Excited Delirium Over Fields

For all things Chicago Bears & the National Football League

Moderator: wab

User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Yogi da Bear wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:52 pm
dplank wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:48 pm I’m not moving the goal posts Yogi, I’m trying to make my position clear to you. I think we define “ready” differently.

I have evolved my thinking on Fields, but not since we started this particular debate.
So to clarify, should we start Fields when he's actually ready? Does him performing better than Dalton in training camp make/prove him ready? Or should we simply start him opening day? Because I'm confused.

And what exactly are looking for to determine whether or not Fields is ready?
We should start him when he’s ready. If that’s Week 1 great, if he’s not ready he should sit until he is. We should not force him opening day if he isn’t ready. Good?

As for readiness assessment, that’s tough because we aren’t in practice. What I hope the coaches do is see when he has a good grasp of most of the playbook, command of the huddle, and seems “comfortable” out there. As fans, we won’t know that. I’ve mentioned Dalton before because I think he’s a good player and sets a pretty solid performance mark for Fields to have to beat as a “rough take” on his readiness. But the real decision would come from practice and out of our view as fans.

What I would NOT do is force him to sit as a predetermined thing. You seem to be suggesting that.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:24 pm
Yogi da Bear wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:52 pm

So to clarify, should we start Fields when he's actually ready? Does him performing better than Dalton in training camp make/prove him ready? Or should we simply start him opening day? Because I'm confused.

And what exactly are looking for to determine whether or not Fields is ready?
We should start him when he’s ready. If that’s Week 1 great, if he’s not ready he should sit until he is. We should not force him opening day if he isn’t ready. Good?

As for readiness assessment, that’s tough because we aren’t in practice. What I hope the coaches do is see when he has a good grasp of most of the playbook, command of the huddle, and seems “comfortable” out there. As fans, we won’t know that. I’ve mentioned Dalton before because I think he’s a good player and sets a pretty solid performance mark for Fields to have to beat as a “rough take” on his readiness. But the real decision would come from practice and out of our view as fans.

What I would NOT do is force him to sit as a predetermined thing. You seem to be suggesting that.

What does ready mean to you?

Being better than Andy Dalton is NOT ready to me - and even then I suspect it will take at least a few weeks to overcome most of a decade of NFL Football

Personally - I just think sitting for part of the Rookie year is a net positive for literally any NFL Rookie QB who has ever walked the earth.

If say - 8 weeks of Pro Games - Good, Bad, and Ugly and coaching - more time to marinate in the playbook - just the gist of things, etc. Does NOT help? I'd say that would be a bad sign (*)

(*) Unless this player is a Hall of Famer from Day 1 - which they will not be
HurricaneBear
MVP
Posts: 1012
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:56 am

There is one opinion that matters on when Fields will start and if hes ready or not. That's Matt Nagy's.

On a different note, I am STILL beyond stoked that Fields in a Chicago Bear. This type of prospect hasnt been in a Bears uniform, at this position, in my lifetime. So while hes still a rookie who hasn't had a chance to do anything wrong yet, i'm gonna continue dreaming of broken records, Super Bowl trophies, and Hall of Fame speeches. I recommend trying it. It's alot more fun then whatever the hell this has been.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

dplank wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:24 pm
Yogi da Bear wrote: Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:52 pm

So to clarify, should we start Fields when he's actually ready? Does him performing better than Dalton in training camp make/prove him ready? Or should we simply start him opening day? Because I'm confused.

And what exactly are looking for to determine whether or not Fields is ready?
We should start him when he’s ready. If that’s Week 1 great, if he’s not ready he should sit until he is. We should not force him opening day if he isn’t ready. Good?

As for readiness assessment, that’s tough because we aren’t in practice. What I hope the coaches do is see when he has a good grasp of most of the playbook, command of the huddle, and seems “comfortable” out there. As fans, we won’t know that. I’ve mentioned Dalton before because I think he’s a good player and sets a pretty solid performance mark for Fields to have to beat as a “rough take” on his readiness. But the real decision would come from practice and out of our view as fans.

What I would NOT do is force him to sit as a predetermined thing. You seem to be suggesting that.
Okay, I'll try to interpret what you're saying. If I have it wrong, let me know.

From what I gather, Dalton is kind of the benchmark here for you. If he can perform better than Dalton in practice, then we should start him. Is that right? I have a couple of problems with that.

First, like I've already said, I think with Fields' natural abilities, he's probably better than Dalton right now. That doesn't mean that Fields is ready by any stretch of the imagination. I think that Mahomes was probably better than Smith from the get go too. I'll say again, if Fields has to wear a sleeve with plays on it, I don't think he should play, even if he is better than Dalton. He can't be comfortable in that situation.

Second, let me reiterate, there's a big difference between beating somebody out in practice when you're focusing on single plays and digesting a complete game plan and playbook. Practicing a single play, you'll get to the point where it's simply playing, while with a complete game plan, you might still be thinking out there: what do I do next, what's my progression on that play, what are my audibles, what defense are they in, what do I do, etc...

With this in mind, for me, I absolutely don't START him until he's ready. If somehow Dalton goes down in preseason, and Fields isn't ready, I'd start Foles instead. As part of this, and a predetermined thing--I absolutely would NOT start Fields Opening Night. Period. There's no way he's ready. And I wouldn't send him in there against that Ram defense at their house. No way. Fields doesn't need the stress of that shit on his first game out. Now, I might have him prepare a couple of plays to be used as a weapon in that game, and to have something we can review with him the following week. But no way do I start him.

And if Dalton is starting Week One, I'd also start him Week Two to give him a shot at his former team. After that, I'd more open to starting Fields, but my preference would be to follow the plan I've already laid out. Give Fields a couple of plays each game to really master and use those in games. Make the plays different ones each week. Then give him a scripted series for a week or two, evaluating each week whether he's ready to handle a complete game plan. Only when he's then ready to do that would I start him, and in that start, he wouldn't be wearing an arm band with plays on it either. lol
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Saying start week 2 or week 8 or whatever... is all just as arbitrary as starting him week 1.

He's not a baby and has been the center of media attention and intense pressure for years. The Rams in LA wouldn't bother this kid any more than the Lions at home - guaranteed. Unless you're penciling in a confident "W" with Andy Dalton at QB vs the Rams, there is no reason to sit the kid if he can provide you anything extra out there. How about let's win a football game?!

Bear fans are so afraid something could go wrong. Guess what? Something could! Guess what else? It easily still could in week 2 or 8 or 16 or next year! The massive rationalization that is going on to justify not playing a future star because of pure fear is really something to witness here. Oh no - an arm band with plays on it! lol

Just like Justin Herbert was able to come in for the first time versus KC and proved from his first pass that he belonged, JF1 is going to rock from day one. He was born for this. Book it.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Yogi good post and we are close to understanding each other at least. But you keep falsely equivocating Fields readiness assessment with his talent as a player. That’s not my point. My point is when Fields has roughly the same grasp of the offense as Dalton does, mentally, and can show that in practice and preseason, then he should start. If that’s week 1 then great, if that’s week 8 then I’m ok with that. Forget who gives us a better chance to win, it’s about who is running our offense best in practice - which is 80% about playbook understanding IMO.

Both Dalton and Fields are starting at Nagy 101. Dalton is a vet so he should have a head start, but Fields seems to be a very smart and dedicated kid, so it’s possible he catches him. If he does, play him Week 1.

Question for you: are you still of the “sit him week 1 no matter what “ mindset or have I misread that?

I also totally agree with IE on the risk side. You can’t be afraid to play him because he might get hurt, that will be a risk for every player every week of their career. Sitting on the bench a few weeks doesn’t change that calculus.

I do find it amusing that there’s no talk about Trevor Lawrence sitting his first year.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:30 am I do find it amusing that there’s no talk about Trevor Lawrence sitting his first year.
We're back to your list, I think. It's crazy - right there for God and everybody to see... and just inconvenient and ignored.

Perhaps we should challenge anyone who says Fields should sit to apply any and all "reasoning" they're using to Lawrence sitting and Minshew starting.

Minshew's performance over the past 2 years is much better than Dalton's. That's a fact. On lesser teams.

Cue Ted Knight: "well...we're WAITING!"
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

IE wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:55 am
dplank wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:30 am I do find it amusing that there’s no talk about Trevor Lawrence sitting his first year.
We're back to your list, I think. It's crazy - right there for God and everybody to see... and just inconvenient and ignored.

Perhaps we should challenge anyone who says Fields should sit to apply any and all "reasoning" they're using to Lawrence sitting and Minshew starting.

Minshew's performance over the past 2 years is much better than Dalton's. That's a fact. On lesser teams.

Cue Ted Knight: "well...we're WAITING!"

Again- This isn't a Jags board - One of the reasons you are going to hear relatively less about Lawrence than Fields on just about anything.

It's also not about Minshew or Dalton - It's only about the QB you drafted in the 1st Rounds development (*)

But most of the reason is probably some of the same reasons Lawrence went #1 not #11 - and that he did it for 3 years in College Full Time (Lawrence for example has double the pass attempts than Fields did in College)

(*) I do wonder how much the media narrative plays into it- Keeping Fields on the bench for 8 weeks wouldn't mean much media narrative wise (Yes, they'd ask every week on him - cliched answers, yadda, yadda) - But not starting Lawrence to play a guy you benched to play Mike Glennon when Lawrence is the anointed one? The generational golden locks? That could raise a bit of a Crap Storm - And perhaps (GUESSING - WILD SPECULATION) they think the distraction that causes would be worse than any benefit to Lawrence sitting for a few

All that said: Yes, I think Lawrence would be helped by sitting for a bit too - though not as much
User avatar
Moriarty
Head Coach
Posts: 2670
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:22 pm

Well, Minshew v Dalton is a weird thing.
"Dalton's been a career starter" vs "Minshew 'lost' his job" somehow impacts the narrative more than their actual performances.


But, as for "If Fields needs to sit, why doesn't Lawrence?", c'mon.
Trevor led his team to an undefeated season and a blowout National Championship as a true freshman (vs Fields being a backup, like most freshmen). And went back to the Championship the following year. And has 3 full years (36 games) as a starter.
Who else, this year or any other, has a resume like that?
It's possible a year sitting would be good for him, too. But you just can't compare his past development curve with other people's. He's different and special.
1999-2002: Mouth Off Sports Forum (RIP)
2002-2014: KFFL (RIP)
2014-2016: USAToday Fantasy Sports Forum (RIP)

Hello, my name is Moriarty. I have come to kill your website, prepare to die.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

But but but.... the speed of the pro game is different! Guys who were on good teams need to be questioned because of the talent around them! Fields slipped to 11... but GOAT Mahomes (better than Lawrence, with zero doubt) slipped to 10! I know, I know - what if Aaron Donald crushes the world? What if a meteor hits us all in the head?!

LOL that Lawrence is special. He's special in that he's really really really good and likely a top pro. And so is Fields. This is all so much fear and BS. And... people just wanting to win arguments regardless.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Moriarty wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:21 am Well, Minshew v Dalton is a weird thing.
"Dalton's been a career starter" vs "Minshew 'lost' his job" somehow impacts the narrative more than their actual performances.


But, as for "If Fields needs to sit, why doesn't Lawrence?", c'mon.
Trevor led his team to an undefeated season and a blowout National Championship as a true freshman (vs Fields being a backup, like most freshmen). And went back to the Championship the following year. And has 3 full years (36 games) as a starter.
Who else, this year or any other, has a resume like that?
It's possible a year sitting would be good for him, too. But you just can't compare his past development curve with other people's. He's different and special.
Actually, he's not much different from Fields at all. Lawrence played as a freshman because Watson left for the pro's, Fields sat behind an established starter at Georgia - that's not an indictment of the player at all, the situations are completely different. The "special" is a label bestowed upon him by sports writers who love a good story and great hair. He won a championship as a freshman being given the keys to a Ferrari at Clemson, Mitch may have won a championship on that team - it was loaded. But that was it, his narrative was SET. Freshman, hair, championship, legend - pay no attention to what happens next he's a generational talent lmao. The biggest difference between Lawrence and Fields is their hair and skin color. And the more I hear all this, the more I'm rooting for that kid to fail - hard. Ryan Leaf style.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:30 am Yogi good post and we are close to understanding each other at least. But you keep falsely equivocating Fields readiness assessment with his talent as a player. That’s not my point. My point is when Fields has roughly the same grasp of the offense as Dalton does, mentally, and can show that in practice and preseason, then he should start. If that’s week 1 then great, if that’s week 8 then I’m ok with that. Forget who gives us a better chance to win, it’s about who is running our offense best in practice - which is 80% about playbook understanding IMO.

Both Dalton and Fields are starting at Nagy 101. Dalton is a vet so he should have a head start, but Fields seems to be a very smart and dedicated kid, so it’s possible he catches him. If he does, play him Week 1.

Question for you: are you still of the “sit him week 1 no matter what “ mindset or have I misread that?

I also totally agree with IE on the risk side. You can’t be afraid to play him because he might get hurt, that will be a risk for every player every week of their career. Sitting on the bench a few weeks doesn’t change that calculus.

I do find it amusing that there’s no talk about Trevor Lawrence sitting his first year.
No, you haven't misread that. I am absolutely of the opinion that you don't start Fields Opening Night against that Ram defense at their house for a couple of reasons, though not necessarily in order of priority:

First, the Bears promised Dalton he would be the starter. I think you have to honor that commitment, otherwise how can any other free agent trust what you say when you try to lure him to Chicago?

Second, and probably even more importantly, I disagree that you can't minimize the risk of injury to a rookie QB, particularly somebody like Fields. Opening night, we'll be going against the #1 defense in league last year, one with the second most sacks. We'll be doing so with a brand new offensive line with at least two starters playing new positions (Jenkins and probably Daniels). I think we need to be able to evaluate where the line is, its strengths and weaknesses, before committing the rookie.
Also, as I've said before, Fields himself is a relentless competitor. He will struggle for those extra yards, reluctant to go down when he probably should. He'll also be put in a position where he's thinking more than just playing. Not a good thing for a rookie.

I'd like to remind everybody that Dan Marino probably had the most successful rookie season of all time. He sat on the bench behind the great David Woodley and didn't start until the sixth game. He ended up leading the AFC in passing with the highest completion percentage and a 96 QB Rating. He led the Dolphins to a 12-4 record and the divisional playoffs and made the Pro Bowl. That season, he saw time in the third and fifth games before starting the sixth. I can't help but think that the entire experience--both sitting and limited playing exposure--helped Marino that year. I'd like to see something similar for Fields, but in a more controlled, planned way.

As to Lawrence, I don't really care what the Jags do with him. If I was a fan of the team though, I'd be demanding the same approach as I'm demanding with Fields. The Jags, of course, need fans. That's why they brought in Tebow, and that's why Lawrence is going to start opening day. The Bears aren't in that same boat. I also don't think that Lawrence will fail like Leaf as he's not a drunk like Leaf I don't think.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Ok, well we disagree then, but at least we understand the scope of our disagreement which is fairly narrow.

You believe that he should sit no matter what, I think that's dead wrong and it should be based on his readiness to play. This is the high level disagreement we have. And to be clear, you're the one making absolute assertions here not me. My position is far more nuanced, yours is absolute. Absolute positions are almost always wrong. Only in very isolated, very clear circumstances do absolute positions hold up. As soon as things get just a little bit gray, absolute positions fall over.

I'd also just casually suggest you stop bringing up individual player examples as an attempt to bolster your position. Because you know darn well I can roll out counter example after counter example that bolsters mine: Russell Wilson, Peyton Manning, Ben Rapesburger, etc etc etc. So individual examples are pointless and a waste of effort.

Lawrence's downfall may simply be that he doesn't have a super, over the top, maniacal focus on football. He seems interested in other things. Most great ones are maniacally focused on football and nothing else. But look, he's a great prospect obviously. I don't think he sucks or anything like that. I just don't see any separation between him and Fields as prospects - like, virtually none. Fields is our guy now, so fuck Trevor lol.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

Gotta disagree with you on absolute positions, at least limited ones.

My first absolute position is extremely limited. It's that Fields NOT start Opening Night against the number one defense that's second in sacks at their house. I think it's extremely logical and circumspect, and it allows the team to fulfill a pledge it's already made to a free agent to get him to come here. It allows the coaches and rookie to judge our OL, it's strengths and weaknesses before putting him to the test. It allows the rookie to experience how implementing a NFL game plan is processed. It allows him to see how an experienced starting QB reads a very complicated defense and why he makes certain calls and reads. These are all things that make certain that a rookie QB is NOT ready to start on Opening Day. Not any of them, as none of them have a direct experience of any of this. There's one thing I'm sure my stance won't do--it won't HURT Fields at all not to start. I also absolutely wouldn't take my just signed Olympic Gold Medal Boxer and put him in his first fight against Muhamad Ali in his prime. Can you say the same?

Incidentally, you position is also absolute in a very nebulous kind of way. You say you would start Fields when he's ready, but the very specific parameter for that is when he beats out Dalton in PRACTICE. Out of curiosity, what if Foles, knowing the system, practices better than either of them? lol But you assume that by beating Dalton in practice, Fields is ready for game time. It's NOT the same thing. Do I really need to quote Allen Iverson here? lol You know what's really ironic? I bet that if you question ANY of the QBs now that you mentioned as examples of rookie starters on opening day whether or not they were ready at that time, they'd laugh at you. They might even agree with you that maybe Fields should start, but I GUARANTEE that they would also tell you that it's foolish to believe that he's really ready. I'm sure that now, they don't think that they were.

It seems to me that we both don't believe that Fields should start until he's ready. The difference being that your take is a rather nebulous one that seems to surround Fields beating out Dalton in practice. Incidentally, if he doesn't beat him out in training camp, how is he going to beat him out in the regular season with Fields running the scout team and not really practicing the same way with the ones as Dalton is? Once the season starts, there's not much that Fields is going to be able to show in direct competition in practice. So are you conceding the job to Dalton for the rest of the year?

My plan, conversely, is a very specific one designed to actually prepare Fields to start at a future date. It starts with using him as a weapon with well practiced specific plays, and yes that includes against the Rams. It continues on utilizing different plays, getting him acclimated to an increasing scope of the offense in game situations until he's ready to take a scripted series. From there, you start including audibles and maybe a second series, until he shows that not only is ready to start, but his game time shows he's a better option than Dalton. Then you start him. Simple. Specific. Delineated. Fields should know exactly what to expect at every step of the way. I just don't know why anybody would want to throw him to the wolves, or Rams in this case. He's our first franchise QB since Sid Luckman. Show some patience. He's going to be ours for a long, long time.
User avatar
AZ_Bearfan
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 948
Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:49 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ

Image
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

Yogi da Bear wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:23 pm Gotta disagree with you on absolute positions, at least limited ones.

My first absolute position is extremely limited. It's that Fields NOT start Opening Night against the number one defense that's second in sacks at their house. I think it's extremely logical and circumspect, and it allows the team to fulfill a pledge it's already made to a free agent to get him to come here. It allows the coaches and rookie to judge our OL, it's strengths and weaknesses before putting him to the test. It allows the rookie to experience how implementing a NFL game plan is processed. It allows him to see how an experienced starting QB reads a very complicated defense and why he makes certain calls and reads. These are all things that make certain that a rookie QB is NOT ready to start on Opening Day. Not any of them, as none of them have a direct experience of any of this. There's one thing I'm sure my stance won't do--it won't HURT Fields at all not to start. I also absolutely wouldn't take my just signed Olympic Gold Medal Boxer and put him in his first fight against Muhamad Ali in his prime. Can you say the same?

Incidentally, you position is also absolute in a very nebulous kind of way. You say you would start Fields when he's ready, but the very specific parameter for that is when he beats out Dalton in PRACTICE. Out of curiosity, what if Foles, knowing the system, practices better than either of them? lol But you assume that by beating Dalton in practice, Fields is ready for game time. It's NOT the same thing. Do I really need to quote Allen Iverson here? lol You know what's really ironic? I bet that if you question ANY of the QBs now that you mentioned as examples of rookie starters on opening day whether or not they were ready at that time, they'd laugh at you. They might even agree with you that maybe Fields should start, but I GUARANTEE that they would also tell you that it's foolish to believe that he's really ready. I'm sure that now, they don't think that they were.

It seems to me that we both don't believe that Fields should start until he's ready. The difference being that your take is a rather nebulous one that seems to surround Fields beating out Dalton in practice. Incidentally, if he doesn't beat him out in training camp, how is he going to beat him out in the regular season with Fields running the scout team and not really practicing the same way with the ones as Dalton is? Once the season starts, there's not much that Fields is going to be able to show in direct competition in practice. So are you conceding the job to Dalton for the rest of the year?

My plan, conversely, is a very specific one designed to actually prepare Fields to start at a future date. It starts with using him as a weapon with well practiced specific plays, and yes that includes against the Rams. It continues on utilizing different plays, getting him acclimated to an increasing scope of the offense in game situations until he's ready to take a scripted series. From there, you start including audibles and maybe a second series, until he shows that not only is ready to start, but his game time shows he's a better option than Dalton. Then you start him. Simple. Specific. Delineated. Fields should know exactly what to expect at every step of the way. I just don't know why anybody would want to throw him to the wolves, or Rams in this case. He's our first franchise QB since Sid Luckman. Show some patience. He's going to be ours for a long, long time.
I clearly said "roughly" when using the Dalton barometer, and was uber clear that it was a coaches decision based on his comfort level running the offense and understanding of the playbook. Once he's comfortable in Nagy's offense, he should play - that's it. We won't know when that is, we're fans and I'm comfortable with that. So no, I'm not conceding the job to Dalton for the rest of the year and please don't strawman that way, that's what other posters do. Whenever he's comfortable and has a solid grasp of the offense, he should play. That's really not a controversial take - Fields is our guy, play him when he's ready to play. And let him play his game, don't try and overcoach him or take all the special out of his game.

He's also not guaranteed to be ours for a "long, long time". His rookie contract is 4 years with an expensive 5th year option. This notion that we have all the time in the world to develop rookies is wrong and was my primary issue with drafting Floyd (and a big objection I had with Mitch). If you draft a guy that can't play for a few years, you're setting yourself up for a big problem. They have to immediately succeed when put in or you have to push that 5th year option and watch them flourish for some other franchise - that's a wasted draft pick. Rookies play now a days, times have changed. I want to get his rookie learning curve behind him as quickly as possible, so we have a ready for prime time player under a rookie deal for as long as possible. It's not impatience, it's prudent given the timeframe we're working with. Once he's comfortable and ready, don't waste any time and get him out there. Sooner the better.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
The Marshall Plan
Head Coach
Posts: 2429
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:47 am
Location: Parts Unknown

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Dalton comes out and throws 3 or 4 TDs per game for the first three games?

Anyway....

If the OL sucks again, why would we want Fields out there? What do we gain with that?

That's really what I'm waiting for. The OL to prove itself. I get that and somebody on the coaching staff like Flip says he's ready then let's roll.
The Bear-Anon Sorcerer

Image

Fields' birthday is March 5th. The same date Stairway To Heaven was first played live.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

That's one of my big concerns too MP. Also, playing the Rams week 1 doesn't help.

I'm not trying to strawman you DP. You said that when Fields beats Dalton in practice. If he doesn't beat him in practice, then once the season starts, there's going to be very little chance for him to do so. Now, if Dalton is stinking up the joint, the way that Glennon did, I would be much more amenable to putting Fields out there, depending on why Dalton is stinking it up. If he's stinking it up because the OL sucks ass, I would be very hesitant to make the switch. I don't want to David Carr the guy.

Personally, I like my idea much better than you've laid out because:



You don't. lol

My plan allows Fields to get acclimated to the offense in increments in real game situations all while using him as a weapon. It also reduces the risk of the "rookie wall" that Sam Darnold talked about. It also give him a chance to show his stuff against Dalton live. If you're going to use Dalton as a baseline, this is the best way to do it once the season starts. And I really don't believe that there's a chance in hell that Nagy is going to start him against the Rams opening night. If I'm wrong, I'll eat that crow, but I don't believe I am.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

From the start I've advocated easing Fields into the game from game 1 using specific planned packages. Start by bringing him in situationally for 2-3 plays or even a drive at a time if it is going well. Expand and extend his time over the course of the season. But as a full blown QB - not handing the ball off and only conservative plays.

But then it occurred to me that if he is ready, he's ready and no arbitrary rule or fear/emotion should keep them from maximizing the Bears' chances of winning including at Rams. If he's ready he's ready.

And if he's ready the Oline is ready. No matter how the Oline is playing, it is my opinion that they'll get extra spark when Fields comes in. Don't think they don't share our excitement.

Some of these posts are just so many words that all boil down to "I'll be scared if he goes in early, because I don't know what is going to happen". I'd be nervous too, if Nagy determines he believes he's ready to start. But nervous excitement - not expecting or fearing bad. We've already had it SO bad. Not much could be worse than some of those Trubisky games and the outright embarrassment of having that headlight deer out there. And he isn't going to get fucking injured. I hate that.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
User avatar
dplank
Head Coach
Posts: 3103
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 9:19 am

The Marshall Plan wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:24 pm Wouldn't it be hilarious if Dalton comes out and throws 3 or 4 TDs per game for the first three games?

Anyway....

If the OL sucks again, why would we want Fields out there? What do we gain with that?

That's really what I'm waiting for. The OL to prove itself. I get that and somebody on the coaching staff like Flip says he's ready then let's roll.
I wouldn't be totally shocked, I really do like Dalton! And if he does that, no way would I put Fields in.

Yogi, I do fully expect Dalton to start Week 1. In part because they committed that to him and in part because Nagy will want to repeat his success with Mahomes. So it's not like I'm diametrically opposed to you're thinking, I just hate predetermined outcomes that close off new information as it comes in. So if Dalton ain't looking so great and Fields appears well ahead of the rookie curve I'd be fine playing him. But I don't want to be painted with a broad brush here that I'm 1000% anti-Dalton or against him playing Week 1, for me it's more situational and "time will tell".

I also take issue with a few of your stated reasons that are flimsy as hell, but at the top level thinking we're not that far off.

That said, let me destroy one of your flimsiest fancies.
The Jags, of course, need fans. That's why they brought in Tebow, and that's why Lawrence is going to start opening day. The Bears aren't in that same boat.
This is truly awful. There is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt NO FRIGGIN WAY that franchise would knowingly put their franchise rookie QB's development at risk just to draw some extra fans in the first few weeks of the season. NO. WAY. This is one of those "you've only thought a half inch deep" theories, if you just take a minute to think a tiny bit deeper you'll see how absolutely wrong this is. Did they bring in Tebow for fans? Yes. Would they knowingly risk the future of their franchise for more early season ticket sales? Of course not. They just proved this when they purposely tanked an entire season last year to get him, why would they turn around and risk his (according to your theory) health and impede his development as a player just for a few weeks to start the season when they could ease him in to the lineup as you are suggesting with Fields?

So what does this misnomer speak to exactly (because I do realize that you suggested that they SHOULD sit Lawrence, so this isn't about that, it's about your theory of development and your absolute position on it)? This speaks to yours (and others) theory that playing a rookie QB early automatically hurts his development and sitting him for a stretch is guaranteed to be a benefit to his development. You may believe these things, and on an individual case by case basis these things may or may not actually be true. But to present them as absolute truths is false, they are not. It is case specific. And so I point to Lawrence because Urban Meyer clearly doesn't think that this is a truism for QB development. Pete Carroll didn't think that either when successfully developing Russ. Neither did Jim Mora when successfully developing Peyton Manning. These coaches were more of the opinion that they should let their guy learn on the field, take his lumps and grow from them. If you have a mentally strong, dedicated player I believe this is the fastest and most effective way to get them up to speed. I believe Fields has this type of makeup (as opposed to Mitch who needed to sit). I also believe that it's self protecting logic in a way - meaning, if you're QB DOESN'T have this type of makeup, then he's not likely to succeed in the league anyways. So all things being equal, my preference is to get to it and see what we've got. But I'm aware Nagy seems to have a different strategy in mind - although I'd be careful about pointing to Nagy as anything more than one example of many and it would be terribly inconsistent to rip Nagy as some shit coach then point to his decision here as proof positive/validation of your thinking.
“I’m a tough, physical, nasty mf'er. A dude who does not shy away from hits; a dude’s who is going to bust his ass.”~ Teven Jenkins
User avatar
UOK
Site Admin
Posts: 22217
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
Location: Champaign, IL

This thread is basically 10+ pages of attacking lines of thought and argument assembly/dismantling to fill the empty void of offseason. I honestly can barely muster the energy to care about what this thread has become.

"None of us are in the board room, locker room, or on the sideline, so in a way, we don't know shit."
- Otis Day
User avatar
Z Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 913
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:45 am

Fact is no QB is ever ready for their first start, does not matter if he is a rookie or a 5 year back up. As long as Fields first start is not a do or die situation I am good with it. He should either start week 18 because the Bears are resting their starters or whenever they get mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. Like it or not this is Dalton's team in 2021 unless he totally shits the bed (which I highly doubt will happen).
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

The Year 4 or 5 of the Fields contract should play ZERO into when you play Fields in Year 1

That is bad logic
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

dplank wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:10 am
Moriarty wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 9:21 am Well, Minshew v Dalton is a weird thing.
"Dalton's been a career starter" vs "Minshew 'lost' his job" somehow impacts the narrative more than their actual performances.


But, as for "If Fields needs to sit, why doesn't Lawrence?", c'mon.
Trevor led his team to an undefeated season and a blowout National Championship as a true freshman (vs Fields being a backup, like most freshmen). And went back to the Championship the following year. And has 3 full years (36 games) as a starter.
Who else, this year or any other, has a resume like that?
It's possible a year sitting would be good for him, too. But you just can't compare his past development curve with other people's. He's different and special.
Actually, he's not much different from Fields at all. Lawrence played as a freshman because Watson left for the pro's, Fields sat behind an established starter at Georgia - that's not an indictment of the player at all, the situations are completely different. The "special" is a label bestowed upon him by sports writers who love a good story and great hair. He won a championship as a freshman being given the keys to a Ferrari at Clemson, Mitch may have won a championship on that team - it was loaded. But that was it, his narrative was SET. Freshman, hair, championship, legend - pay no attention to what happens next he's a generational talent lmao. The biggest difference between Lawrence and Fields is their hair and skin color. And the more I hear all this, the more I'm rooting for that kid to fail - hard. Ryan Leaf style.


This is a very bad post.

It's like a normal post absent reason and accountability.

Also Georgia picked Jake Fromm over Fields
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

IE wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:10 am Saying start week 2 or week 8 or whatever... is all just as arbitrary as starting him week 1.

He's not a baby and has been the center of media attention and intense pressure for years. The Rams in LA wouldn't bother this kid any more than the Lions at home - guaranteed. Unless you're penciling in a confident "W" with Andy Dalton at QB vs the Rams, there is no reason to sit the kid if he can provide you anything extra out there. How about let's win a football game?!

Bear fans are so afraid something could go wrong. Guess what? Something could! Guess what else? It easily still could in week 2 or 8 or 16 or next year! The massive rationalization that is going on to justify not playing a future star because of pure fear is really something to witness here. Oh no - an arm band with plays on it! lol

Just like Justin Herbert was able to come in for the first time versus KC and proved from his first pass that he belonged, JF1 is going to rock from day one. He was born for this. Book it.
Aside from a new playbook - he's adjusting to EVERYTHING new (as are all Rookie QB)

The learning curve is on everything - this is part of the reason - Well Andy Dalton is learning a new playbook too argument is short-sighted in other threads.

Why wouldn't 6 extra weeks of study - getting used to it - help him?

It doesn't have to be Steve McNair - but maybe we let him take a swim class lesson v. throwing him right into the Lake and hoping for the best?
User avatar
wulfy
Pro Bowler
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2020 5:51 pm
Contact:

Per Bears beat writers today on the Twitter machine ... Justin Fields had a "very good day" (@Zack_Pearson) and Andy Dalton threw 3 picks in 7 on 7s.
User avatar
IE
Hall of Famer
Posts: 8076
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

RichH55 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:41 pm
Why wouldn't 6 extra weeks of study - getting used to it - help him?

It doesn't have to be Steve McNair - but maybe we let him take a swim class lesson v. throwing him right into the Lake and hoping for the best?
Because the assumption that he can't learn enough during the learning time he has now, will benefit from watching someone else learn by doing but HE can't learn by doing ... is a pretty bad one.

And the swimming analogy is really even worse.
Ryan Pace for Mayor.
RichH55
MVP
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm

IE wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:43 pm
RichH55 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:41 pm
Why wouldn't 6 extra weeks of study - getting used to it - help him?

It doesn't have to be Steve McNair - but maybe we let him take a swim class lesson v. throwing him right into the Lake and hoping for the best?
Because the assumption that he can't learn enough during the learning time he has now, will benefit from watching someone else learn by doing but HE can't learn by doing ... is a pretty bad one.

And the swimming analogy is really even worse.
Why wouldn't he know the playbook better in Week 6 than Week 1? Just curious - It's just more time to get ready

Why wouldn't getting some time to observe the actual nuts and bolts of everything in real games help?

He can learn by doing - and will learn by doing (at some point) - but the larger his base knowledge before that - the better IMHO.

It's going to be a bit of a whirlwind for ANY rookie - going from late April draft to playing - Everything is new - Everything (*). Entry into the facilities, housing market, etc. etc. Great and Small - but it all adds up

(*) Some of this might have been an advantage for Trevor Lawrence since he has basically known that he was going to Jacksonville since what? January ? You can do things like - get your housing set up earlier, etc - If Jacksonville didnt get him a playbook the day after Urban was hired , then they don't know what they are doing IMHO
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

dplank wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:17 am This is truly awful. There is absolutely, positively, beyond any shadow of a doubt NO FRIGGIN WAY that franchise would knowingly put their franchise rookie QB's development at risk just to draw some extra fans in the first few weeks of the season. NO. WAY. This is one of those "you've only thought a half inch deep" theories, if you just take a minute to think a tiny bit deeper you'll see how absolutely wrong this is. Did they bring in Tebow for fans? Yes. Would they knowingly risk the future of their franchise for more early season ticket sales? Of course not. They just proved this when they purposely tanked an entire season last year to get him, why would they turn around and risk his (according to your theory) health and impede his development as a player just for a few weeks to start the season when they could ease him in to the lineup as you are suggesting with Fields?
And yet this is EXACTLY what the Texans under Dom Capers did with David Carr in his rookie season. Even worse, it was the Texans inaugural season so he was playing behind a patchwork line that included two rookies and three castoffs from other teams that those other teams didn't protect in the expansion draft. It also included a rookie RB, FB, WR, and TE all starting. The only veteran skill position player they started was Corey Bradford, a fifth rounder claimed from the Packers. They had veteran QBs Tony Banks and Michael Quinn on their roster so they could have gone in another direction. Instead they started Carr and although they beat Dallas opening day, Carr was sacked six times that game and forced to run another four times and threw for only 145 yards. For the season he was sacked 76 times! An NFL record. He also has the record for the third most sacks in a season with 68.

So don't tell me that there's absolutely no friggin' way that a team would put their #1 pick QB at risk by starting him opening day, when it has ACTUALLY happened.
User avatar
Yogi da Bear
Crafty Veteran
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:43 pm

IE wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:43 pm
RichH55 wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:41 pm
Why wouldn't 6 extra weeks of study - getting used to it - help him?

It doesn't have to be Steve McNair - but maybe we let him take a swim class lesson v. throwing him right into the Lake and hoping for the best?
Because the assumption that he can't learn enough during the learning time he has now, will benefit from watching someone else learn by doing but HE can't learn by doing ... is a pretty bad one.

And the swimming analogy is really even worse.
Except that BOTH Darnold and Mahomes have said otherwise, and I've already quoted them both in this thread as to that fact.
Post Reply