked and failed. I just think on balance playing and training the young QB from start of draft in most situations is better way.  

If you are going to take first approach I think you should 1) have a good competitive team in place and 2) have a good QB who knows your system in place so he is like another coach. It is helpful if he is willing to coach the young player.  Many QBs don’t want any part of giving up their job and that can often cause problems and hamper learning as well.  It can also divide locker room. 

With Glennon he flat out said he had to learn new system and required a lot of teaching and learning himself. What a stupid thing to do to Trubisky.  You mostly wasted his first year in league.  Worse system changed anyway in 2nd year.   Dalton knew Nagy’s system better, but there are still many similarities. 

We got worst of all worlds again, an unprepared QB thrown to wolves without proper offseason training and now learning a new system in year two.  Which is exactly what I said was likely to happen when they announced he was going to sit behind Dalton in spring.  

The good news is Fields has changed coaches before, he seems to learn quick and is a more natural leader.   He will probably do well in long run in spite of mishandling.  

My larger concern with him isn’t play, it is injury.  He tends to take big shots.   

[StLunatic88]

I really think the worry about the supporting cast around Fields is getting completely overblown. If we were supposed to be a real contender, and he was an entrenched starter, then yes they would be disappointing. But if you actually look at the arsenal of most of the Franchise QBs had when starting out, they arent all that different. 

Sure some of them were lucky (Manning had Harrison, Brees had LT, and Stafford had Megatron) but after those Top weapons' they had huge drop-offs.

But looking at the guys Id most hope Fields becomes, and had similar entry ways into the league (Run First/Defensive teams) hes in a similar spot when it comes to actual weapons;

Russell Wilson started with (end of his career) Sidney Rice + Golden Tate + Zach Miller + Doug Baldwin + Marshawn Lynch, and then his second year its more of the same, just minus Sidney Rice who completely fell off.

Josh Allen had Zay Jones + LeSean McCoy + Robert Foster + Kelvin Benjamin + Jason Croom his rookie year, and then switched up to John Brown + Cole Beasley + Devin Singletary + Dawson Knox + Isaiah McKenzie

Both of them ended up in much better situations as their careers went along, but it doesnt always start with some stockpile of weapons. Darnell Mooney + Byron Pringle + David Montgomery + Cole Kmet + Khalil Herbert isnt all that different, especially on a Run first team, with a mish mash of 4/5 guys behind that core group (barring injuries) that will make up like 50 total receptions on the year? Maybe?

Feels like we are making way too big of a deal about weapons #5/6 - 8/9

[JAF-N72EX]

Fields entering his 2nd year with a new regime, 2nd system in 2 years, 4 question marks on OL with 2 new additions, and a make-shift defense with 8 new projected starters.

Russ entered his 2nd year with the same coach, same system, an established OL with Carpenter, Unger, Moffitt, and Okung and a great defense already built (Earl Thomas, Bruce Irvin, Browner, Mebane, Kam, Sherman)-- all before Russ was even drafted.

But yeah.... it's kinda the same.

And if this a run first offense then we need to stop all of this talk about Getsy being anything like Lefluer too.

[StLunatic88]

38 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Russ entered his 2nd year with the same coach, same system, an established OL with Carpenter, Unger, Moffitt, and Okung and a great defense already built (Earl Thomas, Bruce Irvin, Browner, Mebane, Kam, Sherman)-- all before Russ was even drafted.

Thanks for sharing, has absolutely nothing to do with what was said, but it’s a nice strawman

[JAF-N72EX]

6 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

but it’s a nice strawman

It was. That's why I shot it down with all the facts that you seem to have missed. Nice try though.

[StLunatic88]

37 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

It was. That's why I shot it down with all the facts that you seem to have missed. Nice try though.

Last time I pointed out the shortcomings of how you argue I got told it wasn’t warranted because it can be construed as name calling and other things that aren’t promoted here. So I’ll just be direct this time, you’re wrong, on multiple points. 

You’re the only one here presenting a strawman. I didn’t reply to anyone, it was my own stand alone thought on what is being harped on from multiple sources, specifically about the Weapons that Fields has at his disposal in 2022. A point that you didn’t refute at all, actually didn’t even address, and just brought up other points that are not in any way refuting the initial point made. So….. textbook strawman. 

Not to mention if you want to continue to act all high and mighty about your points, make sure you are correct on all of them. John Moffitt played single digit games with Russell Wilson, none of them beyond his Rookie year, and was never considered an “established” lineman. Going into Wilson’s second year, that “established” line consisted of converted DT JR Sweezy who had a total of 3 starts under his belt, Carpenter who had 16 total starts broken up by a ACL injury and was so “established” that they declined his 5th year option that offseason, and the one and only Breno Giacomini, the bane of every Seahawks fan who makes Whitehair seem like Mr Reliable. 

I can’t believe you tried to play the OL as an asset for Wilson at ANY point of his career. 

[JAF-N72EX]

34 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Last time I pointed out the shortcomings of how you argue I got told it wasn’t warranted because it can be construed as name calling and other things that aren’t promoted here. So I’ll just be direct this time, you’re wrong, on multiple points. 

You’re the only one here presenting a strawman. I didn’t reply to anyone, it was my own stand alone thought on what is being harped on from multiple sources, specifically about the Weapons that Fields has at his disposal in 2022. A point that you didn’t refute at all, actually didn’t even address, and just brought up other points that are not in any way refuting the initial point made. So….. textbook strawman. 

Not to mention if you want to continue to act all high and mighty about your points, make sure you are correct on all of them. John Moffitt played single digit games with Russell Wilson, none of them beyond his Rookie year, and was never considered an “established” lineman. Going into Wilson’s second year, that “established” line consisted of converted DT JR Sweezy who had a total of 3 starts under his belt, Carpenter who had 16 total starts broken up by a ACL injury and was so “established” that they declined his 5th year option that offseason, and the one and only Breno Giacomini, the bane of every Seahawks fan who makes Whitehair seem like Mr Reliable. 

I can’t believe you tried to play the OL as an asset for Wilson at ANY point of his career. 

fine, I guess I have to spell it out for you since you don't seem to understand football very well.  I don't give a damn if Wilson didn't have a lot of weapons at skill positions because he had everything else built around him to make up for it.  If you can't see how the team was built around him relates to your point and how it's nowhere near the same as Fields in any capacity whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. 

If Fields had an established coaching staff, OL, and defense then no one would give a damn about not having a lot of weapons.

Lynch was already an established back.  The OL was already established and yes they were good when Wilson started. Okung was one of the best OTs in the league before injuries starting to derail him. He was a 1st team PB in Wilsons 2nd year and had votes for AP.  Max Unger was 1st team AP in Wilson's 2nd year.  The defense was one of the best in history. The ST was great. Fields doesn't have any of that.  It's funny how you conveniently didn't mention all of that though.

Take the goggles off. Comparing Fields situation to Wilson is so damn laughable that only you and other goggle wearing fans would even entertain the idea.

 

[JAF-N72EX]

Even just the thought of trying to compare their situations is literally making make laugh right now. I know some of you are blatant homers but never once did I ever think anyone would have the balls to try and compare those two.  There is nothing to compare to 😂.

Edited May 24, 2022 by JAF-N72EX

[StLunatic88]

14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

fine, I guess I have to spell it out for you since you don't seem to understand football very well. 

Uh oh, I hope everyone runs to my defense the same way as they all did before…

Dont worry, lashing out makes you seem like you have a cogent points to make  

14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

I don't give a damn if Wilson didn't have a lot of weapons at skill positions because he had everything else built around him to make up for it.  If you can't see how the team was built around him relates to your point and how it's nowhere near the same as Fields in any capacity whatsoever then I don't know what to tell you. 

Again, good for you, this is not what I’m talking about. This is again your strawman. I didn’t make an excuse for Fields, I didn’t say he was Russell Wilson, I didn’t say these other things don’t matter. I pointed out that his Weapons situation isn’t that bad, and is very similar to other QBs that have proven to be Franchise QBs. Therefore, that isn’t going to be something that “holds him back” if he truly is a Franchise QB. 

14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Lynch was already an established back

I guess David Montgomery is a bum then? Would be the only reason to even bring this up in your line of criticism between the two situations, since you won’t address the actual point I made about the other weapons?

14 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

The OL was already established and yes they were good when Wilson started. Okung was one of the best OTs in the league before injuries starting to derail him. He was a 1st team PB in Wilsons 2nd year and had votes for AP.  Max Unger was 1st team AP in Wilson's 2nd year. 

It’s still very amusing that you are going to try to paint this picture like his OL was anything more than average, and in reality, on the field way worse than that. Yes Okung and Unger were good. But the rest of the line was bad. Very bad. And that’s before you get into the actual season we are talking about where Okung missed half the year, and the awful play he was covering up for was even more obvious. 

16 minutes ago, JAF-N72EX said:

Take the goggles off. Comparing Fields situation to Wilson is so damn laughable that only you and other goggle wearing fans would even entertain the idea.

You are literally making up things in your own mind to argue with. This was never said, you are the strawman now and it’s really embarrassing to watch you think you’re winning something that’s not even happening. 

Let us know when you decide to re-enter reality with the rest of us, and join in the conversation actually taking place. 

[JAF-N72EX]

24 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Uh oh, I hope everyone runs to my defense the same way as they all did before…

 Calling someone ignorant is calling them a name. Telling someone they don't know something isn't. See the difference?

24 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

Again, good for you, this is not what I’m talking about. This is again your strawman. I didn’t make an excuse for Fields, I didn’t say he was Russell Wilson, I didn’t say these other things don’t matter. I pointed out that his Weapons situation isn’t that bad, and is very similar to other QBs that have proven to be Franchise QBs. Therefore, that isn’t going to be something that “holds him back” if he truly is a Franchise QB. 

I don't think you know what strawman means.  What are you talking about? I never you said that you were making excuses for Fields or saying that you were calling him Wilson.

The bolded is what I'm pointing out. You can say Wilson didn't have a lot of weapons but you can't say he didn't have the same coach, same staff, good run game, good OL, and a great defense and special teams. You can't say any of these things about Fields--save for run game. Which makes it dumb comparison.

Again, if we had everything that Wilson had but no weapons then you wouldn't hear about any one complaining. All of those things can make up for it like it did with Wilson.

Only you and other certain fans don't think the weapon situation is bad. But the rest of the world sees reality. Look around the league and compare our WR/TE situation to them. I would say look at the depth too but I wouldn't wish that one anyone.

24 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

I guess David Montgomery is a bum then? Would be the only reason to even bring this up in your line of criticism between the two situations, since you won’t address the actual point I made about the other weapons?

Are you really going to compare Lynch to Montgomery now? Cmon dude. Lynch may have only been a one trick pony but he was one of the best at it. Monty isn't the best at anything. Good player but not great.

24 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

It’s still very amusing that you are going to try to paint this picture like his OL was anything more than average, and in reality, on the field way worse than that. Yes Okung and Unger were good. But the rest of the line was bad. Very bad. And that’s before you get into the actual season we are talking about where Okung missed half the year, and the awful play he was covering up for was even more obvious. 

The OL wasn't bad in Wilson first few years. They didn't start getting bad until later on in Wilson's career and Seattle lost their touch in the draft. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

Edited May 24, 2022 by JAF-N72EX