Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, MasterAwesome said:

I'm glad you brought up Lawrence cause he's actually a good basis for comparison.  Jags went from 1-15 (pre Lawrence) to 3-14 to 9-8.  That's exactly the type of impact/trajectory I would expect a franchise QB to make on his team.  I'll admit last year I still considered Lawrence a question mark because his team experienced minimal improvement, but I think he has proven himself in his second year.  I also think it's way too premature to formulate a conclusion based on one season, which is why I'm looking at the 2-year trajectory. 

You also see guys like Christian Kirk and Zay Jones experiencing career years catching passes from Lawrence.  That's what I mean when I say I want a franchise QB elevating his team around him.  You don't see guys having career years catching passes from Fields; if anything, you see a significant drop in production...but it's too soon to say.  Like I said, this will be a very telling 3rd season for Fields.  Well I guess depending on the types of moves the Bears make in their offseason to help him out.

They finished dead last, drafted Lawrence still finished last. Then signed a good HC and spent money in FA to actually build a team around him and he looked much better leading them to the playoffs. The Bears were 0-1 with a 31-10 loss to the Jets in the one game Fields didn’t play. They are just a terrible team and had no business winning any games honestly. It’s a team sport just look up at the Stafford reference. 

[CRA]

5 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

Just look at Stafford at the Lions vs Rams. 0 playoff wins vs Super Bowl winner in one year. It’s a team sport and everyone knows that. 
The Bears got dominated by the Jets in the one games Fields didn’t play 31-10. They were 0-1 without him starting last year.

why did Cam set records as a rookie?  Well, he was unique.  Different.  NFL didn't know what to do with that. 

but he had multiple Pro Bowl offensive lineman, 2 stud RBs, 2 stud TEs, and a HOF WR.   Which allowed him to shine year 1.  Cam wouldn't of set the league on fire in a bad situation.  He would have just been sacked a lot and thrown a lot of picks most likely. 

[MasterAwesome]

6 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

They finished dead last, drafted Lawrence still finished last. Then signed a good HC and spent money in FA to actually build a team around him and he looked much better leading them to the playoffs. The Bears were 0-1 with a 31-10 loss to the Jets in the one game Fields didn’t play. They are just a terrible team and had no business winning any games honestly. It’s a team sport just look up at the Stafford reference. 

Stafford is a wild comparison considering he was busting out 5000+ yards and 40+ TDs in his second full season.  Even so, Lions were 0-16 pre-Stafford, 2-8 with Stafford his rookie season, and 10-6 in his second full season (he was injured his actual sophomore year).  So it's again extremely consistent with the trends that I'm talking about when it comes to the "before and after" of securing a franchise QB.

Tbh I'm confused at your point about the Bears going 0-1 without Fields (really 0-2 if I may throw you an assist lol).  They were 3-12 with Fields, so what is the argument?  And they got blown out worse against the Lions (41-10) with Fields playing, so that wasn't even their worst loss of the season without him.  Your argument basically seems to be that they're a bad team with Fields, and still a bad team without Fields, which again I'd argue is a point against him being a game-changing franchise QB.  If you think I'm arguing that he's on par with Trevor Siemian then I assure you I am not lol.

[ForJimmy]

Just now, MasterAwesome said:

Stafford is a wild comparison considering he was busting out 5000+ yards and 40+ TDs in his second full season.  Even so, Lions were 0-16 pre-Stafford, 2-8 with Stafford his rookie season, and 10-6 in his second full season (he was injured his actual sophomore year).  So it's again extremely consistent with the trends that I'm talking about when it comes to the "before and after" of securing a franchise QB.

Tbh I'm confused at your point about the Bears going 0-1 without Fields (really 0-2 if I may throw you an assist lol).  They were 3-12 with Fields, so what is the argument?  And they got blown out worse against the Lions (41-10) with Fields playing, so that wasn't even their worst loss of the season without him.  Your argument basically seems to be that they're a bad team with Fields, and still a bad team without Fields, which again I'd argue is a point against him being a game-changing franchise QB.  If you think I'm arguing that he's on par with Trevor Siemian then I assure you I am not lol.

The argument is Fields did elevate that current team. They were winless without him (obviously a very small sample size), but the game wasn’t even competitive. He elevated them from unwatchable to competitive but still bad. 

Bringing up Stafford’s stats would be irrelevant to the discussion about wins right? Fields broke several rushing records last year, but that doesn’t matter. The Stafford point is simply showing what a difference a team makes. It’s a team sport, always has been.

I agree that next year should be telling of Fields. His current numbers are similar to Hurts his first full year as a start with arguably much less around him. Fields also had a defense that ranked dead last in points allowed per game and 4th to last in yards allowed. Expecting him to elevate the little talent around him to overcompensate for the league’s worst defense to get wins seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a side note, I enjoy debates with you. You always bring a nice logical perspective. Keep up the good work on here!

[pantherclaw]

6 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

You are referring to a decision made 2 years ago when Rhule was in control and passed on a player. Thinking they would feel the same way still is implying they think like Rhule. So your comment actually implies they are just as stupid.

Look at the wanna be spin artist. Let me know when you think I give a fug. 

[ForJimmy]

9 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Look at the wanna be spin artist. Let me know when you think I give a fug. 

I'm sorry you brought up thinking like Rhule and assumed we would make the same decision that he did 2 years ago.  That's just logic.   But please keep posting on here how much you don't care.  It's really making us believe it...

[MasterAwesome]

1 hour ago, ForJimmy said:

The argument is Fields did elevate that current team. They were winless without him (obviously a very small sample size), but the game wasn’t even competitive. He elevated them from unwatchable to competitive but still bad. 

Bringing up Stafford’s stats would be irrelevant to the discussion about wins right? Fields broke several rushing records last year, but that doesn’t matter. The Stafford point is simply showing what a difference a team makes. It’s a team sport, always has been.

I agree that next year should be telling of Fields. His current numbers are similar to Hurts his first full year as a start with arguably much less around him. Fields also had a defense that ranked dead last in points allowed per game and 4th to last in yards allowed. Expecting him to elevate the little talent around him to overcompensate for the league’s worst defense to get wins seems a bit far fetched to me.

On a side note, I enjoy debates with you. You always bring a nice logical perspective. Keep up the good work on here!

I would just be extremely cautious to draw any overarching conclusions from that one-game sample size of Trevor Siemian against the #4 ranked Jets defense.  I think what we would expect to happen, happened - a back-up QB struggling against a top-5 defense.  I wouldn't say that outcome made me see Fields in a different light because like I said, I already think he's a much better QB than Siemian lol.  We also don't know for sure how Fields would have done against that Jets' D.  I would certainly guess he'd do better, but by how much would just be pure speculation and not really conducive to any objective and productive discourse.

I brought up Stafford's stats just to show he was an elite passer by most metrics.  If you're objectively an elite passer then you are afforded more leeway in your total evaluation as a franchise QB.  I would never argue that it's all about wins and losses, but if you neither check the box for "elite production" nor the box for "wins" as a franchise QB, then what does the argument really rest upon?  At that point it's all just speculative hypotheticals, i.e. if Fields has better weapons, coaching, o-line, etc. then he would be much more successful.  You can make that argument, but again you'd just be taking the long way to my argument of Fields ultimately still being a question mark lol.  He's no doubt an elite runner and extremely exciting there, but I don't think you can be a franchise QB without also being a threat in the pass game and I don't think he's there yet.

Re: Hurts - that's another interesting comparison because last offseason, Hurts was still very much considered a question mark with regards to being a franchise QB.  I just did a custom Google search for Hurts articles during the 2022 offseason to refresh my memory on his public perception and here are some of the article titles: 

"NFL writer believes Jalen Hurts puts Eagles in 'QB purgatory'"

"Jalen Hurts embraces criticism"

"Philadelphia Eagles QB Jalen Hurts getting 'one-year audition' in 2022 season"

"Is Jalen Hurts the long-term answer at QB?"

Plus countless more articles about what Hurts needs to do in order to take that next step in becoming a franchise QB.  So yeah you correctly point out the similarities in Hurts last year vs. Fields this year, but again I would say that bolsters my argument that Fields isn't there yet because that was precisely the narrative around Hurts last offseason.  Hurts took a monumental jump in his development this season and that's what I'm looking for in Fields as well.

And likewise man, I genuinely enjoy our discussions!  It's not a coincidence that I'm only replying to your posts and intentionally disregarding those who I believe have proven to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

[Varking]

14 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I would just be extremely cautious to draw any overarching conclusions from that one-game sample size of Trevor Siemian against the #4 ranked Jets defense.  I think what we would expect to happen, happened - a back-up QB struggling against a top-5 defense.  I wouldn't say that outcome made me see Fields in a different light because like I said, I already think he's a much better QB than Siemian lol.  We also don't know for sure how Fields would have done against that Jets' D.  I would certainly guess he'd do better, but by how much would just be pure speculation and not really conducive to any objective and productive discourse.

I brought up Stafford's stats just to show he was an elite passer by most metrics.  If you're objectively an elite passer then you are afforded more leeway in your total evaluation as a franchise QB.  I would never argue that it's all about wins and losses, but if you neither check the box for "elite production" nor the box for "wins" as a franchise QB, then what does the argument really rest upon?  At that point it's all just speculative hypotheticals, i.e. if Fields has better weapons, coaching, o-line, etc. then he would be much more successful.  You can make that argument, but again you'd just be taking the long way to my argument of Fields ultimately still being a question mark lol.  He's no doubt an elite runner and extremely exciting there, but I don't think you can be a franchise QB without also being a threat in the pass game and I don't think he's there yet.

Re: Hurts - that's another interesting comparison because last offseason, Hurts was still very much considered a question mark with regards to being a franchise QB.  I just did a custom Google search for Hurts articles during the 2022 offseason to refresh my memory on his public perception and here are some of the article titles: 

"NFL writer believes Jalen Hurts puts Eagles in 'QB purgatory'"

"Jalen Hurts embraces criticism"

"Philadelphia Eagles QB Jalen Hurts getting 'one-year audition' in 2022 season"

"Is Jalen Hurts the long-term answer at QB?"

Plus countless more articles about what Hurts needs to do in order to take that next step in becoming a franchise QB.  So yeah you correctly point out the similarities in Hurts last year vs. Fields this year, but again I would say that bolsters my argument that Fields isn't there yet because that was precisely the narrative around Hurts last offseason.  Hurts took a monumental jump in his development this season and that's what I'm looking for in Fields as well.

And likewise man, I genuinely enjoy our discussions!  It's not a coincidence that I'm only replying to your posts and intentionally disregarding those who I believe have proven to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

The difference is the Eagles already had a solid defense, had talent on their offensive line, had a good TE, had young up and coming receivers and then they made a splash trade for a true #1. But Hurts had all that the year before outside of the true #1 and didn’t look great. So the fact that Fields numbers are close to Hurts through two seasons despite the lack of talent plays in favor of Fields. 

[ForJimmy]

14 minutes ago, MasterAwesome said:

I would just be extremely cautious to draw any overarching conclusions from that one-game sample size of Trevor Siemian against the #4 ranked Jets defense.  I think what we would expect to happen, happened - a back-up QB struggling against a top-5 defense.  I wouldn't say that outcome made me see Fields in a different light because like I said, I already think he's a much better QB than Siemian lol.  We also don't know for sure how Fields would have done against that Jets' D.  I would certainly guess he'd do better, but by how much would just be pure speculation and not really conducive to any objective and productive discourse.

I brought up Stafford's stats just to show he was an elite passer by most metrics.  If you're objectively an elite passer then you are afforded more leeway in your total evaluation as a franchise QB.  I would never argue that it's all about wins and losses, but if you neither check the box for "elite production" nor the box for "wins" as a franchise QB, then what does the argument really rest upon?  At that point it's all just speculative hypotheticals, i.e. if Fields has better weapons, coaching, o-line, etc. then he would be much more successful.  You can make that argument, but again you'd just be taking the long way to my argument of Fields ultimately still being a question mark lol.  He's no doubt an elite runner and extremely exciting there, but I don't think you can be a franchise QB without also being a threat in the pass game and I don't think he's there yet.

Re: Hurts - that's another interesting comparison because last offseason, Hurts was still very much considered a question mark with regards to being a franchise QB.  I just did a custom Google search for Hurts articles during the 2022 offseason to refresh my memory on his public perception and here are some of the article titles: 

"NFL writer believes Jalen Hurts puts Eagles in 'QB purgatory'"

"Jalen Hurts embraces criticism"

"Philadelphia Eagles QB Jalen Hurts getting 'one-year audition' in 2022 season"

"Is Jalen Hurts the long-term answer at QB?"

Plus countless more articles about what Hurts needs to do in order to take that next step in becoming a franchise QB.  So yeah you correctly point out the similarities in Hurts last year vs. Fields this year, but again I would say that bolsters my argument that Fields isn't there yet because that was precisely the narrative around Hurts last offseason.  Hurts took a monumental jump in his development this season and that's what I'm looking for in Fields as well.

And likewise man, I genuinely enjoy our discussions!  It's not a coincidence that I'm only replying to your posts and intentionally disregarding those who I believe have proven to be disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

I think we agree he still has a lot to prove as a passer.  It's honestly hard to evaluate him with what's around him.  It's the age old argument if no one is open and there is no time to throw what can a QB really do?  He fortunately can run and helped keep an otherwise disastrous season interesting for some fans.  The main thing I see is his rating, yards per attempt, TD per game, completion % all increased this year despite getting a new offense, constant OL injuries and little talent around him (granted it was terrible his rookie year, but it is still trending up).  One would imagine if they get him some protection, some weapons, and an at least average defense the wins will follow.

He has shown he can clearly play and put up point in the NFL.  I mean he had that anemic Bears offense putting up 19.2 PPG (that's including the backup's 10 point game), which put them over 9 franchises, so not quite a third of the league.

All we can really do at this point is project and speculate.  Chicago has the cap space and potential picks to put some talent around him and see how he grows.  If they do that next year will really shed some light on him as a possible franchise QB or not.  So currently I see a player still oozing with potential showing he can play decent with lots going against him which is why I would trade our 9 pick for him if possible, but Chicago won't do that because of the same reasons. 

[TheCasillas]

I don’t see similarities here…. 

[ForJimmy]

1 hour ago, TheCasillas said:

I don’t see similarities here…. 

/cdn-cgi/mirage/fca5f8343d5e151eec9f086213a99e9631041342c38fd104d3f1df356d4f8a92/1280/https://www.carolinahuddle.com/uploads/monthly_2023_02/668952E3-00E5-4A6D-B3AF-E3586603AE93.thumb.jpeg.83a62e2080abe6ae54d46c83f3fcfc29.jpeg

/cdn-cgi/mirage/fca5f8343d5e151eec9f086213a99e9631041342c38fd104d3f1df356d4f8a92/1280/https://www.carolinahuddle.com/uploads/monthly_2023_02/6BB684A4-496D-4F7E-8FE8-21E5A3D4BE5B.thumb.jpeg.ab1c8cf5b27d5bf61612647c8ceb9307.jpeg

QB rating Hurts was 87.2 Fields was 85.2. Hurts was 61% with 7.3 yards per attempt Field was 60% with 7.1 yards per attempt. Fields threw one more TD and two more INTs. The only real difference is Hurts has 900 more yards but had 432 passing attempts to Fields only 318. So I guess you could argue Fields was turning it over at a higher rate per attempt but he also would be scoring at a higher rate per attempt (which explains why their ratings are so close). Fields also has about 400 more rushing yards but 2 less rushing TDs. Now throw in the fact Hurts had a superior OL, WR, TE and of course offensive staff working with him.

[LinvilleGorge]

If the Bears decide to take a QB at #1 and move on from Fields and we can get him for #9 overall and we like Fields more than the QBs we anticipate will be available at #9 then go for it.

That's whole lot of "ifs" so it's highly unlikely to happen.

[Harbingers]

On 2/14/2023 at 6:08 AM, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

/cdn-cgi/mirage/fca5f8343d5e151eec9f086213a99e9631041342c38fd104d3f1df356d4f8a92/1280/https://media1.giphy.com/media/GwJySDxO1vWXRV76lB/200.gif

[OldhamA]

7 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

If the Bears decide to take a QB at #1 and move on from Fields and we can get him for #9 overall and we like Fields more than the QBs we anticipate will be available at #9 then go for it.

That's whole lot of "ifs" so it's highly unlikely to happen.

What happened to the Huddle's 'no retreads' policy?