Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We have a lot of examples of teams trading QBs who they have given up on, who are even leaving town in disgrace, and it hasn't ruined their value. If NFL teams think you can play QB, they will pay a hefty price to get you.

 

This is what I mean when I say I'm fine with holding on to fields, but a lot of the arguments being put out there for it are pretty sketch.

[minnesotacubsfan]

or you could hold onto Fields because he's still a better QB prospect then Young, Stroud, et al...which is what I'm saying

[Hairyducked Idiot]

or you could hold onto Fields because he's still a better QB prospect then Young, Stroud, et al...which is what I'm saying

 

And I've never once objected to that argument.

[WrigleyField 22]

Thanks for the inspiration Kyle:

 

This is the "suppose Fields is worth less than Young" in a trade, which is probably true, but flip it to the other teams.

 

 

I know I'm a biased Bears fan and all, but this seems like the supposed markets just don't make sense if we take Tannabaums' hypothetical at face value. Plus all those supposedly valuable rookie contract years b/t Fields and Young when you're giving up a bunch of other future cheap years.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Thanks for the inspiration Kyle:

 

This is the "suppose Fields is worth less than Young" in a trade, which is probably true, but flip it to the other teams.

 

 

I know I'm a biased Bears fan and all, but this seems like the supposed markets just don't make sense if we take Tannabaums' hypothetical at face value. Plus all those supposedly valuable rookie contract years b/t Fields and Young when you're giving up a bunch of other future cheap years.

 

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close.

 

A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

I reminds me of my mother-in-law's shopping strategy in the super market. She was born and raised outside of Manila and moved here in her 30's, so much of American life was learn-on-the-fly. Essentially, she would walk around and watch what other people bought and buy those items, judging if they were popular they must be good. I dont think its a great way to grocery shop OR evaluate your NFL QB, she could quickly over-buy inferior products and in Poles case, walk away from a better QB prospect for the sake of misguided perceptions

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.

Isn't he saying that's the pro Bryce logic?

but if he does choose Bryce over Justin we can trust it’s not because it’s popular, but because he spent a ton of time and energy studying them and thought he was the best. It would be a huge risky move

[Bertz]

It's very simple, if you don't think Fields is all that good you trade him, otherwise hold onto him. The median outcome for even an elite QB prospect is something in the Kirk Cousins neighborhood of like 10th-12th best QB in Football. So to make a trade you must believe at least one of the following is true:

 

1. Justin's unlikely to clear the Cousins threshold

2. Bryce Young is a generational prospect. Like an actual generational prospect, not the way that people usually use it to mean "best guy in like 3 or 4 years"

3. Your odds of being right about Young are higher than all the coaches and GMs who've fallen in love with QBs before you

4. You can get more for Fields in trade than you can for the #1 Pick

 

3 is patently silly, while I've seen little indication 2 or 4 are true. Which basically leaves the being bearish on Fields justification. Which is totally reasonable just horsefeathering say it if you believe it.

[WrigleyField 22]

Thanks for the inspiration Kyle:

 

This is the "suppose Fields is worth less than Young" in a trade, which is probably true, but flip it to the other teams.

 

 

I know I'm a biased Bears fan and all, but this seems like the supposed markets just don't make sense if we take Tannabaums' hypothetical at face value. Plus all those supposedly valuable rookie contract years b/t Fields and Young when you're giving up a bunch of other future cheap years.

 

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close.

 

A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

[minnesotacubsfan]

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.

Isn't he saying that's the pro Bryce logic?

but if he does choose Bryce over Justin we can trust it’s not because it’s popular, but because he spent a ton of time and energy studying them and thought he was the best. It would be a huge risky move

 

exactly, which is why I'm saying trade values are of little or no justification for actually trading Fields. just because he wont bring as much in a trade as the #1 pick will doesn't mean he's the lesser prospect. Or another way to look at it is is that even though Fields is a better prospect, he's still likely to bring far less in a trade than the #1 pick...for all the reasons you and others have suggested!

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Thanks for the inspiration Kyle:

 

This is the "suppose Fields is worth less than Young" in a trade, which is probably true, but flip it to the other teams.

 

 

I know I'm a biased Bears fan and all, but this seems like the supposed markets just don't make sense if we take Tannabaums' hypothetical at face value. Plus all those supposedly valuable rookie contract years b/t Fields and Young when you're giving up a bunch of other future cheap years.

 

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close.

 

A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close.

 

A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

And you think Youngs is #1value?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

And you think Youngs is #1value?

 

I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close.

 

A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status.

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

 

do you think his value is higher then the #1 pick in the draft? ie, would you trade more for Fields then you would for the #1 pick?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

 

do you think his value is higher then the #1 pick in the draft? ie, would you trade more for Fields then you would for the #1 pick?

 

 

Probably a little less, but not much.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

 

do you think his value is higher then the #1 pick in the draft? ie, would you trade more for Fields then you would for the #1 pick?

 

 

Probably a little less, but not much.

 

i tend to think he has more value but I'm a noted bears homer.

 

That being said, I think its easier to get teams in a feeding frenzy chasing a prospect out of college (or several possible selections - ergo, #1 pick) than it is to get them chasing a known commodity like Fields. there's always the hope the guy that can be drafted could be the perfect HOF Player, and once one team thinks its possible, group think seems to take hold and wa-la, you've got a bidding war. That's another reason why the #1 pick gets traded for more

Edited January 12, 2023 by minnesotacubsfan

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there.

And you think Youngs is #1value?

 

I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't

If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And you think Youngs is #1value?

 

I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't

If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk.

 

That's the cognitive bias called loss aversion, and it skews our ability to make rational decisions

 

If you pick a new QB, it feels like you've "lost" on the time and emotional investment in fields, whereas with you've never had a new QB so it can't be a loss, only an unrealized gain. Unrealized gains feel less bad than tangible losses, even though from a value perspective they are identifical.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't

If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk.

 

That's the cognitive bias called loss aversion, and it skews our ability to make rational decisions

 

If you pick a new QB, it feels like you've "lost" on the time and emotional investment in fields, whereas with you've never had a new QB so it can't be a loss, only an unrealized gain. Unrealized gains feel less bad than tangible losses, even though from a value perspective they are identifical.

Only if these were strictly investments and not humans.

 

But even treating it like an investment, it certainly wouldnt be investments like selling and buying a stock with very low transaction costs. This would be like buying and selling two private companies who do the same thing except I've worked day to day with one for ome and have done a 6 month due diligence on the other. The transaction costs on flipping these assets is very high and I have way more info about the other. I know first hand EVERYTHING about it, and the other I have a bunch of info that the seller, being led by an inveatmemt bank, is feeding me.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Professional sports teams, and especially the NFL, are well equipped to handle near constant personnel churn

[jersey cubs fan]

The transaction costs on flipping these assets is very high.

A lot Of your post makes sense but I don’t agree with this at all.

[WrigleyField 22]

Professional sports teams, and especially the NFL, are well equipped to handle near constant personnel churn

Well the point of the analogy was certainly not about personnel change, but rather quality of information that we make valuations off of.

[knoblejr]

Im okay with trading back and adding talent. Maybe getting some help on the line. Imagine a kid like Ocyrus torrence blocking for fields on a breakaway. We have so many holes to fill we could add to the d line and the linebacker core but im really impartial to adding the home grown illinois corner Devon Witherspoon, scouting metric below, in the 2nd round but i believe it will require trading up to do so. So i say we trade back instead. Maybe to like pick five or six. Get Jalen Carter, Will, Anderson, Brian Beressee, or Myles Murophy then use the pick we got in the top of the second to land witherspoon. We would have the making of a super dominant young corner group. Thoughts?

 

Devon Wither Spoon, CB| Illinois-Scouting Report

[BigbadB]

Trading back is clearly the best way to go, IMO. I actually prefer the double trade back if they can stay in the top single digits, but preferably no lower than the Colts. I get that trading Fields this year compared to next year probably means his value will likely be lower next year. But with the picks that the Bears will likely land by trading down, they would be in line to get one of the best QB's next year, if not the best. And they may not even have to trade up to get that QB. Colts and Texans will likely not be any better next year. Hell, their rookie QB's may not even start before midseason.

 

Fields deserves a year with a better team before moving on. He has things to fix, but he was putting up plenty of points with a lousy group of WR's and linemen. Against good teams, also. The ultimate Bear thing to do would be to trade Fields before he becomes a top 3 QB in the league while Young flops, and then the organization will look even sillier for choosing to trade up for Trubisky instead of Mahomes and then trading away Fields, who goes on and wins Super Bowls with someone else. Hell naw.

[raw]

Im okay with trading back and adding talent. Maybe getting some help on the line. Imagine a kid like Ocyrus torrence blocking for fields on a breakaway. We have so many holes to fill we could add to the d line and the linebacker core but im really impartial to adding the home grown illinois corner Devon Witherspoon, scouting metric below, in the 2nd round but i believe it will require trading up to do so. So i say we trade back instead. Maybe to like pick five or six. Get Jalen Carter, Will, Anderson, Brian Beressee, or Myles Murophy then use the pick we got in the top of the second to land witherspoon. We would have the making of a super dominant young corner group. Thoughts?

 

Devon Wither Spoon, CB| Illinois-Scouting Report

 

Welcome. I really don't want to be in a situation where the Bears take defensive players with their first 2 picks 2 years in a row. I love some of those names (not Bresee) and Witherspoon is a stud who I'd love to have. But it would be somewhat of a crime if the Bears don't add some young offensive help early for Fields really soon. I understand defense top 10, because that's where the value is, but after that, you have to take offense. The only offensive help they gave Justin last year was a 5th round LT and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

[WrigleyField 22]

and Velus who is like 3 years older than Fields.

Hey some might call that vet leadership for a young QB :lol: