I’m saying it’s pretty hard to be consistent when nothing else around you is. What they did to Fields last year was criminal. He was set up to fail, and he kept his head above water. He’s resilient. And he will improve. I know you disagree.
Nope, I don't know if he will improve or not. I do know you were saying all last year and offseason that he was going to be a lot better passing the ball
this year, and outside of two games he has been the same mediocre passer. Obviously, if the Denver/Washington games had been the norm this year I would've fully supported keeping him. I hope you'll at least agree that those are the outliers thusfar this season.
What I've been saying is that, given the rare opportunity the Bears have this offseason, Fields has not improved enough as a passer for me to keep him. He may improve, but unless he improves a lot - something a lot of us expected this year, that hasn't happened - he will still likely be an average QB. He made multiple plays today that just can't happen if the Bears are going to keep him, especially from a guy who's lucky to throw for 250 yards and 2 TD in a given game.
At the end of the day, in terms of "should we pay this guy $100m", 75 rushing yards a game from my QB isn't worth it - and that's the sell on Fields right now. He makes plays with his legs. I need the guy to be able to make plays
in the pocket, and on obvious passing downs. Those are notable weaknesses of Fields thusfar, while notable strengths are the 75 rushing yards a game. The value just doesn't add up.
Recent
Da Economy
by murphstahoe What is the Democrat Plat... by Custard
Total Members: 142