Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?


musicman
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CRA said:

I mean, Bears have indicated their pick is for sale.  So there is a pick that can be had at the very top.  Would Carolina pay the price?  I doubt it. 

There also are about 5 teams ahead of us that need a future QB as well.  Bears would probably prefer to deal whoever is further down though.  Because the haul will be more insane.  And those teams ahead of us could drive up the price to make the Lance trade seem modest lol. 

Best case scenario, is Stroud and Young get hammered by the NFL machine like most Ohio State and Bama QBs have been. 

The Bears will get a hall for that pick and we cannot even entertain trading for that pick. Had we say, traded someone for some 1st round picks we could be in the driver's seat. But muh defense needs a star. I got news for them, they still don't have a star.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

To move up you first have to have a trade partner.  What do you do if you cannot get someone to trade with you? You cannot go into the draft counting on trading up. I certainly hope they have a better plan than "we are trading up". There better be a plan B and C in place before the drfat starts. I'm telling you this trade up idea is a pipedream. 

Agree.  I think we have a "max package" we will give for a QB we like IE Stroud.  That's Plan A. Plan B would be hope one of the big 4 fall to 9.  Plan C is probably get a playmaker at 9 or move down, and look at a 2nd/3rd round guy like McKee or Tune.  That's just an example on the top of my head.  Obviously much brighter minds than mine will be running this show....

Unfortunately I think we are going to look at Carr once he gets released as well.  I don't know where that would rank and that could completely change everything.  

  • Beer 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, CRA said:

I mean, Bears have indicated their pick is for sale.  So there is a pick that can be had at the very top.  Would Carolina pay the price?  I doubt it. 

There also are about 5 teams ahead of us that need a future QB as well.  Bears would probably prefer to deal whoever is further down though.  Because the haul will be more insane.  And those teams ahead of us could drive up the price to make the Lance trade seem modest lol. 

Best case scenario, is Stroud and Young get hammered by the NFL machine like most Ohio State and Bama QBs have been. 

From the Bears' perspective, they need a lot on offense, any concerns about Fields aside.  They have the #1 pick, then don't pick again until #56.  They are going to want draft picks, and a lot of them both this year and next.

I don't put a lot of stock in mock drafts, but here is one on NFL.com that shows a scenario that would have them trading to #2 (Houston) and then #4 (Indy) and winding up with the that #4, a high picks in the 2nd and 3rd rounds this year, and Houston's 1st plus Indy's 2nd and 3rd rounders next year.  I could see something like that playing out.  I didn't pay much attention to who he thinks each team will pick, but the trade scenarios he outlined are about what I think could happen.

As @CRA said, if the Bears are willing to slide further down a bit, the haul will get bigger and that could very well happen.  Point is, I think the odds of them actually selecting #1 are slim.  I think the odds of us selecting with their #1 pick are only slightly less slim.  The above mock has us moving up to #5 and taking Levis.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell yes!

 

Fields has explosive ability as a runner. We seen he can throw when he had a Oline at Ohio State.

 

Put Fields behind this Oline and we got something special. He can pass the problem is he has nothing in Chicago to throw to and had a bad Oline. This kid showed flashes even in a bad situation last year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ForJimmy said:

The Bears are hedging big time though. They made trade the first overall pick which is what they should do, especially if they plan to keep Fields, but that's not exactly an admittance that they're looking to trade Fields.

Will Young or Stroud blow Poles away? I doubt it. But, you never know. 

To be honest, I'd absolutely love to see them trade Fields because of all the implications and potential drama and talking points for years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, top dawg said:

The Bears are hedging big time though. They made trade the first overall pick which is what they should do, especially if they plan to keep Fields, but that's not exactly an admittance that they're looking to trade Fields.

Will Young or Stroud blow Poles away? I doubt it. But, you never know. 

To be honest, I'd absolutely love to see them trade Fields because of all the implications and potential drama and talking points for years to come.

It's about as clear as it gets this time of year.  They are "sticking with Fields" and "not planning on using the pick on a QB."  I mean what else can he say?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JawnyBlaze said:

First reaction is nah. Would have to do more in-depth research to find out what I’d think of it though, go and watch all his throws.  I haven’t seen anything impressive outside of his legs so far, though. 

I assume you haven't watched him at all.

 

Dude is running for his life every other play. Then he has no WR's or TE's to throw to. Bears are just a bad team overall. Can't really judge him until he actually get some weapons and a Oline.

 

He could throw well at Ohio State. Im willing to bet he would improve on a team with actual good players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...