MasterAwesome

That article was distinguishing designed runs from QB scrambles. It was specifically saying that Fields' scrambling yardage was inflating the o-line's run blocking grade. So the line wasn't actually run blocking at all on those plays. It's plays where presumably the protection breaks down and then Fields takes off running.

So you believe the Panthers had the #2 ranked defense last year right? Because those are the statistics you're choosing to frame your argument (yardage). If LeVeon Bell and Demaryius Thomas were considered legit talents at the tail end of their careers, then so is Allen Robinson whose production nosedived last year catching passes from Fields. I guess Jimmy Graham was also a legit talent last year...sounds like Fields had incredible weapons after all lol. You can make a strong argument that Fields makes his receivers worse as well. I mean, of course he does if you believe he's a below average passer (as of now) which I think you would agree with. Even so, I showed this in a recent post a little while back. I compared the production from Darnell Mooney when Andy Dalton was under center vs. 2021 Fields vs. 2022 Fields. He had by far his best production catching passes from Dalton last year (if extrapolating, I think he would've been a ~1300 yard receiver with Dalton) while his production from 2021 Fields and 2022 Fields has been meh. Mooney I think is a super underrated guy who could be a legit #1 or a strong #2 if he was on another team. Claypool also struggled significantly more catching passes from Fields vs. Trubisky this year. You could argue that he was learning the offense, building chemistry, etc. but it's still another data point in the bigger picture.

I'll gladly accept that as one account of it. But it doesn't explain ESPN's pass blocking win rate. Also I will be the first to admit I don't know the intricacies of PFF's grading system, but I would have an incredibly hard time believing that PFF awards the o-line with a boosted run blocking grade because of a QB scrambling. They're usually pretty nuanced about these things. That's why a CB could, for example, allow 0 catches for 0 yards and still be graded at a 50 because they get burned every other play and the QB just misses the throws or doesn't look his way. I've never known PFF to be that superficial to simply look at rushing stats and automatically credit the o-line's run blocking. They're very meticulous about their analysis and grading.

How so? That's quite debatable lol. Darnold definitely had a better defense, that's about the only thing I'd give him. I would argue Fields had a slightly less awful receiving corps, a better o-line, and better RBs. Coaching is TBD cause Adam Gase is mediocre at best and Eberflus just finished his first season. Speaking of o-line...I constantly hear talk about Fields' awful o-line but they were ranked top 10 by two independent fairly reputable establishments: PFF and ESPN (at least with regards to their "pass blocking win rate" metric). Fields takes a lot of sacks but a lot of those are undeniably his fault. For comparison's sake since you want to compare both of their 2nd years in the league: Fields had less pressures (119) compared to Darnold (135), and somehow incredibly turned that into 67% more sacks (55 vs. 33). That's pretty damn staggering. There was a graphic posted in here maybe a month or two ago that showed a QB's tendency to turn pressures into sacks in college vs. the NFL. Fields was tops in both categories, meaning he succumbs to sacks when pressured at a much higher than average rate. Did OSU have a horrible o-line too? Pocket awareness/navigating the pocket, stepping up in the pocket to evade edge rushers, etc. those are damn important traits for a QB and it's another flaw for Fields that I don't see talked about. Not only is it not talked about, but it's flipped on its head and used as a point in Fields' favor, as that blame is redirected from Fields and onto his o-line.

It's really not crystal clear at all until Fields takes that next step in his passing game and more importantly starts winning games. At the end of the day he's 5-20 as a starting QB in the NFL...his development has been more encouraging than discouraging, but he's still got a long way to go. If Fields was a slam dunk, I can promise you there wouldn't be reporters asking the GM at the podium if Fields is the starting QB next year and it wouldn't have been such a newsworthy moment that spurned countless articles. Imagine Pederson being asked if Trevor Lawrence is the starting QB next year. Lol. The only articles that would be written about that moment would be how stupid of a question that was.

All that "compensation" at the end of the day resulted in 10 points. And that has essentially summarized Fields' career to this point IMO...he's exciting, but largely ineffective thus far. What you call "legit elite and special ability" (with his legs as you accurately pointed out) I think is just a fluffed up embellished way of saying he's an "exciting" player, which he definitely is. Unfortunately so far it's been mostly all flash and little substance. Fields can bust out an incredible 60-yard run on one play and then overthrow a wide open checkdown on the next. Or throw an interception on a play where the opposing defense rushes zero. Not every coach will take that trade-off of missing the easy stuff while pulling off miraculous plays that no other QB can. I think most would, because they think it's easier to overcome those routine easy things, but it's still very much TBD right now. The irony is that if Justin Fields doesn't fix his passing issues and start piling up wins soon, then he's gonna turn into the next Sam Darnold where years later people are still making excuses for his shortcomings. "Poor Fields has been the victim of horrible coaches, a horrible o-line, and horrible receivers! He has never had a real chance!" - sound familiar? (Substitute Fields with Darnold). And I left off his rushing stats because I was following your lead. Are we including rushing stats or not? Because just a minute ago you were talking about Darnold's 3 passing touchdowns in 4 games instead of his 5 total touchdowns. Both are pretty awful don't get me wrong...but I'm guessing you know it sounds a bit more damning to be able to say he "averaged less than 1 TD per game".

To be fair, Fields also imploded in his last game: 7-21 for 75 yards 1 TD 1 INT. To an earlier point you made: it's definitely fair to hold Darnold and Fields to a different standard, but what confuses me is how one of them is apparently the worst starting QB of the last 6 years and shouldn't even be worthy of signing to a cheap back-up spot, while the other is already anointed a franchise QB who we were idiots to have passed up.

Poles was outright ASKED explicitly if Justin Fields is the starter next year. He didn't just offer that up unprompted. So if Poles is up at the podium and is asked by a reporter "Is Justin Fields the starter next year?", then give me an example of another answer he could've given that would: 1) not lower Fields' trade value, and 2) not risk damaging the team's relationship with Fields and the locker room (since Fields does seem to be beloved by his teammates), in the likely case that the Bears do end up committing to Fields as their QB next season. There's just zero benefit to not answering "yes" to Fields being their starter next year. You're acting like there haven't been countless GMs and coaches who have gone against what they've said publicly at the podium lol. All they have to do is give a cookie-cutter generic answer of "well, circumstances changed....we got an offer that was too good to pass up....we wish him the best....we're excited about Stroud/Young....etc". For the record, no I do not think the Bears are going to select a QB first overall. I just think you're falling victim to confirmation bias where you selectively latch onto certain things the GM says at the podium while being dismissive of others, due to your feelings about Fields. I don't think you're giving equal weight to his qualifier of "unless we are blown away" or w/e. Guys like Stroud and Young already have impressive tape, so all that's left is a solid Combine/Pro Day performance and some compelling interviews and it's easy to imagine them being more-or-less "blown away".

The GM doesn't want to lessen the value of his pick and also doesn't want to lessen the value of Fields as a potential trade asset. So I'm not sure why you seem to be picking and choosing which of Poles' comments are legitimate and to be taken at face value, when it's all very likely deliberately framed in order to maintain the value of both pieces. If he was outwardly lukewarm and non-committal about Fields then he's likely harming his trade value. There's nothing you just said in your post about the #1 draft pick that doesn't also apply to Justin Fields.

Gotcha. Yeah the wasted money comment was clear but it was the "he shined" part of your post that was hard to infer sarcasm from. I was like.....were we watching the same guy?

Really? I thought he looked pretty underwhelming...or at least incredibly slow. A lot of people don't care as long as your returner doesn't turn the ball over, but he had one fumble in 6 returns and almost a second one, but was ruled down just before. Blackshear is the guy I would like to re-sign for the KR/PR position. He looked fast and elusive and was pretty sure-handed, not to mention he was a rookie who still has room to develop at that position and as RB depth. For comparison, he also had 1 fumble, but in 25 returns vs. Roberts' 6 returns. He also averaged 9.2 YPR on punts and 27.0 YPR on kickoffs, vs. Roberts' 4.5 YPR on punts and 17.5 YPR on kickoffs. I think with Roberts' age and the fact that he's coming off of a knee injury last year, it's almost a no-brainer to move on at this point.

Can you imagine the mayhem...I could see him popping up on the jumbotron like "We put $10,000 cash underneath 5 random seats in the stadium!" Or a "survive a tackle from Jeremy Chinn for $20,000" challenge.

You're talking about games where Hurts didn't even play - I'm talking about games where he has a poor or meh performance, there's a subtle distinction there. Because whether he's having a good game or a bad game as a passer, he still needs to be accounted for in the run game. Which is partly what I mean by him being a complementary piece of the team; he also complements the run game with that threat of running. Even if himself has a lackluster rushing performance, the role he plays helps indirectly elevate the rest of the team around him.

I think it's interesting and worth noting that the biggest blowout of the weekend featured a QB who threw for barely 100 yards and 0 TDs. Seems like the most dominant teams are ones where a stud QB is also a complementary piece, rather than the focal point whose singular performance almost entirely dictates whether their team wins or loses. That's the difference between a team like the Eagles vs. a team like the Bengals. If Hurts has a meh or even bad game, their smothering defense and strong run game can still fairly easily carry the load. If Burrow has a bad game, it's more likely that his team is struggling to pull off the win.

First of all, I'm sure there isn't a single person that wouldn't rather have a great QB than CMC lol. But besides that, the rest of your argument is odd. I mean he essentially went 13-0 with Jimmy G and Brock Purdy, until his team's QB situation was so dire that he himself had to play some snaps at QB. And saying he needs an offense to be built around him again is strange because he was literally inserted into a brand new already-built offense and helped propel his team to 13 straight wins, when they were 3-3 before he arrived. All his career has proven so far is that he can't put an entire offense on his back and win a game single-handedly if his QB is completely useless, which is a standard that no other skill player is held to. So you can't really say he needs a "great" QB when he hasn't even played alongside a "good" one. Is that how you feel about a guy like DJ Moore too? He needs a "great" QB to win anything? Cause instead for some reason, DJ typically gets the benefit of the doubt that he could be elite if he had a decent QB throwing him the ball. But CMC is expected to be able to win in spite of bad QB play. A QB might have more of a direct impact on a WR's performance, but factoring in indirect impact (i.e. facing stacked boxes), makes both positions fairly equally victimized by poor QB play.

You could frame a similar argument for QB lol. “Hey look this Joe Burrow guy is only making a $1 million salary. Compare him to a guy like Josh Allen making $27 million in 2023. Why pay a QB a second contract when you got young guys on rookie deals producing for way cheaper?” Also Etienne was still drafted in the 1st round. Are you advocating us taking a RB with a late 1st round pick if we’re in that position? I agree with your overall argument, but Etienne is a pretty bad example to use for multiple reasons.

Sounds like they might need to fish that DBO sign out from the BoA stadium dumpster.

Seeing Maher succumb to the yips makes me appreciate Piñeiro more, who bounced back to make every kick (including some clutch ones) since that dreaded Falcons game.

But....you're the one who is spinning that narrative lol.

I heard an employee parked in a handicap space at BOA today. By itself, might not be much…but damn it’s just yet another brushstroke in the painting of a completely dysfunctional organization!!!

This sounds like the equivalent of some kind of minor nonconformance during a corporate audit. I work for a massively successful global automotive company and if we got even like 8 minor noncompliance findings during our IATF audit, we’d consider that a huge win.

I mean it absolutely has to do with the overall appeal of the head coaching job, which is what you’re talking about at the end of the day. The NFC South is there for the taking, while the Broncos have to contend with arguably the best team in the league within their own division (not to mention a much more stacked conference overall). Also, if I were a young rookie HC I’d be more wary of the owner who has precedent of firing a rookie HC part-way through his first season as opposed to the owner who gave his rookie HC roughly a very generous 2-and-a-half years to try and fulfill his vision before ultimately firing him. A reasonable person would obviously want a look at him in a better offense, but the same reasonable person would also obviously be factoring that risk into his decision to take the job. If Wilson doesn’t pan out, their QB situation is extremely dire with pretty poor draft position over the next few years to have the opportunity to draft one. While a team like the Panthers is sitting pretty with a top 10 pick and loaded up with a bevy of additional draft picks to be positioned to move up and take one.

Denver has a gigantic bright red $240 million red flag. And shares a division with Mahomes. That's arguably the worst gig for a first-time young HC considering he's going to have to also deal with a reportedly divisive locker room because of said $240 million red flag.

You guys know Ben Johnson interviewed for other head coach vacancies too, right? It's pretty unlikely that his decision to stay with Detroit (i.e. not pursue any head coach opportunities with any team) was tied to whether or not we favor Payton. Unless coaching the Panthers specifically is his dream job and he wouldn't want to coach any other team, in which case he probably wouldn't be taking all these other interviews.

It’s funny seeing Huddlers who are consistently pro-tank, also simultaneously outraged at the prospect of waiting another year to draft a franchise QB. Like isn’t this your guiding principle? Sacrificing short term success for the increased chance at sustained long term success? So if there’s a 20% chance that one of these QBs are going to pan out and become a franchise QB, while next year’s crop has a 40-50% chance, then you should be rooting for BPA at #9 (maybe a top WR) and starting Corral or Darnold and then taking Williams or Maye next year. Seems like statistically speaking, that’s the best odds for the long-term success that you guys are supposedly yearning for.