Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

On a scale of 1-10 how crazy would it be for the Bears to trade fields to a team like the Raiders and use the #1 pick for a QB?

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

[WrigleyField 22]

On a scale of 1-10 how crazy would it be for the Bears to trade fields to a team like the Raiders and use the #1 pick for a QB?

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

On a scale of 1-10 how crazy would it be for the Bears to trade fields to a team like the Raiders and use the #1 pick for a QB?

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

To what data are you referring?

 

Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term

[WrigleyField 22]

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

To what data are you referring?

 

Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects.

 

It would be crazy, flat out.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

To what data are you referring?

 

Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects.

 

It would be crazy, flat out.

 

So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I honestly don't know what to believe. I'm not delusional enough to think I'm an expert QB scout. Bears fans and Trent Dilfer keep telling me I'm watching a crazy elite QB making excellent decisions who is on the verge of becoming a top-5 QB in the league the moment we bring in an adequate supporting cast and let him get his second year running the offense going.

 

I can kind of see it. I can also kind of see a guy who was the 4th QB taken in his draft class who in two season has exactly zero games where he threw for 250 yards and 2 tds. I see a guy who was dinged for having a slow processor in college who still seems awfully slow to process. Who frequently looks uncomfortable throwing into windows or receivers' leverage if they aren't visibly open. Who has a great deep ball but both statistically and visually is one of the least accurate QBs in the league on short and intermediate throws.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

To what data are you referring?

 

Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects.

 

It would be crazy, flat out.

 

So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy?

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects.

 

It would be crazy, flat out.

 

So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy?

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

 

When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug

[WrigleyField 22]

 

So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy?

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

 

When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug

Unless he's Fields or...?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

 

When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug

Unless he's Fields or...?

 

You just argued fields had less uncertainty. Now you're implying he has equal or more?

[WrigleyField 22]

 

When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug

Unless he's Fields or...?

 

You just argued fields had less uncertainty. Now you're implying he has equal or more?

Less.

[WrigleyField 22]

You also lose out on all the other things you can do with the #1 pick so, now it's just another plus to Fields already being the better prospect.

[UMFan83]

On a scale of 1-10 how crazy would it be for the Bears to trade fields to a team like the Raiders and use the #1 pick for a QB?

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

I mean I don't even care if it's a GM. Pretend every owner is Jerry Jones and Mike Brown and can't be fired.

 

I'd call Jerry and Mike crazy if they did it. And they're certainly crazy so they might consider something like that at some point.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

 

This feels like some variant of sunk cost fallacy. You should make whichever decision you believe is best, neither deserves "you better be certain to not pick me" status.

[minnesotacubsfan]

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

 

This feels like some variant of sunk cost fallacy. You should make whichever decision you believe is best, neither deserves "you better be certain to not pick me" status.

sunk fallacy based on what? What do you know about any of the college QBs that scream start over?

 

 

 

 

I was watching some "best of" videos on FB because 1) I'm old and 2) horsefeathers the offseason and something stood out on me. Fields holds the ball, but when he does, hes good for at least 15 yards. Its like he does it on purpose.

 

 

 

trade down bitches

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

 

This feels like some variant of sunk cost fallacy. You should make whichever decision you believe is best, neither deserves "you better be certain to not pick me" status.

sunk fallacy based on what? What do you know about any of the college QBs that scream start over?

 

 

 

 

I was watching some "best of" videos on FB because 1) I'm old and 2) horsefeathers the offseason and something stood out on me. Fields holds the ball, but when he does, hes good for at least 15 yards. Its like he does it on purpose.

 

 

 

trade down bitches

 

It's a sunk cost fallacy because it's privileging the person you already have as the default scenario.

 

I know this is something some people struggle with, but you can come to the right conclusion with an invalid argument.

 

"None of the college QBs impress me enough to want them more than fields" is a valid argument.

 

"You have to be 100% certain to trade fields" is not

[raw]

What are the logical reasons to trade Fields?

 

It doesn't really make financial sense. Fields is set to make 11.15Mil over the next 2 years of his deal. The #1 pick stands to make 36.8M guaranteed over 4 years and 15Mil over the next 2 years. So, the QB picked at 1 would be more expensive than Fields in the short term. If Fields is bad, you can walk after 2024. And while you may never have the #1 pick again to take the best QB on the board, the same is true if you draft a QB that doesn't pan out as well. But now you tie up 21M over the last 2 years of his rookie deal.

 

It doesn't really make sense in terms of building the team. You were the worst team in the league. Your most valuable asset you have to turning things around is by far the #1 pick. Granted, if you hit on the #1 pick, you have used that asset to it's maximum potential, but using that pick on a QB doesn't actually get you any closer to building the team because you potentially HAVE a QB already. While you can trade Fields and get more assets, none of the assets will have as much value as that #1 pick.

 

The only reason to trade Fields and take a QB #1 is basically based on a hunch. You have to have a hunch that Fields isn't good enough and the QB you take is the best thing since sliced bread. Based on the 1100 rushing yards, Fields already has something you can use to put together a competent offense, even if he can never throw that well. You don't even have that with a draft pick.

 

And based on everything we've heard from Halas Hall, they believe in Fields. You don't sit him Week 18 to try to get the #1 pick if you want to replace him. You don't trade for Chase Claypool, after purposely shunning all WR talent the previous offseason, if you want to replace him. It just doesn't make any logical sense for many different reasons.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What are the logical reasons to trade Fields?

 

It doesn't really make financial sense. Fields is set to make 11.15Mil over the next 2 years of his deal. The #1 pick stands to make 36.8M guaranteed over 4 years and 15Mil over the next 2 years. So, the QB picked at 1 would be more expensive than Fields in the short term. If Fields is bad, you can walk after 2024. And while you may never have the #1 pick again to take the best QB on the board, the same is true if you draft a QB that doesn't pan out as well. But now you tie up 21M over the last 2 years of his rookie deal.

 

It doesn't really make sense in terms of building the team. You were the worst team in the league. Your most valuable asset you have to turning things around is by far the #1 pick. Granted, if you hit on the #1 pick, you have used that asset to it's maximum potential, but using that pick on a QB doesn't actually get you any closer to building the team because you potentially HAVE a QB already. While you can trade Fields and get more assets, none of the assets will have as much value as that #1 pick.

 

The only reason to trade Fields and take a QB #1 is basically based on a hunch. You have to have a hunch that Fields isn't good enough and the QB you take is the best thing since sliced bread. Based on the 1100 rushing yards, Fields already has something you can use to put together a competent offense, even if he can never throw that well. You don't even have that with a draft pick.

 

And based on everything we've heard from Halas Hall, they believe in Fields. You don't sit him Week 18 to try to get the #1 pick if you want to replace him. You don't trade for Chase Claypool, after purposely shunning all WR talent the previous offseason, if you want to replace him. It just doesn't make any logical sense for many different reasons.

 

"Hunch" is a rather biased way of saying "scouting."

 

Maximizing your chance of getting an elite QB always trumps all those other factors. It's just too important. This is a league where you increasingly have to just never punt to win deep playoff games. You will need your QB to drop back in the pocket with 55 seconds and no timeouts in your own end and calmly pick apart the defense by making quick, precise reads and placing the ball in your receivers' hands.

 

It you review the tape and think there's a guy out there with a better chance to become that guy than fields, then it makes all the logical sense in the world to pull the trigger on that guy and get what value you can for fields. Fields' fallback ability to drag you to a couple of 10-7 seasons with his legs if he doesn't become an elite passer does not enter into it

 

If you don't think any of the QBs in the draft have a better chance to be that guy than fields, then you trade down

 

l

[raw]

 

"Hunch" is a rather biased way of saying "scouting."

 

Maximizing your chance of getting an elite QB always trumps all those other factors. It's just too important. This is a league where you increasingly have to just never punt to win deep playoff games. You will need your QB to drop back in the pocket with 55 seconds and no timeouts in your own end and calmly pick apart the defense by making quick, precise reads and placing the ball in your receivers' hands.

 

It you review the tape and think there's a guy out there with a better chance to become that guy than fields, then it makes all the logical sense in the world to pull the trigger on that guy and get what value you can for fields. Fields' fallback ability to drag you to a couple of 10-7 seasons with his legs if he doesn't become an elite passer does not enter into it

 

If you don't think any of the QBs in the draft have a better chance to be that guy than fields, then you trade down

 

l

 

Eh, that's a very specific skill that oversimplifies NFL QB'ing. Sometimes you can place the ball in your receiver's hands and they drop the ball or catch the ball and then fumble it. Sometimes you can win late with your QB just handing the ball off, throwing short passes, making a huge run, and getting the benefit of a 50/50 holding call to win deep playoff games. Plus, the whole thing is Fields may be able to do that with actual NFL talent around him and the only reason they don't know that is because they punted a whole season somewhat purposefully. He's at least as likely to be able to perform your very specific scenario than any draft pick. And his data as an actual NFL QB is more predictive than college data for any QB.

[WrigleyField 22]

What are the logical reasons to trade Fields?

 

It doesn't really make financial sense. Fields is set to make 11.15Mil over the next 2 years of his deal. The #1 pick stands to make 36.8M guaranteed over 4 years and 15Mil over the next 2 years. So, the QB picked at 1 would be more expensive than Fields in the short term. If Fields is bad, you can walk after 2024. And while you may never have the #1 pick again to take the best QB on the board, the same is true if you draft a QB that doesn't pan out as well. But now you tie up 21M over the last 2 years of his rookie deal.

 

It doesn't really make sense in terms of building the team. You were the worst team in the league. Your most valuable asset you have to turning things around is by far the #1 pick. Granted, if you hit on the #1 pick, you have used that asset to it's maximum potential, but using that pick on a QB doesn't actually get you any closer to building the team because you potentially HAVE a QB already. While you can trade Fields and get more assets, none of the assets will have as much value as that #1 pick.

 

The only reason to trade Fields and take a QB #1 is basically based on a hunch. You have to have a hunch that Fields isn't good enough and the QB you take is the best thing since sliced bread. Based on the 1100 rushing yards, Fields already has something you can use to put together a competent offense, even if he can never throw that well. You don't even have that with a draft pick.

 

And based on everything we've heard from Halas Hall, they believe in Fields. You don't sit him Week 18 to try to get the #1 pick if you want to replace him. You don't trade for Chase Claypool, after purposely shunning all WR talent the previous offseason, if you want to replace him. It just doesn't make any logical sense for many different reasons.

 

"Hunch" is a rather biased way of saying "scouting."

 

Maximizing your chance of getting an elite QB always trumps all those other factors. It's just too important. This is a league where you increasingly have to just never punt to win deep playoff games. You will need your QB to drop back in the pocket with 55 seconds and no timeouts in your own end and calmly pick apart the defense by making quick, precise reads and placing the ball in your receivers' hands.

 

It you review the tape and think there's a guy out there with a better chance to become that guy than fields, then it makes all the logical sense in the world to pull the trigger on that guy and get what value you can for fields. Fields' fallback ability to drag you to a couple of 10-7 seasons with his legs if he doesn't become an elite passer does not enter into it

 

If you don't think any of the QBs in the draft have a better chance to be that guy than fields, then you trade down

 

l

Who is the QB? This is what I meant before with the passive language. We're not talking hypothetical here. We know Fields and we know the NCAA prospects. Fields is the better prospect by far.

 

If you don't think so say it. I say it's crazy on the 8+ scale because Fields is better. Stop it with the "it's only 3 crazy because someone could be better."

 

For example, it wasn't crazy when Cards did it with Rosen because Rosen was crap. We can work with real life here not hypothetical if language.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I think that QB prediction is tricky enough and fields has enough flaws that thinking any of the top candidates are better is within the realm of not crazy

 

I don't think they are, but it's close enough I won't think it's crazy if the bears do

[CubColtPacer]

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing.

 

It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

 

If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far.

 

This feels like some variant of sunk cost fallacy. You should make whichever decision you believe is best, neither deserves "you better be certain to not pick me" status.

 

I think the psychology of it does matter in the case though. Is the Bears keep Fields, nobody knows who they would pick otherwise. If they trade him, that #1 pick gets compared to what Fields is doing every single game. The patience level from the fanbase goes way down. If he's only ok as a rookie, it's so much worse than it usually is for even a #1 pick.

 

So it might not be right that the two scenarios are judged differently, but it has to be factored in that they will be.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

This feels like some variant of sunk cost fallacy. You should make whichever decision you believe is best, neither deserves "you better be certain to not pick me" status.

sunk fallacy based on what? What do you know about any of the college QBs that scream start over?

 

 

 

 

I was watching some "best of" videos on FB because 1) I'm old and 2) horsefeathers the offseason and something stood out on me. Fields holds the ball, but when he does, hes good for at least 15 yards. Its like he does it on purpose.

 

 

 

trade down bitches

 

It's a sunk cost fallacy because it's privileging the person you already have as the default scenario.

 

I know this is something some people struggle with, but you can come to the right conclusion with an invalid argument.

 

"None of the college QBs impress me enough to want them more than fields" is a valid argument.

 

"You have to be 100% certain to trade fields" is not

 

this is crazy. what College prospect available this year is better than Fields? and I mean Fields as a college prospect 2 years ago or Fields as he is now? none of them are better than JF in either comparison.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I think that QB prediction is tricky enough and fields has enough flaws that thinking any of the top candidates are better is within the realm of not crazy

 

I don't think they are, but it's close enough I won't think it's crazy if the bears do

 

Except that if you are in Pole's shoes and you miss on the (not) Fields draft pick, you'll likely never work in the NFL again

 

if you miss by keeping JF, you'll likely get a second chance.