What do you do if you're the Chicago Bears?

[CWood21]

1 minute ago, sparky151 said:

He's merely below average while in a bad situation.

What part of bottom quarter by almost every passing metric is below-average? 

[sparky151]

20 hours ago, CBears019 said:

I like the idea, but i don’t think a trade up is necessary.  Assuming at least 3 QBs go before 9 the bears are guaranteed one of Alt, Fashanu, Nabers, Odunze, or Bowers.  I’m happy sitting tight and letting one of them fall in my lap and keep my assets from Fields 

Er, need one more to get to more than 8 total players off the board.

 

18 hours ago, Slappy Mc said:

That is some wishful thinking from a division rival lol.

A pair of seconds to move from pick 2 to pick 1 isn't a lot. I bet Washington would be willing to pay that.

 

18 hours ago, Sugashane said:

Fields had a ton of NFL talent around him, so essentially he got to play on rookie mode. That's why I'm not impressed by that. It's like JJ McCarthy, he has a national championship and a stellar win/loss record. Would you want him at 1.1? I wouldn't. Also Fields improves because he had a Tebow like start passing wise. It's hard not to improve from that.

I'm concerned about him being able to stay healthy. He isn't just getting hurt in the pocket. He's been hurt running and just lacks enough awareness to protect himself imo. Idk if he can stay healthy for 17. If so I have no doubt he can pass for 4000 with a competent OC. But he's so inconsistent I feel like he will have as many 300 yard games as 130 yard games, maybe less.

Ill always be a fan of his though. I hope Fields gets into a swing and thrives somewhere. He's a great teammate ans carried the team even through a tank. I mean he was 9th in MVP voting while the team got the 1st overall pick. Never complained a bit.

When did McCarthy (or Williams for that matter) throw for 6 TDs in a playoff game? Fields did that vs Clemson and Lawrence. 

 

4 hours ago, scar988 said:

YEah, that's way too much to trade for Fields. Probably end up more like a 3rd this year and a future 3rd.

Agreed on Fields to Atlanta and blows up.

I don't think a 2nd this year plus a conditional pick next year that starts as a 3rd is too much. It's actually not a lot for a starting QB. 

 

4 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I wasn't speaking about a Jordan Love deal, I was talking about your proposal of 2/3 "option" years at $25M-$30M included.  There's legitimately no upside with that kind of deal.  $25M/year is Jimmy G/Geno Smith level of money, which is pretty much what he'd get as a FA if a team was interested in him.  You're probably getting him at a 2 years, $50M if he were to be a FA right now, and a team didn't really have a better option at QB.  If you want him to give up his FA status, you're probably going to need those options closer to ~$35M at a minimum.

Look at the QB market and the highest paid QB after Jimmy G/Geno Smith not on a rookie contract is Taylor Heineke at $7M/year, which is your high-end backup QB money.  Geno Smith at $25M and Jimmy G at $24.25M are your low-end starter QB money.  Why should/would Justin Fields agree to low-end QB money?  That would essentially be Justin Fields admitting that he doesn't think he's a franchise QB.

There's considerable upside for Fields with a structure like that. His career earnings over his first 3 years are about 15 mil. If the team gave him the Love deal, that would be a favor to him, but worth it to them if he plays well. The optionality is what he gives them for the vote of confidence and the extra 20 mil he's making over 2024 and 2025. If the Bears keep him but don't exercise his 5th year option and he balls out, then they can tag him for about 38 mil. But if they move on from him, then he's in the situation Baker Mayfield was in a year ago, looking for a starting job. The average between those situations is less than he stands to make under the deal I suggest.  The best option for Fields is to solidify himself as a starting QB. The Bears are changing their offensive scheme and are positioned to upgrade their offensive talent. That's a recipe for improvement from the QB position and Fields should want to take advantage of that. It's a win-win for both player and team.

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Holy wild overpay Batman.  I really don't believe Justin Fields is fetching a early-to-mid SRP and potentially a future FRP.

The conditions to get to a first rounder would likely be tougher to hit. Something like Fields playing 80% if the offensive snaps while taking them to the conference final or him making the pro bowl initial roster. 

[sparky151]

19 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

What part of bottom quarter by almost every passing metric is below-average? 

By definition, all of them 😀

Fields has too many turnovers (fumbles included) and his completion % is low. But his TD% is pretty good and his YPA is middling. 

[sparky151]

19 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

What part of bottom quarter by almost every passing metric is below-average? 

By definition, all of them 😀

Fields has too many turnovers (fumbles included) and his completion % is low. But his TD% is pretty good and his YPA is middling. 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

Passer rating isn't the end all, Fields led the Bears in rushing yards the last couple of years. But the criticism of him is that he's a bad passer. He's merely below average while in a bad situation. He's been in the league for 3 years but in a poor offensive scheme all of them. He didn't have much surrounding talent his first couple of years. 

Neither did a plethora of other busts. The excuses only get you so far. 

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

So Fields good games don't count, only his poor ones? Who is biased here? I've been arguing based on his overall body of work. 

Threeish good games in three years are outweighed by 40+ bad games, yes. His overall body is work is that he’s a bad passer. Unless you finally want to come through and provide which games you think he played really well in?

[Sugashane]

31 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

When did McCarthy (or Williams for that matter) throw for 6 TDs in a playoff game? Fields did that vs Clemson and Lawrence.

They didn't. Now when did either of them throw an INT with zero passrushers and it wasn't a 40+ yard hail mary?

To be fair a 6'7" 270lb white dude facing him and shuffling sideways really blends in with the grass right there. But hey, great college stats right?

Looking at the play, its almost like he locked onto one guy for a good while before throwing too late (No anticipation)... like a fair number of scouting reports and armchair scouts on these boards even said...

Look, Fields threw a total 16 TDs this season in 13 starts, and 8 of those came from back to back 4 TD performances, against DEN and WAS who had two of the worst defnses in the league before playing the Bears. If you think a team can make THAT the norm then go for it. He has more games throwing for under 150 yards than he does for over 250.

I think he certainly can do better than he has in Chicago, but he has been almost as much at fault as the Bears. He needs a simple system and needs his guys to either win a fair number of jump balls or to consistently get YAC, but he'll have to get better on his accuracy if that's going to happen. Way too many throws around the LOS still end up behind the receiver or at their feet.

[Sugashane]

1 hour ago, sparky151 said:

Passer rating isn't the end all, Fields led the Bears in rushing yards the last couple of years. But the criticism of him is that he's a bad passer. He's merely below average while in a bad situation. He's been in the league for 3 years but in a poor offensive scheme all of them. He didn't have much surrounding talent his first couple of years. 

So Fields good games don't count, only his poor ones? Who is biased here? I've been arguing based on his overall body of work. 

 

 

You know why he led the Bears in rushing in 2023? Because he got Herbert injured with a horrible throw.

Give Fields credit for the broken sack, but that throw was straight up terrible. Herbert missed time then was hobbled for a while and didn't have any burst until the last few weeks of the season.

After that they ran a pretty heavy RB rotation too.

[sparky151]

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

They didn't. Now when did either of them throw an INT with zero passrushers and it wasn't a 40+ yard hail mary?

To be fair a 6'7" 270lb white dude facing him and shuffling sideways really blends in with the grass right there. But hey, great college stats right?

Looking at the play, its almost like he locked onto one guy for a good while before throwing too late (No anticipation)... like a fair number of scouting reports and armchair scouts on these boards even said...

Look, Fields threw a total 16 TDs this season in 13 starts, and 8 of those came from back to back 4 TD performances, against DEN and WAS who had two of the worst defnses in the league before playing the Bears. If you think a team can make THAT the norm then go for it. He has more games throwing for under 150 yards than he does for over 250.

I think he certainly can do better than he has in Chicago, but he has been almost as much at fault as the Bears. He needs a simple system and needs his guys to either win a fair number of jump balls or to consistently get YAC, but he'll have to get better on his accuracy if that's going to happen. Way too many throws around the LOS still end up behind the receiver or at their feet.

I didn't watch McCarthy's 3 pick game vs Bowling Green but I've seen Williams make some bad throws too that were picked. You'll notice that play was the final play of the first half.

 

2 hours ago, Sugashane said:

You know why he led the Bears in rushing in 2023? Because he got Herbert injured with a horrible throw.

Give Fields credit for the broken sack, but that throw was straight up terrible. Herbert missed time then was hobbled for a while and didn't have any burst until the last few weeks of the season.

After that they ran a pretty heavy RB rotation too.

Agree it's not a good throw but Fields is also about to get hit, doesn't have his feet set, so he makes an off-balance throw with just his arm in it. Not surprising it was short. 

[Sugashane]

17 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Agree it's not a good throw but Fields is also about to get hit, doesn't have his feet set, so he makes an off-balance throw with just his arm in it. Not surprising it was short. 

So he recognized the defender leaving Herbert too late, then made a bad throw due to a lack of awareness, technique and accuracy. It was an open throw he needs to make. Just how every QB has bad throws, every QB has to be able to play with pressure in their face.

[Soko]

4 hours ago, sparky151 said:

But his TD% is pretty good and his YPA is middling. 

Dude says being 18th is “pretty good” and 22nd is “middling”, but when it came to 12th ranked Cole Kmet he was just “ok”.

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

There's considerable upside for Fields with a structure like that. His career earnings over his first 3 years are about 15 mil. If the team gave him the Love deal, that would be a favor to him, but worth it to them if he plays well. The optionality is what he gives them for the vote of confidence and the extra 20 mil he's making over 2024 and 2025. If the Bears keep him but don't exercise his 5th year option and he balls out, then they can tag him for about 38 mil. But if they move on from him, then he's in the situation Baker Mayfield was in a year ago, looking for a starting job. The average between those situations is less than he stands to make under the deal I suggest.  The best option for Fields is to solidify himself as a starting QB. The Bears are changing their offensive scheme and are positioned to upgrade their offensive talent. That's a recipe for improvement from the QB position and Fields should want to take advantage of that. It's a win-win for both player and team.

That's his market if he was a FA this offseason.  There's very little doubt in my mind that he'd be able to at least get a contract similar to Geno Smith (1 year, $27.3M minimum) signed last offseason.  There's no scenario in which the Bears trade the #1 pick and don't pick up Justin Fields' option unless they get him to agree to a reworked deal like Jordan Love.  But throwing more years at a reduced rate (presumably with very little in the way of guarantees) as a "vote of confidence" isn't going to get the agent or the player to bite on a deal.  LIS, there's 3 options with Fields: trade Fields, keep Fields and let him play out that 5th year option, or sign him to a similar deal to what Jordan Love (i.e. split the difference in guaranteed money and a bit more upfront) did last offseason.  But you can't also simultaneously argue that he should sign a below-market value deal but also argue he has substantial trade value.  It's one or the other.

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The conditions to get to a first rounder would likely be tougher to hit. Something like Fields playing 80% if the offensive snaps while taking them to the conference final or him making the pro bowl initial roster. 

That's still a ridiculously high price to pay for a guy who might end up waltzing himself into that situation.  An established Aaron Rodgers fetched a conditional SRP that was based on him playing in 65% of the snaps.  That's for Aaron Rodgers.  Not Justin Fields.  The only way I could see a FRP as part of the condition is if it were tied to winning a Super Bowl.  Or something ridiculously unlikely to happen.  And generally speaking in trades, you either get more now and less in the future or less now and more in the future.  If you get #43 for Fields, I very much doubt you're getting a top 64 pick in return a year from now on top of that.

[fortdetroit]

16 hours ago, sparky151 said:

By definition, all of them 😀

Fields has too many turnovers (fumbles included) and his completion % is low. But his TD% is pretty good and his YPA is middling. 

A higher TD% for a guy that doesn’t throw much doesn’t mean much IMO.

[scar988]

18 hours ago, sparky151 said:

I don't think a 2nd this year plus a conditional pick next year that starts as a 3rd is too much. It's actually not a lot for a starting QB. 

From an article on The Athletic. His value is a 2nd or 3rd (depending on spot in the round). That's it. Likely, he'll be traded for a 3rd and a conditional pick next year that's as high as a 3rd.

Quote

The majority opinion is the Bears would corral a second- or third-round pick, but there was some variation in those responses. One executive said he’d be worth a second-rounder or its equivalent value in a package of a third- and fifth-round pick.

Two other executives thought the return would be a second- or third-rounder, depending where the selection is in the round. Another believed it could be a 2025 third-round pick that could become a second-rounder based on certain statistical benchmarks.

The lowest value came from a coach who would only give up a third-round pick. There was also an executive who predicted he’d net a second-rounder but admitted that would be too much for his own team to surrender.

https://theathletic.com/5306283/2024/03/01/chicago-bears-justin-fields-trade-value/

[lavar703]

I think at this point the Bears would be lucky to get a 3rd. The one team that knows him better than anyone else decided that a 25-year old QB is no longer worth it and they're moving on to draft someone else but he should also hold decent value as well? If he was good the Bears wouldn't be drafting someone else. They would take these two top 10 picks and build around him but they're choosing to move him. What's even more telling is that Caleb Williams appears to be a pain in the *** which is the total opposite of Fields who seems to be a team first guy so they're willing to dump a 25-year old QB who appears to love being a Bear and has next to no diva qualities about him for a guy who up until a month ago people weren't sure would even accept being drafted by Chicago. 

I don't necessarily blame Chicago for this because what were they going to do? Everyone has seen Fields play. He's a tantalizing talent who never seems to put it together on the field. He's going to be owed a ton of money in a year if they continue forward with him as the guy and you don't want to get stuck in a Daniel Jones situation. It is what it is. He's going to be dealt, the return won't be great but at least the Bears are getting their pick of the QBs. 

[sparky151]

20 hours ago, Sugashane said:

So he recognized the defender leaving Herbert too late, then made a bad throw due to a lack of awareness, technique and accuracy. It was an open throw he needs to make. Just how every QB has bad throws, every QB has to be able to play with pressure in their face.

It's a bad throw but Fields isn't to blame for Herbert getting hurt. It wasn't a hospital pass that lead the receiver into a kill shot. It was just an underthrow that Herbert unfortunately got hurt on.

 

20 hours ago, Soko said:

Dude says being 18th is “pretty good” and 22nd is “middling”, but when it came to 12th ranked Cole Kmet he was just “ok”.

Of the 48 NFL players who attempted at least 100 passes last year, Fields was 20th in TD%. Among those with a lower % are Joe Burrow, Jalen Hurts, Trevor Lawrence, Kyler Murray, Geno Smith, and a bunch of others.  Fields 6.9 YPA is the same as the average for the group. 

I haven't knocked Kmet but apparently you feel he's been disrespected somehow. 

18 hours ago, CWood21 said:

That's his market if he was a FA this offseason.  There's very little doubt in my mind that he'd be able to at least get a contract similar to Geno Smith (1 year, $27.3M minimum) signed last offseason.  There's no scenario in which the Bears trade the #1 pick and don't pick up Justin Fields' option unless they get him to agree to a reworked deal like Jordan Love.  But throwing more years at a reduced rate (presumably with very little in the way of guarantees) as a "vote of confidence" isn't going to get the agent or the player to bite on a deal.  LIS, there's 3 options with Fields: trade Fields, keep Fields and let him play out that 5th year option, or sign him to a similar deal to what Jordan Love (i.e. split the difference in guaranteed money and a bit more upfront) did last offseason.  But you can't also simultaneously argue that he should sign a below-market value deal but also argue he has substantial trade value.  It's one or the other.

That's still a ridiculously high price to pay for a guy who might end up waltzing himself into that situation.  An established Aaron Rodgers fetched a conditional SRP that was based on him playing in 65% of the snaps.  That's for Aaron Rodgers.  Not Justin Fields.  The only way I could see a FRP as part of the condition is if it were tied to winning a Super Bowl.  Or something ridiculously unlikely to happen.  And generally speaking in trades, you either get more now and less in the future or less now and more in the future.  If you get #43 for Fields, I very much doubt you're getting a top 64 pick in return a year from now on top of that.

I think we're in agreement that Fields would quickly accept the Love contract if offered. My view is that he's not a sure thing to be the Bears starting QB and has a trade market of maybe 2 or 3 teams. So the best thing for him is to play better while finding a team that will commit to him. The price of 3 mediocre seasons thus far is taking a Geno Smith type deal. If he wants top dollar he has to play better. He knows that as well as everyone else. If he wants the Bears to keep him and trade pick 1, he needs upgrades around him, a better scheme but also needs to do something for the team.

 

Rodgers trade value was limited by his age. He was a 2 year rental. A team trading for Fields hopes they can unlock his talent and keep him as their starter for a decade. That's why they'll agree to the conditional pick. If he hits the conditions, it's worth it for them.

 

7 hours ago, fortdetroit said:

A higher TD% for a guy that doesn’t throw much doesn’t mean much IMO.

The NFL passer rating looks at 4 stats. They are Yards per Attempt, Completion Percentage, TD Percentage, and Interception Percentage.  Fields has a relatively low completion rate (he isn't reliable about setting his feet before throwing) and thus a slightly low YPA. But his TD% is pretty good. His INT % isn't bad, it's better than Josh Allen, Trevor Lawrence, Jalen Hurts, Jake Browning, and a bunch of others. 

Fields turns it over too much, including his fumbles. He sometimes misses open throws. But the criticism of him in this thread is overblown.

 

5 hours ago, scar988 said:

From an article on The Athletic. His value is a 2nd or 3rd (depending on spot in the round). That's it. Likely, he'll be traded for a 3rd and a conditional pick next year that's as high as a 3rd.

https://theathletic.com/5306283/2024/03/01/chicago-bears-justin-fields-trade-value/

It depends on how many teams are interested in him. If it's 2 or more then he should fetch a 2nd this year and probably something next year. If only 1 team or no team wants him, then the Bears are stuck. His contract is guaranteed. He's a team-first guy so maybe they keep him as a backup. He could also be traded after the draft for a pick next year, especially if the new team wants his 5th year option. The deadline for that is a few days after the draft.