WrigleyField 22

I don't think it needs a major conspiracy about Fields dropping. QBs like Fields have been undervalued and dropped pretty consistently (despite the occasional guy not falling victim to it).

Alright back on the bandwagon thanks

Alright the Jets fan thinks we should keep him, eff it, trade him. I've seen enough.

"Hunch" is a rather biased way of saying "scouting." Maximizing your chance of getting an elite QB always trumps all those other factors. It's just too important. This is a league where you increasingly have to just never punt to win deep playoff games. You will need your QB to drop back in the pocket with 55 seconds and no timeouts in your own end and calmly pick apart the defense by making quick, precise reads and placing the ball in your receivers' hands. It you review the tape and think there's a guy out there with a better chance to become that guy than fields, then it makes all the logical sense in the world to pull the trigger on that guy and get what value you can for fields. Fields' fallback ability to drag you to a couple of 10-7 seasons with his legs if he doesn't become an elite passer does not enter into it If you don't think any of the QBs in the draft have a better chance to be that guy than fields, then you trade down l Who is the QB? This is what I meant before with the passive language. We're not talking hypothetical here. We know Fields and we know the NCAA prospects. Fields is the better prospect by far. If you don't think so say it. I say it's crazy on the 8+ scale because Fields is better. Stop it with the "it's only 3 crazy because someone could be better." For example, it wasn't crazy when Cards did it with Rosen because Rosen was crap. We can work with real life here not hypothetical if language.

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. If you are trading Fields you'd better be 100% certain that Fields is not the guy and that the guy you draft is the guy. You are basically staking your career to that decision. I like GMs that aren't afraid to take some risks but that is way too much of a gamble based on what we've seen from Fields so far. I mean I don't even care if it's a GM. Pretend every owner is Jerry Jones and Mike Brown and can't be fired. I'd call Jerry and Mike crazy if they did it. And they're certainly crazy so they might consider something like that at some point.

You also lose out on all the other things you can do with the #1 pick so, now it's just another plus to Fields already being the better prospect.

Unless he's Fields or...? You just argued fields had less uncertainty. Now you're implying he has equal or more? Less.

Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects. When you're hoping for an elite outcome, uncertainty is a feature not a bug Unless he's Fields or...?

Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out. So if the data says they're all equally uncertain, why is it crazy? Because you should be more uncertain of the prospects.

This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale. To what data are you referring? Because I can come up with a lot of data that makes me uncomfortable committing fully to Justin fields as our QB long term Okay now run the same process on all of the NCAA prospects. It would be crazy, flat out.

3. It would be a ballsy but reasonable thing to do. It's fundamentally a scouting decision at the toughest position in sports to scout This is said so passively as if we don't have data about the actual players we're referencing. It's a 8+ at minimum on the crazy scale.

Pritzger is already on record saying he won't cough up any money for a stadium. Of course, no one has greased his wheels yet, so it's still too early to say it won't happen. And the Bears said they aren't asking for it "for the stadium" TBD, though I do luckily think Bears have uphill battle.

I think they'll eventually get some funding but I'm guessing its going to be a bit of a battle before anything happens. Hope so! To clarify, that they battle for a pittance.

TLDR: give us government funding!

Only 18 years away from the child that will bring Bulls back to relevance *praying hands emoji*

Tim, put the PFF mock draft site away.

Commanders? They're probably the combo of closest to playoffs in 2022 with the most cap space (without restructures) But any team, even the Saints can figure out the cap hit part of it all.

The only guys signing for more than 2 years are like the top 50 guys. Most of the NFL is on 1 or 2 year deals other than guys on rookie deals and star players. I think the expectation that the Bears sign a bunch of top 50 guys, despite the money they have, is a stretch. They could certainly be a bit more agressive than that in terms of years. But they don't necessafipy need to be. Just from a cash planning perspective you're likely pretty close to what they need to do, as is. Just by way of reference though, the top FA spending team least year, the Jags has a distribution among their top 8 signings (all making > $5M per) 4 years : 1 3 years : 5 2 years : 0 1 years : 2 May be a bit more than 50 that get 3+ year deals in FA,.

Well my free game sim was clearly too easy. I took Bournemouth all the way to winning a combined 12/15 Champions/FA/Premier titles in a 5 year span and having a billion dollar operating cash budget lol. Then it totally lost that entire sim - nowhere to be found. So well see if I picked up enough generic tactics for a more realistic sim environment on FM 23

Yea at the very least after a few years will be interesting if there's even any shortening of extras. Both teams are getting an equal advance. Intuitively it feels like it would just increase the odds of 1:1 innings instead of 0:0 innings. Although maybe random variance should get the total extras down with 0:1 innings being kind of randomly distributed at a more frequent rate. If time is really the concern, just come up with contrived tie breakers after 12 that dont require gameplay - who really cares at that point, if we're admitting the only real goal is to not let games drag on.

Even if you were wanting to go gimmicky to shorten games I feel like you could come up with something more compelling than starting a runner on 2nd. Doesn't really add much in the way of strategic value/drama.

I'm guessing every team approached him with basically an offer to guarantee his remaining money but spread it over 23 and 24 and then reduce his 25 salary. So he can take his chance in a totally open market. Maybe not 3/120, but I can see 3/100. So all in all a pretty good extension he negotiated last year. Was pit in a situation to either make bank or dictate his future, with the guarantee date and no trade clause.

Yea and there are questions on Carters consistency too. If he's the guy, I kind of want to see him just be a terror on a relatively low snap count and make big impact when he's in. Obviously in time you want him to also be a 80%+ snap count guy too. But if as a rookie he was a 50% weapon that might maximize his value and allow coaches to focus on him being consistent.

Yeah, I didn't think that through until the depth chart. LOL. They do have 3 other guys on futures deals or guys that were added in the Week 18 tank effort that could fill a spot. I think I'd still want more than a futures guy. Maybe J Jones is an overpay, but Dre'Mont played about 80% of the snaps last year for Denver. So it could very well be a 20% snap backup role - definitely a significant role and not like Mike LB or CB where your backup only plays in injury. Once you get outside of the top 30 of DL the snap count % falls below 75% of snaps. So for the average team, most of your line is probably a bunch of guys in the 30-60% snap range and maybe 1 or 2 guys above that. Gaines was getting 90%+ of Rams snaps before getting injured and ending year at about 80% of snaps. So I guess you could aim for all of Gaines, Jones, and Carter to get 67% of snaps, and basically run a 3 man rotation across those spots, with Carter and Gaines spending some of their time at 3T.... But would be very thin. (Snap count data) https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/reports/snap-counts/dl.php?show=perc

Definitely with your 3T backup being a UDFA right now, I'd say, might as well not cut Justin Jones. Or find another bit FA player. But I don't see that spot as "just" a depth role. It's a spot they're gonna rotate bodies through - he could see 40% of D snaps.