New Regime Options

[SLCbear]

2 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

If JF does reach his potential then why in the name of Zeus’ butthole would we trade him? The whole point is to find the guy, is it not? 

 

  https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-30-2018/Eeuis-.gif

 Because JFs career will last 9-10yrs tops and the start of next season is year 4

and CW is better 

and we can afford to wait and max out JFs trade value 

Edited December 2, 2023 by SLCbear

[SLCbear]

👆🏻

 Can someone please help me know how to make the image appear in the post every time without having to click on a link  ?? sometimes the image appears and sometimes will only allow me to post link 

 Thanks !

[Sugashane]

22 hours ago, SLCbear said:

1. Drafting CW doesn't mean we have given up on Fields. It means that we have selected BPA,  at the most important position in all of sports. 

 We still have full control of where JF plays for the next 4 years, and then by selecting CW we  have full control of where he plays for the next 7. So much can happen in that time and ALL of our eggs are not in one single basket.

2. Fair point about losing out on MHj bc he is a true unicorn especially at his size,  BUT pairing Bowers (another unicorn) with Kmet in a run, short-intermediate pass heavy scheme, setting up deep shots, can impact winning at same level

3. This is the crusty traditional NFL mindset that keeps teams in that middling/reset-every-few-years treadmill mode. What happens when your 'evaluations' come up short but you have put all of your resources (draft capital, FA$$ etc) into building around one player ?? Answer is  you tear it down and start over.

Some key FACTS to strongly consider here:

1. JF is entering year 4 of 10 year (or less) career.

2. If we select CW and JF never reaches  perceived on-field potential (as many, including you believe he won't),  we then have Caleb ******* Williams ready to step in and take over  !

3. If JF DOES reach his perceived potential, we then have the option to win alot games with him for another year or 2 or even 3   while CW sits and learns (and starts those games JF WILL inevitably miss due to injury), and then trade JF down the road for a massive return 

 

What is with this black and white thinking ?? Why not make moves that SIGnificantly raise the chances of getting it right, rather than going ALL IN on 'evaluations' ??! especially when EVERY  team constantly misses on their evaluations 

Yes it does. You're taking the highest draft position to put at QB to be a back up? That's ridiculous. If you draft a WR with an elite player there are only a few formations with only 1 WR. If you draft a 2nd stud TE then you can flex one out or run 11 personnel. You can also rotate EDGE/DL, you can move OTs around the line, defenses can move extra DBs or LBs around based on skillset. You know what doesn't work? Having 2 QBs on the offense at the same time. You can pick any of the other 21 base positions and justify a top pick without giving up on the guy currently in that spot. But for QB, you're only getting one on the field other than a few gimmick plays.

Are you saying you think Fields won't give any issues to getting the 5th year option then franchised 2 additional years? AND that Williams will be fine for sitting basically his entire rookie deal? No way that works in the clubhouse. Plus for Williams you'd have anywhere from $8-12 mil for his cap hit as a back up and putting Fields at over $38+ mil for a franchise tag? $50 million between the two with Williams sitting the bench? There are only 4 QBs making that much money at that point in the league, and Fields shouldn't be part of it. You're literally neutering the offense around them with allocating THAT much to a QB spot. It simply will not ever happen like that. You want an elite OL and to have basically 2 Moores and stock up an 85 Bears defense... but where is the money to do that? You think you can allocate almost 25% of the cap space to a mid-at-best QB and the most expensive back up in the league? Good luck. Or even better you're talking about throwing $38 mil at a back up since you said Williams is the better and it wasn't even close. That's blatantly stupid if so.

Name a time that a franchise drafted a player 1.1 and they rode the bench for 4 years, then started from year 5 on. No need to wait, because its stupid and even Al Davis wouldn't have done that when he was losing his mind. The ridiculous mindset is that you couldn't make an offense adjustment when one QB needs to play. BAL switched from Flacco to Jackson mid-season with Marty freaking Mornhinweg calling the plays, and then Greg Roman came in and completely revamped the offense around him. You need to aim higher than either of them if you're investing THAT much into the QB position.

If you are so sure Williams is better then why the hell are you wasting so much money on a back up?

You're delusional to think Fields is getting a massive haul. Its that simple.

You're not making significant improvements to a team by allocating so much to Fields as a back up or by squandering Williams' rookie deal. Part of the rookie deal being so positive is you can afford to stockpile talent around until the QB needs his megadeal. Your plan works in Madden and literally no where else.

 

Edited December 2, 2023 by Sugashane
Spelling

[StLunatic88]

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

You're delusional to think Fields is getting a massive haul. Its that simple.

By the end of the year, if Fields is worth a “massive haul” then we aren’t trading him, we are executing his 5YO.

At best you are hoping he plays OK and someone is willing to send you some sort of 3rd rounder.

But it’s more likely a 4th or 5th with some type of conditional pick in ‘25/‘26 depending on if he’s on that roster 

*this is all dependent on us hanging on to a Top 2 pick

Edited December 2, 2023 by StLunatic88

[SLCbear]

1 hour ago, Sugashane said:

Yes it does. You're taking the highest draft position to put at QB to be a back up? That's ridiculous. If you draft a WR with an elite player there are only a few formations with only 1 WR. If you draft a 2nd stud TE then you can flex one out or run 11 personnel. You can also rotate EDGE/DL, you can move OTs around the line, defenses can move extra DBs or LBs around based on skillset. You know what doesn't work? Having 2 QBs on the offense at the same time. You can pick any of the other 21 base positions and justify a top pick without giving up on the guy currently in that spot. But for QB, you're only getting one on the field other than a few gimmick plays.

Are you saying you think Fields won't give any issues to getting the 5th year option then franchised 2 additional years? AND that Williams will be fine for sitting basically his entire rookie deal? No way that works in the clubhouse. Plus for Williams you'd have anywhere from $8-12 mil for his cap hit as a back up and putting Fields at over $38+ mil for a franchise tag? $50 million between the two with Williams sitting the bench? There are only 4 QBs making that much money at that point in the league, and Fields shouldn't be part of it. You're literally neutering the offense around them with allocating THAT much to a QB spot. It simply will not ever happen like that. You want an elite OL and to have basically 2 Moores and stock up an 85 Bears defense... but where is the money to do that? You think you can allocate almost 25% of the cap space to a mid-at-best QB and the most expensive back up in the league? Good luck. Or even better you're talking about throwing $38 mil at a back up since you said Williams is the better and it wasn't even close. That's blatantly stupid if so.

Name a time that a franchise drafted a player 1.1 and they rode the bench for 4 years, then started from year 5 on. No need to wait, because its stupid and even Al Davis wouldn't have done that when he was losing his mind. The ridiculous mindset is that you couldn't make an offense adjustment when one QB needs to play. BAL switched from Flacco to Jackson mid-season with Marty freaking Mornhinweg calling the plays, and then Greg Roman came in and completely revamped the offense around him. You need to aim higher than either of them if you're investing THAT much into the QB position.

If you are so sure Williams is better then why the hell are you wasting so much money on a back up?

You're delusional to think Fields is getting a massive haul. Its that simple.

You're not making significant improvements to a team by allocating so much to Fields as a back up or by squandering Williams' rookie deal. Part of the rookie deal being so positive is you can afford to stockpile talent around until the QB needs his megadeal. Your plan works in Madden and literally no where else.

 

It's a very fluid situation with multiple and varying MOVING parts. 

Get em both, buy some time for JF to take another developmental leap, and THEN  trade him ...I do not foresee both qbs in Chicago together for multiple years, I only make the point of contract control (4 more w Fields and 7 with CW) in order to show that we hold control of the situation. 

 I believe CW is better than JF, and I know that CW will have a MUCH longer career. I also want to max out JFs value before trading him anywhere ! 

I don't envision the overlap ever lasting more than a year, or maybe 2 at the most bc JF, under new coaching,  will either ascend or not ! if he ascends to top 10-12 status we then trade him for a haul AND if he doesn't ascend and has already peaked, we have CW to take over

The hard truth is that the Draft will happen BEFORE we know FOR SURE what JF is. 

 AND even if JF ascends to top 5 status by the end of next season under new coaching. I am still trading him !  bc the massive haul we would receive is far greater than only having 4-5 more years left of JFs career, which is all that is left after next season !!  AND we will have CW to take over 

[G08]

I'm curious why Trevor Lawrence seemingly is firmly entrenched as the QB of the future in JAX but in Chicago we are talking about moving on from Justin Fields.

What am I missing? The Bears' record has been abysmal, but any fan worth his salt knows that 'wins' is not a QB stat.

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, G08 said:

I'm curious why Trevor Lawrence seemingly is firmly entrenched as the QB of the future in JAX but in Chicago we are talking about moving on from Justin Fields.

What am I missing? The Bears' record has been abysmal, but any fan worth his salt knows that 'wins' is not a QB stat.

Better passer, makes gets the ball out faster and takes less sacks, only 1 less rushing TD, has turned the ball over less and protects the ball better (60 total fumbles & INTs in 1742 passes and rushes vs Fields having 62 with 623 less attempts and rushes combined). Over the last two years he has carried the offense while Fields has been so hot and cold that he has been a liability as much as he has been a positive.

Also Fields' back ups have a better record than he does, while Lawrence has been able to stay healthy so his back ups have been irrelevant.

[AZBearsFan]

19 hours ago, SLCbear said:

 

  https://i.makeagif.com/media/6-30-2018/Eeuis-.gif

 Because JFs career will last 9-10yrs tops and the start of next season is year 4

and CW is better 

and we can afford to wait and max out JFs trade value 

If Williams is better then why won’t he play over Fields in your scenario though? Teams don’t play inferior talent solely to try to bolster trade value at quarterback. Fans would revolt. The locker room would revolt too.

If you think Williams is better than Fields then you’re drafting Williams and playing him. If you don’t think Williams is better than Fields then you’re not drafting Williams with the first overall pick because you already have a better player at the position who still has several years left even if his career is shortened as you suspect it will be because he runs the ball.

[Sugashane]

Just now, AZBearsFan said:

If Williams is better then why won’t he play over Fields in your scenario though? Teams don’t play inferior talent solely to try to bolster trade value at quarterback. Fans would revolt. The locker room would revolt too.

If you think Williams is better than Fields then you’re drafting Williams and playing him. If you don’t think Williams is better than Fields then you’re not drafting Williams with the first overall pick because you already have a better player at the position who still has several years left even if his career is shortened as you suspect it will be because he runs the ball.

Nah, the Bears can just franchise Fields for two straight years to be the back up. It's totally fine.

[SLCbear]

2 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

If Williams is better then why won’t he play over Fields in your scenario though? Teams don’t play inferior talent solely to try to bolster trade value at quarterback. Fans would revolt. The locker room would revolt too.

If you think Williams is better than Fields then you’re drafting Williams and playing him. If you don’t think Williams is better than Fields then you’re not drafting Williams with the first overall pick because you already have a better player at the position who still has several years left even if his career is shortened as you suspect it will be because he runs the ball.

Yes, I believe that CW is significantly better than Fields ! but right now at the NFL level, JF, bc of experience is better 

 I want to give CW redshirt year, get the team around hom built up more knowing that he will have a few starts along the way when JF misses games. Start cW fulltime year 2

That's another pro for having both QBs for a year or so, we don't have to worry as much about Fields inevitably missing games, esp if we are contending for POs. Our games next season will actually matter 

[Bigbear72]

6 hours ago, SLCbear said:

Yes, I believe that CW is significantly better than Fields ! but right now at the NFL level, JF, bc of experience is better 

 I want to give CW redshirt year, get the team around hom built up more knowing that he will have a few starts along the way when JF misses games. Start cW fulltime year 2

That's another pro for having both QBs for a year or so, we don't have to worry as much about Fields inevitably missing games, esp if we are contending for POs. Our games next season will actually matter 

Do you know why this won't happen? No NFL team is going to spend that amount of draft capital to sit a player for several years to learn. Name the last QB that was drafted No. 1 overall and sat behind another QB for several years to learn. I'll wait.

Edited December 3, 2023 by Bigbear72

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

8 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Better passer, makes gets the ball out faster and takes less sacks, only 1 less rushing TD, has turned the ball over less and protects the ball better (60 total fumbles & INTs in 1742 passes and rushes vs Fields having 62 with 623 less attempts and rushes combined). Over the last two years he has carried the offense while Fields has been so hot and cold that he has been a liability as much as he has been a positive.

Also Fields' back ups have a better record than he does, while Lawrence has been able to stay healthy so his back ups have been irrelevant.

Something something the play , Mrs Lincoln?

[G08]

12 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Better passer, makes gets the ball out faster and takes less sacks, only 1 less rushing TD, has turned the ball over less and protects the ball better (60 total fumbles & INTs in 1742 passes and rushes vs Fields having 62 with 623 less attempts and rushes combined). Over the last two years he has carried the offense while Fields has been so hot and cold that he has been a liability as much as he has been a positive.

Also Fields' back ups have a better record than he does, while Lawrence has been able to stay healthy so his back ups have been irrelevant.

Duplicate

Edited December 3, 2023 by G08

[G08]

12 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Better passer, makes gets the ball out faster and takes less sacks, only 1 less rushing TD, has turned the ball over less and protects the ball better (60 total fumbles & INTs in 1742 passes and rushes vs Fields having 62 with 623 less attempts and rushes combined). Over the last two years he has carried the offense while Fields has been so hot and cold that he has been a liability as much as he has been a positive.

Also Fields' back ups have a better record than he does, while Lawrence has been able to stay healthy so his back ups have been irrelevant.

You know that win/loss is not a QB stat man... unless you're one of those who thinks Tyson Bagent is better than Justin Fields, then I can't help you lol

Fields has a better TD%, YPA, more than double the rushing yards, etc.

I can get into coaching as well but that's beside the point.

 

The quickness with which some fans want to jump ship on a 24 year old ascending QB in Bears-land is staggering.

[beardown3231]

50 minutes ago, G08 said:

You know that win/loss is not a QB stat man... unless you're one of those who thinks Tyson Bagent is better than Justin Fields, then I can't help you lol

Fields has a better TD%, YPA, more than double the rushing yards, etc.

I can get into coaching as well but that's beside the point.

 

The quickness with which some fans want to jump ship on a 24 year old ascending QB in Bears-land is staggering.

He was ascending last year too and then started out like **** this season

We can't do this every year