Claypool to the Bears

Another trade where I’m not sure how good it is for owners:

This will be interesting to see how he is utilized.

The price of Pickins just went up.

Pretty much makes Claypool droppable.

He had 50 targets with Pittsburgh so far this year; no receiver in Chicago has more than 44.

So he probably takes over Dante Pettis’ 2.3 targets per game.

…or Chicago starts throwing more?

Part of Justin Fields problems as a QB has been lack of good WR’s to target. After Darnell Mooney, there’s a huge cliff of talent in Chicago.

Claypool gives Fields not only a good WR, but a potential alpha WR. Claypool can make contested catches, when he isn’t blowing people away with his speed. The only thing holding him back in Pittsburgh was a crowded WR room. There’s no crowd in Chicago.

Finally, if you look at Justin Fields, while he hasn’t been throwing much, his fantasy efficiency has been going up in recent weeks. That, along with Green Bay’s fall in the standings, was probably a big factor in encouraging the Bears to get Fields some help. If they had Claypool last week against Dallas, that game might have been a lot closer.

FWIW, I grabbed Claypool in the South Beach League. That might be a steal.

Yes, Fields has improved and is a now a decent pick up. I like the trade and see it helping Moody as well.

But no QB, either…

Fields is only becoming valuable in fantasy because he’s been running a lot more. He’s still throwing less than 25 passes per game.

Would you want him throwing 30 or more passes with only one viable WR? I think not.

Kmet is entirely viable, but he’s dying on the vine too. If I was a Bears’ fan, I wouldn’t want Fields throwing at all–I’d want them to get a QB whose skillset includes passing.

So going 17 of 23 against the Cowboys defense isn’t a good passing day? Got it.

Good for completion percentage, if you get points for that sort of thing.

The 151 yards he tallied on those 17 completions–you know, the thing most people DO get fantasy points for–not so much.

Way to overlook the pesky 2 td’s he threw! Or the fact he didn’t throw any picks against a very pick-hungry Dallas defense? Or were you about to get to those, and the 22 points overall he scored?

I dunno about your leagues, but in normal leagues, a 151 and 2 passing day isn’t characterized as “pesky” (well, maybe to his owner).

He scored 22 fantasy points overall due to rushing stats, which really aren’t going to help Claypool much either.

It’s like you’re just desperately trying to make a point here–ANY point–and failing at every turn.

Good fantasy WRs need QBs who throw the ball to them. Fields doesn’t throw much. There’s not much to argue about.

And you’re like the New York Times: You only reference those stats which make your case, conveniently overlooking the elephant in the room. Passing td’s do indeed count, and are indicative of passing improvement, especially when they aren’t accompanied by interceptions. THOSE are important facts to consider, but nobody will hear it listening to you!

Have you looked at his pass attempts this year?


And it’s not just his pass attempts. His rush attempts have also risen:


Overall, Fields is being used more for all the things he does.

For comparison, how did Jalen Hurts do against Dallas? 15 of 25 for 155 yards and 2 td’s, and 27 rushing yards on 9 attempts. Fields actually did better.

This is also not a strong passing performance. Both WRs had 5 receptions, and the TE had 2.

Always glad to offer these little tips to those still learning. Thanks for playing the patsy publicly so that the lesson can be utilized by others.

As usual, you miss the point as you follow your own thoughts like an OCD washing his hands.

Hurts is an MVP candidate right now, and Fields had a better game against the same team. Can you explain that?

The point was that Fields as a QB isn’t likely to be able to sustain both Mooney and Claypool as viable fantasy receivers.

You’re trying to say Hurts is a better QB than Fields.

Who’s missing the point?

You assume incorrectly that the Bears passing volume will never increase. You also assume incorrectly that the addition of another good WR will not increase the efficiency of the Bears passing game.

Claypool is a new variable within the Bears offense, and you assume nothing will change. But if you look at the Eagles this year, adding AJ Brown changed everything for their offense. The same happened in Buffalo when they added Stefon Diggs. And yet you refuse to admit things could be different, after these two powerful examples?

Indeed. You are.

You assume that I am incorrect, when in fact we don’t know what will happen in the future–but the past is the best predictor of the future that we have.

And you made the same mistake again.

Nonsense. In my first post, I pointed out how Dante Pettis’ 2.3 targets per game would probably now be going to Claypool.

Consider your past history of predictions, assuming you’re incorrect is just a continuation of the trend.

That’s a silly assumption.