It is currently Thu Nov 28, 2024 6:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4903 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 164  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:43 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 6:17 pm
Posts: 102657
pizza_Place: Vito & Nick's
We all know why rogue hates Fields

_________________
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
It's more fun to be a victim
Caller Bob wrote:
There will never be an effective vaccine. I'll never get one anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. However, you need time to make that determination, hence the sample size. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB and that further "corrections" aren't going to help him. So on that we agree.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:49 am 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB. So on that we agree.


There's no alternative unless you really believe Siemian will figure things out THIS time. You give Fields the entire season.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:53 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Caller Bob wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Nas wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
Why do we need to keep evaluating Fields to try and find hope that he will be good one day ? Did people keep hanging on and make excuses for Josh Rosen and say he needs more time before we can say he sucks ? Brady Quinn ? Its amazing what kind of room one good quarter against a bad Steeler team buys you.


All we have is hope. We have to hope Fields figures things out until we get another quarterback we can hope breaks the franchise curse.

I guess what Im saying is why was it ok to determine that those 2 qbs were not going to be the guy and cut bait after limited starts with bad teams but not Fields ?



The Bears invested two first-round picks in Fields. They need to make sure he isn't the guy before moving on from him. Failing to do so would be irresponsible.

It also benefits their long-term interests to have a top-5 pick next year, so benching him may not be desirable.


The previous regime invested two round picks in Fields, not the current regime... If they don't think he's the guy they will move on in a flash.


Moving on in a flash would have involved trading him or bringing in competition at his position in the offseason. We're way past that point.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:58 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. However, you need time to make that determination, hence the sample size. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB and that further "corrections" aren't going to help him. So on that we agree.


Keeping Fields was a win-win situation for Poles from the start. If he plays well, you have a starting QB moving forward. If he plays poorly, you likely have a top 3-5 draft pick to select his replacement. And no one--well, almost no one--will fault you for using your first season as GM to evaluate a highly regarded prospect for whom the franchise gave up two first-round picks to acquire.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:59 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Nas wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB. So on that we agree.


There's no alternative unless you really believe Siemian will figure things out THIS time. You give Fields the entire season.


Absolutely. Plus, winning a couple more games with Siemian does nothing for you except weaken your draft position. Siemian is not the QB of anyone's future.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57262
At this point you just need to lose games and hope for a top 3 pick.

But again this schedule is one that they can easily find themselves with a pick around 10.

It definitely sucks as a fan. I watched the end of the game yesterday and was pulling for a win and when that FG went through your inner meatball goes off. But then in a few mins you understand the reality of the situation.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Tall Midget wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. However, you need time to make that determination, hence the sample size. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB and that further "corrections" aren't going to help him. So on that we agree.


Keeping Fields was a win-win situation for Poles from the start. If he plays well, you have a starting QB moving forward. If he plays poorly, you likely have a top 3-5 draft pick to select his replacement. And no one--well, almost no one--will fault you for using your first season as GM to evaluate a highly regarded prospect for whom the franchise gave up two first-round picks to acquire.


I agree on Fields but I still think Poles dropped the ball on other skill positions. Unlike in the NBA, for example, you can be a Cinderella/come out of nowhere in the NFL. It's irresponsible to go into the season with a roster so bereft of talent like Poles did. And I think people make a false dichotomy when they rationalize Poles' decisions by saying the alternative was salary cap hell. It's not an either or thing.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:07 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
veganfan21 wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. However, you need time to make that determination, hence the sample size. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB and that further "corrections" aren't going to help him. So on that we agree.


Keeping Fields was a win-win situation for Poles from the start. If he plays well, you have a starting QB moving forward. If he plays poorly, you likely have a top 3-5 draft pick to select his replacement. And no one--well, almost no one--will fault you for using your first season as GM to evaluate a highly regarded prospect for whom the franchise gave up two first-round picks to acquire.


I agree on Fields but I still think Poles dropped the ball on other skill positions. Unlike in the NBA, for example, you can be a Cinderella/come out of nowhere in the NFL. It's irresponsible to go into the season with a roster so bereft of talent like Poles did. And I think people make a false dichotomy when they rationalize Poles' decisions by saying the alternative was salary cap hell. It's not an either or thing.


Who were the skill position players you wanted the Bears to sign and why would they choose to play with Fields?

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:40 pm
Posts: 16490
pizza_Place: Boni Vino
Maybe the best thing would be to bench Fields for a week and see if he responds. To me, that’s accountability…not just empty words at the podium.

_________________
To IkeSouth, bigfan wrote:
Are you stoned or pissed off, or both, when you create these postings?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
Tall Midget wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
badrogue17 wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
. Bad rouge, it seems like you wanted to write fields off after the Cleveland game. That's not enough of a sample size. Personally, I'd put the sample size at around 25 starts or so, which is c).

Because sometimes its so evident you just know. Like in the Quinn, Rosen, Claussen , and hundreds of more cases. Very few people seem to be willing to admit that in this case when he's been abjectly terrible all along but he's getting this huge benefit of the doubt not reserved for others of similar production


I agree that the 25 starts or whatever sample size target you want stops once it is evident that the guy isn't going to be a productive player. I totally agree. However, you need time to make that determination, hence the sample size. I can only guess the evaluators who matter are still tantalized by his potential, both as a runner and passer. They should stop the experiment once it is clear to them that he's not a viable starting QB and that further "corrections" aren't going to help him. So on that we agree.


Keeping Fields was a win-win situation for Poles from the start. If he plays well, you have a starting QB moving forward. If he plays poorly, you likely have a top 3-5 draft pick to select his replacement. And no one--well, almost no one--will fault you for using your first season as GM to evaluate a highly regarded prospect for whom the franchise gave up two first-round picks to acquire.


I agree on Fields but I still think Poles dropped the ball on other skill positions. Unlike in the NBA, for example, you can be a Cinderella/come out of nowhere in the NFL. It's irresponsible to go into the season with a roster so bereft of talent like Poles did. And I think people make a false dichotomy when they rationalize Poles' decisions by saying the alternative was salary cap hell. It's not an either or thing.


Who were the skill position players you wanted the Bears to sign and why would they choose to play with Fields?


DJ Chark, Russell Gage, and Landry were available. I don't know if Poles targeted them. All are better WRs than what we have. I don't know if what they would think about Fields, but the narrative about Fields was better/different during the summer than it is now.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:39 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
veganfan21 wrote:

DJ Chark, Russell Gage, and Landry were available. I don't know if Poles targeted them. All are better WRs than what we have. I don't know if what they would think about Fields, but the narrative about Fields was better/different during the summer than it is now.


Two of those guys received 1 year deals. They went to the place they thought would be best for them to receive a multi year deal. Gage went to play for the GOAT. MVS went to play with Mahomes.

Those players wouldn't change who Fields is. At best, they mask his incompetence. I'm not sure they would have done that. He looks lost.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:53 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Maybe the best thing would be to bench Fields for a week and see if he responds. To me, that’s accountability…not just empty words at the podium.


I guess Eberflus needs to figure out which Fields can better handle: the humiliation of not playing, or the humiliation of playing.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Jaw Breaker wrote:
Maybe the best thing would be to bench Fields for a week and see if he responds. To me, that’s accountability…not just empty words at the podium.


i kinda like that idea :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Mitch got 4 years to prove it. They're going to give Fields at least one more season after this. Possibly 2, when is Arch in the draft anyhow. You don't spend 2 first round picks on a player and then give up on em that easily.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57262
Hussra wrote:
Mitch got 4 years to prove it. They're going to give Fields at least one more season after this. Possibly 2, when is Arch in the draft anyhow. You don't spend 2 first round picks on a player and then give up on em that easily.

If Poles was the GM that drafted him then I would agree with you.

But since Poles had nothing to do with it then I do not think he will in any way feel that he has to give him much time. And he shouldn't. If he knows he is not the guy then you move on.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:06 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Hussra wrote:
Mitch got 4 years to prove it. They're going to give Fields at least one more season after this. Possibly 2, when is Arch in the draft anyhow. You don't spend 2 first round picks on a player and then give up on em that easily.


Mitch wasn't Mahomes or Mr Masseuse, but he played significantly better. Besides, Pace drafted Mitch. Poles or Eberflus don't have that cross to bear. They can immediately walk away. He may even have some trade value.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 4:29 pm
Posts: 38705
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
RFDC wrote:
Hussra wrote:
Mitch got 4 years to prove it. They're going to give Fields at least one more season after this. Possibly 2, when is Arch in the draft anyhow. You don't spend 2 first round picks on a player and then give up on em that easily.

If Poles was the GM that drafted him then I would agree with you.

But since Poles had nothing to do with it then I do not think he will in any way feel that he has to give him much time. And he shouldn't. If he knows he is not the guy then you move on.

Based on how they are running their offense , they already know. These guys seem him for hours a week in practice. They already know what hes capable of doing .

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 11, 2008 4:11 pm
Posts: 57262
badrogue17 wrote:
RFDC wrote:
Hussra wrote:
Mitch got 4 years to prove it. They're going to give Fields at least one more season after this. Possibly 2, when is Arch in the draft anyhow. You don't spend 2 first round picks on a player and then give up on em that easily.

If Poles was the GM that drafted him then I would agree with you.

But since Poles had nothing to do with it then I do not think he will in any way feel that he has to give him much time. And he shouldn't. If he knows he is not the guy then you move on.

Based on how they are running their offense , they already know. These guys seem him for hours a week in practice. They already know what hes capable of doing .

It definitely appears that way.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."


Frank Coztansa wrote:
I have MANY years of experience in trying to appreciate steaming piles of dogshit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:30 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Right now, Fields is still Pace's problem.

If Poles keeps him after the 2022 season, Fields starts to become Poles' problem.

If Fields doesn't show significant growth this season, then it would be colossally stupid to retain him as the starter.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:10 pm
Posts: 32067
pizza_Place: Milano's
Tall Midget wrote:
Right now, Fields is still Pace's problem.

If Poles keeps him after the 2022 season, Fields starts to become Poles' problem.

If Fields doesn't show significant growth this season, then it would be colossally stupid to retain him as the starter.


so, show significant growth while throwing 10 passes a game


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:15 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
Bagels wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Right now, Fields is still Pace's problem.

If Poles keeps him after the 2022 season, Fields starts to become Poles' problem.

If Fields doesn't show significant growth this season, then it would be colossally stupid to retain him as the starter.


so, show significant growth while throwing 10 passes a game


They tried to throw more passes than that. He ran on some and got sacked on others.

Despite the low official attempts, he's near the top of the league in interceptions.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am
Posts: 6861
Bagels wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Right now, Fields is still Pace's problem.

If Poles keeps him after the 2022 season, Fields starts to become Poles' problem.

If Fields doesn't show significant growth this season, then it would be colossally stupid to retain him as the starter.


so, show significant growth while throwing 10 passes a game


He only threw 10 passes because he could not complete the majority of them. If he complete 7-10 then those numbers rise to 20 passes a game exc exc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 25, 2018 8:58 am
Posts: 6307
pizza_Place: Frozen
Of the Bears 12 possessions Fields only completed multiple passes in one of them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:06 am
Posts: 6861
vitoscotti wrote:
Of the Bears 12 possessions Fields only completed multiple passes in one of them.


and how many of those did he have to roll out and cut the field in half to identify his target. #bust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
Josh Allen 2-1
Justin Fields 2-1
Tracy Lawrence 2-1
Pat Mahomes 2-1
Mac Jones 1-2
Zach Wilson 0-0
T Lance 0-1
Davis Mills 0-2-1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:15 pm
Posts: 41380
Location: Small Fringe Minority
pizza_Place: John's
BAD


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:53 pm 
Offline
100000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 81466
pizza_Place: 773-684-2222
He doesn't trust himself because he can't read defenses. You can be brilliant in the classroom, but angry 300 pound men running at you can change that.

_________________
Be well

GO BEARS!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:50 pm
Posts: 1544
pizza_Place: Beek's
Nas wrote:
He doesn't trust himself because he can't read defenses. You can be brilliant in the classroom, but angry 300 pound men running at you can change that.


True. That pitch and catch with Mooney in June isn't quite the same in September.

_________________
"I give you my word as a Biden"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 10:45 am
Posts: 16827
pizza_Place: Salerno's
I imagine now that defenses have plenty of NFL tape on Fields they can adjust their coverage and play to account for his strengths/weaknesses. It's only going to get more difficult for Fields if he can't learn to quickly read defenses, adjust and hit the spots they are giving him.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4903 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 ... 164  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group