Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?

[ForJimmy]

11 minutes ago, JawnyBlaze said:

It’s a common phenomenon for players to look and even be elite in college but they simply don’t have the tools for the pro game. Reggie Bush, Vince Young, tons of even better examples of this.  I’m not saying Fields can’t throw a football, he just can’t throw it nearly as well as Stroud.  He isn’t remotely as developed. I watched the Clemson game, he is capable of making college throws, but Stroud was making NFL throws in college.  Stroud was throwing his receivers open while Fields was throwing to open receivers.  Part of the reason Harrison gets so much hype is because Stroud makes the kind of throws that aren’t just gimmes, over fingertips with touch, before the breaks with anticipation, down a sideline requiring a top tap where only the receiver can make the play, and Harrison makes the play on them.  If you can’t see the difference between Fields’ game and Stroud’s then I don’t know what to tell you. There’s a huge gap that goes far beyond stats and team accomplishments.  

That’s fair and I agreed Stroud was a better thrower of a football in college. I just think you are underrating Fields throwing in college as well. I mean look at his 2019 stats over 3200 passing yards 67% 41 TDs and 3 INT all just passing stats. He throws a beautiful deep ball. It’s hard to look as good on the Bears with a bad OL and no weapons, so he has to use his legs more.

[JawnyBlaze]

Just now, ForJimmy said:

That’s fair and I agreed Stroud was a better thrower of a football in college. I just think you are underrating Fields throwing in college as well. I mean look at his 2019 stats over 3200 passing yards 67% 41 TDs and 3 INT all just passing stats. He throws a beautiful deep ball. It’s hard to look as good on the Bears with a bad OL and no weapons, so he has to use his legs more.

For sure, and I agree he has a beautiful deep ball. And I said I’d be ok trading a couple seconds for him. Spending #9 would be kinda tough tbh. Now if I’m choosing between spending two seconds on Fields with his rookie contract or spending $30+mil on Derek Carr, I’d probably go with Fields since he’s younger and could still develop. I like Carr but he’s on the back end of his career. 

[ickmule]

No. 

[TJKJ23xx]

He does not process the field well at all. Every game his team has had a chance to win or tie he found a way to press and turn the ball over. This has become a common theme with him. You can get lazy and blame the weapons he has and coaching but it’s also on him. I like Stroud much better and if we can’t or don’t think we could get him Carr might be the answer this year and feel out Corral longer. 

[Tarheel119]

While I think this is a moot point as the Bears said they’re keeping him, I’d have to think hard about 9 for Fields. The end of the year showed some potential. I also don’t think he’s had the guys to develop him that we’d have here. I’m not saying it’d be a slam dunk case for me, but I’d have to consider it.

[stratocatter]

Nah, use 9 on someone that can be introduced to the NFL game the way the people we have hired to do it, will do it. 
 

That ship has sailed with any young QB who underperformed relative to his draft position. Let’s call their heads empty vessels for the purpose of this point, we want to pour Carolina style of playing in there and not have it be arguing with something someone else put in there.  

[Evil Hurney]

No, but I would consider trading a day 2 pick for him.

The Bears would only trade Fields if they are taking a QB at 1. Once they do that Field's "value" tanks and any hope of getting a 1st should go out the window. The Bears would have to fleece someone before the draft like the Jets did with us.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Evil Hurney

[Khyber53]

Fug no.

[ForJimmy]

The answer to this question is an easy yes.  Most GMs without a QB would do this trade in a minute.  The problem is the Bears aren't trading him and if they are it's for more than pick 9 (which is why the answer to this topic is an easy yes).  

Would you trade the number 9 pick for a young QB who has already flashed potential in one of the worst environments for a QB to develop?  "Yes" is the answer.

[DaveThePanther2008]

11 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

The answer to this question is an easy yes.  Most GMs without a QB would do this trade in a minute.  The problem is the Bears aren't trading him and if they are it's for more than pick 9 (which is why the answer to this topic is an easy yes).  

Would you trade the number 9 pick for a young QB who has already flashed potential in one of the worst environments for a QB to develop?  "Yes" is the answer.

I see it the other way.  If Chicago wants one of these QBs in this draft, they have given up on Fields. If you are 2 years removed from drafting ANY player in round one and ready to move on.  He's considered a Bust to that franchise.  

It's no different than Wilson in NYJ.  He showed flashes but many think the Jets are after Rodgers and ready to move on from Wilson. 

[ForJimmy]

1 minute ago, DaveThePanther2008 said:

I see it the other way.  If Chicago wants one of these QBs in this draft, they have given up on Fields. If you are 2 years removed from drafting ANY player in round one and ready to move on.  He's considered a Bust to that franchise.  

It's no different than Wilson in NYJ.  He showed flashes but many think the Jets are after Rodgers and ready to move on from Wilson. 

IF Chicago wants one of these QBs in this draft?  I have seen nothing that indicates that so it's really just a bunch of made up clickbait.  In fact the GM has said pretty much the opposite....  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35420112/bears-gm-quiets-draft-debate-backs-justin-fields-no-1-qb

I mean IF the Jags fall in love with a QB in this draft then all that made up nonsense can be applied to Trevor Lawrence.  The point is they aren't interested in drafting one to replace their young promising existing one just like the Bears.  

[Varking]

17 hours ago, TJKJ23xx said:

He does not process the field well at all. Every game his team has had a chance to win or tie he found a way to press and turn the ball over. This has become a common theme with him. You can get lazy and blame the weapons he has and coaching but it’s also on him. I like Stroud much better and if we can’t or don’t think we could get him Carr might be the answer this year and feel out Corral longer. 

Fields once hit his WR ESB in the hands to end a game. 
 

Fields hit Mooney in the endzone where he dropped the ball to end the game. 
 

Fields completed a pass to their #6 WR who fought to stay in bounds and ended up fumbling the ball away to allow the other team to kneel twice and call it a game. They cut him after that. 
 

Fields lead the Bears to a stretch of five games where they were the offensive scoring leaders of the NFL. They lost all five because they have no defense and gave up 34 points a game. 
 

I know it’s fun to just say he was put in a position to win games at the end and he failed but these were just a few I could think of off the top of my head where you have to ask, what more did you want him to do? He completed one and his guy fumbled it. He had two others where he hit the guy in the hands for a conversion and they dropped it. 
 

The Bears were running guys like St Brown, Pettis, Pringle out there. Dudes not good enough to crack the top four on their older teams. 
 

Mooney is a good #2 but he’s not a 1 and by the time they got Claypool they only played one game together where they both played over 70% of the snaps. 
 

Their offense lacks talent. Their defense lacks talent up front. Fields was not the problem there. And his teammates agree with that and that’s why they’ve been so outspoken in favor of him. This isn’t a Zach Wilson scenario where his teammates are campaigning for a different QB. 

[DaveThePanther2008]

5 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

IF Chicago wants one of these QBs in this draft?  I have seen nothing that indicates that so it's really just a bunch of made up clickbait.  In fact the GM has said pretty much the opposite....  

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35420112/bears-gm-quiets-draft-debate-backs-justin-fields-no-1-qb

I mean IF the Jags fall in love with a QB in this draft then all that made up nonsense can be applied to Trevor Lawrence.  The point is they aren't interested in drafting one to replace their young promising existing one just like the Bears.  

I agree with you that Chicago isn't drafting a QB.  The topic refers to trading for Fields which would say they are beyond him.

Just trying to stick with the topic. 

[ForJimmy]

Just now, DaveThePanther2008 said:

I agree with you that Chicago isn't drafting a QB.  The topic refers to trading for Fields which would say they are beyond him.

Just trying to stick with the topic. 

It’s hypothetical. If the Chiefs would trade Mahomes for 3 1sts would you do it? Yes. The answer is yes because that is well below his value and we need a QB. Same logic applies here (obviously much less value than Mahomes).