RealGM

nomorezorro wrote:

would probably rather target an OL or maybe even a safety. wouldn't be surprised if we went with the yale tackle if he's still on the board

NecessaryEvil wrote:

Read on Twitter

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

dice wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:They did a crap job of putting a good team around Fields and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people acknowledging that. Does it mean that we shouldn’t have traded him? No. But the facts are what they are. Just let it go already.

those are not facts. here are some facts:

-bears O-line was 6th in the league in avg. pocket time
-bears RBs averaged well over 4 yards a carry
-bears had 2nd most rush attempts in league, which along w/ fields's running ability forced opponents to load up the box
-kmet was 9th rated TE in PFF grade
-moore was 10th rated WR

despite these strong advantages, fields was 23rd of 30 in pass QBR

3 of the things that you mentioned could be directly attributed to Fields himself.

It’s like I said, this roster (as a whole) was never any better than average at any point while Fields was here. Those are the facts sir.

NesimLE wrote:

dice wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:They did a crap job of putting a good team around Fields and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with people acknowledging that. Does it mean that we shouldn’t have traded him? No. But the facts are what they are. Just let it go already.

those are not facts. here are some facts:

-bears O-line was 6th in the league in avg. pocket time
-bears RBs averaged well over 4 yards a carry
-bears had 2nd most rush attempts in league, which along w/ fields's running ability forced opponents to load up the box
-kmet was 9th rated TE in PFF grade
-moore was 10th rated WR

despite these strong advantages, fields was 23rd of 30 in pass QBR

The question is, what are the implications of that info. The performance of his top 2 options tells us that he is capable of making throws to open targets when he sees them, at minimum. The fall off for the following targets means that there's some combination of the following:

-- targets not being open when he reaches them in his progression (which could be attributable to them not being talented enough to get open, or the routes they happen to be running being poorly designed or slow developing...which would be a Getsy offense if is the case)

-- him not reaching them in his progression (this is either him being slow through his reads (more likely), him not having enough time in the pocket (occasionally happened, but not the average case at least) or poor coaching)

-- him not seeing reads as open when he reaches them (or not being willing or able to throw to guys who are 'NFL open'...this would be the most damning I'd think, either as coaching or talent limitation)

More talent and a different OC would've given us the chance to eliminate some of those options from the list of possibilities. But as has already been concluded, the QB(s) available this year were too good to pass up for a guy who in the best case, had question marks about his processing speed, time to throw, and ability to throw guys open. Throwing more talent and scheme at the problem would've likely been a band-aid at best...and a window for contention even if Fields was sufficient, would've been limited to 2 or 3 seasons before contracts started coming due.

fleet wrote:Traits. Every time someone tries to sell you on Poles taking an undersized player in the first two days, tell them to cut it out.

Chicago-Bull-E wrote:Can’t be mad about a high upside tackle.

dice wrote:

Chicago-Bull-E wrote:Can’t be mad about a high upside tackle.

he played guard as well

Spoiler:

dice wrote:the entire league evaluated whose fault it was and determined it was by and large justin's

dice wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

dice wrote:those are not facts. here are some facts:

-bears O-line was 6th in the league in avg. pocket time
-bears RBs averaged well over 4 yards a carry
-bears had 2nd most rush attempts in league, which along w/ fields's running ability forced opponents to load up the box
-kmet was 9th rated TE in PFF grade
-moore was 10th rated WR

despite these strong advantages, fields was 23rd of 30 in pass QBR

3 of the things that you mentioned could be directly attributed to Fields himself.

makes no difference. he couldn't pass despite the advantages

It’s like I said, this roster (as a whole) was never any better than average at any point while Fields was here. Those are the facts sir.

you clearly do not know what a fact is. what you are providing is OPINIONS. bad ones

fleet wrote:Traits. Every time someone tries to sell you on Poles taking an undersized player in the first two days, tell them to cut it out.

fleet wrote:

TheStig wrote:

fleet wrote:And Mooney, who just got a nice contract. Fields completely was unable to use this year. There’s no excuse for a truly good quarterback to look bad. Maybe diminished effectiveness on the margins sure. But good quarterbacks show you.

Excellent point. I think Mooney will be much better with Kirk.

Surely. He was rediscovered as a target by Tyson Bagent.

Betta Bulleavit wrote:

dice wrote:

Betta Bulleavit wrote:3 of the things that you mentioned could be directly attributed to Fields himself.

makes no difference. he couldn't pass despite the advantages

It’s like I said, this roster (as a whole) was never any better than average at any point while Fields was here. Those are the facts sir.

you clearly do not know what a fact is. what you are providing is OPINIONS. bad ones

Dice, this roster was NEVER better than average at any point during Fields’ tenure here. That’s all I’m saying. The outcomes back that up. Even the biggest Fields critics would admit that. It’s not opinion. It is a fact. Deal with it.