Jump to content
North Side Baseball

WrigleyField 22

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    19,067

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Profiles

Joomla Posts 1

Chicago Cubs Videos

Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking

News

2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

Guides & Resources

2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks

The Chicago Cubs Players Project

2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker

2026 Chicago Cubs Draft Tracker: Picks & Bonuses

Blogs

Events

Forums

Store

Gallery

Everything posted by WrigleyField 22

  1. WrigleyField 22
    Maye will do.
  2. WrigleyField 22
    I mean, we might know by March. Whether moving on or not, could see a March trade if Fields or the pick.
  3. WrigleyField 22
    Presidential just sounds corny, forced, and unnatural. I'd just call them consensus guys, I.e. They were widely seen as consensus #1 picks with little debate as to their value. Caveat that I think you could have two consensus guys who just happen to fall in same year as I'd say is the case this year. Of course sometimes you'll think a guy should be and isn't and falls Consensus Williams, Maye, Burrow, Lawrence, Stafford, Bradford, Newton(?), Winston (to extent he wasn't it was character concerns only)... Maybe a few others Everyone else is some level of blue chip to very good to "wtf was that team thinking".
  4. WrigleyField 22
    And I'd rather put talent around a #1 pick QB than later. It's obviously not a mutually exclusive choice. The Bears can build a support system around a #1 pick at QB. Sure they could also turn it into a few extra picks into a support system for a lesser ranked QB, but your average downside later is probably quite a bit worse and building that supporting cast doesn't rest on those few extra picks, even though it would lessen margin for error.
  5. WrigleyField 22
    Pedanting over exactly what qualifies as a bust or not, it's probably telling that even many retread QBs are former #1s. Like the downside outcomes over guys capable of going #1 tend to be pretty high still. Not many are Jamarcus Russell level washouts. Obviously the All Pro type odds are still pretty low, but from an overall risk standpoint I think you can probably do a lot worse that the risk entailed in a prospect like Williams who's upper-tier even among typical #1s (and Goff and Mayfield were obviously lower tier #1s at the time).
  6. WrigleyField 22
    I say they go QB. And as good as MHJ is and he could probably make a case for pick #1 in like half of drafts, I wouldn't take him bwfore 3. QB or trade down for a haul.
  7. WrigleyField 22
    Who's to say they aren't keeping Flus no matter what? For my sanity I'll just root for wins. Warren either knows what he's doing or he doesn't, the wins or losses don't matter towards that.
  8. WrigleyField 22
    Not sure if the most efficient scenario but Win out+ Week 17 Vikings, Steelers, Giants win Week 18 Falcons, Eagles, Cardinals, 49ers win
  9. WrigleyField 22
    The worst case of Fields playing well any or all of the last 3 games is improving trade value slightly. I'll root for Fields til he's no longer a Bear.
  10. WrigleyField 22
    Been in the QB at 1/2 camp. Still in the "can Fields be the bridge QB?" hot take camp, but that takes a big hit if for no other reason that Flus being retained probably just took a hit and I think it's more likely he'd be retained under Flus than a new Head coach. This is a good thing of course as I'd like to see Flus replaced. But we don't seem to have any good idea what mgmt might be thinking. I kind of want to see them eliminated for good in an embarrassing fashion just to see if Warren will operate differently. But only slightly. Still gonna root for some improbable playoff route on their 3% odds because I find tanking more than a single game abhorrent (and even a one game tank week 18 against GB I won't be able to actually root for that)
  11. WrigleyField 22
    Thinking on it more I'd do 1.01 and 2025 1st I think. Or 1.01 + Bears 2024 but also need a couple decent picks back like Chargers 2025 2nd and extra. Like he's definitely at least a perennial 6-12 QB as basically a floor. Not sure hes a future All Pro and HOF, but he's very good. That's worth 1.01 and a bit extra, but depending on where Bears pick ends up, there's a little evening out needed.
  12. WrigleyField 22
    Very good player but that has Jay Cutler trade written all over it. Given the quality of QB prospect they can just draft, I say no. If it was a different prospect pool I'd probably be more swayed
  13. WrigleyField 22
    You're an old man struggling with technology, sorry bud.
  14. WrigleyField 22
    You made it BIG
  15. WrigleyField 22
    He's pure filth out there jeebus
  16. WrigleyField 22
    Also, on a new OC, the two major O trees they'd likely hire from are the Shannahan tree (a offshoot of which they were running past two years) or Reid tree (what he ran his rookie year). Unless he went to like the Daboll/NE offense tree, no one coming in is gonna be speaking a foreign language. So it comes more to like comfort with nuance of concepts and timing, but shouldn't be a major mental leap (you hope). Adjusting concepts and refining timing probably happens a lot year to year even with consistent Os since stake Os just get figured out as Ds adapt.
  17. WrigleyField 22
    Also some of his less accurate throws were some of his seemingly quickest. The thumb could be playing a role, but in the connection of mechanics, footwork, timing and processing (plus now thumb) you wonder the follow-on affect of each step and to what extent that can be sped up with consistent good reps. His best dime of the day was on that dart to Mooney and you definitely saw him hold it a tick long there to get set.
  18. WrigleyField 22
    See he'd be the trade deadline target next year. Maybe you add another day 3 rookie who's promising and just have a loaded RB room and some team with an injury needs throws you sixth which you pocket like a de facto comp pick.
  19. WrigleyField 22
    RB committees for life unless they luck into a unicorn
  20. WrigleyField 22
    I mean the big sell with Atlanta is just Smiths comfort and commitment to the run game... And then hoping he schemes up slot of big throws with easy reads when he does pass. Maybe selling Fields potential short,but also not requiring much or any further passer developmemt either.
  21. WrigleyField 22
    While the cap space is definitely not a deterrent, it's still also a question of what you think puts you in the best position to compete while developing that QB. There's good reason to believe Fields will leave you in a better position to compete than those FAs (thus also put less pressure on rushing the rookie), still be a tradeable asset after year where the others won't (potentially more, potentially less) and save 8-10(?) million. Of course it's not without risk, whether it's questioning Fields ability to stay healthy, risk of regression, and lockerroom concerns, but none of those should also be non starters, IMO. Though history tells us the lockerroom part tends to be treated as a non-starter. So realistically I don't expect it at all. But I think it's interesting internet forum filler to chat about lol
  22. WrigleyField 22
    Even if you thought he's a depreciating asset you can pretty easily measure that expected depreciation against what seat-holding vet would bring. What's the pick depreciation value of say, $10M in cash? You can actually quantify it pretty well. And then you put some upside/downside risk around it and should be able to come up with a pretty reasonable estimate for how to treat a QB as a depreciating asset, but certainly shouldn't be a binary decision.
  23. WrigleyField 22
    If you're saying just that, I agree. Specifically to the trade him at deadline idea I can't wrap my head around a scenario where that isn't a dumb thing.
  24. WrigleyField 22
    No other team would ever say a #1 pick is NECESSARY for a QB they believed building around. Or the trade haul from it. Would it be nice if you were already going down that route? Sure, but it'd be like a bonus. If you're using that haul around Fields, I want to know when the extension is coming, and if you aren't ready for that I don't see how you can pass on using the #1/2 on the next QB. Letting him possibly bridge (as I've pushed) it is a whole separate thing. Is 3rd OC in 4 years ideal? No. But arguably Jay Curler's two best years (at least 2 of top 3) came with his respective 4th and 5th OCs in the first year of those coordinators which were also years 5 and 7 total. If you hire the right guy, those concerns get smoothed over a ton. Not saying continuity doesn't help, but if you want a bridge QB for a rookie who knows how good any of the FA are, if they have any system/coach familiarity anyways and how much they'll cost.
  25. WrigleyField 22
    Depending on the angle it sounds pretty dumb. Are they saying bridge Fields for half a season and then trade him? They'll never do that if he's starting and they're winning and if they're losing bad enough to be trade deadline dealers it is dumb (and his value will definitely suck) and also it's dumb because then you must have a ****** environment (somehow) for the rookie. If it's carry him as a backup and then trade him it's dumb because he's not going to increase his value siting on the bench. Struggling to think of the not dumb scenario for that.
×
×
  • Create New...