Some QB Needy Teams Will Wait Until Next Year

[Bearly]

If (big if with the Bears) they build the offense I don't see Fields lowering his value and I don't see that value being less than an #11. The risk is in the rookie not being able to play in real games and showing it to the world. But that's always a risk in drafting any player.




We literally paid a giraffe $18,000,000 to suck for a year. Fields' contract is that much for 4 years. Even if you add his signing bonus he would be a steal compared to what we normally give never have beens to hopefully not play.
They're rookie salaries not big contracts. The big contracts wouldn't start until the 5th or 6th years.

A #2 would probably be a big-ish salary as a backup but keeping either of them as backup wouldn't be the plan. That would be a 1 year or less trial to pick one and trade the other.

A #2 pick that didn't play is going to have your #1 QB looking over his shoulder and that pick will actually drop in value if he doesn't play. That and next years #1s aren't worth as much as this year's #1s. You already have Fields. It's only the pick we're talking about here and besides they wouldn't trade Fields under those circumstances either.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

Also, the Panthers being so desperate for a potential franchise QB may give up the most to get him.

Agreed. What would you speculate the offer could be?

 

[pdxbearsfan]

Every year a QB or two comes out of the post season or workouts or combine and grabs some attention, so it would not surprise me if more than just Stroud or Young make it into the first round.

In a dream situation the Bears are able to trade back because someone want one of the two, and then another team falls in love with another QB and we trade back twice in the first and load up on both current and future picks...

Two trade backs would be ideal assuming Poles board shows plenty of depth.

 

[Myk]

A #2 pick that didn't play is going to have your #1 QB looking over his shoulder and that pick will actually drop in value if he doesn't play. That and next years #1s aren't worth as much as this year's #1s. You already have Fields. It's only the pick we're talking about here and besides they wouldn't trade Fields under those circumstances either.

I don't believe that. Many would've traded for Love equal to the pick given for him before he played. Teams trade something for high picks even after they don't play up to their hype believing it's the team that drafted them, and the Bears would fit that mold perfectly. We are well known as a bad team for offense. If the player had the hype the team is who is suspect.
Many teams would be bidding for Fields if we put him on the block after the season. He has earned being worth more than we gave. That is the no brainer part of the equation.

I want the #1 looking over his shoulder. Anointing players that haven't earned it does not help them. The only bad thing with 2 QBs like that is Chicago fans and sports media.

 

[Bearly]

I don't believe that. Many would've traded for Love equal to the pick given for him before he played. Teams trade something for high picks even after they don't play up to their hype believing it's the team that drafted them, and the Bears would fit that mold perfectly. We are well known as a bad team for offense. If the player had the hype the team is who is suspect.
Many teams would be bidding for Fields if we put him on the block after the season. He has earned being worth more than we gave. That is the no brainer part of the equation.

I want the #1 looking over his shoulder. Anointing players that haven't earned it does not help them. The only bad thing with 2 QBs like that is Chicago fans and sports media.

Nobody was giving a #1 for Love a year later and even if they did, it's not worth what a same year #1 is, depending on draft position. Easy enough to search assumed trade value.

Unless you get a significantly higher #1 the next year, you've lost that bet, period. You use Love as an example. How did GBs starter react to looking over his shoulder when the team had other needs. Something else we haven't even addressed yet in this scenario? If you need to push your starter, you don't have one. The idea that a guy like Fields would benefit from that is ludicrous.

You have a young, talented, warrior QB that needs reps and you think it's better to split those. So you would trade Fields and keep your backup because you could get your pick back and switch to that backup for no gain in value? WTF!

You take the QB to cash in on draft day, not to tread water, swallow a little in the process and come up for air next year. You'd have to assume the pick would be better than Fields and that's a fool's errand when 1/2 of 1st round QBs aren't destinations.

The idea is to take a prospect and trade him immediately to another desperate team that has already targeted him in the draft and talked themselves into moving for him. A year later, that perspective will have changed.

The odds of him being better than Fields are below 50%. Look at Fields' draft class and the 1st 3 picks. Would you trade Justin for any of those? Would you have given the #1 overall pick in the 2022 draft for Zach Wilson because that's where you'd have to be to almost get you value back a year later.

Instead of copping to an error, you're not thinking this through and spinning to defend a poor position.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

The Pac-12 is garbage, especially defensively. Take that into consideration when rating Caleb. Good QB yes Great I will want to see more.

Is USC going to be playing in the Big 10 next year?

If so, that will give a better assessment.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

If the Bears remain at #2, every QB needy team, not named DET, if they remain at #3, is going to be calling CHI to see what it would take to get to #2.

What I really like is that Young and Stroud are 1/1A depending on your flavor of choice with many teams being happy with either, and with #3 being at least a tier lower, sets up for a potential SF to Dolphins type haul with plenty of time for teams to bid against each other.

Detroit is going to be calling, count on it.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

We literally paid a giraffe $18,000,000 to suck for a year.

It was actually $18,000,000 to deep throat for a year, and since it is a giraffe, it was quite an impressive feat and worth the money.

 

[alswank87]

Sam Darnold was a generational prospect in college too. Now, you can get him for a couple buffet coupons and a stick of gum. Meanwhile, the true greats like Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc could’ve been had for much less than the top pick.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

I think you're not understanding...

If I were to get a rookie contract, which is going to be the cheapest, I'd want it at a premium position like pass rusher rather than OL, WR, or backup QB. I am addressing the idea of drafting a QB in hopes of forcing a trade. I am all for trading down if it doesn't cost us a top pass rusher or 3-tech. The way the draft is shaping up, we would need to stay in the top 5-7 in order to do that.

If you want the top DE or 3-tech, it is best to stay in the top 4.

Like with any trade down situation, the team needs to ask, "How far can I drop and be assured one of our top picks?"

Seeing that there is one DE and one 3-tech who are almost sure bets for the Bears having on their list of top picks, two QBs plus those two players makes their low point pick 4.

If, for example, they absolutely want the DE, then they have to trade with the Lions. Now some people are going to scoff at the Bears trading with the Lions.

Here are three scenarios:

1. The Bears trade with the Lions for X number of picks, the Lions get their QB, and the Bears get their DE.
2. The Bears trade with Seattle for Y number of picks, Seattle gets their QB, the Lions get the DE creating a monster of a pass rush duo, the Bears lose their DE but get their 3-tech which was not in the Bears top tier.
3. The Bears pick their DE at 2 and the Lions get their QB without having to pay anything.

It all depends how many players the Bears have in their top tier of prospects.

 

[JoJoBoxer]

Well the #2 pick isn't for what you want in a year with allegedly 2 top QB prospects. It's a QB position so you trade down or you get the QB if nobody will pay (and somebody will pay). You don't let someone (especially not a division rival) take that QB for free when you have the spot to draft them and aren't sure the QB you have is the GOAT. That QB isn't to be a backup, that QB is hopefully the GOAT or you trade him before letting everyone know he isn't. If he is the GOAT then you trade our known commodity at QB who still has 2 years left on contract. Either way we make out better than resigning another bloated high pick pass rusher contract like the one we just got out of.
The point of calling them a backup was to point out the rookie contract is cheaper than prices we've paid for backups and the talent likely higher.

Pass rusher is absolutely equal to protecting the QB against a pass rusher. In fact protecting your own QB is more important than sacking the opposing team's QB by orders of shit tons. Sack another QB you might win a game, lose your QB and you lose the season. But I'm not the one saying to spend #2 on oline or dline.

That you think you need #5-#7 to get a pass rusher shows how deep of a black hole that thinking is. It's why the Bears have been losers for so long. We just spent the top 2 picks on defense. Now you want a top 10 pick on defense. And next year it will be the same thing. Lather rinse repeat just like repeating being a loser team for so long.
Every freakin time we get a top 10 pick it has to be for defense because only defense is worthy of that talent. If that was the play why aren't we winning more than Pats? Why are we down here with the Browns if this is the winning recipe?

We needed Smith because he can tackle. Same year we needed to trade for a pass rusher and traded that QB's chances for an offense away for the rest of his rookie contract. Where has this great defense been and why did we just give them away for a song if that is the solution to this team?
You act like this has ever worked and it hasn't. If it was the solution we would be the Patriots, we would be Packers.

Ok, someone does not know what the GOAT means.

Mahomes is beyond amazing so far, yet he is not the GOAT ... yet. If Mahomes cannot be considered the GOAT, no rookie player hidden on the bench can be considered the GOAT.

 

[Chicagosports89]

Sam Darnold was a generational prospect in college too. Now, you can get him for a couple buffet coupons and a stick of gum. Meanwhile, the true greats like Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, etc could’ve been had for much less than the top pick.

Darnold wasn't even the first qb taken in his draft

 

[Myk]

Nobody was giving a #1 for Love a year later and even if they did, it's not worth what a same year #1 is, depending on draft position. Easy enough to search assumed trade value.

Unless you get a significantly higher #1 the next year, you've lost that bet, period. You use Love as an example. How did GBs starter react to looking over his shoulder when the team had other needs. Something else we haven't even addressed yet in this scenario? If you need to push your starter, you don't have one. The idea that a guy like Fields would benefit from that is ludicrous.

You have a young, talented, warrior QB that needs reps and you think it's better to split those. So you would trade Fields and keep your backup because you could get your pick back and switch to that backup for no gain in value? WTF!

You take the QB to cash in on draft day, not to tread water, swallow a little in the process and come up for air next year. You'd have to assume the pick would be better than Fields and that's a fool's errand when 1/2 of 1st round QBs aren't destinations.

The idea is to take a prospect and trade him immediately to another desperate team that has already targeted him in the draft and talked themselves into moving for him. A year later, that perspective will have changed.

The odds of him being better than Fields are below 50%. Look at Fields' draft class and the 1st 3 picks. Would you trade Justin for any of those? Would you have given the #1 overall pick in the 2022 draft for Zach Wilson because that's where you'd have to be to almost get you value back a year later.

Instead of copping to an error, you're not thinking this through and spinning to defend a poor position.

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume Fields is the guy when he hasn't shown it, as should be expected without a team around him. You assume the GM who didn't put a team around him is sold on him being the guy. You assume the QB in the draft is worse than Fields and the one who should be the backup. And then you assume that you get rid of the better QB and keep the worst one.
You're stacking the deck with assumptions to make your argument.

And this all comes down to an ignorant OP claim that nobody will move up to take a QB. And that's sprinkled with a heaping helping of a bunch of defeatists who think a #2 pick somehow doesn't have as high of a trade value if it's the Bears that have it.

There is also a bunch of wishful thinking going on from people who want defense the year after we get out of a #8 contract and Mack's contract and hope to repeat it with a #2 pick. They will spin it any way they can to claim we'll magically come out on the losing end of any trade down or that any player taken other than defense is a waste. Ironically the same year we proved a #8 on defense was a wasted pick and a #5 pick on defense was too expensive to keep and his great talent was easily negated.

I want to trade down, preferably out of the top 10. That way we double up on our whole draft plus get something from next year, or a trade of a similar value. That is how normal teams avoid having rebuilds that take years. I only say to take a QB #2 because of people pretending other teams will try to strong arm the team into taking defense #2 like that's the only option. No it's not the only option, if a team won't trade up to get their QB I'm taking a QB out of spite. It won't make our team worse. It won't cost us any more than what we normally spend for QBs.

Rodgers not taking kindly to them getting Love is different because Rodgers has earned it, but even so that is a case of a #1 needing to look over his shoulder although for different reasons. That he thought he should be the anointed one until he's gone before the team is allowed to plan for a future without him shows how he needed to be knocked down a few pegs.
If Fields is already that that Rodgers diva status he needs to be traded now.
I can't think of any time where having multiple QBs meant splitting reps with the Bears. The starter is the one who gets the starter reps until injury or the other one proves they are worthy of getting the reps.

 

[Bearly]

You make a lot of assumptions. You assume Fields is the guy when he hasn't shown it, as should be expected without a team around him. You assume the GM who didn't put a team around him is sold on him being the guy. You assume the QB in the draft is worse than Fields and the one who should be the backup. And then you assume that you get rid of the better QB and keep the worst one.
You're stacking the deck with assumptions to make your argument.

And this all comes down to an ignorant OP claim that nobody will move up to take a QB. And that's sprinkled with a heaping helping of a bunch of defeatists who think a #2 pick somehow doesn't have as high of a trade value if it's the Bears that have it.

There is also a bunch of wishful thinking going on from people who want defense the year after we get out of a #8 contract and Mack's contract and hope to repeat it with a #2 pick. They will spin it any way they can to claim we'll magically come out on the losing end of any trade down or that any player taken other than defense is a waste. Ironically the same year we proved a #8 on defense was a wasted pick and a #5 pick on defense was too expensive to keep and his great talent was easily negated.

I want to trade down, preferably out of the top 10. That way we double up on our whole draft plus get something from next year, or a trade of a similar value. That is how normal teams avoid having rebuilds that take years. I only say to take a QB #2 because of people pretending other teams will try to strong arm the team into taking defense #2 like that's the only option. No it's not the only option, if a team won't trade up to get their QB I'm taking a QB out of spite. It won't make our team worse. It won't cost us any more than what we normally spend for QBs.

Rodgers not taking kindly to them getting Love is different because Rodgers has earned it, but even so that is a case of a #1 needing to look over his shoulder although for different reasons. That he thought he should be the anointed one until he's gone before the team is allowed to plan for a future without him shows how he needed to be knocked down a few pegs.
If Fields is already that that Rodgers diva status he needs to be traded now.
I can't think of any time where having multiple QBs meant splitting reps with the Bears. The starter is the one who gets the starter reps until injury or the other one proves they are worthy of getting the reps.

LOL. I'm making assumptions? This isn't about trading down (1st part) that I agreed with but why would you consider doing so if you didn't think Fields was the guy as you suggested may be the case in the above? You're all over the fucking map on this.

This is about the 2nd part. You thinking it's OK to hold on to the picked QB for a year and then trading him. If you can't stay on task, there's no point in going further. You made a poor post with poor assumptions. I'm not entertaining you rewriting that nor discussing other things that aren't part of what I was referring to.

 

[nc0gnet0]

You want a high salary or was that sarcasm?
If the goal is to have a high salaried pass rusher why didn't we keep Mack? At least we knew he was good.

The thing keeping us from being competitive is the team. We have a lot more holes than one #2 player can fill. That is why I would want to trade down, preferably out of the top 10 where it would double our draft and probably add to future drafts.

I only said to grab a QB if the ludicrous claim that no other teams would want to move up to #2 for a QB happens. Even if we want to spend #2 on a pass rusher to hamper ourselves with another Mack contract on a player the refs will allowed to be held freely we're going to get offers for #2. I'm sure even #1 will get offers no matter how obvious it is they want the top QB pick of the litter.

You're delusional. Picking a QB (and not playing him) high in the draft is a lot like buying a new car. The moment you drive it off the lot, the value depreciates. By any chance are you the illegitimate son of Brian Gutekunst? Most Gm's want their first round picks to be immediate starters, not ride the pine for a few years hoping for some pie in the sky return.

 

[Myk]

LOL. I'm making assumptions? This isn't about trading down (1st part) that I agreed with but why would you consider doing so if you didn't think Fields was the guy as you suggested may be the case in the above? You're all over the fucking map on this.

This is about the 2nd part. You thinking it's OK to hold on to the picked QB for a year and then trading him. If you can't stay on task, there's no point in going further. You made a poor post with poor assumptions. I'm not entertaining you rewriting that nor discussing other things that aren't part of what I was referring to.

I have to be all over the place when dealing with asinine assumptions.

I do think Fields could be that guy. That doesn't mean there can't be a better QB, he hasn't proven he's the best.
I also think there will be no problem trading down for a haul which should fix all the holes on offense and defense. But the idiots want to fix all the Bears problems by getting one defensive player at #2 and they're trying to strong arm my Monday GM into doing what they want. Well it didn't work, my Monday GM drafted the QB. If I can't fix the offense this year I'm writing Fields off and need another QB.
Their pretend team didn't get their QB and the team they want to force to get defense with #2 didn't get that either.

If you don't want me to be all over the place accept what I said the first time and be done with it. If you won't trade a fair value for #2 and you want a QB I'm taking the QB from you. End of story.

 

[nc0gnet0]

If you want the top DE or 3-tech, it is best to stay in the top 4.

Like with any trade down situation, the team needs to ask, "How far can I drop and be assured one of our top picks?"

Seeing that there is one DE and one 3-tech who are almost sure bets for the Bears having on their list of top picks, two QBs plus those two players makes their low point pick 4.

If, for example, they absolutely want the DE, then they have to trade with the Lions. Now some people are going to scoff at the Bears trading with the Lions.

Here are three scenarios:

1. The Bears trade with the Lions for X number of picks, the Lions get their QB, and the Bears get their DE.
2. The Bears trade with Seattle for Y number of picks, Seattle gets their QB, the Lions get the DE creating a monster of a pass rush duo, the Bears lose their DE but get their 3-tech which was not in the Bears top tier.
3. The Bears pick their DE at 2 and the Lions get their QB without having to pay anything.

It all depends how many players the Bears have in their top tier of prospects.

Somebody gets it. Give me scenario number 2 please. And this is precisely why the Lions will not offer a kings ransom to move up one pick. If I am the Lions GM, (and this is assuming the current draft order remains unchanged, which is a stretch in itself) I am calling Chicago and saying, look, we will swap picks and give you this years second rounder (from Minnesota) and a second rounder next year. If you choose not to accept our offer, fine, we will draft Will Anderson.

 

[pdxbearsfan]

Is USC going to be playing in the Big 10 next year?

If so, that will give a better assessment.

I think so but UCLA is still up in the air.

 

[Bearly]

I have to be all over the place when dealing with asinine assumptions.

I do think Fields could be that guy. That doesn't mean there can't be a better QB, he hasn't proven he's the best.
I also think there will be no problem trading down for a haul which should fix all the holes on offense and defense. But the idiots want to fix all the Bears problems by getting one defensive player at #2 and they're trying to strong arm my Monday GM into doing what they want. Well it didn't work, my Monday GM drafted the QB. If I can't fix the offense this year I'm writing Fields off and need another QB.
Their pretend team didn't get their QB and the team they want to force to get defense with #2 didn't get that either.

If you don't want me to be all over the place accept what I said the first time and be done with it. If you won't trade a fair value for #2 and you want a QB I'm taking the QB from you. End of story.

You know, I tried. Same Old shit. More interested in being right than engaging in real convo.
Just piss off.

 

[jive]

Well the #2 pick isn't for what you want in a year with allegedly 2 top QB prospects. It's a QB position so you trade down or you get the QB if nobody will pay (and somebody will pay). You don't let someone (especially not a division rival) take that QB for free when you have the spot to draft them and aren't sure the QB you have is the GOAT. That QB isn't to be a backup, that QB is hopefully the GOAT or you trade him before letting everyone know he isn't. If he is the GOAT then you trade our known commodity at QB who still has 2 years left on contract. Either way we make out better than resigning another bloated high pick pass rusher contract like the one we just got out of.
The point of calling them a backup was to point out the rookie contract is cheaper than prices we've paid for backups and the talent likely higher.

Pass rusher is absolutely equal to protecting the QB against a pass rusher. In fact protecting your own QB is more important than sacking the opposing team's QB by orders of shit tons. Sack another QB you might win a game, lose your QB and you lose the season. But I'm not the one saying to spend #2 on oline or dline.

That you think you need #5-#7 to get a pass rusher shows how deep of a black hole that thinking is. It's why the Bears have been losers for so long. We just spent the top 2 picks on defense. Now you want a top 10 pick on defense. And next year it will be the same thing. Lather rinse repeat just like repeating being a loser team for so long.
Every freakin time we get a top 10 pick it has to be for defense because only defense is worthy of that talent. If that was the play why aren't we winning more than Pats? Why are we down here with the Browns if this is the winning recipe?

We needed Smith because he can tackle. Same year we needed to trade for a pass rusher and traded that QB's chances for an offense away for the rest of his rookie contract. Where has this great defense been and why did we just give them away for a song if that is the solution to this team?
You act like this has ever worked and it hasn't. If it was the solution we would be the Patriots, we would be Packers.

FWIW, Our worst busts in the top 10 have come on offense (Terrell, Benson, White, Trubisky)

If you watch the games instead of the highlights or stat sheets, you'll see it's not the offense that is keeping us from winning games. It's absolutely the defense. If the goal is to win more games, then you have to focus on the D for this specific team.

You know what position we have not drafted when we had a top 10 pick? Pass rusher or DT. Maybe that is what is keeping us from winning like other teams. Playoff teams will use a top pick for a pass rusher. There is no doubt that Von Miller, Gerald McCoy, Jadaveon Clowney, Khalil Mack, Joey Bosa, DeForest Buckner, Bradley Chubb, and Nick Bosa were crucial in their teams' playoff run. Maybe if we could draft a top pass rusher, we wouldn't have to give up draft picks or take on expensive free agent contracts.

Just admit that taking a QB with the #2 pick is just a stoned idea, WTF would a team with a franchise QB and a godawful defense pass on taking the top edge rusher or 3-tech? If the player doesn't turn out to be a bust, it would improve the defense immediately. More bang for the buck as it would make the LBs and DBs better. We already have someone that makes our OL and receivers appear better, and that's Justin Fields. We need a guy like that on D.