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

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Sure, Love had limited game snaps when he made the deal. But the basic situation was similar in that both the Pack last year and Bears this year were coming up on the option year with uncertainty about whether Love or Fields is "the guy". So Green Bay made a deal that gave them an extended audition from Love while he earned more money. Chicago (or a new team if Fields is traded) should want to do the same. 

Jordan Love had 83 career passing attempts until this past season.  Justin Fields has nearly 958 passing attempts.  That's not the same at all.  LIS, there's no situation in which the Bears trade the #1 overall pick and don't pick up the 5th year option on Justin Fields, so if that's the case there's no reason for him to accept a Jordan Love-like deal.  And given that 5th year options aren't due until May 2nd (I believe), there's no rush for the Bears (or a team trading for him) to pick it up or decline it now.  So you're asking him to not only take a below-market value deal on his 5th year but you also want him to sign a below market for 2-3 years after?  Again, that makes no sense unless Justin Fields legitimately doesn't think he's a franchise QB.

22 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Regarding trade value, teams will offer a lot for a QB they like and be happy to pay it if he performs. So a trade for Fields is likely to get a 2nd rounder this year plus a conditional pick, if at least 2 teams are interested in him. If there is only one team willing to make him their starter, then it's a different conversation.

Again, saying he's worth a conditional pick on top of a semi-early pick this year isn't hard to believe.  But it's not going to be an easily attainable high pick on that conditional pick.  You can still win a bunch of games with mediocre QB play.  The Browns won 11 games on the back of the corpse of Joe Flacco and DTR after Watson went down with injury.  Atlanta won 7 games with the dynamic duo of Desmond Ridder and Taylor Heineke.  LIS, if you want a high return on that future pick, it's going to be something that's not easy attained.  Something like the team trading for Fields going to the Super Bowl or something like that.

[CWood21]

17 hours ago, Danger said:

1. You're not always going to get the chance to draft Caleb Williams, or hell even a Jayden Daniels
2. It depends on the coach, unfortunately the bears didn't fire Eberflus

I mean, if you think Justin Fields can be a franchise QB with the right pieces around him then trading out of that #1 pick isn't the worst idea ever.  Let's assume for a second that they want to go down that path, you trade that #1 overall pick to Washington for #2, '25 FRP, and whatever else you can drain out of the Commanders.  You then deal #2 to the Giants for an RG3-esque package (3 FRPs or 2 FRPs OR SRP this year plus a SRP in 2026 and change).  At that point, you take the best LT (Fashanu, Mims, Alt, etc.) at 6 and then take the best WR at 9 (Nabers, Odunze, etc.) or vice versa.  I'd double back on IOL with that Giants' SRP if possible.

#6 - Joe Alt [OT; Notre Dame]
#9 - Rome Odunze [WR; Washington]
#39 - Graham Barton [OG/C; Duke]

Right there, you nailed 3 of your biggest offensive needs and potentially put the right pieces around Fields to succeed.  And you go into the 2025 draft armed with 3 FRPs (Washington, NY Giants, and their own) to either continue building around Justin Fields OR have enough ammunition to do a LOT of damage in the draft yet again.  But then again, Ryan Poles hasn't done anything other than the Bryce Young trade to suggest to me he's interested in making sure Justin Fields succeeds.

[NYRaider]

16 hours ago, Acgott said:

They had one of the easier schedules in the league. They beat one team with a winning record (Lions). 

They're projected to have the 3rd easiest SOS in 2024

[NYRaider]

18 hours ago, Soko said:

“Build up the team, Chicago isn’t a QB away”

People act like it takes teams years and years and years to turn it around. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Houston won 4 games in 2020, 4 games in 2021, 3 games in 2022, and then 10 games in 2023. The Bears won 7 games last year with bad QB play, now they’ve got a boat load of cap, and two top 10 picks. An upgrade at QB, some smart FA spending, and a new offense can’t give them a 2-3 game bump into a playoff spot? 

 

The fastest way to turn around a franchise is to acquire a legitimate franchise QB, everything else kind of falls into place after that and an elite QB can mask a lot of deficiencies. 

[sparky151]

23 hours ago, NYRaider said:

If you keep Fields and then presumably pick up his 5th year option you'll be in the same position next year with a significantly worse QB class and likely having to trade additional assets to get in position to take one. 

The most valuable asset you can have is a legitimate franchise QB, it completely changes your trajectory over night. They're flush with cap space and have two FRPs this year at some point you have to get serious about winning and go for it instead of continuing to push it down the road.

This time next year we'll be wondering how one of the top 3 2024 QBs looks like a bust but QB X in the 2025 class looks like the next big thing. If Sanders or Milroe have good seasons, they'll be rated highly. Maybe Ewers or Beck too. 

 

22 hours ago, lavar703 said:

We’re basically an expansion team at this point. Why would we sign an expensive vet QB? 

Because they come with high floors and let you use your draft picks on easier to forecast positions than QB. 

At the moment all of the top 3 QB prospects are heavily hyped as future stars. But they're all less likely to be pro bowlers than MHj.

 

21 hours ago, StatKing said:

I still can't fathom how people think it's a good idea to keep Fields for another year. The guy has been a bottom third QB in pretty much every metric for the last 3 years. At no point has he shown he can win games or be a franchise QB yet people are saying they should build around him? If you don't have a QB in the today's league the rest of the team is irrelevant.

The argument for Fields is that he's gotten better each year and his first two seasons, the team basically sabotaged his chances. Even then, ESPN said his QBR rating (whose methodology they don't disclose) said Fields was better in 2022 than Trevor Lawrence, whose team won their division and a playoff game.

19 hours ago, Soko said:

“Build up the team, Chicago isn’t a QB away”

People act like it takes teams years and years and years to turn it around. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Houston won 4 games in 2020, 4 games in 2021, 3 games in 2022, and then 10 games in 2023. The Bears won 7 games last year with bad QB play, now they’ve got a boat load of cap, and two top 10 picks. An upgrade at QB, some smart FA spending, and a new offense can’t give them a 2-3 game bump into a playoff spot? 

 

The Bears lost 3 games last season where they had late 4th quarter leads. They would have made the playoffs with Fields at QB if they had won all 3 of those games. Because they happen to have the top pick this year, the focus is on the QB rather than the defense (which did improve substantially after Sweat arrived). 

 

18 hours ago, Danger said:

1. You're not always going to get the chance to draft Caleb Williams, or hell even a Jayden Daniels
2. It depends on the coach, unfortunately the bears didn't fire Eberflus

1  I actually prefer Daniels to Williams (for reasons of experience and maturity)

2 Agreed, someone like Harbaugh or Ben Johnson would probably be better for the team's long term prospects but Eberflus did at least have the defensive side working by end of year and fired Getsy.

 

18 hours ago, Danger said:

The point of #1 is if they choose NOT to draft a QB and draft some other position instead, they'll probably stuck playing some scrub like Fields or Bagent. Or idk Davis Mills.

Or Cousins or Wilson. Bears can afford to sign a vet QB if they choose to do so. There are advantages and disadvantages to paying a vet vs rolling the dice on a draftee. 

18 hours ago, Soko said:

Presumably they’re okay with that (people saying to trade the pick), because the team is so bad that it wouldn’t make a difference. 

A dumb point, but the one being made. 

Who is making that argument? The Bears could very easily make the playoffs and maybe win their division in 2024 following several different courses. 

18 hours ago, fortdetroit said:

All his high TD% tells me is that he has to rely on running it to be able to move the ball down the field because he rarely passes the ball. Oddly enough, if he was actually a good reliable passer he would have more passing attempts and less rushing attempts to move the ball, leading to his TD% looking “worse.”

What’s more impressive from a passing standpoint? Fields leading an 80 yard drive that ends with a passing TD where he goes 3/4 passing for 28 yards?  Or Fields leading an 80 yard drive than ends with a passing TD where he goes 8/10 passing for 70 yards? It’s option 2, despite his TD percentage being less than 1/2 as much as option 1 and the example illustrates why his is artificially inflated as a RB masquerading as a QB.

 

So, lower is better in your view? How about ratio of TDs to Interceptions, then? Fields 1.78 ratio is middle of the pack among players with at least 100 passing attempts. Notables with worse ratios than Fields last season are Watson, Flacco, Allen, Hurts, and Lawrence. 

 

18 hours ago, Danger said:

"Our team sucks so instead of taking the best player in the draft, lets take a lesser player at a less important position."

It's more about how do we get from where we are to where we want to be. A rookie QB has a wide range of outcomes from bust to star. Part of good management is minimizing or hedging risk. 

 

18 hours ago, Danger said:

It's not like we're discussing trading up and giving up a slew of assets. Hell they own the 9th pick already to put talent like Nabers or Odunze around him.

Yes, if the Bears draft a rookie QB, they owe it to him to do more to support him than they did for Fields. Sign a veteran center in free agency, along with at least a WR3. Don't use pick 9 on a pass rusher, etc.

 

17 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Caleb and his Dad are starting to remind me of the Ball Family.

Dad running his mouth about circumventing the CBA, his son not having a Rookie contract, ownership rights ,trying to stay relevant in the media. Thinking his son is the next.....🤷‍♂️ before ever taking a NFL snap.

Dad, Agent and Son thinking he's so special, I don't need to give NFL clubs medicals? I'm starting to wonder if he's even going to perform at his pro day TBH?

I understand not working out at the combine but refusing medicals? Unless Caleb has a previous injury he doesn't want disclosed? Or doesn't know about but thinks it might be possible ala Kool-aide really doesn't make sense?

 

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/caleb-williams-red-flags-explained-father-agent/ebdb755e7ba9096db47e46a2

Yeah, I think Williams is a good prospect but he's certainly overhyped. His highlight reel is impressive but so was Fields, who generally faced better competition. 

 

 

[sparky151]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Jordan Love had 83 career passing attempts until this past season.  Justin Fields has nearly 958 passing attempts.  That's not the same at all.  LIS, there's no situation in which the Bears trade the #1 overall pick and don't pick up the 5th year option on Justin Fields, so if that's the case there's no reason for him to accept a Jordan Love-like deal.  And given that 5th year options aren't due until May 2nd (I believe), there's no rush for the Bears (or a team trading for him) to pick it up or decline it now.  So you're asking him to not only take a below-market value deal on his 5th year but you also want him to sign a below market for 2-3 years after?  Again, that makes no sense unless Justin Fields legitimately doesn't think he's a franchise QB.

Again, saying he's worth a conditional pick on top of a semi-early pick this year isn't hard to believe.  But it's not going to be an easily attainable high pick on that conditional pick.  You can still win a bunch of games with mediocre QB play.  The Browns won 11 games on the back of the corpse of Joe Flacco and DTR after Watson went down with injury.  Atlanta won 7 games with the dynamic duo of Desmond Ridder and Taylor Heineke.  LIS, if you want a high return on that future pick, it's going to be something that's not easy attained.  Something like the team trading for Fields going to the Super Bowl or something like that.

The similarity is that both teams were undecided on their QBs. The Pack had seen Love in practice every day for 3 years and felt comfortable trading the MVP. But they also wanted him to prove he was a worthy addition to the Favre-Rodgers line of succession. With Fields, it's more that he's in the limbo zone between not being bad enough the team wants to dump him and being so good they don't consider replacing him. If the Carolina pick was their second this year and first next year, I doubt the Bears would be considering trading up to the top 3 for a rookie QB. Instead it would be about adding talent around Fields to upgrade the offense. 

The reason for Fields to accept a Love type deal is it keeps him as the Bears QB for at least a couple of years. He's only a franchise QB if there is a franchise that wants him as their starter. The price of getting that commitment from the team is giving them an option year or two at more money than he'd make on his 5th year option but less than he'd get on the open market if he turned into a stud.

Again, a conditional pick in a trade would be based on how Fields plays. If he turns into a pro bowler or leads the new team past the first round of the playoffs or hits some statistical thresholds, then they won't mind giving up a pick that's a round or two earlier than the baseline.

 

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

I mean, if you think Justin Fields can be a franchise QB with the right pieces around him then trading out of that #1 pick isn't the worst idea ever.  Let's assume for a second that they want to go down that path, you trade that #1 overall pick to Washington for #2, '25 FRP, and whatever else you can drain out of the Commanders.  You then deal #2 to the Giants for an RG3-esque package (3 FRPs or 2 FRPs OR SRP this year plus a SRP in 2026 and change).  At that point, you take the best LT (Fashanu, Mims, Alt, etc.) at 6 and then take the best WR at 9 (Nabers, Odunze, etc.) or vice versa.  I'd double back on IOL with that Giants' SRP if possible.

#6 - Joe Alt [OT; Notre Dame]
#9 - Rome Odunze [WR; Washington]
#39 - Graham Barton [OG/C; Duke]

Right there, you nailed 3 of your biggest offensive needs and potentially put the right pieces around Fields to succeed.  And you go into the 2025 draft armed with 3 FRPs (Washington, NY Giants, and their own) to either continue building around Justin Fields OR have enough ammunition to do a LOT of damage in the draft yet again.  But then again, Ryan Poles hasn't done anything other than the Bryce Young trade to suggest to me he's interested in making sure Justin Fields succeeds.

Braxton Jones is actually decent at LT so they might go Bowers/Nabers at 6, Dallas Turner at 9, then C at 39 if they don't get one in free agency. But you're right that if they can get what you posit in trade, they could be a playoff team with Fields at QB. And if they miss, they would be in position to find a new QB. Poles didn't draft Fields but he did try (and fail) to help Fields with the Claypool trade.

1 hour ago, NYRaider said:

The fastest way to turn around a franchise is to acquire a legitimate franchise QB, everything else kind of falls into place after that and an elite QB can mask a lot of deficiencies. 

Sure but 14 teams make the playoffs each season and there aren't 14 elite QBs. That's why teams wishfully trade up for players like Tray Lance. Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes were picked after trade ups by their teams. But so were Sam Darnold, Lance, etc. Bears gave up 2 firsts for the right to pick Fields. Giants used those picks on Kadarious Toney and Evan Neal. 

 

 

[NYRaider]

43 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

This time next year we'll be wondering how one of the top 3 2024 QBs looks like a bust but QB X in the 2025 class looks like the next big thing. If Sanders or Milroe have good seasons, they'll be rated highly. Maybe Ewers or Beck too. 

That's possible, we already have three years of seeing Fields look like a bust though. 

[NYRaider]

30 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Sure but 14 teams make the playoffs each season and there aren't 14 elite QBs. That's why teams wishfully trade up for players like Tray Lance. Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes were picked after trade ups by their teams. But so were Sam Darnold, Lance, etc. Bears gave up 2 firsts for the right to pick Fields. Giants used those picks on Kadarious Toney and Evan Neal. 

And the Bears are in a historically great position to land a potentially elite QB without having to give up any additional assets, still having their own top 10 pick, and being flush with cap space. They probably won't ever be set up this well again and to pass on a potential franchise QB to pray Fields makes a historic leap would be crazy.

[Danger]

5 hours ago, CWood21 said:

I mean, if you think Justin Fields can be a franchise QB with the right pieces around him then trading out of that #1 pick isn't the worst idea ever.  Let's assume for a second that they want to go down that path, you trade that #1 overall pick to Washington for #2, '25 FRP, and whatever else you can drain out of the Commanders.  You then deal #2 to the Giants for an RG3-esque package (3 FRPs or 2 FRPs OR SRP this year plus a SRP in 2026 and change).  At that point, you take the best LT (Fashanu, Mims, Alt, etc.) at 6 and then take the best WR at 9 (Nabers, Odunze, etc.) or vice versa.  I'd double back on IOL with that Giants' SRP if possible.

#6 - Joe Alt [OT; Notre Dame]
#9 - Rome Odunze [WR; Washington]
#39 - Graham Barton [OG/C; Duke]

Right there, you nailed 3 of your biggest offensive needs and potentially put the right pieces around Fields to succeed.  And you go into the 2025 draft armed with 3 FRPs (Washington, NY Giants, and their own) to either continue building around Justin Fields OR have enough ammunition to do a LOT of damage in the draft yet again.  But then again, Ryan Poles hasn't done anything other than the Bryce Young trade to suggest to me he's interested in making sure Justin Fields succeeds.

Look, I get the idea in premise but to me, Fields is a scrub, and Caleb has top 5 potential and a high floor to go along with it. Caleb's floor is more or less what you have right now with Fields. A team that... literally has never had "a guy" at QB in my lifetime, don't pass this up.

 

[NYRaider]

6 minutes ago, Danger said:

Look, I get the idea in premise but to me, Fields is a scrub, and Caleb has top 5 potential and a high floor to go along with it. Caleb's floor is more or less what you have right now with Fields. A team that... literally has never had "a guy" at QB in my lifetime, don't pass this up.

 

Even at his floor all he'd have to do would be pass for 3,000 yards / 20 TD and he'd already be more productive than Fields.

[MagicMT]

And it's not like it's Caleb or bust for the Bears. 
There's 3 QBs that will go top 5, just pick the one you like the most. There's no reason not to pick a QB here. They're in the best situation they'll ever be drafting a QB (1st overall pick that isn't even their own). They have to take a shot this time after passing on the opportunity last year.
Even if they trade Fields and he improves and becomes a top 10 QB with another team(very unlikely), the correct play is for the FO to draft their top rated QB and move on. 
 

[CWood21]

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The similarity is that both teams were undecided on their QBs. The Pack had seen Love in practice every day for 3 years and felt comfortable trading the MVP. But they also wanted him to prove he was a worthy addition to the Favre-Rodgers line of succession. With Fields, it's more that he's in the limbo zone between not being bad enough the team wants to dump him and being so good they don't consider replacing him. If the Carolina pick was their second this year and first next year, I doubt the Bears would be considering trading up to the top 3 for a rookie QB. Instead it would be about adding talent around Fields to upgrade the offense. 

Again, another massive difference is the Packers' option at QB was Jordan Love.  There was no Plan B once Aaron Rodgers made it very clear he didn't want to return to Green Bay.  Chicago has options.  It could go with Justin Fields or they could go and take a QB at 1 presumably Caleb Williams.  Again, there's no scenario in which the Bears trade the #1 pick and don't pick up Justin Fields' option.  You don't trade away your choice of potential franchise QBs because you're comfortable with the guy you have, but don't want to secure an extra year of team control.  For that reason alone, there's no reason for Fields to agree to a Jordan Love deal.

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The reason for Fields to accept a Love type deal is it keeps him as the Bears QB for at least a couple of years. He's only a franchise QB if there is a franchise that wants him as their starter. The price of getting that commitment from the team is giving them an option year or two at more money than he'd make on his 5th year option but less than he'd get on the open market if he turned into a stud.

Or he declines that extension and plays out his 5th year option with the Bears at $22.7M and then hits FA and potentially makes double what you're offering now.  Let's say he hits ~$45M/year in that post-5th year option situation.  You've proposed him taking a Jordan Love deal (~$13M) and signing 2-3 "option" years at $25M so it comes out to something along the lines of 3 years, $63M ($21M AAV) with presumably very little in the way of guarantees for Justin Fields.  As opposed to the 3 years, $112.7M ($37.6M AAV) by playing out his current contract.  Unless Justin Fields feels he isn't a starting QB in the NFL, there's legitimately no reason to tack extra years on at a reduced price tag especially when the contract you proposed initially implies that there is very little in the way of guarantees.  Now, if you wanted to suggest an artificially low AAV but making up for it with a high amount of guarantees that'd be a completely different discussion.  But again I go back to the point about the Bears committing to Fields, but not picking up his 5th year option.

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Again, a conditional pick in a trade would be based on how Fields plays. If he turns into a pro bowler or leads the new team past the first round of the playoffs or hits some statistical thresholds, then they won't mind giving up a pick that's a round or two earlier than the baseline.

And that's fine if you want to tie it to player production, but what makes you think that the conditional pick is going to be higher than the "set" pick.  This entire scenario is basically rewarding the Bears for screwing up Fields' development.  We couldn't develop him, but if you manage to do it we should be rewarded for doing so.  I can't see a scenario in which the Bears receive a hefty return for Justin Fields for immediate use (i.e. 2024 pick) PLUS potentially valuable picks in 2025 as well.  If you want a good pick in 2024, you better be willing to sacrifice what you're getting in 2025.  If you're willing to take less in 2024, you'll get more in return for 2025.  I don't see how you're getting a bunch in 2024 AND 2025 for a player that the Bears seem pretty clear they intend to move.

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, Danger said:

Look, I get the idea in premise but to me, Fields is a scrub, and Caleb has top 5 potential and a high floor to go along with it. Caleb's floor is more or less what you have right now with Fields. A team that... literally has never had "a guy" at QB in my lifetime, don't pass this up.

Trust me, I'm not a Fields' believer in the slightest.  In fact, I've been pretty vocal since he was drafted that I think the situation he was throw into was awful.  I didn't believe in Matt Nagy as someone who could develop a QB.  I don't believe that Ryan Poles has done a great job of creating a good supporting cast around him.  And I thought the Eberflus' hiring was at best an awful decision to make.  But if you believe that Justin Fields is a legitimate franchise QB, that's a hell of way to build up a franchise to be a contender for years to come.

[NYRaider]

13 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The similarity is that both teams were undecided on their QBs. The Pack had seen Love in practice every day for 3 years and felt comfortable trading the MVP. But they also wanted him to prove he was a worthy addition to the Favre-Rodgers line of succession. With Fields, it's more that he's in the limbo zone between not being bad enough the team wants to dump him and being so good they don't consider replacing him. If the Carolina pick was their second this year and first next year, I doubt the Bears would be considering trading up to the top 3 for a rookie QB. Instead it would be about adding talent around Fields to upgrade the offense. 

The Packers were undecided on Love because they hadn't really seen him play in actual games. I don't think they were comfortable trading Rodgers as much as it was a contractual thing for both Rodgers and Love. They essentially told Love we like you and want you to be here but a fully guaranteed 5th year isn't great for our cap situation so we'll give you less guaranteed money with a chance to earn slightly more if you can play well. 

Fields has legitimately been one of the worst passers in the league over the last three seasons. Even if they didn't have the #1 overall pick, I doubt that Ryan Poles would be super keen on tying his job security to another year of praying that Fields can become an average passer.

13 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The reason for Fields to accept a Love type deal is it keeps him as the Bears QB for at least a couple of years. He's only a franchise QB if there is a franchise that wants him as their starter. The price of getting that commitment from the team is giving them an option year or two at more money than he'd make on his 5th year option but less than he'd get on the open market if he turned into a stud.

If the Bears aren't willing to commit to Fields with the 5th year option there's no reason for him to accept a worse deal. And on the other end why would the Bears commit to Fields for 1/2 years at a higher price point than the option? If he balls out I'm sure they'd have no problem paying him. Taking a gamble on yourself isn't settling for a significantly below average deal just so you get paid, lol.

 

[Tugboat]

On 3/2/2024 at 9:49 PM, Chiefer said:

He said he’s gonna give teams that actually have a chance to draft him his medical. I imagine it’s the teams in the top 10, or bring hiM in for personal visits. I don’t really have a problem with that, like is there a reason the Chiefs or Eagles should know his medical info? Guy played every game, it’s doubtful he’s hiding anything. 
 

not a big fan of his dad either, but hey Mahomes is example one of a guy who’s family is generally trash and yet he’s still succesful lmao. 

 

I think some people are kind of glossing over the real issue with this.  It's not that anybody thinks he's "hiding" things from other teams or even the two teams that have a realistic shot at drafting him.  It's about this idea that has followed him through the process well before the draft, where Caleb (and his entourage) want to do things "differently".  They want to be "special".  He wants to be "separate" from the rest.  They aren't just going to do what's routinely expected of them and they're going to actively take little moments to prominently snub that.  Instead of taking the opportunity to forge connections and get to know other teams and people around the league that could be important some day...he's closing himself off to only a select few "deemed worthy".

 

Maybe it's nothing.  And at the end of the day, if he ends up being a superstar Franchise QB...nobody is going to give a **** about any of it.

But dealing with someone who hasn't proven a single thing in the league, who is already going out of their way to dictate terms to the teams...that's a warning bell.  Very minor quiet little one, but when piled on top of all the other weird stuff that's followed him through the process only to be "dismissed" or "dropped"...and it's something that the Bears/Washingtons ought to be seriously digging into with him and his camp.  Which is in and of itself, part of the problem.  It's pushing teams to go reframe things and dig in on Caleb's terms.

 

That's not even to suggest that Superstar QBs are inherently kind of kooky, eccentric, extremely demanding and controlling weirdos and egomaniacs.  Like...we've all seen them.  😆  But at the same time...it's about how many of those guys came into the league like that?  How many true Franchise QBs have we seen come into the league trying to control the entire process and feed their ego and ultimately have success?  Eli is the last one i can really think of.

The rest...well...the vast majority of the best have actually come in with an enormous chip on their shoulder and completely abnormal hypercompetitive streak, but doggedly willing to put in the work to prove everyone wrong for doubting them.  That's where...we see a lot more guys bust because the "ego" outweighs the "work ethic".  That's what this whole Caleb question is really about.

 

But all that said...they'd still be absolutely stupid to do anything other than just take him.  Or dig into him and if you don't like what you find...take Maye or Daniels.  Just take this gift opportunity that fell into your lap, grab a potential franchise QB with more upside than Fields as a passer (get what you can from someone desperate for Fields) and don't look back.  Simple.