2021-2022 NFL Season

[jficke13]

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)

This seems perfectly reasonable.

[Jockey]

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)

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.

Similar to what I said about Bradshaw - how will he respond when the best players on the field aren't all on his team?

[Dr. Blackheart]

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)

Fields epilepsy certainly made his NFL worth drop.

[Pakuni]

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.

As much as I was surprised to see the McCaskeys allow Pace to splurge future assets again to move up for a QB, I think it's a move the Bears had to make. You're not winning consistently in the NFL without a really good QB (unless you're the 1970s Pittsburgh Steelers, which somehow managed four Super Bowls and eight consecutive playoff appearances with Jameis Winston behind center).
So, I'm not criticizing the pick, but I have noticed how Bears fans have willfully ignored some red flags with Fields.
Going into the year, he was seen as a lock for at least the #2 overall pick, and the only guy with a remote chance of unseating Lawrence for #1. Yet he somehow slides all the way down to #11, being passed over in favor of a one-year wonder (Wilson) and an FCS guy (Lance). Not only that, but other teams that could use a QB took a pass, most notably Carolina, who decided to roll with Sam Darnold on a two-year deal, and Denver, which chose the dynamic duo of Drew Lock and Teddy Bridgewater over Fields.
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.

[JWags85]

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."

Bradshaw wasn’t a great QB at that time.  Nobody would say that and he wouldn’t be held in esteem with those numbers ever if his team was undefeated.  His numbers markedly changed in 1975 and after.  Not team success, Bradshaw as a player.  If we are burying a player cause they had a rough start to their career, might as well write off anyone who wasn’t a Pro Bowler by 25.

And crazy as it sounds, Bradshaw could be a good QB AND be aided by a great defense.  It doesn’t have to be one of the other.  Patriots had incredible defenses that Brady won to plenty of victories over his career.

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.

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.

Fields had an very good year for most any QB.  A bad game or two in a weird COVID year isn’t concern worthy.  Hell, Lawrence was pretty mediocre against VT late in the year.  Fields outplayed Lawrence and was otherworldly in the CFP semi.  The epilepsy may have made teams hesitate.

Nobody is calling him a generational talent other than Nagy, for the reasons I mentioned. People are justifiably excited about a QB for the reasons I mentioned after what happened with Trubisky. 

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.

He was bad against Indiana, then came back and had a great game against MSU.  And I don’t know how Clemson gets downplayed to talk about NW, a game they still won.

Fields was fine in the first half against Bama, and I didn’t matter a bit cause they couldn’t stop them.

[jesmu84]

https://twitter.com/Johnathan_Wood1/status/1387950405200629766?s=19

Did you guys think Rodgers draft slide was a negative?

Are there no weaknesses with any of the other first round QBs?

[JWags85]

https://twitter.com/Johnathan_Wood1/status/1387950405200629766?s=19

Did you guys think Rodgers draft slide was a negative?

Are there no weaknesses with any of the other first round QBs?

Bears fans aren’t allowed to be excited about a QB because the last time they picked one in the first round he was awful.  Thus, any QB they pick must also be awful or overrated.  Dissecting some silly coach speak from Nagy before anything has happened with training or mini camps or games is just looking to take shots.

[Jockey]

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.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

https://twitter.com/Johnathan_Wood1/status/1387950405200629766?s=19

Did you guys think Rodgers draft slide was a negative?

Are there no weaknesses with any of the other first round QBs?

The Aaron Rodgers slide was something, but he was still the second quarterback taken.

I think the Fields pick was a god one.  I think the Wilson pick was a terrible one - reminds me a lot of the Trubisky one. 

[JWags85]

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 thought you meant “out shone” as in performed better this year than Fields.  Cause in that interpretation, it’s just not true.

If we’re comparing like for like, Lance started more games than Trubisky (16-13) and as a starter won the FCS’s version of a Heisman.  Trubisky was 3rd team All ACC that year.

And it has nothing to do with “how bad” anyone was.  I think Lance is very talented.  Wilson has a cannon and I love how he plays.  Neither put up 6 TDs against a team like Clemson.  Neither had the spotlight that Fields has had on him for the last 5 years.  Neither was offensive player of the year in the B10 back to back years. 

No QB is a sure thing.  Lawrence is the best prospect at QB since Luck depending on who you ask, but he could very easily be a mess on a bad Jacksonville team with a new coach. Fields could struggle immensely and I have worries about the line protecting him.

But the idea that he is suddenly some immensely flawed risky pick with all these red flags which is why he dropped and it’s silly for Bears fans to be extremely excited about him is ridiculous.  NFL teams fall in love with prospects for various reasons.  Deshaun Watson was talked about as a top 3 pick for much of the year leading up to 2017. He fell to 12 with plenty of QB needy teams like SF, the Jets, the damn Bears, passing on him.  It happens.

[Jockey]

I think we are probably agreeing 90% here.

But the 10% is a lot more fun to discuss.

[MU82]

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.

[JWags85]

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.

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 percentage

Bradshaw: 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 

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

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

[MU82]

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 percentage

Bradshaw: 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 

Totally hear you. Different eras.

Dickey wasn't great in his own era, and he certainly wasn't an equivalent to Favre or Rodgers, who would be great in any era.

These days, most teams can't afford to let their QB learn for a year or two. Frying pan, meet fire. It's a tough way to work it. Very few QBs can handle it. Many recover to have good (or even great) careers. But many are ruined forever.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

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.

[JWags85]

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.

Yep.  It would be the same way that a middling Celtic player like Eddie House has far more 3s made than Larry Bird, the game changed and became more favorable to that shot.

Trubisky had an 83 passer rating with an average completion of 6 yards in 2019.  That is horrible in todays NFL.

[Pakuni]

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.

[jesmu84]

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?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Did you have this same impression of Pack taking Rodgers after an even bigger slide?

Again Rodgers was still the second quarterback taken.

[Herman Cain]

Shannon and Skip mentioning Terry Bradshaw in their discussion of Aaron on Undisputed today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO92Vpw4L5g

[Uncle Rico]

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.

[GB Warrior]

I actually tend to think Fields has a pretty high floor - I think it's probably at or north of where Trubisky's ceiling was.

The question is whether he can overcome any shortcomings in staffing around him to actually win. Feels like his ceiling is Deshaun Watson, who was putting up stupid numbers but couldn't overcome the lack of talent around him.

[Herman Cain]

Hologren Blames Packers

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/former-green-bay-coach-mike-holmgren-blames-packers-for-current-situation-with-aaron-rodgers/

[jesmu84]

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.

Spot on rico