WrigleyField 22

There would of course be locker room issues with Fields/Caleb. Even the scant comparable history shows that for sure occurs (GB wasn't all sunshines and rainbows twice, nor was Aikman/Walsh. I'm not sure about KC or San Diego, but if you told me there was I wouldn't be shocked.) But (sample size alert) there also isn't any indication/case of such a shared dev approach delaying or failing a guy. And while some guys like Manning overcome awful rookie campaigns and some like Herbert or Stroud wow from the start, cases like David Carr have most agreeing you can definitely ruin a guy. If you have the option not to, that's probably a reasonable approach that should be in consideration. Options better than not in most cases. With Fields having aparently no market there isn't that much purported downside to holding. You destroy his value from a 5th to nothing? But if Williams would benefit from a red shirt year, that value is immeasurable. Or it's totally unnecessary and he could be Stroud day 1. I think you can definitely weigh the risk/reward upside against the risk/reward of rushing your next shot at a franchise QB and the meager day 3 trade comp. ETA - or even if a Williams is a Manning who works past rookie struggles, there's value in a higher floor 2024 and competing still - main point being there's a strong argument that rookie QB learning curves may be an unnecessary thing whereas they're sometimes viewed like necessary dev time)

I actually would be fine without being at top end of DE market. I think Bears could have done a lot of damage at premiums spots in wave 2 and built out both staters and depth. But there's probably like 10M of excess value what you could have sunk into S and RB and gotten decent production. Hope Byard is ageless and Swift stay healthy. But if Bears wanna spend like a team with real playoff aspirations, whatever. If they spend like a team still rebuilding, I don't like it.

Kind of a lot (including guarantees) imo. Poles hitting up lower valuation positions with strong mid-level money to start offseason...

They'll get a cut from the NFL that I'm sure they're counting in the $2B. Much of the rest could come in form of creative financing that won't require 1B+ up front

Congrats Sulley?

Heard he really was a former scout, but former is really the operative word there.

Yea nothing can be official til league year opens, but they could break it whenever. Last year's Carolina trade broke a week before league year opened.

Yea that guy is a fraud, but the betting line I think moved pretty strongly. So there may be real smoke, but that guy sure doesn't have it.

Encourages stronger tanking early?

This logic only works of you somehow were able to have your choice of the entire field. QB1 is still more successful than any other spot in the draft. 1st QB off board historical has the best chance to be best of their class. Next best is QB2. Then, and I know this is shocking, QB3. After 3 is basically falls apart. But even in years where a QB picked 1.1 isn't the best QB in his class, he's almost always has a pretty high floor - especially relative to your average QB 2-4.

Hes hedging and gonna back out of his pension deal with Sulley.

The players would get over losing Fields in 2025 instead of 2024. I actually don't see the major difference there. The difference is how Caleb handles either scenario, but any teammate reaction is same just a matter of timing.

But seriously I think that Lucas clip probably speaks to part of the problem with bringing in an outsider to bridge. That guy (say a Minshew or Brisset) will have no upper hand in terms of lockerroom respect or even offense familiarity. So both guys are competing for reps at a equal starting point and if the natural talent gap is clear it would get awkward and possibly unproductive. Better to just commit to the guy and give him all the reps than pay lip service to a very marginal vet who could flop just as easily. If you really needed a young QB to slow develop that would be one thing, but that shouldn't be Caleb.

I pay annual so less than that a month, but I lie to myself and say their fantasy football content helps me in my leagues (it doesn't it's all luck)

Haven't listened to full segment. Lucas continues to spill all the old secrets.

Don't scroll through 'For you.' Just do following. And mute liberally.

That account doesn't know horsefeathers.

If they aren't in a spot for Nabers or Odunze I feel like just straight trading back from 9 will be Poles goal. Obviously he can't force a trade up candidate though. I'm not super convinced they'll get a 2024 pick for Fields. As with Darnold, Wentz and other QB trades of a similar nature, the bulk of the comp may be delayed by a year. So if they don't like that gap from 9 to 75 Poles has to be creative. But he probably has to attack FA like that gap is gonna be there.

I feel like more mocks are starting to get away from that and you're seeing other guys enter. Either way it doesn't matter. Go pull up any mock draft database from early Feb 2023 using the Internet Archive site. Probably half the top 10 at that time went 15 or later.

Yea. I mean obviously he doesn't have to go live on air at ESPN and make demands, but "going easy" on Chicago where they salvage a overpay is directly against his own interests since he'd presumably want as much help as he can turning around Washington. I guess the only justification is if he was narrowly focused on Washington. I guess maybe because of the home town thing?

If Caleb has a landing spot secured in Washington, what's his benefit to keeping it low key rather than leveraging it against Chicago?

Well it's probably equally naive to believe any team holding that #1 wouldn't have big concerns.

Too many negatives in this sentence. I actually keep second guessing if I know what you're saying.

Funny enough someone I know from another forum tagged me about that article on Twitter. So I was curious and ran it through OverTheCap's trade value calculator instead, including using their 1.1 QB value instead of Barnwell's "Let's assign Jared Goff value" method. The result ended up flipping the entire analysis to a surplus for the Caleb route. Now I don't think either of those are particularly strong data points. It's a lot of nerd circle jerking to try and quantify expected value out of something with so many variable inputs and assumptions. Also I can't stand the efficiency-stanning. Like it's cool one side is theoretucally x more efficient, but the actual cost difference is still huge too. You'd still have tons of cap space to do non efficient team building and add production to Caleb whereas as soon as a hypothetical Fields extension hits, belt tightening is probably coming behind (especially with what Poles has shown us). I don't know how much a 2026 draft pick helps that. But anyways of his hypothetical trades, I'd take the NE one over ATL one and be extremely happy to walk away with MHJ than possibly miss all three of the top 3 WR at 8. I also think you could squeeze a 2026 FRP from Giants, even if it meant swapping one of the seconds for like a 3rd or 4th. I'd definitely do that 1st and I don't think is totally unrealistic. But yea, that's all assuming you are out on Caleb for some reason.