What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Fields NFL trade value? (1 Viewer)

I watched 95% of the snaps Fields took over the past 2 years. I don't think he's a good passer, but it's not because he's inaccurate (I'd estimate he's about average when it comes to accuracy). The problem is he doesn't know what he's seeing. I truly believe that. While it's true his supporting cast sucks there have been way too many instances where he didn't see an opportunity or failed to simply throw the ball away before getting sacked. His ability to run/scramble often works against him as he probably thinks he can always make something happen. In his defense, he's an almost inhuman runner, but still even someone of Fields' ability can't make something out of every single play.
It's possible his decision making would improve with an improved cast. Still, I'm not sure he'll ever be an effective pocket passer in the league. And sadly, the speed fades after a couple of years of hits. With all that said, I still think they need to keep Fields rather than trade for the unknown because there is little reason to think any of these new QB's will be any better...it's a crap shoot.
I saw Fields play a lot for Ohio State. If he has time to throw and has receivers that get separation, he is more than capable as a passer. I agree at the pro level his reads aren't great, but when you are always behind and feel like he have to make plays, you end up holding the ball too long and taking sacks (vs. throwing the ball away). I think with better coaching and more experience, he can do much better with that. I also think with more blocking and some weapons that can get open, he wouldn't be forced to hold the ball and would be more decisive.

In some ways, I think QBs coming out from Alabama and Ohio State have BETTER weapons in college than they do in the NFL. I think it's tougher for them working with average Joe's at receiver at the pro level than a batch of future NFL first rounders in college.
Yes. He definitely had better talent at Ohio State. More importantly though, the talent differential was greater...his WRs in the NFL will never be as consistently open as they were at Ohio State, even if he gets top tier talent. I'm curious if we've ever seen a guy in the NFL make a leap from year 1&2 to year 3&4 in this specific aspect of QB play (reading the defense and throwing guys open).
First to mind comes Josh Allen, but I don't think his passing numbers in year 2 were nearly as bad as Fields' were this year. I know people don't like to hear it around Chicago, but Fields lagged the NFL by a wide margin in many passing metrics.
 
I watched 95% of the snaps Fields took over the past 2 years. I don't think he's a good passer, but it's not because he's inaccurate (I'd estimate he's about average when it comes to accuracy). The problem is he doesn't know what he's seeing. I truly believe that. While it's true his supporting cast sucks there have been way too many instances where he didn't see an opportunity or failed to simply throw the ball away before getting sacked. His ability to run/scramble often works against him as he probably thinks he can always make something happen. In his defense, he's an almost inhuman runner, but still even someone of Fields' ability can't make something out of every single play.
It's possible his decision making would improve with an improved cast. Still, I'm not sure he'll ever be an effective pocket passer in the league. And sadly, the speed fades after a couple of years of hits. With all that said, I still think they need to keep Fields rather than trade for the unknown because there is little reason to think any of these new QB's will be any better...it's a crap shoot.
I saw Fields play a lot for Ohio State. If he has time to throw and has receivers that get separation, he is more than capable as a passer. I agree at the pro level his reads aren't great, but when you are always behind and feel like he have to make plays, you end up holding the ball too long and taking sacks (vs. throwing the ball away). I think with better coaching and more experience, he can do much better with that. I also think with more blocking and some weapons that can get open, he wouldn't be forced to hold the ball and would be more decisive.

In some ways, I think QBs coming out from Alabama and Ohio State have BETTER weapons in college than they do in the NFL. I think it's tougher for them working with average Joe's at receiver at the pro level than a batch of future NFL first rounders in college.
Yes. He definitely had better talent at Ohio State. More importantly though, the talent differential was greater...his WRs in the NFL will never be as consistently open as they were at Ohio State, even if he gets top tier talent. I'm curious if we've ever seen a guy in the NFL make a leap from year 1&2 to year 3&4 in this specific aspect of QB play (reading the defense and throwing guys open).
First to mind comes Josh Allen, but I don't think his passing numbers in year 2 were nearly as bad as Fields' were this year. I know people don't like to hear it around Chicago, but Fields lagged the NFL by a wide margin in many passing metrics.
On a per attempt basis:

Fields in year 2 had better passing numbers than Josh Allen. Higher completion %, and YPA.

Fields numbers weren't that far off 2021 Jalen Hurts.

Fields numbers were better than 2016 and 2017 Cam Newton.

Fields numbers were very similar to 2022 Derek Carr.

I really don't get this idea at all that Fields is some run-only player who is a horrible passer. Yes, his passing wasn't great, but it wasn't like he was Tim Tebow.
 
It's a fun thought exercise trading away Fields for a bundle, but it's incumbent on Eberflus to build a roster around JF. That was the deal and we all know it.
 
I watched 95% of the snaps Fields took over the past 2 years. I don't think he's a good passer, but it's not because he's inaccurate (I'd estimate he's about average when it comes to accuracy). The problem is he doesn't know what he's seeing. I truly believe that. While it's true his supporting cast sucks there have been way too many instances where he didn't see an opportunity or failed to simply throw the ball away before getting sacked. His ability to run/scramble often works against him as he probably thinks he can always make something happen. In his defense, he's an almost inhuman runner, but still even someone of Fields' ability can't make something out of every single play.
It's possible his decision making would improve with an improved cast. Still, I'm not sure he'll ever be an effective pocket passer in the league. And sadly, the speed fades after a couple of years of hits. With all that said, I still think they need to keep Fields rather than trade for the unknown because there is little reason to think any of these new QB's will be any better...it's a crap shoot.
I saw Fields play a lot for Ohio State. If he has time to throw and has receivers that get separation, he is more than capable as a passer. I agree at the pro level his reads aren't great, but when you are always behind and feel like he have to make plays, you end up holding the ball too long and taking sacks (vs. throwing the ball away). I think with better coaching and more experience, he can do much better with that. I also think with more blocking and some weapons that can get open, he wouldn't be forced to hold the ball and would be more decisive.

In some ways, I think QBs coming out from Alabama and Ohio State have BETTER weapons in college than they do in the NFL. I think it's tougher for them working with average Joe's at receiver at the pro level than a batch of future NFL first rounders in college.
Yes. He definitely had better talent at Ohio State. More importantly though, the talent differential was greater...his WRs in the NFL will never be as consistently open as they were at Ohio State, even if he gets top tier talent. I'm curious if we've ever seen a guy in the NFL make a leap from year 1&2 to year 3&4 in this specific aspect of QB play (reading the defense and throwing guys open).
First to mind comes Josh Allen, but I don't think his passing numbers in year 2 were nearly as bad as Fields' were this year. I know people don't like to hear it around Chicago, but Fields lagged the NFL by a wide margin in many passing metrics.
On a per attempt basis:

Fields in year 2 had better passing numbers than Josh Allen. Higher completion %, and YPA.

Fields numbers weren't that far off 2021 Jalen Hurts.

Fields numbers were better than 2016 and 2017 Cam Newton.

Fields numbers were very similar to 2022 Derek Carr.

I really don't get this idea at all that Fields is some run-only player who is a horrible passer. Yes, his passing wasn't great, but it wasn't like he was Tim Tebow.
I want Fields to be a success, I'm a Bears fan. But I watched the games, and I'm telling you he's an awful passing QB at this point. Can he get better? Sure, maybe with help. But he is a long way away and anyone who tells you otherwise didn't watch the games.
One thing you have to remember when looking at Fields' stats this year is he only threw the ball when he felt like someone was obviously open or knew he had a very high chance of success. He simply didn't attempt to throw into tight windows, like basically ever.
In 15 games he threw for 2242 yards. And that was on a team that was losing almost all the time. In 15 games he threw for over 200 yards TWICE. That alone demonstrates he simply didn't make anything happen with his arm most of the time.
It can get better with better personnel around him, but to date it's been very, very bad.
 
Re: Fields passing strengths/weaknesses, I'd recommend watching The QB School analysis. YouTube search QB School Justin Fields. Sure it's just one person's analysis, but he breaks down a lot of plays in a lot of games over the season. One of the things he mentions on multiple occasions is how Fields is actually going through his progressions, which is a big deal for a young QB. Another common theme was the lack of separation his targets are getting. One of his criticisms of Fields was that he often looked for the big play and often it was to the detriment of the play.
Again it's one man's take but it showed me there was a lot to like about the progress that Fields has made this season.
 
Re: Fields passing strengths/weaknesses, I'd recommend watching The QB School analysis. YouTube search QB School Justin Fields. Sure it's just one person's analysis, but he breaks down a lot of plays in a lot of games over the season. One of the things he mentions on multiple occasions is how Fields is actually going through his progressions, which is a big deal for a young QB. Another common theme was the lack of separation his targets are getting. One of his criticisms of Fields was that he often looked for the big play and often it was to the detriment of the play.
Again it's one man's take but it showed me there was a lot to like about the progress that Fields has made this season.
If the Bears don’t build a team around Fields they are foolish. Fields had a horrible o line and very little talent at WR. How does anyone know what Fields can do as a passer in the NFL?
 
Every year we have to argue about something/someone to fill the off-season. Last year it was Pittman, this year maybe it's Fields.
 
if you think Fields is going to become Hurts, or Josh Allen you're not watching football. Fields will , one day, get his bell wrung and have a Tua concussed moment. it happens to all the run-first QBs in NFL history, someone, someday, is going to hurt him badly and thus make him a pocket passer , or a wannabe pocket passer. that's where the tread comes off the tires.
I would make Fields a WR/TE/RB hybrid, and draft another QB. Kyler Murray had a cup of coffee as a good QB in the NFL, this year he looked like pure garbage.
Fields is much closer to Kordell Stewart than he is to Josh Allen, Hurts, etc.
 
Yep!

Tagliova, Hurts, Fields, Lance, Jackson, Murray (I know I'm missing some more) - all running QBs and every single one of them didn't finish the season because of injury due to running.

There is a reason pocket passers like Rodgers, Brees, Brady and a host of others have longevity in the league - and it's because they don't call their own number and flee/run at the first sign of a defensive lineman. There is a reason "running QBs" run - it's because they can't pass. That running costs them extra missing games/seasons EVERY year.

Running QBs are a very expensive short term solution for a position that needs stability for the long term. This running QB fad needs to end. How about we let RBs run the ball and QBs PASS the ball? Y'know, what they're hired for? If your QB is running more than your RB, you have a problem at the QB position, not the RB position.

If I were a GM, Fields wouldn't be worth more than a 3rd or 4th rounder - I want my QBs to know how to pass the ball accurately. Running should supplement that passing ability, not be the primary tool in his toolbox.
The first bolded is completely wrong. Lance is the only one who got injured while running. Tua isn't a running QB at all, and the others got hurt being sacked, except Murray who suffered a non-contact injury, and doesn't really count. I would agree that running QBs aren't as stable long-term as pocket passers, but they certainly have value, and aren't a fad. Some of them develop as passers too, like Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson did, and Hurts seems to be getting there. Frankly the second bolded is untrue of any of your earlier examples, except maybe Lance.

Thing is, there are only so many top passers, its not like running QBs are being chosen over passing QBs in general, its another option. There are typically maybe 10 quality pocket passers in the NFL, its not like there are these great passers who are just stuck behind running QBs who can't pass. Any QB who does anything well, is worth a 3rd or 4th. If they are elite at it, like Fields is, they are worth a lot more.

What would be some examples of pocket QBs you would take over the bolded that isn't someone everyone would, like Burrow/Herbert or someone like that? You taking Mac Jones over those guys?
So you want me to pick a pocket passer QB but I can't pick any good pocket passer QBs currently playing or have ever played? Wut?
Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying nobody is arguing any of those guys over Burrow/Herbert.

I'm asking what pocket passers, on a similar level/perception as those running QBs are you taking overt those running QBs? Unless I'm misunderstanding, and you are saying you would prefer any pocket passer QB over those guys, but I'm assuming that isn't what you are saying.

The first bolded is completely wrong. Lance is the only one who got injured while running. Tua isn't a running QB at all, and the others got hurt being sacked, except Murray who suffered a non-contact injury, and doesn't really count. I would agree that running QBs aren't as stable long-term as pocket passers, but they certainly have value, and aren't a fad. Some of them develop as passers too, like Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson did, and Hurts seems to be getting there. Frankly the second bolded is untrue of any of your earlier examples, except maybe Lance.

Thing is, there are only so many top passers, its not like running QBs are being chosen over passing QBs in general, its another option. There are typically maybe 10 quality pocket passers in the NFL, its not like there are these great passers who are just stuck behind running QBs who can't pass. Any QB who does anything well, is worth a 3rd or 4th. If they are elite at it, like Fields is, they are worth a lot more.

What would be some examples of pocket QBs you would take over the bolded that isn't someone everyone would, like Burrow/Herbert or someone like that? You taking Mac Jones over those guys?

The problem is these teams are looking for their Vicks/Cunninghams. There's never going to be a guy like Randall again. He was before his time. Athletes today are much better in all positions. The problem also is you got coaches GMs etc with egos who think if they can fix X guy they will be put in the Hall etc.

My preferred QB Skill wise is a Elway/Young/Rodgers/Big Ben type. Guy who can throw all over the field but if needed can move around in the pocket or even pick up some yards or score a TD here and there with his legs in the RZ. I don't need this gimmicky ******** running the QB when you have a position player paid for that already

I'd take Derrik Carr I think he's underrated and he's had how many HC's since he began? Trevor Lawerence is another. I think Jimmy G is a serviceable option in the right situation.
Obviously, everyone would prefer a HOF QB. Only maybe 3-5 of those a decade though. Trevor Lawrence, I will give you, though he went #1 overall, and that pick probably wasn't going anywhere for pretty much any price.

I'd be curious to see where others land on guys like Carr and Jimmy G. Personally, I'd take all of Lamar, Hurts, Murray, and Fields over Jimmy G. Carr is closer, but I'd still prefer the "runners."

I would take Lamar or Murray with a 5O foot pole. If you are more concerned playing video games then studying film I don't want you. That "amazing" 2 PT conversion he made earlier in the year if he studied film or realized what he was doing he had a Wide open WR in the back of the corner part of the EZ he could've thrown it too already.

Lamar is just an athlete playing QB. Don't see him taking a team on his back in the post season and winning. He's gotten insured too much. He hasn't done a lick in the playoffs either. Lamar also screwed himself out of a ton of money right now.

I'm not sold on Hurts. He's been inconsistent through his college career. I need to see what he does in the playoffs and if the Eagles lose their OC I want to see how he deals with that. If the right offer and a chance to move up for one of the big guys came to fruition for the Eagles I'd hope they'd take it a long hard consideration for it honestly.

I really don't want any running QB on my Team like a Lamar because they'd never fully developed as passers and I think they have a shorter NFL Shelf life in terms of prime.
 
I think fans and media get super infatuated with the runners because they make the sexy highlight reel plays. We're not talking Mahomes stuff he does more stuff throwing then running but the athletic part. I get it. This is what sells ratings and stuff. But these guys have a shorter shelf life in the NFL and if not on the right teams you are wasting their prime. Lamar on Baltimore was great because of the team already built. I think their time has past with him at QB and they need to move on in the offseason. These guys are easily injured and their athleticism goes away faster. They never developed pocket passer or proper mechanics because they were usually best athlete on the field could get away with their athletic ability and speed. They're good being drafted on win now teams who have a great defense, Good Run Game, Good OLine and skill position players and just needing a QB to get them closer. These guys aren't top pick franchise QBs they're win now and chance long term success to chase short term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bri
There's a most popular jersey in each state chart/map floating around and that had me googling for some data....Fields' merch sales are very strong.
I gotta think this matters as the almighty dollar expression.
 
Many in here are underselling the value of Fields. His entire team is atrocious. No wrs. OL is nonexistent. Yes, he needs to continue to improve in passing, but this guy single handedly kept the Bears in most games last year. Look at the roster. There's a reason they have so much cap space next year. There's no one worth a **** on the entire team.
 
Apparently they were talking trading Fields at the senior bowl. The sources of the rumors were common peddlers so let's see if more of this talk at the Combine
 
Discussed on Sirrius- A first and young player or first and next year third could definitely get it done now. They could get more or ruin their chances. Discussed how most teams that would want a young QB are in a good position to draft one so it's not ideal for Bears
 
Many in here are underselling the value of Fields. His entire team is atrocious. No wrs. OL is nonexistent. Yes, he needs to continue to improve in passing, but this guy single handedly kept the Bears in most games last year. Look at the roster. There's a reason they have so much cap space next year. There's no one worth a **** on the entire team.
Despite both being Bears fans, we disagree a lot on the team. This is not one of those times. Fields was the least of the Bears problems. I would disagree about the OL, I thought they were actually decent, and am encouraged by it going forward, but yes, the WRs were the worst in the NFL once Mooney went down, and in bottom 5 with him, and the defense only existed in theory. Even the running game kinda sucked when you aren't counting Fields, which is usually a strength with running QBs, as the QB draws at least 1 extra defender.

Discussed on Sirrius- A first and young player or first and next year third could definitely get it done now. They could get more or ruin their chances. Discussed how most teams that would want a young QB are in a good position to draft one so it's not ideal for Bears
I'd want more than the bolded, but for the sake of argument assuming there is any truth to that report, 3 teams picking later on that immediately jump out to me are:

1. New Orleans, they are always aggressive, and got that extra 1st from the Sean Payton deal to play with. The #30 and #41 picks for Fields?

2. Tampa Bay, they could potentially blow it up, but why? There is no real reason they can't win the division again next year as long as the QB play isn't awful. #19 and #51 for Fields?

3. Washington, probably make the playoffs last year if Fields was their QB. He's certainly a better option than Howell, and Howell is easily keepable as a backup. #16 and 2024 2 for Fields?

ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.
 
Many in here are underselling the value of Fields. His entire team is atrocious. No wrs. OL is nonexistent. Yes, he needs to continue to improve in passing, but this guy single handedly kept the Bears in most games last year. Look at the roster. There's a reason they have so much cap space next year. There's no one worth a **** on the entire team.
Despite both being Bears fans, we disagree a lot on the team. This is not one of those times. Fields was the least of the Bears problems. I would disagree about the OL, I thought they were actually decent, and am encouraged by it going forward, but yes, the WRs were the worst in the NFL once Mooney went down, and in bottom 5 with him, and the defense only existed in theory. Even the running game kinda sucked when you aren't counting Fields, which is usually a strength with running QBs, as the QB draws at least 1 extra defender.

Discussed on Sirrius- A first and young player or first and next year third could definitely get it done now. They could get more or ruin their chances. Discussed how most teams that would want a young QB are in a good position to draft one so it's not ideal for Bears
I'd want more than the bolded, but for the sake of argument assuming there is any truth to that report, 3 teams picking later on that immediately jump out to me are:

1. New Orleans, they are always aggressive, and got that extra 1st from the Sean Payton deal to play with. The #30 and #41 picks for Fields?

2. Tampa Bay, they could potentially blow it up, but why? There is no real reason they can't win the division again next year as long as the QB play isn't awful. #19 and #51 for Fields?

3. Washington, probably make the playoffs last year if Fields was their QB. He's certainly a better option than Howell, and Howell is easily keepable as a backup. #16 and 2024 2 for Fields?

ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.

1.13 isn’t too far back but Fields on the jets would be very interesting imo. I’d be more interested in him than Rodgers for their team. Defense minded coach, talented skill players.
 
Many in here are underselling the value of Fields. His entire team is atrocious. No wrs. OL is nonexistent. Yes, he needs to continue to improve in passing, but this guy single handedly kept the Bears in most games last year. Look at the roster. There's a reason they have so much cap space next year. There's no one worth a **** on the entire team.
Despite both being Bears fans, we disagree a lot on the team. This is not one of those times. Fields was the least of the Bears problems. I would disagree about the OL, I thought they were actually decent, and am encouraged by it going forward, but yes, the WRs were the worst in the NFL once Mooney went down, and in bottom 5 with him, and the defense only existed in theory. Even the running game kinda sucked when you aren't counting Fields, which is usually a strength with running QBs, as the QB draws at least 1 extra defender.

Discussed on Sirrius- A first and young player or first and next year third could definitely get it done now. They could get more or ruin their chances. Discussed how most teams that would want a young QB are in a good position to draft one so it's not ideal for Bears
I'd want more than the bolded, but for the sake of argument assuming there is any truth to that report, 3 teams picking later on that immediately jump out to me are:

1. New Orleans, they are always aggressive, and got that extra 1st from the Sean Payton deal to play with. The #30 and #41 picks for Fields?

2. Tampa Bay, they could potentially blow it up, but why? There is no real reason they can't win the division again next year as long as the QB play isn't awful. #19 and #51 for Fields?

3. Washington, probably make the playoffs last year if Fields was their QB. He's certainly a better option than Howell, and Howell is easily keepable as a backup. #16 and 2024 2 for Fields?

ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.

1.13 isn’t too far back but Fields on the jets would be very interesting imo. I’d be more interested in him than Rodgers for their team. Defense minded coach, talented skill players.
I think that'd make a lot of sense too, but it seems like NY wants a veteran. Like they'd rather have Carr and keep the #13.
 
Many in here are underselling the value of Fields. His entire team is atrocious. No wrs. OL is nonexistent. Yes, he needs to continue to improve in passing, but this guy single handedly kept the Bears in most games last year. Look at the roster. There's a reason they have so much cap space next year. There's no one worth a **** on the entire team.
Despite both being Bears fans, we disagree a lot on the team. This is not one of those times. Fields was the least of the Bears problems. I would disagree about the OL, I thought they were actually decent, and am encouraged by it going forward, but yes, the WRs were the worst in the NFL once Mooney went down, and in bottom 5 with him, and the defense only existed in theory. Even the running game kinda sucked when you aren't counting Fields, which is usually a strength with running QBs, as the QB draws at least 1 extra defender.

Discussed on Sirrius- A first and young player or first and next year third could definitely get it done now. They could get more or ruin their chances. Discussed how most teams that would want a young QB are in a good position to draft one so it's not ideal for Bears
I'd want more than the bolded, but for the sake of argument assuming there is any truth to that report, 3 teams picking later on that immediately jump out to me are:

1. New Orleans, they are always aggressive, and got that extra 1st from the Sean Payton deal to play with. The #30 and #41 picks for Fields?

2. Tampa Bay, they could potentially blow it up, but why? There is no real reason they can't win the division again next year as long as the QB play isn't awful. #19 and #51 for Fields?

3. Washington, probably make the playoffs last year if Fields was their QB. He's certainly a better option than Howell, and Howell is easily keepable as a backup. #16 and 2024 2 for Fields?

ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.

1.13 isn’t too far back but Fields on the jets would be very interesting imo. I’d be more interested in him than Rodgers for their team. Defense minded coach, talented skill players.
I think that'd make a lot of sense too, but it seems like NY wants a veteran. Like they'd rather have Carr and keep the #13.

Yeah, this would be assuming Carr signed elsewhere.
Kinda forgot Fields doesn’t like the 🥶 so that may be a factor too.
 
Yeah, this would be assuming Carr signed elsewhere.
Kinda forgot Fields doesn’t like the 🥶 so that may be a factor too.
I’m not sure any QB likes the cold. He was just young enough to answer honestly when asked about playing in the Chicago weather.

And he’s right - they should have a dome. It’s one of the worst weather situations for an NFL team.

Ever been to chicago? I used to go to a packaging equipment convention at McCormick Place every other year in winter. One year we thought it would be fun to walk the 4 blocks to dinner. I’ll never forget the feeling of coming around a building to a crosswalk and getting hit with freezing wind with such velocity it felt like someone pushed me - I slipped on the icy sidewalk and very nearly broke my a**.

I’m just sayin - I could not imagine anyone enjoying playing in those conditions.

As for Carr, he’d make fields look like Joe Montana playing in those cold, windy, & wet conditions.

Week 1 against the Niners alone justifies Fields dislike of that weather - that was a monsoon. What’d they have, like 100 yards of combined offense? Yikes.

I think people are making a bit too much of his comments about the weather in Chicago. The weather is what it is. I certainly wouldn’t want to have a job where I’m exposed to it. :shrug:
 
Yeah, this would be assuming Carr signed elsewhere.
Kinda forgot Fields doesn’t like the 🥶 so that may be a factor too.
I’m not sure any QB likes the cold. He was just young enough to answer honestly when asked about playing in the Chicago weather.

And he’s right - they should have a dome. It’s one of the worst weather situations for an NFL team.

Ever been to chicago? I used to go to a packaging equipment convention at McCormick Place every other year in winter. One year we thought it would be fun to walk the 4 blocks to dinner. I’ll never forget the feeling of coming around a building to a crosswalk and getting hit with freezing wind with such velocity it felt like someone pushed me - I slipped on the icy sidewalk and very nearly broke my a**.

I’m just sayin - I could not imagine anyone enjoying playing in those conditions.

As for Carr, he’d make fields look like Joe Montana playing in those cold, windy, & wet conditions.

Week 1 against the Niners alone justifies Fields dislike of that weather - that was a monsoon. What’d they have, like 100 yards of combined offense? Yikes.

I think people are making a bit too much of his comments about the weather in Chicago. The weather is what it is. I certainly wouldn’t want to have a job where I’m exposed to it. :shrug:

I grew up in Detroit, visited the Windy City quite often. You’re probably right but at least Rodgers, Brady and others took it as a mental advantage.
I worked for a few years in the Kansas winter and summer - I changed my specialty to be out of the weather more, but was still in it enough. Yeah, it can suck.
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
And he just set a bunch of records! He almost took the single season rushing record & probably would have if they were at all competitive. Or if they’d let him run earlier in the year. 6 weeks of meh, then boom!

Dude had more 40 yard runs than Chubb. And he seemed to improve as a passer when they unshackled his legs. At least until Mooney got hurt.

I’d suggest his value has increased since he was drafted.
 
ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.
Evans doesn’t seem likely to be retained but ya never know.

I agree with the premise in general though.

If the Bears are aggressive in FA/draft/trade they could certainly have something like Evans/Addison/Mooney/Claypool, which would be worlds better than what they’re currently rolling out.
 
ETA: I do feel like Fields would suddenly look a hell of a lot better as a passer if he were throwing to guys like Olave, Godwin/Evans, or McLaurin/Dotson/Samuel.
Evans doesn’t seem likely to be retained but ya never know.

I agree with the premise in general though.

If the Bears are aggressive in FA/draft/trade they could certainly have something like Evans/Addison/Mooney/Claypool, which would be worlds better than what they’re currently rolling out.

One year deal? They’d have to overpay to extend (franchise tag is an option next year I guess but that seems suboptimal)
 
One year deal? They’d have to overpay to extend (franchise tag is an option next year I guess but that seems suboptimal)
They’re on the long list of teams that needs to find a QB for sure.

Surprised there isn’t more “Carr to the Bucs” chatter, or like, any. Seems like a great landing spot for a dude who doesn’t like bad/cold weather.
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
I think the right answer is "it depends." Other than Lawrence, how much would the other 4 QBs taken in the top half of that draft go for now? Wilson, Lance, Fields, or Jones? 3 of them are likely worth a lot less. The next QB drafted was Kyle Trask, and he may not even get a shot at starting in TB.

A few years ago, Josh Rosen's value went from the #10 pick to a 2nd and a 5th the following year. A year later he was outright released. Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.
 
Yeah, this would be assuming Carr signed elsewhere.
Kinda forgot Fields doesn’t like the 🥶 so that may be a factor too.
I’m not sure any QB likes the cold. He was just young enough to answer honestly when asked about playing in the Chicago weather.

And he’s right - they should have a dome. It’s one of the worst weather situations for an NFL team.

Ever been to chicago? I used to go to a packaging equipment convention at McCormick Place every other year in winter. One year we thought it would be fun to walk the 4 blocks to dinner. I’ll never forget the feeling of coming around a building to a crosswalk and getting hit with freezing wind with such velocity it felt like someone pushed me - I slipped on the icy sidewalk and very nearly broke my a**.

I’m just sayin - I could not imagine anyone enjoying playing in those conditions.

As for Carr, he’d make fields look like Joe Montana playing in those cold, windy, & wet conditions.

Week 1 against the Niners alone justifies Fields dislike of that weather - that was a monsoon. What’d they have, like 100 yards of combined offense? Yikes.

I think people are making a bit too much of his comments about the weather in Chicago. The weather is what it is. I certainly wouldn’t want to have a job where I’m exposed to it. :shrug:
Even beyond the weather, its the worst actual field in the NFL. Its pretty much painted mud from October onward. My backyard is probably a better playing surface, and I'm not even a lawn guy.
 
Even beyond the weather, its the worst actual field in the NFL. Its pretty much painted mud from October onward. My backyard is probably a better playing surface, and I'm not even a lawn guy.
DET: 4 hours away, same crap weather, “dome dome dometity dome dome since 1975, b****es!”

Chicago: “PARKOUR!!!”
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
I think the right answer is "it depends." Other than Lawrence, how much would the other 4 QBs taken in the top half of that draft go for now? Wilson, Lance, Fields, or Jones? 3 of them are likely worth a lot less. The next QB drafted was Kyle Trask, and he may not even get a shot at starting in TB.

A few years ago, Josh Rosen's value went from the #10 pick to a 2nd and a 5th the following year. A year later he was outright released. Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.

Yep.
I’d give like 4 1sts for Trevor. Would have given 3 last year. Dude is going to be a menace for the south.
Zach? You’d have to pay us to take him.
Jones might be worth a late 1st at most, more likely a 2. Startable and solid but unlikely to be a catalyst to a championship.
Fields is worth a first between 8-13 and a couple useful items imo.

But then I didn’t think Watson or Russ were worth what they got so what do I know?
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
I think the right answer is "it depends." Other than Lawrence, how much would the other 4 QBs taken in the top half of that draft go for now? Wilson, Lance, Fields, or Jones? 3 of them are likely worth a lot less. The next QB drafted was Kyle Trask, and he may not even get a shot at starting in TB.

A few years ago, Josh Rosen's value went from the #10 pick to a 2nd and a 5th the following year. A year later he was outright released. Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.

Yep.
I’d give like 4 1sts for Trevor. Would have given 3 last year. Dude is going to be a menace for the south.
Zach? You’d have to pay us to take him.
Jones might be worth a late 1st at most, more likely a 2. Startable and solid but unlikely to be a catalyst to a championship.
Fields is worth a first between 8-13 and a couple useful items imo.

But then I didn’t think Watson or Russ were worth what they got so what do I know?
I'd agree with all of this other than I think Lawrence and Fields are closer than that. More so I think that would be grossly overpaying for Lawrence. 4 1sts is like Josh Allen territory.
 
Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.
Yeah that's kinda what I was thinking. It's hard to sell how valuable a player is when his original team already wants to move on. . Plus his first 2 cheap years are already gone.
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
I think the right answer is "it depends." Other than Lawrence, how much would the other 4 QBs taken in the top half of that draft go for now? Wilson, Lance, Fields, or Jones? 3 of them are likely worth a lot less. The next QB drafted was Kyle Trask, and he may not even get a shot at starting in TB.

A few years ago, Josh Rosen's value went from the #10 pick to a 2nd and a 5th the following year. A year later he was outright released. Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.

Yep.
I’d give like 4 1sts for Trevor. Would have given 3 last year. Dude is going to be a menace for the south.
Zach? You’d have to pay us to take him.
Jones might be worth a late 1st at most, more likely a 2. Startable and solid but unlikely to be a catalyst to a championship.
Fields is worth a first between 8-13 and a couple useful items imo.

But then I didn’t think Watson or Russ were worth what they got so what do I know?
I'd agree with all of this other than I think Lawrence and Fields are closer than that. More so I think that would be grossly overpaying for Lawrence. 4 1sts is like Josh Allen territory.
I got the equivalent to 4 firsts for Mahomes in early 2021

TLaw is probably 3 1sts (or equivalent in picks/players)
 
He was the #11 overall pick 2 years ago. How much depreciation of value happens in two years?
I think the right answer is "it depends." Other than Lawrence, how much would the other 4 QBs taken in the top half of that draft go for now? Wilson, Lance, Fields, or Jones? 3 of them are likely worth a lot less. The next QB drafted was Kyle Trask, and he may not even get a shot at starting in TB.

A few years ago, Josh Rosen's value went from the #10 pick to a 2nd and a 5th the following year. A year later he was outright released. Quarterbacks that are good would never be available after two years, so by extension, it's probably a decent conclusion that those that become available have lost some shine and some value.

Yep.
I’d give like 4 1sts for Trevor. Would have given 3 last year. Dude is going to be a menace for the south.
Zach? You’d have to pay us to take him.
Jones might be worth a late 1st at most, more likely a 2. Startable and solid but unlikely to be a catalyst to a championship.
Fields is worth a first between 8-13 and a couple useful items imo.

But then I didn’t think Watson or Russ were worth what they got so what do I know?
I'd agree with all of this other than I think Lawrence and Fields are closer than that. More so I think that would be grossly overpaying for Lawrence. 4 1sts is like Josh Allen territory.

We’ll see. I might be too high on Lawrence after watching him against Bama and the titans too often. Doesn’t really matter though, there’s no chance of him getting traded.
 
My son lives in downtown Chicago and says the local chatter and media coverage has focused on getting Fields more weapons, who they would take with the top pick if they use it, or what they could get back if they trade it. He hasn't heard anything about the Bears trading Fields. Maybe the Bears trading Fields talk is getting conjured up by national media folks?
 
Last edited:
My son lives in downtown Chicago and says the local chatter and media coverage has focused on getting Fields more weapons, who they would take with the top pick if they use it, of what they could get back if they trade it. He hasn't heard anything about the Bears trading Fields. Maybe the Bears trading Fields talk is getting conjured up by national media folks?
Or, as others have asserted previously, by selective leaks to drive the price up.

That said, the 1.01 is the 1.01 - I don’t see why they’d need to drive anything. Just come out and say we’re trading the pick. Come & get it.
 
Last edited:
I still say Fields should command a high 1 + 24 1 aka similar value to the 1.1
Just curious why his value would have gone up after two years. He's halfway through his low dollar rookie contract and hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the passing game. (I get that he had no time to throw and no one to throw to.) If he was worth the #1 pick, they wouldn't be trading him. By trying to move him, 31 other teams will likely think his value will be lower (if he's worth the #1 pick, then they wouldn't trade him . . . and his new team would lose the benefit of two low dollar seasons).
 
I still say Fields should command a high 1 + 24 1 aka similar value to the 1.1
Just curious why his value would have gone up after two years. He's halfway through his low dollar rookie contract and hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the passing game. (I get that he had no time to throw and no one to throw to.) If he was worth the #1 pick, they wouldn't be trading him. By trying to move him, 31 other teams will likely think his value will be lower (if he's worth the #1 pick, then they wouldn't trade him . . . and his new team would lose the benefit of two low dollar seasons).
he's worth more because he's proven to have some legit nfl qb value vs the 1.1 which is totally unknown. Somewhat offset by the $ impacts. Just my 2c.
 
My son lives in downtown Chicago and says the local chatter and media coverage has focused on getting Fields more weapons, who they would take with the top pick if they use it, or what they could get back if they trade it. He hasn't heard anything about the Bears trading Fields. Maybe the Bears trading Fields talk is getting conjured up by national media folks?
Well, when a team has the #1 pick with a QB prospect available that is better than your current QB, I think it's only natural to toss out that possibility.
 
I still say Fields should command a high 1 + 24 1 aka similar value to the 1.1
Just curious why his value would have gone up after two years. He's halfway through his low dollar rookie contract and hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the passing game. (I get that he had no time to throw and no one to throw to.) If he was worth the #1 pick, they wouldn't be trading him. By trying to move him, 31 other teams will likely think his value will be lower (if he's worth the #1 pick, then they wouldn't trade him . . . and his new team would lose the benefit of two low dollar seasons).
he's worth more because he's proven to have some legit nfl qb value vs the 1.1 which is totally unknown. Somewhat offset by the $ impacts. Just my 2c.

I think this makes an interesting discussion.
Offhand I’d say there are about 22 QBs who have proven to have some legit NFL QB value (maybe more, maybe less). But how many are really worth more than the 1.01? Probably less than 10, although 6-8 are worth less simply for age plus salary.
 
I still say Fields should command a high 1 + 24 1 aka similar value to the 1.1
Just curious why his value would have gone up after two years. He's halfway through his low dollar rookie contract and hasn't exactly distinguished himself in the passing game. (I get that he had no time to throw and no one to throw to.) If he was worth the #1 pick, they wouldn't be trading him. By trying to move him, 31 other teams will likely think his value will be lower (if he's worth the #1 pick, then they wouldn't trade him . . . and his new team would lose the benefit of two low dollar seasons).
he's worth more because he's proven to have some legit nfl qb value vs the 1.1 which is totally unknown. Somewhat offset by the $ impacts. Just my 2c.

I think this makes an interesting discussion.
Offhand I’d say there are about 22 QBs who have proven to have some legit NFL QB value (maybe more, maybe less). But how many are really worth more than the 1.01? Probably less than 10, although 6-8 are worth less simply for age plus salary.
All things factored, I counted 6 I'd rather have over pick 1
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top