MasterAwesome

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".

The GM doesn't want to lessen the value of his pick and also doesn't want to lessen the value of Fields as a potential trade asset. So I'm not sure why you seem to be picking and choosing which of Poles' comments are legitimate and to be taken at face value, when it's all very likely deliberately framed in order to maintain the value of both pieces. If he was outwardly lukewarm and non-committal about Fields then he's likely harming his trade value. There's nothing you just said in your post about the #1 draft pick that doesn't also apply to Justin Fields.

Gotcha. Yeah the wasted money comment was clear but it was the "he shined" part of your post that was hard to infer sarcasm from. I was like.....were we watching the same guy?

Really? I thought he looked pretty underwhelming...or at least incredibly slow. A lot of people don't care as long as your returner doesn't turn the ball over, but he had one fumble in 6 returns and almost a second one, but was ruled down just before. Blackshear is the guy I would like to re-sign for the KR/PR position. He looked fast and elusive and was pretty sure-handed, not to mention he was a rookie who still has room to develop at that position and as RB depth. For comparison, he also had 1 fumble, but in 25 returns vs. Roberts' 6 returns. He also averaged 9.2 YPR on punts and 27.0 YPR on kickoffs, vs. Roberts' 4.5 YPR on punts and 17.5 YPR on kickoffs. I think with Roberts' age and the fact that he's coming off of a knee injury last year, it's almost a no-brainer to move on at this point.

Can you imagine the mayhem...I could see him popping up on the jumbotron like "We put $10,000 cash underneath 5 random seats in the stadium!" Or a "survive a tackle from Jeremy Chinn for $20,000" challenge.

You're talking about games where Hurts didn't even play - I'm talking about games where he has a poor or meh performance, there's a subtle distinction there. Because whether he's having a good game or a bad game as a passer, he still needs to be accounted for in the run game. Which is partly what I mean by him being a complementary piece of the team; he also complements the run game with that threat of running. Even if himself has a lackluster rushing performance, the role he plays helps indirectly elevate the rest of the team around him.

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs. Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses. That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals. If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load. If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

First of all, I'm sure there isn't a single person that wouldn't rather have a great QB than CMC lol. But besides that, the rest of your argument is odd. I mean he essentially went 13-0 with Jimmy G and Brock Purdy, until his team's QB situation was so dire that he himself had to play some snaps at QB. And saying he needs an offense to be built around him again is strange because he was literally inserted into a brand new already-built offense and helped propel his team to 13 straight wins, when they were 3-3 before he arrived. All his career has proven so far is that he can't put an entire offense on his back and win a game single-handedly if his QB is completely useless, which is a standard that no other skill player is held to. So you can't really say he needs a "great" QB when he hasn't even played alongside a "good" one. Is that how you feel about a guy like DJ Moore too? He needs a "great" QB to win anything? Cause instead for some reason, DJ typically gets the benefit of the doubt that he could be elite if he had a decent QB throwing him the ball. But CMC is expected to be able to win in spite of bad QB play. A QB might have more of a direct impact on a WR's performance, but factoring in indirect impact (i.e. facing stacked boxes), makes both positions fairly equally victimized by poor QB play.

You could frame a similar argument for QB lol. “Hey look this Joe Burrow guy is only making a $1 million salary. Compare him to a guy like Josh Allen making $27 million in 2023. Why pay a QB a second contract when you got young guys on rookie deals producing for way cheaper?” Also Etienne was still drafted in the 1st round. Are you advocating us taking a RB with a late 1st round pick if we’re in that position? I agree with your overall argument, but Etienne is a pretty bad example to use for multiple reasons.