2024 Draft Debate and Discussion

[GOGRIESE]

Just now, StLunatic88 said:

Ok so not actually a connection? 

This isnt a shot at you, it was clearly someone else who said it. Just this time of year, guys on twitter are often jumping the gun. 

Absolutely. It's connect the dots at this point. Even after we hire someone. 

[AZBearsFan]

32 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

I understand the plight of not ever having a QB

This is so much of the fan side of this whole thing IMO.

33 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

There will be Draft Prospects then too, but there will also be Veterans available to go get as the final piece (ala Matt Stafford)

Your Stafford reference takes me down a different path (and one that maybe should get its own thread):

If we take Caleb Williams at 1-1, what’s the floor (player comp) for how good he’s got to be for you not to consider the pick a miss? 

[SLCbear]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Can we at least agree it should be one or the other?  Keeping a first round QB and Fields on same roster seems like a really bad idea to me. 

Why ? Does having both give us significant protection from Fields or Draft Pick busting ? Yes

2 hours ago, StLunatic88 said:

Absolutely, this is not an Alex Smith situation, Justin Fields is not the type of QB that you have someone sit behind

To be clear, This is absolutely a fair stance to have. My only thing with this, you have to be ABSOLYUTELY POSITIVE that you have your guy to draft.

Right, this is not an Alex Smith situation.  Its a Justin Fields questions, while being gifted 1.1 situation, in a Draft with Top QB talent.

Our situation is unprecedented, we do not HAVE to do anything that we are not completely ready to do.  We can draft a Top Rookie AND  let him sit behind JF at least until the trade deadline. If we are winning with JF, we hang onto JF a while longer. Why does he HAVe to be MovED NOW ??! 

The only way that this way of thinking is correct, is if you KNOW that your rookie is HiM!!   AND you also KNoW that this rookie's development would definitely be hindered by having JF on same roster, OR  if maybe you know that JFs attitude or play will DEfinateLY suffer from having a Rookie behind him. Neither of these is likely AT ALL 

JF is a perfect citizen, so no complaints will be coming from him, and having this Rook behind him will push JF like never before ! 

JF WiLL MISS games, we WILL get to see our Rookie play in some reg-season games, giving us a great chance to make sure he does not FLoP,  we are protected all around. 

Poles was even asked this question and he stated he was 'open' to it 

 Now, if a team steps up and offers a Top 40 '24 pick  oR a future 1st  OR a stud player for JF  or even a top 64 pick plus a solid young 'starter' at a position of need, then we can trade JF now. If not, we keep him and start the season with  momentum and continuity, all with JF knowing fuLLY that he must process quicker and play better in crunchtime or lose his job. 

 How is any of this a bad thing ??

Edited January 15 by SLCbear

[StLunatic88]

12 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

Our situation is unprecedented, we do not HAVE to do anything that we are not completely ready to do.  We can draft a Top Rookie AND  let him sit behind JF at least until the trade deadline. If we are winning with JF, we hang onto JF a while longer. Why does he HAVe to be MovED NOW ??! 

I understand why you would say that, but in reality, JF and more importantly his people would NEVER let that happen. He is either the clear start for the Bears going into 2024, or he is the clear starter for someone else. 

Its the Cam Newton conundrum. He isnt a guy you are half in on. which is why I dont think we are getting as much in a trade for Fields as many around here want to believe. 

[AZBearsFan]

18 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

Our situation is unprecedented, we do not HAVE to do anything that we are not completely ready to do.  We can draft a Top Rookie AND  let him sit behind JF at least until the trade deadline. If we are winning with JF, we hang onto JF a while longer. Why does he HAVe to be MovED NOW ??! 

By having Fields and Williams, both learning a new offense, each getting only roughly half the reps during camp and then CW getting basicslly none once the season starts you’re setting both up to struggle early. That’s a worst case scenario for everyone (Fields because it hurts his chances of securing a long term job at his next stop, Williams because it puts him developmentally behind where he should be, and the FO and coaching staff because 2024 struggles put their jobs more in peril). I get the appeal in concept of having both guys, but in reality it’s a difficult situation into which the parties who are responsible for roster management and player development are incredibly unlikely to place themselves because it’s the scenario with the most that can go wrong for those decision makers. 

[SLCbear]

4 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

I understand why you would say that, but in reality, JF and more importantly his people would NEVER let that happen. He is either the clear start for the Bears going into 2024, or he is the clear starter for someone else. 

Its the Cam Newton conundrum. He isnt a guy you are half in on. which is why I dont think we are getting as much in a trade for Fields as many around here want to believe. 

JF would be the clear starter going into '24. We would have continuity aND momentum in doing so.

 And YES, you cannot be half in on JF;  we don't have to be ! we can hang onto him until we  know fully what he is  ....all while having EXcellent  insurance sitting behind him (and your Rookie does not have to be thrown into the fire Week 1)

[StLunatic88]

2 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

JF would be the clear starter going into '24. We would have continuity aND momentum in doing so.

 And YES, you cannot be half in on JF;  we don't have to be ! we can hang onto him until we  know fully what he is  ....all while having EXcellent  insurance sitting behind him (and your Rookie does not have to be thrown into the fire Week 1)

By drafting anyone in the first 50 picks you are automatically half in on Fields (if not completely out more likely, especially if you pick a QB at 1.1)

I understand what you are wanting here, but it just isnt realistic. Its actually beyond unrealistic, its fantasy land.

[Epyon]

Whichever route we go at qb... You can't afford to keep the other option.... 

If you stay with Fields, you need the capital from 1.1 to build around him

If you take williams, you need the capital from trading Fields to plug holes around him. 

In either scenario you don't sit on the fence with both, you make a decision and go all in on it. 

Edited January 15 by Epyon

[SLCbear]

2 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

By having Fields and Williams, both learning a new offense, each getting only roughly half the reps during camp and then CW getting basicslly none once the season starts you’re setting both up to struggle early. That’s a worst case scenario for everyone (Fields because it hurts his chances of securing a long term job at his next stop, Williams because it puts him developmentally behind where he should be, and the FO and coaching staff because 2024 struggles put their jobs more in peril). I get the appeal in concept of having both guys, but in reality it’s a difficult situation into which the parties who are responsible for roster management and player development are incredibly unlikely to place themselves because it’s the scenario with the most that can go wrong for those decision makers. 

What's more important ? 

 A. Having a SIGNIFICANTly greater chance of getting the QB position right.

or

 B. Having your 4th yr QB and Rookie Stud get more practice reps  leading up to real gametime action.

[SLCbear]

5 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

By drafting anyone in the first 50 picks you are automatically half in on Fields (if not completely out more likely, especially if you pick a QB at 1.1)

I understand what you are wanting here, but it just isnt realistic. Its actually beyond unrealistic, its fantasy land.

This was a debate a while back. Noone agreed with me, but all anyone would ever say was that 'it is unrealistic' 

 In the 2024 NFL landscape, with a perfect citizen like JF, HOW is it unrealistic ???

[SLCbear]

👆🏻who would/could even fault us for keeping JF AND taking a qb  ??? 

 This seems like the very best option bc it protects us from either guy busting  !

JF will NOT be an attitude problem ever, a high level rook behind him will only push JF to be his  VErY best 

[SLCbear]

JF is the clear starter week 1 and then see how he does ! if he takes a developmental leap then GREAT ! if not we have a bigtime Rookie to take over.  If both FLOp, then we are just SOL ha haha 

[StLunatic88]

15 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

 In the 2024 NFL landscape, with a perfect citizen like JF, HOW is it unrealistic ???

11 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

JF will NOT be an attitude problem ever, a high level rook behind him will only push JF to be his  VErY best 

I dont know if you are trolling here, or if you honestly believe that this matters, but I promise you it doesnt. Fields wont be the one that needs to say anything, although no one would fault him if he did after the team takes a guy at #1.

But David Mulugheta will not let this situation ever come to pass

Edited January 15 by StLunatic88

[HuskieBear]

we need to get this straight. there are a ton of options, but there is no situation where we have JF and a #1 QB on the roster together. not only would it SEVERLY impact the amount of reps both guys get with a new OC, it would also fracture the locker room. it's 1 or the other, not both

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

47 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

 

 And YES, you cannot be half in on JF;  we don't have to be ! we can hang onto him until we  know fully what he is  ....all while having EXcellent  insurance sitting behind him (and your Rookie does not have to be thrown into the fire Week 1)

Um.  Not sure how "half in" gets defined from your point of view,  but the situation you describe is pretty much what it looks like to be half in on a QB.