Bears have worst pass pro in NFL

[Moriarty]

Let's suppose, hypothetically, for the sake of argument

20% of all top 15 QB picks will become good (whatever you want to set that bar at) no matter what adversity they face in their early years
20% of all top 15 QB picks will become good, but only if they don't face long stretches of clusterfuck (no protection, idiot coaching, whatever) early on
60% of all top 15 QB picks will never become good, regardless of any realistic situation they start out in

Unless you want to claim the middle option should be 0% (ie, nobody is impacted by their circumstance, which I think is absurd, per above) -
Shouldn't the possibility that Fields is one of the middle guys be kind of critical to your decision-making?

[TheWorldBreaker]

How do you explain David Carr?

I've learned never to play this game, you answer mine and then I'll answer yours. That move is disingenuous. So, how do you explain Josh Allen?

First off, Josh Allen is an anomaly. I don’t think a QB has ever improved his completion percentage as significantly as he did from his rookie season. So he’s more of an exception than the rule.

But it’s possible that this is because he went to such a small school his learning curve was steeper to match his talent.

Or the Bills coaching staff/his personal QB coach are miracle workers.

But it could also just be down to the drastic improvement in offensive talent making things easier. Or some combination of the above.

[dplank]

The answer is that treating the problem as an ALL or NOTHING is silly.
Players who face ___X____ (ALWAYS/NEVER) ____Y____ is a nonsense choice.
X simply makes Y more/less/much more/much less likely. Single cases don't end the debate about how important something is.


Very promising prospects sometimes implode after being surrounded by incompetence in their formative years.


You can claim that being surrounded by incompetence in their formative years is irrelevant and the ones who fail must not have been good anyway. But that's just choosing what you want to believe, instead of having any knowledge. Knowing what college QBs have it and which don't is possibly the hardest thing to know in sports.

We are super close to saying the same thing here. Absolute all or nothings are dumb - that’s my point. Singular examples don’t mean anything, totally agree there also (see Carr, David). My take has always been that it’s player specific.

You can claim that being surrounded by incompetence in their formative years is irrelevant and the ones who fail must not have been good anyway.

I’m not making this claim. You’ve misread, my claim is much narrower than you just said in that quote. I’m arguing against the absolute claims from the other direction, with singular examples (Carr) as the “proof point”.

[dplank]

I've learned never to play this game, you answer mine and then I'll answer yours. That move is disingenuous. So, how do you explain Josh Allen?

First off, Josh Allen is an anomaly. I don’t think a QB has ever improved his completion percentage as significantly as he did from his rookie season. So he’s more of an exception than the rule.

But it’s possible that this is because he went to such a small school his learning curve was steeper to match his talent.

Or the Bills coaching staff/his personal QB coach are miracle workers.

But it could also just be down to the drastic improvement in offensive talent making things easier. Or some combination of the above.

Funny cause that’s my answer to your question also, David Carr is an anomaly. And the situation the QB finds themselves in matters more when projecting future performance than prior “mental stress” from rookie failings.

[mmmc_35]

Moriarty had a very good post.

I think it's fairly simple.

Do you think the rocky pile of shit, fields was planted into the middle off, is conducive to him blossoming or not?

Most seem to think not.

[IE]

First off, Josh Allen is an anomaly. I don’t think a QB has ever improved his completion percentage as significantly as he did from his rookie season. So he’s more of an exception than the rule.

But it’s possible that this is because he went to such a small school his learning curve was steeper to match his talent.

Or the Bills coaching staff/his personal QB coach are miracle workers.

But it could also just be down to the drastic improvement in offensive talent making things easier. Or some combination of the above.

Funny cause that’s my answer to your question also, David Carr is an anomaly. And the situation the QB finds themselves in matters more when projecting future performance than prior “mental stress” from rookie failings.

Yeah - the situation is what matters.

Allen isn't even THAT big of an outlier, really. Sure 53% to high 60s is indeed a huge increase in completion percentage. But he didn't exceed 60% until his 3rd year. Lamar Jackson went from 58% to 65%. Peyton Manning was 57% his first season and quickly jumped to high 60s. Derek Carr was 57% and now he's up in 69-70%. So it is pretty common for guys that ARE good to show what they are within a couple of years , even after rough starts. There is zero evidence that having a rough start leads to "ruin" of an otherwise-good QB. It is only rough at the time. Heck - for all we know the rough start is what caused (challenged) many guys to get so much better. It's a pressure cooker for young QBs no matter what. But they're all getting hit a lot as inexperienced rookies.

Even with all the consternation... .

JF1 is having a totally common experience, along with Wilson and Lance. Mac and Trevor seem to be acclimating a bit faster but it can't be assumed that is the long-term picture. Right now I'd guess JF1 will end the season with a completion percentage slightly higher than 60%, a passer rating in the high 70s, 45-50 sacks and around 50-50 on TDs/INTs (hopefully a few more TDs). I really hope he can get up near 20 TDs but 1.7 TDs a game for the next 10 games seems a little ambitious even if he realistically should be averaging 1 right now and it just hasn't happened. Anyway... it'll come.
.
It is pretty clear that the most important thing for JF1 is to grow within a system that accentuates his strengths and hides his weaknesses while he works on them. It is also pretty clear that Nagy is utterly incapable of creating that environment.

[TheWorldBreaker]

First off, Josh Allen is an anomaly. I don’t think a QB has ever improved his completion percentage as significantly as he did from his rookie season. So he’s more of an exception than the rule.

But it’s possible that this is because he went to such a small school his learning curve was steeper to match his talent.

Or the Bills coaching staff/his personal QB coach are miracle workers.

But it could also just be down to the drastic improvement in offensive talent making things easier. Or some combination of the above.

Funny cause that’s my answer to your question also, David Carr is an anomaly. And the situation the QB finds themselves in matters more when projecting future performance than prior “mental stress” from rookie failings.

David Carr isn’t an anomaly most QBs fail. He’s just the most glaring example of organizational incompetence clearly ruining a prospect with lots of talent.

But you can point to Jimmy Clausen, Brady Quinn, Paxton Lynch, Ryan Leaf, Jeff George, almost every QB the Bears ever drafted, Josh Rosen, it looks like we might be witnessing it happening with Tua now…Among many others that could be named.

[The Cooler King]

Moriarty had a very good post.

I think it's fairly simple.

Do you think the rocky pile of shit, fields was planted into the middle off, is conducive to him blossoming or not?

Most seem to think not.

Theres a difference between "conducive to blossoming" and "ruining him" which is a phrase thrown around.

And negative or neutral development isn't the same as permanent regression. And we should question if not playing also leads to a range of development from negative to neutral to positive.

There's a range of factors and outcomes and any piece of evidence is typically anecdotal since we can't run a prospect through multiple career scenarios and every scenario and prospect is different.

[The Cooler King]

And one more point that I'll reiterate. I don't know any "pro playing" person who would say something like CLE or TB is beneficial, but also that those performances should not have ever been like that. The coaching staff is just not designing a scheme to protect Fields. Not that it isn't possible to do, even with roster weaknesses.

[dplank]

Funny cause that’s my answer to your question also, David Carr is an anomaly. And the situation the QB finds themselves in matters more when projecting future performance than prior “mental stress” from rookie failings.

David Carr isn’t an anomaly most QBs fail. He’s just the most glaring example of organizational incompetence clearly ruining a prospect with lots of talent.

But you can point to Jimmy Clausen, Brady Quinn, Paxton Lynch, Ryan Leaf, Jeff George, almost every QB the Bears ever drafted, Josh Rosen, it looks like we might be witnessing it happening with Tua now…Among many others that could be named.

David Carr is the only QB I can name that I would agree failed BECAUSE of his rookie experience. Dude got killed out there and never recovered from it. Those other guys? They just suck dude.

[dplank]

Moriarty had a very good post.

I think it's fairly simple.

Do you think the rocky pile of shit, fields was planted into the middle off, is conducive to him blossoming or not?

Most seem to think not.

Theres a difference between "conducive to blossoming" and "ruining him" which is a phrase thrown around.

And negative or neutral development isn't the same as permanent regression. And we should question if not playing also leads to a range of development from negative to neutral to positive.

There's a range of factors and outcomes and any piece of evidence is typically anecdotal since we can't run a prospect through multiple career scenarios and every scenario and prospect is different.

Thank you for articulating this better than I have been able to do. This is exactly correct.

[TheWorldBreaker]

David Carr isn’t an anomaly most QBs fail. He’s just the most glaring example of organizational incompetence clearly ruining a prospect with lots of talent.

But you can point to Jimmy Clausen, Brady Quinn, Paxton Lynch, Ryan Leaf, Jeff George, almost every QB the Bears ever drafted, Josh Rosen, it looks like we might be witnessing it happening with Tua now…Among many others that could be named.

David Carr is the only QB I can name that I would agree failed BECAUSE of his rookie experience. Dude got killed out there and never recovered from it. Those other guys? They just suck dude.

It’s easy to say they just sucked in retrospect but that’s a lazy cop out.

They were all talented prospects (Remember Mel Kiper was supposed to retire if Clausen wasn’t a successful QB) which is why they were high draft picks.

[The Cooler King]

Same guy that I posted from yesterday. This is promising looking forward.

[wab]

So your basic reasoning is like the medieval witch test, where you toss the accused in a rushing river, and if they sink into the water and drown, that means they weren’t a witch. If they float, that means they are a witch, so you haul them out and burn them at the stake.

Again with the snark. Let me ask you...how do you explain Josh Allen having the same type of start to his career, yet overcoming it to become one of the best QB's in the league? According to you this isn't possible, and yet here we are.

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

[The Cooler King]

Again with the snark. Let me ask you...how do you explain Josh Allen having the same type of start to his career, yet overcoming it to become one of the best QB's in the league? According to you this isn't possible, and yet here we are.

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

Is it?

I know most analytics points to sacks being more QB dependent. So it may be high sack QBs just struggle to overcome that weakness, independent of line play. But I'm interested if there is any widespread correlation between early sack rate and success. I know Russell Wilson was and is a high sack rate guy and he's probably always been the best comp for Fields potential. But that's just one example and I'm sure there's 5 comps that are failures (just generally due to the nature of QB).

[dplank]

Again with the snark. Let me ask you...how do you explain Josh Allen having the same type of start to his career, yet overcoming it to become one of the best QB's in the league? According to you this isn't possible, and yet here we are.

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

Really? Let's see it. Deshaun Watson was sacked 62 times his first year (momentarily ignoring his actual first year that was cut short by injury). Russell Wilson is a sack machine and has been since Day 1 in the league. People keep throwing this thought out there but come up empty when asked to back it up with data.

[Burl]

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

Really? Let's see it. Deshaun Watson was sacked 62 times his first year (momentarily ignoring his actual first year that was cut short by injury). Russell Wilson is a sack machine and has been since Day 1 in the league. People keep throwing this thought out there but come up empty when asked to back it up with data.

But since Watson and Wilson both put up good numbers in their first years while also getting sacked a bunch, doest that sort of suggest that Fields just sucks then?

[dplank]

It’s possible, impossible to say at this stage. But early returns are not good, he sucks right now. He’s got plenty of talent but we’ve seen a lot of talented QBs bust. I’m still hopeful but honestly if Nagy is still around I don’t like our chances - too many players have failed in his turd system

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I’m happy with where Fields is at.

It’s his attitude, he doesn’t care if he throws picks, he doesn’t care if he takes hits, he’s going to go out there and work hard.

With hard work comes success. I genuinely believe that. He will find a way, he will exclude all the ways which haven’t worked for him.

This guy is going to make it. He works hard, as hard as any QB. He has talent in abundance, there’s no doubt about that. He’s one of the most resilient characters you can think of.

On what basis do you postulate he will fail? A few sacks? A few picks? That’s no basis to judge.

He has the physical attributes, he has the work ethic, he has the talent and he has cast iron resilience.

He’s as close to a sure thing as it gets for a rookie QB.

[G08]

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

Really? Let's see it. Deshaun Watson was sacked 62 times his first year (momentarily ignoring his actual first year that was cut short by injury). Russell Wilson is a sack machine and has been since Day 1 in the league. People keep throwing this thought out there but come up empty when asked to back it up with data.

There's a difference between getting sacked via extended plays and getting sacked in under 3 seconds.

This is a stupid argument.

[UOK]

[The Cooler King]

Well looks like he can step in at QB if we need to pull Fields to protect him

[dplank]

Really? Let's see it. Deshaun Watson was sacked 62 times his first year (momentarily ignoring his actual first year that was cut short by injury). Russell Wilson is a sack machine and has been since Day 1 in the league. People keep throwing this thought out there but come up empty when asked to back it up with data.

There's a difference between getting sacked via extended plays and getting sacked in under 3 seconds.

This is a stupid argument.

Until someone, anyone, can show an actual correlation between rookie sacks/struggles equaling long term development problems, that’s a stupid argument.

Still waiting

[docc]

Interesting statement on NFL pre game..

Kyler Murray.."All but 1 of his INTs have come from in the pocket" "Packers will need to keep him in the pocket"

Move Justin around..let him sandlot or at least get him moving..roll outs..movement..not becoming a statue with great mobility NOT allowed to use it..

[mmmc_35]

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/9/30 ... t-timeline

[dplank]

https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2021/9/30 ... t-timeline

Great article! We should end this right here, there’s no one answer here, plenty of data to support many different approaches, and they pretty much poopoo the whole “ruining your QB” theory.

[mmmc_35]

I think getting your QBs ass kicked can definitely ruin a QB. I am unwilling to sort through sack amounts, draft position, and success metrics. So I agree its essentially a dumb argument. We think your kind are wrong you think our kind are wrong. The surface level data in that article makes both theories inconclusive.

[dplank]

I think getting your QBs ass kicked can definitely ruin a QB. I am unwilling to sort through sack amounts, draft position, and success metrics. So I agree its essentially a dumb argument. We think your kind are wrong you think our kind are wrong. The surface level data in that article makes both theories inconclusive.

Agreed, shake on it and moving on!

[The Cooler King]

Give that data is inconclusive, I think the next thing to likely look at is who those players say behind. The three shining examples in the pro-sit case all sat behind Pro Bowl talents (a HOF in one case). That's a huge wrench in the arguement IMO. Guys are gonna go in when they are better than their competition.

[wab]

Fields has already been sacked almost as many times in 5 games as Allen was his entire rookie year. The correlation between rookies getting sacked into oblivion and overall failure is pretty clear.

Really? Let's see it. Deshaun Watson was sacked 62 times his first year (momentarily ignoring his actual first year that was cut short by injury). Russell Wilson is a sack machine and has been since Day 1 in the league. People keep throwing this thought out there but come up empty when asked to back it up with data.

You understand I said “rookie” right.

If you’d go back ad read my previous post, you’d see the data.