NFL analysts need to stop the nonsense regarding the Chicago Bears

Justin Fields, Bears, NFL (Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images)
Justin Fields, Bears, NFL (Photo by Michael Reaves/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
3 of 3
Next
Chicago Bears, Chicago Bears
Chicago Bears – Paul Rutherford-USA TODAY Sports /

Picking stats to help spin a narrative is easy, watch the film

Alright, let’s jump back up to the comments and stats left by Peter Bukowski.

Justin Fields did indeed lead the league in Sack%, sacks and fumbles. However, let’s remember that some of those stats are due to not having a solid offensive line. I don’t want to hear about how the offensive line is good because of Pass Block Win Rate. That stat is very flawed and provides a false narrative seeing it only requires the offensive lineman to hold their block for 2.5 seconds. A more detailed explanation of why the stat is flawed can be read here. Not to mention, if Fields is moving around in the pocket, evading tackles/sacks, this also helps his linemen “win.”

Now for the fumbles. Justin Fields had 16 fumbles. I know, that’s awful. However, he only lost eight of them. Something that analysts are overlooking since they are just stat-watching is that Sam Mustipher is to blame for a fair share of those 16 fumbles. I can think of at least five botched snaps by Mustipher off the top of my head. More often than not, those fumbles are put on the quarterback’s stat sheet. In both cases though, sacks and fumbles, Justin Fields needs to get the ball out quicker on occasion. Something he still struggles with at times, but still improved in 2023.

I already addressed the completion percentage issue thanks to LeSean McCoy’s comments, but let’s address Bukowski’s comment about the Bears having the second-fewest drops in the league. Although this is technically true, you have to look at it as a percentage and not a total. If you throw fewer passes as the Bears did (least in the league), you have fewer opportunities for drops. Vice-versa for the Bucs who had the most pass attempts. Chicago had a 3.18% drop rate, which is 10th best in the league. Again, context matters.

Now, let’s look at the interception percentage. First of all, a few of those were on the pass-catcher. However, that is the case for every quarterback in the league so we won’t try to use that excuse. Bukowski is correct that Justin Fields needs to improve in this area. His INT% is currently 3.5%. The only player worse than him was Dak Prescott at 3.8%. The key here though is that he showed some slight improvement from last year. In fact, that’s the biggest key for Fields — progress and development.

What Bukowski fails to tell you is that Justin Fields was also sixth in TD% at 5.3%. Only Joe Burrow, Patrick Mahomes, Dak Prescott, Josh Allen and Tua Tagovailoa performed better than him in this area. Bukowski also fails to explain that again, since Week 5, Justin Fields’ INT% was only 2.7%. That would have put him just a tick ahead of Matthew Stafford and Josh Allen.

If you cannot look at Justin Fields’ 2022 season and see a drastic amount of improvement over his rookie season, you are not watching Bears’ football games. Stats are great, but without context, they mean very little. This is why watching film and applying those stats to what takes place on film is the best way to evaluate a player. There is no excuse for Fields in 2023 should Ryan Poles do his job, but trading Fields and selecting Bryce Young would be a mistake in my opinion. These so-called NFL analysts need to stop with the hot takes and get on board the Justin Fields train.