Justin Fields and his Steelers

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We can agree to disagree. Even Mahomes, the irony CHI did move up in that draft to take Trubisky. Mahomes was not QB1 in his class. So it's an inexact science. Even on your own list, you have guys like Lamar and Rodgers who sat near all of round 1. Rodgers famously in the green room. We put him there.

So your idea, that pick 1 they should invest in a QB, I am inclined to say fall back. One thing we agreed on, with TL, is the investment was sky high. Understand that is an opportunity cost to pick 1. Even falling back from pick 1, to pick 2, they would get a haul.

You have to wonder why that is.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We can agree to disagree. Even Mahomes, the irony CHI did move up in that draft to take Trubisky. Mahomes was not QB1 in his class. So it's an inexact science. Even on your own list, you have guys like Lamar and Rodgers who sat near all of round 1. Rodgers famously in the green room. We put him there.

So your idea, that pick 1 they should invest in a QB, I am inclined to say fall back. One thing we agreed on, with TL, is the investment was sky high. Understand that is an opportunity cost to pick 1. Even falling back from pick 1, to pick 2, they would get a haul.

You have to wonder why that is.

I don't wonder, it's always been that way. I remember when San Diego gave a fortune to move from 3 to 2 and take Leaf. Teams fall in love with a QB, and have to take that one guy. We benefited from the Bears moving up a slot for Mitch T. To me when you combine the massive hauls you can get from moving down, with the inexact science of the draft, the answer becomes clear. You move down. You get quantity, and sometimes established pro assets.

CHI already played this card, and got DJ Moore. He was a stud for CHI this year. And as mentioned, that was a year where pick one was Bryce Young. Well played imo.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I don't wonder, it's always been that way. I remember when San Diego gave a fortune to move from 3 to 2 and take Leaf. Teams fall in love with a QB, and have to take that one guy. We benefited from the Bears moving up a slot for Mitch T. To me when you combine the massive hauls you can get from moving down, with the inexact science of the draft, the answer becomes clear. You move down. You get quantity, and sometimes established pro assets. That's a personal preference for my, I prefer moving down.

CHI already played this card, and got DJ Moore. He was a stud for CHI this year. And as mentioned, that was a year where pick one was Bryce Young. Well played imo.

You should realize the later you draft QBs the closer it gets to being an exact science: It hardly ever works.

Nobody argued its an exact science. Also, for the 3rd time, if the Bears want to trade for or acquire a proven starter (likely none available), I'd think it would be smart to trade out of the top spot.

What they can't do is go another year with Fields at QB and pass on their choice of prospects with two top 10 picks (including 1 overall). Signing a player like Darnold to 'QB proof' the room isn't helping. They need a QB. They are in the best position in the draft you can be in to get one. No trade up necessary. Get top prospect. Reset clock on rookie deal. Still have a top 10 pick.

What a benefit it was to us to not take evaluate QBs in 17 and kick the can down the road, lol.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I don't wonder, it's always been that way. I remember when San Diego gave a fortune to move from 3 to 2 and take Leaf. Teams fall in love with a QB, and have to take that one guy. We benefited from the Bears moving up a slot for Mitch T. To me when you combine the massive hauls you can get from moving down, with the inexact science of the draft, the answer becomes clear. You move down. You get quantity, and sometimes established pro assets. That's a personal preference for my, I prefer moving down.

CHI already played this card, and got DJ Moore. He was a stud for CHI this year. And as mentioned, that was a year where pick one was Bryce Young. Well played imo.

You should realize the later you draft QBs the closer it gets to being an exact science: It hardly ever works.

Nobody argued its an exact science. Also, for the 3rd time, if the Bears want to trade for or acquire a proven starter (likely none available), I'd think it would be smart to trade out of the top spot.

What they can't do is go another year with Fields at QB and pass on their choice of prospects with two top 10 picks (including 1 overall). Signing a player like Darnold to 'QB proof' the room isn't helping. They need a QB. They are in the best position in the draft you can be in to get one. No trade up necessary. Get top prospect. Reset clock on rookie deal. Still have a top 10 pick.

What a benefit it was to us to not take evaluate QBs in 17 and kick the can down the road, lol.

I would argue you can make it more exact depending on your moves.
Build up the team. When you have a stacked team, your odds go up at making that QB pick work out.

You keep operating with a crystal ball mindset. Sure knowing what we know now the moves are obvious. Carolina didn't have the crystal ball, they spent a fortune on Bryce Young. CHI spent a fortune on Trubisky. Those are the real world decisions that happened. Hard to say we would have gotten 2017 any more right than we did, by selecting QB, we probably take Trubisky over Solomon Thomas. That was the real world QB1 selected in that class. We lose out on Fred Warner in the process. I believe we got him from a pick acquired from CHI.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I would argue you can make it more exact depending on your moves.
Build up the team. When you have a stacked team, your odds go up at making that QB pick work out.

You keep operating with a crystal ball mindset. Sure knowing what we know now the moves are obvious. Carolina didn't have the crystal ball, they spent a fortune on Bryce Young. CHI spent a fortune on Trubisky. Those are the real world decisions that happened. Hard to say we would have gotten 2017 any more right than we did, by selecting QB, we probably take Trubisky over Solomon Thomas. That was the real world QB1 selected in that class. We lose out on Fred Warner in the process. I believe we got him from a pick acquired from CHI.

Incredibly disingenuous. Multiple times I've said it's a risk that could fail. That applies to non QBs as well. Nothing in the draft is a sure thing.

The evidence shows that the risk of missing on a drafted QB increases the further you get away from Round 1 and the top of the draft. Want to draft a good QB… Best chance is at the top of the draft. Not an agree to disagree thing. Simply an easily observable fact over many years. That's why the professionals covet the spot so much. They aren't working off evidence free feelings, or a couple outlier counter examples over decades. It can also be a talented team that traded up (like the Chiefs) or a poor team that finished the season with a top pick (like the Texans).

Almost no doubt this conversation is simply a product of your opinion on Fields, lol. Not the first time we talked about him.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
We can agree to disagree. Even Mahomes, the irony CHI did move up in that draft to take Trubisky. Mahomes was not QB1 in his class. So it's an inexact science. Even on your own list, you have guys like Lamar and Rodgers who sat near all of round 1. Rodgers famously in the green room. We put him there.

So your idea, that pick 1 they should invest in a QB, I am inclined to say fall back. One thing we agreed on, with TL, is the investment was sky high. Understand that is an opportunity cost to pick 1. Even falling back from pick 1, to pick 2, they would get a haul.

There's an opportunity cost to everything. Giving a slightly above average QB 137 million and costing yourself an all pro DT has a cost too. Funny you will advocate for taking a QB in later rounds but also pay millions for Jimmy or Daniel Jones or Geno. Not exactly QB proofing.

Chiefs traded up for Mahomes. That opportunity cost worked out.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
I would argue you can make it more exact depending on your moves.
Build up the team. When you have a stacked team, your odds go up at making that QB pick work out.

You keep operating with a crystal ball mindset. Sure knowing what we know now the moves are obvious. Carolina didn't have the crystal ball, they spent a fortune on Bryce Young. CHI spent a fortune on Trubisky. Those are the real world decisions that happened. Hard to say we would have gotten 2017 any more right than we did, by selecting QB, we probably take Trubisky over Solomon Thomas. That was the real world QB1 selected in that class. We lose out on Fred Warner in the process. I believe we got him from a pick acquired from CHI.

Incredibly disingenuous. Multiple times I've said it's a risk that could fail. That applies to non QBs as well. Nothing in the draft is a sure thing.

The evidence shows that the risk of missing on a drafted QB increases the further you get away from Round 1 and the top of the draft. Want to draft a good QB… Best chance is at the top of the draft. Not an agree to disagree thing. Simply an easily observable fact over many years. That's why the professionals covet the spot so much. They aren't working off evidence free feelings, or a couple outlier counter examples over decades. It can also be a talented team that traded up (like the Chiefs) or a poor team that finished the season with a top pick (like the Texans).

Almost no doubt this conversation is simply a product of your opinion on Fields, lol. Not the first time we talked about him.

You invoked the 2017 draft as a well we should have drafted Mahomes. You also invoked well CHI optimally should have taken Stroud. That's both crystal ball style points. In reality Mitch and Bryce were the QB1s. Knowing the reality, good they didn't draft Bryce, and good we didn't take Mitch.

My opinion on Fields is he isn't really doing what he needs, to last at the pro level, which is get the ball out on time, in rhythm. He seems not to take coaching well, and has some attitude problems. I've posted on this. He was fun to watch last year. Lil harder to watch this season. So he's not trending the right way. I can't say I wanted a move up for QB, in 2021, I wanted us to stay at 12, and weigh our options at other positions. I do think and still think he's > Wilson, Mac or Lance. I do think CHI would be wise to get someone who gets the ball out, to see how different the product would look like. Hard to even judge the O when it's largely played out of structure. That's not really a way to play O in the NFL.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You invoked the 2017 draft as a well we should have drafted Mahomes. You also invoked well CHI optimally should have taken Stroud. That's both crystal ball style points. In reality Mitch and Bryce were the QB1s. Knowing the reality, good they didn't draft Bryce, and good we didn't take Mitch.

My opinion on Fields is he isn't really doing what he needs, to last at the pro level, which is get the ball out on time, in rhythm. He seems not to take coaching well, and has some attitude problems. I've posted on this. He was fun to watch last year. Lil harder to watch this season. So he's not trending the right way. I can't say I wanted a move up for QB, in 2021, I wanted us to stay at 12, and weigh our options at other positions. I do think and still think he's > Wilson, Mac or Lance. I do think CHI would be wise to get someone who gets the ball out, to see how different the product would look like. Hard to even judge the O when it's largely played out of structure. That's not really a way to play O in the NFL.

Wrong. I didn't say we should have drafted Mahomes. What I said was it wasn't a good thing we didn't evaluate QBs and kicked the can down the road. We instead decided to spend our first round pick on a DL who ended up being a complete disappointment anyway. What we did was malpractice. It is your job to look at these prospects and see what is available.

And yes I said optimally the Bears would have drafted Stroud. A big part of that conversation, which you are ignoring again, is their plan... the one that they executed... did not actually work. They brought back Fields with an improved roster and he did not make significant improvement. I'd argue he didn't improve (especially in terms of any real consistency) at all. He flashed here and there as he basically has since he was a rookie. What they can learn from seeing what they missed (Stroud) and what they did (bring back Fields with an improved roster) is that it would be a bad idea to do the same thing again. Is it assured they will hit on a pick? No. But it's damn near assured Fields aint the one. I explained this already.

Aside from those points, its insane that you think because the Bears took Trubisky and the Panthers chose Young, that indicates with anything close to certainty that other teams evaluating QBs would have made the same choice. Nobody knows that. What we do know was that there was no consensus number 1 prospect in either draft, which I also already stated to you in regards to Young. You are a simple internet search away from seeing that if you don't remember. It's very different than a draft like '21 or even this year.

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
You invoked the 2017 draft as a well we should have drafted Mahomes. You also invoked well CHI optimally should have taken Stroud. That's both crystal ball style points. In reality Mitch and Bryce were the QB1s. Knowing the reality, good they didn't draft Bryce, and good we didn't take Mitch.

My opinion on Fields is he isn't really doing what he needs, to last at the pro level, which is get the ball out on time, in rhythm. He seems not to take coaching well, and has some attitude problems. I've posted on this. He was fun to watch last year. Lil harder to watch this season. So he's not trending the right way. I can't say I wanted a move up for QB, in 2021, I wanted us to stay at 12, and weigh our options at other positions. I do think and still think he's > Wilson, Mac or Lance. I do think CHI would be wise to get someone who gets the ball out, to see how different the product would look like. Hard to even judge the O when it's largely played out of structure. That's not really a way to play O in the NFL.

It's really hard for me to understand having this opinion and thinking it would be a good idea to address the issue by drafting a lower round QB and/or bringing in a Darnold, Heinecke, Tyrod, type player to 'strengthen' the QB room. 'We don't have a starter so draft one where the chances of getting one are slim to none, and bring in a failed starter/career backup.' And to suggest that while you are sitting on the most prized asset in terms of landing an elite prospect. Lol...

I don't think Fields will ever be a good NFL QB. His accuracy is among the worst in the league. He throws too many INTs and takes off and runs too quickly. He may have a better career as a jack of all trades player. Move him to H back and let him run with the option of occasionally passing. Let him catch passes (I'm assuming he can). Hines Ward converted from QB to receiver and sometimes RB and was very effective.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
You should realize the later you draft QBs the closer it gets to being an exact science: It hardly ever works.

Nobody argued its an exact science. Also, for the 3rd time, if the Bears want to trade for or acquire a proven starter (likely none available), I'd think it would be smart to trade out of the top spot.

What they can't do is go another year with Fields at QB and pass on their choice of prospects with two top 10 picks (including 1 overall). Signing a player like Darnold to 'QB proof' the room isn't helping. They need a QB. They are in the best position in the draft you can be in to get one. No trade up necessary. Get top prospect. Reset clock on rookie deal. Still have a top 10 pick.

What a benefit it was to us to not take evaluate QBs in 17 and kick the can down the road, lol.

I'd have to think about it some more but I'd probably trade fields and draft Caleb Williams. I think he's more talented as a passer than fields. I'd have to watch more film on him because idk how good he is with progressions and all that but I don't view fields as a great passer and idk if he ever will be. He reminds me a lot of hurts - if you have a ton of talent around him, simple system, and run a lot - he can be successful but idk if you'll ever have a dynamic precise passing game with hurts or fields.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'd have to think about it some more but I'd probably trade fields and draft Caleb Williams. I think he's more talented as a passer than fields. I'd have to watch more film on him because idk how good he is with progressions and all that but I don't view fields as a great passer and idk if he ever will be. He reminds me a lot of hurts - if you have a ton of talent around him, simple system, and run a lot - he can be successful but idk if you'll ever have a dynamic precise passing game with hurts or fields.

Caleb I can say I may have not caught him at his best, plus there were high expectations going into viewing him, I wasn't impressed. I watched the USC Oregon game, and he wasn't the best QB on the field that day. It's like Penix, I don't watch much of any of Penix, then in the NC I did watch, and he was awful. I'll get more a feel for these guys as we get closer to the draft.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Wrong. I didn't say we should have drafted Mahomes. What I said was it wasn't a good thing we didn't evaluate QBs and kicked the can down the road. We instead decided to spend our first round pick on a DL who ended up being a complete disappointment anyway. What we did was malpractice. It is your job to look at these prospects and see what is available.

And yes I said optimally the Bears would have drafted Stroud. A big part of that conversation, which you are ignoring again, is their plan... the one that they executed... did not actually work. They brought back Fields with an improved roster and he did not make significant improvement. I'd argue he didn't improve (especially in terms of any real consistency) at all. He flashed here and there as he basically has since he was a rookie. What they can learn from seeing what they missed (Stroud) and what they did (bring back Fields with an improved roster) is that it would be a bad idea to do the same thing again. Is it assured they will hit on a pick? No. But it's damn near assured Fields aint the one. I explained this already.

Aside from those points, its insane that you think because the Bears took Trubisky and the Panthers chose Young, that indicates with anything close to certainty that other teams evaluating QBs would have made the same choice. Nobody knows that. What we do know was that there was no consensus number 1 prospect in either draft, which I also already stated to you in regards to Young. You are a simple internet search away from seeing that if you don't remember. It's very different than a draft like '21 or even this year.

Add to that the justification of paying big QB money to the Daniel Jones and Geno Smiths. How is taking a risk on a rookie qb in first bigger than paying big money to guys who have sample sizes of mediocrity?

It really only makes sense if you don't value the QB position and think it's fungible. I see why him and NC are so lock step on things. They think the exact same way.

Originally posted by tankle104:
I'd have to think about it some more but I'd probably trade fields and draft Caleb Williams. I think he's more talented as a passer than fields. I'd have to watch more film on him because idk how good he is with progressions and all that but I don't view fields as a great passer and idk if he ever will be. He reminds me a lot of hurts - if you have a ton of talent around him, simple system, and run a lot - he can be successful but idk if you'll ever have a dynamic precise passing game with hurts or fields.

Accuracy can be learned. Problem I see with Fields is he doesn't anticipate or see the field well. Much like with Hurts (and why Russ was never a truly elite QB despite the media yearly overhype) it limits what the teams offense can ultimately do. Kap also had the same issue. Winning on broken plays is a tough road to travel offensively. Better have an elite run game to supplement.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Wrong. I didn't say we should have drafted Mahomes. What I said was it wasn't a good thing we didn't evaluate QBs and kicked the can down the road. We instead decided to spend our first round pick on a DL who ended up being a complete disappointment anyway. What we did was malpractice. It is your job to look at these prospects and see what is available.

And yes I said optimally the Bears would have drafted Stroud. A big part of that conversation, which you are ignoring again, is their plan... the one that they executed... did not actually work. They brought back Fields with an improved roster and he did not make significant improvement. I'd argue he didn't improve (especially in terms of any real consistency) at all. He flashed here and there as he basically has since he was a rookie. What they can learn from seeing what they missed (Stroud) and what they did (bring back Fields with an improved roster) is that it would be a bad idea to do the same thing again. Is it assured they will hit on a pick? No. But it's damn near assured Fields aint the one. I explained this already.

Aside from those points, its insane that you think because the Bears took Trubisky and the Panthers chose Young, that indicates with anything close to certainty that other teams evaluating QBs would have made the same choice. Nobody knows that. What we do know was that there was no consensus number 1 prospect in either draft, which I also already stated to you in regards to Young. You are a simple internet search away from seeing that if you don't remember. It's very different than a draft like '21 or even this year.

It's not certain would be my point. This is all speculation, and even worse, speculation with hindsight. Why don't we just look to the reality of what actually happened, and draw conclusions? In reality, CHI traded up and lost. We traded down and while we whiffed on Thomas, we ended up with Fred. We won. When CAR traded up they lost (unless Bryce completely turns around). CHI won. They have DJ Moore. And pick 1.