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

[sparky151]

22 hours ago, NYRaider said:

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

We have 3 years of Fields (mostly) struggling in a situation where most QBs would struggle. Maybe Fields just sucks or maybe he can succeed if given a reasonable level of support. 

22 hours ago, NYRaider said:

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.

Drafting a QB at 1 comes with the opportunity cost of not taking the haul. That's a lot to pay for "potential".  We'd all agree Fields hasn't reached the potential he had on entering the league. There's no assurance that Williams or another rookie will either. Indeed, Fields college career compares favorably with the top 3 in this draft.

 

19 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.

 

I'm not even sure Williams is the top QB in this draft. It's a long way from potential to actual. Taking the haul helps realization happen.

17 hours ago, MagicMT said:

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. 
 

Only if they think the QB they draft will be better than Fields + trove of picks. 

16 hours ago, CWood21 said:

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.

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.

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.

The Bears can make a decision on keeping/trading Fields before they decide on picking a rookie, let alone which particular rookie. So they can easily force Fields to decide if he wants to be the Bears QB or not (he's said he wants to stay in Chicago). He doesn't have much bargaining power at the moment since taking a QB early is an option he wants the Bears to not choose. The Love deal with an option year or two at say 25 and 30 mil with some incentives or escalators for good play is a pretty good deal for Fields. It's about maximizing career earnings, not just for this year. The situation he wants to avoid is getting traded elsewhere cheaply, being thrust into a competition with AOC or Pickett, and not winning the job. If a team only trades a 5th or 6th rounder for him, they won't feel compelled to exercise his 5th year option. They may wait to see if he wins the job and plays well in which case they could tag him. 

 

16 hours ago, CWood21 said:

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.

Agreed that the Bears haven't done much to help Fields other than adding Moore last year. Nagy focused on trying to save his job and Eberflus focused on the defense. Getsy just wasn't a very good OC (so it's surprising he got another OC job right away).

 

 

[Danger]

1 minute ago, sparky151 said:

I'm not even sure Williams is the top QB in this draft. It's a long way from potential to actual. Taking the haul helps realization happen.

lol

[sparky151]

2 minutes ago, Danger said:

lol

Do you think it's obvious that Williams is a better prospect than Daniels? Based on what?

[NYRaider]

6 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

We have 3 years of Fields (mostly) struggling in a situation where most QBs would struggle. Maybe Fields just sucks or maybe he can succeed if given a reasonable level of support. 

Drafting a QB at 1 comes with the opportunity cost of not taking the haul. That's a lot to pay for "potential".  We'd all agree Fields hasn't reached the potential he had on entering the league. There's no assurance that Williams or another rookie will either. Indeed, Fields college career compares favorably with the top 3 in this draft.

It's not just that Fields has struggled it's the fact that he has been a bottom of the barrel passer for three straight seasons. He has shown minimal improvement from his rookie season to his third season despite a different staff, play caller, and offensive system. They even went out and got him a bonafide #1 WR and he still couldn't produce.

Passing on a potential generational talent at QB for lesser players at other positions also comes at a cost. There is no assurance that anyone pans out, I'd move on from the guy that has already shown he sucks in the NFL for a rookie with star potential. Especially when you'll have the rookie on a cost controlled contract for 4 seasons.

[NYRaider]

25 minutes ago, sparky151 said:

Do you think it's obvious that Williams is a better prospect than Daniels? Based on what?

Significantly larger sample size of dominant play and better physical tools

[MagicMT]

@sparky151
At some point you have to take into consideration that Fields was drafted QB4 in his draft and Caleb Williams will be the 1st player drafted overall and would have been in any year he entered the draft. Williams is a way better prospect than Fields was when he was drafted. 
Caleb's ceiling is way higher than Fields', and given Justin's production/play since he entered the NFL I'd argue that Williams' floor is higher as well.
They got the haul last year and gave Fields a chance to prove he was the franchise QB. He didn't deliver. Time to move on and draft a better QB (as a prospect, whatever you say about the stats Fields had in college while playing with NFL stars) that is going to be cheaper. 
Imagine not drafting a QB with the 1st overall pick in back to back years to keep Justin Fields as the franchise QB, only to have him not improve the following two years. The GM would definitely lose his job and the Bears probably wouldn't pick 1st overall anyway. 

Edited March 4 by MagicMT

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, sparky151 said:

The Bears can make a decision on keeping/trading Fields before they decide on picking a rookie, let alone which particular rookie. So they can easily force Fields to decide if he wants to be the Bears QB or not (he's said he wants to stay in Chicago). He doesn't have much bargaining power at the moment since taking a QB early is an option he wants the Bears to not choose. The Love deal with an option year or two at say 25 and 30 mil with some incentives or escalators for good play is a pretty good deal for Fields. It's about maximizing career earnings, not just for this year. The situation he wants to avoid is getting traded elsewhere cheaply, being thrust into a competition with AOC or Pickett, and not winning the job. If a team only trades a 5th or 6th rounder for him, they won't feel compelled to exercise his 5th year option. They may wait to see if he wins the job and plays well in which case they could tag him. 

Again, there's no reason for any team Bears or otherwise to make a decision on Fields' 5th year option until they decide what to do with the #1 pick.  The deadline isn't until the beginning of May, which is very clearly AFTER the draft.  The Bears  (or a team trading for him) don't gain anything by deciding earlier.  Again, the way you worded that extension wasn't so much $25M-$30M with incentives to push it closer to fair market value.  It was implied that it was low in the way of guarantees, and minimal room to bump up his value.  If a player can get a similar market as a FA, why would they prematurely accept that and cap their future earnings?  It just doesn't make sense.  And if a 5th/6th round pick is Fields' trade value, then that extension is actually an overpay and his contract would probably be closer to what a high-end backup QB makes (~$7M).

[sparky151]

5 hours ago, NYRaider said:

It's not just that Fields has struggled it's the fact that he has been a bottom of the barrel passer for three straight seasons. He has shown minimal improvement from his rookie season to his third season despite a different staff, play caller, and offensive system. They even went out and got him a bonafide #1 WR and he still couldn't produce.

Passing on a potential generational talent at QB for lesser players at other positions also comes at a cost. There is no assurance that anyone pans out, I'd move on from the guy that has already shown he sucks in the NFL for a rookie with star potential. Especially when you'll have the rookie on a cost controlled contract for 4 seasons.

Yeah, imagine what a failure he must be if they changed things every offseason and he wasn't a star! Bears missed the playoffs because the defense couldn't hold a lead late in 3 games. I agree there's no assurance a rookie QB will work out, other positions are easier to project. And if the team trades pick 1 for a haul, the players drafted with those picks will also be cost controlled for 4 years so the economics probably favors trading if they get a good offer.

 

5 hours ago, NYRaider said:

Significantly larger sample size of dominant play and better physical tools

Uh, Daniels has more experience both on the football field and in life at this point. I think he has a higher floor than Williams and perhaps a higher ceiling as well. Williams was a flashy player in his Heisman season but Daniels outproduced him in his, against better competition. Due to taking a lot of sacks, Williams only had 142 rushing yards last year compared to 1134 for Daniels. Jayden had an absurd 13.6 air yards per attempt last season, and 11.7 ypa. Williams has never been close to those numbers, even vs Pac 12 defenses. 

In terms of physical tools, Williams is thicker but Daniels is taller and faster. Williams is better at contorted passes, while Daniels has better mobility. 

2 hours ago, MagicMT said:

@sparky151
At some point you have to take into consideration that Fields was drafted QB4 in his draft and Caleb Williams will be the 1st player drafted overall and would have been in any year he entered the draft. Williams is a way better prospect than Fields was when he was drafted. 
Caleb's ceiling is way higher than Fields', and given Justin's production/play since he entered the NFL I'd argue that Williams' floor is higher as well.
They got the haul last year and gave Fields a chance to prove he was the franchise QB. He didn't deliver. Time to move on and draft a better QB (as a prospect, whatever you say about the stats Fields had in college while playing with NFL stars) that is going to be cheaper. 
Imagine not drafting a QB with the 1st overall pick in back to back years to keep Justin Fields as the franchise QB, only to have him not improve the following two years. The GM would definitely lose his job and the Bears probably wouldn't pick 1st overall anyway. 

I think everyone would agree that Fields is better than Zach Wilson or Trey Lance. He's not far behind Trevor Lawrence (though don't tell the Jags fans that). 

Williams floor and ceiling are entirely speculative. The talk of him as a generational prospect is silly. He might be the first player picked but Maye and Daniels have their supporters as the best QB in the draft.

46 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

Again, there's no reason for any team Bears or otherwise to make a decision on Fields' 5th year option until they decide what to do with the #1 pick.  The deadline isn't until the beginning of May, which is very clearly AFTER the draft.  The Bears  (or a team trading for him) don't gain anything by deciding earlier.  Again, the way you worded that extension wasn't so much $25M-$30M with incentives to push it closer to fair market value.  It was implied that it was low in the way of guarantees, and minimal room to bump up his value.  If a player can get a similar market as a FA, why would they prematurely accept that and cap their future earnings?  It just doesn't make sense.  And if a 5th/6th round pick is Fields' trade value, then that extension is actually an overpay and his contract would probably be closer to what a high-end backup QB makes (~$7M).

If the Bears are considering trading Fields, the acquiring team will want to discuss terms with him before committing to him. The way it works is the teams agree on trade compensation, then the Bears grant the prospective trade partner permission to talk to Fields. Fields is eligible for a new contract today. The new team will want to see his expectations. Likewise the Bears if they keep him. If there is to be a trade, the opening of the league year is the time to do the deal. Both teams will want resolution as early as possible and so will Fields. 

I think we're in agreement that Fields would happily take the Love deal if offered. A couple of years added at say 25 and 30 mil with 5 mil of each a roster bonus with an early pay date and some incentives or escalators isn't a bad deal at all for someone in Fields position. It puts more money in his pocket up front while increasing the odds he stays a starting NFL QB. 

 

[MagicMT]

3 hours ago, sparky151 said:

I think everyone would agree that Fields is better than Zach Wilson or Trey Lance. He's not far behind Trevor Lawrence (though don't tell the Jags fans that). 

Williams floor and ceiling are entirely speculative. The talk of him as a generational prospect is silly. He might be the first player picked but Maye and Daniels have their supporters as the best QB in the draft.

Maybe it's all speculation with Williams, but Fields' floor ain't a projection, we've seen what it is and it's not pretty. You continue arguing about Fields progress and how he'll get better, but that's entirely speculative as well... I'd rather take the younger, cheaper and better prospect and I'm pretty sure the Bears FO see things to same way as well. But you're entitled to your opinion and can absolutely think that Fields + picks would be a better deal than Caleb, we just don't/won't agree on that. 
 

[Sugashane]

I look at it this way, there are only a few players I'm more comfortable saying will be top 10 players at their spot than Williams. MHJ, Alt, Fashanu, Nabers, Bowers, DeJean and JPJ are the only ones I think are more likely to hit than Williams. That being said Williams being the 10-15 best QB is more important to a franchise than any of those guys going to the HOF.

Joe Thomas saw one playoff game, Calvin Johnson saw 2. BMarsh (not HOF but was dominant for a stretch) never saw a playoff game. Name a good QB that couldn't get into the playoffs ever 2-3 years.

Take the QB you have the most faith in, trade Fields for whatever you can and add talent around him the QB. If Waldron isn't a solid upgrade from Getsy (pretty low bar) then Poles likely has the leverage to scrap Eberflus and Co and back up the Brinks truck for Ben Johnson. Bet he can do something with Williams/Maye, Moore, Kmet, and whoever else they add this year.

[Teen Girl Squad]

47 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

I look at it this way, there are only a few players I'm more comfortable saying will be top 10 players at their spot than Williams. MHJ, Alt, Fashanu, Nabers, Bowers, DeJean and JPJ are the only ones I think are more likely to hit than Williams. That being said Williams being the 10-15 best QB is more important to a franchise than any of those guys going to the HOF.

Joe Thomas saw one playoff game, Calvin Johnson saw 2. BMarsh (not HOF but was dominant for a stretch) never saw a playoff game. Name a good QB that couldn't get into the playoffs ever 2-3 years.

Take the QB you have the most faith in, trade Fields for whatever you can and add talent around him the QB. If Waldron isn't a solid upgrade from Getsy (pretty low bar) then Poles likely has the leverage to scrap Eberflus and Co and back up the Brinks truck for Ben Johnson. Bet he can do something with Williams/Maye, Moore, Kmet, and whoever else they add this year.

Moreover, despite the hypothetical "build the team first, get a QB later," being in position to get a real QB prospect is far from a sure thing. If you think anyone has potential, you take the swing.  Heck imagine if the Panthers drafted Stroud and the Bears had pick 9 and pick 26 or whatever. All of a sudden, the QB situation feels a lot murkier.

[NYRaider]

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Yeah, imagine what a failure he must be if they changed things every offseason and he wasn't a star! Bears missed the playoffs because the defense couldn't hold a lead late in 3 games. I agree there's no assurance a rookie QB will work out, other positions are easier to project. And if the team trades pick 1 for a haul, the players drafted with those picks will also be cost controlled for 4 years so the economics probably favors trading if they get a good offer.

If Fields played well they wouldn't have been forced to fire coaches.

6 hours ago, sparky151 said:

Uh, Daniels has more experience both on the football field and in life at this point. I think he has a higher floor than Williams and perhaps a higher ceiling as well. Williams was a flashy player in his Heisman season but Daniels outproduced him in his, against better competition. Due to taking a lot of sacks, Williams only had 142 rushing yards last year compared to 1134 for Daniels. Jayden had an absurd 13.6 air yards per attempt last season, and 11.7 ypa. Williams has never been close to those numbers, even vs Pac 12 defenses. 

He has more experience being mediocre? You're hating on the talent level in the Pac-12 but did you forget when Daniels was below average as a third year player in the conference? 

Williams was dominant throughout his entire college career, so yes there is a significantly larger sample size of dominant play for Caleb Williams. 

Daniels was an average to below average player up until last year as a 5th year senior playing with two top 20 picks at receiver. 

 

 

[Sugashane]

8 hours ago, NYRaider said:

If Fields played well they wouldn't have been forced to fire coaches.

Are you talking about Getsy or Nagy and his staff? Because both 100% deserved to be fired even taking Fields out of the equation. The coaches weren't victims of Fields, they were victims of their own incompetence.

Regardless Nagy and Pace should have been out a year earlier and the new regime should have had the option to draft a QB, rather than those two floundering for another year.

 

 

[sparky151]

17 hours ago, MagicMT said:

Maybe it's all speculation with Williams, but Fields' floor ain't a projection, we've seen what it is and it's not pretty. You continue arguing about Fields progress and how he'll get better, but that's entirely speculative as well... I'd rather take the younger, cheaper and better prospect and I'm pretty sure the Bears FO see things to same way as well. But you're entitled to your opinion and can absolutely think that Fields + picks would be a better deal than Caleb, we just don't/won't agree on that. 
 

Well, Fields has gotten better as a passer each season in the league. Just not fast enough to please everyone. 

 

16 hours ago, Sugashane said:

I look at it this way, there are only a few players I'm more comfortable saying will be top 10 players at their spot than Williams. MHJ, Alt, Fashanu, Nabers, Bowers, DeJean and JPJ are the only ones I think are more likely to hit than Williams. That being said Williams being the 10-15 best QB is more important to a franchise than any of those guys going to the HOF.

Joe Thomas saw one playoff game, Calvin Johnson saw 2. BMarsh (not HOF but was dominant for a stretch) never saw a playoff game. Name a good QB that couldn't get into the playoffs ever 2-3 years.

Take the QB you have the most faith in, trade Fields for whatever you can and add talent around him the QB. If Waldron isn't a solid upgrade from Getsy (pretty low bar) then Poles likely has the leverage to scrap Eberflus and Co and back up the Brinks truck for Ben Johnson. Bet he can do something with Williams/Maye, Moore, Kmet, and whoever else they add this year.

QBs are notoriously hard to predict. I think Williams and Maye are both likelier to bust than Daniels. If you are sure one of the rookie QBs will be a top 10 NFL QB in 2 or 3 years, then sure, pick him. But lots of highly drafted QBs have disappointed. Jake Browning (undrafted free agent) and Brock Purdy (Mr Irrelevant) both had higher passer ratings than the last 5 QBs picked at 1 overall in 2023.

 

15 hours ago, Teen Girl Squad said:

Moreover, despite the hypothetical "build the team first, get a QB later," being in position to get a real QB prospect is far from a sure thing. If you think anyone has potential, you take the swing.  Heck imagine if the Panthers drafted Stroud and the Bears had pick 9 and pick 26 or whatever. All of a sudden, the QB situation feels a lot murkier.

Yes, if the Bears didn't have the top pick, they wouldn't be looking to move on from Fields, they'd be looking to get better play from him with the new OC, and giving him some weapons. 

 

14 hours ago, NYRaider said:

If Fields played well they wouldn't have been forced to fire coaches.

He has more experience being mediocre? You're hating on the talent level in the Pac-12 but did you forget when Daniels was below average as a third year player in the conference? 

Williams was dominant throughout his entire college career, so yes there is a significantly larger sample size of dominant play for Caleb Williams. 

Daniels was an average to below average player up until last year as a 5th year senior playing with two top 20 picks at receiver. 

 

 

That's part of why Daniels is a better prospect than Williams. The latter was highly touted his whole career. JD turned himself into a star player. He also played well for LSU in 2022 and his LSU career is better than Williams at USC (Daniels didn't lose to Tulane). You seem to forget that Wililams had a former Biletnikoff winner in Jordan Addison catching his passes. 

 

 

[Danger]

Nagy and Getsy being the wrong decision, doesn't make Fields the right decision.