Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?


musicman
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MasterAwesome said:

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.

They finished dead last, drafted Lawrence still finished last. Then signed a good HC and spent money in FA to actually build a team around him and he looked much better leading them to the playoffs. The Bears were 0-1 with a 31-10 loss to the Jets in the one game Fields didn’t play. They are just a terrible team and had no business winning any games honestly. It’s a team sport just look up at the Stafford reference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Just look at Stafford at the Lions vs Rams. 0 playoff wins vs Super Bowl winner in one year. It’s a team sport and everyone knows that. 
The Bears got dominated by the Jets in the one games Fields didn’t play 31-10. They were 0-1 without him starting last year.

why did Cam set records as a rookie?  Well, he was unique.  Different.  NFL didn't know what to do with that. 

but he had multiple Pro Bowl offensive lineman, 2 stud RBs, 2 stud TEs, and a HOF WR.   Which allowed him to shine year 1.  Cam wouldn't of set the league on fire in a bad situation.  He would have just been sacked a lot and thrown a lot of picks most likely. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

They finished dead last, drafted Lawrence still finished last. Then signed a good HC and spent money in FA to actually build a team around him and he looked much better leading them to the playoffs. The Bears were 0-1 with a 31-10 loss to the Jets in the one game Fields didn’t play. They are just a terrible team and had no business winning any games honestly. It’s a team sport just look up at the Stafford reference. 

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.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MasterAwesome said:

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.

The argument is Fields did elevate that current team. They were winless without him (obviously a very small sample size), but the game wasn’t even competitive. He elevated them from unwatchable to competitive but still bad. 

Bringing up Stafford’s stats would be irrelevant to the discussion about wins right? Fields broke several rushing records last year, but that doesn’t matter. The Stafford point is simply showing what a difference a team makes. It’s a team sport, always has been.

I agree that next year should be telling of Fields. His current numbers are similar to Hurts his first full year as a start with arguably much less around him. Fields also had a defense that ranked dead last in points allowed per game and 4th to last in yards allowed. Expecting him to elevate the little talent around him to overcompensate for the league’s worst defense to get wins seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a side note, I enjoy debates with you. You always bring a nice logical perspective. Keep up the good work on here!

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

You are referring to a decision made 2 years ago when Rhule was in control and passed on a player. Thinking they would feel the same way still is implying they think like Rhule. So your comment actually implies they are just as stupid.

Look at the wanna be spin artist. Let me know when you think I give a fug. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Look at the wanna be spin artist. Let me know when you think I give a fug. 

I'm sorry you brought up thinking like Rhule and assumed we would make the same decision that he did 2 years ago.  That's just logic.   But please keep posting on here how much you don't care.  It's really making us believe it...

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ForJimmy said:

The argument is Fields did elevate that current team. They were winless without him (obviously a very small sample size), but the game wasn’t even competitive. He elevated them from unwatchable to competitive but still bad. 

Bringing up Stafford’s stats would be irrelevant to the discussion about wins right? Fields broke several rushing records last year, but that doesn’t matter. The Stafford point is simply showing what a difference a team makes. It’s a team sport, always has been.

I agree that next year should be telling of Fields. His current numbers are similar to Hurts his first full year as a start with arguably much less around him. Fields also had a defense that ranked dead last in points allowed per game and 4th to last in yards allowed. Expecting him to elevate the little talent around him to overcompensate for the league’s worst defense to get wins seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a side note, I enjoy debates with you. You always bring a nice logical perspective. Keep up the good work on here!

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.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

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.

The difference is the Eagles already had a solid defense, had talent on their offensive line, had a good TE, had young up and coming receivers and then they made a splash trade for a true #1. But Hurts had all that the year before outside of the true #1 and didn’t look great. So the fact that Fields numbers are close to Hurts through two seasons despite the lack of talent plays in favor of Fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

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.

I think we agree he still has a lot to prove as a passer.  It's honestly hard to evaluate him with what's around him.  It's the age old argument if no one is open and there is no time to throw what can a QB really do?  He fortunately can run and helped keep an otherwise disastrous season interesting for some fans.  The main thing I see is his rating, yards per attempt, TD per game, completion % all increased this year despite getting a new offense, constant OL injuries and little talent around him (granted it was terrible his rookie year, but it is still trending up).  One would imagine if they get him some protection, some weapons, and an at least average defense the wins will follow.

He has shown he can clearly play and put up point in the NFL.  I mean he had that anemic Bears offense putting up 19.2 PPG (that's including the backup's 10 point game), which put them over 9 franchises, so not quite a third of the league.

All we can really do at this point is project and speculate.  Chicago has the cap space and potential picks to put some talent around him and see how he grows.  If they do that next year will really shed some light on him as a possible franchise QB or not.  So currently I see a player still oozing with potential showing he can play decent with lots going against him which is why I would trade our 9 pick for him if possible, but Chicago won't do that because of the same reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

QB rating Hurts was 87.2 Fields was 85.2. Hurts was 61% with 7.3 yards per attempt Field was 60% with 7.1 yards per attempt. Fields threw one more TD and two more INTs. The only real difference is Hurts has 900 more yards but had 432 passing attempts to Fields only 318. So I guess you could argue Fields was turning it over at a higher rate per attempt but he also would be scoring at a higher rate per attempt (which explains why their ratings are so close). Fields also has about 400 more rushing yards but 2 less rushing TDs. Now throw in the fact Hurts had a superior OL, WR, TE and of course offensive staff working with him.

  • Pie 1
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If the Bears decide to take a QB at #1 and move on from Fields and we can get him for #9 overall and we like Fields more than the QBs we anticipate will be available at #9 then go for it.

That's whole lot of "ifs" so it's highly unlikely to happen.

What happened to the Huddle's 'no retreads' policy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • El primer paso es marcar el número de Teléfono de Delta en México. Puedes llamar al número de Delta Teléfono México: 📍☎️🤳👾+52 (55) 417-08496 🔋 +1-802-302-5016. Este número está disponible las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, para ayudarte con tus consultas, reservas, cambios de vuelo y cualquier otra pregunta que puedas tener sobre tus viajes con Delta.   VISITORS: https://prospectivestudentsportal.ed.ac.uk/forums/general-discussion/459501ac-eb2a-ef11-8ee8-002248c6fb91
    • Using it was here. I, seriously, must appreciate my realm. It is difficult, however, unless you have doing that. I believe this is a load of horse hockey. There are simply no mixed messages in this territory. I will show you the rundown. Where can newcomers save fresh Zappify Reviews guides? A doing it works one day may not work the next. How do they do that? This is all there is to this. If you don't want my view, I'll take it. It's not even just in respect to that Zappify Reviews you use. You don't have to pay through the nose for that brainchild. By definition, using that is a terrific experience. I have to shy away from giving the feeling of being greedy. 
    • Eagle Eye X20 is a dietary supplement intended to restore 20/20 vision. Taking two capsules of Eagle Eye X20 every day allegedly restores vision by addressing the body's "water mechanism." Continue reading to learn all you need to understand about Eagle Eye X20, like whether or not it is a genuine 20/20 vision supplement or a fraud. What exactly is Eagle Eye X20? Eagle Eye X20 is a supplement for eye health supplied only online at  Eagle Eye X20, according to the company, is "the actual cure to vision loss" and would "restore your 20/20 vision" utilizing a secret formula that "you weren't intended to find out about." The following is how the manufacturers of Eagle Eye X20 explain the recipe and its distinctive effects: "This life-saving solution...that can restore any man or woman on earth 20/20 eyesight in about 68 days... It should not exist at all." Eagle Eye X20 is marketed to those with loss of vision, partial blindness, and other visual problems, including those who are becoming blind: "If you are getting blind or are concerned that you are going blind... You were just a few minutes from the greatest achievement of your life." Eagle Eye X20 is also sold to those with 20/20 vision who want to preserve it over time. According to the company, by using Eagle Eye X20 everyday, you may not only retain vision, but also enhance vision and regain 20/20 eyesight. In actuality, the company argues that eyesight loss is voluntary. Eagle Eye X20 allows you to prevent vision loss, restore perfect vision, and never again be concerned about losing your eyesight. Helen Barnes, an ophthalmologist who has worked in the field for twenty years, created Eagle Eye X20. Helen, with her expertise as an ophthalmologist, developed a supplement that restores 20/20 eyesight without adverse effects or invasive surgery. Eagle Eye X20 Benefits According to the supplement offers the following advantages: Restore and correct 20/20 eyesight. Enhanced night vision. Enhance concentration and mental acuity. Assist you in avoiding headaches, continuous weariness, vertigo, and senior moments. Promote eyesight and vision in all age groups. Avoid the adverse consequences of intrusive surgeries and other eye care remedies. How does the Eagle Eye X20 function? The majority of eye health products that promise to restore 20/20 vision or strengthen eyesight are ineffective. What distinguishes Eagle Eye X20? How can a dietary supplement restore 20/20 vision? Eagle Eye X20 is said to target hypercoagulability, or increased blood viscosity. Your blood naturally grows thicker as you age. You lose more water. Instead of keeping roughly 70% of the water, you may only retain 50%. When your body loses water, many vitamins and minerals become less concentrated. This decreased focus may result in visual loss. Hypercoagulability causes eyesight deterioration over time. It may not be immediately apparent. But, the decreased water content of your body continues to impair your eyesight over time. When you use Eagle Eye X20, your blood becomes both more fluid and nutrient-dense, making it easier for you to see. Eagle Eye X20 Improves Eyesight by Adding Nutrients, Vitamins, and Minerals to the Blood With a mix of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients, Eagle Eye X20 purportedly eliminates "all your visual issues." If you take Eagle Eye X20 every day, you may supposedly enhance your vision, whether you are half blind or have near-perfect eyesight. How does the formula work? Blood is more easily able to reach the small vessels in the eyes the more liquid it contains. As your blood is able to reach the small veins in your eyes more easily, your iris, cornea, and optic nerve are better nourished, making it simpler for them to function. The nutrients in Eagle Eye X20 "regenerate" your cornea, iris, and optic nerve, hence enhancing your vision and eliminating "all of your eyesight issues." You do not need to take Eagle Eye X20 continually to enhance your vision; instead, the formula regulates the blood's chemistry and prevents eye shrinkage by replenishing your blood with nutrient- and vitamin-rich blood to improve eyesight. If you take Eagle Eye X20 once a day, you may achieve blood balance and get great eye health benefits. Indigenous peoples of Australia and Melanesia, especially Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, participated in the study that led to the development of this formula. These individuals have exceptional eyesight and seldom use corrective lenses. After doing study on a number of the nutrients found in the average diet, the manufacturers of Eagle Eye X20 included these nutrients in the mix. Who Manufactured Eagle Eye X20? Helen Barnes, an ophthalmologist (eye specialist), designed Eagle Eye X20. Helen has twenty years of expertise in her field. Helen is a Houston, Texas resident with two children. She is a Baylor College of Medicine graduate. She was formerly one of New York's most prominent ophthalmologists. She claims that she has treated celebrities and business leaders. Helen performed the duties of an ophthalmologist for many years. She advised her customers to wear corrective lenses and suggested laser surgery to enhance their vision. Helen eventually recognized that the pharmaceutical business was deceiving the public. She asserts that those who get LASIK surgery have an increased risk of suicide and other hazardous side effects. She asserts that the eye care business has blood on its hands and continues to obstruct valid treatments for blindness in order to safeguard profits. Helen observed one day that she seldom interacted with folks with dark eyes. Due to the increased quantity of pigment and melanin, those with dark eyes are less likely to develop vision impairment. Helen's finding led her down a rabbit hole of investigation. In summary, Helen discovered hypercoagulability and certain nutrients that alter eyesight. Helen devised the product Eagle Eye X20 by mixing these substances in particular doses and concentrations to enhance patients' vision and restore 20/20 eyesight. Currently, Helen asserts that she is "kind of retired" because to her exposure to the vision business, but she is convinced that the success of Eagle Eye X20 will allow her to remain financially stable during her retirement. Eagle Eye X20: Can It Enhance Vision and Reverse Half Blindness? Eagle Eye X20's manufacturers seem to imply that the formula might be a treatment for whole or partial blindness. Eagle Eye X20 promises to restore 20/20 vision, cure blindness and partial blindness, and enhance eye health in a number of ways, while other eye health supplements only claim to preserve healthy eyesight. These are some of 's assertions on regaining 20/20: Eagle Eye X20 claims to recover eyesight permanently since "you do not have to take it off for the for the rest of your life." Instead, the mixture works once to restore eyesight by replenishing the blood with minerals and vitamins. According to the official website, after taking Eagle Eye X20, "all your vision difficulties disappear." The producer of Eagle Eye X20 claims that one of its components is "actually the cure for blindness," citing a research that mentions a particular molecule. Eagle Eye X20 is designed exclusively for those with impaired vision. For instance, the website suggests "squinting your eyes to see the restaurant menu" and receiving progressively powerful prescriptions from the eye specialist. Instead than focusing on preserving 20/20 vision, Eagle Eye X20 is targeted to those who already have impaired vision. Eagle Eye X20's website is packed with before-and-after photographs of people whose eyesight allegedly improved after using the product. In the prior photographs, individuals are shown wearing heavy spectacles. Their prescription also demonstrates that they have weak vision. Then, in the after photographs, we are able to view them without glasses or surgery. According to Eagle Eye X20's manufacturers, "those folks took aside their glasses after at least 10 years with strong prescription lenses" Several of the patients shown on Eagle Eye X20 had exceptionally strong demands for contact lenses and glasses, but because to Eagle Eye X20, they were able to quit using glasses. Eagle Eye X20's manufacturers are certain that the solution may restore eyesight, reverse loss of vision, and cure vision or partial blindness in the vast majority of users. Eagle Eye X20 Ingredients Eagle Eye X20's manufacturers do not publish the formula's contents or the levels of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients. Most eye wellness supplements include a combination of antioxidants that especially target the eyes, such as lutein, zeaxanthin, astaxanthin, and zeaxanthin. Many eye herbal supplements also include vitamin A, one of the most well-known eye-protecting vitamins found in nature. Nevertheless, Eagle Eye X20 promises to restore 20/20 vision in those with existing vision loss, as opposed to just enhancing eyesight. There is no proof that the substances listed above help you to quit wearing glasses or avoid your eyeglass prescription. Overall, the manufacturers of Eagle Eye X20 are convinced that the mixture restores 20/20 vision as stated and stand by the product with a 60-day money-back guarantee — despite not giving the complete component list up front. Dossiers scientifiques concernant Eagle Eye X20 Many investigations conducted by Eagle Eye X20's manufacturers support the claims presented on the official website. They further say that some research were omitted due to the intervention of large pharmaceutical firms whose earnings are endangered by Eagle Eye X20. Here, we will examine the scientific data for Eagle Eye X20 to establish whether or not it really heals blindness, improves eyesight, and restores 20/20 vision. Initially, the manufacturers of Eagle Eye X20 claim that the formula was tested on a guy called Nathan Smith. He was the first one to test the recipe. Nathan was 38 years old when a rare illness caused his eyes to close over the course of a few weeks. Nathan believed he would never sight again after receiving conventional treatment. But, after using Eagle Eye X20, he regained 20/20 vision, which was confirmed by an eye exam. Within weeks, Eagle Eye X20 restored Nathan's blindness. Following Nathan's experience, Eagle Eye X20 is said to have "aided countless" in regaining 20/20 eyesight. Moreover, the firm claims that its 6-bottle bundle is "doctor approved," implying that at least one physician has suggested utilizing Eagle Eye X20. In addition, the manufacturers of Eagle Eye provide a chart demonstrating that the formula is superior than LASIK (laser eye surgery) and lenses for enhancing vision. They say the supplement will "deliver greater outcomes" and work "faster" and "longer" than standard remedial treatments, with "absolutely no negative effects." Helen built the Eagle Eye X20 recipe on studies involving Australia and Melanesia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations. Indeed, these individuals have substantially superior eyesight than the ordinary person. But, according to one research, their rates of blindness over the age of 40 are six times greater than the ordinary Aussie. Sadly, the manufacturers of Eagle Eye X20 do not provide any rigorous scientific studies demonstrating that the product may reverse blindness, heal vision loss, or restore eyesight in any manner. Also, the producer does not reveal the whole list of components, making it hard to perform independent research on the formula's constituents. Eagle Eye X20 contains substances that may promote healthy eyesight and help you keep 20/20 vision if you currently have it. There is little proof, however, that taking a supplement can considerably enhance your eyesight if you are already experiencing vision loss. Eagle Eye X20 Costs Eagle Eye X20 is priced at $69 per bottle, however the price reduces to $49 or $59 per bottle when numerous bottles are purchased. Below is a breakdown of price when purchasing from  One (30-Day Supply) Bottle: $69 plus $9.95 Shipping Three bottles (90-Day Supply) for $177 with free U.S. shipping. 6 Bottles (180-Day Supply) for $294 + Free Delivery in the U.S. According to the company, Eagle Eye X20 will restore 20/20 vision in around 68 days, thus two to three bottles should be sufficient for the majority of individuals. The firm also claims that the supplement's effects are permanent: after one cycle, the supplement is no longer required. Eagle Eye X20 Cancellation Policy All purchases of Eagle Eye X20 are covered by a 60-day money-back guarantee. Within sixty days, you may request a complete refund for Eagle Eye X20 with no questions asked. You are entitled to a full refund if you are unhappy with Eagle Eye X20 and how it works, or if you did not observe any results from the supplement. About Eagle Eye X20 Helen Barnes, an ophthalmologist, was responsible for the creation of Eagle Eye X20. Helen asserts that she has over twenty years of work experience as an ophthalmologist and is a graduate of Baylor College of Medicine. After a prosperous career in New York, she is exposing the eye care business by disclosing the true treatment for eyesight loss. Helen collaborated with an American dietary supplement firm to develop Eagle Eye X20. Eagle Eye X20 is produced at an FDA-registered, GMP-certified facility in the United States. To email the Eagle Eye X20 developers, visit Eagle Eye X20's producer collaborated with BuyGoods, an e-commerce platform, to offer the supplement online. Eagle Eye X20 is a dietary supplement intended to restore 20/20 eyesight using a combination of all-natural components. Supposedly, by taking Eagle Eye X20 everyday, you may raise nutritional levels in your blood, enabling you to quit using your spectacles or contact lenses without invasive procedures or laser eye surgery. Visit to learn further about Eagle Eye X20 and to purchase the eyesight supplement online now.    
×
×
  • Create New...