When did i say they didn't have the conversation when they still had the #1 pick? I'll answer, i didn't.
If the player/QB isn't there at #9 then there is no risk because you then move on and draft the player on top of your list and carry on with Fields. Why do you think it wouldn't be a good idea to have a QB that's right on pace with your rebuild on a rookie contract?
You guys have me struggling on who's idea to trust more. fans on a message board or one of the most respected draft people out there on Daniel Jeremiah. Hmmmmmmmmm
All i'm saying is the conversation should be had on what to do if certain QB's are on the board at #9 and if you like any of them better than Fields. Never said it should happen, just to have the convo and the funny thing is i'd bet that convo absolutely happened.
You said that they should have the conversation now. Nothing that has happened in the past month or so could possibly have changed their opinion on Fields. So you are suggesting that off-season work will change your evaluation instead of confirm your evaluation.
So you are suggesting that the pro day of a prospect will change your evaluation of game film. If that is your opinion, then I bet you supported the Jets drafting Zach Wilson for his off-season than Fields for what happened in-season.
There isn't any money reason to change from Fields based on anything that has come out in the off-season because he is currently on a rookie contract and having it timed out to a specific time period makes sense if the rebuild has difficult finances to balance. Poles stripped the team of difficult finances, so it is a non-issue. That is why there is no financial argument to be made. Please don't try to make a money argument.
Your appeal to authority is a very obvious textbook logical fallacy, and you are so dug in to feeling persecuted that you are refusing to make a point that you can back up.
The only reason to talk QB at 9 is if you aren't committed to Fields. If you aren't committed to Fields near-term, then you stay at 1. You only move out of 1 if you have conviction in Fields, and you are suggesting a strategy that lacks conviction. You're supporting a point that you can't argue on because a sports writer needed to sell content in the offseason.