Hairyducked Idiot

And I've never once objected to that argument.

We have a lot of examples of teams trading QBs who they have given up on, who are even leaving town in disgrace, and it hasn't ruined their value. If NFL teams think you can play QB, they will pay a hefty price to get you. This is what I mean when I say I'm fine with holding on to fields, but a lot of the arguments being put out there for it are pretty sketch.

Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own. We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong? ' because the #1 pick holds the value of ANY prospect in the draft, so its impossible to devalue any single one by trading it. Then by trading, we're not just staining the consensus No. 1, we're staining every single player in the draft class.

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. The second you put him on the market and let teams know you're open to trading him after 2 years it devalues him. It's a stain all on its own. Not that it's a route I would want them to take even if it weren't the case. Why can't you say the same thing about the no. 1 pick? The second you put it on the market, you're devaluing the top prospect. It's a stain all on its own. We've seen some very, very stained QBs get full value on the trade market in recent years. If NFL teams believe Fields can play QB at a high level, he'll demand full value. If they don't, then why are we so sure they're wrong?

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 So why aren't they more valuable to us?

Yeah, the only way the Bears somehow had the 14th ranked OL is off some other teams' QBs died on the field. i tend to think that although the Bears have some young, promising talent on the O-line (Jenkins and Jones, specifically), the massive hole that resides at the very middle position is what drags them down Periodic reminder that Braxton Jones is absolutely awful at LT.

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.

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. For one thing, they're completely black box. There's no way to independently check anything, because their methodologies are always propietary. They haven't done anyrthing to earn credibility. One of the most famous examples of PFF punditry among Bears fans is this https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-chicago-bears-justin-fields-most-accurate-quarteback-ohio-state-pff-college-era Their premise of this article is two-fold: 1) college CPOE translates into pro success and 2) Justin Fields is the best they've ever recorded at it. For the first point, their justification is a chart labeled "How College CPOE translates to NFL EPA/Play" It's a hall of fame example of taking a scatter plot and drawing a line through it to make it look like there's a serious correlation there. It's literally this: https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1725:_Linear_Regression. It's Meph "Khalil Greene is going to be a superstar, Jake Peavy is worth two Championships Above Replacement" level analysis. And I can't even tell if no. 2 is accurate or not, because a year later they posted this chart: https://www.pff.com/news/college-football-what-college-completion-percentage-over-expected-cpoe-tells-us-about-the-2022-nfl-draft-qb-class And in this chart purporting to show the exact same stat, Fields is behind dozens of NFL recent draftees and is in fact below average among the sample. How do I square those two? Who knows, they don't give you enough data to check anything they post. But it had a decimal place in it, so it sure seemed scientific.

I strongly dislike the idea that Fields has shown enough that you can't possibly question him or consider replacing him with the absolutely golden opportunity that the No. 1 overall pick provides you. But I'm fine with examining it and deciding that none of the QBs available have shown enough to make you want to move on from Fields. God I hope we fix the rest of the offense, though. If this turns into "well, BPA was a defensive player in the first round, and we really went big on defensive front-7 in free agency, and we really like Mooney and Claypool and Kmet, and Jones/Jenkins have to be given room to grow" I'm gonna be annoying about it. I wasn't going to be annoying in any other scenario but that one, I swear.

PFF is awful and people should stop quoting it, stop linking it, and stop looking at it. There's this whole industry that popped up in the post-sabermetric era where you make a name for yourself as a pundit putting out crappy data science, but you've got decimal points in your hot takes so people don't want to question it because it makes them feel anti-stats to do so. PFF is one of the worst offenders.

Does he need fewer players? The vast majority of guys he brought in sucked and I don't particularly want them back

What I want from this offseason is to give fields the most absurdly overpowered surrounding cast they can. I want fans of divisional rivals saying that fields is overrated because any QB could succeed with that surrounding cast. I want us to go entire games without calling a single designed run for him because we don't need to expose him to hits just to generate offense. I don't care if we run out the same practice squad defense we finished the season with

Good thing Fields is fully capable of carrying an elite passing game. Just try and enjoy it when it happens. He will and he'll pretend he was never on this BS Yes to the first part, no to the second. Completely unfair assessment

Can we please not do this horsefeathers? It is not happening. It's a long offseason. You got better things to do?

Also it turns out we basically gave up a first for Claypool. Hooray

Shocker. I'll take Justin Fields and Will Anderson plus another 1st and some other early round picks. I've been clear about my vision for the Bears since before we even drafted fields. I want an elite pocket passing game. Screw defense, screw running the football. If fields is everything we want him to be, he can fetch just as much of a trade haul as the pick can

Sorry I've talked myself into it. I want bryce young

There's like a 35% chance passing on Young because we are sticking with Fields becomes one of those "how the bears never have a good QB" horror stories

Sully must be a Texans fan now because that could only happen to his teams

Double post

Chicago Bears are your 2022-23 Tank Champions Alexa,.play time of your life

He had exactly two games where he exceeded 200 yards passing. He had some times where he looked good, but he had plenty of times where he looked slow to process and seems to have the yips on short passes. Nobody's seriously going to consider ditching him, but I think some doubt is reasonable

And 160 rushing attempts (although obviously he went out of bounds or slid on many of those). He's taken a completely unacceptable number of hits and there's no reason to just shrug off the possibility of long-term impact

And 160 rushing attempts (although obviously he went out of bounds or slid on many of those). He's taken a completely unacceptable number of hits and there's no reason to just shrug off the possibility of long-term impact

That's the main reason I'm more idly musing than seriously arguing for it. I'm just not that sold on young or stroud. I'm just also not that sold on fields. Everything sucks forever Your trouble with women may lie in your inability to appreciate good things right in front of you Nah, but it's tangential to the reason I post places like this.