Justin Fields Megathread - A story of Lovers and Haters

[RichH55]

I feel like that article is based on no real reporting

The idea is interesting.

You cannot bring in a GM that is 50-50 on Fields IMHO.

Either he needs to be all in and Fields is why he wants the job (aside from there being very few NFL GM jobs)

OR he's out and Fields trade value may never be higher.

But NOW is the time to make that call - God lets hope they make the right call though

[IE]

@RichH55 I've been pretty clear I wish for you to not interact with me, because I have strong opinions about your style and motives. Please do not quote me, attempting to draw attention to yourself from me. Again - you are blocked by me. I have no idea what you said here, and don't care even if you're pretending in the moment to be nice.

IF you have something constructive to say to me, do it via PM. Perhaps we can hash it out if you can remotely take ownership of your past behavior and agree to attempt to understand what people actually mean rather than fighting your little point-stretching jousts or relentlessly disagreeing about particular words you don't like. If I wanted people parsing my words to find opportunities to "win", I'd still be with my ex wife.

Thank you.

[Moriarty]

I didn't see anything remotely objectionable in that article.

He took a premise everyone takes for granted and explained very well reasons it might not be as ironclad as everyone thinks it is.

I would bet the next regime rolls with Fields - and I'm sure Lambert would, too - but it was a very good look at why there's a small possibility of surprise.

[bbaker]

Why can’t you bring in a GM who is 50/50 on Fields?

I’m as biased as anyone outside of Pablo Fields, but I’m not 100% sure Fields will live up to his potential. It would be completely reasonable for a GM candidate to be unsure about Fields, and it would seem foolish and arbitrary to rule out a good candidate on that one issue.

I would probably agree that I’d be inclined to pass on a GM who says he is OUT on Fields, but not someone who isn’t quite sure. That’s a reasonable opinion.

[IE]

I think the new GM just has to acknowledge the investment JF1 represents and commit to developing that talent and working to build around that investment in the most pragmatic way possible. I really wouldn't want any coach or GM who was married to a style over winning with what he has & can get.

[RichH55]

I've been pretty clear I wish for you to not interact with me, because I have strong opinions about your style and motives. Please do not quote me, attempting to draw attention to yourself from me. Again - you are blocked by me. I have no idea what you said here, and don't care even if you're pretending in the moment to be nice.

IF you have something constructive to say to me, do it via PM. Perhaps we can hash it out if you can remotely take ownership of your past behavior and agree to attempt to understand what people actually mean rather than fighting your little point-stretching jousts or relentlessly disagreeing about particular words you don't like. If I wanted people parsing my words to find opportunities to "win", I'd still be with my ex wife.

Thank you.

Edited for less Snark

[RichH55]

Why can’t you bring in a GM who is 50/50 on Fields?

I’m as biased as anyone outside of Pablo Fields, but I’m not 100% sure Fields will live up to his potential. It would be completely reasonable for a GM candidate to be unsure about Fields, and it would seem foolish and arbitrary to rule out a good candidate on that one issue.

I would probably agree that I’d be inclined to pass on a GM who says he is OUT on Fields, but not someone who isn’t quite sure. That’s a reasonable opinion.

I mean technically they can do whatever they want!

I meant more than its a bad decision to do so. on the 50/50 guy

If the guy is OUT on Fields - that is a plan. He will be at the peak of his trade value - RIGHT NOW - if you think hes no good.
A) Its a bad draft class - there are multiple teams with multiple firsts -
B) There are legit QB out there that can move as well

OR - the guy wants the Bears job because of Fields - believes in his game and has a plan to buttress his strengths and develop him overall
AND that is Job 1, 2 and 3 (*)

50-50 is the middle road - not really making a choice - If Fields develops great - if not I pick another one 2-3 years from now?

To me that kind of speaks to lack of buy in - and a lack of a clear direction - poor process



(*) This is not the same as turning a blind eye to how his development goes

[AZ_Bearfan]

Check out the top selling player in Wisconsin

[TheWorldBreaker]

Interesting stat, if you give any credence to this PFF measurement it appears Fields interceptions last year were more a product of bad luck than bad throws.

[The Marshall Plan]

Interesting stat, if you give any credence to this PFF measurement it appears Fields interceptions last year were more a product of bad luck than bad throws.

That's exactly what happened.

The INT he threw in the GB game when there should've been an offsides penalty and ARob quit the route. All of the tipped balls.

I'm sure there were a couple brain farts, but my recollection was much more often than not the INTs were bad luck instead of stupidity or him being a "gunslinger" like Smokin' Jay.

[Yogi da Bear]

I counted five bad luck throws, four off deflections, but also some bad rookie mistakes. You can decide for yourself though:

[The Cooler King]

I counted five bad luck throws, four off deflections, but also some bad rookie mistakes. You can decide for yourself though:

Gotta also look at all the bad throws that should have been interceptions and weren't to help balance the analysis.

I am curious though why the graph is presented as a ranking instead of using the actual rate as the x and y axis. Seems like an odd choice. Going back to another thread rankings don't necessarily show us relative value.

[TheWorldBreaker]

I counted five bad luck throws, four off deflections, but also some bad rookie mistakes. You can decide for yourself though:

Gotta also look at all the bad throws that should have been interceptions and weren't to help balance the analysis.

The graph from my earlier post is actually a visual representation of PFF attempting to do that. They literally review every throw and grade whether it was a turnover worthy pass.

Some people are down on it because there is an element of subjectivity to it but according to it Fields threw the 10th fewest interception worthy throws despite being one of the league leaders in interceptions.

So imo, that is very encouraging if you think it’s a good metric because just a regression to the mean (on bad luck plays) would mean improved QB play. And hopefully, Fields will also get better and have WRs that don’t mentally check out in games.

[The Cooler King]

Gotta also look at all the bad throws that should have been interceptions and weren't to help balance the analysis.

The graph from my earlier post is actually a visual representation of PFF attempting to do that. They literally review every throw and grade whether it was a turnover worthy pass.

Some people are down on it because there is an element of subjectivity to it but according to it Fields threw the 10th fewest interception worthy throws despite being one of the league leaders in interceptions.

So imo, that is very encouraging if you think it’s a good metric because just a regression to the mean (on bad luck plays) would mean improved QB play. And hopefully, Fields will also get better and have WRs that don’t mentally check out in games.

I know it is. Just fine tuning Yogi's own analysis.

I also don't like that the PFF chart did it plotted as a ranking instead of the actual rate stat though. What if there's a big gap after #7 that makes JFs 10th position closer to 30th than it is top 5. A ranking doesn't show that, but a rate visualization would.

[AZ_Bearfan]

[southdakbearfan]

Or is it when he throws a bad throw it’s really bad and gets picked off, but he doesn’t throw as many bad throws. Time will tell but it’s hard to judge anything with the coaching and offense they were running.

[Grizzled]

5 dual threat QBs for benchmarks for Fields to compare him to based on his abilities. Russell Wilson lite would be my preference:

Randall Cunningham (16 years)
Passing: 56.6% percentage completion, 29979 yards, 207 TDs, 134 INTs, 7.0 yards/attempt
Rushing: 4928 yards, 6.4 yards/attempt, 35 TDs

Steve Young (14 years although
full time starter in SF for only 7)
Passing: 64.3%, 33124 yards, 232 TDs, 107 INTs, 8.0 yards/attempt
Rushing: 4239 yards, 5.9 yards/attempt, 43 TDs

Lamar Jackson (4 years)
Passing: 64.1%, 9967 yards, 84 TDs, 31 INTs, 7.5 yards/attempt
Rushing: 3673 yards, 6.0 yards/attempt, 21 TDs

Russell Wilson (10 years)
Passing: 65%, 37059 yards, 292 TDs, 97 INTs, 7.8 yards/attempt
Rushing: 4689 yards, 5.5 yards/attempt, 23 TDs

Kyler Murray (3 years)
Passing: 66.9%, 11480 yards, 70 TDs, 34 INTs, 7.3 yards/attempt
Rushing: 1786 yards, 5.7 yards/attempt, 20 TDs

[dplank]

To officially end the old discussion about whether or not we should’ve started Fields from Day 1, I present this:

https://apple.news/ANWy3WJjVSZqOpikyIzDwVQ

There’s a lot more in this article, but this was pretty compelling and right from Burrows own mouth

The situation Burrow walked into was nearly the complete opposite, and the benefit is undeniable.
“That was huge,” Burrow said. “As a young quarterback, you just need to get reps and get out there and play. If I had gone into camp with the mindset that I had to compete for a job, it would’ve limited my ability to figure out what works on an NFL level.
“I was able to make mistakes and make throws that I probably wouldn’t have made if I was competing for a job. I was able to feel out those mistakes because I knew I was gonna be the starter.”

Cringe. The Bears should have hired this guy as a consultant.

Fields didn’t get that rookie head start as he tried to sort through the clutter of coach Matt Nagy’s offense and the Bears’ mis-guided plan to sit him behind veteran Andy Dalton the entire season.

[Grizzled]

To officially end the old discussion about whether or not we should’ve started Fields from Day 1, I present this:

https://apple.news/ANWy3WJjVSZqOpikyIzDwVQ

There’s a lot more in this article, but this was pretty compelling and right from Burrows own mouth

The situation Burrow walked into was nearly the complete opposite, and the benefit is undeniable.
“That was huge,” Burrow said. “As a young quarterback, you just need to get reps and get out there and play. If I had gone into camp with the mindset that I had to compete for a job, it would’ve limited my ability to figure out what works on an NFL level.
“I was able to make mistakes and make throws that I probably wouldn’t have made if I was competing for a job. I was able to feel out those mistakes because I knew I was gonna be the starter.”

Cringe. The Bears should have hired this guy as a consultant.

Fields didn’t get that rookie head start as he tried to sort through the clutter of coach Matt Nagy’s offense and the Bears’ mis-guided plan to sit him behind veteran Andy Dalton the entire season.

Good article in the Chcago Suntimes this a.m. comparing how the Bengals brought along Burrow as a rookie versus how the Bears handled Fields.

[Yogi da Bear]

Ehn: So would you have rather had the result that Burrows had his rookie year--a torn ACL? An after the fact-based article like this should really look at all the actual facts.

I really don't believe in just handing the keys to my new Ferrari to my 16-year-old kid who just passed his driver license and allow him to use it for the next five months. lol In the NFL, you shouldn't just be given anything. You should have to earn it.

I didn't want Fields to start at all, but I could see the rationale in letting him compete for the starting job. I didn't expect, however, for Nagy to do what he did. THAT was unconscionable.

I expected Nagy to give Fields time with the ones, like maybe thirty to forty percent. Instead, he gave him almost no time with the starters. If you're worried about throwing Fields out there from the get go, with the entire training camp devoted to him being the starter, you certainly don't put him out there as a rookie with absolutely NO experience as a starter. The Cleveland game showed that, and we're lucking it wasn't a whole helluva lot worse.

[dplank]

Ehn: So would you have rather had the result that Burrows had his rookie year--a torn ACL? An after the fact-based article like this should really look at all the actual facts.

Yes! If Fields took Burrows track exactly then we have one of the great QBs in the league. JMO but I think you fear injury too much and allow that fear to drive bad decisions. Burrow turned out just fine.

In the NFL, you shouldn't just be given anything. You should have to earn it.

I just don’t think this is realistic, you’re just lying to yourself if you don’t accept that Fields is going to be our guy based on where we drafted him. The act of competing for the job serves only to take reps away and slow his development, and restricts his freedom to play and learn, just as Burrow himself said in this article. And so once you accept that fact, then you should immediately start giving him every rep in mini camp, camp, preseason, and regular season that he needs to develop. Like they did for Burrow, which worked out great even with the injury.

[thunderspirit]

I wouldn't have given Justin Fields the starting job either. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making anyone earn a starting spot, including a prized rookie.

You can't BS the players, though; they know who should be starting when you open the job up for competition like that. So Nagy avoided that reckoning by not presenting an apples-to-apples comparison between Fields and Andy Dalton. That decision, and not just handing the keys over without a competiton, is the original sin.

[Richie]

Interesting stat, if you give any credence to this PFF measurement it appears Fields interceptions last year were more a product of bad luck than bad throws.

Dalton also started 6 of our games (and Foles 1). Dalton definitely had a few that didn't deserve to be picked as well.

My beef with Fields was more with his poor pocket awareness and recklessness while running the ball. He fumbled a TON.

[Artbest]

Fields pocket awareness improved dramatically as the season went on - what didn’t improve was his elongated delivery, which is ripe for fumbles. He also did a poor job of avoiding unnecessary hits, leading to a spate of injuries.

That said, imo, he gets one year to show dramatic improvement. If he fails to do so, I believe Ryan Poles will look for his guy in the 2023 draft

[dplank]

I wouldn't have given Justin Fields the starting job either. There's absolutely nothing wrong with making anyone earn a starting spot, including a prized rookie.

You can't BS the players, though; they know who should be starting when you open the job up for competition like that. So Nagy avoided that reckoning by not presenting an apples-to-apples comparison between Fields and Andy Dalton. That decision, and not just handing the keys over without a competiton, is the original sin.

Joe Burrow very, very clearly makes the case for why it helped his development as a player by given the job day 1 and specifically not having to compete for it. So I'm not pushing back on this per se, but I'm curious how you square this thinking with what you just read from Joe Burrow in that article? This feels to me very much like old school thinking that doesn't apply to the modern NFL.

[thunderspirit]

First of all, Joe Burrow has no basis of comparison — he has no idea what it would be like not to start Week 1, just like Justin Fields has no idea what it would be like to start Week 1.

I am not a fan of taking any unproven commodity and giving them a starting job. If that makes me "old school" (as opposed to just old), so be it. Players earn their way onto the field.

[rtd]

First of all, Joe Burrow has no basis of comparison — he has no idea what it would be like not to start Week 1, just like Justin Fields has no idea what it would be like to start Week 1.

I am not a fan of taking any unproven commodity and giving them a starting job. If that makes me "old school" (as opposed to just old), so be it. Players earn their way onto the field.

You just spent 4 total draft picks (2 R1s) to move up to select Fields as your leader/ QB for the next 15 years. The reason you make the trade is the same reason you play him from day 1 . He has the highest potential to change your team in a winning direction for many years. And having game reps provide the learning steps to reach his ceiling of production, From the 5 top qbs in last years draft Fields has the highest ceiling followed by Lance in IMO. This last year you saw BB take the bama kid and mold him into a starting QB from game 1. He has a nice ceiling and will be an average starting QB. Cutting Newton and giving him all the reps from early on training camp helped in his progress.

[dave99]

Pretty extensive overview of Fields rookie year
https://dabearsblog.com/2022/fields-in- ... more-30883

[dave99]

The whole series is good but this is not based on PFF or other manufactured metrics, just rankings.
DBB on Fields progression
https://dabearsblog.com/2022/fields-in- ... rogression

Lessons Learned
Fields clearly improved throughout his rookie season, and we can see that some of the apparent weaknesses found in his year-long data were no longer weaknesses late in the year. I wish he could have stayed healthy to give us a larger sample size in those last few games and confirm that those improvements were real. If we look only at Fields’ later season performance, we have a rookie QB who was:

Overall efficient moving the ball through the air, an elite running QB, and somebody who gets sacked at an above average (but not astronomical) rate.
An excellent deep ball passer who is below average (but not terrible) in the short game.
An elite passer in a clean pocket who is average to above average under pressure.
An elite passer in play action who is below average-to-bad in non-play action situations.
Bad in the quick game.
Average to below average facing the blitz.
There are clearly still areas for improvement, but that’s a much more promising profile than you would expect given Fields’ abysmal rookie statistics. I think that provides plenty of reason for optimism around Fields heading into 2022.

[RichH55]

Good stuff Dave