Justin Fields and his Steelers

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
If you were pounding the table for Stroud over Young, at 1 overall, good on you I suppose.. or is that take offered in hindsight?
If they took a QB maybe it's Young at #1, I don't know what their preference was. I think as SF demonstrates, or Wilson or others, the draft when it comes to QBs is a pretty inexact science. Alex over Rodgers, that type of stuff. JaMarcus was one of the best QB prospects of all time. I think NFL clubs can probably evaluate other positions with more clarity on how they project at the next level, and you get more bites at the apple so to speak.

It's offered in hindsight for sure. You use the past to help inform the future.

No idea whether they take Young or Stroud. They clearly wanted to give Fields another year. Now they have and the play is very similar. Still a QB with great running ability who really cannot function from the pocket. Is it the most creative system? No. Can he execute anyway? I think the answer is clearly no. Those coaches know the kind of player they have.

I don't think they should get criticized for making the move they did, but the simple reality is if you offer that number 1 pick to the Texans for Stroud they laugh and hang up. Now because you made the trade you have a second chance… and again you still have another top 10 pick to supplement your team and you can get something of decent value in trading Fields. Easy decision IMO

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
If you were pounding the table for Stroud over Young, at 1 overall, good on you I suppose.. or is that take offered in hindsight?
If they took a QB maybe it's Young at #1, I don't know what their preference was. I think as SF demonstrates, or Wilson or others, the draft when it comes to QBs is a pretty inexact science. Alex over Rodgers, that type of stuff. JaMarcus was one of the best QB prospects of all time. I think NFL clubs can probably evaluate other positions with more clarity on how they project at the next level, and you get more bites at the apple so to speak.

It's offered in hindsight for sure. You use the past to help inform the future.

No idea whether they take Young or Stroud. They clearly wanted to give Fields another year. Now they have and the play is very similar. Still a QB with great running ability who really cannot function from the pocket. Is it the most creative system? No. Can he execute anyway? I think the answer is clearly no. Those coaches know the kind of player they have.

I don't think they should get criticized for making the move they did, but the simple reality is if you offer that number 1 pick to the Texans for Stroud they laugh and hang up. Now because you made the trade you have a second chance… and again you still have another top 10 pick to supplement your team and you can get something of decent value in trading Fields. Easy decision IMO

That's my point tho, using your logic, they should have taken Bryce Young. He was the more popular (and actual) QB at 1 overall. Only with hindsight do you arrive at any correct conclusion using your method. That or luck. Our turnaround wasn't taking a QB early in the draft, if anything that was our blunder.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
That's my point tho, using your logic, they should have taken Bryce Young. He was the more popular (and actual) QB at 1 overall. Only with hindsight do you arrive at any correct conclusion using your method. That or luck. Our turnaround wasn't taking a QB early in the draft, if anything that was our blunder.

I'm not saying they did something wrong. What I'm saying is they were shown they did not make the optimal decision… and a major factor for that decision was a willingness to give Fields another year. To expect them to do this again is pretty off the mark IMO.

So they willingly passed on a chance at an elite QB to add some talent and see if Fields could improve. Didn't really happen. Their offense has been a disaster with additional time and talent. The defense played pretty well, especially late. They were a hot pick to be a playoff team and/or potentially win the north.. which I did think was a joke before the season started (not in hindsight).

On a side note Young was far from a consensus #1, whether the Panthers picked him or not. Who knows where the Bears land if they decide to move on from Fields last year. They didn't. It didn't work out very well.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
That's my point tho, using your logic, they should have taken Bryce Young. He was the more popular (and actual) QB at 1 overall. Only with hindsight do you arrive at any correct conclusion using your method. That or luck. Our turnaround wasn't taking a QB early in the draft, if anything that was our blunder.

I'm not saying they did something wrong. What I'm saying is they were shown they did not make the optimal decision… and a major factor for that decision was a willingness to give Fields another year. To expect them to do this again is pretty off the mark IMO.

So they willingly passed on a chance at an elite QB to add some talent and see if Fields could improve. Didn't really happen. Their offense has been a disaster with additional time and talent. The defense played pretty well, especially late. They were a hot pick to be a playoff team and/or potentially win the north.. which I did think was a joke before the season started (not in hindsight).

On a side note Young was far from a consensus #1, whether the Panthers picked him or not. Who knows where the Bears land if they decide to move on from Fields last year. They didn't. It didn't work out very well.

You have no idea the optimal decision at this time. Even Stroud, good as he's played, we don't know. Baker played very well as a rook, he didn't even get a 2nd deal. Stuff happens, this is the NFL. Remember how CK looked? RG3? One can go one..

Young may not have been in stone at #1, but he was fairly consensus. I have no idea what CHI will do, just what I would do. CHI I think their trade with Carolina went very well, Carolina holding the bag on Bryce, who didn't look good, their franchise is a mess, and they hand the #1 overall to CHI. I'm not even a Bears fan, but pretty exciting all the ways they can play this offseason. With #1 overall and two top 10 picks.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You have no idea the optimal decision at this time. Even Stroud, good as he's played, we don't know. Baker played very well as a rook, he didn't even get a 2nd deal. Stuff happens, this is the NFL. Remember how CK looked? RG3? One can go one..

Young may not have been in stone at #1, but he was fairly consensus. I have no idea what CHI will do, just what I would do. CHI I think their trade with Carolina went very well, Carolina holding the bag on Bryce, who didn't look good, their franchise is a mess, and they hand the #1 overall to CHI. I'm not even a Bears fan, but pretty exciting all the ways they can play this offseason. With #1 overall and two top 10 picks.

You're missing half the point. It's not that they would have nailed the pick or missed it if they kept it. It's that Fields didn't make the necessary improvement and now they are in the exact same boat. The benefit is the decision they made added some talent and afforded them a 2nd chance at this decision.

It's not assured they will get a great QB at pick 1. It's pretty much assured that Justin Fields is not the answer so why roll with him again, especially when he has value. Signing Sam Darnold for competition with Fields is not serious, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You have no idea the optimal decision at this time. Even Stroud, good as he's played, we don't know. Baker played very well as a rook, he didn't even get a 2nd deal. Stuff happens, this is the NFL. Remember how CK looked? RG3? One can go one..

Young may not have been in stone at #1, but he was fairly consensus. I have no idea what CHI will do, just what I would do. CHI I think their trade with Carolina went very well, Carolina holding the bag on Bryce, who didn't look good, their franchise is a mess, and they hand the #1 overall to CHI. I'm not even a Bears fan, but pretty exciting all the ways they can play this offseason. With #1 overall and two top 10 picks.

You're missing half the point. It's not that they would have nailed the pick or missed it if they kept it. It's that Fields didn't make the necessary improvement and now they are in the exact same boat. The benefit is the decision they made added some talent and afforded them a 2nd chance at this decision.

It's not assured they will get a great QB at pick 1. It's pretty much assured that Justin Fields is not the answer so why roll with him again, especially when he has value. Signing Sam Darnold for competition with Fields is not serious, lol.

I think we (SF) gave a great roadmap for team building, the other positions are easier to project. Look what you are on about, you are on about Fields, who was a round 1 high pick, not being the guy. Well that's more or less my point. You want to get right back on the round 1 high pick roulette wheel, I wouldn't be so eager. Darnold is a functional passer, who can play from the pocket with more timing and anticipation than Fields. Having an undrafted guy and Nate Peterman is the not serious part.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think we (SF) gave a great roadmap for team building, the other positions are easier to project. Look what you are on about, you are on about Fields, who was a round 1 high pick, not being the guy. Well that's more or less my point. You want to get right back on the round 1 high pick roulette wheel, I wouldn't be so eager. Darnold is a functional passer, who can play from the pocket with more timing and anticipation than Fields. Having an undrafted guy and Nate Peterman is the not serious part.

Honestly not sure how anybody would think we provided a roadmap for success at the QB position. We made a reckless trade for what was an extremely inexperienced project QB from a lower level of college football… not even the top prospect in the draft… and then were bailed out by one of the luckiest value picks in draft history. We nearly sunk our Super Bowl window and all that great roster building in the process without having to make a drastic countermove (like signing Kirk Cousins or something similar).

The Bears don't have to trade up. Have their choice of prospects, aren't dealing with the effects of covid scouting or looking at prospects that haven't played in a year at the FCS level, and know with near certainty that they don't have the player of the future at the position on their roster. And they have an additional high pick to still add help.

You'd have to ignore years of NFL history to think what we did should be repeated. Signing a backup/fringe starter like Darnold doesn't do anything. Maybe help them win an extra game or two. If you want to make the case they could sign a proven starter, like Kirk Cousins, then trading out of 1 and gaining a bunch of assets makes sense to me. But rolling out Fields and a high quality backup is just a bad plan.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I think we (SF) gave a great roadmap for team building, the other positions are easier to project. Look what you are on about, you are on about Fields, who was a round 1 high pick, not being the guy. Well that's more or less my point. You want to get right back on the round 1 high pick roulette wheel, I wouldn't be so eager. Darnold is a functional passer, who can play from the pocket with more timing and anticipation than Fields. Having an undrafted guy and Nate Peterman is the not serious part.

Honestly not sure how anybody would think we provided a roadmap for success at the QB position. We made a reckless trade for what was an extremely inexperienced project QB from a lower level of college football… not even the top prospect in the draft… and then were bailed out by one of the luckiest value picks in draft history. We nearly sunk our Super Bowl window and all that great roster building in the process without having to make a drastic countermove (like signing Kirk Cousins or something similar).

The Bears don't have to trade up. Have their choice of prospects, aren't dealing with the effects of covid scouting or looking at prospects that haven't played in a year at the FCS level, and know with near certainty that they don't have the player of the future at the position on their roster. And they have an additional high pick to still add help.

You'd have to ignore years of NFL history to think what we did should be repeated. Signing a backup/fringe starter like Darnold doesn't do anything. Maybe help them win an extra game or two. If you want to make the case they could sign a proven starter, like Kirk Cousins, then trading out of 1 and gaining a bunch of assets makes sense to me. But rolling out Fields and a high quality backup is just a bad plan.

WAS on the record referenced our situation, when they decided to start Howell, who led the NFL in pass attempts. So teams are already trying out mid to late round guys on team controlled deals, to see if they can land a QB1. O'Connell is another example, in LV.

Peter King was talking about CHI he says he does a weekly CHI call in to their sports show, and he's been saying for weeks, the idea I am talking about. Trade back and keep building up your team. If you build it up enough, the QB will take care of itself, or be at least a lot better environment where someone can come in and thrive.

Darnold makes the room better, but forget Darnold, as you seem to be stuck on him. Could be Tyrod Taylor. Or Heinicke or whoever. Someone with better QB chops than Peterman or Bagent. You like Peterman and Bagent? I'm talking about improving the QB room. Even if you draft Caleb and clean break from Fields, you want a QB2. Sometimes your top pick gets injured, see the Colts. Wentz would be a more serious QB2, than Peterman. Peterman actually got into the week 18 game, when Fields got into the blue tent.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WAS on the record referenced our situation, when they decided to start Howell, who led the NFL in pass attempts. So teams are already trying out mid to late round guys on team controlled deals, to see if they can land a QB1. O'Connell is another example, in LV.

Peter King was talking about CHI he says he does a weekly CHI call in to their sports show, and he's been saying for weeks, the idea I am talking about. Trade back and keep building up your team. If you build it up enough, the QB will take care of itself, or be at least a lot better environment where someone can come in and thrive.

Darnold makes the room better, but forget Darnold, as you seem to be stuck on him. Could be Tyrod Taylor. Or Heinicke or whoever. Someone with better QB chops than Peterman or Bagent. You like Peterman and Bagent? I'm talking about improving the QB room. Even if you draft Caleb and clean break from Fields, you want a QB2. Sometimes your top pick gets injured, see the Colts. Wentz would be a more serious QB2, than Peterman. Peterman actually got into the week 18 game, when Fields got into the blue tent.

Brother, are you not paying attention? Washington was one of the worst teams in the NFL and their coach is now fired. They will almost certainly take a QB at #2 overall, and Howell will be on the bench. O'Connell had very little success and is also going to be relegated to the bench at the first real opportunity. None of these two examples show success at filling the starting QB position, lol. Not even remotely close.

I'm not stuck on Darnold either. You suggested the Bears signing him so I responded. And the response applies to Heinecke, Tyrod Taylor, or any similar QB, as well. These two in particular have beyond enough experience to show they are quality backups at best. Adding quality backups to a QB room does not solve a hole at QB1. That is the subject of the debate. Beyond that, nobody is saying they can't draft a guy and sign a backup. The point is replacing or sticking with Fields.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
WAS on the record referenced our situation, when they decided to start Howell, who led the NFL in pass attempts. So teams are already trying out mid to late round guys on team controlled deals, to see if they can land a QB1. O'Connell is another example, in LV.

Peter King was talking about CHI he says he does a weekly CHI call in to their sports show, and he's been saying for weeks, the idea I am talking about. Trade back and keep building up your team. If you build it up enough, the QB will take care of itself, or be at least a lot better environment where someone can come in and thrive.

Darnold makes the room better, but forget Darnold, as you seem to be stuck on him. Could be Tyrod Taylor. Or Heinicke or whoever. Someone with better QB chops than Peterman or Bagent. You like Peterman and Bagent? I'm talking about improving the QB room. Even if you draft Caleb and clean break from Fields, you want a QB2. Sometimes your top pick gets injured, see the Colts. Wentz would be a more serious QB2, than Peterman. Peterman actually got into the week 18 game, when Fields got into the blue tent.

Brother, are you not paying attention? Washington was one of the worst teams in the NFL and their coach is now fired. They will almost certainly take a QB at #2 overall, and Howell will be on the bench. O'Connell had very little success and is also going to be relegated to the bench at the first real opportunity. None of these two examples show success at filling the starting QB position, lol. Not even remotely close.

I'm not stuck on Darnold either. You suggested the Bears signing him so I responded. And the response applies to Heinecke, Tyrod Taylor, or any similar QB, as well. These two in particular have beyond enough experience to show they are quality backups at best. Adding quality backups to a QB room does not solve a hole at QB1. That is the subject of the debate. Beyond that, nobody is saying they can't draft a guy and sign a backup. The point is replacing or sticking with Fields.

We can agree to disagree, you said SF is not a blueprint, well it is. When other HCs are saying we are gonna try what SF is trying, that's a blueprint. No guarantee of success, regardless your method.

You are stuck on Darnold, and you are making incorrect points. You said Darnold "doesn't do anything". I'm pretty sure you yourself, don't believe that. Darnold would make their QB room better. He's way better than Nate Peterman, who's known as one of the worst backups around. And an undrafted from Shepherd College. Look at Geno, he was added to SEA as a backup, and was a CPOY and $100m+ man. You want talent in the room, and talent on roster, to give yourself the best shot of something like that. That's one reason NFL is fun, you can draft a Trey Lance, and Purdy is the QB1. So I don't view it as add a guy to be the backup, I view it as build the best room you can, and see what happens.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We can agree to disagree, you said SF is not a blueprint, well it is. When other HCs are saying we are gonna try what SF is trying, that's a blueprint. No guarantee of success, regardless your method.

You are stuck on Darnold, and you are making incorrect points. You said Darnold "doesn't do anything". I'm pretty sure you yourself, don't believe that. Darnold would make their QB room better. He's way better than Nate Peterman, who's known as one of the worst backups around. And an undrafted from Shepherd College. Look at Geno, he was added to SEA as a backup, and was a CPOY and $100m+ man. You want talent in the room, and talent on roster, to give yourself the best shot of something like that. That's one reason NFL is fun, you can draft a Trey Lance, and Purdy is the QB1. So I don't view it as add a guy to be the backup, I view it as build the best room you can, and see what happens.

Again I told you why I referenced Darnold and extended that point to other QBs like him. I also specifically said they might win an extra game or two (that's him making a difference) but it would not fill their QB1 hole.

Geno is also very likely to be replaced. Cool story and all, but he didn't play nearly as well as last season and the team is middling with good talent all over the roster, especially on offense. Geno's contract after that 1st season isn't even reflective of a franchise QB contract. It's very similar to Jimmy's deal.

Lol @ making incorrect points. Straight BS. You are citing examples of situations that clearly haven't worked and were realistically mismanaged, when there is ample evidence for years and years that the best way to find a difference maker at QB is to draft one high. Are there exceptions? Yes. Are the exceptions the blueprint? f**k no. Look at your own examples.

It is a fascinating convo, I guess one thing coloring my thinking is we tried both. We tried the #1 overall pick QB, and that was rough. We tried the #3 overall QB that was rough. We tried a round 1 QB from VA Tech, that was rough. Those are the round 1 QB hits I've seen us make. We tend to have a lot better luck, when we build up the team, then solve for the QB. Sure BP was winning the lotto, but we also drafted Joe, traded for Steve, signed Jeff Garcia, got JG, so we made a lot of moves that didn't involve early round 1, and got some good QB play, even not looking at Brock. Our best moves happen to be the non round 1 guys. I think that points to the inexact science of projecting QBs. Brock does also.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
It is a fascinating convo, I guess one thing coloring my thinking is we tried both. We tried the #1 overall pick QB, and that was rough. We tried the #3 overall QB that was rough. We tried a round 1 QB from VA Tech, that was rough. Those are the round 1 QB hits I've seen us make. We tend to have a lot better luck, when we build up the team, then solve for the QB. Sure BP was winning the lotto, but we also drafted Joe, traded for Steve, signed Jeff Garcia, got JG, so we made a lot of moves that didn't involve early round 1, and got some good QB play, even not looking at Brock. Our best moves happen to be the non round 1 guys. I think that points to the inexact science of projecting QBs. Brock does also.

Try looking at all 32 franchises not 1. Especially when the bulk of your examples from that one franchise are more than a decade old. Some even before the salary cap era lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Try looking at all 32 franchises not 1. Especially when the bulk of your examples from that one franchise are more than a decade old. Some even before the salary cap era lol.

Here's the round 1s less than a decade old; the ones overall I mean

Bryce Young
Lawrence
Burrow
Kyler Murray
Baker
Goff
Winston

Hard for me to say those guys justify an insane outlay of draft capital. Maybe Burrow does.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
Here's the round 1s less than a decade old; the ones overall I mean

Bryce Young
Lawrence
Burrow
Kyler Murray
Baker
Goff
Winston

Hard for me to say those guys justify an insane outlay of draft capital. Maybe Burrow does.

Maybe Burrow does? Lmao.

Again, nobody is saying you can't miss up there. You obviously can.

Now do the best QBs in the league:

Mahomes - top 10
Allen - top 10
Burrow - top 10
Herbert - top 10
Lamar - round 1
Rodgers - round 1
Stafford - top 10
Stroud - top 10

Even Tua was top 10.

Next group would include Cousins and Dak. Lower round picks. Never been seriously considered elite players but very good starters. Exceptions to the typical QBs drafted in their draft slots. Same with Wilson and Tom Brady. Wild hits in the draft that statistically have next to no chance of replication.

At least we finally got you off talking about Bears backups, as if they were ever the subject of the conversation instead of Fields and the QB1 position going forward for multiple seasons.