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

[scar988]

3 hours ago, Danger said:

I really think the more interesting thread right now would be

Where does Fields end up?

Pittsburgh
Atlanta

would seem like odds on favorites, but we could also see like

Las Vegas
Denver
New England

Be in on him
 

Atlanta - but people worry about OC mesh

Pittsburgh - Doesn't want him because of Art

Vegas - Issues come up because of Getsy

New England - has No. 3 pick and could just say, "we're cool with a rookie"

Washington - see NE but sub 2 for 3.

Vikings - NFC North team would be charged premium/could just retain Cousins

Denver - Probably sticking with Russ on a reworked deal.

I don't see the market for Fields.

[Duluther]

On 2/18/2024 at 1:19 PM, sparky151 said:

Various pundits have speculated the Steelers might give up their 1st rounder for Fields.

Welcome to offseason QB media. Absolutely silly and worthless bits are strewn about because it gets bites. 

I can't see Pittsburgh trading their first for Fields in a million years. 

[Danger]

1 hour ago, scar988 said:

Atlanta - but people worry about OC mesh

Pittsburgh - Doesn't want him because of Art

Vegas - Issues come up because of Getsy

New England - has No. 3 pick and could just say, "we're cool with a rookie"

Washington - see NE but sub 2 for 3.

Vikings - NFC North team would be charged premium/could just retain Cousins

Denver - Probably sticking with Russ on a reworked deal.

I don't see the market for Fields.

Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Vegas - These are all minor details that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things

New England, this is incredibly valid, but Jerod Mayo might be old school and not want to run with a rookie. Could trade for Fields and draft MHJ. 

Washington isn't taking Fields when they're in line to get Maye who's WAY better.

Cousins could stay, and I don't see them trading in the division.

Denver - From everything I've heard Sean Payton and Russ' relationship is broken beyond repair, and no indications show that Russ will be back next year.

[scar988]

15 hours ago, Danger said:

Atlanta, Pittsburgh, Vegas - These are all minor details that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things

New England, this is incredibly valid, but Jerod Mayo might be old school and not want to run with a rookie. Could trade for Fields and draft MHJ. 

Washington isn't taking Fields when they're in line to get Maye who's WAY better.

Cousins could stay, and I don't see them trading in the division.

Denver - From everything I've heard Sean Payton and Russ' relationship is broken beyond repair, and no indications show that Russ will be back next year.

The OC's not wanting the QB is not exactly a minor detail. Though, Falcons OC might not give a ****. I know Art doesn't want Fields because he didn't like him in 2021. And Vegas... Getsy and Fields are like oil and water. Why put them back together?

[SodeeWater_Cheezburger]

IMO, Fields isn't worth a 1st round pick.  He is worth a 2nd though.

[dll2000]

20 hours ago, Duluther said:

Welcome to offseason QB media. Absolutely silly and worthless bits are strewn about because it gets bites. 

I can't see Pittsburgh trading their first for Fields in a million years. 

It would be nice, but I highly doubt it.

Way things have lined up he may go for a 3rd or lower.  Like others have pointed out the teams who make the most sense are drafting in top 3 or have OCs that aren't super high on him.

Could be only thing left is teams looking to trade for him to compete for a job or be a back up.  

 

[Spartacus]

40 minutes ago, dll2000 said:

It would be nice, but I highly doubt it.

Way things have lined up he may go for a 3rd or lower.  Like others have pointed out the teams who make the most sense are drafting in top 3 or have OCs that aren't super high on him.

Could be only thing left is teams looking to trade for him to compete for a job or be a back up.  

 

He should go for a 3rd or lower. I don't know any GM worth anything that would look at Fields body of work and give away premium picks. 

[scar988]

21 hours ago, Duluther said:

Welcome to offseason QB media. Absolutely silly and worthless bits are strewn about because it gets bites. 

I can't see Pittsburgh trading their first for Fields in a million years. 

Pittsburgh isn't even in the market for Fields.

[dll2000]

15 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

He should go for a 3rd or lower. I don't know any GM worth anything that would look at Fields body of work and give away premium picks. 

You know a lot of GMs?

 

[OkeyDoke21]

On 2/18/2024 at 2:14 PM, BeaReylo said:

The only time I recall a team trading a starting quality QB to a division rival was when The Eagels traded Donovan McNabb to The Redskins, and surprise surprise he didn't do that well in Washington.  It's almost as if Andy Reid knew Donovan was going to bust with The Burgundy & Gold? 🤔 

I can't think of many times that it's happened.  Drew Bledsoe to the Bills, and he was solid there early on.  Kerry Collins wasn't traded, but instead of trading him when he asked to be traded mid season, the Panthers placed him on waivers, and that allowed the Saints to claim him.  

[dll2000]

20 hours ago, dll2000 said:

You know a lot of GMs?

 

@Spartacus I was kidding btw.  

[Tugboat]

On 2/22/2024 at 7:11 AM, scar988 said:

The OC's not wanting the QB is not exactly a minor detail. Though, Falcons OC might not give a ****. I know Art doesn't want Fields because he didn't like him in 2021. And Vegas... Getsy and Fields are like oil and water. Why put them back together?

Didn't Getsy run what is basically Fields best NFL season?  Not really saying much and i'd agree, it's not super likely that there's a reunion there.  But oil and water still produced the best that Fields has actually shown as a Pro, did it not?

 

 

But i'd agree on the whole, that the "market" for Fields is probably fairly limited.

I think it ultimately comes down to Pittsburgh/Atlanta/New England.  Very slim outside shot that Vegas would still be interested if Getsy sees Fields as a "project he didn't get a chance to finish".  Which isn't likely enough to drastically drive up the price in a crazy bidding war.  Not when there are a number of other options out there.

[Tugboat]

On 2/17/2024 at 2:45 PM, Soggust said:

I don't know that they would. 

I think you're looking at Fields the way non-Jags fans look at Trevor. With a skeptical eye based on production.

But if I told you "well Fields has shown top 5 flashes in the WAS + DEN games", you wouldn't necessarily take that as gospel, given the rest of his career to date.

Even strictly as passers, Trevor has a career 85 rating. Justin has a career 82.3. You will argue bad coaching from Meyer, and rightfully so, but Fields hasn't had good coaching either. He's had awful o-line and, until this year, no WRs at all. He's been in crap situations, just like Trevor. 

So if I'm an objective fan of another team with no real skin in the game, I don't know how I make excuses for one guy and not the other.

And remember - I think Trevor is better. I just think he's a closer comp than Rosen or Lance

 

I mean, if you told me this, i'd simply say...i actually watched both of those games (who knows why 😆).  And in both, i arguably came away more impressed with the opposing QB.  Russ, Howell.  I think at the end of the day, both are very likely to be available this offseason and i like the upside of both more than i like Fields.

I'd say, if those are the best sterling shining "flashes" of upside that Fields has to offer, that doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever in him as "The Guy" for anyone.

 

That's why there's an enormous gulf in "value" between a guy like Lawrence who is strictly, straight up "Not Available.  Period."  Vs Fields, who is very much available and honestly has a fairly limited pool of realistic suitors who may have to settle for that because their draft position or cap situation don't afford them a lot of flexibility to pursue other options.

That's where i don't see Lawrence as having any relevance whatsoever in a conversation about Fields' value.  It's what puts Fields a lot closer to guys like Rosen or Lance who were available because they hadn't shown their respective teams that they had any real likelihood of being "The Guy" for them.  Where Lawrence absolutely has shown that upside, even if it hasn't been perfect or ideally consistent without bumps in the road.

[Soggust]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

 

I mean, if you told me this, i'd simply say...i actually watched both of those games (who knows why 😆).  And in both, i arguably came away more impressed with the opposing QB.  Russ, Howell.  I think at the end of the day, both are very likely to be available this offseason and i like the upside of both more than i like Fields.

I'd say, if those are the best sterling shining "flashes" of upside that Fields has to offer, that doesn't give me any confidence whatsoever in him as "The Guy" for anyone.

 

That's why there's an enormous gulf in "value" between a guy like Lawrence who is strictly, straight up "Not Available.  Period."  Vs Fields, who is very much available and honestly has a fairly limited pool of realistic suitors who may have to settle for that because their draft position or cap situation don't afford them a lot of flexibility to pursue other options.

That's where i don't see Lawrence as having any relevance whatsoever in a conversation about Fields' value.  It's what puts Fields a lot closer to guys like Rosen or Lance who were available because they hadn't shown their respective teams that they had any real likelihood of being "The Guy" for them.  Where Lawrence absolutely has shown that upside, even if it hasn't been perfect or ideally consistent without bumps in the road.

I'm not sure how to debate "my eyes tell me this", so I'll just agree to disagree here my man.

But remember - the original take was "What is an example of a team moving off their starting QB who has had mixed results to date that would get a top 64 pick?".

Nothing you are saying discredits Trevor as an example. In fact, you're literally telling me he's on the Mona Lisa status of priceless, so it's quite literally proving my point even further. Clearly, there are QBs who have had mixed results to date, whom would garner a top 64 pick, according to you.

It's like someone saying, "Name a company worth anything that was started by a college dropout". Someone else might reply "Microsoft?". Then you respond with "Well that doesn't count because Microsoft is worth a trillion dollars so that's clearly not a fair example".

Like, yes it quite literally is a textbook example regardless of if Joe from your high school failed a shoe store he opened. Fields sucking doesn't disprove my point that Trevor, with mixed results to date, would garner a top 64 pick, in both of our opinions. Trevor being better than Fields (which I have acknowledged) is irrelevant to the point. He still fits the criteria.

[Tugboat]

28 minutes ago, Soggust said:

I'm not sure how to debate "my eyes tell me this", so I'll just agree to disagree here my man.

But remember - the original take was "What is an example of a team moving off their starting QB who has had mixed results to date that would get a top 64 pick?".

Nothing you are saying discredits Trevor as an example. In fact, you're literally telling me he's on the Mona Lisa status of priceless, so it's quite literally proving my point even further. Clearly, there are QBs who have had mixed results to date, whom would garner a top 64 pick, according to you.

It's like someone saying, "Name a company worth anything that was started by a college dropout". Someone else might reply "Microsoft?". Then you respond with "Well that doesn't count because Microsoft is worth a trillion dollars so that's clearly not a fair example".

Like, yes it quite literally is a textbook example regardless of if Joe from your high school failed a shoe store he opened. Fields sucking doesn't disprove my point that Trevor, with mixed results to date, would garner a top 64 pick, in both of our opinions. Trevor being better than Fields (which I have acknowledged) is irrelevant to the point. He still fits the criteria.

You're still completely missing the point though.

 

Fields, i agree...probably still returns a Top-64 pick.  I think a 2nd is probably the going rate for what he is and what he's shown, in a QB starved league.  But the key underlying point here, is that he is available.  Because he hasn't shown enough for his team to think he's going to be "The Guy" moving forward.  So the Bears are going to take what they can get for him, and move on to try again with the #1 pick that fell into their lap.  Lawrence on the other hand, is a completely and utterly worthless "comparable" on value because he's simply Not Available.  It's not a useful comparable as we'll never know what his "value" is because it's practically infinite to the Jaguars and what someone else would be willing to "pay" for him is irrelevant.  A player is "worth" that they'd be traded for, and in Lawrence's case...i'm not sure you can even craft a trade that wouldn't just be goofy like swapping him for Mahomes or Josh Allen or something.  The Jaguars have absolutely no reason to trade or replace him.  He's shown enough to be confident that he can still be the Franchise QB he was drafted to be.  If they hypothetically had the top pick in this draft...they're either auctioning it off for a haul, or taking MHJ and calling it a day.  They're not in this weird "limbo" that the Bears are in with Fields...where the obvious answer is to move on and just give up on that previous project that hasn't shown nearly enough.

 

It's far more comparable to the Rosen or Lance scenarios.

 

 

As for the, "my eyeballs tell me this" thing...frankly, i guess you're right, in that it's an "agree to disagree" situation.  Because if you're telling me that those games were "the best Fields has to offer" or "Top-5 caliber" games from Fields...i'm telling you that's bunk.  I think that's leaning way too heavily on the stats sheet and fantasy football over watching and evaluating the actual football game.  Heck, i even checked out of curiosity and i was pretty active in the GDT for that Washington game.  Notably skeptical of Fields even as it was transpiring, so it's hardly some sort of revisionist history going on here to fit a narrative.  That game was purely Washington's defense laying down an absolutely pathetic, "fire everyone" type performance, far more than anything particularly good that Fields did.  The tackling, coverage, and pressure were just laughable and even just a quick glance through that thread echoes those thoughts en masse.'

 

The reality is, Fields looks "okay" when absolutely everything falls his way and the opposing team completely lays an egg against him.  That's it.  He's worth a Day2 flyer from someone without better options available to them.  He's got a higher "floor" than guys like Nix/Penix/Rattler.  He's also got a pretty hard ceiling on him at this point, as an actual passer of the football.  But dragging Lawrence into the discussion is so completely out of range, it's absurd to even mention as a "hypothetical" comparable.  It's comparing a "this guy has shown he could very much be the answer" to a "we've seen enough this guy isn't it".  Just entirely different realms of "value" that span a gap between "Not Available" and "Day3 Pick" for some team that doesn't have better options available to them.