MasterAwesome

You cannot say Darnold is on the level of Goff. Talent wise, sure...but Goff's production blows Darnold's out of the water. He definitely showed improvement last season but he hasn't had anywhere near a full season of competent QB play and Goff has had several, with two different coaching staffs.

Maybe so, but cutting a middle-of-the-road overpaid running back isn't really evidence of that. They already started giving more and more carries to their 3rd round rookie RB Rachaad White in the second half of the season so the writing was already on the wall for Fournette who had a pretty underwhelming season.

I thought your point was that Brown is too light to play NT in a 3-4, no? I’m saying the guy Evero played at NT in his last defense was 5 inches and 15 pounds smaller than Brown.

I don't think it's that black and white. If we're to take a look at the Broncos' roster last year (since Evero is our DC now), they played D.J. Jones at NT who is listed at 305 pounds.

Yeah PFF is a little more ambiguous and murky because we don't know exactly how their grading is determined and it's a very holistic metric that accounts for every aspect of o-line performance (pass blocking, run blocking, penalties, etc.). It kinda makes sense if PFF inflated the grade of the Eagles' 2021 o-line because it'd be consistent with them inflating the grade of the 2022 Bears' o-line. So I think PFF is okay to use as a comparative tool (i.e. comparing one PFF score to another PFF score) since at least their methodology, however flawed, would be consistently applied. I would think something like Pressure Rate would be a bit more straightforward because it's a very specific focused metric. But even that would involve some subjectivity with respect to when a QB meets that specific threshold of being "pressured" or not. I'm guessing it depends on how close a defender is to the QB, but probably more of a snap judgment than some kind of precise measurement. But again since it'd theoretically be the same methodology applied consistently, I would feel comfortable comparing Pro-Football-Reference's Pressure Rate for 2021 Hurts against Pro-Football-Reference's Pressure Rate for 2022 Fields.

I mean I'm at work too...but it's Friday afternoon, just slack off like the rest of us you overachiever.

Personally I find it comical how you have to modify your criteria for Gettleman’s success from his Panthers tenure to his Giants tenure. With the Panthers, he was responsible for 3 straight playoff appearances!! Wow sounds pretty compelling. How many playoff appearances with the Giants? Oh…he went a combined 19-46 with zero playoff appearances? Oh wait but umm…oh that’s right he built that Giants foundation for the next GM to come in and succeed!! You realize that’s exactly what some people argue that Hurney did for Gettleman’s successful run, right? But I guess you would argue it’s wildly different…for some reason…just not one that you’d be able to articulate.

Supporting casts are difficult to evaluate sometimes because it's such a synergistic relationship with the QB, so it's hard to judge them independently of one another. Defense for sure I'll definitely give you that, but who's to say you put a guy like Cole Kmet on another team and he doesn't explode with a different QB? He's a young, talented 2nd round TE. Same with Darnell Mooney? He absolutely looked like a young up and coming receiver after his first two years in the league, before his production fell off this year. Chase Claypool had very solid #2 receiver numbers in his first two seasons, so I'd consider him a young up and coming receiver as well. The mid-season trade almost certainly hurt his production since he had to learn a new offense, but if he struggles this year after a full offseason with the Bears/Fields, then that's gotta make you wonder if he's being hurt by his QB play rather than the other way around. And just to clarify...if you're saying 2021 Hurts and 2022 Fields are similar and 2021 Hurts "didn't look great", are you saying that Fields didn't look great this year? Maybe I'm not fully comprehending your position. If you're simply saying Fields didn't look great this past year but you speculate that it's because of his poor supporting cast, then maybe we're not that far off from each other.

I think if you dive deeper into the statistics, they paint the picture of Hurts last year being a much more polished QB than Fields this year and that's something that's not necessarily reflected in the surface-level statistics like pass yards, TDs, completion %, QBR, etc. For example, I enjoy looking at some of the advanced statistics from Pro-Football-Reference.com: 2021 Hurts: 14% Bad Throws, 78.2% On Target Throws, 26.4% pressure rate per dropback, 26 sacks taken, 5.4% of passes dropped by receivers 2022 Fields: 19.3% Bad Throws, 71.1% On Target Throws, 26.9% pressure rate per dropback, 55 sacks taken, 5.2% of passes dropped by receivers So Hurts was more accurate, was pressured at a similar rate to Fields (a reflection of his o-line protection that was supposedly much better), took less than half the number of sacks despite that similar pressure rate (which I believe is a testament to his ability to evade the rush and navigate the pocket), and had a similar rate of dropped passes as Fields - which admittedly is only one metric of WR play and doesn't account for how often they were actually open (either through their own route running or through good offensive scheming). I don't think enough weight is given to Fields' crazy high sack rate. The easy connection to make is that high sacks = bad o-line and to a large degree that can be true, but if you look at other QBs with similar pressure rates, they're taking a fraction of the number of sacks that Fields takes. Fields took 55 sacks which was tied for the most in the league. Who was he tied with you may wonder? Russell Wilson, who was pressured at a higher rate (28.6% vs. 26.9%) and had the same number of sacks despite a whopping 165 more passing attempts. Fields had a similar problem in college with an incredibly high sack rate (i.e. taking sacks when pressured) so I don't think we can just hand-wave it away as simply an o-line problem. Obviously I'm putting a lot of weight in Pro-Football-Reference's data collection, so this is conditional upon their system being fairly accurate and consistent. I'll be the first to admit I didn't watch every Eagles game last year and every Bears game this year, but I am gonna go out on a limb and say none of us did lol so we are left to rely on these types of statistical comparisons.

I would just be extremely cautious to draw any overarching conclusions from that one-game sample size of Trevor Siemian against the #4 ranked Jets defense. I think what we would expect to happen, happened - a back-up QB struggling against a top-5 defense. I wouldn't say that outcome made me see Fields in a different light because like I said, I already think he's a much better QB than Siemian lol. We also don't know for sure how Fields would have done against that Jets' D. I would certainly guess he'd do better, but by how much would just be pure speculation and not really conducive to any objective and productive discourse. I brought up Stafford's stats just to show he was an elite passer by most metrics. If you're objectively an elite passer then you are afforded more leeway in your total evaluation as a franchise QB. I would never argue that it's all about wins and losses, but if you neither check the box for "elite production" nor the box for "wins" as a franchise QB, then what does the argument really rest upon? At that point it's all just speculative hypotheticals, i.e. if Fields has better weapons, coaching, o-line, etc. then he would be much more successful. You can make that argument, but again you'd just be taking the long way to my argument of Fields ultimately still being a question mark lol. He's no doubt an elite runner and extremely exciting there, but I don't think you can be a franchise QB without also being a threat in the pass game and I don't think he's there yet. Re: Hurts - that's another interesting comparison because last offseason, Hurts was still very much considered a question mark with regards to being a franchise QB. I just did a custom Google search for Hurts articles during the 2022 offseason to refresh my memory on his public perception and here are some of the article titles: "NFL writer believes Jalen Hurts puts Eagles in 'QB purgatory'" "Jalen Hurts embraces criticism" "Philadelphia Eagles QB Jalen Hurts getting 'one-year audition' in 2022 season" "Is Jalen Hurts the long-term answer at QB?" Plus countless more articles about what Hurts needs to do in order to take that next step in becoming a franchise QB. So yeah you correctly point out the similarities in Hurts last year vs. Fields this year, but again I would say that bolsters my argument that Fields isn't there yet because that was precisely the narrative around Hurts last offseason. Hurts took a monumental jump in his development this season and that's what I'm looking for in Fields as well. And likewise man, I genuinely enjoy our discussions! It's not a coincidence that I'm only replying to your posts and intentionally disregarding those who I believe have proven to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

Stafford is a wild comparison considering he was busting out 5000+ yards and 40+ TDs in his second full season. Even so, Lions were 0-16 pre-Stafford, 2-8 with Stafford his rookie season, and 10-6 in his second full season (he was injured his actual sophomore year). So it's again extremely consistent with the trends that I'm talking about when it comes to the "before and after" of securing a franchise QB. Tbh I'm confused at your point about the Bears going 0-1 without Fields (really 0-2 if I may throw you an assist lol). They were 3-12 with Fields, so what is the argument? And they got blown out worse against the Lions (41-10) with Fields playing, so that wasn't even their worst loss of the season without him. Your argument basically seems to be that they're a bad team with Fields, and still a bad team without Fields, which again I'd argue is a point against him being a game-changing franchise QB. If you think I'm arguing that he's on par with Trevor Siemian then I assure you I am not lol.

I'm glad you brought up Lawrence cause he's actually a good basis for comparison. Jags went from 1-15 (pre Lawrence) to 3-14 to 9-8. That's exactly the type of impact/trajectory I would expect a franchise QB to make on his team. I'll admit last year I still considered Lawrence a question mark because his team experienced minimal improvement, but I think he has proven himself in his second year. I also think it's way too premature to formulate a conclusion based on one season, which is why I'm looking at the 2-year trajectory. You also see guys like Christian Kirk and Zay Jones experiencing career years catching passes from Lawrence. That's what I mean when I say I want a franchise QB elevating his team around him. You don't see guys having career years catching passes from Fields; if anything, you see a significant drop in production...but it's too soon to say. Like I said, this will be a very telling 3rd season for Fields. Well I guess depending on the types of moves the Bears make in their offseason to help him out.

It's saying things like "got rid of Allen Robinson" near the top of your list that make it sound very much like you're starting with your conclusion and then formulating your argument as you go. Allen Robinson was very unproductive last year (400 yards and 1 TD) and has continued to look unproductive this year in an entirely different offense. That's quite the reach to be attributing, even in part, his departure to Fields' struggles. And yeah I get it, the Bears' D was pretty awful even without a caveat...but when your offense leads the league in 3-and-outs, it's also naturally making the defense's job more difficult. I'm not surprised they're "losing", but my bar for a franchise QB is certainly higher than "worst team in the league after 2 seasons". Again, I want to see someone who elevates the rest of the team. A guy who proves he can win in spite of his lackluster supporting cast, not someone who loses because of them. A franchise QB is the most important position on the team as many have stated year after year after year...I want to see a guy who is capable of putting his team on his back to will his team to victory. Otherwise if he needs a strong supporting cast around him to win, then you're basically just talking about a JAG game manager. Maybe your definition of franchise QB is different from my definition. I said it's a red flag to find yourself constantly providing a laundry list of excuses as to why your supposed franchise QB is failing to produce wins, and your response was to do exactly that. So I'm guessing I'm not the one you're trying to convince here.

I’ve never seen a team supposedly secure their surefire mega-talented franchise QB and somehow get significantly worse each year since drafting him…just saying. From 8-8 to 6-11 to a league-worst 3-14. I mean, a franchise QB is the most important asset to a team…right? Either Fields is overhyped, or a franchise QB isn’t very impactful. It’s a glaring red flag if you find yourself making countless excuses about why your supposed franchise QB can’t get it done. The common thread between true franchise QBs is that they elevate the team around them. I know I’ve sounded like a vocal Fields critic on these boards but honestly my very uncontroversial stance is that he’s simply still a question mark. This third year is going to be huge in giving us a clearer picture one way or another. I’m just baffled by the people acting like he “arrived” this year, while leading his team to the worst record in the NFL.

Did Tepper just come into money in the last couple weeks or something? Money has always been a factor, when posters were saying no coaches would want to come here.

Remember those silly, extra whiny posters who were insisting that no respectable coach with any prospects would even consider coming to such a dysfunctional dump of a franchise? Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Surely you remember the sh#@storm of controversy that was created when Dave Gettleman gave essentially your exact same answer to a reporter's question about Steve Smith's future in Carolina lol. I don't think that's as harmless of an answer as you are suggesting. That answer sows doubt about Fields' standing with the team and that creates a significant ripple effect.

That article was distinguishing designed runs from QB scrambles. It was specifically saying that Fields' scrambling yardage was inflating the o-line's run blocking grade. So the line wasn't actually run blocking at all on those plays. It's plays where presumably the protection breaks down and then Fields takes off running.

So you believe the Panthers had the #2 ranked defense last year right? Because those are the statistics you're choosing to frame your argument (yardage). If LeVeon Bell and Demaryius Thomas were considered legit talents at the tail end of their careers, then so is Allen Robinson whose production nosedived last year catching passes from Fields. I guess Jimmy Graham was also a legit talent last year...sounds like Fields had incredible weapons after all lol. You can make a strong argument that Fields makes his receivers worse as well. I mean, of course he does if you believe he's a below average passer (as of now) which I think you would agree with. Even so, I showed this in a recent post a little while back. I compared the production from Darnell Mooney when Andy Dalton was under center vs. 2021 Fields vs. 2022 Fields. He had by far his best production catching passes from Dalton last year (if extrapolating, I think he would've been a ~1300 yard receiver with Dalton) while his production from 2021 Fields and 2022 Fields has been meh. Mooney I think is a super underrated guy who could be a legit #1 or a strong #2 if he was on another team. Claypool also struggled significantly more catching passes from Fields vs. Trubisky this year. You could argue that he was learning the offense, building chemistry, etc. but it's still another data point in the bigger picture.

I'll gladly accept that as one account of it. But it doesn't explain ESPN's pass blocking win rate. Also I will be the first to admit I don't know the intricacies of PFF's grading system, but I would have an incredibly hard time believing that PFF awards the o-line with a boosted run blocking grade because of a QB scrambling. They're usually pretty nuanced about these things. That's why a CB could, for example, allow 0 catches for 0 yards and still be graded at a 50 because they get burned every other play and the QB just misses the throws or doesn't look his way. I've never known PFF to be that superficial to simply look at rushing stats and automatically credit the o-line's run blocking. They're very meticulous about their analysis and grading.

How so? That's quite debatable lol. Darnold definitely had a better defense, that's about the only thing I'd give him. I would argue Fields had a slightly less awful receiving corps, a better o-line, and better RBs. Coaching is TBD cause Adam Gase is mediocre at best and Eberflus just finished his first season. Speaking of o-line...I constantly hear talk about Fields' awful o-line but they were ranked top 10 by two independent fairly reputable establishments: PFF and ESPN (at least with regards to their "pass blocking win rate" metric). Fields takes a lot of sacks but a lot of those are undeniably his fault. For comparison's sake since you want to compare both of their 2nd years in the league: Fields had less pressures (119) compared to Darnold (135), and somehow incredibly turned that into 67% more sacks (55 vs. 33). That's pretty damn staggering. There was a graphic posted in here maybe a month or two ago that showed a QB's tendency to turn pressures into sacks in college vs. the NFL. Fields was tops in both categories, meaning he succumbs to sacks when pressured at a much higher than average rate. Did OSU have a horrible o-line too? Pocket awareness/navigating the pocket, stepping up in the pocket to evade edge rushers, etc. those are damn important traits for a QB and it's another flaw for Fields that I don't see talked about. Not only is it not talked about, but it's flipped on its head and used as a point in Fields' favor, as that blame is redirected from Fields and onto his o-line.

It's really not crystal clear at all until Fields takes that next step in his passing game and more importantly starts winning games. At the end of the day he's 5-20 as a starting QB in the NFL...his development has been more encouraging than discouraging, but he's still got a long way to go. If Fields was a slam dunk, I can promise you there wouldn't be reporters asking the GM at the podium if Fields is the starting QB next year and it wouldn't have been such a newsworthy moment that spurned countless articles. Imagine Pederson being asked if Trevor Lawrence is the starting QB next year. Lol. The only articles that would be written about that moment would be how stupid of a question that was.

All that "compensation" at the end of the day resulted in 10 points. And that has essentially summarized Fields' career to this point IMO...he's exciting, but largely ineffective thus far. What you call "legit elite and special ability" (with his legs as you accurately pointed out) I think is just a fluffed up embellished way of saying he's an "exciting" player, which he definitely is. Unfortunately so far it's been mostly all flash and little substance. Fields can bust out an incredible 60-yard run on one play and then overthrow a wide open checkdown on the next. Or throw an interception on a play where the opposing defense rushes zero. Not every coach will take that trade-off of missing the easy stuff while pulling off miraculous plays that no other QB can. I think most would, because they think it's easier to overcome those routine easy things, but it's still very much TBD right now. The irony is that if Justin Fields doesn't fix his passing issues and start piling up wins soon, then he's gonna turn into the next Sam Darnold where years later people are still making excuses for his shortcomings. "Poor Fields has been the victim of horrible coaches, a horrible o-line, and horrible receivers! He has never had a real chance!" - sound familiar? (Substitute Fields with Darnold). And I left off his rushing stats because I was following your lead. Are we including rushing stats or not? Because just a minute ago you were talking about Darnold's 3 passing touchdowns in 4 games instead of his 5 total touchdowns. Both are pretty awful don't get me wrong...but I'm guessing you know it sounds a bit more damning to be able to say he "averaged less than 1 TD per game".

To be fair, Fields also imploded in his last game: 7-21 for 75 yards 1 TD 1 INT. To an earlier point you made: it's definitely fair to hold Darnold and Fields to a different standard, but what confuses me is how one of them is apparently the worst starting QB of the last 6 years and shouldn't even be worthy of signing to a cheap back-up spot, while the other is already anointed a franchise QB who we were idiots to have passed up.

Poles was outright ASKED explicitly if Justin Fields is the starter next year. He didn't just offer that up unprompted. So if Poles is up at the podium and is asked by a reporter "Is Justin Fields the starter next year?", then give me an example of another answer he could've given that would: 1) not lower Fields' trade value, and 2) not risk damaging the team's relationship with Fields and the locker room (since Fields does seem to be beloved by his teammates), in the likely case that the Bears do end up committing to Fields as their QB next season. There's just zero benefit to not answering "yes" to Fields being their starter next year. You're acting like there haven't been countless GMs and coaches who have gone against what they've said publicly at the podium lol. All they have to do is give a cookie-cutter generic answer of "well, circumstances changed....we got an offer that was too good to pass up....we wish him the best....we're excited about Stroud/Young....etc". For the record, no I do not think the Bears are going to select a QB first overall. I just think you're falling victim to confirmation bias where you selectively latch onto certain things the GM says at the podium while being dismissive of others, due to your feelings about Fields. I don't think you're giving equal weight to his qualifier of "unless we are blown away" or w/e. Guys like Stroud and Young already have impressive tape, so all that's left is a solid Combine/Pro Day performance and some compelling interviews and it's easy to imagine them being more-or-less "blown away".