Another Former Player Says Justin Fields Is A Lost Cause

Chicago Bears fans find themselves in a familiar place. When a quarterback is clearly moving toward the end of his run with the team, people split into two camps. Either they believe the quarterback isn't the problem, or they think he's the root of it. The same is playing out with Justin Fields. He's off to a rough start this season, completing less than 60% of his passes with three touchdowns and four interceptions. He continues to take unnecessary sacks and hasn't regained his form as a dangerous runner. Everything is going wrong.

Some experts blame the coaching staff for not doing enough schematically to help him. Others think it doesn't matter. Fields isn't qualified to run an offense that most would deem NFL-worthy. Former executive Michael Lombardi thinks his limitations make it impossible to run anything complex. Others have said it's hard to ignore how many layups he continues to mix. Count former two-time Super Bowl champion Anthony McFarland among them.

He stated unequivocally on Pardon My Take that the Fields Era is over in Chicago.

Justin Fields can't handle the basics. That is the problem.

People talk about his ability to throw the deep ball. This is true. He can be highly accurate when he has time to turn it loose down the field. The problem is the NFL isn't built on deep throws. To succeed, you must be able to string together completions at the short and intermediate levels. It's about churning out first downs and keeping an offense on schedule. This is where Fields consistently fails. He's thrown nine passes between 10-19 yards of the line of scrimmage this season. He's completed one of them.

For context, rookie C.J. Stroud has completed 19 of 33 in that range. This should tell you how bad the Bears quarterback has been. That is not a scheme issue. Justin Fields can't find completions in the most crowded area of the field, and it's completely killing their passing game. That is why Luke Getsy has resorted to lots of screens, short passes, and a mix of occasional deep shots. Nothing about that approach is sustainable. People may not like what McFarland says, but he's not off the mark.