QB Situation

[NYRaider]

2 hours ago, 3rivers said:

he might be just saying this to make the jets prepare for both  and make it more of a challenge for the jets. Soon the league will have a tomlin rule, where the teams must officially name the QB1

That would be amazing but it seems like they've wanted to give Russ a shot for weeks.

[3rivers]

13 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

That would be amazing but it seems like they've wanted to give Russ a shot for weeks.

never know with this regime. I don't see much of a difference unless they let wilson throw downfield to pickens and miller, maybe CA3 as well .  OL is depleted and not the best spot for wilson vs jets. His lack of mobility could be a problem, I expect him to get hit lots in this game and I thought fields would be better suited for the jets game as well. 

[warfelg]

Just a stream of conscious coming here:

The defense of keeping Fields in is his athletic ability and escaping the pocket because of the free rushers.

Now, I haven't sat down and actually studied this, so this is all naked eye. But these free rushers are extra man blitzes. Justin looks to be facing a ton of Cover-1 with a spy max send. Now a couple of things in my belief are at play here:

1 - The OL isn't great at picking this up argument. Sure this is a great argument if it was 5 blockers 5 rushers with a delay or 5v4 with a stunt. But we're talking some 6v7 or 5v6 numbers here. The kind where someone is coming through no matter what. Yes these are plays the Justin makes that Russell cannot. But at the same time is that an argument to keep the pass game stunted? No! Because most likely teams are not blitzing extra rushers that much on Wilson because he's much better at reading the blitz and getting rid of the ball. Often times what you see an opposing defense do is play to a players weakness. Justins is that he doesn't read the blitz well, is more likely to run, and is loose with the ball (seriously he's on pace for a fumble a game). Most likely with Wilson you wouldn't see this level of blitzing, stunting, and delays coming.

2 - The WR's aren't getting open argument. Well this is a bit of a misnomer too. There's plenty of open WR's regularly. Even in the Cowboys game Austin and Muth were CONSTANTLY wide open for the NFL and could have made a play. Again, this is so much like Kenny mid-late last year where WR's were getting open and he wasn't trusting it. And here's something I've been pondering on - a lot of people try to blame Tomlin, but there in comes the confidence/cockiness line. You got to be able to be confident enough in yourself that when your WR has a 20 yard deep window that you can get it in there. When your WR has 2 steps in man you can throw a good enough pass to get there. Because you know what - coaches know when the defender just made an unbelievable play vs your throw being bad.

3 - The "Only Justin can make that play" argument. Now yes, I think 3-4 times a game there are those happening. Jones thinking it's run rather than pass. OG just getting blown up. RB whiffing on protection. But are those 3-4 plays worth the 6-7 plays that aren't being made because open WR's aren't being seen? Sometimes it's ok to say that you can lose a few plays. I think the "only Justin can make that play" is happening because defenses are ok with it happening. They are daring Justin to beat them with his arm and he's basically refusing to do that.

 

All of that is some of why I want to see Russell in there. I want to see what it looks like when some of these guys get the ball in their hands. I want to see more plays where DW was wide open on the drag and the ball actually gets to him rather than a 2nd hitch staring at Pickens and then having to take off and run. I want to see more of the plays that Kyle Allen gave us when Muth hit the seam and the throw was perfectly into and NFL level open. I really believe with Russell in there you see a wildly different defense. I bet you see more man, more of these concepts work. 

And this is because teams know about these guys. They know that you need to play Fields with zone and blitz him to get him to stop reading the field and take off running. They love when he tries to beat teams with his legs because it means more likely you get shots on him, you get fumbles, and you can control the big plays. With Wilson you get more man because teams aren't worried about him running, but the flip is less blitzes because he scrambles to throw and when you take more out of the secondary to blitz, it leaves a greater chance someone can get open enough to make a play.

And on top of all of that - I do care a little more about the pick than others. I say you need to start Russell before Fields hits the 51% mark. Because if Russell is good enough, you can preserve your 3rd rounder. You kinda need that because I think Fields has shown (IMO) to not be the long term solution but he can be a stopgap or elite backup style QB. I don't think Russell is a long term option too. So we need that 3rd in case they decide they want to move up in the draft for a QB (even though I would advise against it).

[Ward4HOF]

31 minutes ago, warfelg said:

because he's much better at reading the blitz and getting rid of the ball.

Is he though???

 

"Russell Wilson's sack rate has been increasing over the years,

Sack rate when pressured:

• 2020: 20.5%
• 2021: 21.2%
• 2022: 28.5%
• 2023: 23.1% 
   

Wilson has also taken more sacks than any other quarterback in the league since 2022, with a total of 100 sacks. This has led to a noticeable increase in the number of layup-type throws he makes. "

 

And regarding WRs getting open, I really meant WR, not TEs...so yeah, our TEs seem to be getting open more often, so Fields not reading through his progressions is a genuine issue, I'll agree, but I'm not seeing that Russ is going to have a better success rate, against this Defense...

And while, yes, I've held out hope that Fields might be our QBOTF, and let's face it, we could do a lot worse, and have, the last 4 years (last 2 with Ben, 2 with Pickett, etc.)  But that is not even my argument here; my argument is "why this week against a very formidable Defense??"  Wouldn't it be better to wait, just one more game, until the Giants game??  I mean, if Fields is not likely to do well against the pressure either, and we lose the game, then that provides a better argument for swapping to Russ, but quite simply, Russ is going to get killed out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets knocked out of the game...then what??

Tomlin--"Hey Justin, you have our full faith and confidence that you can go in, and win this game for us...what?...no, we didn't really bench you, in favor of Russ, we were just switching it up a bit, you were always going to be our guy going forward!"  --  yeah, right...that's gonna fly...

But I do, disagree, that Fields can't be our QBOTF.  He showed as much during the Colts game, and again, against the Cowboys, on that final scoring drive. I'd lay a wager, that Fields ends the season a much more complete QB by the end of the season, if allowed to start the rest of the season, especially if given an actual #2 WR, as opposed to the combo of Van Jefferson/CAIII.  IF Russ gets one, and looks better, is that really an accurate comparison??

 

 

 

 

[MOSteelers56]

Well thought out posts there by @warfelg and @Ward4HOF. I don't feel like I know enough to weigh in on the topic, and I probably will never be a fan that really grinds film or even watches a game twice. Something feels off watching Fields operate in the offense, but I don't know if Russ will be any better. I'm excited to see how it works out. Maybe some time on the bench will serve Fields well. He can really get back to the basics. I've stated this before, but I don't think Fields will be hurt by this move that much. He seems like a team first guy. It's not like we're benching him for Kenny Pickett. Say what you will about Russ(I'm not a huge fan either), but he's probably a HoF level player and a SB champ. 

[Ward4HOF]

14 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

Well thought out posts there by @warfelg and @Ward4HOF. I don't feel like I know enough to weigh in on the topic, and I probably will never be a fan that really grinds film or even watches a game twice. Something feels off watching Fields operate in the offense, but I don't know if Russ will be any better. I'm excited to see how it works out. Maybe some time on the bench will serve Fields well. He can really get back to the basics. --  But see, this is the best that Fields has ever played in his career, bar none, so if his play still isn't good enough, then I'm not sure how much more Fields can progress, tbh. I've stated this before, but I don't think Fields will be hurt by this move that much. He seems like a team first guy. It's not like we're benching him for Kenny Pickett. Say what you will about Russ(I'm not a huge fan either), but he's probably a HoF level player and a SB champ. 

But then there is this story...which is what I am afraid of something similar happening to us.  Exact translation??  No, of course not, as this wasn't a midseason injury, but still, close enough to feel that something similar could happen to us...both for this season, and moving forward...(BTW, listed as the #1 worst decision in KC Chiefs history, on one site, lol)

But I'm not going to act like Russ might not eventually prevail in this system, but boy, I'll feel pretty 'sick', but mostly angry, if something similar transpires here...

"When starter Elvis Grbac went down in the ninth game of the season against Pittsburgh, Rich Gannon would take his place until Week 17 when Grbac returned. Under Gannon the Chiefs went 5-1 including two blowout victories over the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders and a thrilling come-from-behind victory over the Denver Broncos.

The offense was scoring more and running smoother. Gannon brought a running threat to the QB position the Chiefs didn’t have with Grbac. Despite all that, then-head coach Marty Schottenheimer plugged Grbac back in as the starter. Schottenheimer believed Grbac getting some reps in Week 17 then having two weeks to prepare for the AFC divisional round would be good enough.

Of course the Chiefs offense was miserable that day and could only muster 10 points. Would the Chiefs have won with Gannon under center? You can’t be certain, but many believe they would. This was probably the best shot the Chiefs have had at a Super Bowl since.

Gannon would enter the 1998 season as Grbac’s backup once again, though he started 10 games that year due to Grbac’s injuries. Gannon wanted to stay in KC but the Chiefs, for whatever reason, were committed to Grbac.

They let Gannon walk and he went to the hated rival Oakland Raiders, where he won MVP and led them to Super Bowl XXXVII. Grbac would be out of the league three years later."

Edited Wednesday at 01:42 PM by Ward4HOF

[warfelg]

 

[MOSteelers56]

1 hour ago, Ward4HOF said:

But then there is this story...which is what I am afraid of something similar happening to us.  Exact translation??  No, of course not, as this wasn't a midseason injury, but still, close enough to feel that something similar could happen to us...both for this season, and moving forward...(BTW, listed as the #1 worst decision in KC Chiefs history, on one site, lol)

But I'm not going to act like Russ might not eventually prevail in this system, but boy, I'll feel pretty 'sick', but mostly angry, if something similar transpires here...

"When starter Elvis Grbac went down in the ninth game of the season against Pittsburgh, Rich Gannon would take his place until Week 17 when Grbac returned. Under Gannon the Chiefs went 5-1 including two blowout victories over the San Francisco 49ers and Oakland Raiders and a thrilling come-from-behind victory over the Denver Broncos.

The offense was scoring more and running smoother. Gannon brought a running threat to the QB position the Chiefs didn’t have with Grbac. Despite all that, then-head coach Marty Schottenheimer plugged Grbac back in as the starter. Schottenheimer believed Grbac getting some reps in Week 17 then having two weeks to prepare for the AFC divisional round would be good enough.

Of course the Chiefs offense was miserable that day and could only muster 10 points. Would the Chiefs have won with Gannon under center? You can’t be certain, but many believe they would. This was probably the best shot the Chiefs have had at a Super Bowl since.

Gannon would enter the 1998 season as Grbac’s backup once again, though he started 10 games that year due to Grbac’s injuries. Gannon wanted to stay in KC but the Chiefs, for whatever reason, were committed to Grbac.

They let Gannon walk and he went to the hated rival Oakland Raiders, where he won MVP and led them to Super Bowl XXXVII. Grbac would be out of the league three years later."

No doubt that all of that is true. I think the situation is pretty different now, though. I'm not expert, but it looks like Fields isn't fitting into Smith's system very well. Now, I do think that's more on Smith than Fields, but I digress. I think Fields can continue getting better in it. Give him more time with the system and more time with Smith. I think they'll gel, but I'd rather that not happen while Fields is slowly regressing back to his Chicago days. You say he's playing the best of his career, and you're right, but I don't think he's trending up. He played one very good half against Indy(granted we were playing catch up), but he's looked bad the last two games. 

[skywlker32]

My stance with all of this is as such:

• Fields, regardless of what the stats show, had 2 games that were longterm starter level from what I recall.
• The Steelers are in a tough position. They need to make a decision sooner than later. If they are good with Fields being the QB of the future, then you stick with him and go. Otherwise, you don't want to be giving up the 4th round (?) pick vs. the 6th round (?) pick that is predicated on playing time.

My fear with this is the Steelers get caught in the "we can fix him" mentality and we are stuck in one of the worst case scenarios to me: mediocre QB play or lower for extended time (ok maybe not the worst, but not many teams are pulling a Browns and guaranteeing the worst QB in the league a boat load of money).

[43M]

Im not championing Russ at all, but Fields is a fringe starter/backup caliber player who has never shown any type of consistency in his entire career, including at any point during his short tenure here.   If people want to have faith he can be more than that, I have no issue with that, but while his mobility absolutely has helped this offense, his inability to read coverages and make consistent accurate throws and maje good decisions has hurt us alot too.  There have been a few occasions where his inaccuracy has actually saved him from a costly turnover.   There was one throw this past week that would have been a pick 6 had he thrown it accurately, and thats not the first time.  Unfortunately, two wrongs do not make it right.

Would adding another quality WR help?   It sure wouldn't hurt....but alot of Fields shortcomings that are his own are incredibly concerning for a 4th year NFL QB.

 

Edited Wednesday at 03:25 PM by 43M

[August4th]

I miss the stability Ben brought to this position. Going a good 13-15 years without worrying about QB was nice lol Might take a few decades before we get that again

Edited Wednesday at 03:26 PM by August4th

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, August4th said:

I miss the stability Ben brought to this position. Going a good 13-15 years without worrying about QB was nice lol Might take a few decades before we get that again

So the 80's and 90's.

[MOSteelers56]

Any draftniks know which of the draftable QBs are a good fit in Smith's system? I don't think Russ or Fields are great for what he wants. 

[warfelg]

Just now, MOSteelers56 said:

Any draftniks know which of the draftable QBs are a good fit in Smith's system? I don't think Russ or Fields are great for what he wants. 

I feel like in concept Drew Aller is a good fit but not what I would like. Big and mobile, can throw the ball deep.

I think you really need to think with him (Art Smith) is looking at a Ryan Tannehill clone in terms of skill set. Athletic enough that once in a blue moon you will pull the ball and run to keep defenses honest. Big enough that you can take some hits because of the 7-9 step drops for deep plays. Mobile enough that PA movements work, but teams still respect the arm enough that they don't assume it's going to be a run. Strong enough arm to push the ball down field on the move. And good enough vision to read the DE with the pass behind him to hit the open man on how a play develops.

[Ward4HOF]

18 minutes ago, MOSteelers56 said:

No doubt that all of that is true. I think the situation is pretty different now, though. I'm not expert, but it looks like Fields isn't fitting into Smith's system very well. Now, I do think that's more on Smith than Fields, but I digress. I think Fields can continue getting better in it. Give him more time with the system and more time with Smith. I think they'll gel, but I'd rather that not happen while Fields is slowly regressing back to his Chicago days. You say he's playing the best of his career, and you're right, but I don't think he's trending up. He played one very good half against Indy(granted we were playing catch up), but he's looked bad the last two games. 

Oh yeah, for sure.  He looked better in Weeks 1-4 than 5 and 6, but every QB has had a 2-gm bad stretch in their careers.  I'm looking at the totality, that Fields may not ever be better than what he's shown, but maybe he will be, with a decent and healthy OL, and a legitimate #2 WR--who knows, so yes, he might get better, but even if he doesn't, he's the type of QB, the way he is playing, that won't lose you too many football games.

Anyway, here's where I stand, because I'm sure it looks like I'm a Wilson hater, and a Fields apologist, but I'm really not.  I've been a fan of Wilson since he came into the league.  Just look at my posts in the Comparison/General Boards, from essentially, his 2nd/3rd season in the league; especially vs Andrew Luck threads.

Do I think Russ is a better QB, overall, than Fields?  Yes.

Do I think Russ should be the starter this week, against the Jets?  No.  I think he gets sacked 4+ times, and maybe even injured, against that Jets DL. but yes, he likely would give us at lest an equal chance of winning.

Do I think Russ should be the starter next week, against the Giants??  Yes, if Tomlin isn't sure that Fields gives us the best chance to win the rest of the season, then absolutely.

But then, IMO, if this happens, Fields will not be our QBOTF, and I worry about signing Wilson to a long term deal, to start in is Age 36 season.

Am I in favor of keeping Fields in, to see where he can take us, and find out if we would even want to sign him at the end of the year, even if it cost us a 4th vs a 6th, because I'm darn sure that Wilson is not our QBOTF.

So, essentially, I'm conflicted, but would rather have the chance to sign Fields long-term, and believe we would be better served, long-term, to go with Fields, because if he stinks it up, we'll be in better draft position to draft a QB next draft.  If we start Wilson, and finish 9-8, or better, I'd wager we'll sign him to at least a 3 year contract at seasons end, which, IMO, I think would be a bad call.