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

[Tugboat]

 

6 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's a leader, he's a hard worker, he's incredibly smart" is literally Blaine Gabbert.  😆

He also was a lot more athletic and more of a running threat than given credit for.  Carved out a great backup career out of it too.  But ultimately, if the guy can't show those true "high end" flashes as a passer with any reliability...they're just not going to be the guy.  That's it.  It's a passing league.  Fields, i haven't seen anything convincing there whatsoever.  Even his "big games" were supremely unconvincing in the moment of actually watching them.  Where bad defense overwhelms the notion of "good passing".

 

4 hours 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. 

 

The thing is, you're leaning on these ambiguous metrics...which suggest that what Fields did was not that far from what the elites of the league did?  You're talking about potential swings in this metric that prospectively move a guy from one of the worst "starting" passers in the league, to potentially ahead of some of the best?  And this metric doesn't seem like it might have some flaws to it?  Because well..."Fields might just suddenly get better years after he entered the league" if you just give him more elite receivers because Moore isn't enough and Kmet obviously sucks and it's probably Getsy's fault.

 

3 hours ago, Soko said:

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.

 

Preach.  😆

 

I just really want to know where these games are that Fields looked like a sophisticated, multi-read efficient passer of the football?  Maybe they're locked away in a secret vault somewhere.  But to me...even the games that are pointed out as his best...are, not that deeply inspiring.

 

His legs are a real threat.  If you want to build a team around that concept, we've seen that it can absolutely be done.  But even then, you've gotta worry about what he'll want on his looming next contract as a QB if he does start winning mostly with his legs and supporting cast.  Generally the guys who win a lot in that sort of situation, are super cheap on rookie deals.  So the team can still afford to pay an elite OLine, receiving targets who are matchup proof, good RBs, and a monster defense.

 

2 hours 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.

 

I think this is an interesting thread to pull at.  Not that we should continue this whole Lawrence sidetrack...but it's honestly fascinating that it even came up in a thread about Fields in the first place and probably worth finishing out.  Plus, i can see where you're actually starting to think about different facets of this stuff and maybe coming closer to understanding the other perspective here.

Fields is the beneficiary of a TON of designed runs and especially redzone stuff.  Which, yes...this is a clear "plus" component of Fields ability as a QB.  He's a threat that could potentially open up a ton of other redzone and short yardage stuff in the right scenario.

But i think you're also kind of underselling Lawrence as a rusher.  He's not really seen than way, but he's actually very good at it.  The difference is, he's valued far too much as a passer to risk him rushing so much on those sort of designed runs.  He's admittedly not built like a Tank as Josh Allen is.  You don't want him running much if you can help it.  But when he does tuck it and run because there isn't anything out there, and even when it's a designed roll out run...he is actually seriously sneaky good at it.  He covers a ton of ground quickly and is far from some statue QB.  The other thing there is...his YPA is hurt a lot by the fact that he has that bizarre "sneak" procedure that he favors.  The whole weird "over the top reach" because of his height and length.  Which is actually real good...but also obviously questionable ball security.  But it's such a strange specific situational thing.  It's the sort of thing you have to understand contextually for a full picture of why Jaguars fans are still fully behind Lawrence as "The Guy".

 

While Bears fans are just ready to move on.

[Soggust]

  

56 minutes ago, Soko said:

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.

Legitimately, I think it would.

In the same way if Lamar had 5-10-15 more "tap to the jet sweep WR" TDs, I don't think there would be anyone questioning his MVP candidacy this year. In the same way that I don't see folks often break down how many of Derrick Henry's TDs were from 1-3 yards vs 10+ yards out. In the same way most people don't really consider TWP as opposed to pure INTs.

Maybe you do, but I don't think the majority does. And like them, I'm just a frustratingly simple-minded guy. Perhaps I'm a total neanderthal, but TDs are TDs to me.

But even with all that being said and even though I'm notoriously not an "eye test" guy, I still absolutely agree with you.

I concede that there is an obvious "he's good at running the ball for a QB, no matter what the stats say" going on with Fields. I certainly agree he's better running than Brady and therefore maybe I should reframe my take to (told you I wasn't ready to die on this yet):

Fields is obviously a great runner, but his rushing skillset hasn't really generated worthwhile production.

Because even at 75rypg or whatever he was in 2022, it's not enough to compensate for the 150pypg. And presumably, the better he gets at throwing, the less rypg he should have. But even if he were to get back to that (was 50rypg in 2023), he's only had 1/3 years of really good rushTD production and it's not a Hurts or Allen situation where the fumbles are worth it, imo. 

[Soggust]

47 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

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.  😆

lol in hindsight I should have prefaced that my question was not leading to the Trevor follow up you were anticipating (I see why you took it that way) and should have also clarified I generally agree with you on this one. 

Again, forget TL for a second. I'm only talking about the Bears and some other random non-Jags team. 

I'm thinking much more broadly about the opposing viewpoint asking me - "if we think he's so bad that the Bears have to move him, regardless of 1.1 compensation, why would anyone else ship a 2nd+ to take a chance on him?". 

Like, I can see why someone suggesting, "Baker went for a 5th after they got Watson and were forced to move him". Or "Matt Ryan only went for a 3rd, who was exponentially better, even if way older" 

If the answer is "pure desperation", I think that's fair. I truly wasn't asking to poke your logic (like usual), was just curious because outside of the Darnold trade (which is a good comp imo), I can't think of a ton of other great comparisons in recent history off the top of my head. I don't really love the Rosen comp, even though I guess it works in favor of overvaluing.

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

Fields is the beneficiary of a TON of designed runs and especially redzone stuff.  Which, yes...this is a clear "plus" component of Fields ability as a QB.  He's a threat that could potentially open up a ton of other redzone and short yardage stuff in the right scenario.

Yeah, I'll have to rephrase my take because attacking his ability isn't really the right position, I guess.

He has clearly identifiable talent rushing the ball, but it hasn't been productive enough to mitigate the other deficiencies, perhaps.
 

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

But i think you're also kind of underselling Lawrence as a rusher.  

Promise not going to attack TL lol, but I have to mention that I very much disagree here.

In almost any comparison of any player (maybe you'll find one where I was lazy), I usually compare totYards, totTDs and Turnovers (INT + Fumb Lost). That's my personal algorithm and it's why I'm consistent in my criticism of both Fields and TL fumbling too much.

If anything, I feel like I'm one of the few that actually considers rushing ability. And I personally weight rush yards/tds at a 1:1 ratio to passing yards/tds (there was a thread with like 3 pages about which were more valuable between passing or rushing yards and I also mentioned earlier ITT that I don't discredit Hurts' TDs).

The problem is that Jags fans want to add the yards and TDs, but completely ignore the fumbles, which I think is unfair. 

Really, I just want to criticize Fields the same way =p. Not because I don't like him or the Bears, again I have no dog in the Bears fight. It's just because, in my mind, fumbles are relevant and part of the algorithm.

[Soko]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Legitimately, I think it would.

In the same way if Lamar had 5-10-15 more "tap to the jet sweep WR" TDs, I don't think there would be anyone questioning his MVP candidacy this year. In the same way that I don't see folks often break down how many of Derrick Henry's TDs were from 1-3 yards vs 10+ yards out. In the same way most people don't really consider TWP as opposed to pure INTs.

Maybe you do, but I don't think the majority does. And like them, I'm just a frustratingly simple-minded guy. Perhaps I'm a total neanderthal, but TDs are TDs to me.

I think that’s a different discussion, though. Production vs skillet. I don’t think Lamar won MVP this year because he’s got the most skills at QB. Production would certainly amp up a case for MVP, but I don’t believe production and skill set are necessarily tied together, especially for rush TDs. They’re just so opportunity based, and when you don’t have a big guy like Allen or a muscle freak like Hurts, some teams won’t even like using you so consistently. Like, there was a year LeGarrette Blount put the rock in 18 time. A two year span where BenJarvus Green-Ellis put it in 24 times. I don’t believe that all of a sudden those guys were great at running the ball - they were just short yardage bruisers that got tons of goal line carries (I actually have an entirely different take on Blount being a bruiser, but that’s besides the point). So if you retroactively give Fields 10-15 carries from the 1, and maybe half or over half of them get in, I’m not really there to suddenly say he’s a better rushing QB than he is right now. His skills are his skills, that’s how “good” he is. The production often does reflect that, but the production is just that - a product. The best QB doesn’t always put out the best product (especially when realistically, so many other factors go into virtually every single stat).

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

But even with all that being said and even though I'm notoriously not an "eye test" guy, I still absolutely agree with you.

I concede that there is an obvious "he's good at running the ball for a QB, no matter what the stats say" going on with Fields. I certainly agree he's better running than Brady and therefore maybe I should reframe my take to (told you I wasn't ready to die on this yet):

Fields is obviously a great runner, but his rushing skillset hasn't really generated worthwhile production.

Because even at 75rypg or whatever he was in 2022, it's not enough to compensate for the 150pypg. And presumably, the better he gets at throwing, the less rypg he should have. But even if he were to get back to that (was 50rypg in 2023), he's only had 1/3 years of really good rushTD production and it's not a Hurts or Allen situation where the fumbles are worth it, imo. 

Preaching to the choir. 

Rushing from a QB is nice, but I want it to be like Mahomes or Herbert where they use it when they need to or when it’s right in their face. That’s part of the reason why I focused on Fields’ passing ability (his lack thereof), because I find that to be infinitely more important than what he brings to the table rushing. 

[Tugboat]

22 minutes ago, Soggust said:

lol in hindsight I should have prefaced that my question was not leading to the Trevor follow up you were anticipating (I see why you took it that way) and should have also clarified I generally agree with you on this one. 

Again, forget TL for a second. I'm only talking about the Bears and some other random non-Jags team. 

I'm thinking much more broadly about the opposing viewpoint asking me - "if we think he's so bad that the Bears have to move him, regardless of 1.1 compensation, why would anyone else ship a 2nd+ to take a chance on him?". 

Like, I can see why someone suggesting, "Baker went for a 5th after they got Watson and were forced to move him". Or "Matt Ryan only went for a 3rd, who was exponentially better, even if way older" 

If the answer is "pure desperation", I think that's fair. I truly wasn't asking to poke your logic (like usual), was just curious because outside of the Darnold trade (which is a good comp imo), I can't think of a ton of other great comparisons in recent history off the top of my head. I don't really love the Rosen comp, even though I guess it works in favor of overvaluing.

 

Essentially, it's down to some basic economics concepts.  I wanted a good Butter vs Margarine one, but for a bunch of nerds who deal with numbers all day, it's surprisingly hard to easily google charts representing this concept.

 

But it's the idea of elasticity of demand and specifically "cross elasticity of demand" among similar/substitute goods.

 

 

In this case...Fields is a "weak substitute" but he is still going to see a value due to scarcity of the "real deal Starbucks' that people actually want (which this doesn't really show and i wish i had more patience to google a thing to illustrate).  People still need a ******* coffee or they'll get grouchy.

 

To bring this back into NFL terms...there are lot of NFL teams that want a real "fancy *** Starbucks drank".  But they've only got $1.  So either they find a way to drum up the $2.20 or whatever the Starbucks costs, or they settle for "Just a Coffee".  Maybe they even end up paying $1.50 that they don't have to get that coffee, because the Starbucks market has driven cost up so much that they can't afford not to mortgage things to pay that price.

 

 

 

Side note, **** these stupid charts they're garbage.  The completely different scales are useless.  But hopefully it at least conveys half the point here.

[Soggust]

5 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

 

Essentially, it's down to some basic economics concepts.  I wanted a good Butter vs Margarine one, but for a bunch of nerds who deal with numbers all day, it's surprisingly hard to easily google charts representing this concept.

 

But it's the idea of elasticity of demand and specifically "cross elasticity of demand" among similar/substitute goods.

 

 

In this case...Fields is a "weak substitute" but he is still going to see a value due to scarcity of the "real deal Starbucks' that people actually want (which this doesn't really show and i wish i had more patience to google a thing to illustrate).  People still need a ******* coffee or they'll get grouchy.

 

To bring this back into NFL terms...there are lot of NFL teams that want a real "fancy *** Starbucks drank".  But they've only got $1.  So either they find a way to drum up the $2.20 or whatever the Starbucks costs, or they settle for "Just a Coffee".  Maybe they even end up paying $1.50 that they don't have to get that coffee, because the Starbucks market has driven cost up so much that they can't afford not to mortgage things to pay that price.

 

 

 

Side note, **** these stupid charts they're garbage.  The completely different scales are useless.  But hopefully it at least conveys half the point here.

Gotcha.

So broad strokes, Fields isn't good, but the free agent / draft replacement competition in 2024 is much worse than when Baker or Ryan were traded, increasing the demand of limited supply raising prices?

I don't know or care enough to look through those years or even this year to compare, but that sounds very logical to me.

[Sugashane]

26 minutes ago, Tugboat said:

 

Essentially, it's down to some basic economics concepts.  I wanted a good Butter vs Margarine one, but for a bunch of nerds who deal with numbers all day, it's surprisingly hard to easily google charts representing this concept.

 

But it's the idea of elasticity of demand and specifically "cross elasticity of demand" among similar/substitute goods.

 

 

In this case...Fields is a "weak substitute" but he is still going to see a value due to scarcity of the "real deal Starbucks' that people actually want (which this doesn't really show and i wish i had more patience to google a thing to illustrate).  People still need a ******* coffee or they'll get grouchy.

 

To bring this back into NFL terms...there are lot of NFL teams that want a real "fancy *** Starbucks drank".  But they've only got $1.  So either they find a way to drum up the $2.20 or whatever the Starbucks costs, or they settle for "Just a Coffee".  Maybe they even end up paying $1.50 that they don't have to get that coffee, because the Starbucks market has driven cost up so much that they can't afford not to mortgage things to pay that price.

 

 

 

Side note, **** these stupid charts they're garbage.  The completely different scales are useless.  But hopefully it at least conveys half the point here.

Them's a lotta confusing words just to let me know you're a nerd... 😁

 

 

[Tugboat]

1 hour ago, Soggust said:

Gotcha.

So broad strokes, Fields isn't good, but the free agent / draft replacement competition in 2024 is much worse than when Baker or Ryan were traded, increasing the demand of limited supply raising prices?

I don't know or care enough to look through those years or even this year to compare, but that sounds very logical to me.

 

I'm not even sure i'd extend it that far, but i think you've got the gist of it.

I'd value Baker as a "well who knows" mystery box over Fields.  And Ryan at the time was...probably a bad idea but he was a pretty established Top QB that just went horribly wrong trying to translate at the exact point where he hit that catastrophic age wall.

 

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

Them's a lotta confusing words just to let me know you're a nerd... 😁

 

 

 

Yeah, i **** with numbers.

But i hate when these things turn into a discussion about numbers.  So idk.

Edited February 26 by Tugboat

[dll2000]

I think if Fields is willing to sign a Love type deal his trade value goes up a lot.  

Fields is valuable, but he is not top of the line value because much of his value is in unrealized potential still.  

If you think you can get him to successfully play in structure while keeping his dynamic playmaking ability you will have really outkicked whatever you traded for him.  IF being operative word.

You could reason he had only last year with enough viable offensive talent to play the game and with a stable coaching environment.  Even with that the start to last season with Oline injuries and team drama was not little.   Whilst his first two seasons of basically playing expansion football developed bad habits.

As a Bears fan I want to trade him, but if we were trading for him I wouldn’t hate it - depending on what it cost in salary and draft capital.  

Fields is not a knock off coffee, I would compare him more to a smallish raffle drawing.  Bad odds, but real nice potential payoff.  

I think if he had another full offseason of starter reps with good coaching a team would be pleasantly surprised with results.  The things he needs to correct in his game to be successful are not monumental, but they have stubbornly persisted.  

[indifference]

Trade Fields, and restart the QB rookie 5 year contract with a superior prospect. Its just that simple

Caleb throws with better anticipation and goes through progressions faster. He's mentally ahead of him at playing the QB position. Fields can be a good player but he's only got 2 years left on his rookie deal. Just can't mess around when you have a blue chip QB prospect at the helm.

[Danger]

Peter King seems to think they're gonna trade the #1 pick. It's be peak bears and peak stupidity 

[dll2000]

1 hour ago, Danger said:

Peter King seems to think they're gonna trade the #1 pick. It's be peak bears and peak stupidity 

The right thing to do is stay at 1 and pick Caleb Williams and trade Fields.  That is camp I have been in for months now.

But a big enough trade offer could still be tempting.  You have to listen to proposals.

 

[MagicMT]

21 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

But a big enough trade offer could still be tempting.  You have to listen to proposals.

They had their haul last year. Pick a good QB this year, forget about trading. 
Back to back 1st overall in 2 good QB class and you trade out both times to keep Fields as your starter? That'd be a real big disappointment IMO

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, MagicMT said:

They had their haul last year. Pick a good QB this year, forget about trading. 
Back to back 1st overall in 2 good QB class and you trade out both times to keep Fields as your starter? That'd be a real big disappointment IMO

I think Fields is likely traded regardless at this point.  

I am more envisioning a big enough offer from Redskins or Patriots or perhaps even someone else and taking one of the other top QBs.

But I like Caleb better than them so the offer would have to be big for me to consider that.