Dapper-Anywhere-4963

joined 2 years ago
 

Ohio St 1st rounder Fields: @ Cleveland- 30% completion, 80 total yards, 0 TDs-0 INT 41.3 QBR, LOSS

Vs Detroit- 64.7% completion, 218 total yards, 0 TDs-1 INT, 82.7 QBR, WIN

@ Las Vegas- 60% completion, 115 total yards, 1 TD-0 INT, QBR 91.9, WIN

Vs Green Bay- 59.3% completion, 217 total yards, 1 TD-1 INT, QBR 75.2, LOSS

Fields Averages: 65.5% completion, 141 passing yards, 18 rushing yards, 1 TD-2 INT ratio/total, 73 QBR, 2-2 record

Undrafted D2 Bagent: Vs Las Vegas- 72.4% completion, 186 total yards, 1 TD-0 INT, 97.2 QBR, WIN

@ Los Angeles- 67.6 completion, 231 total yards, 0 TD-2 INTs, 62 QBR, LOSS

@ New Orleans- 60% completion, 290 total yards, 2TDs-3 INTs, 65.3 QBR, LOSS

Vs Carolina- 60.6% completion, 174 total yards, 0 TD-0 INT, 73 QBR, WIN

Bagent averages: 65.1% completion, 194 passing yards, 26.2 rushing yards, 3 TDs-6 INTs/1-2 ratio, 74.3 QBR, 2-2 record

Let’s also keep in mind Fields had a better defense and a better coaching staff around him for his first starts.

On the other hand Bagent had an easier opposing QB match up in the raiders and played the now 1-10 piss poor panthers.

Moral of the story, if you’re labeling Bagent a backup 4 games into his career keep that same energy for Fields please. Not saying Bagents the guy but too many of you are counting him out despite having a better outting than Fields did with his first starts.

You’ll get every downvote in the world but no one will have a rebuttal for you 😂 it’s comedy how everyone labeled Bagent a “career backup” after 5 games his rookie year but if you compare his first 5 starts to Fields’s people should’ve been calling fields the backup his rookie year.

Fields had 0 tds first 3 starts ended the 5th game with a ratio of 1 td-2 ints and only eclipsed 200 passing yards once while having 2 games under 70 yards passing. Bagent never got below 150 passing yards and matched field’s TD to int ratio. Let’s keep in mind Fields had the better defense and coaching staff around him his rookie year in comparison to Bagent.

Not saying Bagents the guy but to label him a career back up 5 games/4 starts into his career is such typical casual bears fan behavior.

The texans looked like a dumpster fire before and after the draft. Not saying stroud is single handily carrying the Texans to relevancy but they wouldn’t be in the position they are with Davis mills at QB. I think bears fans underestimate the value of a QB cause we’ve never had a QB of value.

[–] Dapper-Anywhere-4963@alien.top 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Nah fields just needs a contract extension to prove he’s the guy I’m sure he’ll get it year 4 and if not year 5 should do it. /s

Not on the Bagent>Fields train but when Bagent was in multiple targets were getting the ball. Whenever fields is in you can bet the balls going to Moore or Kmet and maybe the runningback on a broken play, he’s a one read QB and hasn’t broken that yet. He’s not the guy.

This is like saying all Ohio QBs are busts. Bears should only draft defensive players since that’s all they’re good at. This is a lazy argument you make when you’re football knowledge goes as far as “ask madden”

Did you ever consider this is the game plan because fields is just black Mitch trubisky.

“They don’t let him use his athleticism and they don’t call bootleg even though he does really well in it.”

You guys think we at least get a first or does fields turn it over on the first set of chains?

Eberflus is the back up QB grim reaper

Everyone hating on getsy but if the Vikings are blitzing that’s literally a blitz beater. He’s still trash tho but so are the coaches that can’t coach basic shit.

I want fields to succeed so bad but he’s too inconsistent. Whether that’s his fault or not will be up to the next team that gets him to figure out.

Free points off bears mistakes. I’m convinced this team is actually decent and these coaches can’t can’t coach.

I swear all I heard about fields was his deep ball and how Bagent doesn’t have one yet fields has thrown ducks since he’s been back.

view more: next ›