2024 Draft Debate and Discussion

[SLCbear]

@Bigbear72   I don't expect you to answer the questions, or to even offer your own clear opinions on what to do moving forward, you never do  

  hover and critique is more your thing  respectfully 

Edited January 17 by SLCbear

[AZBearsFan]

2 hours ago, SLCbear said:

All of these are GOOD problems to have !

Uh, the lights finally came on for our uber-talented qb in year 4 and we still have him on the roster  ...Oh and we also have a stud rook on the roster  OMG HOW AWFUL  

 And yes JF is done in 7 maybe 8yrs MAX. 7-8 more would give him the longest shelf-life EVER !  Its not my timeline, its human biology for all rushing QBs, windows for RBs even shorter. Is this MY timeline ? No. 

But you’re trading Fields away in this scenario where he makes a huge leap? You’re trading a (then) 26-year old QB away in this scenario to roll with the unproven (then) 2nd year highly talented but unproven younger player? You think that goes over well for Poles? Fields is already the most popular QB we’ve had probably in my entire lifetime (I’m in my 40s) and he hasn’t even arrived yet. If he does in 2024 in this scenario his popularity here will be higher than maybe any Bear. EVER. You think Poles then trades him elsewhere? There is no chance. Zip. Zero.

Of course, the alternative there is trading Williams, right? You’d have to do that, no? If Williams (or any QB at 1-1 since you’re so insistent in reminding us that there are other QBs besides CW in the draft) is drafted 1st overall there is no chance at all Poles exercises Fields’ 5YO, meaning he’d be a pending UFA after a great 2024, so he’d either get franchise tagged or, more likely, get a really big extension. That’d be a bigger commitment to Fields, which makes Williams on the bench for probably the entire remainder of his rookie deal a reality, and he’s valuable! So keeping him on the bench would be a gross mismanagement of assets for a team that would now need to work around a much bigger Fields contract. That’s a bunch of dead cap to take on when that move gets made and, oh by the way, we’d have reduced leverage trading Williams away because we would’ve then financially committed to Fields significantly!

This is the best case scenario for your proposed plan of keeping Fields after drafting a QB at 1-1, one in which both moves following a Fields breakout leaves Poles looking like an idiot.

[AZBearsFan]

2 hours ago, SLCbear said:

1. I am advocating that when the dust settles and we are not seeing a proper return for JF that we need not FEAR having 2 high-profile QBs on the same roster. Catastrophising that the 2 can ONLY rip the lockerroom apart. You and others sound like a knitting circle 🧶 😜

2. Holding onto JF means we believe in him. This is the message that will be conveyed to JF. How is believing that someone, who is wired right AND works his *** off, can still breakout jerking them around ??

 3. No, teams are not gonna 'wait poles out'. This is year 4, the final year before big contract. Interested teams  will want JF NOW to get him ready for season and have a full season to evaluate.

4. Unable to glean your point. If only 2 or 3 teams interested, so what. We  Only need 1.

1. Resorting to personal attacks like saying those who think your idea is bad are “like a knitting circle” doesn’t exactly do much to refute the opinion of the “knitting circle” that the idea is, in fact, a bad one.

2. Drafting his replacement tells him we don’t believe in his long term future here. If you can’t see that then I’m not sure what else to say. Fields would see it though.

3. If they’re not gonna wait us out but they’re gonna low ball us, how exactly does that work? Can’t really do both at the same time.

4. The point is there are limited suitors and a finite amount of time before there are no suitors at all. 

Edited January 17 by AZBearsFan

[AZBearsFan]

@SLCbear I appreciate and respect your willingness to put your opinions out there even if they are unconventional and unpopular. I also appreciate the engagement - this place can get stale sometimes.

Like I’ve been saying for weeks, we all want the same thing no matter our chosen path to get there. Whatever we do, let’s just get it right!

🍻🍻🍻

[Sugashane]

5 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

1. Resorting to personal attacks like saying those who think your idea is bad are “like a knitting circle” doesn’t exactly do much to refute the opinion of the “knitting circle” that the idea is, in fact, a bad one.

2. Drafting his replacement tells him we don’t believe in his long term future here. If you can’t see that then I’m not sure what else to say. Fields would see it though.

3. If they’re not gonna wait us out but they’re gonna low ball us, how exactly does that work? Can’t really do both at the same time.

4. The point is there are limited suitors and a finite amount of time before there are no suitors at all. 

I'm just lm wondering how Poles and Co. try to explain to Fields that they fully support him, but chose to use a 1st rounder one a QB.

"Look, yes we could have supported you with a receiver or IOL, or even an EDGE to help the defense keep the scpre more manageble... but this is another form of support for you! We have so much faith in you we can spend a high pick to back you up! You don't need some flashy receiver, you have Moore and Kmet! And 3 solid OL is over half a good OL. What else could you need? By the way, help show the kid the ropes, we want him to be ready to take -er, back you up... as soon as possible." The conversation would be equally fun with the rookie.

Not only are there limited suitors, if Fields doesnt make pretty drastically steps forward or misses time (as he has every season so far) his value plummets further. That means a 4th offense to learn in his 5th year, on the 5th year option, so they either have the burden of extending him and negotiating a short deal or franchise tagging him if they want more than 1 season with him.

[SLCbear]

15 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

1. But you’re trading Fields away in this scenario where he makes a huge leap? You’re trading a (then) 26-year old QB away in this scenario to roll with the unproven (then) 2nd year highly talented but unproven younger player? You think that goes over well for Poles? Fields is already the most popular QB we’ve had probably in my entire lifetime (I’m in my 40s) and he hasn’t even arrived yet. If he does in 2024 in this scenario his popularity here will be higher than maybe any Bear. EVER. You think Poles then trades him elsewhere? There is no chance. Zip. Zero.

2. Of course, the alternative there is trading Williams, right? You’d have to do that, no? If Williams (or any QB at 1-1 since you’re so insistent in reminding us that there are other QBs besides CW in the draft) is drafted 1st overall there is no chance at all Poles exercises Fields’ 5YO, meaning he’d be a pending UFA after a great 2024, so he’d either get franchise tagged or, more likely, get a really big extension. That’d be a bigger commitment to Fields, which makes Williams on the bench for probably the entire remainder of his rookie deal a reality, and he’s valuable! So keeping him on the bench would be a gross mismanagement of assets for a team that would now need to work around a much bigger Fields contract. That’s a bunch of dead cap to take on when that move gets made and, oh by the way, we’d have reduced leverage trading Williams away because we would’ve then financially committed to Fields significantly!

3. This is the best case scenario for your proposed plan of keeping Fields after drafting a QB at 1-1, one in which both moves following a Fields breakout leaves Poles looking like an idiot.

1. No. I'm not trading either, I merely responded to your insistence on trading the Rookie. If I HAVE  TO TRADE ONE OF THE 2, I'm trading the one with the very short shelf-life, which is Fields. I want to keep JF if he breaks out, I will keep the Rook too if this happens.

2. Again No. I'm keeping both unless I absolutely HAVE TO TRADE one. If/when this actually HAPPENS, I'm trading the qb with the short shelf-life. What's more, JF will miss some games every year, he could also suffer a sig injury and miss sig time (see Lamar) 

What happens when your all in on your running QB and he gets hurt late in the season and has to miss POs (also see Lamar) ? You are SOL

3. Another straw man, if JF breaksout, I'm keeping both for as long as poss

[SLCbear]

25 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

1. Resorting to personal attacks like saying those who think your idea is bad are “like a knitting circle” doesn’t exactly do much to refute the opinion of the “knitting circle” that the idea is, in fact, a bad one.

2. Drafting his replacement tells him we don’t believe in his long term future here. If you can’t see that then I’m not sure what else to say. Fields would see it though.

3. If they’re not gonna wait us out but they’re gonna low ball us, how exactly does that work? Can’t really do both at the same time.

4. The point is there are limited suitors and a finite amount of time before there are no suitors at all. 

1. just saying that you can't be scared to have both qbs on roster at same time, esp if surrounding circumstances dictate such an outcome 

2. No, drafting a qb and then dumping JF for scraps is what sends that message 

3. They won't be able to wait is out if they want JF, and forced to up their offer or not acquire him

4. Again, we only need one. 

[SLCbear]

13 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I'm just lm wondering how Poles and Co. try to explain to Fields that they fully support him, but chose to use a 1st rounder one a QB.

"Look, yes we could have supported you with a receiver or IOL, or even an EDGE to help the defense keep the scpre more manageble... but this is another form of support for you! We have so much faith in you we can spend a high pick to back you up! You don't need some flashy receiver, you have Moore and Kmet! And 3 solid OL is over half a good OL. What else could you need? By the way, help show the kid the ropes, we want him to be ready to take -er, back you up... as soon as possible." The conversation would be equally fun with the rookie.

Not only are there limited suitors, if Fields doesnt make pretty drastically steps forward or misses time (as he has every season so far) his value plummets further. That means a 4th offense to learn in his 5th year, on the 5th year option, so they either have the burden of extending him and negotiating a short deal or franchise tagging him if they want more than 1 season with him.

It goes like  this:

We love you Justin, but you know  that you need to process quicker and raise your level of play in crunchtime. We still believe that you can do it, but time is running out ! You are the starter for '24 and its up to you to remain the starter !

Simple honest clean. JF knows himself that he has to get better.

[HuskieBear]

6 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

It goes like  this:

We love you Justin, but you know  that you need to process quicker and raise your level of play in crunchtime. We still believe that you can do it, but time is running out ! You are the starter for '24 and its up to you to remain the starter !

Simple honest clean. JF knows himself that he has to get better.

but what happens if he does that? we then have to pay him? we give him the FT and trade him? we trade CW or whoever we take at #1? 

if we pay him, it's a wasted asset taken 1.1

lamar jackson got the FT and he was only 25 with an MVP under his belt. if nothing happened there, what makes you think something happens with JF?

if we keep JF under this scenario and trade whomever we pick at 1.1, again, like AZ said, it's a completely wasted asset and would set us back. taking a player that helps us THIS year (or trading the pick for other picks that would help us this year) would be in Poles best interest rather than parking that asset on the bench all season

[SLCbear]

2 minutes ago, HuskieBear said:

1. but what happens if he does that? we then have to pay him? we give him the FT and trade him? we trade CW or whoever we take at #1? 

2. if we pay him, it's a wasted asset taken 1.1

3. lamar jackson got the FT and he was only 25 with an MVP under his belt. if nothing happened there, what makes you think something happens with JF?

4. if we keep JF under this scenario and trade whomever we pick at 1.1, again, like AZ said, it's a completely wasted asset and would set us back. taking a player that helps us THIS year (or trading the pick for other picks that would help us this year) would be in Poles best interest rather than parking that asset on the bench all season

1. You keep both for as long as you can, which is probably about 3 more yrs following the yr4 breakout from JF

2. we don't HAVE to draft our rook at 1.1 unless its CW, there are sever QB options after 1.1. My personal fave is Jayden Daniels, similar playing style. Was ****stick rodgers a wasted pick for GB ? No.

3. we certainly have the option to Tag JF, twice  ....or maybe I do not fully understand what you are asking 

4. Strawman. I'm keeping both for as long as poss, which is likely 3 more yrs following yr4 breakout. 

[Sugashane]

14 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

It goes like  this:

We love you Justin, but you know  that you need to process quicker and raise your level of play in crunchtime. We still believe that you can do it, but time is running out ! You are the starter for '24 and its up to you to remain the starter !

Simple honest clean. JF knows himself that he has to get better.

"And we've made a major investment because we dont believe you'll do it. In fact a major resource that could have been used to help you in crunchtime and help protect you - since we've let you get beat like a rented mule - was used to replace you."

Fields knows he needs to get better, he also knows Chicago has jerked him around. Drafted under a dead fish of a HC, put through a tank year, OC in year 3 completely gets away from what worked in year 2, and now instead of drafting one of the top receiving options or offensive lineman (where there is an obvious need) they draft his replacement? He'd be pissed and feel completely disrespected. That would bleed over to the locker room.

Best part is trade-wise you've lowered the value for both QBs by holding onto both.

[AZBearsFan]

14 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

1. No. I'm not trading either, I merely responded to your insistence on trading the Rookie. If I HAVE  TO TRADE ONE OF THE 2, I'm trading the one with the very short shelf-life, which is Fields. I want to keep JF if he breaks out, I will keep the Rook too if this happens.

2. Again No. I'm keeping both unless I absolutely HAVE TO TRADE one. If/when this actually HAPPENS, I'm trading the qb with the short shelf-life. What's more, JF will miss some games every year, he could also suffer a sig injury and miss sig time (see Lamar) 

What happens when your all in on your running QB and he gets hurt late in the season and has to miss POs (also see Lamar) ? You are SOL

3. Another straw man, if JF breaksout, I'm keeping both for as long as poss

I made a statement about the exact scenario being discussed. That’s not… whatever. 

God bless you for thinking Poles would put himself in a situation where he may be forced to choose between trading away a 26yo franchise QB or sitting a 1st overall pick for the entirety of his contract. That sounds like the kind of thing that only happens on fan message boards. I can’t imagine Poles has any interest in putting himself in that situation.

[AZBearsFan]

I’m sure the discussion with Williams goes well when he hears “We drafted you 1st overall, but the incumbent developing QB gets this year and if he’s good you don’t get to play next year either. But hang in there kiddo. We love you.” 

[SLCbear]

1 minute ago, Sugashane said:

1. "And we've made a major investment because we dont believe you'll do it. In fact a major resource that could have been used to help you in crunchtime and help protect you - since we've let you get beat like a rented mule - was used to replace you."

2. Fields knows he needs to get better, he also knows Chicago has jerked him around. Drafted under a dead fish of a HC, put through a tank year, OC in year 3 completely gets away from what worked in year 2, and now instead of drafting one of the top receiving options or offensive lineman (where there is an obvious need) they draft his replacement? He'd be pissed and feel completely disrespected. That would bleed over to the locker room.

3. Best part is trade-wise you've lowered the value for both QBs by holding onto both.

1. we still have 1.9 AnD cab trade down for a diff QB. CW is not the only promising prospect, Poles alluded to 5-6

2. see 1st response  

3. What do we care about perceived trade value ? I only ever plan on trading JF when the Rookie's rookie-deal is up. By then we will HAVe to trade one, and JF will be entering year 8 (of an 8-10 yr career)

[Pool]

4 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

1. we still have 1.9 AnD cab trade down for a diff QB. CW is not the only promising prospect, Poles alluded to 5-6

2. see 1st response  

3. What do we care about perceived trade value ? I only ever plan on trading JF when the Rookie's rookie-deal is up. By then we will HAVe to trade one, and JF will be entering year 8 (of an 8-10 yr career)

I think you are on to something here. Draft CW at 1 and take Daniels at 9. Let the three of them battle for the starting gig and see what happens. Cream always rises to the top, right? I personally think this is a fool proof plan.