WrigleyField 22

Obviously they should take Caleb and not trade down. But if they do trade down I disagree that going down to 6 isn't in range of 3 firsts. Granted you can say they get two high seconds and that with the discount on future firsts that extra pick is like the 2026 first. But Bears absolutely would be negotiating from a position of strength. Even if it meant not getting 39, they should get a 2026 FRP from NYG in a hypothetical trade. That's then basically the RG3 deal. Though I think they should do a little better than RG3 so they should probably get like a 3rd or additional future 2nd thrown in too.

What do you mean, he delivers the ball in under 4 seconds on average

Thats a horoscope quote. Look at the comments, both "sides" are claiming victory lol

Hi welcome to nsbb. All the legacy old time members here exist on a spectrum between pedantic pains in the asses (like me) to Autism Spectrum Disorder (like Kyle aka Hairyducked Idiot). No, he doesn't really tire. And we'll push back pretty far until we give up too. Does it bring any of us actual joy? Probably not. Friendly reminder the majority of us here agree on Caleb to Bears (maybe Maye for Kyle as 1a/1b) as the optimal plan and we're debating merely about how much less optimal Fields is than that. It's a weird culture here.

To the extent that's accurate I'm not sure there is a truely good scenario at QB and 2024 wins outside of 1 guy. Rookie QBs winning tends to be hit or miss Replacement level fringe starters tends to be hit or miss Cousins is probably the only realistic QB target who would give a high degree of certainty on strong QB play in 2024. Obviously I'd feel good about Caleb or Mayes long term prospects, but who knows year 1 as day 1 starter. If you're lucky they're a Stroud, but not exactly a "good plan" for winning if you are playing the averages. Fields? Passable option for a team trying to win 10ish games and make playoffs (given the entire context of the roster and resources)

Answering some of the data on PA discrepancy here... Fields had 100 less dropbacks. So I guess 20 of his less pass attempts were on him (presumably sacks-bad- and some scrambles-maybe a mixed bag?) Why did he have so many less drop backs. Play calling seemingly a role of run/pass. But also he just took way less snaps. Maybe because Indy stayed on field longer and got more plays? But on a team level (without trying to do work of breaking out Bagent's and Richardson's share), the Bears offense averaged longer drives, more plays, more points, and comparable yards. Perhaps underscoring a phenomonem we can chalk up in part to variance in overall game circumstance and pace? (in case it wasn't clear here from the broad numbers, the Colts had 12 extra possessions on offense. Which would roughly make up the ~5 snap per game difference of Minshew v Fields in full games played. To the extent this IS sytilistic, are we sure it's inherently bad? Probably neutral on it's own) Anyways ymmv on how to judge Fields ~1.5 plays per game of passed up attempts (granted also on fewer attempts) against the entire picture of play. Edit - oh and the 13 starts is really like 14.6 games verse 12.5 games. No doubt a partial factor in total snap (and pass) discrepancy.

I'm more open to QBr as a real than raw, but in years with more than two starts its 44, 44, 59 for Minshew and 26, 56, 46 for Fields So Minshew is coming off his best QBr and Fields a slight QBR regression, but in many stats Minshew had his worst year. I don't know exactly how we should scale/weight this, but it feels like 2024 expectations would probably have a ton of crossover on the bell curves, and Fields may well be weighted more favorably on a expectation curve. In a world where Maye and Caleb disappear tomorrow, I'm not really sure what Minshew or any average FA QB is supposed to solve over Fields. Regrettably I might have to concede Cousins as the best target (no doubt helped by the fact Fields trade value was surely helped by the mysterious disappearance of two high quality prospects). Edit - possible I'm being harsh on Daniels, but in many areas he's basically a Fields type so youre not escaping the general style if that's the concern, just hoping you get a re-do where you don't actively harm the develoment. JJ and Penix are fine as late first round prospects if that's where they go, but it's not like I'd lose sleep passing them up and evaluating the next draft class either. Although I do have sentimental reasons that would make me the most annoying JJ-stan if they somehow went that route - but objectively that would be an absurd choice. Anyways tldr, is another year of Fields vs those other guys is a much a timing question as anything else.

Wait, can we circle back. Does Kyle think Fields passed up the entire 120 pass attempt difference? And to be clear, you don't care about any running advantage (because vibes) right?

I'm not sure the floor of acceptable bridge has to be any higher than "better than a median highly drafted rookie" which is pretty dang low. But I do think it's somewhat pointless to bring in a bridge starter just to do that in most cases. In this case, Fields clears both criteria just fine. The issue, which I'm not totally discounting, but just think is overrated is the lockerroom stuff and the human nature. And of course the actual opportunity cost verse a trade will matter.

How many snaps of Minshew did you watch?

Yea this is really dumb to argue over what the third best option is at QB

QB3 may be taking it a bit too far. I mean I guess you kind of have to chose early and either give him all the early reps early or not and commit to a slow development, but at the absolute worst case expectation if you planned to bench Williams is that he's QB3 for like 4-6 weeks max. After that point, I'd really expect he can take over for injury even if the plan was to sit him. But the gameplan may have to adjust (as opposed to the 2021 plan with Fields when he got inserted earlier than planned against Cleveland and the plan was "Eh horsefeathers it, run it back with the Dalton O")

Agreed, that's dreaming. Also does that mock have Daniels going to 2 in favor of Maye? I swear something happens to people's brains when there is a no doubter #1 QB and the next best obvious QB falls in favor of someone else (see Lawrence:Fields:Wilson)

It's not magic. It's just that he's not your dream QB type and you can't let go of it. I mean the FA alternative offered up is Minshew. He ain't magically getting better either you just like vibes better lol

I mean sure, sign a 2017 Mike Glennon if you want? Anything up to like $24M (just below Jimmy G) is a basically a high variance questionable pool not dissimilar in nature to Fields, (although most stylistically different). All almost certainly with less upside than Fields. Some with, I guess, less downside? But not like crazy certain floors either.

I don't think you can get equal or better for Fields salary. Now obviously there's the trade value you can get from Fields now verse less in a year (or nothing / maybe comp picks). But that can be weighted against the possibility he and his trade value improves or the fact you are keeping continuity over a comparable player. But that would take a bit more nuance than you like to treat Fields with.

QB most likely. Although it also only takes one. Could be for an edge or maybe even a OT (if Poles feels Braxton is good enough for now whereas some other team is more desperate)

Yea I don't disagree,it's mostly interesting in a case where it's a overwhelming trade down opportunity. But I don't think Poles sees it that way. I mean even last year people were screaming at him to take Carter, but he clearly had no interest and took the opportunity to take the actual guy he wanted who this time last year was like a consensus board third rounder. So who knows.

Yea, 9 is gonna be such an interesting spot. A lot of mocks have all of Nabers/Odunnze/Bowers gone. I don't actually think that bears out as it's still very early. Though if all 3 of those guys were actually gone you have an interesting choice of one of the top 2 Tackles probably then being there. But those guys could also theoretically be gone too where it's 8 offensive players gone. But that happening means a third QB hasn't gone and you could very well have a prime trade down spot. Now that's all the January 29th fantasy stuff. This time last year, most media mocks had like half the top filled with guys who ended up going late first round. So it's all gonna change. But a trade down definitely wouldn't surprise me because it's Poles M.O. And UT could end up like the Pats last year who traded down and still got the pkayer many had as a top 10 pick most of the process and who fans were clamoring for.

As a follow up to a post last week: There is zero chance that Chase Young is a Flus fit lol

Nah, any rookie QB option other than Caleb or Maye and I'd just role with Fields for another year.

We'll see where the market lands, but I have a suspicion there will be value DEs with less name recognition who will be available at a lower cost and comparable output (still young guys, but just ones without former #2 pick creds/cost) For example, this is the PFF write up for Dirance Armstrong who they estimate at 3/25.5 v 1/15.5 for Young Armstrong has been the unsung contributor on this loaded Cowboys defensive front, recording pressure rates above 11% in each of the last three seasons and an ability to line up all over the formation. Armstrong has played snaps inside the tackles, as a wide nine-technique primarily on the right side and as a standup player in the box spying on opposing quarterbacks or mugging the A-gap. Armstrong's long arm is a problem for blockers, and he quite literally has extremely long arms at 34.75 inches. He pairs that with good bend around the edge. He can get displaced in the run game but is a great asset getting after the quarterback. Sounds way more like a Poles/Flus guy than Young.

We all know what that coded language means

Stellar QB play makes winning immensely easier, especially over long time frames.

I definitely wouldn't trash my current QB in an interview with like 9 prospective hires knowing I'm only hiring one.