BearFan PHX

Ok so i listened to a few minutes of Warner on Fields today, and here was the quote from Warner "I dont necessarily think Justin Fields' strength is five guys out [as receivers], quick decisions and throw the football, so that's not playing to his strengths either" so what are we even talking about? If Warner thinks we can be successful using Justin as a runner, but not a pocket QB, then I would simply offer up how defenses have already adjusted to take that away from him, and he pretty much cant do anything after that. The proof is in the tape. It already happened. @ 5:04

I dont think Warner or anyone is lying. I think that there's a positive optimistic take on Fields, and a negative pessimistic take. Each has a set of facts that support them. And Im not saying they come from optimistic or pessimistic attitudes, just how good people can look at the same data and argue one way or the other. I do think that former QBs are more apt to see the positives in other QBs. Thats not lying, but it is a good way to be liked by the fraternity of former players, and to avoid saying anything that might make you look like you overextended and were wrong. But mostly, former QBs are QB friendly. GMs live in the world of salary caps and other realities. They might see a mixed review on a player as a problem rather than evidence for hope. In the end, there is the tape, and there are opinions. One thing that Warner doesnt take into account is what keeping fields might cost you in missing other opportunities. He's just talking about a player, in a vacuum, a player who is getting better. If Justin was your friend youd say "dude youre continuing to get better, youre gonna get there" but if I asked you to bet your house on it, you might hesitate. And that's more akin to where Poles is than just a player evaluation. But none of this proves anything. There is no proof. No one can say what a player might become. But we can say who they are and what theyve shown. Ive seen enough football in my life, and enough film on Fields to say that he has trouble reading defenses in tempo, and pulling the trigger in the rhythm of the play. All the other extra curricular stuff, the good defenses now have a bead on. That's not a situation I'd want to keep. I think thats a super defensable position. But other people have their views too. But to say that because Warner said it it must be true is a logical fallacy. Warner's opinion is legitimate. That he must be right is false. njust like that I or the GMs must be right is also false. It's a weak argument anyway. Show me Fields' winning drives where he takes the team from inside his own 30 to scoring a touchdown to win the game. Show me a game where Fields routinely threw the ball to the right read at the right time. You cant - and thats not opinion, thats a fact. Will he become that guy tomorrow? I dunno. No one does. But why bet big that he will, when he hasnt yet, and you have two picks in the top 10 of the draft? Including all the cap considerations thereof. I think thats a bad bet. It might pay off, but I doubt anyone here would bet their house on it. So theres talk, but deep down, none of us thinks this is that good of a good bet. We have hopes and loyalties and fan stuff.

yes they were anonymous, but it was a Yahoo sports article, so I believe they are real. But my point wasnt that they must be right. My point was that no one knows. The "argument of authority" is a classic logical fallacy, and I was providing a counter example that is also making the same error that went the other way. I'm not right because 7 GMs said so, and no one is right because Kurt Warner said so either. It's like saying some point of law must be correct because a lawyer said so. They are a trained professional so they must be right? But then again, the other side has a lawyer saying the exact opposite, so being a trained professional doesnt prove youre right if trained professionals are on both sides of an argument? None of this to say that if Warner says something it proves he is wrong either, rather that it isnt "proof" on any side.

This is a logical fallacy called the argument of authority. Some former players say keep Fields, and others say dump him, so there are former players saying both things, therefore being a former player doesnt mean you know, because even they dont agree. Also, keep in mind that pundits need clicks. Keeping the discussion alive brings clicks. Also, former QBs may generally have QBs backs. They probably felt like whoever cut them should have stayed with them. And also they dont want to get a rep for being a hater. Previously, someone said that 7 out of 7 current NFL GMs who responded said they would trade Fields. Does that prove that you're wrong? Of course not. That would also be an argument from authority fallacy.

seems like it. too bad too, because he could be unstoppable.

yup. thats what I mean when I say heroics. Justin is one of the best ever sandlot football players. he has all the talent in the world, but he cant seem to learn how to play QB, and now that teams have figured out how to stop him, it's kinda over for him unless he learns to play the QB position.

fair. I guess Im saying he is a hero on the play by play level, but not across a drive. And now that teams have a book on him, hes done.

I agree we need to continue to build the OL, but I have also seen lots of plays where Justin could throw the ball to a wide open receiver, and the receiver is his first read, and Justin is looking right at the receiver and has his hips open to the receiver but he just doesnt pull the trigger. And the pressure isnt on him yet.

If you are playing draw poker, and your hand sucks, you draw cards. You dont KNOW the new cards are gonna be good, but you know what you have isn't good enough. I dont need to prove that any of the rookies WILL be good, I just need to know that what i have right now isnt enough. Yes, it's a gamble, but sticking with Fields is the wrong answer. That much I know. And it's all I need to know to move on and try again.

.

But you have to PAY Fields coming up, so if you're a build around a middle talent QB kind of guy, then you want a rookie deal so you have cap room to do that?

I think any coach that has the win loss record that Eberflus has can expect to get fired by any team. That's the NFL, not just the Bears. I think Chicago is a great media market, we have draft picks, cap room - it's a dream job. Also, unless you're keeping Getsy, I'll flip your question - what good OC would come here for Eberflus' last year? And why would you draft a new QB into that? I would bet a LOT of good HC would love to come here. And if I'm wrong about this, the answer would be to extend Poles to remove that issue?

I dont know why we are all afraid to just say it: Fields is a bust. I know he has eye popping intangibles, but where are the points?

Im just talking about the difference between being a hero and a winner

yeah, and EJax is gone after this year too.

This is how I see it too. Flus isnt out scheming anyone on defense, the players are just playing very well.

that is a winning attitude. we need to demand winners. well I mean, no one cares what we think, but we need coaches that demand excellence! we need accountability, not just loyalty. as Ive said before, I'm a fan of the team more than I'm a fan of the players. When the players are good for the team, I like them. But i dont want to make excuses for them. I want them to be great, if they arent great, then I want to see someone else get a chance to be great. None of this to mean that I dont like Fields or Eberflus as men. They both seem really cool. Id love to be friends or neighbors with either of them. A lot more than I want Ditka as a next door neighbor! I imagine him yelling about the garbage can being an inch on his property LOL But when it comes to leading the team, friendly isnt the top of my list. its ok if they are likeable or friendly, but its not a core part of the job. We have a pretty good roster, and an amazing media market. this should be a very attractive job with the draft picks and cap room we have. theres no reason we cant get an excellent candidate, not some goofy also ran. Eberflus is a golly gee kind of guy. Jim Harbaugh would destroy him in an argument. Eberflus would go for the sympathetic moral victory "I cant believe that guy is such a jerk, i just chose to walk away" but you know whod be there standing at the end, arms crossed - the jerk that won. I got my first fix in 1985. Our team didnt just win games, we scared people. We won the game before it started. The defensive line barked like dogs and it wasnt funny or cheesy - it was terrifying. We were dominant. I want that again. I dont want to win a Super Bowl because the other team missed a field goal at the end. I wanna win by 30 points. I dont want to hope we can get a fumble at the end of games, I want the other team to just want to go home, KNOWING with 8 minutes left that the game is OVER and they lost. Honestly, our defense has the bones to make that happen. We have some pieces on offense like Wright and Moore that can walk that walk. This isnt impossible. It's real if you get this offseason right. Im so mad right now, and so inspired. Lets go.

LOL - lemme buy you a beer Ashkum, welcome to the dark side LOL truth though? with a new QB and head coach Im gonna be insane again with hope hahaha

Oh Im for cutting the whole coaching staff loose, I just meant even if they do something i really disagree with, one thing you KNOW is Getsy is gone. But no, I want Eberflus gone too.

they were getting tired, and momentum is a real thing. When your offense sucks its hard to keep taking it all on your shoulders. If the offense was lighting it up, the defense would roll even more. and also, you know Eberlose gets all weird with the play calls in the second half of the 4th quarter.

thats the problem with trying to do things a whole new way - once the league figures it out, youre done. sitting in the pocket and making reads on time still works

i think this is wrong. You showed me one cap tracker that looks like youre right, I saw the other one that says otherwise. To my understanding guaranteed money is always recoupable against the cap when you cut or trade a player. The site you showed seems to indicate that a cut would be different from a trade. That would be the only time under the CBA that that distinction applied to any money of any kind. So I still think it would count against the cap.

glad to see youve reached a decision point.

exactly. I am admitting I dont have a crystal ball and Fields has a lot of talent. But Fields is not a bet I would make.

good point.