Former Bears Coach Says Fields was "Really hard to Watch"

90sBullsFan

Member
Joined:
May 6, 2021
Posts:
86
Liked Posts:
80
Location:
Twin Cities, MN
My favorite teams
  1. Kansas City Royals
  1. Minnesota Timberwolves
  1. Kansas City Chiefs
  1. Minnesota Wild
  1. Northern Iowa Panthers
RULE #1: While it is named after a specific franchise, this forum does serve as a general NFL forum as well. All content about professional football is welcome in this forum, so long as it does not veer the discussion too far away from the direct effects it has on the NFL. In fact, this is the only content that will be allowed. No thread in this forum should be started about anything not directly related to the NFL. There are a wide variety of other forums on this very site that is the proper place for literally anything else. Please use them. Threads can and will be moved/closed/nuked at the discretion of the staff for OT content at any time.
The reason I ask is because I originally posted a story about this same topic prior to this one (linked a yahoo article), and was told by several posters that "he doesn't play for us anymore", etc., and the mods agreed and moved it to another forum.

Here's an exact quote that was in the Yahoo! article (again, posted prior to yours) that was also quoted in yours:
“When you watch him, watch his eyes,” says one of Fields’ former coaches. “He tries to see the whole thing and doesn’t see anything. His eyes are all over the place and it’s just really hard to watch. It’s just bad football.”

So my question stands - why does a previously posted article with this information in it get moved as "not relevant", while your article, posted later stands, using an exact quote from the first article?
 

Myk

85in25
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
11,475
Liked Posts:
4,353
Yes it would have because the class next year is underwhelming at best.

Funny how that works. If you want someone this year the next year's draft class is horrible. If you don't want anyone this year next year's draft class is much better than this year's.

Every year has a hyped QB whether that QB is Trubisky or Williams. Your prediction there is as much BS and the fact that you think it's anything more than a prediction is insanity.
 

bamainatlanta

You wake him up, you keep him up
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Posts:
34,961
Liked Posts:
29,129
Location:
Cumming
The reason I ask is because I originally posted a story about this same topic prior to this one (linked a yahoo article), and was told by several posters that "he doesn't play for us anymore", etc., and the mods agreed and moved it to another forum.

Here's an exact quote that was in the Yahoo! article (again, posted prior to yours) that was also quoted in yours:
“When you watch him, watch his eyes,” says one of Fields’ former coaches. “He tries to see the whole thing and doesn’t see anything. His eyes are all over the place and it’s just really hard to watch. It’s just bad football.”

So my question stands - why does a previously posted article with this information in it get moved as "not relevant", while your article, posted later stands, using an exact quote from the first article?
Because Sigler’s article is more important. Next time they will just be merged. Thanks.
 

90sBullsFan

Member
Joined:
May 6, 2021
Posts:
86
Liked Posts:
80
Location:
Twin Cities, MN
My favorite teams
  1. Kansas City Royals
  1. Minnesota Timberwolves
  1. Kansas City Chiefs
  1. Minnesota Wild
  1. Northern Iowa Panthers
Because Sigler’s article is more important. Next time they will just be merged. Thanks.

I'm confused...which is it: the Yahoo! article is irrelevant to Bears football and should be moved to another forum, or it's only relevant if someone who writes for the site posts it? Not sure how something can be "more important" on a topic that was already judged to be "not important".
 

Myk

85in25
Joined:
Sep 27, 2010
Posts:
11,475
Liked Posts:
4,353
I'm confused...which is it: the Yahoo! article is irrelevant to Bears football and should be moved to another forum, or it's only relevant if someone who writes for the site posts it? Not sure how something can be "more important" on a topic that was already judged to be "not important".

How can you be confused?
1 is a blogger for the website that owns this forum. Who TF do you think gets favorable treatment, views for Yahoo or views for CCS?
It's really not that hard to grasp.
 

bamainatlanta

You wake him up, you keep him up
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Aug 10, 2013
Posts:
34,961
Liked Posts:
29,129
Location:
Cumming
How can you be confused?
1 is a blogger for the website that owns this forum. Who TF do you think gets favorable treatment, views for Yahoo or views for CCS?
It's really not that hard to grasp.
His thread was merged with Sigler’s thread, hopefully his heart can now heal.
 

run and shoot

Well-known member
Joined:
Apr 28, 2013
Posts:
16,127
Liked Posts:
2,868
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Illinois Fighting Illini
Tyler Dunne of Go Long seems like he's on a JF smear campaign to make himself relevant.
From a journalistic standpoint he has no specific sources. Just conjecture.

Dunne quoted two unnamed former coaches of Fields in his article about where the Bears went wrong with Fields and Mitch Trubisky. . One coach compared him to a beheaded bird:





I've dug into Dunne and he has a history of being well-sourced and even many direct discussions with the players themselves. Plenty of names vouch for him, so I don't think he's making anything up or trying to mislead.

As for his stuff on Fields, I don't see it as a smear campaign. His articles are actually on Caleb and Fields is in there as part of the complete story. But... people have taken those snips out of the article in order to generate clicks. Ultimately, he's just repeating what he was told. If someone has the agenda, it's probably the sources.


When I see "two unnamed former coaches " or unnamed sources ......I look at the writer side eyed.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,987
Liked Posts:
21,720
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
When I see "two unnamed former coaches " or unnamed sources ......I look at the writer side eyed.
You don't make yourself 'relevant' by casting for smaller fish.
 

DefNextYear

Well-known member
Joined:
Jan 21, 2024
Posts:
982
Liked Posts:
736
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
When I see "two unnamed former coaches " or unnamed sources ......I look at the writer side eyed.
That’s fair, but Josh Lucas had said some of this previously. It’s not like this is completely new information. Regarding the possibility that not everyone likes Fields, that’s not hard to believe either. I think it’s hard for any one person to be universally liked. Not exactly groundbreaking information either. What if I said not everyone in the Bulls locker room liked Michael Jordan? Who cares, right? Regarding his reading, we don’t know what season the quote refers to, but many have publicly criticized his throwing ability (processing/vision), so this isn’t even remotely shocking either.

As far as anonymity, it’s not does the source no good to give their name. Why would they ever allow that? It would only result in negative outcomes.

If this Fields stuff came out months ago, maybe it would be relevant. But now? It’s pretty worthless and just ammo for “I told you so”’s among Bears fans.
 
Last edited:

BornAnAngryBearsFan

TF you lookin' at?!?!
Joined:
Dec 26, 2013
Posts:
1,787
Liked Posts:
1,373
Location:
Pearl City, Hawaii
Are people still doing this?!? Let it go, the guy is fucking gone. This weird need, for forum validation, is fucking pathetic.
 

Mighty Joe Young

Living in Troll's Heads Rent-Free for Decades
Joined:
Feb 8, 2021
Posts:
10,027
Liked Posts:
5,278
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
I'd be curious if this was a comment from the Nagy or Flus staff... seems the writer's source is from Pace's/Nagy's time. I'd prefer that these leaks aren't coming from people still hanging around HH. To the actual things said, ultimately, it doesn't even matter. We all saw this and knew it was a problem.
It likely isn't.
 

SlickWilly

Team Ignore Member #2
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
4,044
Location:
Dakotaland
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. Detroit Pistons
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels
Seeing as how 6 qbs were drafted in the top 12 picks; and no NFL teams were willing to trade for/offer RB1 a starting spot......I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest with 99.99% confidence that Poles would have replaced him no matter what.
Well you're a fucking r*tard so that means there's a 100% chance Fields would still be here.
 

Bearly

Dissed membered
Donator
Joined:
Aug 17, 2011
Posts:
41,987
Liked Posts:
21,720
Location:
Palatine, IL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
Poles was definitely drafting a QB.

I think if he missed out on his top three, he may have kept Fields, declined the 5th year and called it a "competition".

Getting his pick of the litter made it easy for him.
Part of last years trade was having the ammunition to move up in a what was considered a VG QB class if Fields didn't advance. He had 4 1st round picks at his disposal and would have used what was required.
 

SlickWilly

Team Ignore Member #2
Donator
Joined:
Apr 26, 2013
Posts:
5,190
Liked Posts:
4,044
Location:
Dakotaland
My favorite teams
  1. New York Mets
  1. Detroit Pistons
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. North Carolina Tar Heels
Another great response by a nuthugging dipshit
Typical response from a dipshit like you cause you're not smart enough to come up with anything else.
 

Top