Justin Fields, you in?

No. I don't want Fields in the building if we draft a rookie at 3.

Mac was traded for a swap of 7ths, right?

If Chicago were willing to swap 6ths, sure. Bring him in, and still draft a good QB.

Either you rehab him and flip him next year for better picks while giving the rook a year to develop, or he sucks and you don't bring him back and have another high pick to pair with the #3 QB you got this year.

Like @DJnVa , I want a QB at #3 and having Fields around would seem counterproductive.

The one exception would be if the Pats hate whomever they expect to land at #3, or if, say, Caleb, Maye or Daniels suffers an unfortunate injury during their pro day. I'd definitely prefer trading a 4th for Fields over taking McCarthy anywhere in the first round.

TSC said:

Mac was traded for a swap of 7ths, right?

Click to expand...

No. Mac was dealt for a 6th.

I'd consider swapping the 6th we got for Mac for him, but I think someone will offer more than that.

If they like the QB at 3, He's a cheap 1 year bridge, with some trade upside (say he has a great first 6-8 games, you trade him to someone who'll tag him).

If they don't like the QBs at 3.... he's still got high upside and I think it's more likely he's going to be a top QB than guys like Penix/Nix, etc.

I'd consider a 2025 pick that has a floor and a ceiling based on performance incentives. I wouldn't trade anything from the 2024 stash because we need bodies badly.

I would be ok with him in the building but only if they signed him super cheap if Chicago cuts him, or if they can trade for him super cheap.

DJnVa said:

No. Mac was dealt for a 6th.

Click to expand...

Ah, right. Point remains. Fields SHOULDN'T be getting much more if Chicago is trading him already. If it's a swap of 5th, sure. See what we got.

What if the FO doesn't really like a QB left at 3?

I think we all want the next long term starter, but if they aren't high on whoever is left at #3 is Fields/MHJ the move?

TSC said:

Ah, right. Point remains. Fields SHOULDN'T be getting much more if Chicago is trading him already. If it's a swap of 5th, sure. See what we got.

Click to expand...

Chicago (probably) doesn't have a 5th. They are sending theirs to Buffalo.

radsoxfan said:

What if the FO doesn't really like a QB left at 3?

I think we all want the next long term starter, but if they aren't high on whoever is left at #3 is Fields/MHJ the move?

Click to expand...

No, but Fields and trade 3 for a haul is not a crazy move if Fields is cheap enough. Fields has more potential to be your next real QB than any of the FA, and likely than any of the non-top 3 QBs (4 maybe if you LOVE mcCarthy), downside is obviously cost, but you offset that some if you're getting him for low draft capital and using the 3 to stock up on high draft capital. So if you end up with Fields for say a 6th or 5th, and he ends up playing pretty well... you have to give him probably $25-30M starting in 2025. But that's more attractive if you just used a high pick on a T/WR etc. And have multiple 1sts, plus whatever else. You don't get the cheap QB to build the offense with money, but you get multiple other cheap potential studs.

I end up watching a ton of Bears games since I live in the Chicago burbs. He has got the goods, and in the right hands he would be terrifying. I'd be fine going with him and MHJ.

radsoxfan said:

What if the FO doesn't really like a QB left at 3?

I think we all want the next long term starter, but if they aren't high on whoever is left at #3 is Fields/MHJ the move?

Click to expand...

I think the fact that they apparently informed Mac that they were trading him as soon as the combine was over means they are going to be in on the QB at #3. If one of those guys didn't impress them, then I think they hold onto Mac til draft day.

Cellar-Door said:

I'd consider swapping the 6th we got for Mac for him, but I think someone will offer more than that.

If they like the QB at 3, He's a cheap 1 year bridge, with some trade upside (say he has a great first 6-8 games, you trade him to someone who'll tag him).

If they don't like the QBs at 3.... he's still got high upside and I think it's more likely he's going to be a top QB than guys like Penix/Nix, etc.

Click to expand...

Poles has said the he would do right by Fields, meaning he'll get some say into his destination, and I think its highly likely somebody (maybe LV) will not only offer more or the same as us but also be more attractive to the player (because he'll be a clear cut starter). I don't see Fields wanting to come here unless we made it clear that we would be looking to move the #3 pick and that we would be picking up the 5th year option. His nightmare scenario is going to a team that doesn't pick up that option but also doesn't intend to start him. Then he's going into FA next offseason only ever getting backup QB money and a year removed from playing.

Im on the opposite side of this from @Nator & I’ve seen every Fields snap. I see a guy who takes way too many sacks and his accuracy is still too inconsistent throwing to all levels.

I also see a Pats team that, at least as currently constructed, has a worse line and WR corps than the Bears this past season. Toss in that this would be Fields’ 4th OC in 4 seasons and I just don’t see see where the improvement as a passer is going to come from.

Cellar-Door said:

No, but Fields and trade 3 for a haul is not a crazy move if Fields is cheap enough. Fields has more potential to be your next real QB than any of the FA, and likely than any of the non-top 3 QBs (4 maybe if you LOVE mcCarthy), downside is obviously cost, but you offset that some if you're getting him for low draft capital and using the 3 to stock up on high draft capital. So if you end up with Fields for say a 6th or 5th, and he ends up playing pretty well... you have to give him probably $25-30M starting in 2025. But that's more attractive if you just used a high pick on a T/WR etc. And have multiple 1sts, plus whatever else. You don't get the cheap QB to build the offense with money, but you get multiple other cheap potential studs.

Click to expand...

This is how I would think about it too, but it's a tricky needle to get the most for #3 and I'd need a real haul to move off Daniels/Maye for Fields plus picks. If Cousins to ATL gets done, then maybe you can squeeze Minnesota for a big return because they'll be panicking. Chicago could decide they need MHJ but I don't think Poles will sell the farm when Nabers and Odunze are also potentially available. Vegas is a candidate to overpay.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:

Poles has said the he would do right by Fields, meaning he'll get some say into his destination, and I think its highly likely somebody (maybe LV) will not only offer more or the same as us but also be more attractive to the player (because he'll be a clear cut starter). I don't see Fields wanting to come here unless we made it clear that we would be looking to move the #3 pick and that we would be picking up the 5th year option. His nightmare scenario is going to a team that doesn't pick up that option but also doesn't intend to start him. Then he's going into FA next offseason only ever getting backup QB money and a year removed from playing.

Click to expand...

Word is LV isn't in on him, this morning ESPN (take it for what it is worth) was discussing that so far nobody wanted Fields as their starter. ATL wants COusins (and looks like they'll get him), and the other teams (so far) haven't been willing to pony up for Fields and are looking more to the draft or their own rosters. I think a "you might be the bridge, you might be the starter" might be his best option right now. I also.... don't believe a word that comes out of any GM's mouth. Poles is saying that in part because he knows that what a team trades for a starting QB is a lot more than what they trade for a backup/camp competition QB. He'll trade Fields to whomever makes the best offer. That was mostly license for Fields' agent to start shopping him to his preferred teams to pressure them to make an offer.

Justthetippett said:

This is how I would think about it too, but it's a tricky needle to get the most for #3 and I'd need a real haul to move off Daniels/Maye for Fields plus picks. If Cousins to ATL gets done, then maybe you can squeeze Minnesota for a big return because they'll be panicking. Chicago could decide they need MHJ but I don't think Poles will sell the farm when Nabers and Odunze are also potentially available. Vegas is a candidate to overpay.

Click to expand...

I think you only trade down if you're just really down on whichever QB is left (I could see it I guess, Daniels' arm raises concerns, Maye is raw and needs work, etc.), I don't think you trade down just because you want value, you trade because you fundamentally don't believe in the QB left. In that case I see the big targets as: NYG, MIN, LV, DEN (less so because they lack picks, but maybe they add a player like Sutton or Bowles).

Cellar-Door said:

Word is LV isn't in on him, this morning ESPN (take it for what it is worth) was discussing that so far nobody wanted Fields as their starter. ATL wants COusins (and looks like they'll get him), and the other teams (so far) haven't been willing to pony up for Fields and are looking more to the draft or their own rosters. I think a "you might be the bridge, you might be the starter" might be his best option right now. I also.... don't believe a word that comes out of any GM's mouth. Poles is saying that in part because he knows that what a team trades for a starting QB is a lot more than what they trade for a backup/camp competition QB. He'll trade Fields to whomever makes the best offer. That was mostly license for Fields' agent to start shopping him to his preferred teams to pressure them to make an offer.

Click to expand...

If nobody wants him as a starter, he's willing to come here even without us guaranteeing that we'll pick up the 2025 option, and the price is a 5th or 6th, then I think you have to do it just on a value basis.

Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:

If nobody wants him as a starter, he's willing to come here even without us guaranteeing that we'll pick up the 2025 option, and the price is a 5th or 6th, then I think you have to do it just on a value basis.

Click to expand...

yep.
Now, I don't think there is any chance that happens because I think one of these teams will offer a 3rd or 4th+ for him, and that makes less sense for the Patriots.

Changed my vote from No to No, but I'd give a 5th or 6th. He'd probably make a fine Daniels back up. I'd do the 6th for that possibility even not knowing whether Daniels will be the one available at 3.

ZMart100 said:

Changed my vote from No to No, but I'd give a 5th or 6th. He'd probably make a fine Daniels back up. I'd do the 6th for that possibility even not knowing whether Daniels will be the one available at 3.

Click to expand...

Interestingly, I think he pairs best with Maye, because Maye needs to sit at least half a year.

Cellar-Door said:

Interestingly, I think he pairs best with Maye, because Maye needs to sit at least half a year.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can't remember the last QB with as much experience as Daniels going top five and then not starting right away. Maye seems like he would benefit more from being eased into the mix, more like Tua.

Although Daniels could end up getting hit a lot and missing time, a la Richardson. In that scenario Fields is a nice backup to turn to without changing the offense too much.

Cellar-Door said:

Word is LV isn't in on him, this morning ESPN (take it for what it is worth) was discussing that so far nobody wanted Fields as their starter. ATL wants COusins (and looks like they'll get him), and the other teams (so far) haven't been willing to pony up for Fields and are looking more to the draft or their own rosters. I think a "you might be the bridge, you might be the starter" might be his best option right now. I also.... don't believe a word that comes out of any GM's mouth. Poles is saying that in part because he knows that what a team trades for a starting QB is a lot more than what they trade for a backup/camp competition QB. He'll trade Fields to whomever makes the best offer. That was mostly license for Fields' agent to start shopping him to his preferred teams to pressure them to make an offer.

Click to expand...

Honestly the Vikings (after Blank finally see the open opportunity to throw money at a top 10 type QB) has always made the most sense to me for Fields. But that imo is open noise that won't come until after Cousins is off the table. I'm not discounting the Raiders yet either as that team essentially always functions on a delusional plane of thinking (being too thirsty to find success after making that move to Vegas), and likely believes they will still somehow find a way into the top QB draft mix.

I'm glad to see him dodge the Pittsburgh bullet though with the Russ news this morning. I actually didn't like that at all as an extended developmental fit with the OC hire Tomlin made, and genuinely believe we are a year away from basically having the same surrounding discussion on Tomlin that you guys were forced to have on the GOAT HC this winter (where him having less total control input on the offense might realistically be part of any lasting answer to getting more out of it after 5+ years of bottom tier finishes).

Without tryingi to be troll'y I also think finding developmental success in NE is easily the biggest longshot on the table for him. So as somebody rooting for him to succeeed I'm hoping that isn't the case either. Nor do I think that is a option you guys should even really be in mix for atm.

Pxer said:

He pairs well with whoever we take at 3. You let them compete and if the rookie doesn't absolutely overwhelm him, you plug in Fields who has some upside and can help you see how well your OL is going to protect the rookie. You can make the switch part-way through the season if you want or ride Fields if he takes a step forward.

As nice as it is to have a veteran starter come in and mentor the rookie, those guys count meaningfully against the cap in most cases.

Click to expand...

Cap space we have, picks we don’t.

NortheasternPJ said:

Cap space we have, picks we don’t.

Click to expand...

sure, but you can only spend the cap on guys who are FAs and..... those guys are generally not high ceiling young players.

Pxer said:

He pairs well with whoever we take at 3. You let them compete and if the rookie doesn't absolutely overwhelm him, you plug in Fields who has some upside and can help you see how well your OL is going to protect the rookie. You can make the switch part-way through the season if you want or ride Fields if he takes a step forward.

As nice as it is to have a veteran starter come in and mentor the rookie, those guys count meaningfully against the cap in most cases.

Click to expand...

I'd voted a fourth round pick but I would do the above but offer a fourth round pick next year since this draft seems deep in positions of need.

If we did this deal this week we would have ultimate flexibility in this draft to stay put and draft a QB at 3 or move back and pick up a haul of picks if offered.

We could also do this deal with an immediate trade back with Chicago so they could net Caleb and MHJ.
We get Fields, their 9th pick plus their 3rd round pick at 75 this year or their first or second round pick next year.

DJnVa said:

I think the fact that they apparently informed Mac that they were trading him as soon as the combine was over means they are going to be in on the QB at #3. If one of those guys didn't impress them, then I think they hold onto Mac til draft day.

Click to expand...

Was there any realistic chance of Mac sticking around this season, regardless of who they take at 3 (or if they trade back)? Even if they hated all the QBs at the combine, not sure there was any reason to hold onto him longer. The timing might have been a coincidence.

His value is minimal now, and it will be minimal in the future. It was just tome to move on no matter what else happens at QB.

DJnVa said:

I think the fact that they apparently informed Mac that they were trading him as soon as the combine was over means they are going to be in on the QB at #3. If one of those guys didn't impress them, then I think they hold onto Mac til draft day.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think there is a very defensible argument that the Pats are going to pick their next QB with the #3 pick, so why not trade Mac while anyone is willing to trade you anything for him?

But I also think that they wanted to close the book on Mac one way or another and also see the FA market and/or the 2nd round as where their next QB comes from. Presumably at least one (if not all three) of Bo Nix, Michael Penix, and J.J. McCarthy will still be there at #34, and Fields will get shopped. Without knowing Mayo's preference, it's hard for me to rule out MHJ at #3.