2024 Draft Debate and Discussion

[SLCbear]

6 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

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

2. 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.

1. Your scenario included trading one, mine did not. Stating that I would trade one or the other when I would actually keep both  is strawman. I ONLY mentioned trade in response to your scenario 

2. Again, strawman. I'm not trading JF away at 26 after a breakout, neither is Poles 

Any talk from me about trading one of these guys was merely in response to your proposed 'HAVING to trade one' 

 

[Sugashane]

16 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)

1. Cool. 5-6 in the top round or two. I'm not talking about Williams only. It's still spitting in Fields' face.

2. See 1st response.

3. Because you have been harping about other teams offering lowball offers for Fields. And you're talking about keeping Fields up to year 8, so either he was paid or been stupidly franchised him multiple times. And because it's downright foolish to keep both.

You're moving the goalposts now. First it was grab a rookie in case Fields can't be the guy and now it's that you'd only trade Fields when the rookie's deal is up. That also means you have to have Fields under contract when that deal ends (since obviously you cant trade someone you dont own the rights to), so unless you are franchising him 3-4 times after his 5th year deal then he has been paid and you squandered the drafted QB's pick.

You can stack players anywhere else. There's multiple WRs in almost every set, you can run 12 personnel and load up on TE, RB committies, there's a left and right to almost every position on either line, nickel and dime for DBs, etc. Hell even C can be IOL depth for both OGs and has snapping as a specialized skill. But QBs aren't the same. There's rarely ever 2 QBs on the field simultaneously for a reason, it's a waste due to their specialized skills and inability to do what most any position can do on offense (catch or block). And surely we aren't talking about moving him to RB. Lol

[StLunatic88]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

 

But why does it matter if the QB was taken at #1 overall? Wouldn’t it just be the results of the first QB taken? Or if you want to prevent a major skew (the Pickett effect) then the first QB taken in the Top 5?

Id also point out, he is measuring that the player hits 4/5 criteria in only one of the years of their entire career. Seems like a low bar if we are measuring it against being the #1 overall pick. 

[SLCbear]

11 minutes ago, Pool said:

Cream always rises to the top, right? 

Yes non-cream that's right 

men are talking here, keep it down

[SLCbear]

23 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

1. Cool. 5-6 in the top round or two. I'm not talking about Williams only. It's still spitting in Fields' face.

2. See 1st response.

3. Because you have been harping about other teams offering lowball offers for Fields. And you're talking about keeping Fields up to year 8, so either he was paid or been stupidly franchised him multiple times. And because it's downright foolish to keep both.

You're moving the goalposts now. First it was grab a rookie in case Fields can't be the guy and now it's that you'd only trade Fields when the rookie's deal is up. That also means you have to have Fields under contract when that deal ends (since obviously you cant trade someone you dont own the rights to), so unless you are franchising him 3-4 times after his 5th year deal then he has been paid and you squandered the drafted QB's pick.

You can stack players anywhere else. There's multiple WRs in almost every set, you can run 12 personnel and load up on TE, RB committies, there's a left and right to almost every position on either line, nickel and dime for DBs, etc. Hell even C can be IOL depth for both OGs and has snapping as a specialized skill. But QBs aren't the same. There's rarely ever 2 QBs on the field simultaneously for a reason, it's a waste due to their specialized skills and inability to do what most any position can do on offense (catch or block). And surely we aren't talking about moving him to RB. Lol

. 

I am drafting a rookie period ! 

I am not scared of having JF AND rookie on same roster if we want to hold onto Fields 

If  JF breaks out, I'm not trading ****

Should JF break out, we can then only afford to pay both for 3 more years, bc that would be start yr 5 for rookie, we cannot pay both. yr 5 for rook is yr 8 for JF 

I think you are either misreading or improperly inferring from my statements 

 

Edited January 17 by SLCbear

[refundmytickets]

6 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

But why does it matter if the QB was taken at #1 overall? Wouldn’t it just be the results of the first QB taken? Or if you want to prevent a major skew (the Pickett effect) then the first QB taken in the Top 5?

If you do 1st QB taken (only top 5 picks), you add these players:

- Heath Shuler (0/5)
- Steve McNair (5/5)
- Vince Young (1/5)
- Matt Ryan (5/5)
- Blake Bortles (4/5)
- Mitch Trubisky (1/5)

The new percentages would be:

- 4000+ YDS (65%)
- 30+ TDs (46%)
- 80+ career starts (68%)
- Playoff Win (57%)
- Pro Bowl (73%)

There's probably some fundamental difference between a 1OA QB and the others. In the years with no 1OA QB, it seems like there was no consensus great QB or the entire QB class was perceived as weak.

It seems like 1OA QBs benefit from expectations to an extent. They get more starts to prove themselves and they're more likely to make Pro-Bowls because of name recognition.

[AZBearsFan]

20 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

1. Your scenario included trading one, mine did not. Stating that I would trade one or the other when I would actually keep both  is strawman. I ONLY mentioned trade in response to your scenario 

2. Again, strawman. I'm not trading JF away at 26 after a breakout, neither is Poles 

Any talk from me about trading one of these guys was merely in response to your proposed 'HAVING to trade one' 

 

Playing out what happens next in your own scenarios isn’t straw man but I just don’t care to do this any more - if you want to die on the hill of pushing whatever plan that is for addressing our QB situation then go nuts. This is exhausting. I’m done. ✌️ 

[Epyon]

22 minutes ago, StLunatic88 said:

But why does it matter if the QB was taken at #1 overall? Wouldn’t it just be the results of the first QB taken? Or if you want to prevent a major skew (the Pickett effect) then the first QB taken in the Top 5?

QB is largely considered the single most important position on the Field.... If you're telling me that any other position gets selected before the QB, then the QB prospect themselves wasn't as highly touted.

For example, in this draft MHJ is considered to be a rare, unique, and "generational" receiving talent.  Expectations even among Chicago fanbase are to the point where people have argued that if he came to Chicago, he would pass DJ Moore as the #1 WR on the team by his second year, and DJ Moore is currently at worst a top 10 WR in the entire league right now (imo).  Literally just him, Calvin Johnson, and J'Mar Chase on their own in the last 20 years by some accounts.

Despite this, he is NOT even being discussed as the runaway consensus #1 overall pick, where he very well might have been in a weaker QB class.

 

[SLCbear]

4 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Playing out what happens next in your own scenarios isn’t straw man but I just don’t care to do this any more - if you want to die on the hill of pushing whatever plan that is for addressing our QB situation then go nuts. This is exhausting. I’m done. ✌️ 

straw man is taking someone's statement and changing it and then debating against the CHangED statement. I never said I PLAN on trading JF if he breaks out. 

I only stated that if I HAD to trade one or the other I would trade the QB with the short shelf-life, Fields. This was in response to your saying that you would have to trade the rookie if JF breaks out. 

In my own scenario and yours, I'm not trading either QB if JF breaks out yr 4 !

But if I HAD to trade one gun to my head, I'd trade JF bc of shelf-life

 

 

[SLCbear]

16 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

Playing out what happens next in your own scenarios isn’t straw man but I just don’t care to do this any more - if you want to die on the hill of pushing whatever plan that is for addressing our QB situation then go nuts. This is exhausting. I’m done. ✌️ 

✌Have a great night ! 

Edited January 17 by SLCbear

[Bigbear72]

8 hours ago, SLCbear said:

@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 

I have, just as many other posters have. You don't like the answers and that's fine. But repeating the same answers to what appears to be a brick benefits no one. 

[StLunatic88]

9 hours ago, refundmytickets said:

There's probably some fundamental difference between a 1OA QB and the others. In the years with no 1OA QB, it seems like there was no consensus great QB or the entire QB class was perceived as weak.

Yea I didn’t know what it would do off the top, but the difference of the first QB being drafted at 1 vs 2/3 to me is minimal.  Its not that teams didn’t trade up for QBs before, but it has not become what is going on in recent years.

But I would just throw this out there, if we ended up with #2 from the panthers, and the Cards were #1 and MHJ was a Megatron level prospect, would it matter that we were having this same debate about the #2 pick being the first QB just because there was an ACTUAL generational talent going in front of them? I don’t think it matters at all. Caleb/Maye would still be the same prospect, it would just be a perfect storm that anyone would go in front of them. 

Edited January 17 by StLunatic88

[StLunatic88]

9 hours ago, Epyon said:

Expectations even among Chicago fanbase are to the point where people have argued that if he came to Chicago, he would pass DJ Moore as the #1 WR on the team by his second year,

Man what garbage Facebook groups are you part of that you see these absurd takes? And then you come in here pretending that these are the norm from all Bears Fans? And argue them against us on this Forum who have never said anything like this…

[refundmytickets]

1 hour ago, StLunatic88 said:

But I would just throw this out there, if we ended up with #2 from the panthers, and the Cards were #1 and MHJ was a Megatron level prospect, would it matter that we were having this same debate about the #2 pick being the first QB just because there was an ACTUAL generational talent going in front of them? I don’t think it matters at all. Caleb/Maye would still be the same prospect, it would just be a perfect storm that anyone would go in front of them. 

In that scenario I'd say there was no consensus around Williams being a potentially-great QB. Those guys typically get pushed above generational players at other positions (e.g. Goff ahead of Bosa, Russell ahead of Johnson). And if a class has any potentially-great QB, there's usually a trade market for the 1st pick.

He'd still be the same prospect. But you'd have more info about how the league perceives him.

[StLunatic88]

15 minutes ago, refundmytickets said:

In that scenario I'd say there was no consensus around Williams being a potentially-great QB.

There isnt a consensus around him now... Thats why there is even a conversation between drafting him and keeping Fields. Its why Drake Maye is mentioned along with him just about every time.