Would you trade 9 for Fields - straight up?

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, frankw said:

You're still stewing about McCaffrey? Time to move on big guy!

Nah. Just still laughing at your pettyness

[pantherclaw]

I would like to know who is lining up to trade for Fields? 

I'm not sure the Bears will get what they want for him. 

[CamWhoaaCam]

9 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

I would like to know who is lining up to trade for Fields? 

I'm not sure the Bears will get what they want for him. 

The teams ahead of us.

 

People are crazy if you don't think Fields will have suitors. Im on record I would take Fields over any QB in this draft not named Stroud. Im still going back to his Ohio State days when he had an actual Oline the dude can pass. He's not been able to show that in Chicago because he is running for his life every other play. Fields will be a problem when he gets a Oline.

[pantherclaw]

2 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

The teams ahead of us.

 

People are crazy if you don't think Fields will have suitors. Im on record I would take Fields over any QB in this draft not named Stroud. Im still going back to his Ohio State days when he had an actual Oline the dude can pass. He's not been able to show that in Chicago because he is running for his life every other play. Fields will be a problem when he gets a Oline.

Sweet hyper bull. 

I'm not going to declare Fields the next anything, because it's clear he still has a ways to go.  

While you may still be all over his jock, I'm not sure that our head coach would even consider him. 

[CamWhoaaCam]

12 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Sweet hyper bull. 

I'm not going to declare Fields the next anything, because it's clear he still has a ways to go.  

While you may still be all over his jock, I'm not sure that our head coach would even consider him. 

Wait you asked a question then get mad because you don't agree with the answer?

 

 

[LinvilleGorge]

I definitely don't think the Bears would have much trouble finding good offers for Fields if they did decide to go with a QB at #1. Whether we'd be among the suitors or not I have no clue.

[Icege]

Have gone from "pls don't trade up" to "if this coaching staff says go get em, go get em."

Hoping that the staff can live up to the expectation

[CamWhoaaCam]

3 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I definitely don't think the Bears would have much trouble finding good offers for Fields if they did decide to go with a QB at #1. Whether we'd be among the suitors or not I have no clue.

Yeah I feel the same. Teams ahead of us particularly Atlanta would certainly be interested in Fields.

 

While I personally like Fields I don't think Carolina would be interested as he is not the type of QB Frank has coached during his career.

[LinvilleGorge]

Any team that would pursue a Lamar Jackson trade would probably at least entertain a Fields trade and have three more years of rookie contract to work with.

[Toomers]

On 2/17/2023 at 11:33 AM, MasterAwesome said:

Supporting casts are difficult to evaluate sometimes because it's such a synergistic relationship with the QB, so it's hard to judge them independently of one another.  Defense for sure I'll definitely give you that, but who's to say you put a guy like Cole Kmet on another team and he doesn't explode with a different QB?  He's a young, talented 2nd round TE.  Same with Darnell Mooney?  He absolutely looked like a young up and coming receiver after his first two years in the league, before his production fell off this year.  Chase Claypool had very solid #2 receiver numbers in his first two seasons, so I'd consider him a young up and coming receiver as well.  The mid-season trade almost certainly hurt his production since he had to learn a new offense, but if he struggles this year after a full offseason with the Bears/Fields, then that's gotta make you wonder if he's being hurt by his QB play rather than the other way around.

And just to clarify...if you're saying 2021 Hurts and 2022 Fields are similar and 2021 Hurts "didn't look great", are you saying that Fields didn't look great this year?  Maybe I'm not fully comprehending your position.  If you're simply saying Fields didn't look great this past year but you speculate that it's because of his poor supporting cast, then maybe we're not that far off from each other.

Supporting casts are crucial to the discussion when one of the supposed issues for Fields is failure to “elevate” his team like Lawrence. But no one has mentioned that the Bears were in full rebuild/tank mode with 93M in dead cap. That’s why they have about 100M to spend this year. Last year JAX had the 100M and signed players for 260M and 150M guaranteed. Including a 20M/yr WR, an 8M/yr WR, a 9M/yr TE, and a 16M/yr G. Plus a healthy Etienne. A DEF that signed a 15M/yr LB, a 10M/yr DT, a 13M/yr CB, to a DEF that improved from 28th to 12th. 
 

The Bears traded Khalil Mack, Robert QUinn, Roquan Smith. Let Daniels walk with plenty of money. And the result was the worst DEF in NFL. And they are really gonna regret trading for Claypool. 

  So how are those situations remotely comparable? By any metric. One team was “all-in” and the other was trying to get through the season to this offseason. You don’t have to dig deep when the answer is plain as day with each teams intentions for the season. 

  As for Hurts, it took plenty of digging to get past a a lot of similar qualities and stats. No doubt Fields has his issues in the pocket. That improves with experience and confidence. But his extra sacks cost 209 yards more than Hurts. But he rushed for 359 more than Hurts. So it’s not like his proven elite trait hasn’t overcome that problem to a degree. 

 Fields didn’t look great this year just like Hurts didn’t last year. He was very much improved. On a team worse than his rookie year by far. 

[LinvilleGorge]

15 minutes ago, Toomers said:

Supporting casts are crucial to the discussion when one of the supposed issues for Fields is failure to “elevate” his team like Lawrence. But no one has mentioned that the Bears were in full rebuild/tank mode with 93M in dead cap. That’s why they have about 100M to spend this year. Last year JAX had the 100M and signed players for 260M and 150M guaranteed. Including a 20M/yr WR, an 8M/yr WR, a 9M/yr TE, and a 16M/yr G. Plus a healthy Etienne. A DEF that signed a 15M/yr LB, a 10M/yr DT, a 13M/yr CB, to a DEF that improved from 28th to 12th. 
 

The Bears traded Khalil Mack, Robert QUinn, Roquan Smith. Let Daniels walk with plenty of money. And the result was the worst DEF in NFL. And they are really gonna regret trading for Claypool. 

  So how are those situations remotely comparable? By any metric. One team was “all-in” and the other was trying to get through the season to this offseason. You don’t have to dig deep when the answer is plain as day with each teams intentions for the season. 

  As for Hurts, it took plenty of digging to get past a a lot of similar qualities and stats. No doubt Fields has his issues in the pocket. That improves with experience and confidence. But his extra sacks cost 209 yards more than Hurts. But he rushed for 359 more than Hurts. So it’s not like his proven elite trait hasn’t overcome that problem to a degree. 

 Fields didn’t look great this year just like Hurts didn’t last year. He was very much improved. On a team worse than his rookie year by far. 

Mack and Quinn I understood as a rebuilding team. Both big money vets on the wrong side of 30. But Smith was just entering his prime. They should've kept him to build around on D because their roster is just gutted.

[Toomers]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Mack and Quinn I understood as a rebuilding team. Both big money vets on the wrong side of 30. But Smith was just entering his prime. They should've kept him to build around on D because their roster is just gutted.

I think it was more a positional value decision but l can see both ways. Not signing a G like Daniels(think Corbett, same player and contracts) is the confusing one. With a young QB. Between taking Claypool and giving up Daniels, I’m so glad the Steelers keep an eye on them…lol

[pantherclaw]

44 minutes ago, CamWhoaaCam said:

Wait you asked a question then get mad because you don't agree with the answer?

 

 

Why would you assume I'm mad? 

Smh. 

[pantherclaw]

43 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I definitely don't think the Bears would have much trouble finding good offers for Fields if they did decide to go with a QB at #1. Whether we'd be among the suitors or not I have no clue.

Not saying they wouldn't find teams interested,   just not sure who'd give up a top 10 pic for him.  Perhaps I'm not seeing his value correctly,  but thus is my perspective until I actually see any team willing to trade a top 10 pic for 2 years of a rookie contract.