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

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

18 minutes ago, OldhamA said:

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

Fields threw for 17 touchdown passes this year. The entire Panthers QB room hasn’t surpassed that total since 2018 Cam Newton. And he’s done it with terrible rosters around him, where the team traded away almost all their best players, their only NFL receiver missed the end of the season, his starting running back missed significant time and his offensive line sucked. 
 

He’d still be on a rookie contract, he’s shown improvement and we’ve said if we could just get slightly better QB play we’d be a playoff team. Him here with DJ and our line and our defense? Likely a playoff team this year. Likely a playoff team next year. 
 

I don’t want retreads anymore either but the truth is at 9 if it’s Richardson or Fields it’s not even a close debate and Fields mops the floor with Richardson. You draft Richardson and you are hoping he can develop into what Fields has been developing into but tacking on another two years to three years onto that timeline that gets pushed back because most folks don’t think he’ll be ready for a few. 

  • Beer 2
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

    • I’m not necessarily advocating sticking with Bryce. His highs show the ability is there, but there’s enough bad film out there to doubt that he can consistently enough play at a high enough level. But this video from Brett Kollman is a pretty good argument to give it a bit more time, whether that be rolling with Bryce just next year or picking up his 5th year option (not extending him).      The gist is that the structural (wider hashes) and rule (3 yd vs 1 yd thresholds for intelligible offensive lineman downfield penalties) differences in the college and NFL have led to wildly different play calling and scheme diets in college. There is much more shotgun and RPO calls in college and screen/quick throws. This simply doesn’t set up young QBs to be able to play under center, which is more preferred in the NFL due to RBs being able to more effectively run out of that formation.  They don’t know how to do it and have to learn. Yes, the NFL has trended more toward college style offense in the last decade or so, but it isn’t that pronounced and is more out of necessity than desire. And on top of all that, they ask the young QBs to do all this learning with coaching and other personnel churn going on around them.  Bad results lead to coaches getting fired and new ones with different ideas on scheme and footwork and different terminology and playbooks coming in. It makes it harder on those young QBs to learn.     So we may drop Bryce for a young QB starter in the draft and be in a similar situation. With a QB who is going to take years to learn how to operate in an NFL style offense and will struggle along the way.  So you have to weigh whether the struggles we see from Bryce are more due to this learning process vs solely physical limitations on his part. It’s almost undoubtedly a bit of both, but the answer to that question I think dictates your strategy at QB over the next few years. And of course, you have to consider what the alternatives available are.    I’m neither a Bryce hater or a Bryce Stan and I don’t have an answer to that question. But I do fear that if we move on from him, unless it’s for an established player, we’re just in for continued frustration on the QB front because it’s going to take a few years for a college QB to develop (Drake Maye’s don’t grow on trees). 
    • The defense has pulled that feat off this season though.  Multiple times. offense has not had a single good first half all season.  Only and good opening scripted drive paired with disappointing play.  defense has been the actual unit you can measure real and consistent improvement IMO.  Still holes and flaws to it that aren’t going away until new bodies get here but they really are the story of the season IMO
    • One thing about RB's and LB's is they are going to get hurt. It's inevitable. Having a fresh Chuba is not a bad thing.  My only criticism of this entire situation is that I wish our staff would adjust personnel to matchup a little better. I think Chuba is a lot better than Rico against the stacked boxes we've seen the last two weeks. They are very different backs with very different strengths, and I love them both. Rico is so good at identifying the hole early, and hitting it full speed early. He's much better at breaking the big run. Chuba is a much more patient back, and finds 3 yards when there's nothing there better than Rico.  It's in no way a criticism of either, but I think Chuba would have had more success than Rico the way the Saints and Falcons attacked us from a Defensive standpoint.  When you put 9 in the box, often times there is no hole to attack. 
×
×
  • Create New...