If I am being generous, 10 teams have long-term solutions at QB. I think people can get excited about the other 22 teams if they make good moves.
Bears trade Fields to Pittsburgh for 6th rounder (potentially 4th)
- Thread starter NomarsFool
- Start date
If I am being generous, 10 teams have long-term solutions at QB. I think people can get excited about the other 22 teams if they make good moves.
Yeah, I don't even think people were that wrong (except Kiper who was roundly dismissed as soon as he mentioned a 1st), there was a ton of smoke that ATL would trade a 2nd or 3rd for him to be their starter. I think the problem is... he was their plan B, nobody else had a similar situation (desperate QB need, Fields wanted to be there so they could maybe do a 2 year extension, aggressive owner who is willing to pay big on trades). So where CHI could ask for a 2nd or 3rd from ATL and think they'd get it, once that dried up...... nobody else was looking at him as their long-term starter and backups go for late round picks.
Pittsburgh did well with the Wilson/Fields moves. I’m not a fan of Fields and Wilson is clearly in decline but with where they are drafting in round 1 and the composition of the roster, maximizing short term upside (Wilson) and gives them some potential long shot upside
As much as I don’t like Fields, he probably has more potential (albeit expensive to realize) than Milton, Pratt or Rattler. So as a 2025 option, that’s a win.
Wilson, other than Cousins who wasn’t happening, is the best short term option to win in 2024
Worst case, they’re both bad and the Steelers have a shot at drafting someone in the first next year who is probably comparable to Nix/Penix/Pickett.
As much as I don’t like Fields, he probably has more potential (albeit expensive to realize) than Milton, Pratt or Rattler. So as a 2025 option, that’s a win.
Wilson, other than Cousins who wasn’t happening, is the best short term option to win in 2024
Worst case, they’re both bad and the Steelers have a shot at drafting someone in the first next year who is probably comparable to Nix/Penix/Pickett.
I have a hard time seeing how Fields gets 40-50 million a year unless he had a truly breakout season.
To paraphrase a line from that movie: "Stop trying to make Justin Fields happen. It's not gonna happen!"
Not at all. I just have a hard time with the argument "Justin Fields sucks, see how no teams were willing to give up more than a sixth for him and one of those teams will be forced to pay him $50 million a year next year!" Those two things don't seem to logically fit together. I would have been more interested in watching Justin Fields for 5-6 games than Jacoby Brisset, but whatever - it didn't happen.
Even if you like the player (I have my doubts), the idea that Fields would be constructive presence when acting as a bridge to the number three pick is questionable. Fields has a ton at stake in 2024 - I doubt he would’ve been thrilled at the prospect of going to NE or Washington. Ie, a key reason Chicago traded him is one reason NE and Washington wouldn’t trade for him.
Cousins was always Atlanta bound imo. The last QB as good as Kirk Cousins to be openly available in FA was Kirk Cousins. Arthur Blank sezing his day there was about as much of a given going in as YY being LAD bound was.
I find it easier to lean into that report since I ultimately have a hard time seeing either Vegas (Minshew) or Minny (Darnold) not being rationally in on Fields at that acquisition cost pricetag. Still have NFC what Denver is doing either. But I'd also guess this still all boils down to the Bears FO butchering the compensation negotiations happening before teams started signing other QBs.
If Fields comes in early and plays well, I think PIT will offer him some variant of the Baker/Geno deal. HE might turn it down and go for a 1 year prove it somewhere, but I don't think he'll get a Jones deal unless he's AMAZING.
nobody that I know of (though it's a conditional, so I'd consider it a 5th splitting the difference). But basically most people said 3rd when the offseason started, then after the combo Cousins/RUss signings making him a backup and Jones trade most said the market wasn't there and they'd struggle to get that and might not be worth trading.
I was more saying that people citing Kiper doesn't do much because even when he was projected as being traded as a starter nobody but Mel thought they'd get more than a 2nd/3rd.
I usually don't agree with a lot of Mel Kiper's takes , but his First Take on this today nailed the way i've been feeling about this trade from a Chicago pov:
If the best you were going to get for Fields was a 6th round pick it was an outdated and dumb logic mistake to trade him imo. People overthink the the whole "QB controversy will be a bad thing here" aspect. I'm firmly in the belief camp that it is never a bad idea to NOT let any rookie QB come in as a day 1 starter. Even if you 100% believe that guy doesn't need or he won't gain any perspective value in that reality/ego check...it still never hurts in the big picture to play the more conservative hand.
They should of just kept Fields as the week 1 starter. If he makes the further progression jump a lot of people are projecting he can out of the latter season 2023 tape you can cross that greater dilemma bridge when you come to it. If it doesn't happen natural progression protocal takes over. But if it does you sure as heck are getting a lot more then a 6th rounder offers if/when you start sending out feelers to teams always looking to chase after things that appear to be working.
In an extreme re-evaluation scenaro you end up wanting to keep Fields it's not like that is ultimately a BAD outcome. Caleb's hype train value isn't going to just evaporate away before he even sees regular season NFL play either.
If the best you were going to get for Fields was a 6th round pick it was an outdated and dumb logic mistake to trade him imo. People overthink the the whole "QB controversy will be a bad thing here" aspect. I'm firmly in the belief camp that it is never a bad idea to NOT let any rookie QB come in as a day 1 starter. Even if you 100% believe that guy doesn't need or he won't gain any perspective value in that reality/ego check...it still never hurts in the big picture to play the more conservative hand.
They should of just kept Fields as the week 1 starter. If he makes the further progression jump a lot of people are projecting he can out of the latter season 2023 tape you can cross that greater dilemma bridge when you come to it. If it doesn't happen natural progression protocal takes over. But if it does you sure as heck are getting a lot more then a 6th rounder offers if/when you start sending out feelers to teams always looking to chase after things that appear to be working.
In an extreme re-evaluation scenaro you end up wanting to keep Fields it's not like that is ultimately a BAD outcome. Caleb's hype train value isn't going to just evaporate away before he even sees regular season NFL play either.
Couldn't agree more.
It's even worse, too, since the 6th-rounder is in the 2025 draft. Picks in future years are universally downgraded by one round each year. The Bears received the equivalent of a 7th-round draft pick this year for Fields. At that point, you may as well preserve the asset.
The Bears (it seems) have been trying to play the "we did Fields a solid" angle to soften the blow of the minimal return they got for him. But, if Fields is as much of a stand-up guy as they seem to be, it doesn't seem that bizarre to sit him down and say "Look, we think Caleb Williams is our long-term answer here - we're going to have you start to begin the season. We've got a good cast around you, and we think this will give you a chance to show your value to the rest of the league". Is that any worse for Fields than being Wilson's backup? I wouldn't think so.
That wouldn't be great for either Fields or Williams. If Fields isn't going to be their QB, it's much better for him to get grounding in whatever system his new team is running than waste his time learning the one the Bears new OC is running. And if Williams is going to be their starter going forward, much better to put him on the field with that good cast and not waste snaps on a guy who isn't part of their future.
The talk I've heard that "the Bears should have held onto Fields to increase his value as an asset" seems to ignore the personal dynamics of the situation. And the return the Bears got for Fields speaks less to their timing of moving him and more to the league coming to the same conclusion the Bears did about him---he hasn't shown enough to believe he's an NFL quality starter (or he's shown enough to believe he's not one).
There are certainly a lot of folks who believe in not starting your rookie QB on week one, but in giving him some opportunity to adapt a bit to the NFL before being thrown to the lions.
It seems that the rules around draft picks and salary slots have shifted things from where rookie QBs always used to sit their first or even second year to where they are now thrust into the fire because otherwise you waste a year of salary control. I suspect that’s not a good thing for QB play overall.
Because NFL defenses are like nothing these QBs have seen in college. The speed of the game is much faster, they run complex cover schemes and it can take time for a young QB to adjust. It’s possible to dramatically increase the odds of success for a talented QB if you have a plan for transitioning them to starter.
There are absolutely quarterbacks who are able to come in and find success right away. The risk is that they become Zach Wilson and crumple to the ground with PTSD at the first sign of pressure.
Edit: What they said …
But the Bears don't know right now whether Williams will be one of the ones who can come in and start immediately. He might be, but now you have committed to Fields in the hope that he figured out how to not be bad over the offseason. I can see the argument for telling him that he will have a chance to win the job, but to make a promise that he is the starter seems foolish.
I don’t really disagree with this at all.
I just think it’s an unnecessary risk to anoint a rookie as the franchise savior right off the bat when you have the ability to ease the transition. Seems like it might be worth a conditional 6th round pick to give yourself that kind of flexibility. But I’m just a guy on a message board …
I don’t disagree with letting Williams sit a few games before tabbing him the starter, I just think it’s stickier if he’s following the last young guy who was supposed to be the savior of the franchise rather than some vet brought in just to be that several game bridge to his assuming the role.
Considering the QBs currently on the Bears' roster are Tyson Bagent and Brett Rypien, it's going to be tough to not have Williams start week 1.
I think this is being talked about so much that the narrative has built that you have better success by letting a rookie QB sit for a while before playing them.
I don't think it's proven, by any means. I know everyone talks about Mahomes sitting a year and what Green Bay has done, but it's a lot easier to do when you have a QB who's already pretty damn good like those teams had.
Does anyone think Harbaugh now regrets starting Joe Flacco and going 4-5 over the first 9 games, before handing it over to Lamar who went 6-1 in the last 7 his rookie year?
Was Joe Burrow's growth stunted because he went and started immediately in Cincy?
Josh Allen didn't start week one for Buffalo. They lost 47-3 that week. Then he started in week 2 and never looked back.
CJ Stroud looked pretty darn good starting immediately last year.
Dak got the starting job in Dallas week one, and led them to a 13-3 record.
Stafford has been starting since day one of his career.
I don't think there is a one size fits all to this idea, and I think the concept that sitting a rookie early leads to more success has taken root, but isn't necessarily true. These are NFL coaches. They should be able to know in practice whether or not a rookie has what it takes and can handle starting immediately or vice versa. If they can't, they probably shouldn't be NFL coaches.
To be fair, I think they probably wish he didn't get his knee exploded taking 1000 hits as a rookie.
But yeah I do agree there is no one size fits all, you play the QB if you think it will help him and the team, you sit him if you think that's better.
I agree that there is absolutely not a one size fits all solution.
My issue is that, by jettisoning Fields, the Bears have committed to one approach rather than letting the best choice be decided in camp.
I get that they did it after studying Williams, so they are convinced he can handle it. Still a needless risk, given the return for Fields. (IMO, of course.)
Edit: I should add that my thoughts are biased by having a higher opinion of Fields than many here. I think he’ll eventually be a solid QB and the Bears will have been shown to have badly mishandled him.
It actually even runs a lot deeper then that. Which as a 40 year Jets fan I can even totally relate to as I was reading around Bears fans outrage takes yesterday. I mean you haven't hit on even above average QB play in a literal forever. To the point where how it happens isn't what is ultimately important there. Neither is whether that fits some perfectly lined up narrative picture that as an outsider here i feel like some of you (still to freshly success spoiled lol) Pats fans get a little too caught up in at times. The only thing that matters is that thing you have desperately wanted and which has failed to happen time and time again does indeed happen at some point.
A quick 1 minute check of the Fields' B-Ref page, from somebody who typically didn't watch a second of 2023 tape, doesn't tell the accurate story or make for a good take imo on the guy's current prospects. There is legit reason in Chicago to be optimistic on Fields further improving on an encouraging backend of 2023 if given a better surrounding support system. This is also a surrounding sentiment that is shared by at least a chunk of that fanbase who isn't over the moon about drafting Caleb or just simply giving that optimism on Fields away for nothing.
In the big picture perspective there was no hurry or pressing need to make this trade. Nor did the surrounding chance of finally finding that good QB get better trading Fields away for peanuts. From the most optimistic of perspectives you can even make the extreme side argument that all you did there was basically cut the current probability chance in half. Especially when factoring in that anythiing can happen. Caleb could tear ACL OTAs, or he struggle in 2024 and just never find the success traction you are hoping for out of a #1 pick.
Last edited:
Keenan Allen showed up at USC Pro Day in a Bears sweatshirt.
The deed is done. Poles took decisive action and is building a playoff-caliber roster around his rookie QB.
View: https://twitter.com/barstoolchicago/status/1770494211055321589?s=20
The deed is done. Poles took decisive action and is building a playoff-caliber roster around his rookie QB.
View: https://twitter.com/barstoolchicago/status/1770494211055321589?s=20
Here's the problem with keeping Fields:
When the Giants drafted Eli Manning, they signed a washed Kurt Warner as their bridge starter. This was Warner after he had fallen off with the Rams, but before he had his renaissance with the Cardinals culminating in a loss in SB XLIII. Warner played okay and led that Giants team to a 5-2 start. After dropping two games in a row, at 5-4 but still within playoff contention, the Giants switched to Eli Manning as their starter. Eli lost the next six games, playing well only towards the end of the season, before winning the team's final game in a 6-10 season.
The Bears have put together a pretty good team around whoever starts for them next year. Let's say they keep Fields, and Fields, with the best team he's ever had around him, continues his erratic play with occasional flashes of brilliance, but that's good enough for the Bears to start 6-3. Now the coaches may have seen even further proof that Fields is what he is, and that the team will ultimately be better off, if not immediately, in the near future (2025, 2026, and on) if Caleb Williams started getting playing time. That might be a really hard sell in the locker room, because here's the thing about most of the players in that locker room---they don't give a damn about the 2025/2026/2027...Bears, because few of them have any guarantee that they'll be part of those teams. They only care about the team's prospects in the present season. If you keep a guy like Fields, a guy who was once seen as the team's franchise QB, and you get off to a decent start, you risk creating a locker room of "Justin's guys versus Caleb's guys", and that's not what any coach is looking for. That's highly unlikely to be a concern if the QBs Caleb Williams is competing against are Tyler Bagent and Brett Rypien, as stated above.
When the Giants drafted Eli Manning, they signed a washed Kurt Warner as their bridge starter. This was Warner after he had fallen off with the Rams, but before he had his renaissance with the Cardinals culminating in a loss in SB XLIII. Warner played okay and led that Giants team to a 5-2 start. After dropping two games in a row, at 5-4 but still within playoff contention, the Giants switched to Eli Manning as their starter. Eli lost the next six games, playing well only towards the end of the season, before winning the team's final game in a 6-10 season.
The Bears have put together a pretty good team around whoever starts for them next year. Let's say they keep Fields, and Fields, with the best team he's ever had around him, continues his erratic play with occasional flashes of brilliance, but that's good enough for the Bears to start 6-3. Now the coaches may have seen even further proof that Fields is what he is, and that the team will ultimately be better off, if not immediately, in the near future (2025, 2026, and on) if Caleb Williams started getting playing time. That might be a really hard sell in the locker room, because here's the thing about most of the players in that locker room---they don't give a damn about the 2025/2026/2027...Bears, because few of them have any guarantee that they'll be part of those teams. They only care about the team's prospects in the present season. If you keep a guy like Fields, a guy who was once seen as the team's franchise QB, and you get off to a decent start, you risk creating a locker room of "Justin's guys versus Caleb's guys", and that's not what any coach is looking for. That's highly unlikely to be a concern if the QBs Caleb Williams is competing against are Tyler Bagent and Brett Rypien, as stated above.
That's super well stated. I'd also add that Fields is already both very popular among his teammates and among Bears fans. And justifiably as he seems like a stand up guy. But with a decent start, which is entirely feasible, there'd have been tremendous pressure on the Bears to stick with Fields. Or, to flip the script, if they kept Fields but as Caleb's #2, if the Bears get off to a bad start with Caleb despite a decent supporting cast, there'd be the same sorts of pressures.
If the Bears had made the call that Fields is good enough then keep him and trade the #1 to get more assets around him. Since they made a different call, even though the return was minimal, they really did have to trade him out of town.
If the Bears had made the call that Fields is good enough then keep him and trade the #1 to get more assets around him. Since they made a different call, even though the return was minimal, they really did have to trade him out of town.