The Killing (Justin) Fields

[Louis Friend]

27 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

I'm a Colts fan.

I’m discussing Bears fans. 

[Nabbs4u]

40 minutes ago, sammymvpknight said:

Fields looks much better when the Bears are down by 21 in the first half. That’s not his game. I still think he’d be really good in a place like Tennessee or Atlanta. He needs a competent running game and defense to keep things close. 

Most QB do!

Most QB if one dimensional because the defense is pinning thier ears back, rushing the passer and not concerned about a team running, struggle. Let's be real.

Having to be in a shootout every week because your defense sucks is not a recipe for success. Especially if you aren't equipped personnel wise to do that. Which the Bears clearly aren't. 

 

[RaidersAreOne]

Pass on Williams. Fields is elite.

[ET80]

9 hours ago, notthatbluestuff said:

9 hours ago, fortdetroit said:

But if Fields continues to play well, they won’t take a QB with the Panthers pick. 

If Fields continues to play well, the Bears get what they want, don't they? Improvement.

I would call the last two weeks "improvement" as superficial at best:

- The Broncos game was definitely a step in the right direction, but the Bronco defense is an abject failure right now and exposing that failure is to be expected. Not talked about in that game? It was a Justin Fields fumble that was returned for a tide turning TD and a Fields INT in crunch time that essentially lost the game. Looking at a box score, that one Fumble and INT don't look like much; In practical application, it was two of the biggest moments in the loss.

- Yesterday's effort showed that Fields absolutely has a supporting cast capable of winning games. When you have a WR that can get over 80% of your yards and 75% of your TDs in a single W, that's not a QB winning a game, that's a WR carrying a QB to victory (and an example of how *wins aren't a QB stat*). 

If all you do is look at the counting stats (yards, TDs) and assume the last two outings are an improvement, you're missing context from the actual games played. 

[D82]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I would call the last two weeks "improvement" as superficial at best:

- The Broncos game was definitely a step in the right direction, but the Bronco defense is an abject failure right now and exposing that failure is to be expected. Not talked about in that game? It was a Justin Fields fumble that was returned for a tide turning TD and a Fields INT in crunch time that essentially lost the game. Looking at a box score, that one Fumble and INT don't look like much; In practical application, it was two of the biggest moments in the loss.

- Yesterday's effort showed that Fields absolutely has a supporting cast capable of winning games. When you have a WR that can get over 80% of your yards and 75% of your TDs in a single W, that's not a QB winning a game, that's a WR carrying a QB to victory (and an example of how *wins aren't a QB stat*). 

If all you do is look at the counting stats (yards, TDs) and assume the last two outings are an improvement, you're missing context from the actual games played. 

If the Bears end up with the #1 overall pick, and pass on Caleb Williams, it would be a blunder of epic proportions and set the franchise back even further. 

[notthatbluestuff]

10 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I would call the last two weeks "improvement" as superficial at best:

- The Broncos game was definitely a step in the right direction, but the Bronco defense is an abject failure right now and exposing that failure is to be expected. Not talked about in that game? It was a Justin Fields fumble that was returned for a tide turning TD and a Fields INT in crunch time that essentially lost the game. Looking at a box score, that one Fumble and INT don't look like much; In practical application, it was two of the biggest moments in the loss.

- Yesterday's effort showed that Fields absolutely has a supporting cast capable of winning games. When you have a WR that can get over 80% of your yards and 75% of your TDs in a single W, that's not a QB winning a game, that's a WR carrying a QB to victory (and an example of how *wins aren't a QB stat*). 

If all you do is look at the counting stats (yards, TDs) and assume the last two outings are an improvement, you're missing context from the actual games played. 

All due respect, it is observable improvement in that Fields couldn't even do the bare minimum in previous weeks. And who said anything about wins being a QB stat?

Plus, the comment you're replying to is based on the given premise "if he continues to play well." If he plays well over an extended period, that's not an improvement?

Edited October 6, 2023 by notthatbluestuff

[ET80]

17 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

All due respect, it is observable improvement in that Fields couldn't even do the bare minimum in previous weeks.

I acknowledge there is observable improvement, but I'm noticing there is zero acknowledgment that his mistakes (because let's not sugar coat it - those were HIS mistakes, no coaching at this level should have to remind him to cover up the ball). 

It's three steps forward, sure. Can I get an acknowledgment that there was a 1.5 step BACK in this performance?

20 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

And who said anything about wins being a QB stat?

This is simply a cross I'm going to die on, irrespective of current debate.

21 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

Plus, the comment you're replying to is based on the given premise "if he continues to play well." If he plays well over an extended period, that's not an improvement?

We are in Y3 of his career, at this point - he's making improvements we should have seen midway through Y1. He's already behind schedule at this point, and these incremental improvements (AND setbacks - don't think I'm forgetting that) aren't accelerating in a way where you can comfortably say he's the viable long term solution.

There is a return on investment and opportunity cost to factor into this - time is afforded to nobody, and unless Fields improves *to where he should be by Y3* then the incremental improvements he's making are simply not enough.

[SaveOurSonics]

Justin Fields (the guy who can't throw) has thrown for 617 passing yards & 8 TDs over his last 2 games. 

 

Lamar has thrown for that many yards in back to back games ONCE in his career (he did not do so his MVP season). Since 2019, Lamar Jackson has thrown 4 TDs in TWO games total. 

 

But ya, the guy who just put up historic QB rushing numbers & some glimpses of legitimate passing life as an NFL starter is only worth a 4th round pick.....

 

......this ain't gonna age well for y'all. 

[SaveOurSonics]

39 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I would call the last two weeks "improvement" as superficial at best:

- The Broncos game was definitely a step in the right direction, but the Bronco defense is an abject failure right now and exposing that failure is to be expected. Not talked about in that game? It was a Justin Fields fumble that was returned for a tide turning TD and a Fields INT in crunch time that essentially lost the game. Looking at a box score, that one Fumble and INT don't look like much; In practical application, it was two of the biggest moments in the loss.

- Yesterday's effort showed that Fields absolutely has a supporting cast capable of winning games. When you have a WR that can get over 80% of your yards and 75% of your TDs in a single W, that's not a QB winning a game, that's a WR carrying a QB to victory (and an example of how *wins aren't a QB stat*). 

If all you do is look at the counting stats (yards, TDs) and assume the last two outings are an improvement, you're missing context from the actual games played. 

Hi, I'm here to pick apart your argument. 

The Broncos D is bad. The run D is particularly bad. Fields (the guy who can't throw) threw for the most yards on that defense all season. 

Not talked about in your post? It was the terrible play call by the Bears staff that left Fields in a vulnerable position to fumble. You're in clock-killing territory & you call a slow moving play action with zero blindside blocking implemented to protect Fields on the roll-out? These are things bad teams do. These are things bias fans blame on the QB. 

If all you do is look through bias lens, you can create any narrative you want to hate on a player. People have been doing it to Lamar Jackson since he entered the league. People will relentlessly do it to Brock Purdy until he shows he's not going anywhere. 

 

[notthatbluestuff]

2 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I acknowledge there is observable improvement, but I'm noticing there is zero acknowledgment that his mistakes (because let's not sugar coat it - those were HIS mistakes, no coaching at this level should have to remind him to cover up the ball). 

It's three steps forward, sure. Can I get an acknowledgment that there was a 1.5 step BACK in this performance?

Which performance? Last night? Or the Broncos game? If the latter, I acknowledged it:

Quote

There is a return on investment and opportunity cost to factor into this - time is afforded to nobody, and unless Fields improves *to where he should be by Y3* then the incremental improvements he's making are simply not enough.

Granted, the Bears would have no obligation to keep him if a more pro-ready product with more upside were to become available. I do believe that young QBs are on different timelines and that they can't all be measured by the same bars of progress. If Fields continues to "play well" (per the original premise) then... well, not every game is going to be against the Commanders, right? If he "plays well" over the rest of the year, regardless of Chicago's perceived expectation of where he should be versus where he is, then he'll at least prove that he belongs in the league - would that be fair to say?

[ET80]

4 minutes ago, SaveOurSonics said:

Not talked about in your post? It was the terrible play call by the Bears staff that left Fields in a vulnerable position to fumble. You're in clock-killing territory & you call a slow moving play action with zero blindside blocking implemented to protect Fields on the roll-out?

Yet, not every QB fumbles on this play. Fields did.

He knew the play call, he saw the front - did he make any changes? Did he shift protection, audible to a safer play, take a sack and cover the ball up? 

Nope. None of that happened. Why?

[SaveOurSonics]

Just now, ET80 said:

Yet, not every QB fumbles on this play. Fields did.

He knew the play call, he saw the front - did he make any changes? Did he shift protection, audible to a safer play, take a sack and cover the ball up? 

Nope. None of that happened. Why?

I mean...take a second to think about it and it's not hard lol. 

I don't watch every Bears game, but I don't recall Fields making too many line calls / adjustments. That responsibility may be on a veteran along the OL (this is not atypical for young QBs). Did he cover the ball? Again, could've very well been a blown assignment on the blindside protection (I'd have to rewatch the play). If you're Fields, and your staff calls that play, and your OL doesn't adjust (assuming that part is accurate), then why would you think to cover the ball any more than you otherwise ever would on a play action roll-out? He was hit quite literally as he turned around.

Not every QB fumbles that ball. I'd argue most do.  

 

The fact you're so quick to assign blame to Fields on that play tells me everything I need to know. You're watching the Bears with some authentic Oakley confirmation bias lenses. 

[ET80]

1 minute ago, SaveOurSonics said:

I don't watch every Bears game, but I don't recall Fields making too many line calls / adjustments.

This in itself is a MASSIVE red flag. Y3, he should be able to ID fronts and make changes. 

2 minutes ago, SaveOurSonics said:

That responsibility may be on a veteran along the OL (this is not atypical for young QBs).

It's atypical for someone going into his 3rd year as a starter - that's not a young QB by the standard of how you process information pre-snap. At minimum, he should have a run play to check into - even rookie QBs get that (especially on play action).

Either he did and didn't identify that checking into that run was the optimal play, or he hasn't added that to game prep. Both are an issue.

4 minutes ago, SaveOurSonics said:

Did he cover the ball? Again, could've very well been a blown assignment on the blindside protection (I'd have to rewatch the play). If you're Fields, and your staff calls that play, and your OL doesn't adjust (assuming that part is accurate), then why would you think to cover the ball any more than you otherwise ever would on a play action roll-out? He was hit quite literally as he turned around.

Because you should see the front and identify the MIKE AND uncovered spots along a shifting OL on play action. This is QB 101 at the HS level - ID the Mike, identify the hot edge, and when you feel contact incoming *COVER THE BALL UP*. 

[ET80]

10 minutes ago, SaveOurSonics said:

The fact you're so quick to assign blame to Fields on that play tells me everything I need to know. You're watching the Bears with some authentic Oakley confirmation bias lenses. 

If that makes you feel better, sure. 

[ET80]

19 minutes ago, notthatbluestuff said:

Granted, the Bears would have no obligation to keep him if a more pro-ready product with more upside were to become available. I do believe that young QBs are on different timelines and that they can't all be measured by the same bars of progress. If Fields continues to "play well" (per the original premise) then... well, not every game is going to be against the Commanders, right? If he "plays well" over the rest of the year, regardless of Chicago's perceived expectation of where he should be versus where he is, then he'll at least prove that he belongs in the league - would that be fair to say?

I don't think it's NOT fair to say, and I do agree there are different maturation points for QBs - but I'm simply not seeing the maturation. The numbers look better, there IS improvement. But at this point, he's hitting benchmarks that rookies should be hitting and still making rookie mistakes in reading and adjusting the play call.

Those aren't things that can be demonstrated as corrected very quickly - or better said, I haven't seen anyone work through these issues overnight. Fields needs a hard reset, and that's not going to happen here.