Chicago Bears Offseason Thread (the tank must payoff)

[WrigleyField 22]

I’d with Fields and go hard in the draft after Bijan Robinson, Quentin Johnston, and Dalton Kincaid. This offseason on the trade market Fields is Lamar Jackson-lite anyway and he’s the best QB “prospect” available this offseason. A CB and S would be nice too. After all that OL with most priority on one of the centers in a deep class

 

Top pre-draft priority would be heavy on DL…Two of D. Payne, M. Davenport, Hargave, F. Cox, Rankins, Graham, Tomlinson

Alright the Jets fan thinks we should keep him, eff it, trade him. I've seen enough.

[WrigleyField 22]

Alright back on the bandwagon thanks

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

 

I don't mean this in a mean way, but we do not speak the same language and your responses never make sense to me as a response to what I said

[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

 

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.

 

This is an example of a conflict of interest that does exist in the sports world. I think it's implied most of us are discussing the d desirability of moves relative to the Bears perspective and not Poles' personally

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I know next to nothing about football roster building, but to me the real galaxy brain/contrarian take is trade Fields, sign Lamar, and then trade down. Lamar has shown that elite level and is better than many(most?) future versions of Fields, his skillset is similar enough that you don't need to overhaul the playbook, and the Bears have too much cap space to spend efficiently so his cost over Fields matters less(especially given the cost-controlled draft haul from trading Fields + #1).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I know next to nothing about football roster building, but to me the real galaxy brain/contrarian take is trade Fields, sign Lamar, and then trade down. Lamar has shown that elite level and is better than many(most?) future versions of Fields, his skillset is similar enough that you don't need to overhaul the playbook, and the Bears have too much cap space to spend efficiently so his cost over Fields matters less(especially given the cost-controlled draft haul from trading Fields + #1).

 

My problem with that, and I admire the creativity, is that given the shorter shelf life of running QBs and how bad the roster is, i don't really want to fast forward to a prime version of what we want fields to be

[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.

 

This is an example of a conflict of interest that does exist in the sports world. I think it's implied most of us are discussing the d desirability of moves relative to the Bears perspective and not Poles' personally

Except it's Poles making that decision, and not the Bears perspective, as you say it

[CubColtPacer]

I know next to nothing about football roster building, but to me the real galaxy brain/contrarian take is trade Fields, sign Lamar, and then trade down. Lamar has shown that elite level and is better than many(most?) future versions of Fields, his skillset is similar enough that you don't need to overhaul the playbook, and the Bears have too much cap space to spend efficiently so his cost over Fields matters less(especially given the cost-controlled draft haul from trading Fields + #1).

 

The Ravens are going to franchise Lamar in some way. Even if they do the non-exclusive one, if the Bears signed him and the Ravens didn't match the Bears would have to give up two first round picks. If this was done before the draft, I can't find this for sure but my guess is the Bears next pick would be one of those two, so the #1 pick would be going to the Ravens.

[raw]

I know next to nothing about football roster building, but to me the real galaxy brain/contrarian take is trade Fields, sign Lamar, and then trade down. Lamar has shown that elite level and is better than many(most?) future versions of Fields, his skillset is similar enough that you don't need to overhaul the playbook, and the Bears have too much cap space to spend efficiently so his cost over Fields matters less(especially given the cost-controlled draft haul from trading Fields + #1).

 

My problem with that, and I admire the creativity, is that given the shorter shelf life of running QBs and how bad the roster is, i don't really want to fast forward to a prime version of what we want fields to be

 

The biggest problem with that is Jackson won't be able to be "signed". The Ravens have already said they are going to franchise tag him if they can't work out a deal in the next 2 weeks (march 3rd deadline for tag). So, you're talking about a lot of moving parts. Trading Fields, trading for Lamar, which would include the #1 pick at least. So even if you get a 1st+ for Fields, you're essentially trading down in the draft to go from cost controlled Fields to potentially the highest paid QB in the league. And I know the money doesn't matter somewhat because the Bears need to spend, but going from Fields to Jackson gives you less spending power to build up a team that was the worst in the league and you also got rid of your best asset to improve the team in the #1 overall pick

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just wonder how many more situations we are going to see where I have to listen to complicated explanations for pieces of evidence where "fields isn't elite" would be a much simpler explanation.

 

Sure, he was the fourth QB taken in his draft, but he was actually a generational 1b to Lawrence

 

Sure, he's put up almost historically bad passing numbers, but he's not *actually* bad at passing

[SpongeWorthy]

him being drafted 4th isn’t meaningful at this point

[Hairyducked Idiot]

him being drafted 4th isn’t meaningful at this point

 

Nothing that points negatively to him is ever relevant. That's what is so exhausting

[SpongeWorthy]

him being drafted 4th isn’t meaningful at this point

 

Nothing that points negatively to him is ever relevant. That's what is so exhausting

well that’s plainly not true because the conversation to trade fields is happening all over the place

 

if fields were impervious to criticism then it wouldn’t be a topic

[Hairyducked Idiot]

him being drafted 4th isn’t meaningful at this point

 

Nothing that points negatively to him is ever relevant. That's what is so exhausting

well that’s plainly not true because the conversation to trade fields is happening all over the place

 

if fields were impervious to criticism then it wouldn’t be a topic

 

And among bears fans, that topic is being deemed completely crazy, unworthy of even the slightest consideration. It's asinine

[raw]

I just wonder how many more situations we are going to see where I have to listen to complicated explanations for pieces of evidence where "fields isn't elite" would be a much simpler explanation.

 

Sure, he was the fourth QB taken in his draft, but he was actually a generational 1b to Lawrence

 

Sure, he's put up almost historically bad passing numbers, but he's not *actually* bad at passing

 

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense.

 

As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him.

[raw]

 

Nothing that points negatively to him is ever relevant. That's what is so exhausting

well that’s plainly not true because the conversation to trade fields is happening all over the place

 

if fields were impervious to criticism then it wouldn’t be a topic

 

And among bears fans, that topic is being deemed completely crazy, unworthy of even the slightest consideration. It's asinine

 

Nobody has said it's unworthy of slight consideration. Even someone in this thread said it was 8 on a scale of 1-10 crazy. That is slight consideration. And everyone that posts in these threads has criticized and pointed out negatives in Fields' game. Stop being a damn drama queen.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I just wonder how many more situations we are going to see where I have to listen to complicated explanations for pieces of evidence where "fields isn't elite" would be a much simpler explanation.

 

Sure, he was the fourth QB taken in his draft, but he was actually a generational 1b to Lawrence

 

Sure, he's put up almost historically bad passing numbers, but he's not *actually* bad at passing

 

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense.

 

As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Fields was the fourth QB selected. He fell out of the top 10. Fields simply being a second-tier QB prospect is an infinitely simpler explanation than a complicated conspiracy to devalue him or NFL teams abandoning years of scouting and evaluation to listen to an ESPN analyst. And you ignored the biggest ding on him in the draft: His slow processing, which has continued to be a problem in the NFL.

 

Yes, volume matters for a QB. You can't just throw 15 times a game in the NFL. The fact that he frequently pulled the ball down, the fact that that coaching staff didn't feel comfortable calling more pass plays, is partly on him.

 

And sacks taken absolutely correlate strongly with QB style. It's not an independent variable in either film study or statistical analysis. He takes a lot of sacks because he holds onto the ball too long and doesn't pull the trigger (slow processor again) and has a preference for trying to hold out for big plays over taking simple throws.

[WrigleyField 22]

I don't think it needs a major conspiracy about Fields dropping. QBs like Fields have been undervalued and dropped pretty consistently (despite the occasional guy not falling victim to it).

[SpongeWorthy]

the slow processing stuff was fake news

 

the narrative was out there but it literally wasnt accurate:

 

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2021/4/14/22383093/justin-fields-draft-stock-narratives-pro-day

 

if there were a redraft fields would go #2 behind lawrence

 

now none of that means trading him and taking young couldn’t be the right move but trading #1 should bring back more assets than trading fields (the minute you put him on the market he’s going to be viewed as flawed goods and the price will drop) and I don’t know how you can feel good enough about young to make up the other gaps (multiple years of experience, a year in the system, otherworldly running ability, little bit better on the money)

 

trading fields would be bad PR because he’s super popular but if that stops poles from trading him then he’s not the guy you want running the ship anyway

[SpongeWorthy]

also it’s not nothing that if fields is bad this year then the bears are in the running for the #1 pick (and if they’re close to #1 in 2024 they’ll have additional draft capital to trade up) and there’s two QBs in 2024 that would go #1 this year if they were draft eligible in williams and maye

 

if you draft a QB #1 overall this year and suck ass it’s very unlikely you go QB at 1.1 next year or try to get into that spot

[Hairyducked Idiot]

the slow processing stuff was fake news

 

the narrative was out there but it literally wasnt accurate:

 

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2021/4/14/22383093/justin-fields-draft-stock-narratives-pro-day

 

if there were a redraft fields would go #2 behind lawrence

 

now none of that means trading him and taking young couldn’t be the right move but trading #1 should bring back more assets than trading fields (the minute you put him on the market he’s going to be viewed as flawed goods and the price will drop) and I don’t know how you can feel good enough about young to make up the other gaps (multiple years of experience, a year in the system, otherworldly running ability, little bit better on the money)

 

trading fields would be bad PR because he’s super popular but if that stops poles from trading him then he’s not the guy you want running the ship anyway

 

He's got the longest time to throw from the pocket in the league. One of the highest sack rates. He is accurate against zone but one of the worst against man

 

All of that points very clearly to slow processing. It's 100% not fake news. That ringer article has simply been proven to be incorrect.

 

If you have one piece of information that says "either Fields isn't that level of QB prospect or there's a reasonable explanation" then maybe it could be either one.

 

But we have a lot of those pieces, and taken as a whole, you can't keep arguing that fields is simply the victim of luck and circumstances in each separate incident.

 

Did fields fall out of the top 10 because he's a second-tier QB prospect or did he fall out of the top 10 because of a conspiracy of racists and because professional football teams abandoned years of scouting work to take Orlovsky's word?

 

Is fields threatening records for sacks per pass attempt because he has the singularly worst pass blocking line in history or because he is slow to process and takes sacks?

 

Did the team virtually abandon passing for long stretches because the other 10 personnel on the field are all that bad at it and fields is actually good, or was it because fields is bad at it too?

 

Does fields rank near the bottom in multiple statistical measures of accuracy because he just can't bring himself to throw near receivers he doesn't trust, or is fields simply an inaccurate passer? (and speaking of fake news, the article about him being the most accurate passer in measured college history is contradicted by other pff articles using the same stat.)

 

Is he absolutely brutal against man coverage because he struggles to process and pull the trigger if receivers aren't visibly in space, or is it the receivers/coaching staff/something else?

 

 

At some point, the constant excuse making becomes absurd.

 

He's not 1b to Lawrence. He's not a top-10 QB right now being held back by supporting cast. He's an elite athlete with great intangibles and a good deep ball who struggles with processing and pulling the trigger at the NFL level as well as having mechanical flaws that lead to inaccuracy on short and intermediate passes.

 

He needs to either get noticeably better at those flaws or we need to figure out a way to work around them and win despite second-tier QB play

[Hairyducked Idiot]

also it’s not nothing that if fields is bad this year then the bears are in the running for the #1 pick (and if they’re close to #1 in 2024 they’ll have additional draft capital to trade up) and there’s two QBs in 2024 that would go #1 this year if they were draft eligible in williams and maye

 

if you draft a QB #1 overall this year and suck ass it’s very unlikely you go QB at 1.1 next year or try to get into that spot

 

What if fields is mediocre and we finish 7-10?

[raw]

I just wonder how many more situations we are going to see where I have to listen to complicated explanations for pieces of evidence where "fields isn't elite" would be a much simpler explanation.

 

Sure, he was the fourth QB taken in his draft, but he was actually a generational 1b to Lawrence

 

Sure, he's put up almost historically bad passing numbers, but he's not *actually* bad at passing

 

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense.

 

As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Fields was the fourth QB selected. He fell out of the top 10. Fields simply being a second-tier QB prospect is an infinitely simpler explanation than a complicated conspiracy to devalue him or NFL teams abandoning years of scouting and evaluation to listen to an ESPN analyst. And you ignored the biggest ding on him in the draft: His slow processing, which has continued to be a problem in the NFL.

 

Yes, volume matters for a QB. You can't just throw 15 times a game in the NFL. The fact that he frequently pulled the ball down, the fact that that coaching staff didn't feel comfortable calling more pass plays, is partly on him.

 

And sacks taken absolutely correlate strongly with QB style. It's not an independent variable in either film study or statistical analysis. He takes a lot of sacks because he holds onto the ball too long and doesn't pull the trigger (slow processor again) and has a preference for trying to hold out for big plays over taking simple throws.

 

You're really hanging onto where he got drafted when Aaron Rodgers fell to 24 and Tom Brady went 199th? And you ignored HS rankings and pre-draft rankings that I pointed out. Fields was always 1B until he wasn't 1B on draft day. He wasn't 2nd tier to Trey Lance and Zach horsefeathering Wilson.

 

The coaching staff not throwing is definitely not on him. You watched the same horsefeathering games I did and saw him getting hit or pressured at the last step of his drop. The Bears receivers were also statically the worst in the league at getting open (I'll find the tweet if I can).

 

Again, I'm not saying he was the perfect prospect or is a sure fire star QB in the league, and many have said this many times, but you're clearly being contrarian for contrarian sake. You're like a flat earther disagreeing just because it's an unpopular side to take, and that's your brand.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

I mean, the 1B thing has some legitimacy. Fields was 1B to Lawrence in national recruiting rankings. He was considered 1B in the HS all-star showcase they played against each other (Fields won MVP). He was considered 1B coming out of college, until the draft actually happened. There was the stuff about Fields having a seizure at some point. There were erroneous reports (Orlavsky) about Fields being "last guy in, 1st guy out" type of player. There was Zach Wilson's pro day where he threw the ball pretty against no defense.

 

As for the passing numbers, what numbers are "almost historically bad"? The only near historically bad numbers are counting stats. Stuff like passing yards and completions because the team throws the ball at modern historically low numbers. Stuff like sacks taken, which obviously are largely dependent on the guys around him.

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Fields was the fourth QB selected. He fell out of the top 10. Fields simply being a second-tier QB prospect is an infinitely simpler explanation than a complicated conspiracy to devalue him or NFL teams abandoning years of scouting and evaluation to listen to an ESPN analyst. And you ignored the biggest ding on him in the draft: His slow processing, which has continued to be a problem in the NFL.

 

Yes, volume matters for a QB. You can't just throw 15 times a game in the NFL. The fact that he frequently pulled the ball down, the fact that that coaching staff didn't feel comfortable calling more pass plays, is partly on him.

 

And sacks taken absolutely correlate strongly with QB style. It's not an independent variable in either film study or statistical analysis. He takes a lot of sacks because he holds onto the ball too long and doesn't pull the trigger (slow processor again) and has a preference for trying to hold out for big plays over taking simple throws.

 

You're really hanging onto where he got drafted when Aaron Rodgers fell to 24 and Tom Brady went 199th? And you ignored HS rankings and pre-draft rankings that I pointed out. Fields was always 1B until he wasn't 1B on draft day. He wasn't 2nd tier to Trey Lance and Zach horsefeathering Wilson.

 

The coaching staff not throwing is definitely not on him. You watched the same horsefeathering games I did and saw him getting hit or pressured at the last step of his drop. The Bears receivers were also statically the worst in the league at getting open (I'll find the tweet if I can).

 

Again, I'm not saying he was the perfect prospect or is a sure fire star QB in the league, and many have said this many times, but you're clearly being contrarian for contrarian sake. You're like a flat earther disagreeing just because it's an unpopular side to take, and that's your brand.

 

My take is extremely popular outside of Chicago Bears and Ohio State fandoms

[raw]

the slow processing stuff was fake news

 

the narrative was out there but it literally wasnt accurate:

 

https://www.theringer.com/platform/amp/2021/4/14/22383093/justin-fields-draft-stock-narratives-pro-day

 

if there were a redraft fields would go #2 behind lawrence

 

now none of that means trading him and taking young couldn’t be the right move but trading #1 should bring back more assets than trading fields (the minute you put him on the market he’s going to be viewed as flawed goods and the price will drop) and I don’t know how you can feel good enough about young to make up the other gaps (multiple years of experience, a year in the system, otherworldly running ability, little bit better on the money)

 

trading fields would be bad PR because he’s super popular but if that stops poles from trading him then he’s not the guy you want running the ship anyway

 

He's got the longest time to throw from the pocket in the league. One of the highest sack rates. He is accurate against zone but one of the worst against man

 

All of that points very clearly to slow processing. It's 100% not fake news. That ringer article has simply been proven to be incorrect.

 

If you have one piece of information that says "either Fields isn't that level of QB prospect or there's a reasonable explanation" then maybe it could be either one.

 

But we have a lot of those pieces, and taken as a whole, you can't keep arguing that fields is simply the victim of luck and circumstances in each separate incident.

 

Did fields fall out of the top 10 because he's a second-tier QB prospect or did he fall out of the top 10 because of a conspiracy of racists and because professional football teams abandoned years of scouting work to take Orlovsky's word?

 

Is fields threatening records for sacks per pass attempt because he has the singularly worst pass blocking line in history or because he is slow to process and takes sacks?

 

Did the team virtually abandon passing for long stretches because the other 10 personnel on the field are all that bad at it and fields is actually good, or was it because fields is bad at it too?

 

Does fields rank near the bottom in multiple statistical measures of accuracy because he just can't bring himself to throw near receivers he doesn't trust, or is fields simply an inaccurate passer? (and speaking of fake news, the article about him being the most accurate passer in measured college history is contradicted by other pff articles using the same stat.)

 

Is he absolutely brutal against man coverage because he struggles to process and pull the trigger if receivers aren't visibly in space, or is it the receivers/coaching staff/something else?

 

 

At some point, the constant excuse making becomes absurd.

 

He's not 1b to Lawrence. He's not a top-10 QB right now being held back by supporting cast. He's an elite athlete with great intangibles and a good deep ball who struggles with processing and pulling the trigger at the NFL level as well as having mechanical flaws that lead to inaccuracy on short and intermediate passes.

 

He needs to either get noticeably better at those flaws or we need to figure out a way to work around them and win despite second-tier QB play

 

Fields has the longest time to throw because he buys the most time with his mobility. That stat has always been higher for mobile QBs. And yes, you saw how bad they were at it. The only game Fields wasn't sacked this year, he threw for a season best 20-25 with 254 yards. The games he was sacked 2 times (never a single sack game) he had a 101 passer rating with 7 TDs and 1 INT coming in the opener vs. SF.

 

I know it sounds like excuses to you, but you know the personnel is bad. You know the blocking sucks, you know the receivers don't get open (which explains man coverage stats somewhat). At some point the constant devils advocate stuff becomes absurd.

 

Nobody has said he is a top 10 QB right now. But yeah, elite athlete with great intangibles and a good deep ball wins a lot of games. That description sounds a lot like Jalen Hurts. That description sounds a lot better than Jimmy Garoppolo. And all we are saying, it's worth seeing if Fields is a 2nd tier QB and if that is good enough to win games with a better supporting cast. And it's definitely worth it when you consider he could actually ascend to top 10 QB levels like Hurts did this year. Especially considering he has a much better pedigree than Hurts came into the league with. And it's definitely worth it given the alternatives available, which you still won't address and keep using hypotheticals.