2024 NFL Draft

[raw]

That Carolina pick not being 1 or 2 is an interesting scenario that I do NOT want to see play out. But in theory, the decision to keep Fields or not should NOT depend on whether you have a top 2 pick. Either he's the guy or he's not. And part of the appeal of keeping Fields is the large package of picks you could get for the #1. Having Fields without the package of assets is, meh,

You probably still have to take a QB and still have to trade Justin, but would have neither a top QB prospect of the last or next few years nor a huge package of draft picks.

[raw]

6 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

I’m this scenario I see no reason to not keep Fields for a 4th year worth…what like 6 or 7 million? Even if he’s a disaster (and I think he’d be better than that), I’d find that preferable to picking up Andy Dalton 3.0. The rookie is hopefully gonna sit and learn anyway.

I don't think you need a bridge QB. I honestly think you throw the rookie out there or just play Bagent. Again, I think you guys are discounting what Bagent did this year. While he wasn't great or anything, he beat out 2 vets to be the QB2. And in this scenario, you are likely building some type of trade value for Bagent in the long-run. He was competent. NFL teams pay a lot of competence.

Also, IDK what a rookie learns by watching Fields. Maybe what NOT to do? Hey don't hold onto the ball that long since you can't break a Myles Garrett sack, outrun the rest of the team to the corner and throw a dot to the back pylon for a TD. 

[Outshined_One]

In the Carolina pick falls to 3 scenario (and the Bears not jumping ahead of them), I guess the question would depend on combine and workouts.  If someone makes a definitive case to be the third best QB behind Williams and Maye, I think you'd still have to give strong consideration to taking that person with the #3, especially if they're unlikely to make it to the Bears' second first round pick.

Also, while I'm firmly set in the "draft a QB with the Carolina pick", I'm also on the fence as to the trade Justin/keep Justin question, regardless of what happens with draft order.  I think the team ends up keeping him because he won't be worth a whole lot in the trade market and his 2024 salary would be much lower than what a good quality bridge QB would want. Moreover, I don't want Bagent as the opening day starting QB unless the team puts him in a Six Million Dollar Man program and he comes out of the offseason with a literal cannon for an arm.

[jersey cubs fan]

Trade fields if you get a 2nd hold onto him if you don’t. I have no interest in bringing in an outside veteran qb. I don’t have any hope that fields will be the guy. But I do believe he’s good enough to be a quality backup. Somebody that can win you a game or two and be generally competent over a stretch. 
 

if he was on the jets they’d be a playoff team. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

I’m this scenario I see no reason to not keep Fields for a 4th year worth…what like 6 or 7 million? Even if he’s a disaster (and I think he’d be better than that), I’d find that preferable to picking up Andy Dalton 3.0. The rookie is hopefully gonna sit and learn anyway.

The reason would be that fields is a terrible QB who drags down your team and your ability to evaluate individual players outside of Qb.

 

But if someone disagrees that he's that bad, then sure.

[BigSlick]

I don't think the eye test or the stats show that Fields is a terrible QB, but an argument can be made that he's anywhere between Bad, Below Average, Average or slightly Above Average. And my opinion of that wavers with each game, lol.

I expect any bridge QB would most likely be Bad. We can look around the league and see that... it's exceptionally hard to find even competent play from scrapheap quarterbacks. And I imagine that such a QB would cost as much or more than Fields would on his rookie contract in year 4. But you have to balance that with what you think you can get for him in a trade. A 2nd or higher? I probably take it. A 3rd or less? I don't know if it's worth it. 

I wouldn't keep Fields for any teaching reason for a new QB, but simply as an evaluation of what the heck's out there. And on top of that - we're almost certainly going to have a new head coach and a new offensive system, and I don't hate the idea of the rookie getting a year in that system before starting. I'm ambivalent on whether or not I'd start the rookie right away. With Fields I was all in on letting him start over Dalton. I'm less confident if thats the right approach or not these days, though its far more common in the NFL today. 

[Old Style]

2 hours ago, jersey cubs fan said:

Trade fields if you get a 2nd hold onto him if you don’t. I have no interest in bringing in an outside veteran qb. I don’t have any hope that fields will be the guy. But I do believe he’s good enough to be a quality backup. Somebody that can win you a game or two and be generally competent over a stretch. 
 

if he was on the jets they’d be a playoff team. 

If the Bears had competent coaching we’d be a playoff team right now with Fields at QB. Three games lost with well over 90% 4th quarter win probability due to piss poor coaching. 

[Brian707]

The chance the Carolina pick gets to #3 or worse has to be like 8%. Draft Williams or Maye and as long as neither pulls a Bryce Young, next year the Bears should be a playoff team.

[UK]

2 hours ago, Brian707 said:

The chance the Carolina pick gets to #3 or worse has to be like 8%. Draft Williams or Maye and as long as neither pulls a Bryce Young, next year the Bears should be a playoff team.

Agreed.

If one of the top 2 QBs and one of the top 2 WRs are available, I would hope that is the path.

Does anyone think that Jones would be a reasonable option at 3T? He's the best FA on the market on a team that probably won't make an offer. If there's cap space (assuming Johnson is tagged), it would likely turn a good defense, great.

In order of need:

QB

WR

Interior OL

3T

FS assuming Jackson is cut.

DE

HB 

TE

CB

LB

SS

Punter and returner are also of need.

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

3 hours ago, BigSlick said:

I don't think the eye test or the stats show that Fields is a terrible QB, but an argument can be made that he's anywhere between Bad, Below Average, Average or slightly Above Average. And my opinion of that wavers with each game, lol.

I expect any bridge QB would most likely be Bad. We can look around the league and see that... it's exceptionally hard to find even competent play from scrapheap quarterbacks. And I imagine that such a QB would cost as much or more than Fields would on his rookie contract in year 4. But you have to balance that with what you think you can get for him in a trade. A 2nd or higher? I probably take it. A 3rd or less? I don't know if it's worth it. 

I wouldn't keep Fields for any teaching reason for a new QB, but simply as an evaluation of what the heck's out there. And on top of that - we're almost certainly going to have a new head coach and a new offensive system, and I don't hate the idea of the rookie getting a year in that system before starting. I'm ambivalent on whether or not I'd start the rookie right away. With Fields I was all in on letting him start over Dalton. I'm less confident if thats the right approach or not these days, though its far more common in the NFL today. 

Fields is 24th of 27 qualified QBs in success rate, just below Kenny Pickett, 20th in QBR, 22nd in ANY/A, 26th in sack rate.

Everyone else who is anywhere near him in any of these stats is a rookie, has lost his starting job, or both.

I haven't seen a player inspire so many fans to refuse to see how bad he is since Tebow, and at least Tebow had fake clutchness as an explanation.  All fields has is some really cool highlight runs which he doesn't even do anymore.

 

 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2 hours ago, Old Style said:

If the Bears had competent coaching we’d be a playoff team right now with Fields at QB. Three games lost with well over 90% 4th quarter win probability due to piss poor coaching. 

I hate to tell you that fields was on the field for those fourth quarters and had a tiny bit to do with those results.

Edited December 21, 2023 by Hairyducked Idiot

[BigSlick]

34 minutes ago, UK said:

Agreed.

If one of the top 2 QBs and one of the top 2 WRs are available, I would hope that is the path.

Does anyone think that Jones would be a reasonable option at 3T? He's the best FA on the market on a team that probably won't make an offer. If there's cap space (assuming Johnson is tagged), it would likely turn a good defense, great.

In order of need:

QB

WR

Interior OL

3T

FS assuming Jackson is cut.

DE

HB 

TE

CB

LB

SS

Punter and returner are also of need.

 

I don't think running back, tight end, corner back or linebacker are big needs at all. I mean - if there's some amazing dude on the board, go ahead and get him. But those positions are not as much a need as say, Offensive Tackle, in my mind.

And honestly, I don't think HB or LB should ever be a need. Just get some guys. Those positions are firmly in "some guys" zone in the modern NFL. 

[UK]

21 minutes ago, BigSlick said:

I don't think running back, tight end, corner back or linebacker are big needs at all. I mean - if there's some amazing dude on the board, go ahead and get him. But those positions are not as much a need as say, Offensive Tackle, in my mind.

And honestly, I don't think HB or LB should ever be a need. Just get some guys. Those positions are firmly in "some guys" zone in the modern NFL. 

They're not, which is why it's further down the list. 

[raw]

So, I posed this question in a smaller setting, but is it possible there comes a point where the Bears get an offer that is of more value to them than either of the top QBs?

The trade last year, for what almost every person believes were with lesser prospects available was Pick 1 for Pick 9, a 2nd, 2024 1st, 2025 2nd and DJ Moore. I think there's even more incentive to move that far down in the draft again, if their own pick remains top 5 or 6 like it's been most of this year. So, if you somehow get even more than that, can it possibly be enough to make Poles say, "oh that's too good to pass up"?

I've previously looked at it as passing on QB this year means making a commitment to Fields. But maybe the commitment would be to amassing an unprecedented number of draft assets? They don't HAVE to exercise the 5th year. They don't HAVE to extend him long-term. And if they get extra picks in 2025 and 2026 at means they have the ammo to get a QB when/if they need one in any of the next 3 years. Obviously, there may be no better prospects on paper than Williams and Maye. But there certainly will be other good QBs ultimately out of each of those drafts. And the Bears have to find one of those or Williams or Maye or make Fields somehow great either way. 

[Tryptamine]

2 minutes ago, raw said:

So, I posed this question in a smaller setting, but is it possible there comes a point where the Bears get an offer that is of more value to them than either of the top QBs?

The trade last year, for what almost every person believes were with lesser prospects available was Pick 1 for Pick 9, a 2nd, 2024 1st, 2025 2nd and DJ Moore. I think there's even more incentive to move that far down in the draft again, if their own pick remains top 5 or 6 like it's been most of this year. So, if you somehow get even more than that, can it possibly be enough to make Poles say, "oh that's too good to pass up"?

I've previously looked at it as passing on QB this year means making a commitment to Fields. But maybe the commitment would be to amassing an unprecedented number of draft assets? They don't HAVE to exercise the 5th year. They don't HAVE to extend him long-term. And if they get extra picks in 2025 and 2026 at means they have the ammo to get a QB when/if they need one in any of the next 3 years. Obviously, there may be no better prospects on paper than Williams and Maye. But there certainly will be other good QBs ultimately out of each of those drafts. And the Bears have to find one of those or Williams or Maye or make Fields somehow great either way. 

The haul for 1 is going to be pretty huge to the point where I'd almost be disappointed if they didn't move it. I'm not in love with Williams or Maye and while I'd love to have MHJ, I'd like even more to have a top 10 pick this year, a 2nd this year and a first in 2025 and 2026 plus whatever else they manage to squeeze out of whoever.

[jumbo]

6 minutes ago, raw said:

So, I posed this question in a smaller setting, but is it possible there comes a point where the Bears get an offer that is of more value to them than either of the top QBs?

The trade last year, for what almost every person believes were with lesser prospects available was Pick 1 for Pick 9, a 2nd, 2024 1st, 2025 2nd and DJ Moore. I think there's even more incentive to move that far down in the draft again, if their own pick remains top 5 or 6 like it's been most of this year. So, if you somehow get even more than that, can it possibly be enough to make Poles say, "oh that's too good to pass up"?

I've previously looked at it as passing on QB this year means making a commitment to Fields. But maybe the commitment would be to amassing an unprecedented number of draft assets? They don't HAVE to exercise the 5th year. They don't HAVE to extend him long-term. And if they get extra picks in 2025 and 2026 at means they have the ammo to get a QB when/if they need one in any of the next 3 years. Obviously, there may be no better prospects on paper than Williams and Maye. But there certainly will be other good QBs ultimately out of each of those drafts. And the Bears have to find one of those or Williams or Maye or make Fields somehow great either way. 

The draft haul is enticing. I’ve been posting about the eagles and keeping two firsts while they waited out the hurts decision. I don’t think poles is going to clean house, and if that doesn’t happen you can run it back knowing you’ve got another chance next year if things don’t improve with all the talent around the qb.  
 

If caleb is actually that highly valued you could get the three firsts and three more picks, maybe four firsts. That’s a lot of picks you could bundle to trade up when you’re ready. 

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Anything is possible.  No one knows what is going on in ryan Poles' mind. 

 

But it's really hard to figure out where they are going to get a QB from if they trade down.

[BigbadB]

5 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Anything is possible.  No one knows what is going on in ryan Poles' mind. 

 

But it's really hard to figure out where they are going to get a QB from if they trade down.

If they felt Bo Nix or JJ McCarthy or Michael Penix could be a good NFL QB, I could see them trading for the haul, drafting one of those guys later and getting a bridge QB. I don't think I'd have a problem with them signing someone like Gardner Minshew or Jameis Winston taking snaps until the rookie is ready. I think those guys have a chance to do more for this offense than what Fields is offering.

I'm still in the draft Caleb Williams camp, however. The draft pick you get for Fields, potentially a 2nd rounder and the pick from Carolina next year makes it where you still have plenty of extra picks to keep beefing up the roster, and all that cap space with a rookie QB allows you to spend on free agents where you can strengthen the defense, the receiver room, the OLine and depth in general. 

I won't hate it whichever way they go, but they've struck out on QB's for way too long and here is one sitting in your lap. This team has a chance to give the rookie QB every chance to be successful right out of the gates with a decent roster.

[raw]

7 hours ago, Hairyducked Idiot said:

Anything is possible.  No one knows what is going on in ryan Poles' mind. 

 

But it's really hard to figure out where they are going to get a QB from if they trade down.

My thought is that they'd stick with Fields, and in turn, Eberflus. But only for next year. Decline the 5th year option. And you can get a QB in 2025 with all your extra picks. 

[UK]

Would you make a similar trade with Atlanta but instead of Moore, you trade for Bates (FS)?

24:(1) (1)

For

24 (1) (10)

25: (1)

Jeremy Bates (FS)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

18 minutes ago, raw said:

My thought is that they'd stick with Fields, and in turn, Eberflus. But only for next year. Decline the 5th year option. And you can get a QB in 2025 with all your extra picks. 

I'm getting deja vu.  

I'm totally down with the generic idea of finding a QB somewhere other than the 1.1Øa and taking advantage of that sweet sweet trade-down haul 

But I need something better than "maybe they really really believe in bo nix" or "idk maybe draft one next year" and dear god everyone stop using it as an excuse to squeeze another year out of fields.

Sell me on Kyler Murray or god just go get Kirk cousins or something 

 

 

 

 

[CubinNY]

15 hours ago, jumbo said:

The draft haul is enticing. I’ve been posting about the eagles and keeping two firsts while they waited out the hurts decision. I don’t think poles is going to clean house, and if that doesn’t happen you can run it back knowing you’ve got another chance next year if things don’t improve with all the talent around the qb.  
 

If caleb is actually that highly valued you could get the three firsts and three more picks, maybe four firsts. That’s a lot of picks you could bundle to trade up when you’re ready. 

God this is a depressing post. 

[jersey cubs fan]

39 minutes ago, UK said:

Would you make a similar trade with Atlanta but instead of Moore, you trade for Bates (FS)?

24:(1) (1)

For

24 (1) (10)

25: (1)

Jeremy Bates (FS)

Hell no. The only way you trade out from 1:1 is if you get a blow you away offer. There has to be more picks there. You have to assume you’d be picking outside the top ten in 2025, and if you’re still looking for your qb, you will then be pressured to trade up.

 

now, if you actively dislike both QBs this year, then maybe you settle for that deal. But I have a hard time thinking they’ll pass on taking an again when they already missed on Stroud. 

Edited December 22, 2023 by jersey cubs fan

[jumbo]

24 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

God this is a depressing post. 

Ha, yeah, sorry

The extremes are bring back everyone or start over. Doing anything in between those two extremes leads to some questions about the QB and the OC. 

If you keep Fields, do you want him running offense #3 in his 4th year? Do you plan to give him 2 more years to learn offense #3? 

If you keep Flus and get a new OC, can they run the Shannahan offense? Probably can find someone familiar enough with that scheme to avoid the offense being brand new. But the real impact then is how the playcalling would fit Fields better. This coudl work but it's kind of a needle in a haystack. 

Any new coach I doubt would not draft a new QB. Wrigley has promoted keeping Fields and drafting someone; that's a possibility here but it's a complication a new coach might not want. 

[BigSlick]

Getting a haul for the 1st overall pick is definitely a tempting proposition, and I would want my GM to make that the most desirable option IF and ONLY IF you felt absolutely secure in your QB. Unfortunately, we aren’t there.

If you trade that 1st overall and you’re looking to draft a QB anyway, you’re accepting the fact you’re getting an inferior QB prospect. Now drafting QB is always a bit of a crapshoot - the 2023 draft being a prime example of that - but I don’t think you want to handicap yourself by limiting your options at who you draft. Now…you may think you’ve outsmarted the other 31 teams in the league and think you can steal a prospect who is undervalued by the rest of the league. Do I trust the Bears front office to have outsmarted the rest of the league in evaluating QB prospects? 
 

lol.