QB School Breakdown

[Bearly]

Obviously.

But if you can’t see the difference between playing Tampa vs GB then I can’t help you.

Don't change the parameters on me. I'm just saying it's no excuse. If you think it is, as presented, I can't help you.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Don't change the parameters on me. I'm just saying it's no excuse. If you think it is, as presented, I can't help you.

It's not an excuse..... but it sure as hell doesn't help. Players aren't robots. This is a young team. And the fan/media build up to that game in no way helps.

 

[Dejo]

Fuck… at least Nagy let him be you ?

https://x.com/butkusstats/status/1701954546069602693?s=46&t=u44or9LBZLLks5bLWHC1yA

I am down bad man… this just sucks

 

[nvanprooyen]

My new favorite thing is grabbing transcripts of YT videos (for a wide variety of topics, football being one) and ask ChatGPT to summarize for me in bullet points with timestamps. Sometimes I'll go back and actually watch if it seems interesting enough. Saves me so much time.

Here you guys go in case you're interested. Normally these aren't that long, but JT had a lot to say!

10 Key Bullets:

1. Justin Fields' Performance: Fields showcased some moments of brilliance but often displayed a lack of urgency, especially in his drops and decision-making.
2. Offensive Line Concerns: The Bears' offensive line faced significant scrutiny, particularly the left tackle and right guard, for their lackluster blocking and protection of Fields.
3. Receivers' Execution: Many plays suffered due to lack of effort, route miscommunications, or overlapping routes by the receivers.
4. Play Design Critiques: O'Sullivan frequently criticized the play designs for their lack of creativity, predictability, and poor execution.
5. Fields' Decision Making: Fields often missed open receivers, opting for safer checkdowns or holding onto the ball for too long.
6. Pass Protection Breakdowns: Fields faced regular pressure, making it challenging to execute plays. However, O'Sullivan emphasized that Fields needs to adjust and release the ball quickly.
7. Lack of Utilizing Fields' Athleticism: Despite Fields' athletic prowess, the Bears seemed reluctant to use designed runs or more dynamic plays tailored to his strengths.
8. Positive Plays: While critical, O'Sullivan did praise certain plays for their design, like the touchdown play with a burst post and wheel route combination.
9. Coaching Critiques: Throughout the analysis, O'Sullivan hinted at potential coaching issues, from play-calling decisions to player execution, suggesting that coaching changes might be necessary.
10. Fields' Resilience: Despite the challenges, Fields showcased resilience, especially in plays where he faced significant pressure or had to improvise due to breakdowns.

Full Transcript Analysis w/ Timestamps:


Justin Fields' Week 1 Analysis: A Rocky Start Against Green Bay

In a recent episode of the QB School, J.T. O'Sullivan delved deep into Justin Fields' performance during the Chicago Bears' Week 1 showdown against the Green Bay Packers in 2023. O'Sullivan's analysis revealed mixed feelings about Fields' utilization and the team's overall strategy.

Key Takeaways:

(00:00) Introduction to the QB School episode, highlighting Fields' performance against Green Bay. O'Sullivan also promotes the QB School Patreon Community.

(00:45) O'Sullivan expresses disappointment with the Bears' decision on the first third-down play of the game. Instead of utilizing Fields' known running ability, the team opted for a trick play with their tight end. The analysis suggests that the Bears missed an opportunity for an easy first down by not capitalizing on Fields' strengths.

(01:22) Drawing parallels to other teams, O'Sullivan points out that there are better ways to execute a sneak. He stresses that Fields, with his running prowess, should have been the go-to player in such crucial situations.

(01:51) Criticism intensifies as O'Sullivan laments the play design. He suggests that if the Bears were set on a trick play, they could have used Fields as a lead blocker, making the play more innovative and effective.

(02:23) O'Sullivan continues to express his disbelief about the Bears' play-calling choices. He emphasizes that Fields should be utilized more effectively, especially on third downs.

(02:58) Analyzing a fourth-and-one situation, O'Sullivan emphasizes the defensive setup. He criticizes the team for not learning from the Eagles' play the previous year and suggests better play options for such situations, especially involving Fields.

(03:23) O'Sullivan elaborates on the need for better positioning, using Tom Brady as an example of how quarterbacks should stagger their feet for momentum. He points out the lack of assistance for Fields from his teammates, especially when trying to go over the defensive line.

(03:53) Disappointment continues as the Bears fail two short-yardage attempts. The analysis highlights the team's lack of design and execution, considering they have one of the most dynamic running quarterbacks in Fields.

(04:27) Transitioning from the criticisms, O'Sullivan praises Fields for a nice completion to the corner. However, questions arise about the pass protection strategy. He commends Fields for his ability to extend plays and make successful throws downfield.

(04:55) O'Sullivan delves deeper into the pass protection design, expressing confusion about certain player movements. He speculates about the intended play direction and the purpose of the tight end's movement.

(05:34) O'Sullivan discusses the Bears' use of the tight end and the decision to pull the tackle. He suggests that keeping the formation three-by-one and pulling the guard would make more sense for a traditional boot or waggle play. He also entertains the possibility that Fields might be improvising.

(06:05) Doubts about the design persist, especially concerning pulling the left tackle. O'Sullivan expresses confusion over the play's intent, emphasizing that such a strategy seems ill-suited for the NFL. Despite the play's success in this instance, he notes its rarity in football.

(06:35) The next play under scrutiny is described as a missed opportunity. Fields apparently turned down a clear passing option, which O'Sullivan identifies as a 'quarter's beater.' He emphasizes the importance of recognizing and exploiting these openings in the defense.

(07:05) O'Sullivan continues to stress that Fields should have thrown the ball to the open receiver. The play design with motion effectively cleared the coverage, creating a wide-open opportunity. He argues that even a late throw would have been successful.

(07:35) Frustration mounts as O'Sullivan cannot comprehend Fields' decision to check down so quickly. He suggests that Fields might have misread the cornerback's intentions but maintains that this isn't a valid excuse for not taking the shot.

(08:10) O'Sullivan observes a perceived lack of urgency in Fields' gameplay, particularly in his drops. Despite acknowledging imperfect snaps, he believes Fields should exhibit more speed and intent in his movements.

(08:50) The next play showcases a missed double move opportunity. O'Sullivan suggests that Fields overlooked potential reads, particularly the deep hook. While he acknowledges the pressure Fields faced, he believes the quarterback should still execute the correct read.

(09:27) The play design, which features a shallow cross, receives mixed reviews. O'Sullivan opines that there are better options than a shallow cross, but he doesn't completely dismiss the choice. The primary criticism remains that Fields overlooked open receivers.

(10:00) Diving deeper into the play design, O'Sullivan notes the pairing with a double move. The intent might have been to exploit a one-on-one matchup, but the choice of receiver for the double move is questioned. O'Sullivan stresses the need to quickly move off the double move and target the open receivers.

(10:34) A recurring theme, O'Sullivan again emphasizes the need for more urgency in Fields' drops. He describes them as "too chill" and suggests that Fields needs to balance relaxation with a sense of purpose on the field.

(11:08) The video focuses on a swing screen to the left. O'Sullivan criticizes both the blocking and Fields' approach to the play. The poor execution of the screen is evident, with particular attention on the lackluster blocking from the wide receiver.

(11:44) O'Sullivan dissects the play in detail, pointing out the potential for a slant pass. He suggests that the team might be better served by waiting a beat to observe the defense's reaction to the motion before snapping the ball. This delay would provide better clarity on whether the slant or the screen is the better option.

(12:15) Emphasizing the need for clarity, O'Sullivan discusses the quarterback's viewpoint. If the ball is snapped too quickly during the motion, it becomes difficult for the QB to determine the defense's alignment or intention. This can lead to suboptimal decision-making.

(12:45) More critiques arise regarding the running back's path and Fields' hesitation. O'Sullivan believes that Fields should catch and throw without hesitation, especially on a play like a swing screen. The running back's backward movement is also questioned.

(13:06) The analysis emphasizes the importance of details and nuances in the offense. Sloppy execution and lack of urgency in the throws are highlighted. O'Sullivan also comments on Fields' tendency to find the laces, which could slow down his release and result in batted passes.

(13:40) O'Sullivan discusses a missed opportunity for a drift post. He understands the challenges Fields faces, especially with the offensive line's protection, but stresses the need for Fields to trust the structure of the play and deliver the ball.

(14:14) The play design is commended for effectively drawing in second-level defenders, creating a clear opening. O'Sullivan emphasizes that Fields must throw the ball, even when faced with imminent pressure. Quarterbacks will get hit, but delivering in these moments is crucial.

(14:45) The critique continues with O'Sullivan lamenting Fields' hesitation. He acknowledges that not every shortcoming is Fields' fault, but in situations where the pass opportunity is clear, Fields needs to release the ball.

(15:29) The next play showcases Fields' explosive athleticism, allowing him to secure a first down despite a corner blitz. O'Sullivan expresses frustration with multiple elements of the play, from pass protection to play design. He questions the decisions made at various positions, especially tight end.

(16:01) The corner blitz is further analyzed. O'Sullivan explains various potential adjustments, including 'sight adjust' and 'skip-off' techniques. These adjustments can help the quarterback recognize and react to the blitz, ensuring a more successful outcome.

(16:32) O'Sullivan delves into the intricacies of protection schemes, highlighting the various roles of the back, offensive line, and the "sniffer" player. He emphasizes the importance of understanding the protection plan, whether it involves chips, vertical threats, or other strategies.

(17:08) The tight end's positioning and responsibilities are explored. In a seven-person protection scheme, the tight end must be aware of his blocking assignments, especially if there's no designated chip. O'Sullivan points out that from certain positions, the tight end might not see who he's supposed to block, leading to breakdowns in protection.

(17:34) The challenges of a five-person protection are highlighted, especially when chips are on the edges. O'Sullivan stresses the need for clear assignments and communication to ensure the quarterback is protected. He expresses frustration with the Bears' execution, emphasizing that Justin Fields seems to be the only one consistently doing his job.

(18:06) Despite Fields' impressive elusiveness and ability to secure first downs, O'Sullivan is critical of the overall system. He believes that other players and the coaching staff need to step up to support Fields better.

(18:49) The analysis turns to a particularly baffling sack. O'Sullivan struggles to identify the intended play, noting inconsistencies between the offensive line's apparent pass protection and the actions of the rest of the offense. The confusion in the play design and execution is evident.

(19:20) O'Sullivan examines a play that he finds particularly perplexing. He struggles to discern the intended design, noting a lack of coordination among the players. The play's confusion seems to epitomize the team's offensive issues.

(19:57) The critique intensifies as the video showcases another play that O'Sullivan deems a "disaster." The confusion in the play's design and execution is evident, and O'Sullivan suggests that such missteps could lead to coaching changes.

(20:38) Transitioning to a third-and-eleven situation, O'Sullivan is critical of a play targeting the tight end. While he deems the play design subpar, he does commend Fields for showing anticipation in his throw, marking a rare positive in the analysis.

(21:12) The anticipation in Fields' throw is further highlighted, especially given the challenging third-and-eleven context. However, O'Sullivan questions the decision to target a specific player, emphasizing the lack of separation achieved.

(21:42) While praising Fields' anticipation, O'Sullivan laments the overall play design. He suggests alternative plays that might offer better chances of success in a third-and-long situation near the end zone.

(22:23) O'Sullivan scrutinizes another play that appears plagued by miscommunication and poor execution. The Right Guard's actions seem to disrupt the intended play, forcing Fields to improvise. This theme of Fields having to salvage plays due to teammates' mistakes is reiterated.

(22:56) Despite the previous critiques, O'Sullivan acknowledges a play design he appreciates. The play uses ghost motion combined with a split-flow action to set up a screen. The intent is clear, but the execution, particularly from the Right Guard, is questioned.

(23:33) Further analyzing the same play, O'Sullivan details the Right Guard's missteps, which lead to a cascade of issues for the offensive line. The defender's unblocked path and the resulting chaos exemplify the team's challenges.

(24:06) Despite the flawed execution, Fields manages to salvage the play, although it ultimately results in a penalty. O'Sullivan's frustration with recurring mistakes is evident, especially as they undermine the team's chances.

(25:13) The video spotlights another play that O'Sullivan finds baffling. He points out receivers running to the same area on the field, something he believes is not a standard football strategy. Either a design flaw or a player mistake is evident. The wasted space and overlap in routes are heavily criticized.

(26:07) Fields' gameplay is critiqued for appearing slow, especially in his drops. However, O'Sullivan recognizes the challenges posed by poor pass protection and route designs. Fields' ability to make plays even in adverse conditions is acknowledged.

(26:36) The Right Guard's struggles continue. Despite efforts to provide additional protection on the edges, the interior offensive line's weaknesses are exposed. Fields' ability to evade tacklers is showcased, though O'Sullivan notes the unnecessary hits he takes as a result.

(27:09) Emphasizing the importance of game management, O'Sullivan suggests that in certain situations, it's better to opt for a safer play rather than forcing a pass downfield. The goal should be to avoid big hits and negative plays, especially on long third downs.

(27:40) Delving into pass protection strategy, O'Sullivan emphasizes the importance of creating double teams wherever possible. By chipping and coordinating protection, offensive lines can better protect their quarterbacks. However, in the highlighted play, the one-on-one matchups are exploited, leading to pressure on Fields.

(28:23) The video highlights a lackluster effort from one of the wide receivers, which O'Sullivan finds unacceptable. Such effort, or lack thereof, could lead to coaching changes. He further analyzes what appears to be an attempted screen play combined with a quarterback draw.

(28:53) Despite the previous criticisms, O'Sullivan praises the design of the play, noting the use of spear screens on the perimeter combined with a QB draw. However, the execution is lacking, especially the blocking effort from the receivers.

(29:27) O'Sullivan expresses concern over the lack of designed runs for Fields in the first half. Given Fields' athletic prowess, the team's reluctance to utilize him as a runner seems like a missed opportunity.

(29:56) Analyzing a third-and-nine play, O'Sullivan suggests that Fields could have targeted the primary receiver on an in-route. He posits that Fields might be opting for safer check-downs rather than taking risks downfield.

 

[nvanprooyen]

Transcript Cont'd:


(30:29) O'Sullivan acknowledges a play design he appreciates, emphasizing the quick snap execution. Such tactics can throw off the defense and provide an advantage. Despite criticisms of the offensive scheme, O'Sullivan takes the time to highlight innovative or effective play designs.

(30:56) O'Sullivan examines a play where Fields potentially missed an open receiver on an in-route. While the receiver isn't wide open, O'Sullivan believes many quarterbacks in the league would attempt the throw with anticipation. He encourages Fields to release the ball sooner in such scenarios.

(31:28) The critique continues as Fields opts for a checkdown. O'Sullivan questions the decision, suggesting Fields should have targeted a player directly in front of him. The overall execution appears out of sync, with O'Sullivan emphasizing the need for more urgency in Fields' gameplay.

(32:00) The analysis transitions to discussing some technical aspects of Fields' drops and mechanics. O'Sullivan points out specific areas of improvement, emphasizing the need for quicker and more fluid movements.

(32:30) O'Sullivan takes a brief interlude to thank viewers and subscribers, promoting various offerings from the "Quarterback School" channel. He highlights the Patreon community, premium courses, and other resources available for those interested in deepening their understanding of the quarterback position.

(32:55) The promotional segment continues, with O'Sullivan further detailing the content available through the "Quarterback School" courses and resources.

(33:20) O'Sullivan critiques the offensive line's performance, particularly the left tackle. He points out a significant breakdown in blocking, emphasizing that Fields cannot play effectively with such protection errors. The inability of the left tackle to manage his gap leaves Fields vulnerable to immediate pressure.

(33:51) The analysis delves into typical blocking schemes during naked keepers, specifically the "elephants on parade" technique. In this technique, each lineman is responsible for a gap, ensuring no defensive penetration. O'Sullivan is baffled by the left tackle's decision to abandon his responsibility, leading to defensive penetration.

(34:23) Emphasizing the severity of the left tackle's mistake, O'Sullivan argues that such a lapse in execution undermines the entire offensive game plan. The fundamental expectation is for each lineman to manage their assigned gap, ensuring the quarterback has time to execute the play.

(34:55) Despite the blocking errors, Fields' decision-making is also scrutinized. O'Sullivan notes that Fields should be prepared for pressure from wider gaps but not from such immediate interior penetration. The play design also includes a fullback to help secure the edge, adding another layer of protection for Fields.

(35:25) Continuing to highlight the left tackle's performance, O'Sullivan expresses frustration with the player's lack of effort and understanding. The resulting pressure on Fields undermines the quarterback's ability to operate effectively.

(36:12) O'Sullivan critiques a play where Fields fumbles. While Fields is responsible for the ball security issue, O'Sullivan also points out that the play design might have contributed. He's been on record disliking schemes that effectively close half the field, as they reduce the quarterback's options.

(36:43) O'Sullivan dives deeper into the specifics of the play design. Despite an intriguing scheme, the play requires a long time to develop, which is problematic given the team's pass protection issues. The Bears' inability to consistently protect Fields limits the viability of such plays.

(37:13) Highlighting Fields' decision-making, O'Sullivan emphasizes the need for Fields to check down when the primary read isn't available. On this play, the short option was open, but Fields failed to release the ball in time.

(37:44) Further examining the play, O'Sullivan laments Fields' tendency to play "hero ball," where he tries to make plays on his own rather than sticking to the designed progression. This approach can lead to missed opportunities and increased risks.

(38:12) Transitioning to a more positive note, O'Sullivan praises a well-designed touchdown play. The play involves a slot receiver on a delayed inside fade paired with a burst post, creating a natural rub and opening up space. Fields' pass hits the mark, resulting in a touchdown.

(38:45) O'Sullivan praises another play for its design, noting the intricacies of the burst post and wheel route combination. The play's design creates a natural rub and clear out, leading to an open receiver and successful completion. He admires the play's execution but expresses frustration that such designs aren't utilized more consistently throughout the game.

(39:17) The burst post's effectiveness is further elaborated upon. The play's design creates a dual advantage by causing a rub and drawing away the cornerback, opening up space for the wheel route. O'Sullivan wishes to see more of these innovative designs, especially given their success.

(39:47) Transitioning to a critique, O'Sullivan analyzes a shallow route play that ends poorly. He suggests that the receiver should have adjusted his route, especially when running towards a cloud corner. Such decisions can protect the receiver and improve the play's success rate.

(40:21) Breaking down the specifics, O'Sullivan emphasizes the need for receivers to adjust their routes based on defensive positioning. If a cloud corner is present, the shallow route should settle instead of continuing to run. This adjustment allows the quarterback to deliver a safer pass.

(40:51) The speed and execution of the play are critiqued. O'Sullivan believes the play is too slow, causing spacing issues between the receivers. The delay from one of the receivers, combined with the shallow route's poor decision, leads to a suboptimal play.

(41:24) O'Sullivan critiques the spacing of the receivers on a particular play. The lack of burst from some of the players leads to poor distribution of the routes, making it challenging to find an open receiver. The play's execution is deemed subpar, and O'Sullivan laments the overall quality of football on display.

(42:05) The video showcases a brutal pick-six. On a third-and-eleven situation, Fields seems to force a pass without noticing a lurking linebacker, leading to an interception returned for a touchdown. O'Sullivan is critical of the decision and notes issues in the offensive line's blocking as well.

(42:37) Analyzing the interception, O'Sullivan believes Fields was attempting to target an in-route but failed to spot the linebacker in coverage. The play's design, which combines a deep out route and a post, is not ideal for the third-and-long context. While no great options present themselves, O'Sullivan stresses the importance of avoiding catastrophic mistakes.

(43:10) Given the dire situation, O'Sullivan suggests that Fields should have opted for a check-down. By doing so, the team could have punted and regrouped, potentially avoiding the turnover. The interception, which wasn't a result of a tipped ball or tight coverage, was particularly egregious as it was thrown directly to the defender.

(43:41) Following the interception, O'Sullivan examines the team's effort in attempting to prevent the touchdown. The reactions and pursuits of various players are scrutinized, providing insights into their competitive spirit. Notably, Fields gets up quickly after being thrown to the ground, showing resilience.

(44:11) O'Sullivan scrutinizes the effort of player number 85 during the pick-six play. While Fields and the running back show resilience and attempt to prevent the touchdown, number 85's effort is deemed lackluster. O'Sullivan emphasizes the importance of hustle and competitive spirit, especially in pivotal moments of the game.

(44:52) The analysis continues to dissect the lack of effort from player number 85, pointing out his high posture and nonchalant attitude during the play. In contrast, the running back's tenacity, despite missing an initial tackle, is praised. The stark difference in effort between the two players is highlighted.

(45:38) Transitioning to another play, O'Sullivan critiques Fields' decision-making. An open receiver on a wrap route at the bottom of the screen seems to be overlooked. While Fields manages to scramble for a decent gain, O'Sullivan believes he should have thrown to the open receiver.

(46:12) Delving deeper into the missed opportunity, O'Sullivan notes that Fields appeared to be looking to the left but didn't release the ball. He suggests that Fields might be playing with his eyes down too quickly.

(47:21) O'Sullivan examines a third-and-five situation. The play is muddled, and Fields takes a significant hit. Despite the pressure, O'Sullivan points out open receivers across the field. He believes Fields needs to release the ball faster and get it out on time.

(47:59) Diving into the specifics of the play, O'Sullivan describes it as resembling a "smash" route combination. While there are multiple open options, Fields doesn't take advantage of them. The analysis emphasizes the need for improved vision and decision-making.

(48:40) O'Sullivan continues to critique Fields' reluctance to throw the ball, especially when clear options are available. He highlights the open deep hook route, stressing that it's as open as it gets in the NFL.

(49:18) Another play is dissected, this time focusing on a double move at the bottom of the screen. Although the double move isn't open, the backside in-route is wide open. O'Sullivan believes Fields is turning down potential downfield throws, opting for safer, shorter options.

(49:49) The analysis further emphasizes the missed opportunity on the backside in-route. O'Sullivan acknowledges that while the game might be out of reach, it's crucial for Fields to recognize and exploit such openings.

(50:22) O'Sullivan highlights another play where Fields opts for a checkdown instead of a downfield throw. He stresses that Fields has the capability to make the deeper throw, especially when the intended receiver is as open as in this play. The analysis emphasizes the need for more aggressive decision-making from Fields, especially when the game situation calls for it.

(50:59) The video transitions to a first-and-goal play from the two-yard line. O'Sullivan critiques the chosen play, "Sprint left option," comparing its inefficiency to other plays like "scat Hank" and "spacing." He explains the intended routes and offers potential improvements, such as using motion or adjusting the release of the receivers.

(51:31) Diving deeper into the play's design, O'Sullivan discusses its West Coast verbiage origins. He believes the play could benefit from a more creative approach, especially when executed from a static look. By introducing motion or adjusting receiver routes, the play could become more dynamic and harder for defenses to predict.

(52:03) Further lamenting the lack of creativity in the play design, O'Sullivan describes it as something one might see in a junior varsity game. He believes that with the talent available on the Bears' roster, the coaching staff should be implementing more sophisticated and effective plays.

(52:32) O'Sullivan dissects the "Sprint left option" play in more detail. He lists the primary, secondary, and tertiary options for the play and explains the intended route for each receiver. He believes that with minor adjustments, such as changing receiver releases or introducing motion, the play's success rate could improve significantly.

(53:04) O'Sullivan examines a play called "Dwight Clark," aiming for the front pylon. He criticizes the execution, with one receiver appearing to be attempting a box-out like in basketball. Fields' decision to throw the ball away, avoiding a sack, is seen as a positive amidst the play's shortcomings.

(53:40) The analysis continues with a two-point conversion play following a penalty. O'Sullivan finds several flaws in the play design, notably a confusing route combination where two receivers appear to run identical routes. The play's bottom section looks particularly chaotic, leading O'Sullivan to question its design.

(54:15) Emphasizing the play's shortcomings, O'Sullivan critiques the use of player number 85, who starts in a track stance. He believes the player should adopt a standard stance, especially since it doesn't deceive the defense. The stance causes blocking issues, undermining the play's success.

(54:46) Further examining the tight end's role in the play, O'Sullivan describes the challenge of the block from the adopted stance. He suggests a more traditional positioning for the tight end, arguing that it would offer a better chance of successful blocking. The play's lack of cohesion is evident, with disjointed movements and questionable decisions.

(55:23) The video concludes with another perimeter screen play. O'Sullivan notes blocking issues and what seems like a slow execution from Fields in terms of catching and releasing the ball. The play's design and execution are critiqued, with O'Sullivan emphasizing the need for speed and precision in such plays.

 

[Bearly]

Transcript Cont'd:


(30:29) O'Sullivan acknowledges a play design he appreciates, emphasizing the quick snap execution. Such tactics can throw off the defense and provide an advantage. Despite criticisms of the offensive scheme, O'Sullivan takes the time to highlight innovative or effective play designs.

(30:56) O'Sullivan examines a play where Fields potentially missed an open receiver on an in-route. While the receiver isn't wide open, O'Sullivan believes many quarterbacks in the league would attempt the throw with anticipation. He encourages Fields to release the ball sooner in such scenarios.

(31:28) The critique continues as Fields opts for a checkdown. O'Sullivan questions the decision, suggesting Fields should have targeted a player directly in front of him. The overall execution appears out of sync, with O'Sullivan emphasizing the need for more urgency in Fields' gameplay.

(32:00) The analysis transitions to discussing some technical aspects of Fields' drops and mechanics. O'Sullivan points out specific areas of improvement, emphasizing the need for quicker and more fluid movements.

(32:30) O'Sullivan takes a brief interlude to thank viewers and subscribers, promoting various offerings from the "Quarterback School" channel. He highlights the Patreon community, premium courses, and other resources available for those interested in deepening their understanding of the quarterback position.

(32:55) The promotional segment continues, with O'Sullivan further detailing the content available through the "Quarterback School" courses and resources.

(33:20) O'Sullivan critiques the offensive line's performance, particularly the left tackle. He points out a significant breakdown in blocking, emphasizing that Fields cannot play effectively with such protection errors. The inability of the left tackle to manage his gap leaves Fields vulnerable to immediate pressure.

(33:51) The analysis delves into typical blocking schemes during naked keepers, specifically the "elephants on parade" technique. In this technique, each lineman is responsible for a gap, ensuring no defensive penetration. O'Sullivan is baffled by the left tackle's decision to abandon his responsibility, leading to defensive penetration.

(34:23) Emphasizing the severity of the left tackle's mistake, O'Sullivan argues that such a lapse in execution undermines the entire offensive game plan. The fundamental expectation is for each lineman to manage their assigned gap, ensuring the quarterback has time to execute the play.

(34:55) Despite the blocking errors, Fields' decision-making is also scrutinized. O'Sullivan notes that Fields should be prepared for pressure from wider gaps but not from such immediate interior penetration. The play design also includes a fullback to help secure the edge, adding another layer of protection for Fields.

(35:25) Continuing to highlight the left tackle's performance, O'Sullivan expresses frustration with the player's lack of effort and understanding. The resulting pressure on Fields undermines the quarterback's ability to operate effectively.

(36:12) O'Sullivan critiques a play where Fields fumbles. While Fields is responsible for the ball security issue, O'Sullivan also points out that the play design might have contributed. He's been on record disliking schemes that effectively close half the field, as they reduce the quarterback's options.

(36:43) O'Sullivan dives deeper into the specifics of the play design. Despite an intriguing scheme, the play requires a long time to develop, which is problematic given the team's pass protection issues. The Bears' inability to consistently protect Fields limits the viability of such plays.

(37:13) Highlighting Fields' decision-making, O'Sullivan emphasizes the need for Fields to check down when the primary read isn't available. On this play, the short option was open, but Fields failed to release the ball in time.

(37:44) Further examining the play, O'Sullivan laments Fields' tendency to play "hero ball," where he tries to make plays on his own rather than sticking to the designed progression. This approach can lead to missed opportunities and increased risks.

(38:12) Transitioning to a more positive note, O'Sullivan praises a well-designed touchdown play. The play involves a slot receiver on a delayed inside fade paired with a burst post, creating a natural rub and opening up space. Fields' pass hits the mark, resulting in a touchdown.

(38:45) O'Sullivan praises another play for its design, noting the intricacies of the burst post and wheel route combination. The play's design creates a natural rub and clear out, leading to an open receiver and successful completion. He admires the play's execution but expresses frustration that such designs aren't utilized more consistently throughout the game.

(39:17) The burst post's effectiveness is further elaborated upon. The play's design creates a dual advantage by causing a rub and drawing away the cornerback, opening up space for the wheel route. O'Sullivan wishes to see more of these innovative designs, especially given their success.

(39:47) Transitioning to a critique, O'Sullivan analyzes a shallow route play that ends poorly. He suggests that the receiver should have adjusted his route, especially when running towards a cloud corner. Such decisions can protect the receiver and improve the play's success rate.

(40:21) Breaking down the specifics, O'Sullivan emphasizes the need for receivers to adjust their routes based on defensive positioning. If a cloud corner is present, the shallow route should settle instead of continuing to run. This adjustment allows the quarterback to deliver a safer pass.

(40:51) The speed and execution of the play are critiqued. O'Sullivan believes the play is too slow, causing spacing issues between the receivers. The delay from one of the receivers, combined with the shallow route's poor decision, leads to a suboptimal play.

(41:24) O'Sullivan critiques the spacing of the receivers on a particular play. The lack of burst from some of the players leads to poor distribution of the routes, making it challenging to find an open receiver. The play's execution is deemed subpar, and O'Sullivan laments the overall quality of football on display.

(42:05) The video showcases a brutal pick-six. On a third-and-eleven situation, Fields seems to force a pass without noticing a lurking linebacker, leading to an interception returned for a touchdown. O'Sullivan is critical of the decision and notes issues in the offensive line's blocking as well.

(42:37) Analyzing the interception, O'Sullivan believes Fields was attempting to target an in-route but failed to spot the linebacker in coverage. The play's design, which combines a deep out route and a post, is not ideal for the third-and-long context. While no great options present themselves, O'Sullivan stresses the importance of avoiding catastrophic mistakes.

(43:10) Given the dire situation, O'Sullivan suggests that Fields should have opted for a check-down. By doing so, the team could have punted and regrouped, potentially avoiding the turnover. The interception, which wasn't a result of a tipped ball or tight coverage, was particularly egregious as it was thrown directly to the defender.

(43:41) Following the interception, O'Sullivan examines the team's effort in attempting to prevent the touchdown. The reactions and pursuits of various players are scrutinized, providing insights into their competitive spirit. Notably, Fields gets up quickly after being thrown to the ground, showing resilience.

(44:11) O'Sullivan scrutinizes the effort of player number 85 during the pick-six play. While Fields and the running back show resilience and attempt to prevent the touchdown, number 85's effort is deemed lackluster. O'Sullivan emphasizes the importance of hustle and competitive spirit, especially in pivotal moments of the game.

(44:52) The analysis continues to dissect the lack of effort from player number 85, pointing out his high posture and nonchalant attitude during the play. In contrast, the running back's tenacity, despite missing an initial tackle, is praised. The stark difference in effort between the two players is highlighted.

(45:38) Transitioning to another play, O'Sullivan critiques Fields' decision-making. An open receiver on a wrap route at the bottom of the screen seems to be overlooked. While Fields manages to scramble for a decent gain, O'Sullivan believes he should have thrown to the open receiver.

(46:12) Delving deeper into the missed opportunity, O'Sullivan notes that Fields appeared to be looking to the left but didn't release the ball. He suggests that Fields might be playing with his eyes down too quickly.

(47:21) O'Sullivan examines a third-and-five situation. The play is muddled, and Fields takes a significant hit. Despite the pressure, O'Sullivan points out open receivers across the field. He believes Fields needs to release the ball faster and get it out on time.

(47:59) Diving into the specifics of the play, O'Sullivan describes it as resembling a "smash" route combination. While there are multiple open options, Fields doesn't take advantage of them. The analysis emphasizes the need for improved vision and decision-making.

(48:40) O'Sullivan continues to critique Fields' reluctance to throw the ball, especially when clear options are available. He highlights the open deep hook route, stressing that it's as open as it gets in the NFL.

(49:18) Another play is dissected, this time focusing on a double move at the bottom of the screen. Although the double move isn't open, the backside in-route is wide open. O'Sullivan believes Fields is turning down potential downfield throws, opting for safer, shorter options.

(49:49) The analysis further emphasizes the missed opportunity on the backside in-route. O'Sullivan acknowledges that while the game might be out of reach, it's crucial for Fields to recognize and exploit such openings.

(50:22) O'Sullivan highlights another play where Fields opts for a checkdown instead of a downfield throw. He stresses that Fields has the capability to make the deeper throw, especially when the intended receiver is as open as in this play. The analysis emphasizes the need for more aggressive decision-making from Fields, especially when the game situation calls for it.

(50:59) The video transitions to a first-and-goal play from the two-yard line. O'Sullivan critiques the chosen play, "Sprint left option," comparing its inefficiency to other plays like "scat Hank" and "spacing." He explains the intended routes and offers potential improvements, such as using motion or adjusting the release of the receivers.

(51:31) Diving deeper into the play's design, O'Sullivan discusses its West Coast verbiage origins. He believes the play could benefit from a more creative approach, especially when executed from a static look. By introducing motion or adjusting receiver routes, the play could become more dynamic and harder for defenses to predict.

(52:03) Further lamenting the lack of creativity in the play design, O'Sullivan describes it as something one might see in a junior varsity game. He believes that with the talent available on the Bears' roster, the coaching staff should be implementing more sophisticated and effective plays.

(52:32) O'Sullivan dissects the "Sprint left option" play in more detail. He lists the primary, secondary, and tertiary options for the play and explains the intended route for each receiver. He believes that with minor adjustments, such as changing receiver releases or introducing motion, the play's success rate could improve significantly.

(53:04) O'Sullivan examines a play called "Dwight Clark," aiming for the front pylon. He criticizes the execution, with one receiver appearing to be attempting a box-out like in basketball. Fields' decision to throw the ball away, avoiding a sack, is seen as a positive amidst the play's shortcomings.

(53:40) The analysis continues with a two-point conversion play following a penalty. O'Sullivan finds several flaws in the play design, notably a confusing route combination where two receivers appear to run identical routes. The play's bottom section looks particularly chaotic, leading O'Sullivan to question its design.

(54:15) Emphasizing the play's shortcomings, O'Sullivan critiques the use of player number 85, who starts in a track stance. He believes the player should adopt a standard stance, especially since it doesn't deceive the defense. The stance causes blocking issues, undermining the play's success.

(54:46) Further examining the tight end's role in the play, O'Sullivan describes the challenge of the block from the adopted stance. He suggests a more traditional positioning for the tight end, arguing that it would offer a better chance of successful blocking. The play's lack of cohesion is evident, with disjointed movements and questionable decisions.

(55:23) The video concludes with another perimeter screen play. O'Sullivan notes blocking issues and what seems like a slow execution from Fields in terms of catching and releasing the ball. The play's design and execution are critiqued, with O'Sullivan emphasizing the need for speed and precision in such plays.

I wonder if Fields is thinking about the rivalry during most of this? Scheme and OL play put him behind the eight ball overall but he did not take advantage of the opportunities that presented themselves. He did not have happy feet but it seemed liked a forced calmness that lacked immediacy when required and taking sacks when you can dump does not bode well for processing.

I agree with most of this and his take on Kmet's lack of apparent effort. I also think some of Jones' errors were partially by design and/or compounded by other errors.

It looked like WRs thought they were open and frustrated at not getting opportunities to make a plays pretty often. Saw a lot of body language from 11 and 2 during the game. These are team guys and it appeared to be more discouragement (not pronounced). They are clearly not trying trying to show up Fields but also clearly frustrated.

 

[sevvy]

Fuck… at least Nagy let him be you ?

https://x.com/butkusstats/status/1701954546069602693?s=46&t=u44or9LBZLLks5bLWHC1yA

I am down bad man… this just sucks

The more I watched that throw to Kmet in the end zone, the more it looked like it could have been a completed pass if they had a TE like Kittle/Kelce. Which they don't. Lol.

 

[wonky73]

Getsy's play design is Nagy level football stupid.

If you watched the all 22 under Nagy you'd often see receivers ending up in the same spot at the same time allowing them to be defended by one person.

 

[Bearly]

The more I watched that throw to Kmet in the end zone, the more it looked like it could have been a completed pass if they had a TE like Kittle/Kelce. Which they don't. Lol.

Kmet is 'fine' but $12.5m per fine? Again, one game since he signed but...

 

[Bearly]

Getsy's play design is Nagy level football stupid.

If you watched the all 22 under Nagy you'd often see receivers ending up in the same spot at the same time allowing them to be defended by one person.

Still think Nagy for the win. Ay least this doesn't have complexity for the sake of complexity.

 

[remydat]

I watched the entire thing.

He really rips into Kmet quite a bit for looking like a complete spazz on the field, whether it's making blocks, running weird routes, or not giving enough effort on making a tackle on Fields' pick 6.

He also confirms what I've been saying for a while now about Justin Fields dropbacks being way too slow and nonchalant. His unwillingness to speed up that process is killing the screen game, and it's really messing with the timing because everything is so late. Then it's compounded by him often times standing too flat footed. He can't get as much velocity on his throws, which makes everything so much harder than it needs to be.

In his defense, I do think he was being a little overly critical on some of the opportunities Fields passed up when the guards are getting pushed back into his face on almost every snap. There is no doubt his general criticism is true of Fields, but some of them I thought were a little nit picky—especially on the ones where he's facing pressure from the interior. Very few quarterbacks can succeed when your guards are getting blown back into your lap and you can't escape the pocket.

Lastly, and maybe most importantly, he shits on Getsy's scheme for 3/4 of the video with a few exceptions. The Bears are running so many idiotic route concepts where two guys are both running the same route on the same side of the field with no spacing and nowhere to throw to. It's comical how many times it showed up on his review.

Fields was bad, but the scheme Getsy ran with was complete dogshit, and it did him no favors. If you're not going to scheme concepts designed to take advantage of his legs, you shouldn't have a job anymore. For all the credit Getsy got midway through last year, if this is the plan moving forward, it's going to be a long year.

It is Eligible Tackle Kmet or ETK for short. But his complaints are exactly why I was against giving Kmet that contract.

As for Getsy I suspect he was hoping the team could operate the O as intended but similar to last year will adjust it to fit the personnel once he understands what thry can and cant do. There are a lot of new faces and he probably didnt eant to go straight to modifying until he had some sense of what this group can do together. Hopefully he figures that out faster than last year.

Same issue with Williams. This team simply cannot win with just a 4 man rush but maybe he had this false hope they could and so called the D as intended. In both cases I would give it max 3 games before I pivot on the off chance Sunday was just 1st week jitters.

 

[bearsfan1977]

“You know the offense sucks when you don’t fucking know what the play was supposed to be.” Well said by JT, and accurately sums up the game and the video.

 

[mecha]

Fox sucked too. Experience is nice but not the end all.

Fox had his opportunity to win a Super Bowl again. he hitched to the broken Peyton Manning can't-throw-more-than-5-yards train against the #1 defense. oops he probably would've much rather been retired, but he was hired to reign in the lost Bears locker room after Trestman had his philosophies blow up in 1 year.

I've been noting the Bears organization's first timer head coaching hires for a long time. it's not so much Eberflus I'm concerned about as I think Getsy is in over his head on offense and Williams is running the defense like a not-rapey Mel Tucker.

we'll see how they adjust Sunday. everyone can stop shitting blood now.

 

[1COBearsfan]

Might as well make this thread the beginning and end of my annual CCS posting. I watched this whole thing and have rarely laughed this hard. I know JT wasn’t trying to be funny but his exasperation and criticism of the entire offense was fucking hilarious. Seriously grade A unintentional humor. I guess this organization is going to chew up and shit out another promising QB.

 

[inchibearfan]

The biggest clock problem is JF freezes on his reads with the slightest bit of disruption and won't pull the trigger-

- If everything has to be perfect for him, he is not going to make it

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1701749393597280357

Claypool was wide open in that play. The question I have is Claypool that bad or are there a lot more plays like this where Fields refuses to throw it to him?

 

[remydat]

Claypool was wide open in that play. The question I have is Claypool that bad or are there a lot more plays like this where Fields refuses to throw it to him?

A bit of both. Claypool has the same problem ARod had with Fields. They dont get huge separation but you have to throw to them in tight windows and let them use their size.

At the same time I think Claypool gets sloppy and lazy if he isnt involved especially if he feels like he is open but not getting the ball.

 

[The Galloping Ghost]

Claypool was wide open in that play. The question I have is Claypool that bad or are there a lot more plays like this where Fields refuses to throw it to him?

I think he has potential to make plays as a receiver, he is open, so in those cases it's on Fields. But the lack of effort on plays he isn't getting the ball is flat out unacceptable. He shouldn't be active this week.

 

[FozzyBear]

JT seems to like Claypool a lot.

 

[JesusHalasChrist]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1702088051571245349

 

[wonky73]

My favorite play is the red zone one were he's like "WTF" is this even supposed to be.