WrigleyField 22

You can't really get a nicer grill except for ones that are way more niche. Like no one is gonna not like using a Weber propane.

Well in non overdone Fields talk, the press conference for Warren crashed hard on twitter for me. But in the 5 minutes I saw, Warren is about 100x more personable than Ted. So there's that I guess. Any actual good Q and As happen?

Probably going to end up much ado about nothing, the Bears will end up keeping the #1 pick taking Will Anderson. Wouldn't be too bad ending up with the best player in the draft. At the very least, they'll have a great deal being offered by the Colts. I don't doubt he'll get offers, but I could imagine a scenario where he's not moved enough if he REALLY likes Anderson. I think the near certainty most fans have is probably still a bit optimistic.

It's more like a Venn diagram where they have overlapping skill sets, but not necessarily with all of them at the same spot. Same with each player's weak spots. But, I agree it just depends on what the team's front offices key on. Young has the highest "football IQ"/game awareness, but he's not the most gifted physically. If he were five inches taller there wouldn't be any question that he is the clear #1. Yea certainly more nuanced than my chart. And, yea, I think if he had better size, he'd be a clear #1. What's he actually expected to come in at? He's listed at 6'0" 194, but seems like consensus is he's gonna measure smaller on both, by a lot. If he somehow measured at that height/weight he may clear the hurdle just enough for some teams who would be out if he's 5'10" 180.

My DAL-KC SB bet hopes so

I know conventional thoughts are that this is bad for Bears, but I think it could have a chance of offsetting some new demand with the increased supply. Stroud could be a goldilocks candidate for some teams: Simplified, but basically: Player Prod Tools Size Age Young x x - x Stroud x x x x Levis - x x - Richardson - x x x None of these guys are really similar in their profile and teams create preferences on certain traits. Like car buyers shopping between cars/trucks and foreign/domestic. It's not just "car supply"

Just realized we're in for a week of Cincy fans complaining (incorrectly) that they deserve a neutral site game against Buffalo.

I mean you have to be close enough to do it.

Doesn’t he have til Thursday technically? Isn’t there a 3 day period where a player can reconsider after the deadline? So he can declare he’s staying at OSU today for the deadline, but then change his mind on Weds if he wanted. Friday is the “official” day. Or am I wrong? Thought I saw this in an article recently. Does it only go the other way? You can declare and then retract within the grace period?

I like Staley, but yea, no way he can stay.

Watch Stroud be the QB Ballard was willing to move heavens for and this actually hurts the Bears trade back packages. #OnlyMyTeams

Hey some might call that vet leadership for a young QB :lol:

Well the point of the analogy was certainly not about personnel change, but rather quality of information that we make valuations off of.

If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk. That's the cognitive bias called loss aversion, and it skews our ability to make rational decisions If you pick a new QB, it feels like you've "lost" on the time and emotional investment in fields, whereas with you've never had a new QB so it can't be a loss, only an unrealized gain. Unrealized gains feel less bad than tangible losses, even though from a value perspective they are identifical. Only if these were strictly investments and not humans. But even treating it like an investment, it certainly wouldnt be investments like selling and buying a stock with very low transaction costs. This would be like buying and selling two private companies who do the same thing except I've worked day to day with one for ome and have done a 6 month due diligence on the other. The transaction costs on flipping these assets is very high and I have way more info about the other. I know first hand EVERYTHING about it, and the other I have a bunch of info that the seller, being led by an inveatmemt bank, is feeding me.

And you think Youngs is #1value? I haven't seen any reason to think it isn't If they're that close than moving on sounds like an extremely dumb "I over thought it" risk.

So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs? I think Fields value is higher than what's listed there. And you think Youngs is #1value?

I wouldn't do any of those trades for Fields from the Bears POV. Nor do I find it particularly close. A market value of a single first and some late-round extras is not in line with Fields' potential elite status. So you agree its a stupid hypothetical to trade Fields and draft Young? Or you would but think Fields value is even closer to Youngs?

Thanks for the inspiration Kyle: This is the "suppose Fields is worth less than Young" in a trade, which is probably true, but flip it to the other teams. I know I'm a biased Bears fan and all, but this seems like the supposed markets just don't make sense if we take Tannabaums' hypothetical at face value. Plus all those supposedly valuable rookie contract years b/t Fields and Young when you're giving up a bunch of other future cheap years.

I have my doubts about Poles and his judgement, but come on, this is nothing like an immigrant blindly shopping for popular products. If anything Poles has shown the complete opposite by not going after the popular items on everybody else’s list.Isn't he saying that's the pro Bryce logic?

A good point. But even if you could put Fields in a totally live "market" without consideration to the Jimmy Johnson trade chart, I'm not convinced teams wouldn't give up more for Fields, even if the contract costs for each was the same as it is in the real world. I guess the closest we could get to create this hypothetical market is this: Poles keeps the pick and shocks the world and picks Bryce #1 and then goes out on the draft stage WWE style and says "markets open for both, make your best offer for both, you have 10 minutes" then mic drop and then watch the offers role in, and take whichever is richer. Now that would be super entertaining.

Believe the hypothetical thrown out by that Tannenbaum guy was a 1st and 3rd.. . Now there's a wide range of value as to what that actually means if you scan actual QB needy teams. But if I just average all the QB needy teams and add up a hypothetical value 1+3 from those teams, it would actually imply a value of the #6 pick. Now a team trading up to #1 may give an additional excess. I've seen some conflicting values (probably based on how the future FRP are computed), but it's possible that excess value given may only be an extra high second to mid third. So all-in Bryce value is say #1 plus a premium of #60. All in Fields value is #6. Now the point value between those two points is rather difficult to conceptualize to actual $, but in $ terms over 4 years we can probably peg Justin Fields excess cost over Bryce (@#1) to be something in the range of $40M total over 4 years. If we went to 5 years, probably a cost difference of $55-$60M, after which point they'd both be fully vet QBs. So in dollar value terms would you pay $40-60M to account from #6 value to #1+#60 value? Well in chart terms it's actually saying the spread there is #5. And the spread if it was #4 instead is #7. Or #3 + #14. Or #2 + #26. And honestly all of these sound like they'd be absurd values for a hypothetical team with top 6 value trying to get Bryce or most #1 QBs in a given year. The likely case is they wouldn't. If they had to pay no premium the pick combos now become 6/8, 5/10, 4/12, 3/21, 2/50. Which all still seem to make zero sense on any sort of rational basis, especially relative to each other. Though the possibility that some team might buck up for Bryce ignores maybe a team really into Fields would also give a lot more than the #6 value too. So anyways all this trade value talk often ends up being a psuedo intellectual circle jerk that's way more prone to impulsive nature of non-rigorously analytical old men. The draft market is exceedingly irrational (the JJ chart still being the market chart nonetheless). So a really good hypothetical question would be to poll Colts fans and see if they prefer #4 for Fields+#92 (~equivalent to Tannabaums implied value) or #4+#35+24 1st +24 2nd for Bryce (rough estimate of the draft premium) It's very likely the market is just dumb.

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that the rest of the roster is in shambles and even if you did feel moderately better about one of the QBs than you do Fields, you're in the same position all over again. You're not going to get the value by trading Fields that you will from trading the #1 pick and the roster desperately needs as many talented bodies in whatever position you can find them as they can get. Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick. Well at this point we don't know what any NFL team is actually willing to give up for Bryce. Lots of media conjecture, but it's very possible Poles sits still because he gets tepid offers. And we'll defintely never know what Fields could actually get if he was placed in the open market, either.

Now this I do not understand. If Fields is as good as we want him to be, if he's clearly a better choice than the No. 1 pick, then he should have as much trade value as the No. 1 pick. Two additional cheap rookie contract years would be of more value to many teams in need of drafting a QB The actual cost isn't that big of a deal since Fields would be very cheap for an acquiring team. Theres probably still generally a control factor, but actual cost wise it's more like a one year difference where Fields over 3 years is the same cost as a new rookie over 4 (with a top 1 pick)

Is there any particular way you arrived at this theory other than vibes? Genuinely curious. I like a lot of their data and info personally, though I do think their grades at face value are a very small piece of what they do. They're a nice market facing thing. Digging past grades there's a lot there from a play tracking standpoint that literally no one else provides as a consumer product.

I had a rambling research/rant I posted about that on another forum... I also did a similar evaluation on Braxton Jones. Short story I think PFF is really just a grade on what you were asked to do and not necessarily to be read as "talent". The Bears OL was not asked to do a lot and were still median.