Bears Current Posture

[PJ1]

I feel like everyone is discounting a Cards win in the finale against Seattle, which I think is a real possibility.

Seahawks have to win. They can move the ball and Petey will have them ready. We can win but I doubt it.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Wasn't Jalen Hurst considered an inaccurate passer who could run? I think Fields is a better passer than Hurst. Hurst has been given loads of weapons and has made the most of it. I don't see any reason Fields can't be the same with a WR corps of Moore, Harrison, Kmet, and Claypool. Add some OL pieces and the Bears should be challenging the Lions the next few years for the division.

No. Just no. Hurts has been a better passer than fields.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Mahomes and Trubisky were in the same draft class. That was just bad evaluation, IMO.

Passing on Williams for Fields could be like passing on Mahomes to take Jamal Adams when you got Josh McCown.

I loved Aaron Rodgers back in the day but begrudgingly convinced myself that McCown might be good enough that it wouldn't be bad to pass on him. Never again.

 

[Krangodnzr]

No. Just no. Hurts has been a better passer than fields.

There isn't an objective stat that supports Fields as a better passer. He's among the worst passers, while I'd say that Hurts is probably average.

 

[daves]

I have to see more than just a stretch of this. There is a much longer stretch of Fields being a well below replacement passer.

Like I said in another thread, getting excited about a stretch where a QB posts a 1:1 TD to TO ratio shows just how bad Fields has been. It's hard for a team to be consistently competitive with a QB who turns the ball over every single game, doesn't produce a ton of passing yards, and doesn't produce a lot of TDs.

Not sure what "stretch" you're referencing for Fields.

I think when people talk about Fields' notable recent improvement, they're referring to this season, especially after the first few games. Since then (with four games lost to injury), Fields has 16 TDs (13 passing, 3 rushing) and 5 8 turnovers (5 INTs and 0 3 FL, 0.56 0.89 turnovers per game), for a 2:1 TD to TO ratio, and a 5-4 W-L record. That's good for a 91.8 passer rating and 7.1 yards per attempt. [Edited to correct the number of fumbles lost, which then does indeed bring the turnovers per game close to 1. -dbs]

In the 7 games he's played this season, Kyler Murray has 12 TDs (9+3) and 5 turnovers (5+0) for a 2.4:1 TD:TO ratio, a 3-4 W-L record, 86.8 passer rating, and 6.5 y/a. So by the numbers, Fields' recent performance hasn't been much different from Murray's.


If you want to expand Fields' "stretch" to the beginning of last season (27 games), you get 45 TDs (33+12), 26 TOs (20 INTS and 6 FL, 0.96 per game), for a 1.73:1 TD:TO ratio, a 10-17 W-L record, 85.5 rating, and 6.9 y/a. So there's your "1 turnover per game" but still nowhere near a 1:1 TD:TO ratio.

If you want to compare that "stretch" to a similar stretch for Murray, going back to game 8 of 2021 (25 games) Murray has 38 TDs (30 passing, 8 rushing), 19 TOs (17 INTs and 2 FL, 0.76 per game), for exactly a 2:1 TD:TO ratio, an 8-17 W-L record, 86.9 rating and 6.4 y/a.

Here Murray has a slight edge over Fields, but Fields' rate of improvement is impressive.


My takeaways are that it seems silly to think that Fields is a "wreck" while Murray is a worthy franchise QB, or that the Bears must surely jettison Fields while the Cardinals should build around Murray. Despite all the circumstantial differences that people will surely point out, their situations seem more similar than different and if their draft positions were reversed I suspect the arguments for how each team should proceed in the draft might be reversed as well.

Of course one major difference between the two players is that between 2020 and the first 7 games of 2021, Murray had 57 TDs (43 + 14) and 21 TOs (17 INTs + 4 FL) for a 2.7:1 TD:TO ratio, a 15-8 W-L record, 100.7 passer rating, and 8.7 y/a. We'd all love to see that guy again, and hope that giving him better weapons and OL could make it happen. But Bears fans may rightly have the same hope for Fields, based on his recent upward trajectory.

I'll keep hoping for Murray to return to his peak form, but what @kerouac9 suggested above seems more likely:

Justin Fields can consistently be a Top 12-ish QB and keep you in games with a chance for the defense to win it. He was 12th in DYAR last week. Gannon is actively trying to turn Kyler Murray into this type of player right now, and a lot of people here can't be more excited about it.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Not sure what "stretch" you're referencing for Fields.

I think when people talk about Fields' notable recent improvement, they're referring to this season, especially after the first few games. Since then (with four games lost to injury), Fields has 16 TDs (13 passing, 3 rushing) and 5 turnovers (5 INTs and 0 FL, 0.56 turnovers per game), for a 3.2:1 TD to TO ratio, and a 5-4 W-L record. That's good for a 91.8 passer rating and 7.1 yards per attempt. Pretty good!

In the 7 games he's played this season, Kyler Murray has 12 TDs (9+3) and 5 turnovers (5+0) for a 2.4:1 TD:TO ratio, a 3-4 W-L record, 86.8 passer rating, and 6.5 y/a. So by the numbers, Fields has been a bit better than Murray recently.


If you want to expand Fields' "stretch" to the beginning of last season (27 games), you get 45 TDs (33+12), 26 TOs (20 INTS and 6 FL, 0.96 per game), for a 1.73:1 TD:TO ratio, a 10-17 W-L record, 85.5 rating, and 6.9 y/a. So there's your "1 turnover per game" but still nowhere near a 1:1 TD:TO ratio.

If you want to compare that "stretch" to a similar stretch for Murray, going back to game 8 of 2021 (25 games) Murray has 38 TDs (30 passing, 8 rushing), 19 TOs (17 INTs and 2 FL, 0.76 per game), for exactly a 2:1 TD:TO ratio, an 8-17 W-L record, 86.9 rating and 6.4 y/a.

Here Murray has a slight edge over Fields, but Fields' rate of improvement is impressive.


My takeaways are that it seems silly to think that Fields is a "wreck" while Murray is a worthy franchise QB, or that the Bears must surely jettison Fields while the Cardinals should build around Murray. Despite all the circumstantial differences that people will surely point out, their situations seem more similar than different and if their draft positions were reversed I suspect the arguments for how each team should proceed in the draft might be reversed as well.

Of course one major difference between the two players is that between 2020 and the first 7 games of 2021, Murray had 57 TDs (43 + 14) and 21 TOs (17 INTs + 4 FL) for a 2.7:1 TD:TO ratio, a 15-8 W-L record, 100.7 passer rating, and 8.7 y/a. We'd all love to see that guy again, and hope that giving him better weapons and OL could make it happen. But Bears fans may rightly have the same hope for Fields, based on his recent upward trajectory.

I'll keep hoping for Murray to return to his peak form, but what @kerouac9 suggested above seems more likely:

How many passing yards per game?

 

[daves]

How many passing yards per game?

In Fields' recent stretch of 9 games where his improvement has been noticeable, 210 yards per game.
In Murray's 7 games since returning from injury, 220 yards per game.

 

[kerouac9]

Since then (with four games lost to injury), Fields has 16 TDs (13 passing, 3 rushing) and 5 turnovers (5 INTs and 0 FL, 0.56 turnovers per game), for a 3.2:1 TD to TO ratio, and a 5-4 W-L record.

FWIW, which team recovers a fumble is essentially random and subject to weird clustering. I usually look at fumbles without respect to lost or not to measure how effective a player is at valuing the ball.

 

[daves]

FWIW, which team recovers a fumble is essentially random and subject to weird clustering. I usually look at fumbles without respect to lost or not to measure how effective a player is at valuing the ball.

I agree, and probably "fumbles / 2" is a more accurate representation of a player's performance than "fumbles lost", but since @Krangodnzr brought up turnover ratio & turnovers per game, that's the metric I posted.

Having said that - I reviewed the numbers in the part of my post that you quoted to see whether it made much difference either way, and realized that w.r.t. Fields' last 9 games, I must've looked at the wrong column. He actually has 3 FL (two in the 12-10 win in Minnesota!) in that span, so I edited the paragraph you quoted in my original post.

 

[GatorAZ]

I see this in our future:
.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

 

[Phrazbit]

I fully expect us to beat the Seahawks.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Not sure what "stretch" you're referencing for Fields.

I think when people talk about Fields' notable recent improvement, they're referring to this season, especially after the first few games. Since then (with four games lost to injury), Fields has 16 TDs (13 passing, 3 rushing) and 5 8 turnovers (5 INTs and 0 3 FL, 0.56 0.89 turnovers per game), for a 2:1 TD to TO ratio, and a 5-4 W-L record. That's good for a 91.8 passer rating and 7.1 yards per attempt. [Edited to correct the number of fumbles lost, which then does indeed bring the turnovers per game close to 1. -dbs]

In the 7 games he's played this season, Kyler Murray has 12 TDs (9+3) and 5 turnovers (5+0) for a 2.4:1 TD:TO ratio, a 3-4 W-L record, 86.8 passer rating, and 6.5 y/a. So by the numbers, Fields' recent performance hasn't been much different from Murray's.


If you want to expand Fields' "stretch" to the beginning of last season (27 games), you get 45 TDs (33+12), 26 TOs (20 INTS and 6 FL, 0.96 per game), for a 1.73:1 TD:TO ratio, a 10-17 W-L record, 85.5 rating, and 6.9 y/a. So there's your "1 turnover per game" but still nowhere near a 1:1 TD:TO ratio.

If you want to compare that "stretch" to a similar stretch for Murray, going back to game 8 of 2021 (25 games) Murray has 38 TDs (30 passing, 8 rushing), 19 TOs (17 INTs and 2 FL, 0.76 per game), for exactly a 2:1 TD:TO ratio, an 8-17 W-L record, 86.9 rating and 6.4 y/a.

Here Murray has a slight edge over Fields, but Fields' rate of improvement is impressive.


My takeaways are that it seems silly to think that Fields is a "wreck" while Murray is a worthy franchise QB, or that the Bears must surely jettison Fields while the Cardinals should build around Murray. Despite all the circumstantial differences that people will surely point out, their situations seem more similar than different and if their draft positions were reversed I suspect the arguments for how each team should proceed in the draft might be reversed as well.

Of course one major difference between the two players is that between 2020 and the first 7 games of 2021, Murray had 57 TDs (43 + 14) and 21 TOs (17 INTs + 4 FL) for a 2.7:1 TD:TO ratio, a 15-8 W-L record, 100.7 passer rating, and 8.7 y/a. We'd all love to see that guy again, and hope that giving him better weapons and OL could make it happen. But Bears fans may rightly have the same hope for Fields, based on his recent upward trajectory.

I'll keep hoping for Murray to return to his peak form, but what @kerouac9 suggested above seems more likely:

I echo your sentiments, chuckling at those who think the Bears absolutely should move on from Fields, while steadfastly believing that Kyler is 100% the QBOTF here.

 

[Evil Ash]

I see this in our future:
.

xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media

So Washington traded to #1 and the Pats traded to #2? I don't see that happening

Pats are notoriously stubborn and Washington can take the 2nd choice of the qbs without giving up anything. If they view williams and may at the same level, there's no incentive to move up

 

[Krangodnzr]

I echo your sentiments, chuckling at those who think the Bears absolutely should move on from Fields, while steadfastly believing that Kyler is 100% the QBOTF here.

Such a snarky comment.

Who is chuckling and also saying Kyler is the QBOTF? That's definitely not me and I'm the main person discussing Fields.

 

[Krangodnzr]

In Fields' recent stretch of 9 games where his improvement has been noticeable, 210 yards per game.
In Murray's 7 games since returning from injury, 220 yards per game.

So he's still in the meh category of passing yards and passing TDs.

 

[daves]

So Washington traded to #1 and the Pats traded to #2? I don't see that happening

That is what the tweet posited... but if Washington and New England both lose, and Atlanta wins, the strength of schedule tie-breaker would flip, the head-to-head tie-breaker would come into play, and New England would move ahead of Washington in the draft order - thus the outcome could be the same as depicted (with Washington trading from #3 to #1 to get ahead of New England).

 

[daves]

Such a snarky comment.

Who is chuckling and also saying Kyler is the QBOTF? That's definitely not me and I'm the main person discussing Fields.

I don't usually keep track of who said what unless I'm replying to someone's post... but a number of people have said that the Bears would be crazy to take Harrison Jr., and that instead they need to take a QB because Fields will never be better than mediocre. (You yourself said Fields is a "wreck" despite having played essentially as well as Murray this season.)

At the same time, since the Eagles game, it seems to me that the majority of the board thinks that the Cardinals should keep Murray and surround him with more talent, particularly Harrison Jr. if he's available. (Pretty sure you're in that camp as well, or perhaps you've advocated for at least one more year to evaluate Murray with more talent? But someone with that stance could just as easily apply it to the Bears with Fields.)

Of course the situations aren't exactly the same*, but they're similar enough that it seems inconsistent (maybe wishful thinking) to argue that the Bears should move on from Fields and not position themselves to take Harrison Jr. (plus picks for trading down a couple spots!), while the Cardinals should stick with Murray and take Harrison Jr. if he's available.

 

[Phrazbit]

I echo your sentiments, chuckling at those who think the Bears absolutely should move on from Fields, while steadfastly believing that Kyler is 100% the QBOTF here.

I don't remotely think that either front office is sold on Kyler or Fields being the "QBOTF", but the contract situations are as far apart as imaginable.

The Bears are faced with picking up Fields 5th year option or extending him, neither are appealing given his career thus far. If they are not sold on Fields they can easily cut bait at virtually no cost at all.

Meanwhile, dumping Kyler this off season basically dooms us to a 2nd straight year of sitting out free agency or any new significant contract commitments.

The Bears have a lot of options, especially with the #1 pick in hand... we don't. We can ride out another season of Kyler and hope he returns to his form from 2 years ago, or doom some poor rookie or low cost, vet player to play with a bare bones offense because we used all our cap space to eat Kyler's contract.

I'm not sold on Kyler as the long term guy at all, but I think the realities of our situation basically locks him in for one more season. If we had the #1 pick and if some college QB looked like a can't miss superstar, it probably would have changed that dynamic... but that didn't happen.

 

[DVontel]

but the contract situations are as far apart as imaginable.

The Bears are faced with picking up Fields 5th year option or extending him, neither are appealing given his career thus far. If they are not sold on Fields they can easily cut bait at virtually no cost at all.

Meanwhile, dumping Kyler this off season basically dooms us to a 2nd straight year of sitting out free agency or any new significant contract commitments.

You really didn’t need to explain this. It should’ve been obvious from the start, lol.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

No. Just no. Hurts has been a better passer than fields.

Hurst is throwing to DeVonte Smith, AJ Brown, Dallas Goedart and a plethora of offensive weapons behind a very good OL. Last year Fields #1 WR was Darnell Mooney and Equanimus ST. Brown as his #2 behind one of the worst OL's in the league.

I'm not saying Fields is a top passer but neither is Hurst and I think Fields is a superior passer of the ball than Hurst. The Bears gave him DJ Moore and a better OL to go with the development of Kmet and he's been winning games much like Hurst. Fields didn't lose to the Cardinals at home .

 

[BritCard]

You must be registered for see images attach

This bear has pretty good posture.

I went to the zoo once and there was a meerkat sat like that jerking off just staring at the crowd.

 

[CardNots]

I went to the zoo once and there was a meerkat sat like that jerking off just staring at the crowd.

Well he couldn’t watch porn, so staring at the crowd seems normal

 

[QuebecCard]

Hurst is throwing to DeVonte Smith, AJ Brown, Dallas Goedart and a plethora of offensive weapons behind a very good OL. Last year Fields #1 WR was Darnell Mooney and Equanimus ST. Brown as his #2 behind one of the worst OL's in the league.

I'm not saying Fields is a top passer but neither is Hurst and I think Fields is a superior passer of the ball than Hurst. The Bears gave him DJ Moore and a better OL to go with the development of Kmet and he's been winning games much like Hurst. Fields didn't lose to the Cardinals at home .

Jalen HURTS.

 

[BleedRed]

Best case scenario is New England and Washington both win this week and we lose. This would give us the #2 pick and prevent Chicago from having a trade down and still get MHJ scenario available. If they want him they would have to take him #1 knowing we would take him @ #2. In the event they did take him at #1 it would give us massive trade leverage for the teams below us who want a QB. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

 

[kerouac9]

Best case scenario is New England and Washington both win this week and we lose. This would give us the #2 pick and prevent Chicago from having a trade down and still get MHJ scenario available. If they want him they would have to take him #1 knowing we would take him @ #2. In the event they did take him at #1 it would give us massive trade leverage for the teams below us who want a QB. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

I think the goal of having the #2 pick was always to be in a position to trade out. Oddly, I think having the 3rd or even fourth pick in the draft makes us more likely to take MHJ than less.