BearFan PHX

I want to add this too: A lot of things are opinions. Answers to questions like "Should we keep Fields?" "How good will Fields be next year?" "Is an offense based on broken plays viable?" those would all be opinions. But "DJ Moore ran a 2 yard out" is not an opinion. "The closest defender was 5 yards away" is not an opinion. Etc. I respect all of the people on this board, and we will agree or disagree about opinions. The things I've said above are facts. I gave timestamps, and screenshots. I was specific about everything that was a fact. And it was just four plays, not the answer to any of the big questions, which are complicated enough that those would all be opinions. So it isnt you say potato I say potahto - its more like I say Moore was open at the sticks and Fields looked right at him and didn't throw the ball. And that happened. there is no subjectivity to it? So there is no disrespect for anyone's opinion here. You can still agree that that happened and still think we should keep Fields next year. I cant say that is wrong. I can only argue why i think it's a poor bet. But THAT is an opinion and I respect everyones here. And to anyone that took the time to actually read what I wrote above in the four play post, i appreciate your time reading it.

The first part of this I agree with, and i watch a lot too. Im gonna say we both know what we are talking about. Also you seemed to discount my post for the length, but to be fair, he asked me to prove what I was saying. If its too long to read, i get that, but its not a rebuttal its just a refuse to engage, which is fair. As for the misplay with Scott, a few things. Daniel says he was the first read on that play in the very same video. Scott is WIDE open - this isn't a matter of not being sure. Fields is looking right at him, and there is no one around. Fields stance and hips are pointed right at where Scott is headed, and there is no other receiver or defender in that area. It's as easy as it gets in football. Scott wasnt way downfield, he was 2 yards past the sticks. It's as easy a first down as there is, and it's to the first read, and Fields is looking right at him. And Fields is not under pressure. Ill attach the picture at the bottom so its easy to find. Im surely not the only person who has said that Fields is having trouble seeing open receivers. It's a common criticism of his game. He holds the ball too long, he doesn't pull the trigger when he has open guys. Here were four back to back examples from the beginning of the very video that was being used to promote Fields as great, and in each Fields looked at a wide open receiver who was in his progression and failed to pull the trigger. He then ran and made something happen out of a broken play. If you want to say that what Fields does with broken plays is an offense you're comfortable with, that's totally cool. He is about the best I've ever seen at it. But you just can't deny that in each of those four plays Fields didnt throw the ball in rhythm to anyone, and only threw after he was running and the play was broken. If youre going to be intellectually honest you also have to admit that all those receivers i was pointing out were wide open at the designed breaks of their routes. And you can clearly see in all cases Fields is looking at them. So if youre saying Fields is the man and he just doesnt trust anyone, including DJ Moore twice, then I think it's a hell of a lot more likely that Fields is failing in the exact way everyone who criticizes him says he does every week. Holds the ball too long, wont pull the trigger, can only succeed after the initial play has broken down. It's hard to say that Fields is right not to trust a wide open DJ Moore. Twice. At least for those four plays, which i didnt cherry pick, but were presented to me as proof of Fields not being what I say he is. And I replied that the first four plays were all Fields not throwing to wide open receivers, and only making plays once the play had broken. At some point, I think once the facts are so clear, and not a matter of opinion (please read my post and tell me what I got wrong - it's all cited with timestamps and a good number of screenshots that are labelled which play the belong to) you gotta say that at least for those four plays, what Im saying is factual, not opinion. Fields DID hold the ball and DID fail to pull the trigger on wide open receivers that he was looking at in each of those four plays.

and please respond to all the time and effort I made proving my point since you asked me to? I dont think you can disagree with anything I wrote, at least about those four plays? Now that it's all laid out so neatly? You did ask for me to back it up and I think I did? Oh, and just for the record, I lived in NYC for a long time, but I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, and didnt go to NYC until after college because I got work there. I never really liked it there. I still say please and thank you and that seemed to just confuse people there.

I understand that everyone has an opinion, including me. I answered you on the QB thread with a lot of detail, timestamps and pics. I dont really see a baby in that bathwater - check what I wrote and let me know? And please understand I respect you as a person, I respect your right to any opinion you hold, but while I often can see how people who disagree with me on various things have a point too, in this case, I think it's very cut and dried (to me) - so I dont disrespect you, but the opinion is a lot more confusing to me than most things with which I might disagree. Anyway, check the QB thread post. It's pretty damning.

OK, from Chase Daniel's video, where he says "Fields ran the gameplan to perfection" (!) note that because Daniel pauses and rewinds the tape, the time markers Im posting here dont relate to real time in the play, but to the YouTube video. The stills you asked for are at the bottom, marked for each play here. PLAY ONE 1:41 Tonyan is WIDE open across the middle. Fields is looking right, probably because Tonyan isnt his first read, so thats OK. 1:45 half a second later, Moore is WIDE open and Fields is looking right at him. But Fields doesnt pull the trigger and tries to run instead. On the chalkboard, given this defensive look, Moore was the right read. 3:30 look at fields having both wide open receivers in his view. If Fields doesnt like the DE coming around Kmet from the outside, look at the running and passing lane to Tonyan. Result - Fields gets "smashed" PLAY TWO 3rd and 5 3:57 Scott is wide open across the middle for a 7 yard gain and easy first down, and no defender is within 2 yards of Fields. Fields' head is looking right at Scott. Throw the ball with anticipation before Scott even makes his break, because there is no middle defender at all and the defender placed on the wrong side of Scott is 5 yards away BEFORE the break that is going away from him. This is a route past the sticks for an easy first down with zero risk. Even if you wait for Scott to break before you throw. 3:58 Instead, Fields takes more time to check down to Kmet who must carry two, then three defenders on his body to miraculously and just barely get the first down. Kmet deserves praise, but this was a very risky way to pick up the first down. 4 times out of 5, the player doesn't make it to the sticks. 6:02 Fields looks right at Scott in his progression and doesn't pull the trigger. Result - Skin of your teeth first down, when the right read for an easy success was open earlier. Daniel says "thought this play was great" and that Scott was "a little too deep of a route for me on 3rd down" - past the sticks wide open? When he was diagramming the play a moment earlier, he clearly calls Scott as the right read. So weird! Says the pocket was collapsing, but you see Fields had plenty of time to throw it - and if the pocket is collapsing, why wait for a later route that has three defenders on top of it? PLAY THREE 3rd and 2 7:20 Fields has a clean pocket and three receivers past the sticks with all defenders playing over the top. Two of the receivers are running deeper routes though. Either some receivers didnt make a hot read and shorten their routes, or they are meant to clear out for Moore. Either way Moore is WIDE open past the sticks and again Fields has no one in his face. Throw the ball. 7:24 Daniel says "nothings open" (!) 7:35 Fields is looking right AT Moore who is wide open for the first down. Fields doesnt pull the trigger. Also, watch Moore STAY open. He's amazing at that. When I watched film of him at Carolina, I was always amazed at how he not only got open, but stayed open. Moore is a master of spacing and did his job on this play. 8:10 Instead, Fields scrambles left, BARELY avoiding two tackles (risky!) and misses St Brown WIDE open for a touchdown right in his line of sight to throw across his body to middle of the field (which is also generally risky) to Johnson. 8:54 Fields' arm is cocked to throw to Kmet, and he decides not to because the defender is closing fast. He misses that there is a high / low concept on that defender, and that if the defender is taking Kmet, then St Brown MUST be open. That's how the play is designed to beat a defense. Fields should know St Brown is open BECAUSE Kmet isnt. But he just doesnt see the touchdown. Result - Unnecessary high risk third down completion heroic effort because Fields held the ball when the designed play WORKED in tempo for a much higher percentage outcome. Whether that was a touchdown, or just the read I wanted, the early safe first down throw to Moore with no risks. PLAY FOUR 1st and 10 9:47 Daniel says that the first 2 reads are on the left side. if so, Moore is wide open, and Fields should have pulled the trigger on him. But I dont see it that way at all. I see it as a mini screen to Herbert on the right side. No read at all, a scripted throw. Cool. And it works. The defender is inside Kmet who is engaging him ready to block. Perfect position. Fields' arm is cocked to throw, but AGAIN he doesn't pull the trigger. 9:49 Fields is almost SACKED. Herbert is still open and Kmet still has position but he CANT BLOCK YET for two reasons. First is if Fields throws the screen, that's an illegal block. Second is if Fields will run. You can see Kmet is looking back to see if Fields is gonna do something, instead of having his head facing the defender. This means Kmet is so used to the improvisation, he doesnt KNOW whats going to happen. Not much of a team concept. But Fields has done neither at this point, and so everyone is hamstrung, including the OL who has let a defender through. 10:02 Fields finally throws the ball to Herbert, but there is a defender right in his face with his hands up as he does. We all remember Fields threw it right into the chest of a defender at a similar angle later in the game. Result - Herbert gets the ball up the right sideline for a big gain. But he gets it after Fields is almost sacked, after a defender has a chance to knock it down, and after the safety has had more time to get to the end point of Herbert's run. The play was designed to get Herbert the ball in rhythm for a big gain. The play design worked. Kmet was in position, the sideline was void of defenders. Fields just didnt pull the trigger. Again. At this point I stopped watching. CONCLUSIONS I've attached notated pics below too. In each case, there was a receiver WIDE open (Moore, Scott, Moore, Herbert) and Justin was looking right at them without being pressured, but he just didnt pull the trigger. Four for four. Meanwhile Daniel is praising it all! Now I get that watching the game, eyes on Fields, you see a guy doing heroic athletic things, and finally making something happen. In each case a "positive outcome" which is why this was a highlight reel. But in each case, the play design called for a different outcome - one that was OPEN, WORKED and had extremely low risk. Instead Fields broke each play. Then he did amazing things playing sandlot football. So I see why some people like him. But maybe now you can see why I don't. It's not like all this scrambling is scoring a ton of points, and try this against good teams in the playoffs and you're gonna get killed. Also, I know we blame Getsy for not calling plays where Fields throws intermediate routes to the middle, and Getsy has his share of blame for sure, but you can see here, Getsy DID have receivers open in those areas, multiple times - and long balls too. Justin just wont throw to them. I hope you guys take the time to read this, since I took a ton of time to make it all. If you do, thank you.

of course this is true. we are here to debate the topics, and vent about the Bears, but even if you managed to convince me or I managed to convince you it wouldnt affect the decision at all. At least in your political analogy, if you convince someone a vote goes differently, but in this case its true we have zero input to what will happen! I will try to go thru the tape again and write what I see with time stamps.

yeah but the only reason we are talking about Tua is his 70.6 QB rating year. To say that a QB had a terrible rating and then got better means that any QB with a terrible rating will get better is flawed logic and flies in the face of every single QB that ever burned out with a bad rating that never got better. Guys, Fields is not a QB. he doesnt read defenses and he doesnt win games. He wins extremely rarely (even a broken clock is right twice a day) and usually his good performances are against bad defenses. I truly dont understand all the Fields defenders. It's crazy to me.

Exactly, and there is no reason to ruin it by being loyal to a guy thats never shown that he is a winner. Do whats best for the team and draft a QB!

I get you, but theres a difference between winning games, and being huge favorites in most or every game you play. I realize we will never see 1985 again, but I dont just want to win, I want a team built to dominate. And my only point is that making incremental progress, and aiming at safe outcomes wont ever result in that killer team I think we all want to see.

yeah but he has had many good games, and won quite a few of them too, Justin hasnt. It's really faulty logic - if a good player has a bad game that proves that a player who only has bad games is good? I really dont understand what feels like mass hypnosis to me - I know what I see, its right there - and i dont know where this is coming from, unless youre just trolling, I dunno. And anyway my point was not only that Justin's "good plays" this week werent really good by the design of the play - but to also show where Daniel is at with the kool aid. He's calling mistakes good plays because instead of getting sacked, Justin finds a way to make something out of the play after he breaks it. And I just keep asking - why do you want a QB who so seldom can execute the play the way it's drawn up? Heroball isnt football, and Im still surprised at those who cant see it - I dont mean that as a personal dig or anything at anyone here specifically - I promise - it's just like something is so obvious, and I truly dont understand why so many people, not just on this board, but all through the media, dont see it.

I hear ya Grizz, the doinks broke my heart too for sure. It's just... I dont want a team that needs a last minute field goal to win. I want a team that you KNOW is gonna win before the game even starts. A team that regularly has 12+ wins. A team that can stand toe to toe with anyone. 2018 wasnt that. We havent seen anything like that for almost 40 years. I hope we get a coach and draft players with that mentality - that incremental progress isnt the goal. Finding dominance is. A GM who doesnt take the guy with the highest floor to limit risk, but keeps swinging away until he finds guys with superstar potential. In the short term, they oughtta let Fields throw the ball, and show everyone who he is for better or worse. And that goes for everyone on the team, staff included. Be working toward excellence or find another job. This safe crap isn't ever going to win any championships. It just brings you from the basement to 15th or something, and everyone keeps their jobs. What are we, a small market team that just wants to sell tickets?

OK here's more of Chase Daniel praising Fields. I could only watch the first 10 minutes but on EVERY SINGLE PLAY Justin failed to read the open man and get the ball to him. Instead, the play broke and then Fields scrambled and did something. You can see it with your own eyes. And you can hear Daniel say "when a play is broke, #1 can fix it that's why I like him" But there were guys open all over, especially in the middle of the field, and Fields looks at them, sometimes more than once and cant pull the trigger. The headline is about how Fields isnt the problem - its supposed to be a pro Fields video. But watch it. Ignore what Daniel says and watch the tape. Its all right there to see perfectly. Like I said I gave up after the first 10 minutes. But these are supposed to be highlights.

Justin has all the physical tools and then some. But he doesnt read defenses. So you cant build around a guy like that.

Since Chase Daniel has been invoked as a guy who played in the league and supports Fields, here he is today, speaking on Fields. Giving his opinion that the Bears should keep him, and the headline is "Chase Daniel believes Justin Fields should be Bears' QB1 in 2024" And what he says is "I do think with the right people around him Justin can be elite. I dont know if hes ever gonna be a top 5 QB in the league, and quite honestly i dont know if you need that" So Daniels isnt evidence of a guy who played QB in the league that sees greatness in Fields, hes a guy who played QB in the league that believes you dont need a top 5 QB to be elite. Back in the day, this was very true. You could build a defense, and surround a Trent Dilfer or Jeff Hostetler with talent and win games with complementary football. But in todays passing league, I dont believe you can go all the way without a top 5 QB. So maybe this is the crux of the disagreements here - not that Fields will be dominant, but that some think you can build around him and win without him being top 5. I don't see that at all. I think people see incremental progress from Fields and the defense and assume that it will keep going like that until they are great. But to me that approach has a ceiling, and will never consistently beat the good teams in the league. So I dont want to build a team that way, even if they could go to 10th best team in the league on that path. Chicago has been donw that road many times before. I think you need to be looking for a Super Bowl winner, and pass anything up that cant get you there. Also, you might wonder about the word elite. How is a QB that isnt in the top 5 elite? And maybe this is a cheap shot, but Daniels was never considered to have top 5 QB skills, so maybe he bought 100% into the team concept of having the QB just good enough to win with the rest of the guys? Maybe thats just his core philosophy. But either way, using Daniels as evidence that guys who know think Justin has it, is a little flawed since he says he doesnt know if Justin will ever be top 5 in his opinion. And he didnt say it like its an unknown, we all know everything in the future is an unknown, he said it like he doesnt predict it. Time stamped to begin at the right place:

Unless you're really stuck on MHJr with the first pick, I can see us trading one or both down for a haul. Of course you know I think we NEED a QB, but I have the same doubts about Williams. 6' 1", talking about which teams he will or wont play for, and a similar set of questions that Fields has too. DIsclaimer: I haven't watched enough film yet for any of these opinions. I usually do that leading up to the draft when more is available online to see. I like Daniels. I like McCarthy. I might like Maye or even Williams as I dig deeper. I might like Penix. The point is, I bet we could still get a good QB pick at #10 or something. I'm factoring into this that no one knows how any of these guys will do in the NFL, so you might as well trade down and pick a little blind from your first tier of players. This year it looks like there should be 3 or 4 after the scouts do their jobs that could be good enough to make that first tier. I wouldnt necessarily be willing to pay an extra first round pick (i.e. not trading down, so losing that extra pick) to make my choice from among those three or four. Better to fill out the roster and let that QB from the first tier fall to us around 10 or however low you think we can go and still get one of the 3 or 4 that grade out first tier?

If Fields goes somewhere else and shines, that doesnt hurt us. Only in newspaper articles, but not on the field. All that would matter is who we drafted and how they turn out. If we draft a pocket passer, and keep Fields, which offense do we install and teach all offseason? I think it is much more likely that we trade Fields, draft a QB to sit behind Bagent until he is ready, somewhere around week 6 let's say.

If everything has to be perfect around a QB for them to succeed, then no QB would ever succeed, because nothing is ever perfect in the NFL. Some of the issues I wont call excuses, Ill call them mitigating factors. Like Nagy. And last years teardown. Both made it impossible for a QB to overcome. Thats fair. But this year, he has an above average line, DJ Moore and a leading running game. In my mind the experiment is over, and calling this Vikings game an example of Fields looking good makes no sense to what I saw on the field. Does Justin have more games to make his case? Absolutely. Anyone want to bet $ that it works out for him? It might, but it's nowhere near a 50/50 bet. And that's all Im saying - in reality, the experiment is over and Fields aint the guy. But yes there is a chance that we will see an entirely new Fields next week. But you can say that about any player. Maybe Bagent comes off the bench and is a sudden superstar. Or Peterman if hes even still around. Its possible, but like winning the lottery, its really unlikely.

This is so true. A huge part of what rookie QBs become in the NFL has to do with how they are developed and taught, the system theyre in, and the talent around them. I wonder if we had taken Mahomes instead of Trubisky where he would be today. He might have ended up a bust too. But I dont wonder about Trubisky if he'd gone to KC, I think if a QB doesnt have it, they dont have it. But if they do, then you gotta try like hell not to screw them up. If that seems contradictory, Im saying some QBs have what it takes to be great in the NFL AND they need a great coach and team to bring them along, and those that dont have it never will. And the problem is that college football isnt hard enough for these kids to be at NFL level when they get drafted. Not a single one ever is. Youre buying a lottery ticket on the hope that the kid has it to make the next jump, and that you can provide him what he needs to do it. Youre so right - its both.

that really does fit with what we've seen, both the interceptions and the lack of those plays on the field. It feels like it describes exactly the stuff I've been missing. Most West Coast rhythm style pocket passers make a living on that stuff. So I guess I have to ask, is it prudent to try to win a Super Bowl with that kind of massive hole in the middle of your playbook?

Oh you were comparing Fields to those other QBs who have similar numbers. So I was asking if you really thought that Fields was on the same level with those guys, that if you had the chance to swap youd stay with Fields? For me the answer would be to take any of those guys over Fields, but Im taking a rookie this year so its hypothetical. and then I asked if maybe you were just throwing stats you dont think tell the story in to counter adams stats by saying "neither set of stats tell the story?"

So if you could trade Fields for Lawrence, Burrow or Stafford, you'd keep Fields? Or maybe your point was that stats don't tell the whole story, in which case I totally agree. All I can say is that if you watch the tape, it tells a very different story than the numbers do. At least to my eyes?

this is what Im seeing too. It occurs to me that they might have decided to move on from Fields, and theyre throwing all this super short stuff to pad his stats for trade value? Or to tank? Or maybe just because they think its the only chance they have to win the game - which is also an indictment of Fields?

Grizz, I agree. I hope they take the guardrails off of Fields. It would answer a lot of questions. I also think that if youre gonna have a new coach next year, their opinion of what to do with Fields goes a long way - especially if it is Harbaugh. If he thinks he can Colin Kaepernick Fields into a winner, then I will go along for the ride with optimism. But it has to be someone I know has done it before, otherwise, I personally am gonna be cynical about the chances of it working out. In other words, I've seen enough to know what i think about Fields, but if Harbaugh tells me a tuna sandwich should play QB, Im absolutely gonna defer to him LOL not that he would care at all what I think about it anyway LOL As for Getsy, I dunno. He's either a giant idiot, or hes hot and cold and stuck with an awful QB. Im not sure which. I have said before that some of the play design I see is very creative, but the rhythm of the playcalling is trash. So Without being sure, ill go with Getsy's an idiot too lol But if he ends up a successful OC on another team some day, I won't be completely shocked. But would i keep him and bet on him? Not a chance. But even if Getsy sucks, he could also be right that Fields sucks too. I imagine they see Fields in practice throwing interceptions, or holding the ball too long, and that's why they hide him. But that doesnt mean Getsy doesnt have his share of the blame, because he surely does too. It's just what we've seen for two years now is awful. I dont see a reason to keep any of the coaches or Fields. But would I change my mind if they started calling an aggressive pass attack and Fields was getting the ball out fast? of course! I dont care if it's Peterman - if I see a Bears QB throwing in rhythm to open receivers and regularly completing passes like an NFL QB and not playing like a video game - I will be all for them, whoever they are. Last, Im not against running QBs, they just need to be able to throw in tempo from the pocket too. If Justin had that, he'd be unstoppable. But its a glaring hole in his game and the rest cant really make up for it. And I dont see him becoming one.

I guess Ive been making assumptions. I always assumed we all wanted to win a Super Bowl. If we just want to be peak out as the 10th best team, then staying with Fields makes a lot of sense. Also, there is nothing that says a rookie QB will be a loser for two years either. Especially if he has a team around him. And with two top picks, we can get MHJr and a top 5 QB - the list is deep this year.