Why is there so much unwarranted banter about starting Justin Fields?

[alabamabearsfan]

Nobody questions starting Trevor Lawrence in Jacksonville with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

Nobody questions starting Zach Wilson in New York with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

So why do so many talking heads and mouth-breathers overly question starting Justin Fields in Chicago, especially when our O-Line, defense, and receiving corps are arguably better than that of the Jags and Jets.???

Andy Dalton? He's a veteran, sure, but has just as little experience with Nagy's offense as Fields.

Pedigree?
Fields went 20-2 as a starter, winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually under the glare of a prime time broadcast.
Lawrence went 34-2 as a starter, also winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually on prime time as well.
Wilson went 23-9 as a starter, losing all five of his games against 10-win teams (where he threw for seven interceptions and just one touchdown), never playing on any sizeable stage usually against mediocre teams, and having a smoking hot, entitled, self-absorbed, narcissistic milf constantly stealing his spotlight.

My question is this: Why is it universally considered a no-brainer to start Lawrence and Wilson as rookies, but a contentious debate to start Fields, especially when the latter is in such a better position to succeed???

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

Because you touch yourself at night.

 

[alabamabearsfan]

What an innovative, intelligent response.

 

[PrideisBears]

Some still cling to the old ways of a rookie should sit before being thrust out there. I'm for Fields starting but only if he looks the part in TC and and the preseason

 

[Anytime23]

Why does it bother you?

 

[alabamabearsfan]

Why does it bother you?

I just find it odd that Lawrence and Wilson are universally considered "ready" while Fields's ability is thoroughly questioned, especially given the aforementioned advantages of the Bears as a whole.

 

[PrideisBears]

I just find it odd that Lawrence and Wilson are universally considered "ready" while Fields's ability is thoroughly questioned, especially given the aforementioned advantages of the Bears as a whole.

And tbf Lawrence and Wilson don't have a choice to be anything but "ready". There aren't any other QBs on either the jaguars or Jets to have them sit for the season

 

[Gustavus Adolphus]

I just find it odd that Lawrence and Wilson are universally considered "ready" while Fields's ability is thoroughly questioned, especially given the aforementioned advantages of the Bears as a whole.

Just say what you want to say. Don't sugarcoat it.

 

[gallagher]

I don't think the others are considered ready, but the coaches of other teams can make whatever choice they want. Doesn't bother me one bit, and those team's decisions shouldn't affect Chicago.

For me, I want Fields to take the job from Dalton. It's not about sitting him and making him learn, but having him win the job. But hey, I'm a patient guy, I'm content to wait until Fields makes it undeniable that he's the QB1

 

[JesusHalasChrist]

What else is there to talk about? Maybe we could revisit the 'Russell Wilson is not better than Mitchell Trubisky' thread again.

 

[Anytime23]

And tbf Lawrence and Wilson don't have a choice to be anything but "ready". There aren't any other QBs on either the jaguars or Jets to have them sit for the season

I think both of your posts hit on some of what's going on. Some talking heads are stuck on the old school narrative of sitting rookie QBs and yeah, they don't have quality vets on either roster. But also i think the circumstances for Fields are different in that the Bears are a team coming off of a .500 season, where the other two were drafting 1 and 2 for a reason and have new HCs. There is a pressure on Nagy to take the best approach long and short term. Finally i think Fields being drafted at 11, rather than 3 gets people brainwashed into thinking he's not pro-ready. I don't see any of the people who believed he was the 2nd or 3rd best QB think he should sit. It seems to be consistent with those who fell for his draft stock falling.

 

[alabamabearsfan]

Just say what you want to say. Don't sugarcoat it.

Prudent input, once again! Going forward, I'll do my best to respond with jejune masturbation references.

 

[alabamabearsfan]

I think both of your posts hit on some of what's going on. Some talking heads are stuck on the old school narrative of sitting rookie QBs and yeah, they don't have quality vets on either roster. But also i think the circumstances for Fields are different in that the Bears are a team coming off of a .500 season, where the other two were drafting 1 and 2 for a reason and have new HCs. There is a pressure on Nagy to take the best approach long and short term. Finally i think Fields being drafted at 11, rather than 3 gets people brainwashed into thinking he's not pro-ready. I don't see any of the people who believed he was the 2nd or 3rd best QB think he should sit. It seems to be consistent with those who fell for his draft stock falling.

All good points, man. Never thought about that--

 

[rawdawg]

I think it's that the Jags and Jets can't get much worse. They won a combined 3 games last year. They are in the "need hope for the future" stage, therefore them starting rookies with no pressure to win right away is a no-brainer. I also think your assessment of their OLs is a little misleading. The Jags OL performed poorly last year, but is generally talented. They have four Day 2 picks, and Norwell who was a top FA when they signed him. They are experienced and mostly proven on the OL. The Jets rebuilt their OL and have blue chip prospects on the left side, and by all accounts Becton was pretty solid in 2020.
The Bears are in a little different spot. They aren't great, but made the playoffs with lesser or similar talent at QB in 2020. They are expected to win games in 2021 because of coaching/GM uncertainty and a talented team of veterans. More pressure on a rookie QB to come in and maintain a level of play for a team that expects to be in the running for a playoff spot. Also, they are breaking in a LT at the same time, so there's risk there.

I don't share the sentiment that Fields shouldn't start right away, but I think these reasons are why it's a question for him. Same is being said for Trey Lance in SF, though he also has much less experience.

 

[gilder121]

Pressure. People think there is too much pressure based on having a decent team that COULD compete and the outside perception that Nagy and Pace are still hanging by a thread. They think this will cause the Bears to make bad decisions sacrificing long term success for short term security. Some think the pressure of all of that will negatively impact him.

My opinion? Play him.

 

[Black Rainbow]

Is the press saying he might not start or are they questioning his ability?

Hopefully, the former because the Bears have a losing record against the press....lol.

 

[Chicago4Life]

Nobody questions starting Trevor Lawrence in Jacksonville with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

Nobody questions starting Zach Wilson in New York with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

So why do so many talking heads and mouth-breathers overly question starting Justin Fields in Chicago, especially when our O-Line, defense, and receiving corps are arguably better than that of the Jags and Jets.???

Andy Dalton? He's a veteran, sure, but has just as little experience with Nagy's offense as Fields.

Pedigree?
Fields went 20-2 as a starter, winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually under the glare of a prime time broadcast.
Lawrence went 34-2 as a starter, also winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually on prime time as well.
Wilson went 23-9 as a starter, losing all five of his games against 10-win teams (where he threw for seven interceptions and just one touchdown), never playing on any sizeable stage usually against mediocre teams, and having a smoking hot, entitled, self-absorbed, narcissistic milf constantly stealing his spotlight.

My question is this: Why is it universally considered a no-brainer to start Lawrence and Wilson as rookies, but a contentious debate to start Fields, especially when the latter is in such a better position to succeed???

for what its worth, dalton is an established vet in the nfl and can make all the throws, yes he doesnt know the playbook and so is on the same footing as fields but still understands the speed and what to expect at the nfl level...With protection, dalton should do well, he doesnt have much mobility so the jenkins experiment will likely play a big part into how long dalton starts...I also think the talk about fields and his somewhat slower processor also plays a part into why there is a debate over what to do with fields.

why is lawrence and wilson starting? i couldnt even name another qb for the jets so wilson represents their best option...as for jax, minshew is not established like dalton, he had a good rookie year taking over for foles but in year 2, jax fell off the rails, statistically minshew was solid but he is a dink and dunk type guy who got them 1 win. you knew the minute meyer was hired lawrence was going to the be the starter and most believe lawrence is the most nfl ready qb to come out in a while...

 

[msadows]

What an innovative, intelligent response.

Welcome to CCS.

 

[Nelly]

Nobody questions starting Trevor Lawrence in Jacksonville with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

Nobody questions starting Zach Wilson in New York with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

So why do so many talking heads and mouth-breathers overly question starting Justin Fields in Chicago, especially when our O-Line, defense, and receiving corps are arguably better than that of the Jags and Jets.???

Andy Dalton? He's a veteran, sure, but has just as little experience with Nagy's offense as Fields.

Pedigree?
Fields went 20-2 as a starter, winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually under the glare of a prime time broadcast.
Lawrence went 34-2 as a starter, also winning consistently on a massive stage, in a huge sports market, and usually on prime time as well.
Wilson went 23-9 as a starter, losing all five of his games against 10-win teams (where he threw for seven interceptions and just one touchdown), never playing on any sizeable stage usually against mediocre teams, and having a smoking hot, entitled, self-absorbed, narcissistic milf constantly stealing his spotlight.

My question is this: Why is it universally considered a no-brainer to start Lawrence and Wilson as rookies, but a contentious debate to start Fields, especially when the latter is in such a better position to succeed???

It might be as simple as saying that the Jags and the Jets earned their draft spots by sucking ass. Lawrence is the most highly touted QB prospect since Andrew Luck so there's no question you're going to play him from day 1. The Jags wouldn't have been in position to draft him if they had anyone else worth a shit at the position.

Wilson is a different story but the Jets are in the same boat: their QB position is/was terrible even if Darnold still has a little hope left for him.

People might be saying that Fields needs to learn the position or whatever because the Bears are actually in position to compete for the playoffs, and if things go well, even make a run. That's not the case with the Jags and Jets so it's not like they'll gain or lose anything by sitting their guys to start.

All that said, I think you're onto something there with regard to Fields himself. The dude has only done everything asked of him and has done it really well. He had no business falling to #11 let alone being told that "oh he might not be ready." If anyone from this class is ready to take a starting job from the jump, I think it's Lawrence and him.

 

[Decatur Staley]

Nobody questions starting Trevor Lawrence in Jacksonville with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

Nobody questions starting Zach Wilson in New York with a new Head Coach, new system to learn, and a subpar O-Line and defense....

So why do so many talking heads and mouth-breathers overly question starting Justin Fields in Chicago, especially when our O-Line, defense, and receiving corps are arguably better than that of the Jags and Jets.???


My question is this: Why is it universally considered a no-brainer to start Lawrence and Wilson as rookies, but a contentious debate to start Fields, especially when the latter is in such a better position to succeed???

There is a debate in the media b/c Matt Nagy has named Andy Dalton the starter... The debate is whether or not Fields should be the starter.

No such debate for Lawrence or Wilson is going to happen because their coaching staffs have not given any sign that they won't be starting.

Is this a serious question?