QB thread

[killakrzydav]

I have so many drafts in my archives for y’all. I might post them between my next flight

[Mongo3451]

1 hour ago, killakrzydav said:

I have so many drafts in my archives for y’all. I might post them between my next flight

Please don't dump them all at once.  Too much to decipher.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Yeah my drafts start with a qb. 

[AZ54]

At the risk of causing another roof on the board:   Would you prefer Brock Purdy or Justin Fields?   I’ve watched both for years now and I’d takeJustin in a heartbeat.  But that doesn’t mean it’s not close.  I just think he’s better on the deep passes and his elite running ability gives him the edge.   Purdy has the edge on reading defense but based on the last couple games including last night that gap is closing rapidly.  
 

Some of Purdy’s limitations have been exposed in recent games.  Yet he has elite talent at RB TE and WR helping him.  Plus a much better offensive coach.  

FWIW after week 4 I’d have taken Purdy.  

[adam]

4 hours ago, AZ54 said:

At the risk of causing another roof on the board:   Would you prefer Brock Purdy or Justin Fields?   I’ve watched both for years now and I’d takeJustin in a heartbeat.  But that doesn’t mean it’s not close.  I just think he’s better on the deep passes and his elite running ability gives him the edge.   Purdy has the edge on reading defense but based on the last couple games including last night that gap is closing rapidly.  
 

Some of Purdy’s limitations have been exposed in recent games.  Yet he has elite talent at RB TE and WR helping him.  Plus a much better offensive coach.  

FWIW after week 4 I’d have taken Purdy.  

Purdy is a system QB. SF is the only team that would make him look this good. I am sure there a few others where he would be decent, but not on the Bears.  

There are some other things with Purdy that are concerning, he is only 6'1" and rarely do QBs that small excel for an extended period of time and they get injured more often on average. He has been lucky to date, but eventually he will be part of that statistic as well. 

People may forget but even the 49ers started Jimmy G and Trey Lance over Purdy until the last 5 games of the season in 2022. He also got hurt, which ended their playoff run. 

Besides the O-Line, I am sure it is nice having McCaffrey, Deebo, Aiyuk, and Kittle as your top 4 receiving threats. Is there a better top 4 in the NFL? McCaffrey is such a dual threat, he gets a ton of targets. More than all Bears RBs combined. In comparison to those 4, that would be Herbert, Moore, Mooney, Kmet on the Bears lol. Moore is the only comparable receiver to SF's group, Kmet is decent but not on Kittle's level as a pass catcher. Mooney would be WR4 on SF. Herbert is nowhere near the pass catcher McCaffrey is.

[Mongo3451]

3 hours ago, adam said:

Purdy is a system QB. SF is the only team that would make him look this good. I am sure there a few others where he would be decent, but not on the Bears.  

He would thrive in Miami, LAC, LAR and Denver easily.

[BearFan PHX]

OK here's more of Chase Daniel praising Fields. I could only watch the first 10 minutes but on EVERY SINGLE PLAY Justin failed to read the open man and get the ball to him. Instead, the play broke and then Fields scrambled and did something. You can see it with your own eyes. And you can hear Daniel say "when a play is broke, #1 can fix it that's why I like him"

But there were guys open all over, especially in the middle of the field, and Fields looks at them, sometimes more than once and cant pull the trigger.

The headline is about how Fields isnt the problem - its supposed to be a pro Fields video. But watch it. Ignore what Daniel says and watch the tape. Its all right there to see perfectly.

Like I said I gave up after the first 10 minutes. But these are supposed to be highlights.
 

 

[AZ54]

1 hour ago, BearFan PHX said:

OK here's more of Chase Daniel praising Fields. I could only watch the first 10 minutes but on EVERY SINGLE PLAY Justin failed to read the open man and get the ball to him. Instead, the play broke and then Fields scrambled and did something. You can see it with your own eyes. And you can hear Daniel say "when a play is broke, #1 can fix it that's why I like him"

But there were guys open all over, especially in the middle of the field, and Fields looks at them, sometimes more than once and cant pull the trigger.

The headline is about how Fields isnt the problem - its supposed to be a pro Fields video. But watch it. Ignore what Daniel says and watch the tape. Its all right there to see perfectly.

Like I said I gave up after the first 10 minutes. But these are supposed to be highlights.
 

Here's another breakdown where the QB can't figure out what's going on.  1st play  he has a great pocket, wide open receivers yet QB runs for no reason.    2nd play against the easily-defeated Cover 2 defense and QB can't find just one of two wide open receivers for the TD with no pressure in the pocket.   This dude has been in the NFL for 7 seasons and still can't figure it out!      

 

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, AZ54 said:

Here's another breakdown where the QB can't figure out what's going on.  1st play  he has a great pocket, wide open receivers yet QB runs for no reason.    2nd play against the easily-defeated Cover 2 defense and QB can't find just one of two wide open receivers for the TD with no pressure in the pocket.   This dude has been in the NFL for 7 seasons and still can't figure it out!      

 

yeah but he has had many good games, and won quite a few of them too, Justin hasnt.

It's really faulty logic - if a good player has a bad game that proves that a player who only has bad games is good?

I really dont understand what feels like mass hypnosis to me - I know what I see, its right there - and i dont know where this is coming from, unless youre just trolling, I dunno.

And anyway my point was not only that Justin's "good plays" this week werent really good by the design of the play - but to also show where Daniel is at with the kool aid. He's calling mistakes good plays because instead of getting sacked, Justin finds a way to make something out of the play after he breaks it.

And I just keep asking - why do you want a QB who so seldom can execute the play the way it's drawn up?

Heroball isnt football, and Im still surprised at those who cant see it - I dont mean that as a personal dig or anything at anyone here specifically - I promise - it's just like something is so obvious, and I truly dont understand why so many people, not just on this board, but all through the media, dont see it.

[adam]

4 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

yeah but he has had many good games, and won quite a few of them too, Justin hasnt.

It's really faulty logic - if a good player has a bad game that proves that a player who only has bad games is good?

I really dont understand what feels like mass hypnosis to me - I know what I see, its right there - and i dont know where this is coming from, unless youre just trolling, I dunno.

And anyway my point was not only that Justin's "good plays" this week werent really good by the design of the play - but to also show where Daniel is at with the kool aid. He's calling mistakes good plays because instead of getting sacked, Justin finds a way to make something out of the play after he breaks it.

And I just keep asking - why do you want a QB who so seldom can execute the play the way it's drawn up?

Heroball isnt football, and Im still surprised at those who cant see it - I dont mean that as a personal dig or anything at anyone here specifically - I promise - it's just like something is so obvious, and I truly dont understand why so many people, not just on this board, but all through the media, dont see it.

Justin needs to have 11-12 solid games out of 17, with a few great games sprinkled in. The problem is, the volume of solid games is too low. He has 3-4 a season, some mid games, but some real stinkers too.

Also, if he was throwing for 300+ yards a game with 3 TDs, then the 1 or 2 turnovers doesn't feel as bad because he is making it up with TDs. So he can't have game like the MIN game where he has 0 TDs and 2 turnovers. With any QB, the minimum standard is more TDs than turnovers. The great ones have an incredible ratio, the good ones are at least 2 to 1. Fields is at 1.24. Trubisky had a 1.45 with the Bears.

[Lucky Luciano]

11 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

But there were guys open all over, especially in the middle of the field, and Fields looks at them, sometimes more than once and cant pull the trigger.

in my opinion fields missed st. brown at LEAST twice for huge gains/TD. the guy was wide open downfield. another time with mooney downfield wide open.

i don't know if st. brown has some kind of invisibility cloak or what but those were the throws that should have been made.

i also see fields scrambling out of the pocket on a couple of plays for no reason. he was getting good blocking.

zero TD's in a game like this especially with the fantastic field position the bears had throughout the game is certainly not anything to brag about.

as far as fields goes? i want to see him the rest of the season to make a real determination, but from what i have seen so far, the ceiling of his future career is he is an average to good qb at best. NOT elite in anything i have seen.

[Stinger226]

9 hours ago, AZ54 said:

Here's another breakdown where the QB can't figure out what's going on.  1st play  he has a great pocket, wide open receivers yet QB runs for no reason.    2nd play against the easily-defeated Cover 2 defense and QB can't find just one of two wide open receivers for the TD with no pressure in the pocket.   This dude has been in the NFL for 7 seasons and still can't figure it out!      

 

QBs never play flawless games. this an example of a generational QB that doesnt always plays well. He has a great coach but his OL and weapons arent as great as they once were, so now he makes more average play. That is why I think building a team to support any QB is important. Had Mahomes been with the Bears these last 2 yrs, he would be very average. Fields has more bad than good ,but just lately you are just seeing some flash traits.  Lets face it, players and coaches are measured on wins. Let's see what the last 5 games show us. I want Flus gone but if he wins his last 5 games, he may still be here. If Fields shows you enough growth, Poles may decide to keep him . In the NFL , its about what have you done for me lately. 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

1 hour ago, Lucky Luciano said:

in my opinion fields missed st. brown at LEAST twice for huge gains/TD. the guy was wide open downfield. another time with mooney downfield wide open.

i don't know if st. brown has some kind of invisibility cloak or what but those were the throws that should have been made.

i also see fields scrambling out of the pocket on a couple of plays for no reason. he was getting good blocking.

zero TD's in a game like this especially with the fantastic field position the bears had throughout the game is certainly not anything to brag about.

as far as fields goes? i want to see him the rest of the season to make a real determination, but from what i have seen so far, the ceiling of his future career is he is an average to good qb at best. NOT elite in anything i have seen.

I will stick with - I'll go with Caleb Williams. He has had a lot of adversity this year - but his numbers are still great and he had to do it with a pretty bad oline and constant pressure in his face  He moves around and probably doesn't stay on script enough either - but he always has his eyes up and is using it to make plays.  

I also think this year he has went more that way vs. years before where he was more in the system because it wasn't constantly breaking down as much. But he can throw the slant, you see him use the middle of the field and his eyes are everywhere.  I know he is short - but he is thick and looks a legit 6'1. This isn't someone listed at 6'1 but they are really 5'11/5'10.  His body is thick too and that arm is a cannon and highly accurate. I also think in general Lincoln Riley coached QB's have been okay in this league and the kid has a TON of experience.  

I also will caveat - this Daniels guy has put up legit numbers, I presume the tools aren't there or something?  JJ McCarthy just wins and seems to have some good tools too, could certainly be a nice fit with the 2nd of our 1st rounders.  

[DABEARSDABOMB]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

QBs never play flawless games. this an example of a generational QB that doesnt always plays well. He has a great coach but his OL and weapons arent as great as they once were, so now he makes more average play. That is why I think building a team to support any QB is important. Had Mahomes been with the Bears these last 2 yrs, he would be very average. Fields has more bad than good ,but just lately you are just seeing some flash traits.  Lets face it, players and coaches are measured on wins. Let's see what the last 5 games show us. I want Flus gone but if he wins his last 5 games, he may still be here. If Fields shows you enough growth, Poles may decide to keep him . In the NFL , its about what have you done for me lately. 

The beauty is - the Bears can draft a QB and build a great team to support them because of the position Poles has this organization in.  They added a blue chip oline prospect last year, added a blue chip dlinemen via trade, and we are sitting with what is highly likely one top 3 pick and another top 10 pick. And while we don't have a 2nd rounder - I fully expect if the Bears wanted to trade Fields, you could trade him to a team like the Raiders for say a 2nd rounder this year and a future 2nd (which would give us our own '25 2nd rounder plus the Panthers & Raiders).  

This is also a very strong and deep wideout draft - so while everyone loves MHJ, you can draft Caleb Williams and draft a top wideout too to pair with Kmet and Moore (plus Scott & just sign Mooney to like a 3yr 24M extension).  You have FA money to use on a center (plus I presume they would use a later round pick on that) and you can continue to build up your dline (so the young QB should be coming to a team with a defense trending up).  

Bears could also sign Tee Higgins and opt to use the other Top 10 pick on an OT (or 3 tech) plus a QB.  So they have the luxury of being able to build a quality football team AND use a high end pick on a high end QB prospect. This is a position the Bears haven't been in at any point in my lifetime.  

[BearFan PHX]

22 minutes ago, DABEARSDABOMB said:

This is a position the Bears haven't been in at any point in my lifetime.  

Exactly, and there is no reason to ruin it by being loyal to a guy thats never shown that he is a winner.

Do whats best for the team and draft a QB!

[Alaskan Grizzly]

16 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

OK here's more of Chase Daniel praising Fields. I could only watch the first 10 minutes but on EVERY SINGLE PLAY Justin failed to read the open man and get the ball to him. Instead, the play broke and then Fields scrambled and did something. You can see it with your own eyes. And you can hear Daniel say "when a play is broke, #1 can fix it that's why I like him"

I'd be curious if you could provide an 'iso-shot' of each of these plays where he missed the "open player" and simultaneously pair it with another 'iso-shot' of what Justin was doing or seeing at that time.  

I watched this video longer than 10 minutes and didn't see the same things you saw (I know - shocker).  Chase's point of how Minnesota 'nearly blitzed 60% of the time' will weigh a lot of what Justin ended up having to do, which is ad-lib to some level.  Did he miss some open players?  Yes.  Did he do it "every single play"?  No.  And Chase prefaced his take on this based on the sample plays he provided (about 7-8) versus all 50 (or whatever number it was).  He did say he watched all of those plays to make his overall analysis.  Yes he did say once or twice that Justin missed a read or two but his biggest critique?  Ball security when running.  That I would agree with and something that can be easily fixed. (Sorta like trying to get Jaylon  Johnson to actually catch every easy INT thrown his way - but I digress). 

At the end of the day I know I'm not going to convince you that Justin should stay with the Bears for next year.  Just like you won't convince me otherwise.  I look at this similar to how political races go (to some regard).  You have your separate camps of which are pushing their individual agendas/goals. Except at the end of the day in elections the majority rules.  In this case the decision will be made by one, two or maybe three people.  It all kinda depends on how they interpret what they have available to them versus what 'could  be' and which will benefit them (and the team) in the longer run.  

[BearFan PHX]

12 minutes ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

At the end of the day I know I'm not going to convince you that Justin should stay with the Bears for next year.  Just like you won't convince me otherwise.  I look at this similar to how political races go (to some regard).  You have your separate camps of which are pushing their individual agendas/goals. Except at the end of the day in elections the majority rules.  In this case the decision will be made by one, two or maybe three people.  It all kinda depends on how they interpret what they have available to them versus what 'could  be' and which will benefit them (and the team) in the longer run.  

of course this is true. we are here to debate the topics, and vent about the Bears, but even if you managed to convince me or I managed to convince you it wouldnt affect the decision at all. At least in your political analogy, if you convince someone a vote goes differently, but in this case its true we have zero input to what will happen!

I will try to go thru the tape again and write what I see with time stamps.

[BearFan PHX]

OK, from Chase Daniel's video, where he says "Fields ran the gameplan to perfection" (!)

note that because Daniel pauses and rewinds the tape, the time markers Im posting here dont relate to real time in the play, but to the YouTube video.

The stills you asked for are at the bottom, marked for each play here.

PLAY ONE

1:41 Tonyan is WIDE open across the middle. Fields is looking right, probably because Tonyan isnt his first read, so thats OK.

1:45 half a second later, Moore is WIDE open and Fields is looking right at him. But Fields doesnt pull the trigger and tries to run instead. On the chalkboard, given this defensive look, Moore was the right read.

3:30 look at fields having both wide open receivers in his view. If Fields doesnt like the DE coming around Kmet from the outside, look at the running and passing lane to Tonyan.

Result - Fields gets "smashed"

PLAY TWO

3rd and 5

3:57 Scott is wide open across the middle for a 7 yard gain and easy first down, and no defender is within 2 yards of Fields. Fields' head is looking right at Scott. Throw the ball with anticipation before Scott even makes his break, because there is no middle defender at all and the defender placed on the wrong side of Scott is 5 yards away BEFORE the break that is going away from him. This is a route past the sticks for an easy first down with zero risk. Even if you wait for Scott to break before you throw.

3:58 Instead, Fields takes more time to check down to Kmet who must carry two, then three defenders on his body to miraculously and just barely get the first down. Kmet deserves praise, but this was a very risky way to pick up the first down. 4 times out of 5, the player doesn't make it to the sticks.

6:02 Fields looks right at Scott in his progression and doesn't pull the trigger.

Result - Skin of your teeth first down, when the right read for an easy success was open earlier.

Daniel says "thought this play was great" and that Scott was "a little too deep of a route for me on 3rd down" - past the sticks wide open? When he was diagramming the play a moment earlier, he clearly calls Scott as the right read. So weird! Says the pocket was collapsing, but you see Fields had plenty of time to throw it - and if the pocket is collapsing, why wait for a later route that has three defenders on top of it?

PLAY THREE

3rd and 2

7:20 Fields has a clean pocket and three receivers past the sticks with all defenders playing over the top. Two of the receivers are running deeper routes though. Either some receivers didnt make a hot read and shorten their routes, or they are meant to clear out for Moore. Either way Moore is WIDE open past the sticks and again Fields has no one in his face. Throw the ball.

7:24 Daniel says "nothings open" (!)

7:35 Fields is looking right AT Moore who is wide open for the first down. Fields doesnt pull the trigger. Also, watch Moore STAY open. He's amazing at that. When I watched film of him at Carolina, I was always amazed at how he not only got open, but stayed open. Moore is a master of spacing and did his job on this play.

8:10 Instead, Fields scrambles left, BARELY avoiding two tackles (risky!) and misses St Brown WIDE open for a touchdown right in his line of sight to throw across his body to middle of the field (which is also generally risky) to Johnson.

8:54 Fields' arm is cocked to throw to Kmet, and he decides not to because the defender is closing fast. He misses that there is a high / low concept on that defender, and that if the defender is taking Kmet, then St Brown MUST be open. That's how the play is designed to beat a defense. Fields should know St Brown is open BECAUSE Kmet isnt. But he just doesnt see the touchdown.

Result - Unnecessary high risk third down completion heroic effort because Fields held the ball when the designed play WORKED in tempo for a much higher percentage outcome. Whether that was a touchdown, or just the read I wanted, the early safe first down throw to Moore with no risks.

PLAY FOUR

1st and 10

9:47 Daniel says that the first 2 reads are on the left side. if so, Moore is wide open, and Fields should have pulled the trigger on him. But I dont see it that way at all. I see it as a mini screen to Herbert on the right side. No read at all, a scripted throw. Cool.

And it works. The defender is inside Kmet who is engaging him ready to block. Perfect position. Fields' arm is cocked to throw, but AGAIN he doesn't pull the trigger.

9:49 Fields is almost SACKED. Herbert is still open and Kmet still has position but he CANT BLOCK YET for two reasons. First is if Fields throws the screen, that's an illegal block. Second is if Fields will run. You can see Kmet is looking back to see if Fields is gonna do something, instead of having his head facing the defender. This means Kmet is so used to the improvisation, he doesnt KNOW whats going to happen. Not much of a team concept. But Fields has done neither at this point, and so everyone is hamstrung, including the OL who has let a defender through.

10:02 Fields finally throws the ball to Herbert, but there is a defender right in his face with his hands up as he does. We all remember Fields threw it right into the chest of a defender at a similar angle later in the game.

Result - Herbert gets the ball up the right sideline for a big gain. But he gets it after Fields is almost sacked, after a defender has a chance to knock it down, and after the safety has had more time to get to the end point of Herbert's run. The play was designed to get Herbert the ball in rhythm for a big gain. The play design worked. Kmet was in position, the sideline was void of defenders. Fields just didnt pull the trigger. Again.

At this point I stopped watching.

CONCLUSIONS

I've attached notated pics below too.

In each case, there was a receiver WIDE open (Moore, Scott, Moore, Herbert) and Justin was looking right at them without being pressured, but he just didnt pull the trigger. Four for four.

Meanwhile Daniel is praising it all!

Now I get that watching the game, eyes on Fields, you see a guy doing heroic athletic things, and finally making something happen. In each case a "positive outcome" which is why this was a highlight reel. But in each case, the play design called for a different outcome - one that was OPEN, WORKED and had extremely low risk. Instead Fields broke each play. Then he did amazing things playing sandlot football.

So I see why some people like him. But maybe now you can see why I don't.

It's not like all this scrambling is scoring a ton of points, and try this against good teams in the playoffs and you're gonna get killed.

Also, I know we blame Getsy for not calling plays where Fields throws intermediate routes to the middle, and Getsy has his share of blame for sure, but you can see here, Getsy DID have receivers open in those areas, multiple times - and long balls too. Justin just wont throw to them.

I hope you guys take the time to read this, since I took a ton of time to make it all. If you do, thank you.

[Stinger226]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

I'd be curious if you could provide an 'iso-shot' of each of these plays where he missed the "open player" and simultaneously pair it with another 'iso-shot' of what Justin was doing or seeing at that time.  

I watched this video longer than 10 minutes and didn't see the same things you saw (I know - shocker).  Chase's point of how Minnesota 'nearly blitzed 60% of the time' will weigh a lot of what Justin ended up having to do, which is ad-lib to some level.  Did he miss some open players?  Yes.  Did he do it "every single play"?  No.  And Chase prefaced his take on this based on the sample plays he provided (about 7-8) versus all 50 (or whatever number it was).  He did say he watched all of those plays to make his overall analysis.  Yes he did say once or twice that Justin missed a read or two but his biggest critique?  Ball security when running.  That I would agree with and something that can be easily fixed. (Sorta like trying to get Jaylon  Johnson to actually catch every easy INT thrown his way - but I digress). 

At the end of the day I know I'm not going to convince you that Justin should stay with the Bears for next year.  Just like you won't convince me otherwise.  I look at this similar to how political races go (to some regard).  You have your separate camps of which are pushing their individual agendas/goals. Except at the end of the day in elections the majority rules.  In this case the decision will be made by one, two or maybe three people.  It all kinda depends on how they interpret what they have available to them versus what 'could  be' and which will benefit them (and the team) in the longer run.  

In the far past we have butted heads many times but since the new regime has taken over we seem to be on the same page. Kudos for being well spoken on this issue. I think you make a lot of good points. 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

11 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

In the far past we have butted heads many times but since the new regime has taken over we seem to be on the same page. Kudos for being well spoken on this issue. I think you make a lot of good points. 

Thank you.  Yeah I've had my share of run-ins with past posters, yourself included.  Call it old age or maybe since I'm drinking more whisky then rum I've mellowed a bit.  I tell my wife its the low (or non-existent) T.  Like you've said before, we're all here to discuss our beloved.  No need to take it personal.  <<Kum by yah>> and GO BEARS!!

Now to make my counterpoints to the AZ transplant!  ?

[BearFan PHX]

2 hours ago, Alaskan Grizzly said:

Thank you.  Yeah I've had my share of run-ins with past posters, yourself included.  Call it old age or maybe since I'm drinking more whisky then rum I've mellowed a bit.  I tell my wife its the low (or non-existent) T.  Like you've said before, we're all here to discuss our beloved.  No need to take it personal.  <<Kum by yah>> and GO BEARS!!

Now to make my counterpoints to the AZ transplant!  ?

and please respond to all the time and effort I made proving my point since you asked me to?

I dont think you can disagree with anything I wrote, at least about those four plays? Now that it's all laid out so neatly?

You did ask for me to back it up and I think I did?

Oh, and just for the record, I lived in NYC for a long time, but I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, and didnt go to NYC until after college because I got work there. I never really liked it there. I still say please and thank you and that seemed to just confuse people there.

[AZ54]

19 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

yeah but he has had many good games, and won quite a few of them too, Justin hasnt.

It's really faulty logic - if a good player has a bad game that proves that a player who only has bad games is good?

I really dont understand what feels like mass hypnosis to me - I know what I see, its right there - and i dont know where this is coming from, unless youre just trolling, I dunno.

And anyway my point was not only that Justin's "good plays" this week werent really good by the design of the play - but to also show where Daniel is at with the kool aid. He's calling mistakes good plays because instead of getting sacked, Justin finds a way to make something out of the play after he breaks it.

And I just keep asking - why do you want a QB who so seldom can execute the play the way it's drawn up?

Heroball isnt football, and Im still surprised at those who cant see it - I dont mean that as a personal dig or anything at anyone here specifically - I promise - it's just like something is so obvious, and I truly dont understand why so many people, not just on this board, but all through the media, dont see it.

I simply see things differently and I watch a little too much of this stuff.  Literally I occasionally watch breakdowns on other QBs to learn.   The lesson with Mahomes and Tua IMO is that confidence in the receivers and Oline makes a big difference.  You see the drop in Mahomes play with poor receivers and subsequently a drop in his confidence on when and where to throw.   Miami added talent and you see the inverse with Tua over the last season to this year as he got more comfortable with his receivers.  

I see Brock Purdy who I watched for 4 years in college and never felt he was "the QB" now having success in SF...with players he can have a lot of confidence in, and who cause a lot of headaches for defenses.  

For example you call Scott open on one play (it's buried in that long post with screenshots) when I see a WR running too far past the 1st down sticks where IMO he should have cut in.  Fields looks at him but comes off him as soon as he passes the sticks.  I watched Mooney run bad routes throughout last season (Mooney's words not mine).   Now I have no clue what the play expectation is nor how these WRs are taught to read the coverage to determine their route.   Maybe Scott is supposed to run a 15yd in vs. 10yd.  As a QB if you are not on the same page as the WR, then a bad throw down the middle is a likely INT.   

You say potato I say potato.  

[BearFan PHX]

23 minutes ago, AZ54 said:

I simply see things differently and I watch a little too much of this stuff.  Literally I occasionally watch breakdowns on other QBs to learn.   The lesson with Mahomes and Tua IMO is that confidence in the receivers and Oline makes a big difference.  You see the drop in Mahomes play with poor receivers and subsequently a drop in his confidence on when and where to throw.   Miami added talent and you see the inverse with Tua over the last season to this year as he got more comfortable with his receivers.  

I see Brock Purdy who I watched for 4 years in college and never felt he was "the QB" now having success in SF...with players he can have a lot of confidence in, and who cause a lot of headaches for defenses.  

For example you call Scott open on one play (it's buried in that long post with screenshots) when I see a WR running too far past the 1st down sticks where IMO he should have cut in.  Fields looks at him but comes off him as soon as he passes the sticks.  I watched Mooney run bad routes throughout last season (Mooney's words not mine).   Now I have no clue what the play expectation is nor how these WRs are taught to read the coverage to determine their route.   Maybe Scott is supposed to run a 15yd in vs. 10yd.  As a QB if you are not on the same page as the WR, then a bad throw down the middle is a likely INT.   

You say potato I say potato.  

The first part of this I agree with, and i watch a lot too. Im gonna say we both know what we are talking about.

Also you seemed to discount my post for the length, but to be fair, he asked me to prove what I was saying. If its too long to read, i get that, but its not a rebuttal its just a refuse to engage, which is fair.

As for the misplay with Scott, a few things.

Daniel says he was the first read on that play in the very same video.

Scott is WIDE open - this isn't a matter of not being sure. Fields is looking right at him, and there is no one around. Fields stance and hips are pointed right at where Scott is headed, and there is no other receiver or defender in that area. It's as easy as it gets in football.

Scott wasnt way downfield, he was 2 yards past the sticks. It's as easy a first down as there is, and it's to the first read, and Fields is looking right at him. And Fields is not under pressure. Ill attach the picture at the bottom so its easy to find.

Im surely not the only person who has said that Fields is having trouble seeing open receivers. It's a common criticism of his game. He holds the ball too long, he doesn't pull the trigger when he has open guys.

Here were four back to back examples from the beginning of the very video that was being used to promote Fields as great, and in each Fields looked at a wide open receiver who was in his progression and failed to pull the trigger. He then ran and made something happen out of a broken play.

If you want to say that what Fields does with broken plays is an offense you're comfortable with, that's totally cool. He is about the best I've ever seen at it.

But you just can't deny that in each of those four plays Fields didnt throw the ball in rhythm to anyone, and only threw after he was running and the play was broken.

If youre going to be intellectually honest you also have to admit that all those receivers i was pointing out were wide open at the designed breaks of their routes.

And you can clearly see in all cases Fields is looking at them.

So if youre saying Fields is the man and he just doesnt trust anyone, including DJ Moore twice, then I think it's a hell of a lot more likely that Fields is failing in the exact way everyone who criticizes him says he does every week. Holds the ball too long, wont pull the trigger, can only succeed after the initial play has broken down.

It's hard to say that Fields is right not to trust a wide open DJ Moore. Twice.

At least for those four plays, which i didnt cherry pick, but were presented to me as proof of Fields not being what I say he is. And I replied that the first four plays were all Fields not throwing to wide open receivers, and only making plays once the play had broken.

At some point, I think once the facts are so clear, and not a matter of opinion (please read my post and tell me what I got wrong - it's all cited with timestamps and a good number of screenshots that are labelled which play the belong to) you gotta say that at least for those four plays, what Im saying is factual, not opinion.

Fields DID hold the ball and DID fail to pull the trigger on wide open receivers that he was looking at in each of those four plays.

[BearFan PHX]

I want to add this too:

A lot of things are opinions. Answers to questions like
"Should we keep Fields?"
"How good will Fields be next year?"
"Is an offense based on broken plays viable?"

those would all be opinions.

But "DJ Moore ran a 2 yard out" is not an opinion. "The closest defender was 5 yards away" is not an opinion. Etc.

I respect all of the people on this board, and we will agree or disagree about opinions.

The things I've said above are facts. I gave timestamps, and screenshots. I was specific about everything that was a fact. And it was just four plays, not the answer to any of the big questions, which are complicated enough that those would all be opinions.

So it isnt you say potato I say potahto - its more like I say Moore was open at the sticks and Fields looked right at him and didn't throw the ball. And that happened. there is no subjectivity to it? So there is no disrespect for anyone's opinion here. You can still agree that that happened and still think we should keep Fields next year. I cant say that is wrong. I can only argue why i think it's a poor bet. But THAT is an opinion and I respect everyones here.

And to anyone that took the time to actually read what I wrote above in the four play post, i appreciate your time reading it.

[Stinger226]

Pick any player in the league and you can do a highlight film and find enough tape to do a lowlight film. Fields isn't there but to ignore good plays isn't realistic. There is such a thing as players get better. Fans have tons of opinions, but former QBs opinions carry more weight. They have been there and done that. Are they all idiots claiming Fields is getting better? I think they know what to look for , everyone is entitled to their opinions.