Tony Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, ptatc said: I don't think so. I think the bears take a QB at 1. Right or wrong, Sunday will probably have a rather significant impact on the decision. Additionally, I trust Poles will do his due diligence either way, and if he gets bowled over with an offer, it could also change his course. We'll see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, ptatc said: I don't think so. I think the bears take a QB at 1. Same. You'd consider it at least if someone offers you a lopsided package but like I said I don't think that happens, and I just do not trust Fields to be more than a bottom half QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Just now, Tony said: Right or wrong, Sunday will probably have a rather significant impact on the decision. Additionally, I trust Poles will do his due diligence either way, and if he gets bowled over with an offer, it could also change his course. We'll see. It shouldn't. Fields' passing body of work is mediocre and one game isn't going to change that. Vastly over indexing on the Packers game is the kind of meatball homerism I'd hope the Bears are moving away from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 15 minutes ago, almagest said: It shouldn't. Fields' passing body of work is mediocre and one game isn't going to change that. Vastly over indexing on the Packers game is the kind of meatball homerism I'd hope the Bears are moving away from. And I'm telling you if Fields goes out and throws 3 TD's with no INT's on the way to a Bears victory over the Packers, it will have more impact that say Week 3 of this season. I'm not arguing with the fact that his entire body of work should be judged, I'm saying it's a human element of recency bias and having a big W to end the year going into the offseason will play a role. The same goes for if he has an absolute stinker of a game, as I mentioned previously in this thread 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 20 minutes ago, ptatc said: I don't think so. I think the bears take a QB at 1. I think Poles is smart. I’d be super surprised if he doesn’t try to keep rolling this pick every year into the next year’s worst team. That’s never been done before. He just seems more calculated than simply making his two first round picks. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Tony said: And I'm telling you if Fields goes out and throws 3 TD's with no INT's on the way to a Bears victory over the Packers, it will have more impact that say Week 3 of this season. I'm not arguing with the fact that his entire body of work should be judged, I'm saying it's a human element of recency bias and having a big W to end the year going into the offseason will play a role. The same goes for if he has an absolute stinker of a game, as I mentioned previously in this thread I think it will by Bears fans, yes absolutely. I really Poles doesn't fall into this trap, good performance or bad. Edited January 5 by almagest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southwest Sider Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 Fields footwork is bad. He's not great against zone defenses and he's practically a lock to get seriously injured at some point, especially with refs apparently having zero interest in calling penalties on late hits against him. Him really leveling up this year would have been huge but now I think the bears need a QB. One game isn't a make all but a win and a dominant passing effort against the zone heavy Packers may go a long way toward swaying me. I'm just not sure he's the ride or die and give him a big contract. Sucks cuz I wanted MHJ.. I won't be mad if they go this route and run it back with Justin but he's got a lot to clean up still and I wouldn't be shocked if this was who he was. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 29 minutes ago, Tony said: Right or wrong, Sunday will probably have a rather significant impact on the decision. Additionally, I trust Poles will do his due diligence either way, and if he gets bowled over with an offer, it could also change his course. We'll see. I hope Sunday doesn't impact the decision. If they haven't decided after nearly 40 starts, one shouldn't matter. The offers for the pick and Fields should have a greater bearing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Southwest Sider said: Fields footwork is bad. He's not great against zone defenses and he's practically a lock to get seriously injured at some point, especially with refs apparently having zero interest in calling penalties on late hits against him. Him really leveling up this year would have been huge but now I think the bears need a QB. One game isn't a make all but a win and a dominant passing effort against the zone heavy Packers may go a long way toward swaying me. I'm just not sure he's the ride or die and give him a big contract. Sucks cuz I wanted MHJ.. I won't be mad if they go this route and run it back with Justin but he's got a lot to clean up still and I wouldn't be shocked if this was who he was. What people get sucked into is thinking this argument is just about Fields the QB. It's obviously so much more than that. Of course there are the meatheads that think he walks on water, but thus far in his career he's been incredibly average, and the odds favor that trend continuing. You're going off of nothing more than faith if your argument is he's going to take multiple leaps to become one of the 5 best QB's in the league. The point is it's far from the only thing you have to evaluate in this situation. I truly don't know what the right call is, and realistically speaking no one does because we simply don't have the evidence of what any of the rookie QB's will do in the NFL. You then have the argument of by keeping Fields, you're able to supply yourself ample draft capital to plug holes that are currently on this roster and ideally make them a 10 win team. And based on the way this season has ended, that seems very possible. In my eyes, it comes down to the boom or bust element, and how risky Poles want to be. There is much more risk in trading Fields, because of the unknown that will be replacing him. You also don't have as many picks to play with in the 2024 and 2025 draft. If you hit on the QB at the top of the draft, you may not need as many picks to play with because you found your franchise QB on a rookie deal. Given what Poles has done with the team thus far, I'll support the decision he makes. I'm not in any "camp" one way or another on this one, and I think if you have your flag planted firmly in one the camps, you aren't understanding the true picture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 14 minutes ago, Tony said: And I'm telling you if Fields goes out and throws 3 TD's with no INT's on the way to a Bears victory over the Packers, it will have more impact that say Week 3 of this season. I'm not arguing with the fact that his entire body of work should be judged, I'm saying it's a human element of recency bias and having a big W to end the year going into the offseason will play a role. The same goes for if he has an absolute stinker of a game, as I mentioned previously in this thread This is not the way a GM should think. A fan yes, not the GM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 16 minutes ago, Jerksticks said: I think Poles is smart. I’d be super surprised if he doesn’t try to keep rolling this pick every year into the next year’s worst team. That’s never been done before. He just seems more calculated than simply making his two first round picks. I would be surprised if he does this. I think he realizes that he only gets limited shots at this type of qb without trading massive assets to get him 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 2 hours ago, almagest said: Why in the world would New England do that to move up 2 spots when the Bears likely aren't taking a QB in this scenario? They'd still have their choice of one of Maye/Williams/Daniels at 3 and wouldn't lose 2 first round picks. This is so ridiculously lopsided in favor of the Bears that it's completely unrealistic. Because someone will move ahead of New England. So if New England thinks 1 and 3 qbs are same - fine, but if not, they need to move up to get their guy. Same with Washington or whomever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 minute ago, Chisoxfn said: Because someone will move ahead of New England. So if New England thinks 1 and 3 qbs are same - fine, but if not, they need to move up to get their guy. Same with Washington or whomever. They could, but that 3rd overall pick is a lot more valuable than an 8th or whatever, so even if New England trades up they don't have to send the same future picks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Tony said: Have a feeling we're gonna find out If they don’t - than I think that effects Bears choice too, in sense that they trade Fields and draft a qb at 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 3 minutes ago, almagest said: They could, but that 3rd overall pick is a lot more valuable than an 8th or whatever, so even if New England trades up they don't have to send the same future picks. I think if other teams at 9/10/11 are making huge offers than it presses Patriots to give up 3 a 2nd and a next year first at a minimum. Maybe one more 2nd (like two years from now). But no they aren’t getting 2 future 1sts plus 3…in fact if they are that means Williams has measured 6’1 and blew everyone away with the deep assessment of his intangibles (cause his physical skills are special - only question is leadership and character and work ethic and what they learn from deep review and analysis). I still think my preference is to take the qb, but I get it if they trade again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerksticks Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 46 minutes ago, ptatc said: I would be surprised if he does this. I think he realizes that he only gets limited shots at this type of qb without trading massive assets to get him But we have already Bagent 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) I think Fields has had enough games to prove he isn’t the guy, and one game against the Packers shouldn’t really factor in the decision, one way or the other. I would like to see a QB at #1, best player available of the Bears many needs with the Bears 1st round pick, and Fields traded to the Falcons for a 2nd round pick. Edited January 5 by WhiteSox2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports Guy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 For anyone who wants to keep Fields, do you really want to pay him franchise QB money? Even if he’s not getting the Lamar/Herbert/Burrow level deal, he’s still going to get Daniel Jones or better money. Is he worth that? To me, that’s the biggest reason to trade him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 51 minutes ago, Sports Guy said: For anyone who wants to keep Fields, do you really want to pay him franchise QB money? Even if he’s not getting the Lamar/Herbert/Burrow level deal, he’s still going to get Daniel Jones or better money. Is he worth that? To me, that’s the biggest reason to trade him. They have options, they can option his fifth year and then if they really want to after that they can do the Kirk Cousins franchise tag a few years but that’s a weird one. fields is a very weird case because not everything with him is pure numbers 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports Guy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 52 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: They have options, they can option his fifth year and then if they really want to after that they can do the Kirk Cousins franchise tag a few years but that’s a weird one. fields is a very weird case because not everything with him is pure numbers Im a Ravens fan and I have a QB that is not about pure numbers, so I get it. However, with Lamar he makes everyone better. The running game is much better because of him. The Oline is better because of him. The WR and TE are becoming better because of him. And he wins at an incredibly high rate. Im not sure you can say those things about Fields. What is his impact on and off the field, even if you ignore pure numbers? Is that impact enough to warrant a big deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 minute ago, Sports Guy said: Im a Ravens fan and I have a QB that is not about pure numbers, so I get it. However, with Lamar he makes everyone better. The running game is much better because of him. The Oline is better because of him. The WR and TE are becoming better because of him. And he wins at an incredibly high rate. Im not sure you can say those things about Fields. What is his impact on and off the field, even if you ignore pure numbers? Is that impact enough to warrant a big deal? Would you say that Lamar walked into a better situation, worse, or somewhat equal when they finally started him? A lot of the fog of uncertainty around Fields is the fact that his first two seasons were 1. A coach who both didn’t want him and didn’t want to plan around his strengths and 2. Straight up a tank year last year. so you have his first extremely developmental important seasons just thrown away, his OC already changed and most likely he will be on his third next season either with the bears or another team. So all we have to rate fields is this partial season and his flash plays, and the flash plays make you pause there is no good answer because we have no idea that who they draft next year will be any better nor do we know that the bears will hire someone to support him 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 8 hours ago, Chisoxfn said: I think if other teams at 9/10/11 are making huge offers than it presses Patriots to give up 3 a 2nd and a next year first at a minimum. Maybe one more 2nd (like two years from now). But no they aren’t getting 2 future 1sts plus 3…in fact if they are that means Williams has measured 6’1 and blew everyone away with the deep assessment of his intangibles (cause his physical skills are special - only question is leadership and character and work ethic and what they learn from deep review and analysis). I still think my preference is to take the qb, but I get it if they trade again. The worst result and it very possible is that they keep Fields, trade the pick then Fields remains the same inconsistent qb next year and gets the entire coaching staff fired. Now they need to start everything over with the new coaching staff and sets back the development of all the drafted players and the team goes back to the no man's land of 8-9 records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sports Guy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 4 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Would you say that Lamar walked into a better situation, worse, or somewhat equal when they finally started him? A lot of the fog of uncertainty around Fields is the fact that his first two seasons were 1. A coach who both didn’t want him and didn’t want to plan around his strengths and 2. Straight up a tank year last year. so you have his first extremely developmental important seasons just thrown away, his OC already changed and most likely he will be on his third next season either with the bears or another team. So all we have to rate fields is this partial season and his flash plays, and the flash plays make you pause there is no good answer because we have no idea that who they draft next year will be any better nor do we know that the bears will hire someone to support him I think the Ravens are on the short list for best organization in the sport and I also think the Bears completely screwed up in the development of Fields. So, I get it…it’s been “unfair” to him. I was one of the few Ravens fans that wanted Lamar traded a few years ago. I felt that paying him was a mistake because I questioned if he could elevate the passing game enough to win in January. Now, the other side to that is that I also said he hasn’t been given a real passing offense and the weapons have been subpar, so maybe it’s the team holding him back more than Lamar holding himself back. Fast forward to right now and he’s about to win his second MVp and he has looked the best he ever has throwing the ball. Now, we still need to see what he does in January but bringing in a real pass offense and giving him guys that can actually play well on the outside has made a lot of difference. I say this to simply say that Fields could get a lot better with better players and a better system around him. But do you pass on a top end QB talent and cheap play for 5 years for that hope? There is no greater commodity in sports than a successful NFL QB playing on a rookie deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 20 minutes ago, Sports Guy said: I think the Ravens are on the short list for best organization in the sport and I also think the Bears completely screwed up in the development of Fields. So, I get it…it’s been “unfair” to him. I was one of the few Ravens fans that wanted Lamar traded a few years ago. I felt that paying him was a mistake because I questioned if he could elevate the passing game enough to win in January. Now, the other side to that is that I also said he hasn’t been given a real passing offense and the weapons have been subpar, so maybe it’s the team holding him back more than Lamar holding himself back. Fast forward to right now and he’s about to win his second MVp and he has looked the best he ever has throwing the ball. Now, we still need to see what he does in January but bringing in a real pass offense and giving him guys that can actually play well on the outside has made a lot of difference. I say this to simply say that Fields could get a lot better with better players and a better system around him. But do you pass on a top end QB talent and cheap play for 5 years for that hope? There is no greater commodity in sports than a successful NFL QB playing on a rookie deal. Yea there is no clear cut answer here. It comes down right now to what Poles and Warren feel about Fields and that’s a complete unknown to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 18 minutes ago, Sports Guy said: I think the Ravens are on the short list for best organization in the sport and I also think the Bears completely screwed up in the development of Fields. So, I get it…it’s been “unfair” to him. I was one of the few Ravens fans that wanted Lamar traded a few years ago. I felt that paying him was a mistake because I questioned if he could elevate the passing game enough to win in January. Now, the other side to that is that I also said he hasn’t been given a real passing offense and the weapons have been subpar, so maybe it’s the team holding him back more than Lamar holding himself back. Fast forward to right now and he’s about to win his second MVp and he has looked the best he ever has throwing the ball. Now, we still need to see what he does in January but bringing in a real pass offense and giving him guys that can actually play well on the outside has made a lot of difference. I say this to simply say that Fields could get a lot better with better players and a better system around him. But do you pass on a top end QB talent and cheap play for 5 years for that hope? There is no greater commodity in sports than a successful NFL QB playing on a rookie deal. There are a couple of similarities in the situation. 1. Is it the passing offense or that the coaching staff realizes the limitations of the qbs. If it's the passing offense you are assuming the coaches are idiots which is a possibility. 2. Are these qbs players who the teams win because of or can win with. If the Bears have a chance to get a QB that they can win because of, it's tempting. 3. The style of these two leads to a greater chance of injury. Do teams want to take that chance of a lucky season without injury in order to win the super bowl.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.