Maybe the plan is 3rd rounder for Fields to pair with Getsy, draft MHJ and OTs later on and see if you can climb up to 8-9 wins. If Fields busts you back in top 5 and then you get the QB.
The Green Fields of the Patriot's Mind
- Thread starter shoosh77
- Start date
Don't sign me up for an 8-win team. You can't win superbowls without a top QB. Fields is never going to be that QB, so why waste resources on him?
8-9 was the projection for next year with Fields and upgrades across the board. Obv the goal is 11 and in the playoffs in 2025.
Yeah I don’t get the Fields + MHJ + “some tackles” plan
Fields had one of the best WR in football last year, and competent tackles and at best looked passable and often looked bad. He ended up bottom third of the league in almost every stat category you can think of.
Why anyone thinks up draft capital for him instead of signing Minshew or Brissett or Russell Wilson (not that I’m advocating for any of those guys) is a good idea is beyond me.
Whats the plan here? Trade valuable resources, hope he can take a step forward in development, and then sign him to a 40M AAV contract moving forward and gamble that maybe he will potentially hopefully possibly continue to get better?
If the Pats had the 20th overall pick, and no shot at a premium QB, ok maybe Fields makes some sense (even then, the idea of gambling on him with a Daniel Jones type extension is terrifying), but passing up QB3 in this draft for Justin Fields would be a bizarre way to rebuild a team.
If he didn’t show signs of breaking out last year with what was a similar or better supporting cast than he would have in New England in 2024, why would anyone simultaneously give up draft capital and pass up a Maye/Daniels for him in the hopes that he will break out? The chances that he breaks out can’t be much better (and I’d argue much worse) than Maye/Daniels succeeding and a rookie won’t cost you 40M moving forward.
I could see Atlanta making sense for Fields - lots of talent on offense, Robinson as the OC/QB guru, no shot at the big 3 prospects. But the Pats seem like one of the worst possible matches for what he needs if he’s even capable of realizing his potential.
If you don't like the QBs at 3, then MHJ becomes a possibility. And QB becomes something that must be addressed. That is how you get there. If the price for Fields is fair, why not? I assume he's a step up over our least favotire Scotsman (MacZappe).
I don't think saying "YAH LET"S GET FIELDS!!!!" makes sense but there has to be a QB move at some point.
\
I think you only trade for Fields if you think he can be a franchise guy by the end of his 5th year.
I can kind of see that, but honestly if I'm sitting 3 and hate the QBs, I want to trade down get more shots at blue chip guys, definitely not trade away any picks. I can get Brissett or similar in the offseason to give me some developmental competence for my young offense.
I think you only trade for Fields if you think he can be a franchise guy by the end of his 5th year.
Shoot, that’s really true.
I’m at least considering Fields for something not first round, exactly because MJH + tackles and (yes FAs) Henry and Rhamondre…but then you factor how close Fields is to money with a capital M and I’m out again.
Last edited:
I could be sold on a trade down with Chicago in the hopes of picking up a premier WR or OT at #9, and getting Fields plus other assets from Chicago (their first next year? 2nd this year?). If the guy you want is not available at #9, trade down again and accumulate more assets, hopefully in this draft. Focus on value (and hopefully OL and WR) wherever you are picking early.
But this is a seriously risky play. I'd only do it if Chicago gave up a lot. They have a Fields problem. We have options at QB picking #3.
let’s say you trade 3 for Fields, 9, and a 2025 1st and Fields doesn’t break out but he’s ok
you now have a worse WR than MHJ, a QB you either need to dump or pay 30M+ a year for and a 1st rounder you hope you can package to move up for a QB who is likely not as good of a prospect as Maye/Daniels.
It’s the worst of all worlds especially since it’s unlikely Nabors or Odunze will be available at 9. So you’ve essentially traded the chance at Maye/Daniels for Olu Fashanu (or WR 4)and either Fields at 30M+ a year or (e.g.) Quinn Ewers. You’re better off taking MHJ and trading a 3 (or 3+2025 pick) for Fields which is still a bad plan but at least you get MHJ.
It all comes down to their evaluation of Fields. Yes, he's expensive soon, but in a few years Daniels/Maye would be too (if they are decent) and if you think he's better than Daniels/Maye will ever be then you're just accelerating your timeline and picking up assets to surround him with going forward. To be clear, I would rather do this conventionally, pick QB3 and surround him with the coaches and skill players needed for him to succeed, but if Chicago blows you away with an offer, I'd think hard about it, and probably prefer it over the MHJ + Wilson, Minshew or QB 5, 6, 7 scenarios. (I don't think Cousins is in play at all.)
It’s the timing of the Fields extension that makes it an issue. If you draft Maye/Daniels, you have 4, potentially 5 years to not only spend 30-40M a year on other positions but a whole body of work in your system with your coach(es)
Fields is going to cost a huge amount of money before you have enough information to comfortably make a 150M decision on him. If he has a good, not great, year, then what? Let him go and hope you can upgrade and reset the position? Do what the Giants did with Daniel Jones and give him a big extension based on one decent year and hope he continues to improve?
If he were cost controlled for 3+ years, it’s a different story. If he was coming in and set up for success (high end OC, lots of talent), you could get a good assessment of whether or not he’s worth paying.
It’s hard for me to envision too many realistic scenarios where Fields comes in and plays well enough in 2024 where it is an obvious “pay him big bucks” situation. I think the realistic best case is “he showed us something good but he’s still not a top 10 QB” in which case you are either making a big financial commitment to a sub top 10 guy or you’re letting the (hypothetical) 15th best QB in the league go for free and hoping to upgrade with a worse prospect than they could get this year. It’s creating unnecessary risk.
The alternative is to trade for him and exercise the 5th year option (likely to be about 23M) but if he sucks or doesn’t improve in 2024 what do you do in 2025? Eat dead cap to get rid of him?
Exactly. The Texans went 3-13-1 last season and won 10 games and made the Divisional Round this season. The Lions were 3-13-1 in 2021 and made the NFC Championship game this season. The Bengals went 2-14 in 2019 and made the Super Bowl 2 years later.
This isn't baseball -- rookies in the NFL can be high-level starters immediately, and upgrades at QB, WR, and OL can turn a bad team into a solid one in a single offseason. Sure, that's far easier said than done, but the Texans, Bengals, and Lions just pulled it off successfully. Two years ago few were champing at the bit to coach or play in Detroit or Houston, either, and now they seem like two of the most exciting destinations in the league.
Last edited:
But we are heading into year 4 of the rebuild. It will most definitely be a 6+ year rebuild. the Texans and Bengals hit HR with their top-2 QB choices. If the Pats hit on theirs, there is a chance by year 6 they are a contender.
This may be semantics, but I'd argue we are headed into year one of the second rebuild. The first one started with clearing the dead weight in 2020, drafting Mac, the FA splurge, a playoff appearance... then they went downhill and bottomed up. So, now the second rebuild begins.
And the AFC East has been rebuilding for 30+ years since the Bills failed dynasty. If you want to argue the Colts were part of the AFC East, I'd allow it in the 90's. You had Miami flash a in 2002, the Jets flash in 2010 etc but they've been in constant rebuild. If the Pats aren't in their 2nd, 3rd, 4th rebuilds for a decade plus we're lucky.
Exactly. It depends how you define "rebuild," I guess, but I don't think Mayo is rebuilding from the Tom Brady era. He's rebuilding from the Mac/Belichick era now, which lasted 3 seasons and, as you note, is now over.
Eh, I think the playoff season with Mac was smoke and mirrors. Everyone knew they were in trouble, talent wise going into last year. My overall point is that if teams don't hit on a QB when they bottom out, a 5-7 year rebuild, or re-rebuild is bound to happen and it does so often.
Look at the Panthers. After moving on from Newton, they brought in a multitude of suck at QB and were never able to get a QB. If they whiffed on Young, they are looking at 7 years of suckage. Same with the Jets, whiffed on Darnold and then WIlson. Next year will be year 7. The Giants had some hope last year a la the Pats Mac's rookie year, but (even given the extension) they may be looking at a new QB and they may be looking for a QB after next year...7 years. Washington went the veteran QB route and were stuck in NFL purgatory. (and yet still had the 5th worst record of the past 5 years. If the Patriots don't hit on a QB when they have the #3 pick, they will undoubtedly have a bottom five record for the current 5-year span.
Fine we are playing semantics here. My point is that they are in very grave danger of rebuilding for 7 years. Whether that is 2 separate rebuilds or whatever doesn't matter. Two year turnarounds happen, but they just as often don't and teams suck for years.
If you do the trade, then I think you are convinced enough on your evaluation of Fields that you pick up the 5th year now, giving you a two year evaluation window before you have to do the new contract or use a tag. Now, yes, that's at least one and up to three years less year than you'd have for your evaluation of Maye/Daniels. If he's good not great, then it was a bad deal (unless you hit on all the other draft picks you obtained, which, again, would need to be substantial for you to consider the trade in the first place; I don't think 2025 R1 is enough; I'd also ask for 2024 R2). You're betting on him being great and deciding that's more likely than Maye/Daniels being great. The money is manageable for the next two years, but yes, after that you're accelerating the timing of the big QB contract. In the immediate term, you're exchanging some of your financial flexibility for more draft capital. Whether that's wise is determined by the subsequent decisions that you make.
I gather you are, ah, not convinced. But it's not the worst thing they could consider.
Another option is just to pick MHJ or trade back only a few spots in the range they can be comfortable they can pick Nabers, Odunze or one of the premier OTs, trade a 3rd round pick for Fields and also pick QB 5, 6, 7, put the two of them in the Thunderdome and see who's still standing at the end of 2024.
And to bring it back to this thread, for any of this to work, they need to nail the OC hire.
I really don’t have a clue about the salary cap or the process of building an NFL roster but doesn’t the conventional wisdom tell us that getting a franchise QB on a rookie deal is the dream for building a successful roster?
Hopefully we’re not picking this high again soon so get the best QB at #3 and go from there.
Anything else is just trying to be too clever.
Hopefully we’re not picking this high again soon so get the best QB at #3 and go from there.
Anything else is just trying to be too clever.
The Bears won’t get a 3rd for Fields. @NextBigThing8184 clearly lays out the conundrum any team trading for him faces plus the Bears have so little leverage here.
If they put Fields on the block pre-draft, it’s a signal that they are going QB at #1. And they won’t keep Fields as a back up lurking behind a rookie when Chicago already has a super cheap, usable back up in Bagent. (Indeed, the Bears best move might be to fill out the QB room with a grizzled vet if they go QB at #1 and hold on to Bagent.)
And the Bears will be motivated to make a trade. Cutting Fields saves no money, but a trade opens $3.2m in cap space.
Says here Fields will be traded for a conditional late round 2025 pick, probably even pick swap - something like Fields + 7th for a 5th that could rise to a 3rd if Fields gets extended/franchised.
Last edited:
Absolutely. We all have the same fear here: that the next QB also isn't the long-term solution, that Mayo (and staff) are in over their heads, that the personnel department doesn't improve, and that they're looking for another QB in the 2026 or 2027 draft.
I mean.... this is all wildly backwards.
They have a QB who is better than the best QB a number of teams in the league can reasonably expect to get. Who cares if everyone knows they are drafting a great QB prospect... it doesn't change Fields' value. Could they keep him... absolutely, but they don't need it as a threat because again..... more than 1 team will be very interested in Fields.
You appear to have started from the idea of "Fields has to be traded on the cheap" and tried to work backwards instead of "the Bears have an asset a bunch of teams will want".
If I own a house in Cambridge free and clear, and I go out and buy a new house.... I don't sell the first house for 25% below market because I have a new house.... I can still easily sell it for market because there is a demand for housing.
What do you think the market is for Fields is and the type of money the acquiring team will pay him? He has one year left? I didn’t see that he was extended but not sure.
I think you’re wildly overstating the demand for a (soon to be) 4th year QB who is either going to require 23-40M in 2025 and has been a bottom 10 starting QB for almost the entire duration of his career
There are 31 possible suitors. Once you take out the teams who already have demonstrably better (or locked in eg Bryce Young, Richardson, Levis) guys you have
Seattle - have Geno Smith but maybe
Giants - don’t think they’re moving on from Jones
Minnesota - probably want Cousins, doubt Chicago makes a deal within division
Raiders - possible
Atlanta - possible
Washington - don’t think he’s enough upgrade from Howell, probably want QB2 in the draft
Tampa - probably retaining Mayfield
Denver - can’t see him fitting with Payton
New Orleans - locked into Carr, long shot
Pittsburgh - maybe
New England - covered already, doubtful but possible
so you’re down to 10. Take out teams where Mayfield and Cousins land (let’s guess Tampa and Minnesota though I suspect Cousins moves on). I’d take out Washington, New Orleans, Denver and the Giants. So you’re down to 5. let’s say Las Vegas, New England, Pittsburgh, Atlanta and Seattle. Chances are Wilson ends up in one of those places so you’re down to 4.
I just can’t see more than 2 of the teams choosing Fields as a possibility over all of the rookies in this class (the Minshew/Brissett + rookie plan). Some of that group of 4-5 will want to wait to see what happens after the draft. Some of them will be interested but only on the cheap
I just don’t see too many teams who are going to want to lock themselves into trading draft capital and potentially guaranteeing 25M in 2025 for a guy who on paper (and on the field) is less appealing than Minshew and comes at a much higher cost (in salary) than a tier 2 rookie (Nix, Penix, McCarthy)
Fields, unlike a Minshew or Jimmy G or Brissett isn’t a guy you can bring in as a bridge guy and try to get a cheap rookie with 4 years of control and upside. I don’t think he’s a guy who has been proven to be better than Geno Smith or Ryan Pickett let alone Cousins, Wilson or Mayfield. I don’t think a playoff team or near contender (Pittsburgh and Seattle again, Minnesota or Tampa) is going to want to pin their hopes on him being enough of an upgrade to warrant premium draft capital.
Atlanta and Las Vegas seem like the two obvious and most likely spots if neither of them land Cousins/Wilson.
Fields may have upside but you’re going to have to pay a ton of money to see that upside realized before he steps on the field (5th year option) or you’re exchanging (in your view) premium draft capital on a one year “prove it” guy who thus far looks pretty awful.
I could see one GM enamored with Fields and doing something dumb. But the idea that there will be lots of suitors who are very interested to the degree of being willing to part with valuable draft picks for him seems like a huge reach. A handful of suitors who would take him on the cheap (3rd round or conditional 2025 2nd)? More plausible
He’s been bad and he’s going to be very expensive soon. The free agent market has a big supply of similarly mediocre to bad likely cheaper options and a couple of definitely better guys. The draft has a bevy of talented (and cheap) guys with more or similar upsides.
I think he'll draw a 3rd or so and the team who trades for him will pick up his option getting 2 years to look at him and if needed extend him
he’s under contract for 2024 with a presumptive 24M 5th year option due May 2nd
anyone who acquires him has to be OK with guaranteeing him 25M before he takes a snap for them or has to risk it being a one year acquisition. Which is what kills his trade value to most suitors IMO.
theres some stupid GM’s out there and presumably one or two who loved him in his draft year. So a decent return is certainly possible. It won’t be because of a bidding war though.
you think many teams will be very interested in him yet Chicago will get only a 3rd? I suppose we have very different definitions of “very interested”
that said, if the acquisition cost is just a 3rd, why wouldn’t his potential suitors just wait out the draft to see if they can land a Penix or McCarthy (or whomever)?
I feel that anyone who trades for Fields has to be so convinced he’s “the” guy that they’d be willing to move a higher pick and ignore the opportunity to get a rookie on a rookie contract.
I’ll point out that your prediction of Fields for a 3rd is very similar to my suggestion that Fields + 7th for a conditional pick that rises to a 3rd if he gets that extension or tagged.
So I’m backwards, you’re forwards, and we end up in the same place?
I think there will be teams who like Fields a lot and think he's a much better prospect than anyone outside the top 3 in this draft
I think it will be a 3rd in this draft, probably in the top half of the round (ATL?) which is very different from a conditional 3rd 3 years out.
To be honest I think there is a chance it's more than a 3rd, but the reporting was 2nd/3rd and I think ATL is going to be the team and they won't move a 2nd.
I think they'll get more than a 3rd as well. Probably not a 2nd but a 3rd+ a lower pick or two.
SF got a 4th for Trey Lance six months ago from a team who wasn't even planning on having him play. And Lance hasn't shown anything in the league.
Obviously, a lot can change over the next few months,, there are plenty of evaluations to be made. That said, if I had to put money on which position the Patriots take in the first round, it's QB to the point that it's almost silly to predict anything else. It's beyond hard to win in this league without an elite player at that position, and when it does happen - see Purdy, comma, Brock - the degree of difficulty is actually harder, hitting on all kinds of draft picks, up and down the board over YEARS.
They're taking Maye or Daniels, and, sure, it's a risk, but you can't be in this rarefied air of a top 3 pick in a draft that most experts see as having three elite QBs and say, "Nah, let's see how the (allegedly lesser) crop is in 2025, when we have no idea if we'll be top 3 or top 5 or top 10." You're in position, don't overthink, go get Daniels and hope for the best.
edit: organizing
They're taking Maye or Daniels, and, sure, it's a risk, but you can't be in this rarefied air of a top 3 pick in a draft that most experts see as having three elite QBs and say, "Nah, let's see how the (allegedly lesser) crop is in 2025, when we have no idea if we'll be top 3 or top 5 or top 10." You're in position, don't overthink, go get Daniels and hope for the best.
edit: organizing
Why would you give up assets to get a sub-par QB to win a few more games in a rebuild? That's what we criticize other franchises for.
I wouldn’t. This decision would depend on the evaluation of Fields (including his cost in assets and financially) versus the other options.
But I also don’t think that long term rebuilds are a thing in the NFL. This team has a playoff caliber defense NOW. If they bottom feed for a couple of year in chase of a pick, it may not anymore.
This thread keeps getting bumped, but never for any OC discussion. Maybe start a Justin Fields thread?
Hard to have any talk about it when the Patriots have done nothing but sit on their hands the last month. I'm thinking they are having trouble drawing in a guy to take over this dumpster fire of an offense, would not be shocking.
They've literally interviewed a dozen candidates, they couldn't interview the top candidates (SF and DET guys) until last week because of the rules, and can't reasonably make an offer to the SF guys until after the SB. The OC process has been fine, it's not a quick process under the new rules.
Yet they've actually had a bunch of interviews. Like someone posted the other day, we wanted a wide net and now people think we're moving too slow.
Additionally, the surprising news about Johnson and Slowik staying probably tossed a wrench in some folks plans and the number of openings for OC shrunk.
I can't imagine the entire offseason plan is gonna hinge on whether we hired the OC on January 27 or February 4.
I think they are targeting Kubiak or Fleury, but yeah Johnson staying for example made Engstrand more likely to be interested, as most assumed he'd stay in DET to step up a chair when Johnson left, now he's still blocked.
But overall yeah... most OCs are probably on vacation now, there isn't all that much for them to do for the next month.
This thread keeps getting bumped, but never for any Fields discussion. Maybe start an OC thread?
Now we're back on OCs!
Something that is not addressed in depth in the above Fields discussion is his age. He turns 25 in March. Daniels will turn 24 in December. No need to re-hash the differences in their contractual situations if acquired, but the age issue has to at least be a consideration in projecting each of them into their prime years in the NFL.
(Maye is much younger. Turns 22 in August.)
Something that is not addressed in depth in the above Fields discussion is his age. He turns 25 in March. Daniels will turn 24 in December. No need to re-hash the differences in their contractual situations if acquired, but the age issue has to at least be a consideration in projecting each of them into their prime years in the NFL.
(Maye is much younger. Turns 22 in August.)