Oso planning to go pro
Nagy was being hyperbolic to gas up his QB, his team, and the pick (and obviously make him and Pace look like geniuses), but save for Lawrence, Fields has been insanely hyped since he was 16 or so. He was the MVP of the Elite11 camp going into his senior year. He was the top recruit in the country by ESPN, and #2 behind Lawrence in Rivals and 247. He was good in limited action as a freshman. Then went to OSU and was fantastic his 2 years. Until a bunch of nonsense during the season came up about him, he was the clear consensus #2 pick and if not for Lawrence being a prototype generational talent, Fields would have had the same sort of buzz all season. He’s been highly touted for 5 years and backed it up every step of the way. I think effusive praise for his ability and potential isn’t unmerited. This isn’t a Trubisky 2.0 misread (at this stage of the game)
There are a bunch of reports that Urban Meyer really liked Fields and graded him out 2nd. He was also in the mix for the Niners. Just bc the Jets of all teams liked Wilson, doesn't mean Fields is a bust.
Let me ask you this. How many Super Bowls would Bradshaw have won if he had the GB defense of the time playing in Pittsburgh?One other thing. A great starting QB, in his 5th season, does not get beat out for the starting job by an 11th round draft pick like Joe Gilliam. Bradshaw himself said the only reason he got the starting job back was because Gilliam was so awful. "He gave me my job back," Bradshaw told sportscaster James Brown on a February 2000 edition of Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel on HBO. "It's not like I beat him out."
I'm not talking about hype. He called him a "generational talent". You know, like Manning, Luck, Lawrence. Why did no other team consider him to be that? And he was the consensus #2 pick only until other guys out-shone him during last season.I am on record in this thread saying that Fields was a very good pick for the Bears. Their are strengths to his game that are really adaptable to the NFL. But there are also some weaknesses there as well. I realize it goes with the territory when drafting a QB in the 1st round, but people are really taking this too far.
And outside the otherwordly performance against Clemson in the semis, Fields' play was pretty pedestrian - and often lacking - down the stretch last year. He was pretty bad against Indiana and Northwestern, and completely mediocre against an Alabama defense that had given up big days to the likes of Kyle Trask, Kellen Mond and Matt Corrall.Fields could very well be the guy Bears fans think he will be, but given the track record of first-round QBs over the past 5-6 years and his slide in the draft, it's been interesting to see his franchise status viewed as fait accompli in Chicago.
https://twitter.com/Johnathan_Wood1/status/1387950405200629766?s=19Did you guys think Rodgers draft slide was a negative?Are there no weaknesses with any of the other first round QBs?
Nobody “outshone” him. Trey Lance didn’t play this year. Zach Wilson put up big numbers against cupcakes and then struggled in their loss to the only good team they played. The only team that had Wilson as a top 5 pick was the Jets.
I love these discussions - whether football or baseball.It seems as though you are making my argument for me. Lance has played fewer games than Trubisky and was drafted ahead of Fields. I disagree on Wilson - he was going to be drafted #2 no matter who had the pick.In essence, you are saying how bad guys drafted ahead of him were. Also, as someone said, numerous QB-desperate teams passed on him. But, while I agree with what the Bears did, he is far from a sure thing.
I'm not sure that's fair. It was a very different NFL back then, in which the rules were not geared toward protecting quarterbacks and giving receivers free reign through the secondary. You can't look at Bradshaw's stats - or any QB from that era - relative to anything from the last 30 years.Other than his rookie and sophomore seasons - when the Steelers were dreadful and had nothing around him - Bradshaw never finished in the top 5 in INTs and had a few seasons in which his INT rate was among the lowest in the league. No, he wasn't the most efficient QB of his era, but by no means was he comparable to Jameis.
I agree with this. It was more difficult to play QB (and WR) back then.Bradshaw also was much better than Dickey, which should be pretty obvious. Results matter. There was not as big an emphasis on having a high completion percentage back then. There was a lot less dinkin' and dunkin'. QBs took more chances. Passer ratings were a lot lower. So I get it. But in 1980, while Dickey was throwing 15 TD passes and 25 INTs, Sipe was going 30-14, Jaworski 27-12, Ferragamo 30-19, Bartkowski 31-16, Montana 15-9, Fouts 30-24, Danielson 13-11, Manning 23-20, White 28-25, Jones 23-21, Theismann 17-16, Bradshaw 24-22, Ferguson 20-18, Plunkett 18-16, and Doug Williams 20-16.So it's not like everybody was out there throwing 10 more INTs than TDs. 12 QBs were sacked on a higher percentage of dropbacks that season, too, including several named in the preceding paragraph. Dickey's offense included Lofton, Thompson, Coffman and Ivery, so it wasn't as if he lacked weapons.I am NOT saying Dickey was the worst QB ever. He was decent to good for his era, and he had a couple big seasons. He was fun to watch and he played for some struggling teams. I am saying he threw far more INTs than TDs in his career (141-179 including his time in Houston, 133-151 with the Pack), and he didn't lift his team to victory very often (45-63-3 as a starter).He wasn't Jameis Winston. But he wasn't even a cheap imitation of Favre or Rodgers IMHO.I stand by my statement: The Packers have not done much winning the past 50+ years when the QB has not been named Favre or Rodgers. I mean, it's just a fact.
The Aaron Rodgers slide was something, but he was still the second quarterback taken.I think the Fields pick was a good one. I think the Wilson pick was a terrible one - reminds me a lot of the Trubisky one.
To further the point. I look just cause I was curious when talking about Bradshaw and different eras. Bart Starr, who I wouldn’t think would be deemed average or Winston caliber, was a second team All Pro, Pro Bowl leader of championship winning teams in 1961 and 1962. Over those two seasons, he had a completion percentage of 60% and 28 TDs to 25 INTs. And those were his two best seasons outside of his MVP year in 66. Also for fun, Starr was brought along slowly while Bradshaw was thrown to the wolves as the first overall pick on some bad Steelers teams. But both of them, first 4 seasons of getting regular action...Starr: 21 TDs, 37 INTs, 52% completion percentageBradshaw: 41 TDs, 73 INTs, 49% completion percentage Bradshaw had another rocky year before making his first Pro Bowl and becoming a HOF QB. Starr turned it around once he became the starter. Bradshaw couldn’t beat out Gilliam while Starr INT Italy couldn’t beat out a guy who went to be a backup and another who went to the CFL. Almost like the first few years of a career aren’t enough to decide if someone is great or not
As a reminder, Mitch is the highest rated passer in Bears history. Higher than the great Sid Luckman. Mitch wasn't that terrible. Fields has a low bar to exceed our modest expectations. History says elsewise.https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/chicago-bears/leaders/career-passing-yards
Mitch was pretty bad. He finished in the lower third of the NFL in passing rating and a number of other stats the last couple of years. He couldn't get the ball downfield with any accuracy and managed to throw interceptions seemingly during the worst part of the game.
Are there no weaknesses with any of the other first round QBs?
Definitely. That's part of the reason Fields' slide is a concern. At least four teams with a need for a long-term QB (and one could arguably throw in the Falcons as a fifth) said "Thanks, but no thanks" to drafting Fields. Two of those teams took far less accomplished QBs instead. Two chose to roll with middling (or worse) quarterbacks instead.Again, that DOES NOT mean Fields will be bad or it was a bad pick. I think it's a pick they had to make.
Did you have this same impression of Pack taking Rodgers after an even bigger slide?
Here’s my thoughts on drafting QBs. I think environment matters when it comes to whether a QB is successful enough or reaches their potential. I think Zach Wilson has a better chance to succeed with Robert Saleh and Mike LaFleur than he would have had Adam Gase still been there. I think Justin Fields will have to overcome a potentially desperate situation that may stunt his growth.Some are naturally gifted enough to change the fortunes of a franchise. Guys like Manning come to mind. Indianapolis was not a good franchise before Manning got there. Would Mahomes have had the success he’s had playing for the Bears and Matt Nagy as he did with the Chiefs and Andy Reid? Probably but I think a reasonable argument can be made that might not have been the case.