Justin Fields and his Steelers

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Wasn't suggesting he doesn't also have mechanical issues. But those can be fixed IMO with proper training.

Other part not so much.

I was just adding on. I think it could be fixed as well, but doubt it happens at this point.

I'm not sure it can, you identified good issues. The word is they drilled it a bunch last offseason, being able to get it out quick, and being able to play from the pocket in the short quick game. You can judge how well he did. I lost a bit of esteem when he mentioned 'coaching' as a reason for his early struggles, and said he's just gonna say eff it and not listen to coaches and play his game. That's not QB1 or leader material imo. So they may need to move on, but we may have a difference of opinion on how to do it. I'll update as I review this QB class. There's a few QBs, so you could drop down a spot and still land one of the top guys.

I think the case for Fields was always use his legs, to stress the D and give easy completions, when defenders bail on assignments to come up and play his run threat. But he has to be able to see the field better and get it out quicker in the pocket situations, Lamar can play both from within and out of the pocket. Fields is more one dimensional, and needs to play on the move. That's some of the toughest stuff to learn, is what Purdy seems to have innately or from college, the ability to see the whole field and make quick anticipatory decisions. So I don't like his odds of being able to check those boxes. Looking like Martz was 2/2.

He's improved since his rookie year, idk if I would give up on him yet. The bears should probably focus on bringing in more talent and give Fields one more year. Move on next season if doesn't work out and at least whatever QB you bring it will be in a better situation.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
He's improved since his rookie year, idk if I would give up on him yet. The bears should probably focus on bringing in more talent and give Fields one more year. Move on next season if doesn't work out and at least whatever QB you bring it will be in a better situation.

He arguably improved from year 1 to year 2, but seems to have leveled off in year 3.

The Bears were able to acquire the #1 pick through trade. There's no certainty that repeats itself even if they trade out. They can add talent and run it back with Fields, but there is no assurance they have a prime opportunity to replace him like they had last year and have now. They have the single most valuable asset in finding a franchise QB right now. Relying on finding a QBotF gets worse and worse the later you draft and acquiring one via trade, trading up in the draft, or FA (should one come available) requires a heavy investment of draft assets and/or cash. And in the meantime you continue to kill seasons (if he doesn't make substantial improvement).

Their best strategy is to trade Fields, and draft whichever of the two rookies they fancy most. The biggest reason for this strategy being optimal is the ratio "chance of being good/per cap $ used".

Fields is OK-to-good right now. He may improve next year, or he may regress like Mayfield, Kaepernick etc. He may get injured. Either way he will finish his rookie contract soon. If he turns out good, the Bears will need to devote lots of cap space to him. And that's if he's merely good. If he turns out to be great they'll probably lose him to FA if they haven't extended him in time. So they will need to commit early in the couple of years left in his contract to extend him to avoid this eventuality, adding to their risk. Perhaps they give him a boatload of cash, and he ends up like Garoppolo after all..

Let's say they go with the draft pick instead. That resets their "we got a cheap dude" clock, only now they have much more talent compared to what they had when they drafted Fields. In itself, the chance the QB pick is equal or worse than Fields is high. It always is, no matter how "generational" a talent is supposed to be. I once did a historical list of every first round QB pick since we picked Smith (it's in the Lance thread) and the chance of having someone genuinely good long term (I'm not talking star, just someone good over many years) for the team that drafted him was never better than 50-50 and is not more like 2-1 against. So the rookie may suck, or may take forever to develop (like Fields), or may end up to be a star... for another team (think Brees, Stafford etc). But on the whole the TEAM is better is higher than by keeping Fields. The cap space allows them to get FAs, perhaps including a veteran QB to cushion the blow of the pick ending up to be Trey Lance after all (injured and/or no good). The additional pick ammo they get from the Fields trade helps them even more, either by selecting more rookies, or using it to trade for veterans.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Steve Young learned to be more accurate. So did Drew Brees. So much of that is mechanical.

What you need to have is the ability to throw with anticipation and an ability to see the field. Once a QB has 30 starts or so you know if that is in there or not. I don't think it's in there for Justin.

Justin definitely has mechanical and footwork issues as well. He's a good deep ball thrower I think. Can rear back and hit a player in space with no real issue. There is absolutely no precision in his passing though. Ball placement is all over the place.

I don't think drew Bree's was ever "inaccurate", just needed refining. Steve young was able to play/sit for like 7 years before starting here and being considered great - that isn't really gonna fly for a top pick these days.

i also think there is much more to being accurate than anticipation.. like touch, ball placement etc.

Someone like Josh allen needed his mechanics refined but had the rest down, took him like 2 years. I'll be surprised if someone like Anthony Richardson ever becomes accurate but who knows. May happen. I think very few QBs have ever had poor accuracy (ball placement, touch, timing etc) and then became great at it.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
He's improved since his rookie year, idk if I would give up on him yet. The bears should probably focus on bringing in more talent and give Fields one more year. Move on next season if doesn't work out and at least whatever QB you bring it will be in a better situation.

The problem with this idea is what if it doesn't work out next year? Will they have the pick of the best player in the draft next year? They can actually keep fields and draft Williams - similar to what happened with Bree's and rivers.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I don't think drew Bree's was ever "inaccurate", just needed refining. Steve young was able to play/sit for like 7 years before starting - that isn't really gonna fly for a top pick these days.

i also think there is much more to being accurate than anticipation.. like touch, ball placement etc.

Someone like Josh allen needed his mechanics refined but had the rest down, took him like 2 years. I'll be surprised if someone like Anthony Richardson ever becomes accurate but who knows. May happen. I think very few QBs have ever had poor accuracy (ball placement, touch, timing etc) and then became great at it.

I'm dying on the hill that Josh Allen's accuracy issues were overblown. Decision making bigger issue. Similar to now as he has always had to carry lesser talent (college and pro)

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by tankle104:
I don't think drew Bree's was ever "inaccurate", just needed refining. Steve young was able to play/sit for like 7 years before starting - that isn't really gonna fly for a top pick these days.

i also think there is much more to being accurate than anticipation.. like touch, ball placement etc.

Someone like Josh allen needed his mechanics refined but had the rest down, took him like 2 years. I'll be surprised if someone like Anthony Richardson ever becomes accurate but who knows. May happen. I think very few QBs have ever had poor accuracy (ball placement, touch, timing etc) and then became great at it.

I'm dying on the hill that Josh Allen's accuracy issues were overblown. Decision making bigger issue. Similar to now as he has always had to carry lesser talent (college and pro)

I used to think his were worse than some
had said but i rewatched a lot of his tape from college and early pro years and I think it was more mechanics than anything with him. I still think he has looked worse since Daboll left, but he hasn't looked bad - just more inconsistent than he was under Dabolls last year with him. He has a little too much gun slinger in him, I think he try's to overcompensate sometimes and it doesn't work out well.

Fade the Cutler

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

"Trade down and get some more guys to help Justin."
@JayHasTweets thinks it would be a mistake for the Bears to move on from Justin Fields 🤔 pic.twitter.com/HFlF1yJonF

— Inside the NFL (@insidetheNFL) January 10, 2024

Fade the Cutler

I agree with the premise, if it's as simple as get a high draft pick, and take QB, NYJ would have found success long ago. They've been drafting em for years. So has CHI for that matter,

Control what you can control. It's easier to project an OL can handle the guy across from him, than projecting a QB. Or projecting someone can get after the QB. QB is the toughest position to solve for and often random chance.

Also, and 538 touched on this, there is a gap between the value of picks, and the perception of value those picks have. Pick 1 is the best pick, but teams will pay more for that pick, than the pick is actually worth.

If you do want to take a QB, you give yourself best odds by having a good culture, talent around the QB, and system. You also give best odds if you can sit the QB until ready.

For those interested in evidence:

https://www.hogshaven.com/2021/4/9/22375270/is-there-a-sweet-spot-for-drafting-quarterbacks

This is a somewhat flawed but interesting study on QB drafting dealing with reward and opportunity cost.

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-investigating-historical-draft-success-at-offensive-positions

A study of historical draft success at offensive positions. You'll need a PFF subscription to see it in full, but can see information relevant to this discussion without one.

https://unexpectedpoints.substack.com/p/what-analytical-draft-value-curves

Another interesting study that can demonstrate the value of drafting a QB higher than lower, and also a look at how it's easier to find talent at positions outside of QB later in drafts.

-------------------

There's plenty more out there. Most of this stuff is obvious.

Peter King and Co debate the issue

Originally posted by tankle104:

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
He's improved since his rookie year, idk if I would give up on him yet. The bears should probably focus on bringing in more talent and give Fields one more year. Move on next season if doesn't work out and at least whatever QB you bring it will be in a better situation.

The problem with this idea is what if it doesn't work out next year? Will they have the pick of the best player in the draft next year? They can actually keep fields and draft Williams - similar to what happened with Bree's and rivers.

10-15+ years ago this could easily backfire, but there's so much QB talent now coming out in the draft. For the past 5 years it's been such of influx of QBs going early in drafts. I'm sure next year will be another wave of a couple great prospects. If not, there's always trade/FA, and Chicago could be a very good destination if they have another solid draft and hire the right coach.

Originally posted by GoreGoreGore:
10-15+ years ago this could easily backfire, but there's so much QB talent now coming out in the draft. For the past 5 years it's been such of influx of QBs going early in drafts. I'm sure next year will be another wave of a couple great prospects. If not, there's always trade/FA, and Chicago could be a very good destination if they have another solid draft and hire the right coach.

From the first link I provided a couple posts up:

'The unprecedented demand for QBs on rookie contracts is showing signs of driving a panic rush on QBs in the top end of the first round in 2021, with QBs who might have previously carried a second round scouting rating being discussed as top ten prospects. The problem with this scenario, if it truly plays out like that, is that the supply of starting quality QB prospects is showing no signs of increasing to meet demand.'

I think the study is somewhat flawed (mostly due to the fact they had to project some and also subjectively define 'success') but I do think it's worth questioning if there actually is so much QB talent coming in or if we assume that because more teams are reaching for QBs early.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I don't think drew Bree's was ever "inaccurate", just needed refining. Steve young was able to play/sit for like 7 years before starting here and being considered great - that isn't really gonna fly for a top pick these days.

i also think there is much more to being accurate than anticipation.. like touch, ball placement etc.

Someone like Josh allen needed his mechanics refined but had the rest down, took him like 2 years. I'll be surprised if someone like Anthony Richardson ever becomes accurate but who knows. May happen. I think very few QBs have ever had poor accuracy (ball placement, touch, timing etc) and then became great at it.

He was inaccurate in the pros. The spread stuff he was doing in college was wildly different than what the Chargers were doing at the time. Had to change everything from the ground up. There's a reason why they were moving on with Rivers.

Also hard to judge a lot of accuracy in college based on the offenses. When everything is RPO it doesn't lend itself to seeing how a guy can do running a full offense. Had Brock gone to TCU or Bama he's not the player he is right now. Iowa State offense was so huge for his development.