WrigleyField 22

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.

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