Bears Backer 54
Well-known member
- Joined:
- Nov 5, 2012
- Posts:
- 973
- Liked Posts:
- 824
I'm not going to hold a lot of the blame on the ESB comeback route on Fields. We've been asking him to throw with anticipation prior to the WR breaking on the route and ESB's break was poor and had two additional moves which gave JA time to jump it but the ball was already gone because Fields trying to throw it in anticipation. If anything, ESB's poor route is going to make Fields more gun shy to throw with anticipation again here. In the 4th quarter, it feels like this is when having a sure handed, true #1 WR is such a disadvantage as there is no one to go to when you need to move the sticks or get that strike when trying to preserve a W or make a comeback.
I will say that the final pick was not a great placement or decision but when I looked at the all 22 there, there wasn't anything else remotely open. His option was to pull it down and run it which just burned more clock when needing two scores or throw it away. Given that at that point they needed a TD and a successful onside recovery plus a FG, I saw the time on the clock and actually wondered if Getsy/Flus told them to go for the big strike because with 2 timeouts left and about 50 seconds left, if they could still score a TD with about 50 seconds left, even if they didn't get the onside kick they could stop the clock twice and have a little under 10 seconds to try and get in FG range if the D made a stop. Given the low percentage of onside kick wins, the decision to take a higher risk throw then was supported by the coaching staff. All that said, it was put right on the sideline but there was tons of coverage there so it was doomed from the start.
My biggest critique on Fields recently has been he is still looking for big strike plays a lot and the Harry and ESB long bombs were great payoffs for it. He also needs to balance some with taking the outlets and underneath stuff that the D gives up periodically. I'm not sure how to correctly balance it out as you don't want him to become purely a check down passer but a good portion of it comes from knowing the situation and knowing when moving the ball and sustaining a drive is better than continuing to hope for a WR to break free deep.
I will say that the final pick was not a great placement or decision but when I looked at the all 22 there, there wasn't anything else remotely open. His option was to pull it down and run it which just burned more clock when needing two scores or throw it away. Given that at that point they needed a TD and a successful onside recovery plus a FG, I saw the time on the clock and actually wondered if Getsy/Flus told them to go for the big strike because with 2 timeouts left and about 50 seconds left, if they could still score a TD with about 50 seconds left, even if they didn't get the onside kick they could stop the clock twice and have a little under 10 seconds to try and get in FG range if the D made a stop. Given the low percentage of onside kick wins, the decision to take a higher risk throw then was supported by the coaching staff. All that said, it was put right on the sideline but there was tons of coverage there so it was doomed from the start.
My biggest critique on Fields recently has been he is still looking for big strike plays a lot and the Harry and ESB long bombs were great payoffs for it. He also needs to balance some with taking the outlets and underneath stuff that the D gives up periodically. I'm not sure how to correctly balance it out as you don't want him to become purely a check down passer but a good portion of it comes from knowing the situation and knowing when moving the ball and sustaining a drive is better than continuing to hope for a WR to break free deep.