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

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, Soko said:

Okay, my man. Clearly you’re not even responding to what’s written and are just putting your head in the sand. 

I used PFF ratings to show that even your own methodology is flawed. PFF has him with “green” grades for awful performances. I asked which games you believe (not based on PFF, but your own opinion) Fields played well in, you couldn’t answer it. Not going to try to draw blood from a rock.

If bottom 12 QB play to you, in a league that had guys like Browning, Flacco, Minshew, and O’Connell performing comparably, isn’t awful to you, then it is what it is. A guy entering his contract year as a full time starter should have shown a lot more growth than Fields has.

I tried to be a bit of a defender of PFF at one time but when they graded Roquan Smith as a sub-50 player for the season I knew they were pure trash. Now some almost objective stats like sacks given up, passrushes, passblockimg sets, or whatever then cool. But to grade as a positive or negative from PFF I have zero faith. I'd trust them as much as the common Facebook fan page poster.

[Soko]

7 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I tried to be a bit of a defender of PFF at one time but when they graded Roquan Smith as a sub-50 player for the season I knew they were pure trash. Now some almost objective stats like sacks given up, passrushes, passblockimg sets, or whatever then cool. But to grade as a positive or negative from PFF I have zero faith. I'd trust them as much as the common Facebook fan page poster.

I have more faith in them than that…like, if I skipped the entire season and didn’t watch or pay attention to anything, I’d imagine I could get some sort of idea by looking at their grades.

But other times? Indefensible. I can’t imagine how Fields got a good passing grade by his performance vs the Vikings or Chiefs. I’m fine with using them in the discussion, but they shouldn’t be the only source.

[lavar703]

14 hours ago, Sugashane said:

I tried to be a bit of a defender of PFF at one time but when they graded Roquan Smith as a sub-50 player for the season I knew they were pure trash. Now some almost objective stats like sacks given up, passrushes, passblockimg sets, or whatever then cool. But to grade as a positive or negative from PFF I have zero faith. I'd trust them as much as the common Facebook fan page poster.

They did the same thing to Daron Payne two years ago when we finished top 5 in DVOA and he had 11.5 sacks from the interior. They basically graded him as a scrub and he was dominant. It was just weird. 

[Sugashane]

23 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

They did the same thing to Daron Payne two years ago when we finished top 5 in DVOA and he had 11.5 sacks from the interior. They basically graded him as a scrub and he was dominant. It was just weird. 

I have a few friends who send me things they think (know) will get me pissed off and ranting. PFF is a common culprit for me.

They put Darnell Wright really low when CHI played the Raiders. Wright had a stellar game. Maxx Crosby is a stud and Wright owned him for almost the entire game. Crosby got a sack but did so on a stunt that had him go up the middle and then he caught Bagent from behind, but when Wright and him were head up Wright won WAY more. It was one of his best games of the year. But PFF had him at a 45. Like, what?!?! The Bears OL was dominant, and that stunt was the one sack they got on Bagent. And Wright's only comp for best OL that game was Jenkins, who was stupid good.

Make it make sense.

[MikeT14]

43 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I have a few friends who send me things they think (know) will get me pissed off and ranting. PFF is a common culprit for me.

There's fewer ways to tilt me quicker in a football discussion than "well his PFF score is..."

[nagahide13]

1 minute ago, MikeT14 said:

There's fewer ways to tilt me quicker in a football discussion than "well his PFF score is..."

Yesterday I was trying to find out if a tag and trade would affect the tagging teams cap and all I could find was Madden rules. "Well in madden it's half his cap number in dead money for 1 year..."

[dll2000]

Oddsmakers for Draftkings took away prop bet for Fields next team today.  

This often means some people know something and book is protecting itself.  

https://fansided.com/betsided/posts/justin-fields-next-team-odds-taken-down-at-draftkings-sportsbook

 

[dll2000]

1 minute ago, dll2000 said:

Oddsmakers for Draftkings took away prop bet for Fields next team today.  

This often means some people know something and book is protecting itself.  

https://fansided.com/betsided/posts/justin-fields-next-team-odds-taken-down-at-draftkings-sportsbook

 

Oops.  Nevermind.  If I scroll down I see it.

Atl -200

 

Edited February 28 by dll2000

[Acgott]

12 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

Oops.  Nevermind.  If I scroll down I see it.

Atl -200

 

A wonderful way to see which “insiders” we can block.

[dll2000]

4 minutes ago, Acgott said:

A wonderful way to see which “insiders” we can block.

I saw the X post.  I looked at Draftkings and I couldn't see it anywhere.  I don't bet so I wasn't familiar with website.  

Books always take down bets of course when outcome starts to get leaked or they get raped with people wanting free money.   So it made sense as possible smoke to a fire.  

No search function.  Only showed Russell Wilson on screen I could see.    

Went back in again to double check to see if I wasn't missing something and saw that I could scroll down and there it was.

Oh well.  They get you sometimes.

 

[Acgott]

4 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

I saw the X post.  I looked at Draftkings and I couldn't see it anywhere.  I don't bet so I wasn't familiar with website.  

Books always take down bets of course when outcome starts to get leaked or they get raped with people wanting free money.   So it made sense as possible smoke to a fire.  

No search function.  Only showed Russell Wilson on screen I could see.    

Went back in again to double check to see if I wasn't missing something and saw that I could scroll down and there it was.

Oh well.  They get you sometimes.

 

I don’t blame you. I was referring to Chicago_NFL. These insiders pop up all the time with their check marks. No one follows him that I know, not connected to a publication or website. If they pop up again, I know that they aren’t reliable.

[dll2000]

44 minutes ago, Acgott said:

I don’t blame you. I was referring to Chicago_NFL. These insiders pop up all the time with their check marks. No one follows him that I know, not connected to a publication or website. If they pop up again, I know that they aren’t reliable.

It's okay to make mistakes, it can happen to anyone.  But you should correct record as soon as you realize.  I don't see that he has done that.  

I am just a fan, working a full time job.  No blue checks and could care less about followers and likes - but even I do that when and if I see it (and its not already common knowledge) I just did.  He could have easily done same and saved me some time.  

It's just integrity if you are going to be near full time social media person.  

 

[brownie man]

Here’s what you do

 

You trade Justin

Draft Caleb

with the assets you traded for Justin you can trade up slightly to make sure you can secure either Nabers or Odunze

end of story 

[sparky151]

21 hours ago, CWood21 said:

There's 0% chance his agent allows him to sign that kind of a deal.  None.  There's 2 options with regards to Fields' contract.  Either you extend him for market value (~$35M/year) and hope that he's your guy and the deal ends up being a bargain, or you pick up the 5th year and hope that he doesn't get super expensive in the process.  There's a reason why Jordan Love's deal ended up being what it was.  They basically split the difference between the option being picked up and the option being declined, and in return Jordan Love got a slight pay bump this past season.

Why wouldn't Fields take the Jordan Love deal if the Bears committed to him? It would be a no-brainer for him as it gives him more money earlier. If the team wants a couple of option years after that with escalators, why not sign that? Besides playing better, what Fields needs is job security, especially for this offseason.

 

He knows he's on thin ice with the team since they own pick 1 in this draft. He should want them to take the haul and upgrade his line and receiving corps. If that happens and he plays better, the team isn't likely to be trying to replace him next offseason. So he should be flexible with his contract to get them to keep him as the starter. 

 

21 hours ago, Soko said:

Okay, my man. Clearly you’re not even responding to what’s written and are just putting your head in the sand. 

I used PFF ratings to show that even your own methodology is flawed. PFF has him with “green” grades for awful performances. I asked which games you believe (not based on PFF, but your own opinion) Fields played well in, you couldn’t answer it. Not going to try to draw blood from a rock.

If bottom 12 QB play to you, in a league that had guys like Browning, Flacco, Minshew, and O’Connell performing comparably, isn’t awful to you, then it is what it is. A guy entering his contract year as a full time starter should have shown a lot more growth than Fields has.

Ok, putting PFF ratings aside, Fields hasn't been awful. He hasn't lived up to the hopes for him when drafted. Neither has Trevor Lawrence. If you simply use the NFL passer rating which ignores his rushing ability, Fields is in the ballpark of various other unquestioned NFL starters such as Murray, Lawrence, or Watson. He's ahead of guys like Levis and Young who were rookies and ahead of Pickett who is on thin ice in Pittsburgh. But he's not down in Daniel Jones or Mac Jones territory. 

 

21 hours ago, Tugboat said:

 

I think this whole Washington thing is really just blowing smoke.  Because of the connections with Williams + Washington + Kliff or whatever.  So it's probably a moot point anyway. 

But yeah...if you value Williams/Maye very similarly or maybe even prefer Maye, then it'd be a no-brainer to even just take a little extra on the side to get your guy anyway.  But that's pretty much the only way i can see the Bears trading that 1st pick.  Period.  You just don't take what you view as an inferior QB prospect just for a little sweetener on the side.  It's a QB-driven league, so you want to give yourself the best possible shot at what you think could be that Franchise QB guy.  You don't get cute with this.  The only way it makes any sense is if you can get a little something on the side, and still get "The Guy" you evaluate as the best QB available at Pick #2.

 

At that point, it becomes an awfully weird deal to make.  If you get into negotiations and Washington realize you might actually prefer Maye anyway...there's nothing stopping them from just standing pat and waiting for Williams to fall to them at #2.  It just doesn't seem that realistic to me...but then, it doesn't hurt to explore your options, do all your "due diligence" on different scenarios that might be out there, even if they're huge longshots.

The reason Washington might trade up is they want Caleb and don't want the Bears to trade the pick to some other team. If the Commanders want their guy, they have to pay the price to move up or gamble someone else gets him. 

 

20 hours ago, Sugashane said:

I've argued on this already, I don't think the stats being xlose helps the case for Fields at all. Here was my argument:

Both make wow plays but Williams does have a better release, he has accuracy at all levels of the fields and consistently hits his guys in stride more than Fields ever has. Also he has had to carry a much less talented team than Fields, and been given less help schematically. I mean Williams had Addison last year but this year had Washington and Rice as his top two options (Rice is a 3rd-4th round talent at best, likely due to getting a boost from who is father is). Fields had Olave for one year but also had Hill (crap NFL player but damn good college player), had Wilson for two years, and enough depth that JSN barely saw the field. Then the running games are massively in favor of Fields. Dobbins, Sermon, and Teague >>>>> Dye, Jones, Lloyd. Comes out to over 100 yards per game difference.

Then look at the OLs both team walked out. Munford, Jonah Jackson, Myers, Wyatt Davis, and had Dawand Jones, Nicholas Petit-Frere, Paris Johnson, Jr., etc. Over two years that is a LOT of NFL caliber talent, even if some were new and growing. Williams had Vorhees last year and Monheim is a likely late round pick. Who else of note? That's as much why I make the Mahomes comp. He isn't going to be Mahomes, but he has carried a passing attack with little help just like Mahomes did at Texas Tech. He wasn't just lining up with the better group in the trenches almost every game and having mismatches on the outside like Fields was able to. Like Mahomes there was a weak running game so teams lined up KNOWING that Williams was going to carry them to 35-45 points with his arm. Fields made a lot of beautiful throws but didn't have anywhere near the constant pressure that Williams has dealt with.

Now there are bonuses for Fields too. He is taller, thicker, stronger, faster. I do think Williams moves better in the pocket but Fields is just a hoss so he can pull away and do his freak athlete stunts to turn nothing into something. Fields has a more professional demeanor, I don't believe for a second he has the ego Williams has. While Williams has the size advantage he has still found himself injured in each of his three seasons. So his it really helped him?

They also both share some of the same issues. Both like to stretch out plays unnecessarily to get bigger chunks of yards. Great for ESPN but not great for longevity, take the 10 yard pass and let him make someone miss rather than constantly going for the 25 yarder where you have to take a hit. Both are really athletic and utilize it to their advantage constantly. Both hold the ball too long and that can throw off the timing of the routes. Both came from pretty simple offenses that are often 1-2 read options. Both can throw off platform (Williams is more accurate regularly though) because both have a more than enough arm strength. Both have meh-at-best footwork. A lot of times it seems they make their throws a bit harder due to throwing off their back foot or just not resetting when they DO have time. Neither does a really good job of protecting the ball with both hands or sliding early to prevent fumbles. That pisses me off about both of them. Williams can get away with it right now due to not playing in the NFL but that will need remedied quickly.

I like Fields a lot, I drafted him in my real time draft. But I just don't have the faith that he will succeed in Chicago. I think he has to have a very run heavy system (including his passing being mobile) and if he is contained in the pocket then he is a much lesser player. Williams will have the same lumps as all rookies but I feel like he is a better pure passer than Fields - even today with several years less experience. To me that gives him the better chance at being a great player. 

I mostly agree with this but the flip side is Fields led OSU further than Williams led USC. Two conference titles and 2 playoff appearances. OSU had an excellent defense in 2019 with Hafley. Then not so good in 2020 with Coombs. No doubt Fields needs to improve. Some here act as if that's impossible or unlikely even though he has improved as a passer each season of his career despite considerably adverse circumstances.

He'd have to stay healthy but a modest 15% improvement in yards per game would mean the Bears single season passing record and the first 4000 yard season in team history. Between an additional year of experience, better coaching/playcalling, upgrades to the O-line and receiving corps, that seems doable. 

 

 

[Soko]

9 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Ok, putting PFF ratings aside, Fields hasn't been awful. He hasn't lived up to the hopes for him when drafted. Neither has Trevor Lawrence. If you simply use the NFL passer rating which ignores his rushing ability, Fields is in the ballpark of various other unquestioned NFL starters such as Murray, Lawrence, or Watson. He's ahead of guys like Levis and Young who were rookies and ahead of Pickett who is on thin ice in Pittsburgh. But he's not down in Daniel Jones or Mac Jones territory. 

So Fields is “in the ballpark” of Murray (Murray ahead by 3), but is clearly “ahead” of Levis (Fields is ahead by two)? Bias is showing again. Your defense of Fields is that he’s at least barely ahead of first year starters, and backup caliber guys like Pickett? What about being right there with Minshew? Behind Flacco? And when did passer rating become the end-all? I realize my questions are just into the void at this point because you’re avoiding them, but come on. 

Murray and Watson are only unquestioned starters because of their terrible contracts. Neither are QBs their teams are happy with. Fields has been awful, and I’d still love to hear about all his good games, excluding Washington/Denver/NE.