WrigleyField 22

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.

Some people are just draft fiends too and can't help themselves. Basically the Peter Griffen mystery box people in live form.

Damn David you're quick.

WR market might get flooded and be in for correction?

Really comes down to contract expectations for me. If it's basically guaranteeing his 23/24 and tacks on some new unguaranteed for his age 33/34 at a lower base, I'm okay with that level of risk I think (dependent on draft comp required)

Okay, apparently he has a NTC. That could help tamp down his market.

I feel like a third rounder should get it done. I could be way off.

The back end young guys he added were an upgrade from what he had a year ago. Plus he has a bajillion cap dollars. They will be able to fill out depth without any requirements on that first pick. Feels like my point maybe is being missed though? One trade back : reasonable bet Multiple trade backs? No idea. But 1 back to 4-9 is still gonna get you a lot. I don't think he needs multiple trade backs to get a couple extra high-ish picks. At some point there is a diminishing return on a team with few star potential players. They can find opportunity for good starters in FA. Increasingly the only way you get stars is to draft or trade for them. Higher up, better chance of stars. This would also be in the context that the next logical

Taking a break from QB click bait: Inching closer to new CEO?

I was just using last year's Day 3 trades as evidence that Poles knows they need multiple players. I don't expect him to add 9 guys on Day 3 again. But I think he will use the same approach now with upper level talent. Last year, he was throwing horsefeathers at the wind. This year, a trade down would be building the top of the roster, long term. But just using other teams actions as an example, early round pick treatment isn't necessarily congruent with late round treatment. And frankly he needs less players now. The bottom of roster building has gone *okay*. He still needs to get a few stars. Unless he's trading for assets to in turn trade back for vet stars, I'm not super confident he'll go into crazy pick asset acquisition mode. There's still a pretty big difference from top 10 to next 10.

I don't think we should necessarily take a volume day 3 approach as necessarily indicative of a overall volume approach. Lot of teams have had success with volume mid-late pick approach to compensate being much more agressive early. TBD. (which isn't to say he isn't going to trade down once, but how far is a question, and I wouldn't necessarily expect multiple trade downs. He's gonna want a blue chipper at what hopefully will be his only time in the top 10)

do the reasonable thing and quit your job Quiet quit

No runner up prizes for all that?

If they fall in love with a guy, anything is possible, IMO. Multiple possibilities will exist for the Bears and the line to balance will be selling early so they can formulate more of their offseason plan around it, or letting that market brew. Fwiw: some recent pre draft trades: April 14 and April 20, 2016, Rams/Eagles trade up (draft day was April 28) March 26, 2021 (!) 49ers trade up (draft was April 29) I won't complain about a 49ers type trade where the team just blows the doors off to seal it early.

Hm, looks like only part is guaranteed. 12M. The remainder is only injury guaranteed, but I think he's healthy now, and was just demoted. So 12M guaranteed, but an additional 17M guarantees after March 19. I'd think they'll just eat the 12 and save the 17.