Kurt Warner's Take on Justin Fields

[Canth]

I saw this article come up today. I know we haven't talked much about the entire Fields vs Williams deal lately, so I thought I would share.

In all seriousness though, I think Warner's take here reflects my own in that Fields has talent but hasn't shown enough to pass on QB with the #1 pick. If the Bears had any other pick, I think it's an entirely different conversation.

Kurt Warner delivers powerful case for Bears to move on from Justin Fields

The Bears face a franchise-altering decision at quarterback. It’s a decision that everyone has an opinion on. But Hall of Famer Kurt Warner believes that after three seasons, the Bears have seen enough to know they haven’t seen enough from Justin Fields.

www.nbcsportschicago.com

 

[pdxbearsfan]

I saw this article come up today. I know we haven't talked much about the entire Fields vs Williams deal lately, so I thought I would share.

In all seriousness though, I think Warner's take here reflects my own in that Fields has talent but hasn't shown enough to pass on QB with the #1 pick. If the Bears had any other pick, I think it's an entirely different conversation.

Kurt Warner delivers powerful case for Bears to move on from Justin Fields

The Bears face a franchise-altering decision at quarterback. It’s a decision that everyone has an opinion on. But Hall of Famer Kurt Warner believes that after three seasons, the Bears have seen enough to know they haven’t seen enough from Justin Fields.

www.nbcsportschicago.com

I have seen some Warner takes on Fields that are just the opposite, guess he needs to cover all sides like all the other talking heads.

 

[Canth]

And mods, feel free to move this to one of the other threads - I just didn't feel like trying to figure out which one was the most active to not have the article completely, instantly buried.

 

[Canth]

I have seen some Warner takes on Fields that are just the opposite, guess he needs to cover all sides like all the other talking heads.

I will preface by saying, I won't pretend that I have seen all of Warner's takes. However, I do think that Warner has highlighted multiple times his concern with Fields not being consistent in his play and timing within a play.

 

[mattb78]

I think that's a great take from Kurt. After 3 years you can't pay on potential.

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

One of the things I have learned in watching how former players out there break down QBs, is at times, there seems to be with some of them a "can't see the forest for the trees".

Meaning, it appears at times they get so locked into looking at the position of QB, they actually seem to forget there is a whole offense around the QB, and don't really stop and take into account if the play, the scheme, the offensive system as a whole are actually sound.

I mean, it took Chase Daniel, one of Field's biggest supporters, until the very last game of the year to figure out Luke Getsy's offense didn't have any quick developing WR routes, which could contribute to Fields holding onto the ball too long - because he was waitng for all the longer routes to develop.

And if it took him 17 games for the lightbulb to go on in that regard, how can I also not think other former QBs might be so hyperfocused on the position itself, that they fail to view it within the greater context of the offense?

 

[ThatGuyRyan]

I have seen some Warner takes on Fields that are just the opposite, guess he needs to cover all sides like all the other talking heads.

He’s always said he needs to see more consistent play

 

[DefNextYear]

I think that's a great take from Kurt. After 3 years you can't pay on potential.

While I agree, the argument probably is that you don't have to pay him for 2 more years.

 

[DefNextYear]

I have seen some Warner takes on Fields that are just the opposite, guess he needs to cover all sides like all the other talking heads.

He'll be fair in breakdowns of games/film, and non-committal on exactly what to do with the No. 1 pick, but I think he's been consistently not sold on Fields. He will usually fall short of saying "you need to do this", but ultimately says something like the OP's article where he says you have to decide if he's the guy and go from there. But he's emphasized multiple times that he fundamentally believes you have to win from the pocket in the NFL and make the easy plays, in addition to the special stuff... semi-implying where he's currently standing with Fields. I'm sure I haven't heard everything and maybe he's tossed a bone Fields way here and there, but I think he's clearly someone who is not convinced Fields is the guy.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

I think that's a great take from Kurt. After 3 years you can't pay on potential.

They don’t have to pay for two more years. This part of the argument I don’t get. That giant number everyone talks about is two seasons away.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

He'll be fair in breakdowns of games/film, and non-committal on exactly what to do with the No. 1 pick, but I think he's been consistently not sold on Fields. He will usually fall short of saying "you need to do this", but ultimately says something like the OP's article where he says you have to decide if he's the guy and go from there. But he's emphasized multiple times that he fundamentally believes you have to win from the pocket in the NFL and make the easy plays, in addition to the special stuff... semi-implying where he's currently standing with Fields. I'm sure I haven't heard everything and maybe he's tossed a bone Fields way here and there, but I think he's clearly someone who is not convinced Fields is the guy.

Also, Fields and Warner couldn’t be more different as QBs. I’m not in the least bit surprised he isn’t a fan.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

They don’t have to pay for two more years. This part of the argument I don’t get. That giant number everyone talks about is two seasons away.

Well they don't have the #1 pick in 2 years, they have it now

You can draft Caleb and keep Justin but all you would be doing is delaying the inevitable.

 

[Spitta Andretti]

He’s always said he needs to see more consistent play

So did Ryan Poles. He specifically said consistency from the QB position. Its fair to say he did not see that

 

[Canth]

One of the things I have learned in watching how former players out there break down QBs, is at times, there seems to be with some of them a "can't see the forest for the trees".

Meaning, it appears at times they get so locked into looking at the position of QB, they actually seem to forget there is a whole offense around the QB, and don't really stop and take into account if the play, the scheme, the offensive system as a whole are actually sound.

I mean, it took Chase Daniel, one of Field's biggest supporters, until the very last game of the year to figure out Luke Getsy's offense didn't have any quick developing WR routes, which could contribute to Fields holding onto the ball too long - because he was waitng for all the longer routes to develop.

And if it took him 17 games for the lightbulb to go on in that regard, how can I also not think other former QBs might be so hyperfocused on the position itself, that they fail to view it within the greater context of the offense?

I should know better than to reply, but are you seriously trying to compare Chase Daniel to Kurt Warner? Seriously?

Kurt Warner is in the NFL Hall of Fame. He went to 3 Superbowls, 2-time league MVP, Superbowl MVP, multiple All Pro, Pro Bowl and led the league in passing at times during this career. He is also paid to do real film analysis for the networks since he retired from playing and has his QB Confidential stuff he does with detailed analysis. The guy was one of the greatest players to ever play and he has stayed current with the game.

Chase Daniel isn't even a candle to any of that and imo, he is going to be a bit biased as he was teammates with Fields as well.

Below are some more things from Warner:

This one does a good job of explaining how the play was too slow developing leading to a sack - so, looks beyond the qb.

Found this one after the Browns game with a long discussion from Warner as well:

Another interview with the score where I think Warner is showing the same message and is a good listen:

 

[PrideisBears]

They don’t have to pay for two more years. This part of the argument I don’t get. That giant number everyone talks about is two seasons away.

Ok why are you being reasonable lately? You get a promotion?

 

[Canth]

I will add one more - this was the discussion after the Bears beat the Lions.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Well they don't have the #1 pick in 2 years, they have it now

You can draft Caleb and keep Justin but all you would be doing is delaying the inevitable.

Yes, the number 1 pick is the only reason we’re talking about this. Fields is unquestionably the starter going into next year if they didn’t have that pick. But they don’t have to decide to pay him now. The “oh you’re going to have to pay him xx million” argument is irrelevant.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Ok why are you being reasonable lately? You get a promotion?

New meds.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

They don’t have to pay for two more years. This part of the argument I don’t get. That giant number everyone talks about is two seasons away.

While this is technically true, it's kinda also true what he is saying and here is why...

Let's say you stay with Fields. You can do one of two things now. You can pick up his 5th year option or you can decline it.

1. Pick up 5th year option: That means his contract will be 1.6 million in 2024 and then 25 million in 2025. If they do this and he doesn't improve this year under a new OC, that money is sunk. If he does play well, they will have to extend him to the range Warner is talking about. And I don't mean "play well" like break out into a star. I mean play Goff or Mayfield level where the market is in this range.

2. Decline 5th year option. His contract is 1.6 million in 2024. If he plays well, see my comment above. And now he is a unrestricted FA where you could lose him for nothing and start over. If he does not play well, you start over free of charge. But the opportunity of drafting one of the best prospects in the last 30 years is gone.

So his point is that if the goal of sticking with Fields is him continued improvement, then you do have to pay him that money or you start over anyway. Get it?

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Yes, the number 1 pick is the only reason we’re talking about this. Fields is unquestionably the starter going into next year if they didn’t have that pick. But they don’t have to decide to pay him now. The “oh you’re going to have to pay him xx million” argument is irrelevant.

I dunno about that either. Well it would be more likely they stick with Fields... if they were in striking distance of Maye or Daniels, I could see them liking them more as well.

Everyone else IMO would be a slam dunk Fields starts. While they may draft a Nix, Penix, McCarthy, Rattler, Sanders, etc... they would likely not be a starter in year 1. Ofcourse getting a 1st for Justin might even change that.