While the Pittsburgh Steelers haven’t reached a quarterback verdict, Justin Fields is the current favorite. That would be a “terrible decision” for Mike Tomlin to make, according to Warren Sharp of Sharp Football Analysis. He teased a pending article breaking down Fields versus Russell Wilson but thinks this is the wrong move. Others disagree.
“If [the Steelers] take Justin Fields at QB1 into a battle in the AFC North with quarterbacks like Lamar Jackson and Joe Burrow and expect to have a ton of success, I think you’re kidding yourself”, Sharp said. Similarly, he echoed those sentiments in the conference with quarterbacks like Patrick Mahomes and Josh Allen. “I think you’re kidding yourself if you think this is the guy that’s going to actually lead the Pittsburgh Steelers to anywhere meaningful in 2025”, he reiterated.
Of course, by that logic, most of the AFC is going nowhere. Most teams don’t have a Burrow or Mahomes or Allen or Jackson. But every team needs a quarterback, after all. And one can certainly make a case that Justin Fields offers the highest ceiling for the Steelers. Even if the floor might be lower than some other options, like Russell Wilson. Sharp argues, however, that Wilson simply played better in 2024, especially in one key aspect.
“It’s night-and-day different, especially on early downs, how these two quarterbacks performed”, he argued of the Steelers’ play with Fields and Wilson. He did allow that Fields was “more industrious” on third down. “On first and second down, Justin Fields held onto the football the longest of any quarterback in the NFL, and he was terrible. He was objectively terrible on early downs, which is what you need from an offensive quarterback to keep the chains moving, stay ahead of the sticks”.
According to Pro Football Reference, Justin Fields went 77-of-100 on first and second down for the Steelers last season. He threw for 763 yards with three touchdowns and one interception with 26 first downs. Russell Wilson went 153-of-231 for 1,624 yards with 10 touchdowns to two interceptions and 71 first downs. Certainly, the Steelers were more efficient moving the chains on early downs with Wilson, Fields’ throws tending toward more conservative, high-percentage attempts. Wilson took 20 sacks to Fields’ 10, but proportionally, Fields took sacks at a higher rate—slightly.
Justin Fields also rushed for 234 yards and two touchdowns on early downs. Wilson rushed for two touchdowns as well, though on just 72 rushing yards. Nobody would argue that Wilson is similarly mobile to Fields, of course. The Steelers’ YPA with Fields was 6.9, and with Wilson 7.0.
It will be interesting to see what kind of data Warren Sharp presents, because on the surface, it doesn’t seem like the Steelers’ production on early downs with Justin Fields and Russell Wilson was necessarily night and day in difference. They did convert at a higher rate with Wilson, though, which is not insignificant.
