Quote:
Originally Posted by weegeebored
You can't draw any conclusions about Fields by comparing him to that sad lot of QBs. Do people really think that Burrow, Mahomes, Herbert, or Jackson would look as bad on the same team? Doubtful. All those guys have more talent. In fact, I would argue that Bagent looked better than Fields in running the Bears offense. The problem is arm strength -- Bagent doesn't have much. People always mention the Bears offensive line problems. The line wasn't great but it was at least average. Fields' pocket time was 2.8 seconds, nearly the highest in the league. And his time-to-throw was the highest @3.23. Let's also not forget Fields' slow drop-back time. He waits too long for plays to develop because he can't throw his receivers open -- he doesn't anticipate well.
Fields' supporters are going to use the five Geno Smith reasons as evidence that he's a good QB and it was the team that was the problem. That's simply just being blinded by some unwavering fantasy that Fields is a winning NFL starting QB even in the face of statistical and visual evidence to the contrary.
|
I would agree with most of this except the last part. A lot of people, including myself, that have supported Fields acknowledge that the problem is not binary. Fields had to do better with the chances he had. The team did as well.
And I don't agree that Bagent looked better. He looked fine, but I would not want him in place of Fields.