MiddleNameIsJoe

This isn't even the first time this thread has been posted on the last 24 hours

Fields was not known for holding the ball too long in college. His scouting reports did ding him for slow operation, but that's not the same thing.

Actually, go look at the weaknesses on fields' pre-draft scouting reports, it's uncanny how accurate they are to what his problems have been in the pros:

https://www.nfl.com/prospects/justin-fields/32004649-4576-9504-963d-c33127e80752

Fields, however, did have superlative college results his senior year. Like you said, we need to look past numbers when looking at college QBs. College results do not tell you anything about how a QB is going to play in the NFL.

A college qb who did have a reputation for holding the ball too long had this under his weaknesses pre-draft:

"Too eager to go big game hunting Ravenous appetite for the explosive play can also bring unwanted trouble"

His name was Patrick Mahomes and he turned out alright.

Diva? Meh, most elite athletes are. As long as he channels it into work ethic, which by all reports he has, I don't care.

The only legit criticism here is his height. He's not Bryce Young levels of short but it would be nice if he were a smidge taller. He's taller than Russ Wilson or Drew Brees, so I don't think it's disqualifying. He's an inch shorter than Aaron Rodgers.

But he does have a tendency to think he can stand up through hits and shrug them off, and he's nowhere near big enough to do that against NFL defensive lineman, so he will need to remove that from his habits.

Prospect fatigue mostly. People do this every time there's a no. 1 prospect clearly identified two years in advance.

The same people obsessed with his stats vs top 25 defenses were the ones who decided that Peyton Manning never beating Florida meant that Ryan leaf was a better prospect

We've never had a QB come anywhere close to Allen's level of performance, so I guess we'll see how popular that is if we ever get there.

The fact that you're asking makes it seem like you think the answer isn't obvious an I'm really intrigued as to why.

No, not even a little.

No matter how physically talented you are, you can't succeed in the NFL as a QB without the ability to read a defense in real time, and fields is absolutely horrible at it. It makes everything around him look worse. He's a career killer for coaches and OCs.

Around a dozen QBs get drafted each year in the NFL and 1-2 per draft become above-average starters. There's not enough jobs to go around to keep giving chances to every bust.

Probably a 4th, maybe a third if he doesn't crap the bed too badly down the stretch.

His contract situation is going to severely limit his trade value

very, very good

It could be different people

Anyone who thinks fields and Williams are similar QB prospects can safely be ignored on all things QB

They aren't similar at all

I'd take him. Love the prototypical size and arm. He's never been tested with pro-style reads and complexities, which is true of any college QB, but I'd happily take him at no. 2 overall.

I disagree with most of this.

1. You want long routes that resolve quickly? That's self-contradictory. The nature of long routes is that they do not resolve quickly.

2. I'm not sure what an "innovative" route would look like. There's only so many ways to run an offense.

3. In theory, yes, those sorts of longer developing routes would be what you would want with an athletic QB. But the problem is Fields *isn't* good at the playcalling you want, despite being an athletic running threat. He has poor pocket awareness, a brutal internal clock, and a tendency to take his eyes off of the downfield when pressured. Unironically, if you want to run this kind of offense, you want Caleb Williams.

4. Sorry, this one's all on Fields. As proven by what Bagent has been able to do.

5. is pretty much true. But not because Getsy is particularly bad. Because any offense needs a great QB to be consistently successful long-term in the NFL. QB is simply way more important than OC.