Fields is much safer running the ball.

[Gustavus Adolphus]

The only two views from Fields Stans:

1. He cannot throw because the offensive line sucks.

2. If the line does block, no WRs got separation.

/end

@run and shoot said:

Question......the OL can't consistently pass pro and the wr's have trouble with separation. Is it a lie?

How do you think Poles addresses this in the offseason?

 

[remydat]

So keep running him 18 times a game based on a "fantasypoints.com" article?

They provided data. You did not. The Dr that provided the data provided his credentials which is relevant. You did not.

You are an anonymous whiny ***** on the internet that has no data to back up his claim. So yes fantasypoints is a better source because they took the time and effort to do the work to collate the data. If you weren't such a whiny ***** and actually stopped being lazy you could google and find other articles that further support the data fantasypoints collected.

So why should anyone take anything you say seriously? You go from whining about one thing to another and never provide anything outside of your own ego driven unsubstantiated opinion to support anything you say. And then when provided data you respond not by evaluating the data but trying to launch an ad hominem attack on the website that compiled the data which is a further indication of your intellectually dishonesty.

I agree that he could get injured anywhere. I just don't agree that running is safer. It seems like something fans WANT to believe when their QB runs a lot.

There's a lot of rules protecting QBs in the pocket. Outside of creaming a QB who's sliding...he can be tackled just like an RB, right? I don't know....it doesn't seem wise to keep running him so much.

This is why you are intellectually dishonest. It has **** all to do with what fans want to believe. That is what the data says. You are projecting because you are too lazy to find any data to support your argument but you have convinced yourself you are right and so dismissive of anything that goes against your preconceived narrative.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

Do you think he had a bad game? Between the dime touchdown pass to Mooney, downfield passes to Kmet, and rushing for yet another touchdown.

It tears you apart so badly that Fields has 20 touchdowns and a 2 to 1 touchdown to turnover ratio. It tears you up so bad, that you completely ignore the fact that the Bears lead the league in scoring over the last month and a half and you blatantly ignore it.

Anything to fuel your biased narrative.

Beta cuck loser.

I think he's actually at 2.5 to 1 ratio, pretty good with a 40% pressure rate and being sacked 40 times.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

@run and shoot said:

Question......the OL can't consistently pass pro and the wr's have trouble with separation. Is it a lie?

How do you think Poles addresses this in the offseason?

Hopefully with lots of OL and WR help both in free agency and draft.

 

[remydat]

The Myth That Mobile Quarterbacks Are More Injury-Prone Than Pocket Passers

This year’s Super Bowl matchup shows you don’t need a particular type of quarterback to win in the NFL. The Ravens’ Joe Flacco has 38 rushing yards...

slate.com

New Study: Quarterbacks That Run Most Are Not Injured Most | FilmstudyBaltimore

2 more studies that arrive at the same conclusion. Some fans that like to whine simply want to believe what they want to believe despite evidence to the contrary.

The play calls at the end of the game were dumb because Fields already appeared gassed and banged up. Not because he was at some significantly higher risk of injury running the ball.

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

@run and shoot said:
Question......the OL can't consistently pass pro and the wr's have trouble with separation. Is it a lie?

Hopefully with lots of OL and WR help both in free agency and draft.

Do you even know what the other verses of the Star Spangled Banner says?

 

[dabears70]

What is stupid is you not understanding that one uses percentages instead of the raw number to adjust for the fact one event may happen more than the other event. SMH! The percentage would be the number of injuries divided by the total number of scrambles, runs, sacks or knockdowns.

To tell the truth i don't even care about where any QB could get hurt easier whether it's from the pocket or running and don't even know how i got in that convo, all i was doing was saying how funny it is that after last weeks game everyone cried all week about how it's easier for a QB to get hurt in the pocket than running and now here we are with J.Fields hurt from running the football. I don't care about any other QB and how they got hurt or where they got hurt, i care that Fields is now hurt and it came while running the football.

 

[remydat]

To tell the truth i don't even care about where any QB could get hurt easier whether it's from the pocket or running and don't even know how i got in that convo, all i was doing was saying how funny it is that after last weeks game everyone cried all week about how it's easier for a QB to get hurt in the pocket than running and now here we are with J.Fields hurt from running the football. I don't care about any other QB and how they got hurt or where they got hurt, i care that Fields is now hurt and it came while running the football.

Right so you are confirming you are looking at things idiotically and ignoring any data that contradicts what you wish to believe.

 

[dabears70]

Right so you are confirming you are looking at things idiotically and ignoring any data that contradicts what you wish to believe.

I'm confirming that i don't give a damn how any QB gets hurt and where it happens the most and never even got in that discussion. I care about what's going on and what happened to Fields.

 

[fenderpfunk]

The point is he got hurt passing. It is easier to protect yourself as a runner vs taking a hit when you are throwing the ball. This should be obvious because QBs generally take hits passing while they are trying to execute a pass leaving their bodies exposed.

It would be interesting to see if there is any data regarding injuries with respect to mobile vs pocket passers. Not a perfect recreation but sacks and knockdowns actually have a higher injury risk than designed runs or scrambles. Note the author is a Dr.

Mobile Quarterbacks and Injury Rates | Fantasy Points

Is the increased likelihood of injury to mobile QBs just as much of a myth as injury-prone? Dr. Edwin Porras examines.

www.fantasypoints.com

To summarize, passing that doesn’t end in a scramble or a spike has a 0.28% injury rate, designed runs 0.64%, scrambles 0.87%, sacks 1.4%, and knockdowns are 1.56%. Which is why injury rates for in pocket vs. out of the pocket as a descriptor can be deceiving.

This is good statistical reference. But, I do think there is some nuance to be accounted for and would like your feedback. It is apparent that sacks and knockdowns account for the highest injury rate while dropbacks that do not result in a scramble is the least dangerous.

My issue with using these rates to project the likelihood of longevity sans injury with a player like JF1 is if we take quantity into the equations with sacks vs. designed runs/scrambles.

JF1 getting sacked 4 times in a game with a 1.4% injury rate would result in a 0.056 rate of incidence - versus 18 rushes with a 0.64% injury rate is a 0.1152 rate of incidence. I admittedly am not a statistics guy whatsoever but I do believe the quantitative rate of sacks and rushes have to be taken into account when discussing likelihood of injury between these different plays.

At the end of the day - it is abundantly clear that dropping back without scrambling is the least dangerous to the modern QB and it will be important to increase the percentage of that happening for JF1 to ensure his development.

 

[cameronkrazie86]

Right so you are confirming you are looking at things idiotically and ignoring any data that contradicts what you wish to believe.

Just remember, you're arguing with the niece molester who still claims everyone who disagrees with him is an alt of "fattytime". Statistics and logic do not matter to him. The only that matters to @dabears70 is molesting his niece and wanting to "bang" fictional images of NFL QBs as women.

 

[remydat]

I'm confirming that i don't give a damn how any QB gets hurt and where it happens the most and never even got in that discussion. I care about what's going on and what happened to Fields.

Right so you are confirming you butted in on a convo that was beyond your understanding and then when data disproved your preconceived notions, you suddenly no longer care.

 

[remydat]

This is good statistical reference. But, I do think there is some nuance to be accounted for and would like your feedback. It is apparent that sacks and knockdowns account for the highest injury rate while dropbacks that do not result in a scramble is the least dangerous.

My issue with using these rates to project the likelihood of longevity sans injury with a player like JF1 is if we take quantity into the equations with sacks vs. designed runs/scrambles.

JF1 getting sacked 4 times in a game with a 1.4% injury rate would result in a 0.056 rate of incidence - versus 18 rushes with a 0.64% injury rate is a 0.1152 rate of incidence. I admittedly am not a statistics guy whatsoever but I do believe the quantitative rate of sacks and rushes have to be taken into account when discussing likelihood of injury between these different plays.

At the end of the day - it is abundantly clear that dropping back without scrambling is the least dangerous to the modern QB and it will be important to increase the percentage of that happening for JF1 to ensure his development.

Yes I thank you for engaging intelligently with the data instead of pulling a @Black Rainbow or @dabears70 .

To address your question, I think we need to make a distinction between likelihood which measures the percentage of an event happening relative to the total number of occurrences of that event versus frequency. If a QB runs more than he is sacked or hit then running more may result in him being injured more even if the likelihood of injury is less percentage wise. Let's use Fields actual numbers

PFF has him with 66 designed runs which at 0.64% would be 0.4224. He then has 56 scrambles which at 0.87% would be 0.4872. 40 sacks at 1.46% would be 0.56 and 24 QB hits at 1.56% is 0.3744. Put it all together and you would expect him to get injured 0.9096 times combined running or 0.9344 times given how much he is sacked and hit. So the frequency is pretty close despite the fact that the likelihood is much higher percentage wise when it comes to sacks and knockdowns.

 

[TezMaKai]

I think he's actually at 2.5 to 1 ratio, pretty good with a 40% pressure rate and being sacked 40 times.

The pocket seems like such a safe place for QB1.

cc @Black Rainbow

 

[DaaBears]

It's the NFL. Everybody especially QB's get injured except Eli Manning.

 

[HeHateMe]

It's the NFL. Everybody especially QB's get injured except Eli Manning.

Fields is much safer not playing football.

 

[Bust]

The pocket seems like such a safe place for QB1.

cc @Black Rainbow

what if Trevor Siemian starts and the Bears beat both the jets and packers? just askin, no troll

 

[MDB111™]

Did anyone even take into consideration the type of Bermuda grass it was?

 

[fenderpfunk]

Yes I thank you for engaging intelligently with the data instead of pulling a @Black Rainbow or @dabears70 .

To address your question, I think we need to make a distinction between likelihood which measures the percentage of an event happening relative to the total number of occurrences of that event versus frequency. If a QB runs more than he is sacked or hit then running more may result in him being injured more even if the likelihood of injury is less percentage wise. Let's use Fields actual numbers

PFF has him with 66 designed runs which at 0.64% would be 0.4224. He then has 56 scrambles which at 0.87% would be 0.4872. 40 sacks at 1.46% would be 0.56 and 24 QB hits at 1.56% is 0.3744. Put it all together and you would expect him to get injured 0.9096 times combined running or 0.9344 times given how much he is sacked and hit. So the frequency is pretty close despite the fact that the likelihood is much higher percentage wise when it comes to sacks and knockdowns.

Nice, thank you for the follow up. That bolded was the depth I was looking for with those stated metrics.