2024 NFL Draft

[Outshined_One]

Trying to come up with an ideal partner for Fields is a bit rough. You need a team that buys into his upside and sees him as an immediate starter. It also *should* be a team that's pretty much ready to compete and just needs a decent QB to come in and lead the offense. That takes out teams with established QBs and teams that are in full-on rebuild mode.

There are maybe a handful of teams fitting the bill. Out of those, Pittsburgh probably doesn't have the stomach for another Bears retread and I don't see the Bears and Vikings doing a trade for fear of it backfiring either way.

Who's left? Maybe someone in the AFC or NFC South?

[Tryptamine]

9 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Trying to come up with an ideal partner for Fields is a bit rough. You need a team that buys into his upside and sees him as an immediate starter. It also *should* be a team that's pretty much ready to compete and just needs a decent QB to come in and lead the offense. That takes out teams with established QBs and teams that are in full-on rebuild mode.

There are maybe a handful of teams fitting the bill. Out of those, Pittsburgh probably doesn't have the stomach for another Bears retread and I don't see the Bears and Vikings doing a trade for fear of it backfiring either way.

Who's left? Maybe someone in the AFC or NFC South?

The Falcons are the ones who are mentioned the most often.

[CubinNY]

15 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

The Falcons are the ones who are mentioned the most often.

Depending on who becomes the HC, Atlanta appears to be a really good fit for Fields. 
 

I still think it’s a toss up if the Bears move on from him. 

[raw]

24 minutes ago, Outshined_One said:

Trying to come up with an ideal partner for Fields is a bit rough. You need a team that buys into his upside and sees him as an immediate starter. It also *should* be a team that's pretty much ready to compete and just needs a decent QB to come in and lead the offense. That takes out teams with established QBs and teams that are in full-on rebuild mode.

There are maybe a handful of teams fitting the bill. Out of those, Pittsburgh probably doesn't have the stomach for another Bears retread and I don't see the Bears and Vikings doing a trade for fear of it backfiring either way.

Who's left? Maybe someone in the AFC or NFC South?

Steelers don't have much of a history of bold moves at QB like Fields would be. I think the Raiders are a decent fit. They have some pieces there in Adams, Meyers and Jacobs, assuming they re-sign him. They do still have a large cap hit for Jimmy G, but Fields isn't a big hit and they already benched Jimmy this year so that's obviously not a huge issue for them. I also like the thought of Fields playing indoors, make him that much faster, I guess. Other than that, Falcons, Patriots, and Broncos make sense as well. 

[raw]

Definitely not interested in Fields:

BUF, NYJ, MIA, HOU, JAX, IND, CLE, CIN, BAL, KC, LAC, PHI, DAL, GB, MIN, DET, SF, ARZ

Probably not interested in Fields:

WAS (bc of having pick 2), TEN (Levis was decent enough), NYG (paying Jones), LAR (Stafford showed still some in tank), SEA (Geno can be cut, but makes more sense to draft and bridge Geno), TB (Baker will get re-signed), CAR (awkward, lol)

That leaves:

NE, PIT, LV, DEN, ATL, and NO as options. And Carr has a ton of dead money left so they are probably stuck with him.

[raw]

Here's a good Twitter thread on taking a QB #1 over not taking a QB #1

https://x.com/DaveKluge/status/1747397129138479457?s=20

[BigbadB]

12 hours ago, raw said:

Definitely not interested in Fields:

BUF, NYJ, MIA, HOU, JAX, IND, CLE, CIN, BAL, KC, LAC, PHI, DAL, GB, MIN, DET, SF, ARZ

Probably not interested in Fields:

WAS (bc of having pick 2), TEN (Levis was decent enough), NYG (paying Jones), LAR (Stafford showed still some in tank), SEA (Geno can be cut, but makes more sense to draft and bridge Geno), TB (Baker will get re-signed), CAR (awkward, lol)

That leaves:

NE, PIT, LV, DEN, ATL, and NO as options. And Carr has a ton of dead money left so they are probably stuck with him.

That list makes things look pretty bleak. With that list, I only see maybe 3 teams that might trade for Fields, and there are at least 3 free agents that could be equal or better value that won't cost draft capital. 

It's obviously not this black and white, but I could see a scenario where Poles decides to draft QB and doesn't have a suitor for Fields. Wouldn't be the worst scenario by any means, but I would hope for a second or third round pick in the draft over a Fields/Rookie QB battle in camp. 

Atl, LV and Denver seem like the best options to trade for Fields, and if any of them come calling, Poles should be all ears.

[CubinNY]

8 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

That list makes things look pretty bleak. With that list, I only see maybe 3 teams that might trade for Fields, and there are at least 3 free agents that could be equal or better value that won't cost draft capital. 

It's obviously not this black and white, but I could see a scenario where Poles decides to draft QB and doesn't have a suitor for Fields. Wouldn't be the worst scenario by any means, but I would hope for a second or third round pick in the draft over a Fields/Rookie QB battle in camp. 

Atl, LV and Denver seem like the best options to trade for Fields, and if any of them come calling, Poles should be all ears.

It would not be ideal, but I could see the Bears drafting a QB at 1 and then keeping Fields and letting things play out. 

[BigbadB]

2 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

It would not be ideal, but I could see the Bears drafting a QB at 1 and then keeping Fields and letting things play out. 

My thought was always that trading Fields could offset the haul they won't get if they draft at #1. At the very least, it would be nice to pick up a second or an extra third rounder this year. They probably still have the resources via Free Agency and the draft to fill most of the holes, but one more pick would be nice. I don't see them trading the #9 pick since the desperation for a WR will be significant if they draft QB first.

[BigSlick]

It’s too bad Minnesota is in the division because I think that also wouldn’t be a bad spot for Fields. (Need a QB, not high enough in the draft to get a guy who is immediately ready to go, etc)

The chances the Bears retain Fields as draft a qb go up… I’d probably do it if I can’t get at least a high 3rd for Fields.

[jersey cubs fan]

46 minutes ago, BigbadB said:

My thought was always that trading Fields could offset the haul they won't get if they draft at #1. At the very least, it would be nice to pick up a second or an extra third rounder this year. They probably still have the resources via Free Agency and the draft to fill most of the holes, but one more pick would be nice. I don't see them trading the #9 pick since the desperation for a WR will be significant if they draft QB first.

I do not see how they offset the haul from trading 1. They might get something halfway decent, but it won’t be big. It might be negligible, in which case I’d rather just hang on to Fields as a short term backup and emergency replacement if the new guy implodes as a rookie. 

[BigbadB]

4 minutes ago, jersey cubs fan said:

I do not see how they offset the haul from trading 1. They might get something halfway decent, but it won’t be big. It might be negligible, in which case I’d rather just hang on to Fields as a short term backup and emergency replacement if the new guy implodes as a rookie. 

I'm assuming something halfway decent, although it may not be that much given the demand may be quite low.  

[scarey]

On 1/16/2024 at 6:41 PM, raw said:

Definitely not interested in Fields:

BUF, NYJ, MIA, HOU, JAX, IND, CLE, CIN, BAL, KC, LAC, PHI, DAL, GB, MIN, DET, SF, ARZ

Probably not interested in Fields:

WAS (bc of having pick 2), TEN (Levis was decent enough), NYG (paying Jones), LAR (Stafford showed still some in tank), SEA (Geno can be cut, but makes more sense to draft and bridge Geno), TB (Baker will get re-signed), CAR (awkward, lol)

That leaves:

NE, PIT, LV, DEN, ATL, and NO as options. And Carr has a ton of dead money left so they are probably stuck with him.

Would it be a crazy idea if Poles were to take Jones or Carr back as a really expensive backup? That could potentially sweaten the return for the Bears.

 

I know offloading contacts is not normal in the NFL... I'm not sure if it even works with the way cap hits work. But, this is truly a unique situation that makes it possible.

Edited January 19, 2024 by scarey

[Tryptamine]

12 minutes ago, scarey said:

Would it be a crazy idea if Poles were to take Jones or Carr back as a really expensive backup? That could potentially sweaten the return for the Bears.

 

I know offloading contacts is not normal in the NFL... I'm not sure if it even works with the way cap hits work. But, this is truly a unique situation that makes it possible.

It would have to be an enormous amount of sweetener to give up just signing an impact player at a different position for a backup qb

[scarey]

5 minutes ago, Tryptamine said:

It would have to be an enormous amount of sweetener to give up just signing an impact player at a different position for a backup qb

Carr's contract isn't too bad after 2024. Cap hit is $17M, $11M, and$6M respectively after this year.

 

I agree, this shouldn't be done just to facilitate the trade of Fields... But if the Saints are willing to compensate for taking the contract, it could be worth while.

[BigbadB]

9 hours ago, scarey said:

Carr's contract isn't too bad after 2024. Cap hit is $17M, $11M, and$6M respectively after this year.

 

I agree, this shouldn't be done just to facilitate the trade of Fields... But if the Saints are willing to compensate for taking the contract, it could be worth while.

We must be reading Carr's contract details differently. I don't see Carr as even being remotely tradeable, especially as a backup consideration. 

[raw]

17 hours ago, scarey said:

Would it be a crazy idea if Poles were to take Jones or Carr back as a really expensive backup? That could potentially sweaten the return for the Bears.

 

I know offloading contacts is not normal in the NFL... I'm not sure if it even works with the way cap hits work. But, this is truly a unique situation that makes it possible.

I'd be OK with taking Carr back, they'd probably have to give up their 1st for that cap relief though, so IDK if the Saints would be good with that.

[minnesotacubsfan]

any qb the jets draft must approach the incumbent with "pleased to meet you A-Aron"

 

[BigSlick]

As someone who's only paid intermittent attention to the NFL between the Cutler years and when Fields was drafted, I'm simply gobsmacked at how much middling starting QBs can get on a contract. The fact that like, $40 mill a year is like, the standard for a Good QB is astronomical to me. But I guess... that's an accurate market if you value QBs where they're supposed to be. I dunno. It's wild. 

Seeing that Jordan Love is expected to get 40+ mil a year on his contact extension based on (admittedly a very good!) one year of play is wild. (And obviously there are the obvious blunders like Daniel Jones and DeShaun Watson, which will cripple a team for years) 

Edited February 19, 2024 by BigSlick

[raw]

4 hours ago, BigSlick said:

As someone who's only paid intermittent attention to the NFL between the Cutler years and when Fields was drafted, I'm simply gobsmacked at how much middling starting QBs can get on a contract. The fact that like, $40 mill a year is like, the standard for a Good QB is astronomical to me. But I guess... that's an accurate market if you value QBs where they're supposed to be. I dunno. It's wild. 

Seeing that Jordan Love is expected to get 40+ mil a year on his contact extension based on (admittedly a very good!) one year of play is wild. (And obviously there are the obvious blunders like Daniel Jones and DeShaun Watson, which will cripple a team for years) 

If I were Love, I wouldn't take a deal under 50Mil AAV. He had a top 10 passing season in his 1st year as a starter. If he has another year like this year, or god forbid, get even more consistent/better, then he'll get top of the league money, which is +50Mil/season. Even if he takes a step back, as long as he's not horrific (he won't be), so he's still going to get 40Mil, which is what the Daniel Joneses of the world get. Daniel Jones can only dream of having a season like Love's 2023. 

[sneakypower]

this is a fundamental problem badly hurting parity in the NFL is that there's less than a dozen difference maker QBs at a given time but you essentially need one (desperately) to be competitively relevant

teams cope their way into believing David Carr & Daniel Jones types can be that guy and blow such a massive portion of the cap investing in that player and have to skimp on supporting cast which in turn usually spotlights their QB's weaknesses; similarly the effect of trading so many assets to secure that guy high in the draft

Dak/Purdy/Russ on late-round rookie deals is such a salary cap cheat code really but not an easily repeatable recipe obviously

[Transmogrified Tiger]

38 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

this is a fundamental problem badly hurting parity in the NFL is that there's less than a dozen difference maker QBs at a given time but you essentially need one (desperately) to be competitively relevant

teams cope their way into believing David Carr & Daniel Jones types can be that guy and blow such a massive portion of the cap investing in that player and have to skimp on supporting cast which in turn usually spotlights their QB's weaknesses; similarly the effect of trading so many assets to secure that guy high in the draft

Dak/Purdy/Russ on late-round rookie deals is such a salary cap cheat code really but not an easily repeatable recipe obviously

I would maybe go as far to say that if you don't have an inner circle HOF QB(only Mahomes atm, but these have won 8 of the last 10 titles), then your main shot is building a super team around a decent/good QB, and that is verrry dependent on where that QB is on the payscale. It almost lends itself to the logical conclusion to *only* do a 2nd contract with an inner circle HOF QB or even to trade solid QBs a year early, because otherwise you have to tread such a thin line to make the rest of your team good enough to offset your competition who is on their Rookie deal.  A non-1st rounder like Dak/Purdy/Hurts may not be super repeatable(though it is 10% of the league!), but probably better than the odds you can squeak through with good enough skill positions/defense while paying Kirk Cousins an Ohtani AAV.

[BigSlick]

I would say its likely a lot easier to build a team around a guy who's a rung below Mahomes (Thinking about Lamar, Josh Allen, Burrow, Herbert, etc.) who even takes a 50 mill/yr salary hit with young talent you get from the draft on first year deals than it is to build the team and hope you strike gold with a Purdy. 

The other thing about those guys, is it keeps your window open for a long time - you might get several bites at the apple over a 10+ year career while your roster rises and falls, whereas if you do the SF thing, everything has to line up perfectly contract, development, aging, and then it passes. 

[Thurman Merman]

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-searching-for-the-next-patrick-mahomes-pff-play-creation-study

[raw]

1 hour ago, BigSlick said:

I would say its likely a lot easier to build a team around a guy who's a rung below Mahomes (Thinking about Lamar, Josh Allen, Burrow, Herbert, etc.) who even takes a 50 mill/yr salary hit with young talent you get from the draft on first year deals than it is to build the team and hope you strike gold with a Purdy. 

The other thing about those guys, is it keeps your window open for a long time - you might get several bites at the apple over a 10+ year career while your roster rises and falls, whereas if you do the SF thing, everything has to line up perfectly contract, development, aging, and then it passes. 

So, I disagree somewhat. I think if you are a well run organization, that has a good coach/culture and can really scout and develop players, you have a chance.

SF isn't even this situation that has lined up perfectly. They've been to 2 of the last 4 SBs, and missed a 3rd because they had an unprecedented 3 QBs go down. The 49ers have really screwed up some draft picks over the Shanahan era alone. Since 2017, they've used top 100 picks on: Trey Lance (x3), a RB granted the best RB (x2), Javon Kinlaw, a kicker, Tyrion Davis-Price also a RB (just signed with a team after being cut by the Niners), Trey Sermon another RB, Aaron Banks (below average starting G), Solomon Thomas, Reuben Foster, Ahkello Weatherspoon, Dante Pettis, Jalen Hurd, traded for Jimmy G and overpaid him.  They are really good, because Kyle Shanahan is really good. 

And sometimes you can have a great coach, organization, culture, great players, an elite level QB, and still run into Mahomes or Brady in January.