Jordan Love or GB Defense

[adam]

So while looking up some Jordan Love stats, I realized something about the GB defense and how their performance has correlated more to their wins and losses than anything Jordan Love does.  Love has improved as the season has gone on and is now 14th in QBR, slightly higher than Minshew, Geno Smith, and Dobbs. That seems to be about right for him. 

Now looking at their defense, is has allowed 27 or more points in only one game this season (34 in a loss to DET). I was shocked to see that. Did anyone else know that their defense has been THAT good? The Bears defense have done that 6 times (all losses). The Packers are 0-4 when their defense allows 23 or more (Bears are 0-6 - yikes), and 6-2 when they hold opponents to 22 or less (Bears are 4-2). So the team's outcomes are very similar, the differences have been the defenses and offensive turnovers. 

As good as the media is making Love out to be, their offense has scored more than 30 only once (Week 1 vs Da Bears), the same as the Bears anemic offense. Since that week, they have 11 straight games with 29 or less. In the game they scored 29 in, they had a defensive TD. In the Bears game, they had a pick-6, so their highest offensive output was 31 (and only 4 TD game), then the next highest was 27 against KC. 

GB is 4-1 in their last 5, but 3-0 at home and 1-1 on the road. They play 3 of their last 5 on the road.

If any of you have watched their last game, Love had some great protection and got really lucky on a few passes. On the season he has had a TD pass go thru a defender's hands right into his receivers, another one tipped and caught by a completely different receiver, and in the last game, he threw up a desperation moon shot (not waxing) that was played terribly by the defenders who both whiffed on it to be caught for like a 50 yard gain with the WR on his back. Way too lucky for me. They talk about Fields performances not being sustainable, but if you are living off of several lucky TDs and huge chunk passes, those will both dry up eventually and turn into turnovers in a heartbeat. 

I think Love will be a decent QB, but nothing tells me he is the 3rd coming of Brett Favre. I think he will live in that 2nd tier of QBs (11-15 range) with an occasionally great game or two. 

[adam]

This is what Love did to "WIN" against KC:

4th quarter, close and late: 7-15, 46.7%, 80 yds, 5.3 Y/A, 0 TD, 2 Sacks (both sacks resulted in longer FG attempts).
 

If Fields did that, the Bears lose. Against the Lions, Fields orchestrated an 8+ min FG drive in the 4th quarter that ate up more time than all of GB's drives combined against KC while they milked the lead. The difference was with the defenses (and officials). The Bears defense failed twice (2x 70+ yard TD drives in under 4 mins) and the officials never help the Bears (Cassius Marsh where are you?).

[Stinger226]

1 hour ago, adam said:

This is what Love did to "WIN" against KC:

4th quarter, close and late: 7-15, 46.7%, 80 yds, 5.3 Y/A, 0 TD, 2 Sacks (both sacks resulted in longer FG attempts).
 

If Fields did that, the Bears lose. Against the Lions, Fields orchestrated an 8+ min FG drive in the 4th quarter that ate up more time than all of GB's drives combined against KC while they milked the lead. The difference was with the defenses (and officials). The Bears defense failed twice (2x 70+ yard TD drives in under 4 mins) and the officials never help the Bears (Cassius Marsh where are you?).

You the man.

[adam]

Another interesting note. Listening again to some national media, I love how the narratives are literally polar opposite for Fields (and Bears QBs in general) and other QBs.

When Goff struggles = the O-Line is injured, not giving him enough time.

When Love struggles = he is in his first year as a starter, young WRs, injuries.

When Fields struggles = Fields takes too many sacks, holds the ball too long, can't read a defense.

Now granted some of those are true, but rarely do people say the Bears O-Line was a mess AND Fields holds the ball too long. Both can be true. 

I have the perfect example of this. If you have never listened to or watched Adam Rank's Podcast, this is a great one to see the polar opposite narratives. Carmen Vitali works for Fox and covers the NFC North. She is very low on Fields and very high on Love and the Lions. A few minutes in they get into this discussion and you can see exactly what I am talking about. She justifies why the Lions are playing worse now and why Love struggled, but when the same conditions are for the Bears, it's all Fields. Rank calls her out on a few, which was good on him. On a side note, the bar seems very low to be a talking head these days, no offense to anyone, but man the bar is low.

If you have a few mins, take a listen/watch:

 

[BearFan PHX]

12 hours ago, adam said:

Another interesting note. Listening again to some national media, I love how the narratives are literally polar opposite for Fields (and Bears QBs in general) and other QBs.

When Goff struggles = the O-Line is injured, not giving him enough time.

When Love struggles = he is in his first year as a starter, young WRs, injuries.

When Fields struggles = Fields takes too many sacks, holds the ball too long, can't read a defense.

Now granted some of those are true, but rarely do people say the Bears O-Line was a mess AND Fields holds the ball too long. Both can be true. 

I have the perfect example of this. If you have never listened to or watched Adam Rank's Podcast, this is a great one to see the polar opposite narratives. Carmen Vitali works for Fox and covers the NFC North. She is very low on Fields and very high on Love and the Lions. A few minutes in they get into this discussion and you can see exactly what I am talking about. She justifies why the Lions are playing worse now and why Love struggled, but when the same conditions are for the Bears, it's all Fields. Rank calls her out on a few, which was good on him. On a side note, the bar seems very low to be a talking head these days, no offense to anyone, but man the bar is low.

If you have a few mins, take a listen/watch:

I do know that at the start of this year everyone was saying that Fields had had it rough with no protection and no open receivers the past two years. I felt that way too. I was hoping that Fields would show us more now that he had better protection and DJ Moore.

But now, we've seen a bunch of games, and we see film where Fields has a great pocket and guys open and still doesnt pull the trigger. So for some, the narrative has changed now.

That's what I think one difference is? Speaking for myself, that's the evolution I've gone through.

I wasnt calling for the Bears to take a QB with the first pick overall last year. I wanted to give Fields these ingredients and another season to show what he can do with them.

But now, having seen him play to play, I dont believe he will ever run an offense in the NFL as designed, rather than being awesome at broken plays.

[adam]

11 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

I do know that at the start of this year everyone was saying that Fields had had it rough with no protection and no open receivers the past two years. I felt that way too. I was hoping that Fields would show us more now that he had better protection and DJ Moore.

But now, we've seen a bunch of games, and we see film where Fields has a great pocket and guys open and still doesnt pull the trigger. So for some, the narrative has changed now.

That's what I think one difference is? Speaking for myself, that's the evolution I've gone through.

I wasnt calling for the Bears to take a QB with the first pick overall last year. I wanted to give Fields these ingredients and another season to show what he can do with them.

But now, having seen him play to play, I dont believe he will ever run an offense in the NFL as designed, rather than being awesome at broken plays.

Oh I agree, and I think both can be true. Fields can struggle in the pocket, not throw to open guys, and hold onto the ball too long, while the O-Line can be bad.

I think that is what has made the evaluation this difficult and this long (3 seasons and we could potentially still be evaluating him).

[BearFan PHX]

28 minutes ago, adam said:

Oh I agree, and I think both can be true. Fields can struggle in the pocket, not throw to open guys, and hold onto the ball too long, while the O-Line can be bad.

I think that is what has made the evaluation this difficult and this long (3 seasons and we could potentially still be evaluating him).

for sure, but no QB gets ideal circumstances either. And Justin's best attribute has been how he deals with broken plays, but you're not wrong. I agreed 100% about evaluating him in 2021 and 2022 for those reasons. But now I've seen enough. Maybe Nagy ruined him I dunno.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

20 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

for sure, but no QB gets ideal circumstances either. And Justin's best attribute has been how he deals with broken plays, but you're not wrong. I agreed 100% about evaluating him in 2021 and 2022 for those reasons. But now I've seen enough. Maybe Nagy ruined him.

2021 he was a rookie that was thrown to the wolves game three against Kyle's Garrett and the Browns.  It was not planned.

2022 he showed some flashes with the garbage he had after the team decided to tank. 

2023 they added pieces around him but early injuries knocked out what they wanted to do.  They are just getting the squad back.  I feel we are now seeing proper pieces to evaluate. 

He played well against Det and lost, he played poor against Min and won. Let's see how the rest of the season goes.  Brady, Manning or Rodgers would have sucked  21 and 22 with our team.

 

[BearFan PHX]

1 minute ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

2021 he was a rookie that was thrown to the wolves game three against Kyle's Garrett and the Browns.  It was not planned.

2022 he showed some flashes with the garbage he had after the team decided to tank. 

2023 they added pieces around him but early injuries knocked out what they wanted to do.  They are just getting the squad back.  I feel we are now seeing proper pieces to evaluate. 

He played well against Det and lost, he played poor against Min and won. Let's see how the rest of the season goes.  Brady, Manning or Rodgers would have sucked  21 and 22 with our team.

 

Yeah i was agreeing 100% about 21 and 22. Im just saying, Ive seen enough all 22 this year to see that when Fields has what he needs, he doesnt pull the trigger a very high percentage of the time.

I think when you watch the game you get one impression of him, especially with all the heroics, but when you see the all 22, it says something else - and that's probably why we are all seeing things so differently?

[ASHKUM BEAR]

8 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Yeah i was agreeing 100% about 21 and 22. Im just saying, Ive seen enough all 22 this year to see that when Fields has what he needs, he doesnt pull the trigger a very high percentage of the time.

I think when you watch the game you get one impression of him, especially with all the heroics, but when you see the all 22, it says something else - and that's probably why we are all seeing things so differently?

And when he is on, like against Washington, he can play like a top 5 QB.  He or the coaches need to get him playing that way all the time.  The issue is when the team cannot handle the pass rush and they handcuff him. He loses confidence and thinks he needs to run and misses the progressions 

[BearFan PHX]

5 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

And when he is on, like against Washington, he can play like a top 5 QB.  He or the coaches need to get him playing that way all the time.  The issue is when the team cannot handle the pass rush and they handcuff him. He loses confidence and thinks he needs to run and misses the progressions 

I dont think he was on in those games - I think he was still holding the ball too long, but being extremely successful once the play broke. Thats the thing, sometimes the hero ball thing works really well. But I dont see him sitting in the pocket and making reads in rhythm, even when hes successful.

[adam]

Fields play reminds me of that meme where the girl changes faces after taking a drink. One game you have that disgusting look on your face, then the next game, you say, hmm that was a pleasant surprise.  So in order for him to be THE GUY, he has to ball out these last 5 weeks and leave no doubt that the progress noted was real and this is who he is now. If he flounders, has the same types of mental mistakes, then he is just auditioning for another team.

One thing to look at will be the playcalling. If there are no over the middle throws, they are probably protecting him from INTs and negative plays. I would rather have them let him loose, and that way you can get a true eval of what he can and can't do. If it is too much for him, at least you know, but masking stuff with a bazillion screens tells us nothing.

[Bears4Ever_34]

Yeah, Love has had the benefit of leaning on a really good defense and head coach. Not to mention, they have an insanely good pass protecting OL. Everytime I watch a Packers game, Love is never touched. The last two games, especially, he's had all day to throw. It's a wonder how his numbers were so bad before this recent hot streak with all that time. It's not a coincidence that on the rare occasions he was almost sacked in that KC game, he almost threw a couple of interceptions. He kind of reminds me of Jared Goff, in that sense. Give him enough time, he can put up numbers, but under pressure, he folds like a tent.

Favre had one of the strongest arms in NFL history and had the innate ability to play out of structure at a legendary level. Rodgers was deadly accurate and almost never turned the ball over. Love doesn't have a special trait, as far as I can tell. His accuracy is all over the place, and he's not particularly great at ball security, either.

That said, the guy is on pace for over 30 TD's and 4,000 yards throwing in his first year as a starter. Two things no Bears quarterback has ever done in the history of the franchise, lol. He's definitely not awful. He might even be good. But I'm not crowning him just yet.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

5 minutes ago, Bears4Ever_34 said:

Yeah, Love has had the benefit of leaning on a really good defense and head coach. Not to mention, they have an insanely good pass protecting OL. Everytime I watch a Packers game, Love is never touched. The last two games, especially, he's had all day to throw. It's a wonder how his numbers were so bad before this recent hot streak with all that time. It's not a coincidence that on the rare occasions he was almost sacked in that KC game, he almost threw a couple of interceptions. He kind of reminds me of Jared Goff, in that sense. Give him enough time, he can put up numbers, but under pressure, he folds like a tent.

Favre had one of the strongest arms in NFL history and had the innate ability to play out of structure at a legendary level. Rodgers was deadly accurate and almost never turned the ball over. Love doesn't have a special trait, as far as I can tell. His accuracy is all over the place, and he's not particularly great at ball security, either.

That said, the guy is on pace for over 30 TD's and 4,000 yards throwing in his first year as a starter. Two things no Bears quarterback has ever done in the history of the franchise, lol. He's definitely not awful. He might even be good. But I'm not crowning him just yet.

I agree with everything you said. Love is what he is. He is pretty solid at what he does, elite at almost nothing.  I think that means he is what he is, a mediocre QB who can play above that within the right situation because the rest of the team can stack the cards in his favor.  On the Fields front - I think he is similar - with the exception it is his elite talent and skillset that allows him to be a solid player, despite having some other simpler limitations.  Both I think can be playoff QB's on good teams. I still think the upside of a Fields is higher, because the longer you play, the more some of those basic things should improve just due to the experience. I get that the elite athleticism will also decline - but Fields isn't just an elite athlete - his ability to throw downfield is really good and that shouldn't go away with age.  

[BearFan PHX]

4 hours ago, adam said:

One thing to look at will be the playcalling. If there are no over the middle throws, they are probably protecting him from INTs and negative plays. I would rather have them let him loose, and that way you can get a true eval of what he can and can't do. If it is too much for him, at least you know, but masking stuff with a bazillion screens tells us nothing.

100% we all want to see Fields throw downfield in rhythm.

The thing is, there have been a number of open receivers down the middle of the field. Wide open, first read, Fields looking right at them and he doesnt throw it. So it may not be the playcalling as much as it seems.

Those screens (that we are ALL sick of!) have two purposes. The first is to beat the blitz, but as we all know, there are lots of blitz beating routes. Slants for example, we'd all love to see. But one thing about the screens that's different is that they arent reads. They are scripted throws, so the ball HAS to come out of Fields' hands. When you ask him to throw that slant, it's a read, and he hesitates. That may well be why Getsy was calling them as opposed to other blitz beaters that work downfield more.

Now Im not saying Getsy is awesome. Im not on "team Getsy" in fact Im not for or against any of these people - I'm for the Bears becoming a Super Bowl winner. I don't want to go 8-9 because it's better than 3-14. I want to be an actual good team that contends for championships.

In that light, I want to get rid of these guys. Not because my temperament is negative, or because Im a hater or a pessimist. Just because I dont think Fields, Getsy or Eberflus will ever win a Super Bowl in Chicago.

But if Fields suddenly looks like a player we havent seen him be before, making reads IN RHYTHM hitting recievers coming out of ther breaks, reading progressions etc, then of course I would be all in on building around him.

It's just, I havent seen it from him yet, not after the first opening 10 or 15 play script anyway. So I cant say what the future holds of course, but I dont see any evidence that this would happen. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

Does this make me one of the grumpy old guys from the muppet show up in the gallery crapping on everything? Some poeple think so. But I think it makes me more like someone who wants to win, ruthless about that goal over any feel good narratives in the press. My guess is a guy like Harbaugh sees things more like I do than the fan who thinks we are just a couple plays away from being a consistent winner against good teams.

And for the record, I only mean wanting to cut dead weight to win, there is nothing else about me that is on Harbaughs level of football understanding.

[adam]

18 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

100% we all want to see Fields throw downfield in rhythm.

The thing is, there have been a number of open receivers down the middle of the field. Wide open, first read, Fields looking right at them and he doesnt throw it. So it may not be the playcalling as much as it seems.

Those screens (that we are ALL sick of!) have two purposes. The first is to beat the blitz, but as we all know, there are lots of blitz beating routes. Slants for example, we'd all love to see. But one thing about the screens that's different is that they arent reads. They are scripted throws, so the ball HAS to come out of Fields' hands. When you ask him to throw that slant, it's a read, and he hesitates. That may well be why Getsy was calling them as opposed to other blitz beaters that work downfield more.

Now Im not saying Getsy is awesome. Im not on "team Getsy" in fact Im not for or against any of these people - I'm for the Bears becoming a Super Bowl winner. I don't want to go 8-9 because it's better than 3-14. I want to be an actual good team that contends for championships.

In that light, I want to get rid of these guys. Not because my temperament is negative, or because Im a hater or a pessimist. Just because I dont think Fields, Getsy or Eberflus will ever win a Super Bowl in Chicago.

But if Fields suddenly looks like a player we havent seen him be before, making reads IN RHYTHM hitting recievers coming out of ther breaks, reading progressions etc, then of course I would be all in on building around him.

It's just, I havent seen it from him yet, not after the first opening 10 or 15 play script anyway. So I cant say what the future holds of course, but I dont see any evidence that this would happen. If it does, I will be pleasantly surprised, but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

Does this make me one of the grumpy old guys from the muppet show up in the gallery crapping on everything? Some poeple think so. But I think it makes me more like someone who wants to win, ruthless about that goal over any feel good narratives in the press. My guess is a guy like Harbaugh sees things more like I do than the fan who thinks we are just a couple plays away from being a consistent winner against good teams.

And for the record, I only mean wanting to cut dead weight to win, there is nothing else about me that is on Harbaughs level of football understanding.

Fields doesn't even need to do it a lot. 3-4 throws a game over the middle, in rhythm, and it changes the entire dynamic of the offense, because if you have to spy him, AND defend the run against the RBs, AND play the entire field in the secondary, the defense will be in conflict on every play. Fields athleticism adds an element and threat that most other QBs don't have, but if that just replaces MoF throwing, it negates the benefit because if they can't both defend the MoF and spy him at the same time.

Right now those effects are negated, and then the outcomes become dependent on external forces (quality of other team, officials, weather, etc).