Week 11 GDT: Bears vs. Lions

[Sugashane]

7 minutes ago, AZBearsFan said:

With all due respect, everything about this plan makes no sense. If you think Fields is the man then you don’t need CW, and if he’s not the man then why is he keeping CW on the bench? If Fields as a “running QB” has a limited shelf life how would his trade value be notably higher 2-4 years further down the road? Anything beyond 2 more years would require a contract extension, but realistically, why would you even pick up the 5th year option if you’ve drafted CW? That would never happen. If you do take CW, why would Fields want to even be in Chicago? You’ve just declared him not the future of the franchise by acquiring his replacement with the first overall pick. For the sake of what’s best for his career he’d certainly want to go somewhere he has the chance to be the long term guy. 

Plus Fields would hold out as a FU for trying to keep him there, and I'd fully support him in that. Teams knowing he would refuse to take a snap and have a case of "**** Chicago flu" to keep him from playing on Sundays would mean even less leverage for Chicago - and an even lower pick IMO

[CBears019]

8 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Plus Fields would hold out as a FU for trying to keep him there, and I'd fully support him in that. Teams knowing he would refuse to take a snap and have a case of "**** Chicago flu" to keep him from playing on Sundays would mean even less leverage for Chicago - and an even lower pick IMO

Caleb likely also holds out/demands a trade in this scenario once he learns he’s going to be sitting for 2-4 years.  
 

edit:  not likely.  100% guaranteed he’d demand a trade.

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

1 hour ago, CBears019 said:

Caleb likely also holds out/demands a trade in this scenario once he learns he’s going to be sitting for 2-4 years.  

Is that... is that Roschon Johnsons's music I hear?

[Sugashane]

23 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Is that... is that Roschon Johnsons's music I hear?

 

[SLCbear]

17 hours ago, AZBearsFan said:

1. If you think Fields is the man then you don’t need CW, and if he’s not the man then why is he keeping CW on the bench?

2. If Fields as a “running QB” has a limited shelf life how would his trade value be notably higher 2-4 years further down the road?

3. Anything beyond 2 more years would require a contract extension, but realistically, why would you even pick up the 5th year option if you’ve drafted CW?

4. That would never happen. If you do take CW, why would Fields want to even be in Chicago? You’ve just declared him not the future of the franchise by acquiring his replacement with the first overall pick.

5. For the sake of what’s best for his career he’d certainly want to go somewhere he has the chance to be the long term guy. 

1. Fields MAY/CAN be the man. I believe in him, will it happen ?? None of us know this yet AND if he becomes the man, he ABSOLUTELY comes w career longevity concerns. That is a fact. No other QB that has carried the ball as much as JF (which is an absolute necessity for him to be successful at QB) has had a career lasting more than 9-10 years. 

2. His trade value only becomes notably higher if we start winning games. I believe that the right coaching scheme and execution can further unlock his potential to dominate the position, however, this is no slam dunk and several things have to fall into place for this to even happen.

Moreover, how many times since our last SB win have we drafted top 3 in the Draft ?? when will we be in a position to pick 1.1 again while also having an additional top 5 pick (hopefully top 3!) in same Draft ? uh probably never

3. Yes, of course. IF he balls out, you pick up 5th year and then sign him to a long term deal, no brainer.  CW will be on a rookie deal so what's the problem with winning games and signing JF to a longterm deal, while CW watches learns and prepares at the NFL level ?  and again, JF will miss games and CW will start those games ! JF has missed games every season and CWs camp knows this. 

4. Fair point but what's more important ? Protecting the franchise and finally getting the QB position RIGHT!  or protecting the feelings of one of its players, making personnel decisions based on how one of it's players feels about another player potentially taking his place one day ?? My plan protects the franchise and HIGHly increases chances of getting the QB position right, FINALLY!!

  crusty old traditional ways of thinking only work if you land at the VERY top of Draft (and even then it's still not a guaranteed that the prospect will reach their projected status),  OR get very VERY lucky w a later pick. How's that been working out for us since the last time we won a SB ??doing things traditionally bc 'that's how it done' is what keeps you middle of the road, not good enough to compete for the chip and not bad enough to be at very top of Draft, left to rely on luck. 

5. And he will eventually have that chance via trade IF he gets his **** together and we start winning games. This is not the NBA 

 

So your plan is to rely ENTIRELY on one seemingly oft-injured (he would have played some of the games he missed if we were contending and our  games actually mattered) player who may never unlock his full potential AND have no backup plan for the MOSt important position (besides Bagent) , all while holding 2 top5 picks in same Draft ? Am I understanding you correcto ?? I don't want to misrepresent anything here. 

[SLCbear]

17 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Plus Fields would hold out as a FU for trying to keep him there, and I'd fully support him in that. Teams knowing he would refuse to take a snap and have a case of "**** Chicago flu" to keep him from playing on Sundays would mean even less leverage for Chicago - and an even lower pick IMO

This is not the NBA ! what leverage does JF currently possess ? He's going to hold out as a FU after going like 6-30 as a starter ? good luck w that 

 

[SLCbear]

11 hours ago, CBears019 said:

Caleb likely also holds out/demands a trade in this scenario once he learns he’s going to be sitting for 2-4 years.  
 

edit:  not likely.  100% guaranteed he’d demand a trade.

CWs camp knows that JF is not a finished product (and may never be) AND that CW will get some starts due to JF inevitably missing games, all while franchise is being built up around him in meantime 

 LOTs of varying and moving parts at play here. The full situation is not black and white by any means !

[SLCbear]

10 hours ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Is that... is that Roschon Johnsons's music I hear?

JFs career longevity and missing games is what sparked the whole silly Roschon debate in the first place haha

JF has missed more games this season ! how can JF be your ONLy option at QB with no backup plan 

 If we didn't have JF and we had picks 1.1 and 1.2, I would think long and hard at drafting CW and Maye both in order to seriously increase the chances of getting QB right   FINALLY

keep the best one, trade the other 

Edited November 26, 2023 by SLCbear

[SLCbear]

10 hours ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said:

Is that... is that Roschon Johnsons's music I hear?

dam right it IS 💥  

[SLCbear]

We hold all the cards 

[beardown3231]

11 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

We hold all the cards 

If the Bears keep Fields and he keeps getting hurt and underperforming, no one will give up much of anything for him, ESPECIALLY knowing Maye/Williams are behind him and the Bears will be desperate. Furthermore, if the Bears keep Fields despite getting hurt and underperforming, what does that say about Williams/Maye?

On that note, the Bears will have used 1.1 on a guy who can't play over Fields. Who is going to give the Bears even close to equal value in 2-3 years for either guy?

I'm just so confused

[SLCbear]

3 hours ago, beardown3231 said:

If the Bears keep Fields and he keeps getting hurt and underperforming, no one will give up much of anything for him, ESPECIALLY knowing Maye/Williams are behind him and the Bears will be desperate. Furthermore, if the Bears keep Fields despite getting hurt and underperforming, what does that say about Williams/Maye?

On that note, the Bears will have used 1.1 on a guy who can't play over Fields. Who is going to give the Bears even close to equal value in 2-3 years for either guy?

I'm just so confused

Too curious, I had to check  it bc I knew it was for me 🤣 

 If JF keeps getting hurt and underperforms he out and CW or Maye are in. What are you confused about ?? and if JF is out, we don't get a haul for him but we don't have to start over AGAIN  either ! 

 What is your point  ?? besides hating and quick to rudely  jump on something for reasons that only makes sense to you. The endless neediness and self loathing is BAd. this is why you get blocked, pls get some help 

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by SLCbear

[beardown3231]

33 minutes ago, SLCbear said:

Too curious, I had to check  it bc I knew it was for me 🤣 

Or maybe I'm not blocked?

 If JF keeps getting hurt and underperforms he out and CW or Maye are in. What are you confused about ?? and if JF is out, we don't get a haul for him but we don't have to start over AGAIN  either ! 

What if Fields is a little better than right and the Bears waste the #1 overall pick? Is that good team building?

Say that happens. What does the Fields deal look like? 4 years, $160M?

If you're so confident in giving someone that kind of contract, why use 1.1 on a QB? He's your guy. Go use it on a WR. Trade down and take an OT. Take Bowers. Why a QB?

Why would Fields want to stay looking over his shoulder for so long if he can get the same contract or better elsewhere?

Why would the Bears keep Fields if they can get the rUsSeLl WiLsOn pAcKaGe for him?

Why would Williams want to be here if he might not play until 2028?

 What is your point  ?? besides hating and quick to rudely jump on something for reasons thay only makes sense to you. It seems like said reasons only make sense to you based the reactions so far from *LITERALLY everyone else.* The endless neediness and self loathing is BAd. this is why you get blocked, am I blocked? You just saw my post and replied pls get some help I already see a psychiatrist. I'll be sure to tell him about the illiterate guy in Mexico who thinks the Bears should play Roschon at QB & should draft Caleb Williams and sit him until 2028 

 oh and say hey to your creepy  gf  🕷️ for me, miss you guys 😘 I have no clue what this means  

 

Edited November 26, 2023 by beardown3231

[SLCbear]

4 minutes ago, beardown3231 said:

It honestly seems like these reasons only make sense to you

Why would Fields want to stay looking over his shoulder?

Why would Williams want to be here if he might not play until 2028?

none of this even matters unless JF gets his **** together and we start WINNING GAMES 

secondly, what matters most is getting the QB position RIGHT, finally !!   And then the rest will play itself out 

 so if JF balls out and we start winning games and then he doesn't want to be here, we trade him for a haul ! Don't we have control of him for 4 more yrs w tags ? 

CW also knows that he will play some right away when JF is out due to injury, and if we draft cw don't we then control him for 5-7 years  ?

Lots of varying and MOVING parts in play here, none of it is black and white. The only thing that is black and white is that we MUST GET THE QB position RIGHT 

Having both JF and CW GReatly increases our chances of achieving this !

 You can't run an organization based on how players feel or may feel. 

 

 

[AZBearsFan]

On 11/25/2023 at 6:30 PM, SLCbear said:

1. Fields MAY/CAN be the man. I believe in him, will it happen ?? None of us know this yet AND if he becomes the man, he ABSOLUTELY comes w career longevity concerns. That is a fact. No other QB that has carried the ball as much as JF (which is an absolute necessity for him to be successful at QB) has had a career lasting more than 9-10 years. 

2. His trade value only becomes notably higher if we start winning games. I believe that the right coaching scheme and execution can further unlock his potential to dominate the position, however, this is no slam dunk and several things have to fall into place for this to even happen.

Moreover, how many times since our last SB win have we drafted top 3 in the Draft ?? when will we be in a position to pick 1.1 again while also having an additional top 5 pick (hopefully top 3!) in same Draft ? uh probably never

3. Yes, of course. IF he balls out, you pick up 5th year and then sign him to a long term deal, no brainer.  CW will be on a rookie deal so what's the problem with winning games and signing JF to a longterm deal, while CW watches learns and prepares at the NFL level ?  and again, JF will miss games and CW will start those games ! JF has missed games every season and CWs camp knows this. 

4. Fair point but what's more important ? Protecting the franchise and finally getting the QB position RIGHT!  or protecting the feelings of one of its players, making personnel decisions based on how one of it's players feels about another player potentially taking his place one day ?? My plan protects the franchise and HIGHly increases chances of getting the QB position right, FINALLY!!

  crusty old traditional ways of thinking only work if you land at the VERY top of Draft (and even then it's still not a guaranteed that the prospect will reach their projected status),  OR get very VERY lucky w a later pick. How's that been working out for us since the last time we won a SB ??doing things traditionally bc 'that's how it done' is what keeps you middle of the road, not good enough to compete for the chip and not bad enough to be at very top of Draft, left to rely on luck. 

5. And he will eventually have that chance via trade IF he gets his **** together and we start winning games. This is not the NBA 

 

So your plan is to rely ENTIRELY on one seemingly oft-injured (he would have played some of the games he missed if we were contending and our  games actually mattered) player who may never unlock his full potential AND have no backup plan for the MOSt important position (besides Bagent) , all while holding 2 top5 picks in same Draft ? Am I understanding you correcto ?? I don't want to misrepresent anything here. 

Having both Fields and Williams/Maye at 1-1 on the roster wouldn’t be the opposite direction of a “crusty old traditional ways of thinking”. It’d be a grossly negligent misallocation of resources. If you're at 1-1 you’re doing one of 3 things:

-Taking the QB and trading Fields

-Trading 1-1 for a haul to bolster the entire roster around Fields

-Taking MHJ at 1-1 to give Fields the best player in the draft to work with 

You’re either committing to Fields fully and maxing out the team around him, or you’re replacing him. Going the other route you propose puts both he and Williams/Maye at a lesser chance of success. You simply can’t do that.

Just play that out forward from draft day with Fields and Williams both on the roster. Assume they have a legit competition for the spot and split reps 50/50 all the way through camp. Whichever guy wins the competition will have gotten hundreds less reps than he could’ve gotten. How’s that better?

Say Fields wins that competition but then does get hurt - now you’re putting in Williams either mid game or with far less preparation than he could’ve had to step in (very much like what happened with Fields in 2021). How’s that better?

The Carson Palmer / Jon Kitna thing just doesn’t happen any more, and when it does it’s only with a more raw QB prospect behind an established high performing starter (think Favre/Rodgers or Smith/Mahomes). Fields isn’t that, and if he was then we wouldn’t be taking a QB at all because Fields is 24 years old. Remember - assuming Poles is the guy making the selections in 2024, his job is going to be on the line. Whether he’s selecting “his QB” at 1-1 or decides Fields is “his QB” he’s going to make damn sure that guy gets every chance to become a star. If it’s Fields that means getting every possible resource around him to set him up for success. Taking Williams/Maye would be the complete opposite of that because it’s a resource Fields can’t use at all. If it’s Williams then that means getting him under center with the starters as early and often as you can and bolstering that group with your second 1st rounder and whatever you get flipping Fields elsewhere. Anything else is a half measure approach for either (both?) QBs.

On 11/25/2023 at 8:15 PM, SLCbear said:

none of this even matters unless JF gets his **** together and we start WINNING GAMES

Wins and losses aren’t a QB stat. Fields gets the “loss” for the DET game but he staked the team to a 12 point lead with 4 minutes left. That Flus and the defense pissed that away and Fields couldn’t bail them out after they did so makes the loss Fields’ fault? Fields staked the Bears to a 28-7 lead late in the 3Q against DEN too before Flus and the defense pissed that away and Fields couldn’t bail them out. Fields gets the “loss” there too. Blaming Fields for those kinds of losses is like Blaming Josh Allen for BUF losing to PHI yesterday. Is it on CJ Stroud that HOU lost 24-21 yesterday to JAX despite 304 yards, 2 passing TDs and another rushing, with no turnovers? Of course not. So why do we hold our guy to that standard?