Excited Delirium Over Fields

For all things Chicago Bears

Moderator: wab

Artbest
Player of the Month
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:28 pm

Different considerations imo. Fangio is firmly in win-now mode and didn't seem interested in a rookie QB. Mitch has 4 years of NFL starting experience under his belt. If he and the league believed in his upside, they'd have considered him before moving on Teddy Bridgewater to compete with Drew Lock.

We know , based on video evidence, that the Vikings tried to trade up into the top 10 to draft Justin Fields and were rebuffed. We have no real evidence that anyone wanted Mitch.

RichH55 wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 7:56 pm
Artbest wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 9:53 am Imo, Mitch likely settled for Buffalo because of Brian Daboll - but I doubt this was a preferred destination. He’s going to get limited reps behind a younger, far more physically talented and mentally tougher QB. There’s only so much he’s going to pick up there other than the peace of mind that comes from being out of the spotlight.

He likely wanted to go to Denver - thinking that he would have a shot at competing for a starting job. That Vic Fangio and George Paton passed on him is very telling.

The leagues statement on Mitch’s limitations was never louder than how it appeared to view Sam Darnold - whose numbers are far worse than Mitch’s - versus how they summed up the bears erstwhile former QB1. Darnold is still coveted as a developmental player. Mitch is effectively in the Blaine Gabbert wing of nfl QBs
They also passed on Fields......
User avatar
wab
Mod
Posts: 29805
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Has thanked: 127 times
Been thanked: 1956 times

I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7336
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 967 times

wab wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 am I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
It could be! I have foods I have to avoid that trigger Migraines. I havent had a glass of milk in like 20 years because it knocks me out. The brain is super weird.
Image
User avatar
dplank
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12025
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am
Has thanked: 1201 times
Been thanked: 2138 times

RustinFields wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:26 pm
wab wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 am I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
It could be! I have foods I have to avoid that trigger Migraines. I havent had a glass of milk in like 20 years because it knocks me out. The brain is super weird.
I can set a 30 minute timer fro sauerkraut consumption to sprinting to the toilet. TMI?
User avatar
Rusty Trombagent
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7336
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Maine!
Has thanked: 555 times
Been thanked: 967 times

lay it on me brother, tell me all about your gastric distress
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Artbest wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:17 am Different considerations imo. Fangio is firmly in win-now mode and didn't seem interested in a rookie QB. Mitch has 4 years of NFL starting experience under his belt. If he and the league believed in his upside, they'd have considered him before moving on Teddy Bridgewater to compete with Drew Lock.

We know , based on video evidence, that the Vikings tried to trade up into the top 10 to draft Justin Fields and were rebuffed. We have no real evidence that anyone wanted Mitch.

RichH55 wrote: Sun Jun 20, 2021 7:56 pm

They also passed on Fields......

Fair enough on Denver - and if people want to throw in the maybe Rodgers stuff too - fine, fine.

Vikings could have easily traded up if they had wanted to - You offer $250 for house that they are asking $400 for - and yeah you made an offer. but did you?


Vikings were at 14, Bears at 20. If they were offering the same thing Bears did (not a crazy price IMHO) - it's a no brainer for a team to take that over what Bears offered

Vikes also passed on Mac Jones - so their interest in QB seemed to be "mild" IMHO
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

Silly stuff.

Denver had just picked up Teddy - who is a good QB. They have a young high pick in Lock that still could potentially have the light come on. They DID pass on Fields but that had nothing to do with Fields. It is fine for someone to have the personal opinion that they didn't like Fields - but it is basically hogwash.

The Vikes have a starting QB that a lot of people don't respect... but Cousins hasn't been holding them back. They may not have offered as much as the Bears because they simply weren't as desperate as the Bears. Of course their QB interest was milder than the Bears. They can compete with Cousins easily and he is their clear starter. That is straight forward. It is still a "passed" on Fields in the sense that in hindsight they will be looked at as a team who could have had him but didn't. But "passed" doesn't mean "didn't like".

None of these ostensible "passes" on Fields says much about Fields at all, nor implies anything about him. And together all of the teams that made other decisions just paint a picture of an incredibly lucky Bears.
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
RichH55
Hall of Famer
Posts: 7942
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Has thanked: 511 times
Been thanked: 598 times

Silly stuff is people suggesting a team would think Fields is generational or the like - but passed on him because they have Teddy Bridgewater
User avatar
AZ_Bearfan
MVP
Posts: 1492
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Image
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

RichH55 wrote: Fri Jun 25, 2021 1:11 pm Silly stuff is people suggesting a team would think Fields is generational or the like - but passed on him because they have Teddy Bridgewater
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_o ... ted_middle

- or -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

(or, in English, "bad argument")
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
Artbest
Player of the Month
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:28 pm

I’m guessing the Vikings had no interest in Mac Jones. We do know they made an offer to Carolina and were turned down. Is the fact that the offer they made wasn’t good enough “proof” they really didn’t want him? That’s a tough case to make.

Regardless, I don’t think Mitch and Fields are a germane comparison - a rookie and a 4 year veteran. There were 3 “reclamation” project QBs available - Wentz, Darnold and Trubisky. The first two were coveted. The 3rd is buried behind a far superior and younger starter in Buffalo.

As for Fields being “generational” - I don’t know that I’d say that. He has unique traits - he’s bigger/stronger than the sub 4.5 QBs we’ve seen (Vick, RG III, Jackson, Murray), has an elite arm, has faced the best competition (in college) and appears to be very smart. He also wasn’t as good or consistent in 2020 as he was in 2019. He’s an outstanding raw prospect imo but the proof is in the putting. I never thought about him in a bear uniform b/c I didn’t think they had a chance to get him. The QBs I thought about were Jones, Mond and Trask.

I’m (very) cautiously optimistic about fields. Nagy, for all of the justified criticism he’s taken, was one of the early mahomes enthusiasts in KC. Fields clearly is his guy. Not even Jay Cutler had this combination of traits. It may go well, it may not, but fields gives the bears a chance to open
a new window - something I didn’t see happening before the draft



quote=RichH55 post_id=266118 time=1624630645 user_id=1911]
Artbest wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:17 am Different considerations imo. Fangio is firmly in win-now mode and didn't seem interested in a rookie QB. Mitch has 4 years of NFL starting experience under his belt. If he and the league believed in his upside, they'd have considered him before moving on Teddy Bridgewater to compete with Drew Lock.

We know , based on video evidence, that the Vikings tried to trade up into the top 10 to draft Justin Fields and were rebuffed. We have no real evidence that anyone wanted Mitch.



Fair enough on Denver - and if people want to throw in the maybe Rodgers stuff too - fine, fine.

Vikings could have easily traded up if they had wanted to - You offer $250 for house that they are asking $400 for - and yeah you made an offer. but did you?


Vikings were at 14, Bears at 20. If they were offering the same thing Bears did (not a crazy price IMHO) - it's a no brainer for a team to take that over what Bears offered

Vikes also passed on Mac Jones - so their interest in QB seemed to be "mild" IMHO
[/quote]
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

For an NFL QB Mac Jones is a fat slob.

I wouldn't want that as the future of the franchise.

He's a fatted calf that beefed up his numbers on that Bama offense.

This could totally be meatball bias, but every other day or so I see something that makes me realize we drafted a winner.

Image

Image
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

One early projection for Fields, starting 14 games (https://dawindycity.com):

256 of 406 (63%)

3,430 yards (245/game)

25 passing touchdowns

75 rushing attempts

490 rushing yards

5 rushing touchdowns

I could live with that.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

If this winds up starting another Mitch Session then I 100% apologize and I beg the moderators to delete this post. I'm just putting stats out there to compare since we've got a projection for Fields.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... ubMi00.htm

Mitch's first season under Nagy.

289 of 434 or 66.6%

3,223 yards over 14 games

24 TDs

68 rushing attempts

421 yards

3 rushing TDs

They've got Fields kinda similar to Mitch.
Image
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

wab wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 am I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
I vaguely recall him stating during an interview that his family tried it out during the pandemic, and he just stuck with it because he felt great.
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:29 am If this winds up starting another Mitch Session then I 100% apologize and I beg the moderators to delete this post. I'm just putting stats out there to compare since we've got a projection for Fields.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... ubMi00.htm

Mitch's first season under Nagy.

289 of 434 or 66.6%

3,223 yards over 14 games

24 TDs

68 rushing attempts

421 yards

3 rushing TDs

They've got Fields kinda similar to Mitch.
Good catch, didn't think to look up Trubisky's stats. I don't, tho, see the Bears passing 40 to 50 times per game except if they're playing catchup a lot. I can say, though, that I was underwhelmed by Mitch's 2018 season, it felt like smoke and mirrors.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Grizzled wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:38 pm
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 9:29 am If this winds up starting another Mitch Session then I 100% apologize and I beg the moderators to delete this post. I'm just putting stats out there to compare since we've got a projection for Fields.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... ubMi00.htm

Mitch's first season under Nagy.

289 of 434 or 66.6%

3,223 yards over 14 games

24 TDs

68 rushing attempts

421 yards

3 rushing TDs

They've got Fields kinda similar to Mitch.
Good catch, didn't think to look up Trubisky's stats. I don't, tho, see the Bears passing 40 to 50 times per game except if they're playing catchup a lot. I can say, though, that I was underwhelmed by Mitch's 2018 season, it felt like smoke and mirrors.
One thing that's going to matter is HOW Fields achieves those numbers.

Agreed about 2018. For me, it's that Mitch wasn't consistent.

In 2018 Mitch had the Tampa Bay game where he just went off for 6 TDs and 0 INTs with a 154.6 rating. He then had another couple of "good" games, but those were against Detroit and the Jets.

The TB game was a massive outlier and the Detroit and Jets games were against scrubs.

If Fields can consistently put up say 2 TDs per game to get to that number instead of feast or famine then we're in good shape.
Image
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:20 am
Grizzled wrote: Sat Jun 26, 2021 5:38 pm

Good catch, didn't think to look up Trubisky's stats. I don't, tho, see the Bears passing 40 to 50 times per game except if they're playing catchup a lot. I can say, though, that I was underwhelmed by Mitch's 2018 season, it felt like smoke and mirrors.
One thing that's going to matter is HOW Fields achieves those numbers.

Agreed about 2018. For me, it's that Mitch wasn't consistent.

In 2018 Mitch had the Tampa Bay game where he just went off for 6 TDs and 0 INTs with a 154.6 rating. He then had another couple of "good" games, but those were against Detroit and the Jets.

The TB game was a massive outlier and the Detroit and Jets games were against scrubs.

If Fields can consistently put up say 2 TDs per game to get to that number instead of feast or famine then we're in good shape.
By the end of the season, it was obvious that the Bears offense was running on fumes. They lost to Philly in the playoffs because of the inept offense.
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
G08
Hall of Famer
Posts: 20560
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:34 pm
Location: Football Hell
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 758 times

Grizzled wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:16 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:20 am

One thing that's going to matter is HOW Fields achieves those numbers.

Agreed about 2018. For me, it's that Mitch wasn't consistent.

In 2018 Mitch had the Tampa Bay game where he just went off for 6 TDs and 0 INTs with a 154.6 rating. He then had another couple of "good" games, but those were against Detroit and the Jets.

The TB game was a massive outlier and the Detroit and Jets games were against scrubs.

If Fields can consistently put up say 2 TDs per game to get to that number instead of feast or famine then we're in good shape.
They lost to Philly in the playoffs because of the inept offense.
I'd argue we lost because of the double-doink...
9 PLAYOFF APPEARANCES IN THE PAST 35 SEASONS

User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Grizzled wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:16 am
The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:20 am

One thing that's going to matter is HOW Fields achieves those numbers.

Agreed about 2018. For me, it's that Mitch wasn't consistent.

In 2018 Mitch had the Tampa Bay game where he just went off for 6 TDs and 0 INTs with a 154.6 rating. He then had another couple of "good" games, but those were against Detroit and the Jets.

The TB game was a massive outlier and the Detroit and Jets games were against scrubs.

If Fields can consistently put up say 2 TDs per game to get to that number instead of feast or famine then we're in good shape.
By the end of the season, it was obvious that the Bears offense was running on fumes. They lost to Philly in the playoffs because of the inept offense.
Agreed.

Yes Parkey double doinked the FG.

HOWEVER....

You can't score 15 points in a playoff game (at home) and expect to win.
Image
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

The Philly Game wasn't one TD drive or one double-doink. It was entire game that included SIX punts and FOUR FG attempts against the weakest D in the playoffs. 15 points, the Bears scored. The D did everything they needed to do to win. It was just like the Indy SB where the D held Manning and that offense to 22 points except the Bear offense spotted them another 7. And then take out Hester's magic and the Bear offense scored 10 points in the Superbowl. And then guess who gets criticized? Anyone but the Bear offense.

I can't wait until the Bears have an offense that won't need endless rationalization and excuses.

Bring on JF1!!
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
User avatar
Grizzled
Hall of Famer
Posts: 5552
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:55 pm
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 485 times

IE wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 1:21 pm The Philly Game wasn't one TD drive or one double-doink. It was entire game that included SIX punts and FOUR FG attempts against the weakest D in the playoffs. 15 points, the Bears scored. The D did everything they needed to do to win. It was just like the Indy SB where the D held Manning and that offense to 22 points except the Bear offense spotted them another 7. And then take out Hester's magic and the Bear offense scored 10 points in the Superbowl. And then guess who gets criticized? Anyone but the Bear offense.

I can't wait until the Bears have an offense that won't need endless rationalization and excuses.

Bring on JF1!!
Be still my heart, that I might see a competent QB after 55 + years of Beardom (Mac didn't last long enough).
Drafts are like snowflakes, no two are alike.
User avatar
Wounded Bear
MVP
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:13 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 13 times

wab wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 am I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
And his Tourette’s combined with his IBS. There’s nothing worse than a guy calling you a “fucking cocksucker” while shitting himself.
Image
The universe is under no obligation to make any sense to you...
Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar
docc
Head Coach
Posts: 3811
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 4:33 pm
Location: Outpost of Reality S.E. Arizona
Has thanked: 935 times
Been thanked: 168 times

Wounded Bear wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 4:19 pm
wab wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 11:57 am I thought I read that Fields does the vegan thing to mitigate some of the epilepsy stuff, but I may have made that up.
And his Tourette’s combined with his IBS. There’s nothing worse than a guy calling you a “fucking cocksucker” while shitting himself.
Yes there is..60+ years of shitting on the field as we have endured..
User avatar
Bears Whiskey Nut
Hall of Famer
Posts: 11017
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:06 am
Location: Oak Park, IL
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 516 times

Do you think there has been a couple plays during OTA's where Fields runs a play, throws the 50 yds. deep ball right on the nuts, and Dalton just thinks to himself. Oh shit...
Image
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8411
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown
Has thanked: 909 times
Been thanked: 1277 times

Bears Whiskey Nut wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:44 pm Do you think there has been a couple plays during OTA's where Fields runs a play, throws the 50 yds. deep ball right on the nuts, and Dalton just thinks to himself. Oh shit...
And Nagy grabs a bottle of whiskey and wonders what might have been....

Yes.

All the time.
Image
User avatar
AZ_Bearfan
MVP
Posts: 1492
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 77 times

Image
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Head Coach
Posts: 2499
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm
Has thanked: 209 times
Been thanked: 359 times

The Marshall Plan wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:20 am
Grizzled wrote: Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:16 am

By the end of the season, it was obvious that the Bears offense was running on fumes. They lost to Philly in the playoffs because of the inept offense.
Agreed.

Yes Parkey double doinked the FG.

HOWEVER....

You can't score 15 points in a playoff game (at home) and expect to win.
This is bullshit. The Bears outgained the Eagles 356 to 300. Trubisky himself completed 60% of his passes for 303 yards and a TD, and he drove the distance in crunch time to help set up what should have been the game winner. And this was after he already drove 80 yards in the fourth quarter for a TD to take the lead. The defense, in contrast, allowed the game winning TD in the last minute of play after O'Donnell shanked a 36 yard punt. Football s a team game, and this one we lost because of our defense, our special teams, our coaches, AS WELL AS our offense.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 12500
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Plymouth, MI
Has thanked: 523 times
Been thanked: 700 times
Contact:

AZ_Bearfan wrote: Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:09 am
That's great. Guy has great touch he really does.

I can't WAIT to see an offense that can score touchdowns with the best of the rest of the NFL!
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
Locked