Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?

[Lurk21]

8 hours ago, ForJimmy 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.

Fields  has his question marks but that was some  good stats to compare. I will say... playing in Chicago with that wind(weather) will also neglect any Qb stats in Chicago. I still rank it as the worst spot for a Qb to play.  You will scale the playback back on days of horrid wind but with not a bunch of talent... horrible combination!!

[ForJimmy]

21 minutes ago, Lurk21 said:

Fields  has his question marks but that was some  good stats to compare. I will say... playing in Chicago with that wind(weather) will also neglect any Qb stats in Chicago. I still rank it as the worst spot for a Qb to play.  You will scale the playback back on days of horrid wind but with not a bunch of talent... horrible combination!!

Good point. Chicago might be the hardest to play at for QBs. Green Bay seems like it could be tough…

[Brooklyn 3.0]

4 hours ago, OldhamA said:

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

It's all about the energy in the room, the emotion at the time, the here and now, etc.

NO retread coaches they say ... then scream with glee over Reich and Caldwell, etc. NO retread QBs they say ... then drool on the pillow for Carr. As soon as Reich hits a rough patch it'll be back to scouting the next coordinator. As soon as Carr throws a 2 INT game it'll be back to Draft watch 24. It's the way of the world. Just let it flow through you like water and pay no mind.

[MasterAwesome]

11 hours ago, ForJimmy 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.

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.

[MasterAwesome]

19 hours ago, Varking said:

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. 

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.

[frankw]

I cannot wait until we draft Stroud or Richardson and the Fields haters sit around gritting their teeth the next several months.

[ForJimmy]

22 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

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.

Some interesting data to unpack here. Without a doubt Fields holds the ball too long. I think in college he got away with it because he could just out run or overpower defenders if they got pressure. I found it funny when scouts were saying he was a “one read” QB. He definitely went through his reads, just spent too long doing so (probably processing speed is a factor).

The pressure rate is what’s throwing me off. The Eagles have a great OL right now with basically the same players. PFF rated them as 4th in the league in 2021, but we all know how inconsistent it was about the Bears this year with a top 10 OL and two starters being in the bottom 5 for pass protection and a 3rd being the in lower half.

Yeah there is no way I watched all the Eagles games or Bears. I do good to catch all the Panthers games. Hell even if I did watch them I doubt I have the football IQ to legitimately break down the film and see where the issues were aside from the obvious…

 

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-final-2021-offensive-line-rankings

There is the PFF article I was referring to for whatever it’s worth…

[Mr. Scot]

25 minutes ago, frankw said:

I cannot wait until we draft Stroud or Richardson and the Fields haters sit around gritting their teeth the next several months.

You have a habit of really relishing the idea of bad things happening so people will be mad.

It's like that's more important to you than seeing the team succeed

[Teddy2SuperBowlHeartBreaks]

I would make the trade and I would kick and hate myself and feel like I probably fuged up but I would still make the trade.

[Varking]

1 hour ago, MasterAwesome said:

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.

At work but I don’t think you and I are far off from each other. 

[Jon Snow]

Here's a hypothetical for you. What if the Panthers use the 9th pick on Hooker? Would that be considered taking a shot on a 1st round pick qb?

Throw out your recency bias from this past season. 

[Varking]

25 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Here's a hypothetical for you. What if the Panthers use the 9th pick on Hooker? Would that be considered taking a shot on a 1st round pick qb?

Throw out your recency bias from this past season. 

To me Hooker in the first is a reach. 

[Jon Snow]

19 minutes ago, Varking said:

To me Hooker in the first is a reach. 

Tell that to Bucky Brooks. He has Hooker rated ahead of Levis and AR.  It's a long way to draft night. Anything can happen. 

[Hogan]

On 2/14/2023 at 6:26 AM, BrianS said:

No.  His development as a passer has been non-existent thus far.  INT rate is far too high and completion percentage too low.  Once teams start treating him like Vick, he'll be just another backup.

Agree. Cam, Lamar Jackson, Fields, etc. Great players. But due to their running, short shelf life. Rather have someone who is an elite passer who can run if he has to.