Irrelevant Basis for Criticism of Justin Fields
It's been a while.
Longtime Bears antagnonist Michael Lombardi resurfaced this week with a criticism of the faith the team and fans have in Justin Fields. He tweeted the overall stats of Fields compared to Davis Mills, referring to him in the tweet as David Mills. And then he expressed disbelief it's the Bears who are acting like they are set at quarterback while the Texans are assumed to need another QB.
After checking to make sure Mills hadn't changed his first name—and he hadn't—this tweet comparison required looking into because it isn't every day Lombardi graces Bears social media with his presence.
You'll remember Lombardi for the famed or infamous comment, "You couldn’t get me to buy Mitchell Trubisky if you had him on a discount rack at Filene’s Basement."
In defense of Lombardi, he ultimately was right on that one as Trubisky couldn't throw downfield. It proved his undoing, and he eventually was the quarterback with the best stats to not get his fifth-year option picked up.
In this case, Lombardi's research is just lazy and his argument flawed.
Besides tweeting out both players' current stats, he followed up with criticism of Fields because his running didn't result in wins. His point was Fields hasn't been a winning quarterback and almost owns the same record as a starter as Mills—Davis, not David.
Well, Trubisky actually was a winning quarterback who helped the team into the playoffs, backed by a strong defense. He directed a final drive against the Eagles that would have resulted in a postseason win but for the kicker's penchant for targeting metal. In Trubisky's case, stats were cited all the time by Lombardi about why he was a failure and wins in 2018 and 2020 ignored.
So which is it that's critical, inability to win or stats? It's one or the other because Trubisky won enough to get in the playoffs twice as starter and still got criticized for his stats.
It's whatever is convenient for Lombardi, apparently.
Now he's back to using wins and stats but both are used incorrectly. He points out how Lamar Jackson took over as starter in Baltimore with a 4-5 team and won six of the next seven, and he made his rushing stats relevant but Fields didn't this type of thing. Neither did Jalen Hurts until his third year.
He uses Jackson getting the Ravens into the playoffs as a running quarterback as somehow proof Fields is a loser, because he ran a lot and didn't win games.
Of course, he didn't mention how Baltimore's defense ranked No. 1 that year. It had more to do with them winning the division than even Jackson's running. Fields, meanwhile, had a defense behind him last year that gave up 33.1 points a game over the final 10, a defense that allowed the league's most points for the first time in franchise history. And it is the oldest franchise.
Fields is by no means a finished product and continues to improve but that's the critical point here.
Fields did improve. He improved greatly and contined to improve, if you merely look past the final overall statistics to more relevant statistics.
Whether Mills, David or Davis, is worthy of criticism or starting is of no concern to Bears fans.
What is important is how Lombardi conveniently ignores the important stats about Fields when he merely used two-year final stats.
The truth about Fields is there is a huge improvement factor over the last half of last season that wasn't enough to wipe out his early, poor stats, but is the stuff of effective NFL starters.
Fields had a passer rating or 92.3 with 13 TD passes, six interceptions and 63.6% completions in the final nine games. If you were willing to dismiss the last disastrous game he played as an anomaly when he played poorly but the whole team quit at Detroit, it's a 98.2 rating with 67.03% completions, 12 TDs and five interceptions. If not, no problem, the first set of numbers stands as effective play, especially for a running quarterback.
The fumbles Lombardi complains about with Fields are a concern but the Bears only lost one of his fumbles in those final nine games and, using the example Lombardi gave, Jackson actually fumbled 12 times in his rookie year when he supposedly was the reason the Ravens turned things around. Jackson actually was only on the field for a little over half the snaps that year (585) and fumbled 12 times. Again, why are fumbles allowable stats in one argument and not the other? Of course Lombardi twists the numbers.
And Jackson fumbled 31 times his first three seasons, which encompasses his MVP year. But Jackson got better at taking care of the ball, with only 11 over the last two years total. Fields could be given the benefit of this doubt, as well, since he's obviously improved the last nine games.
As for Mills—David or Davis—if Lombardi had done his homework properly, he would have found Mills' passer rating over the final nine games is 75.1 with only 58.8% completions on 10 interceptions and 10 TDs. He didn't have the benefit of scrambling for big yardage, either.
Those stats are far worse than Fields' numbers over the last nine games.
Mills is the Texans' problem, if he even is one.
But the Bears have plenty to be encouraged about with Fields' finish to the season. They'll look forward to more of this now after giving him better receivers and possibly pass blocking that won't get him sacked 91 times the next two years, like in his first two.
They can also look forward to more wins, too, if they actually have put a defense behind him. Jackson's stats show this much helps.
Twitter: BearDigest@BearsOnMaven
