What do you do if you're the Chicago Bears?

[CP3MVP]

I still can’t believe darnold was traded for a 2 and he sucked 

[squire12]

2 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

I still can’t believe darnold was traded for a 2 and he sucked 

That could give teams pause, carolina traded a 2 for Darnold and he still sucked

[sparky151]

2 hours ago, Soko said:

Which games do you see particularly volatile? He had, what, 2-3 really strong passing games this year? A bunch of average, and a bunch of bad. Same story as last year. I don’t really see his QBing production as all that volatile. It’s pretty consistently underwhelming. 

All the “he’s a leader, he’s a hard worker, he’s incredibly smart” talk is all well and good, but if you generally suck on the field, then who really cares? Plenty of backup QBs were labeled as those things, at some point. I don’t doubt that another team will think they can turn one man’s trash into their own treasure, and I’m not putting a fork in Fields’ entire career. Just don’t really see what it seems lots of other people are seeing, I guess. Kid’s walking into his contract year and still lives on a couple good games and a couple flash plays as proof that maybe one day he could be a top 20 QB.

He may already be a top 20 NFL starting QB. PFF rated him as their 21st best QB of last year but 1 of the players rated above him was Jake Browning. If you judge him strictly as a passer, his NFL rating was in the vicinity of guys like Lawrence and Hurts, a few points below them but not dramatically different. 

As I've pointed out before, if the Bears didn't have the top pick already, they wouldn't be looking to trade up to get it. Instead they'd be looking to give Fields a better supporting cast, starting with an average center instead of one of the worst, and an upgrade at WR2 and 3. We should expect some improvement from Fields simply due to another year of experience and maybe Waldron is a better playcaller and schemer than Getsy. None of those seem  especially hard to achieve. And if so, then Fields would go from an 86.3 passer rating to the low 90s, maybe better than Mahomes, Allen, and Burrow were last season (92.6, 92.2, and 91.0 respectively). 

It's why there will be a market for Fields. 

[squire12]

7 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

He may already be a top 20 NFL starting QB. PFF rated him as their 21st best QB of last year but 1 of the players rated above him was Jake Browning. If you judge him strictly as a passer, his NFL rating was in the vicinity of guys like Lawrence and Hurts, a few points below them but not dramatically different. 

As I've pointed out before, if the Bears didn't have the top pick already, they wouldn't be looking to trade up to get it. Instead they'd be looking to give Fields a better supporting cast, starting with an average center instead of one of the worst, and an upgrade at WR2 and 3. We should expect some improvement from Fields simply due to another year of experience and maybe Waldron is a better playcaller and schemer than Getsy. None of those seem  especially hard to achieve. And if so, then Fields would go from an 86.3 passer rating to the low 90s, maybe better than Mahomes, Allen, and Burrow were last season (92.6, 92.2, and 91.0 respectively). 

It's why there will be a market for Fields. 

I think there will be a market for Fields.  Its more about the compensation teams will be willing to give for 1 year of rookie contract salary and a decision on the 5th year option/ contract extension.  

[Soko]

10 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

He may already be a top 20 NFL starting QB. PFF rated him as their 21st best QB of last year but 1 of the players rated above him was Jake Browning. If you judge him strictly as a passer, his NFL rating was in the vicinity of guys like Lawrence and Hurts, a few points below them but not dramatically different. 

As I've pointed out before, if the Bears didn't have the top pick already, they wouldn't be looking to trade up to get it. Instead they'd be looking to give Fields a better supporting cast, starting with an average center instead of one of the worst, and an upgrade at WR2 and 3. We should expect some improvement from Fields simply due to another year of experience and maybe Waldron is a better playcaller and schemer than Getsy. None of those seem  especially hard to achieve. And if so, then Fields would go from an 86.3 passer rating to the low 90s, maybe better than Mahomes, Allen, and Burrow were last season (92.6, 92.2, and 91.0 respectively). 

It's why there will be a market for Fields. 

So which games do you feel Fields has been volatile in? I’m genuinely curious. He’s had an obvious 2-3 games over these last two seasons where we can say he impressed as a passer. The rest were average at best, and most were worse. I really wanna see what I’m missing in that front, because I don’t see it.

To respond to your comment: you’re missing a lot, here. Sure, let’s use passer rating and QBR as end-all’s, let’s ignore other passing metrics. Yeah, Fields was close to Hurts and Lawrence in down years. Both those guys regressed from their previous seasons, Lawrence particularly because Hurts, one could say, was likely to fall back down to earth after a near MVP season. But why use those two as focal points? Because they were significantly better last year? Like, we’re not comparing Fields’ 23 to Lawrence and Hurts’ 22. Who else was ahead? Baker Mayfield. Kyler Murray. Jordan Love. Joe Flacco. Derek Carr. Jake Browning. Who was barely behind? Kenny Pickett. Desmond Ridder. Will Levis. Gardner Minshew. Aidan O’Connell. The difference between Fields and Russell Wilson (who the Broncos don’t want and will likely be available) is greater than the difference between Fields and Mac Jones. And this was in a down year for QBs. Burrow went down. Herbert went down. Rodgers went down. Watson, who also sucks, went down. Cousins went down. Richardson went down. Even the top guys like Mahomes had a down year, by their own standards. Tons of QB injuries, and even then a bunch of those backups came in and had similar passing efficiency to what Fields was doing. Fields is right in the thick of first year starters, good backups, and QBs having down years. Maybe I’m missing the hype somewhere, but for a QB entering the contact year of his rookie deal, that’s incredibly underwhelming.

If the Bears didn’t have the top pick they’d have to give up a king’s ransom to get to #1. That’s why they’d be reluctant to do it, not because they’re happy with Fields. The Steelers aren’t looking to trade up to #1 either - are we supposed to assume then that Pickett has all this potential, and Pittsburgh is happy with him? If the Bears were so happy with Fields, then they wouldn’t be moving him. But they are. A new OC and another year under the belt is absolutely not real evidence as to why Fields will get better. How many other QBs get another year of experience and a new coach, but still suck? Mac Jones did. Daniel Jones had another year in the same system, he still regressed. If Fields gets better, we might look back and say that Waldron played a big part in that, sure, so you might say that thats a “reason to believe” he’ll improve. But what’s still more likely? A guy who has barely progressed getting especially better in the last year of his contract, or the same guy just showing you that the flaws he has are just simply the flaws in his game? 

So yeah, I’m not seeing anything special with Fields. Doesn’t mean he can’t succeed, doesn’t mean teams won’t be fooling themselves into trading a SRP or something, for him. Really do wanna hear about all these games where he’s impressed, though. Besides against two bad defenses, Washington and Denver, where obviously Fields was hitting on all cylinders.

[Soggust]

30 minutes ago, Soko said:

To respond to your comment: you’re missing a lot, here. Sure, let’s use passer rating and QBR as end-all’s, let’s ignore other passing metrics. Yeah, Fields was close to Hurts and Lawrence in down years. Both those guys regressed from their previous seasons, Lawrence particularly because Hurts, one could say, was likely to fall back down to earth after a near MVP season.

Ugh the pain is so real for me right now.

I think one thing you didn't even mention (although I like your take even without it) but is a common response might be "he may not be as good throwing but QB rushing has value", which I think is generally true.

What I don't know for certain, is how much value that Fields rushing has, given how often he turns the ball over fumbling. For everything I trash Trevor on, Fields is even worse (not lost, but overall). And at 2, 8 and 4 rushing TDs respectively over his career, it's not like he's Hurts or Allen where he's producing enough TDs to warrant the turnovers imo.

His combined rushing + passing yards is also not nearly as impressive as Trevor, for example, who (despite my criticisms) is actually good at moving the ball down the field imo.

I don't know why a team would offer a second, to your original point, but I think they would because everyone loves potential and Fields has improved every year, been in gross situations, and has a unique skillset that might entice coaches to think they can get something out of him that prior coaches couldn't. Or perhaps that he just matures into a serviceable thrower.

[Soko]

24 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Ugh the pain is so real for me right now.

I think one thing you didn't even mention (although I like your take even without it) but is a common response might be "he may not be as good throwing but QB rushing has value", which I think is generally true.

What I don't know for certain, is how much value that Fields rushing has, given how often he turns the ball over fumbling. For everything I trash Trevor on, Fields is even worse (not lost, but overall). And at 2, 8 and 4 rushing TDs respectively over his career, it's not like he's Hurts or Allen where he's producing enough TDs to warrant the turnovers imo.

His combined rushing + passing yards is also not nearly as impressive as Trevor, for example, who (despite my criticisms) is actually good at moving the ball down the field imo.

I don't know why a team would offer a second, to your original point, but I think they would because everyone loves potential and Fields has improved every year, been in gross situations, and has a unique skillset that might entice coaches to think they can get something out of him that prior coaches couldn't. Or perhaps that he just matures into a serviceable thrower.

Rushing does have value, for sure. I think it becomes subjective to what extent. My preference is to settle on the player’s rushing ability (Lamar, Allen, Fields, obviously all really excelling there) and then debate them as passers. Fields obviously presents value as a rusher over most of the league. My reasoning is that both logically and historically (recent and traditional), it makes sense to value passing over rushing at the QB position. I think it was you and I who had the conversation in a Lamar thread, about preferring an elite passer/elite escapist/meh runner compared to a good passer/elite escapist/elite runner? I still believe that. You can present me someone with Barry Sanders level rushing as a quarterback, but unless they can pass the ball at an elite/near elite level, I’m not putting them over Mahomes. 

I don’t really even care much for Fields vs Lawrence in particular, it’s just what the guy brought up. Likely because it’s not as sexy as saying he was also behind Russell Wilson and Joe Flacco. NFL QB? Sure. Fringe starter, sure. But I’m waving the white flag as far as developing Fields into a really good QB. As we said, I’m sure many teams won’t be. The QB market is, as usual, pretty bare. So teams looking for fresh faces are going to be forced to consider Fields as their starting QB in 2024.

[Soggust]

2 minutes ago, Soko said:

Rushing does have value, for sure. I think it becomes subjective to what extent. My preference is to settle on the player’s rushing ability (Lamar, Allen, Fields, obviously all really excelling there) and then debate them as passers. Fields obviously presents value as a rusher over most of the league. My reasoning is that both logically and historically (recent and traditional), it makes sense to value passing over rushing at the QB position. I think it was you and I who had the conversation in a Lamar thread, about preferring an elite passer/elite escapist/meh runner compared to a good passer/elite escapist/elite runner? I still believe that. You can present me someone with Barry Sanders level rushing as a quarterback, but unless they can pass the ball at an elite/near elite level, I’m not putting them over Mahomes. 

I don’t really even care much for Fields vs Lawrence in particular, it’s just what the guy brought up. Likely because it’s not as sexy as saying he was also behind Russell Wilson and Joe Flacco. NFL QB? Sure. Fringe starter, sure. But I’m waving the white flag as far as developing Fields into a really good QB. As we said, I’m sure many teams won’t be. The QB market is, as usual, pretty bare. So teams looking for fresh faces are going to be forced to consider Fields as their starting QB in 2024.

Sorry, I guess a shorter version of what I'm saying is that even though we agree QB rushing has value in general (and on Fields being a poor passer), I'm thinking about going even further and suggesting that I'm not sure I am ready to believe the generally accepted position that Fields is "obviously excelling there" as a runner because of his propensity to potentially turn the ball over (38 fumbles in 40 games) combined with comparatively low rushing TD totals (14 in 40 games) for what most people think he is.

Now, he's only lost 11 fumbles, so I can't fully commit to this take yet, but I'm just saying - I think I might be sus of Fields, even as a runner.

[nagahide13]

Fields is a single read QB that cannot go through progressions. He has bad anticipation and does not deliver the ball accurately or on time... and He's only got 1 read. He's incredibly athletic and DJ Moore is good enough that he can beat bad defenses but Fields just doesn't have the makeup to be a good NFL QB.

I cannot stress enough that he's a 1 read QB. I don't think any 1 read QB can be very successful in the NFL even with elite wheels.

TL is fixable. Too many turnovers and needs to work on small fundamental things. The only reason I don't think he belongs in this conversation is availability. He is 100% a Jag (😎) next season. While his stats seem comparable, all that really matters is that he's getting another year and will be judged on what he does then more than what he's done so far. Fields is done in Chicago so all conversation is geared towards his next team and what compensation the Bears will get in return. TL will be back in Jacksonville so speculating on his next team or what compensation they'll get moot. He's playing out his contract.

[Soko]

33 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Sorry, I guess a shorter version of what I'm saying is that even though we agree QB rushing has value in general (and on Fields being a poor passer), I'm thinking about going even further and suggesting that I'm not sure I am ready to believe the generally accepted position that Fields is "obviously excelling there" as a runner because of his propensity to potentially turn the ball over (38 fumbles in 40 games) combined with comparatively low rushing TD totals (14 in 40 games) for what most people think he is.

Now, he's only lost 11 fumbles, so I can't fully commit to this take yet, but I'm just saying - I think I might be sus of Fields, even as a runner.

Fumbles > fumbles lost, IMO. I’m not going to fault a guy for putting the ball on the ground less just because his OL happened to recover it. Recoveries are situational, but putting the ball on the ground that much is a problem regardless. 

I think using TDs as the barometer is a little misplaced, just because TDs are generally an opportunity driven thing. Would your view of Fields as a rusher change if he was given like, 5 goal line TDs? 2022 was obviously more impressive than 2023 from a rushing standpoint, but I think based on what we’ve seen, Fields is a very good rusher. Maybe he picks and chooses more than he could/should, but I think it’s generally accepted that rushing ability is pretty consistent (ability, not production). Like, he’s not going to lose his rushing skill set, barring age/injury. From a game to game standpoint, showing inconsistent passing is much more prevalent and problematic than inconsistent rushing ability.

[nagahide13]

1 minute ago, Soko said:

I think using TDs as the barometer is a little misplaced, just because TDs are generally an opportunity driven thing. Would your view of Fields as a rusher change if he was given like, 5 goal line TDs? 2022 was obviously more impressive than 2023 from a rushing standpoint, but I think based on what we’ve seen, Fields is a very good rusher. Maybe he picks and chooses more than he could/should, but I think it’s generally accepted that rushing ability is pretty consistent (ability, not production). Like, he’s not going to lose his rushing skill set, barring age/injury. From a game to game standpoint, showing inconsistent passing is much more prevalent and problematic than inconsistent rushing ability.

People thought Jamaal Williams was elite because of his 2022 production. Look what happened the instant he wasn't being fed goal line opportunities behind Detroit's line.

[Soggust]

11 minutes ago, Soko said:

Fumbles > fumbles lost, IMO. I’m not going to fault a guy for putting the ball on the ground less just because his OL happened to recover it. Recoveries are situational, but putting the ball on the ground that much is a problem regardless. 

I personally like fumbles lost a little more because if a center snaps the ball low and the QB immediately picks it up, for example, I don't feel like that's a super fair representation of a QB turnover. Like, it would seem to me (source: trust me bro) that fumbles lost are more likely to be legitimate than fumbles that aren't lost.

Also, it feels to me that fumbles lost are kind of like how we still count tipped passes as INTs, even though thats not necessarily always fair. Conversely, sometimes a QB hits a defender directly in the hands and they drop it, which feels comparable to a fumble not lost to me. 

In both cases, I agree we "should" count the TWP as a fumble, but since we don't with picks, I kind of like treating fumbles the same.

But I think your perspective is fair, even if I happen to differ.

 

16 minutes ago, Soko said:

I think using TDs as the barometer is a little misplaced, just because TDs are generally an opportunity driven thing. Would your view of Fields as a rusher change if he was given like, 5 goal line TDs?

Change my view in which way?

Because 7 of his 14 career rushing TDs are within 3 yards and another 3 of them are within 11 yards. Now I obviously don't think Fields is limited to short TDs because he has 3 over 50 lol, but I do think most QBs rushing TDs are going to come from short range, so I am inclined to say "not due to distance, but 19 rush TDs is obv more impressive than 14", if that's how you meant it.

But I also happen to think if you are scoring a zillion TDs from 1 yard like Hurts (in the extreme example) that that's value added and not something to discredit, so I understand I may be in the minority on that one.

 

20 minutes ago, Soko said:

Like, he’s not going to lose his rushing skill set, barring age/injury. From a game to game standpoint, showing inconsistent passing is much more prevalent and problematic than inconsistent rushing ability.

I think age/injury has a history of being relevant, but overall I agree.

[ThatJerkDave]

Trade the first overall pick to the Panthers for their entire 2025 through 2027 draft classes.  They would probably go for it.  Idiots. 

[Soko]

17 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I personally like fumbles lost a little more because if a center snaps the ball low and the QB immediately picks it up, for example, I don't feel like that's a super fair representation of a QB turnover. Like, it would seem to me (source: trust me bro) that fumbles lost are more likely to be legitimate than fumbles that aren't lost.

Also, it feels to me that fumbles lost are kind of like how we still count tipped passes as INTs, even though thats not necessarily always fair. Conversely, sometimes a QB hits a defender directly in the hands and they drop it, which feels comparable to a fumble not lost to me. 

In both cases, I agree we "should" count the TWP as a fumble, but since we don't with picks, I kind of like treating fumbles the same.

But I think your perspective is fair, even if I happen to differ.

I do wish there was a way we could count TWPs less subjectively, but that is the way. A dropped INT could be a corner dropping an easy, nothing but green grass pick-six, but it could also be a CB not being able to corral in a Michigan Charles Woodson-esque INT, right? Could also be because the receiver ran the wrong route. Not all created equally. Ditto with fumbles. A bad exchange isn’t the same as running with it like Vick/Shady. 

Still, generally, INTs are a pretty standard way of judging whether a QB is careless with the ball, in the air. I’m fine if someone came to the table and said “Stroud had 30 dropped INTs by the defense”, and that’d change my view with his level of carelessness with the ball. But until then, I’ll assume he didn’t (all QBs will have some, tbf). Same with Fields’ fumbles, if someone told me he had 20 that were because of the center screwing up, then I’ll remove that label from Fields too (or Lawrence, I know you want me to bring up Lawrence so badly). Like anything, none of the stats will be perfect, I just find it less unfair to judge QBs for putting the ball on the ground (factoring in bad snaps) than it is unfair to give QBs a pass for putting it on the ground, only to have their own team mate fall onto it.

17 minutes ago, Soggust said:

Change my view in which way?

Because 7 of his 14 career rushing TDs are within 3 yards and another 3 of them are within 11 yards. Now I obviously don't think Fields is limited to short TDs because he has 3 over 50 lol, but I do think most QBs rushing TDs are going to come from short range, so I am inclined to say "not due to distance, but 19 rush TDs is obv more impressive than 14", if that's how you meant it.

But I also happen to think if you are scoring a zillion TDs from 1 yard like Hurts (in the extreme example) that that's value added and not something to discredit, so I understand I may be in the minority on that one.

I mean if you have questions about Fields as a runner, would 5-10-15 QB sneaks (Brady esque) change your view of that? For me, I’m going off the fact that I’ve seen Fields run. And yeah yeah yeah, “eye test”, but you can tell he’s got good rushing ability. He just does. He’s big, strong, fast, has good agility, and has good vision with it. He’s not prime Lamar or prime Vick as a runner, but he’s up there with Allen IMO. Better than Lawrence or Herbert or Mahomes. His low TD count overall isn’t really much a detractor with me, in that sense. Hurts has a bit of a gimmick, but since the Eagles have shown they perform that better than anyone else, you do have to credit him for that. But I mean, Brady was awfully tough to stop with QB sneaks too - that doesn’t make him a better rusher than Fields.

The Bears are/were a pretty bad offense, so to me, a low rushing TD output is logical and expected. 

17 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I think age/injury has a history of being relevant, but overall I agree.

Certainly does, I just figured we were talking about Fields thus far (his ability as a rusher). 

Long term, I wouldn’t expect the rushing to be there. And then what? You have a QB that can’t read defenses.

[Tugboat]

13 hours ago, raidersedge said:

I keep hearing to Fields to the Raiders is still very much in play. Getsy talked him up big time at his presser. But who knows. I honestly rather just draft a rookie QB. Not trying to make Getsy sounds like the victim but after watching a lot of Fields, he looks pretty average at best as a passer. Definitely a frustrating player.

 

I still really don't know how to break this one down.  It genuinely feels like it could just be goofy smoke trying to get someone else to pull the trigger on Fields and let a QB in the draft slip to the Raiders.  But it's also entirely conceivable that Getsy truly thought he was "fixing" Fields and was going somewhere with that, and just truly does want the chance to finish his "project".  Fields ran all over the place that year and i don't think it's inconceivable that Getsy still thinks the guy is a weapon in that respect, that could become "something" if you can continue to use that to simplify his reads in the passing game.  And Vegas are absolutely one of those teams in a very awkward range of the draft where they may not have that sort of option.

 

7 hours ago, Soggust said:

Just out of curiosity - If we agree that Fields will be dealt somewhere for a 2nd round pick ish under the assumption that he will be a starter:

Why is he unkeepable for the Bears if they get a King's Ransom for 1.1?

Like, why is he startable for another team, but not for CHI, if that makes sense? (again, assuming they get like 4 FRPs or something stupid for 1.1)

Or maybe phrased differently - do you think there is a price for 1.1 that would make keeping Fields and trading the pick a viable option?

 

It's desperation.  Plain and simple.  Teams make desperate Hail Mary attempts on even very short-term stopgap QB solutions all the time.  Usually it's teams who just do no have the pick or cap resources to pursue a much better, more "ideal" solution.

As far as why the Bears can't just "keep him", i think i already elaborated on that.  But you cannot afford to have that distraction around.  Equally important, you cannot afford to try to "hedge your bets" on a starting QB at the expense of what is likely a Day2 Pick, which can go a very long ways in supporting the QB you're actually committing to.

 

When it comes to deciding whether it's "The Guy" or not...it's a lot more Pass/Fail than i think you're viewing it.  If you have any serious doubts about a guy heading into the end of their rookie deal...they are "Not The Guy".  It's harsh, but true.  It's the idea based on that adage maybe borrowed and adapted from the hockey world about goaltenders, "if you have two #1 Goaltenders, you don't have any #1 goaltenders".  "If you have 2 QBs, you don't have a QB".  ie.  If there's even a question about who is "The Guy"...then nobody is "The Guy".  Bears i think have confidently hit the point where they can say...Fields isn't gonna get it done for them.  So you move on.  Use that pick to support the new guy, and hope this roll of the dice turns out better.

 

If the Bears didn't have that #1 Pick fall into their lap?  Well...they might find themselves in the desperation camp that just hangs onto Fields because it's the "least worst option".  But even then, with another Top-10 pick, i think they'd still be looking at options any trying to reset there anyway.  Pick 1.1 just makes it extra pronounced.  And that's where the difference is with Lawrence, where he's in a completely different category in terms of upside and trajectory that i firmly believe they would not even flinch at keeping him over Williams/Maye/Daniels shots in the dark.  That's all i've really been trying to express to you in this derailment.  😆

 

7 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Not sure about that. Fields had a better NFL passer rating and better ESPN QBR score than O'Connell for last season. For that matter, Fields passer rating was a whopping 2 points lower than the sainted Trevor Lawrence last year and 3 points lower for his career. Fields also had a better QBR in 2022 while Lawrence was supposedly at his peak.

 

The thing with Fields is his career or season averages contain a lot of volatility, a wider spread of good and bad than most QBs.  The knocks on Fields are that he turns it over too much and doesn't keep the chains moving. If a coach thinks he can cut down on the bad plays, you'll have a very good QB. Coaches famously overrate their ability to bring the best out of players. Fields doesn't have questions about his intelligence or work ethic so it's not hard to imagine a team wanting to give him a shot. I could see a McVay wanting to tutor Fields or Atlanta wanting him. 

The contract issue is pretty resolvable if Fields likes his destination. He's eligible for a new contract now so a team doesn't have to simply exercise his 5th year option. They can just work out a new deal with incentives that serve both player and team. 

 

 

See...this is where i think you're missing the actual biggest knock on Fields.  The probably insurmountable one.  And it's something that has been consistent through his entire NFL tenure and you can see tendrils of it right back through his College years.  He is very slow and indecisive as a processor.  He just doesn't seem like he's improved whatsoever in making multiple reads quickly and decisively.  He hangs onto the football and creates problems and throws things late because he just does not seem capable of playing with anticipation within a system.  He's a "see it, throw it" QB.  And that just does not fly at the NFL level.  To many throws just need to be gone off the QBs hand before it even really looks "open".  Fields hasn't shown any real aptitude for that at all.

There are NFL systems under certain coaches/coordinators which can simplify things when the QB has the sort of running ability of Fields.  To make it work, for a little while.  Simplify to a game where containing the run threat becomes the primary focus and that opens up easy "1 read" throws.  But we've seen time and again that this is not sustainable.  If they don't grow out of that like Lamar Jackson did...they wash out.

 

 

7 hours ago, sparky151 said:

I don't know if you've read the whole thread but Lawrence is held up as an unquestionably secure franchise QB by the Jags fans here. He and Fields are the 2 first round QB picks from 2021 who aren't clearly busts, unlike Zach Wilson, Trey Lance, and Mac Jones. 

 

Regarding O'Connell, he was up and down as most rookies are. The discussion was whether the new Raiders OC who is the former Bears OC would prefer Fields to AOC. That's not clear. 

 

Again, i absolutely implore you to consider why this is the case.  It's not just some random Jags fan kink where we like having no good QBs ever and want to sustain that by keeping Lawrence.  It's because we genuinely see a guy who if they ever support him properly, could take the Jaguars to the the promised land.  He's very good.  Inconsistent and not without flaws.  But has elevated an absolutely garbage team and the team falls apart without him.  A guy who is capable of moving the ball at a truly championship level.  Not flawless.  A lot more of a gunslinger than expected.  But the single most talented QB the Jaguars have ever had and it really isn't even close.  It's not just because Lawrence is a top pick, we've had tons of those *******s bust completely.  Jaguars have overdrafted more QBs since they came into the league than most teams other than maybe the Browns.

 

Fields...i really just don't think you can even say the majority of Bears fans would want him as a QB next year.  That says everything.