All the leading indicators point to the Bears trading Justin Fields, but even so it’s not difficult to wonder if they’ll be taking the correct course.
There are plenty of voices out in football land calling it a no-brainer to dump Fields off in Raheem Morris’ lap or leave him with Mike Tomlin and be done with it already.
The fact they brought in new offensive coordinator Shane Waldron doesn’t scream they’re trading Fields out loud, but is an indicator.
If Waldron wasn’t the hot offensive coordinator prospect of the offseason, he was among them and had several options. But he chose the Bears. Does an offensive coordinator with a choice say, “I’ve just got to have that fourth-year quarterback who has underacheived as a passer and is more effective as a runner?” Or does he say, “It would be great to work with the hottest college passing prospect in his first season and mold him with my offense?”
That’s pretty obvious.
Yet, it isn’t a simple or easy decision to deal away Fields.
Justin Fields and Offense Improved
Coach Matt Eberflus felt compelled to make changes on offense after two seasons when they improved in numerous areas. Apparently they did not improve enough.
They seemed to get somewhat better or a lot better at almost everything, actually, but they declined in yards per play from 5.27 and 21st to 5.01 and 24th. The reason for this was as obvious as their decline in rushing yards by 36.1 yards a game even while dropping only from first to second in rushing.
It was because Fields found it much more difficult to scramble or run for big yardage than in 2022. Defenses were ready for him. He also missed 4 1/2 games, which didn’t help his own rushing totals but the gains per rushing attempt went way down for him, as well, from 7.1 to 5.3.
Improvements made team-wise were:
56% touchdown scores within the red zone (13th) to 57.14% (13th)
30th in goal-to-go touchdown rate (60%) to eighth (81.5%)
19th in third-down conversions (40.91%) to 12th (41.18%)
20th in possession time (29:31) to second (31:58)
28th in total offense (307.8/game) to 20th in total offense (323.2)
23rd in points scored (19.2) to 18th (21.2).
Yet, offensive coordinator Luke Getsy became a fall guy and among the explanations were his inability to help them win at the end of games on final drives and alter strategy within games.
It was obvious Ebeflus counted this more heavily when he talked about hiring Shane Waldron as Getsy’s replacement.
“(It’s) about being adaptable—you’ve gotta be able to adapt during the course of the season,” Eberflus said. “You’re going to have injuries at times. You’re going to have different skill sets in there. In-game adaptability—you’ve gotta have in-game tactics.”
It was Waldron whose offense had six game-winning drives in the fourth quarter last year alone, while Getsy’s offense and Fields had three total for the last two seasons.
Was it Fields’ fault or Getsy’s or both?
It’s not unreasonable to think they should be better than they were considering the spectacular weapon given to Fields and Getsy in DJ Moore.
But by dumping Fields and bringing in a new quarterback they’d be losing one who established career bests in completion percentage (61.4%), interception percentage (2.4%), first-down passes (121), passing yards per game (197.1), passer rating (86.3) and sack percentage (10.6%).
You also have to wonder why they would get rid of both Getsy and Fields when they left Eberflus in place and it was his defense that:
Gave up two touchdowns in the last 4:15 against Detroit to blow a game
Gave up 17 of the 24 points when the Broncos stormed back from a 28-7 deficit in the second half to win 31-28
Gave up the 13 points in the second half against Cleveland after they led 17-7 in a 20-17 loss
Got trampled by a quarterback in his second career start against Green Bay in the opener
Gave up 41 points in the first three quarters to Kansas City.
Sure, the defense improved, but someone must have forgotten to tell Jordan Love in that final game against the Packers.
So if the Bears make the trade, they’d better be much improved on offense and at passing with a new offensive coordinator, new system and a rookie passer because the next change shouldn’t be the quarterback or the offensive coordinator.
Look Before Leaping
Don’t confuse any of this with the arguments that they must keep Fields and trade the top pick.
Rather, think of it more as urging a pause for deep thought, reflection and fact-finding before taking this big leap and committing to the promising, potentially great and unproven quantity over a popular, improving player.
There is much to be said for the reset argument, fixing the salary cap at quarterback back to practically zero by trading Fields, too. However, if Fields keeps improving like he has and Williams comes in and flops, the Bears will be choking on all the cap cash they saved and not enjoying it.
The Bears have gone for years without ever having a passer who actually showed he was developing and improving his game. Numbers show Fields has done it, though not to the huge extent needed to win with the team he had. He did it despite a rather shaky offensive system and coordinator, the second failed offensive system and coordinator he had to endure.
So they really need to get a good look at Williams this week in Indianapolis to be 100% certain he is the special QB before they do something they could eventually regret.
Think about it this way:
Bears fans hated it and suffered every time other teams’ fans or media reminded them they could have had Patrick Mahomes but Ryan Pace opted for Mitchell Trubisky. If Fields goes on to become a dynamic force and winner after being traded, and Williams is the bust, then it’s not going to be some other fans but Bears fans themselves who will constantly remind ownership that they were the complete dolts who gave away a developing quarterback once they finally found one.
