Who would be a good fit for Fields?

[fknhippie]

Vikings also wouldn't be crazy, but no way Chicago sends him there.

Thank God.

 

[fastforward]

Sam Darnold got a 2nd, 4th and 6th...And that dude blew ass for 3 years leading up to that trade. Ya never know.

Darnold looked like a top 20 starter with turnover problems. Fields doesn't look like a starter. Teams have learned the hard way because of Darnold and Mayfield. Teams giving away picks for a contract they wouldn't sign with a FA was foolish. I'm not convinced a lot of teams would be prepared to guarantee Fields $3.23M for 2024 so the trade market for those teams that are interested could be low 5th or high 6th.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

As I've said previously you look at spots like the Rams or Jets also where they have their guy for a year and both are older and thus injury prone.

While that is very true, I doubt either of those teams would want to give up draft capital for a back-up that likely can't be complimentary to the system their starters run. And I doubt the Rams are planning on giving away any draft picks at all. The options for Fields being a starter are very limited, imo.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

That sack stat is misleading. Those aren't conventional sacks, instead are the result of extending plays behind the line (much like the increased sack totals for Russell Wilson, Jalen Hurts and Lamar Jackson).

A 4th rounder for a constantly injured Lance isn't a good indicator IMO. Fields has viable game tape, both with the NFL Bears and the high level NCAA Buckeyes. Lance has one season with North Dakota in 2019 to fall back on, nothing much else. Even Zach Wilson has more good game tape than Lance.

I agree. Mobile QBs cause as many sacks as they are able to escape because the Oline can't hold up and doesn't know where they will be. So the tackle either has to hold or let the rusher go.
I also don't know if Lance is a good indicator. A lot of things went into that failure that we didn't see coming like the injury and emergence of Purdy as a starter. Right now, the Bears are in limbo but have the luxury of likely the 1st and maybe 3rd or 4th pick overall. They will want to get as much as they can for Fields, if they indeed move on. Maybe they get a 3rd or maybe a 4th and a conditional or something like that. I honestly can't see anybody reaching with a 2nd but you never know.

 

[shopson67]

I agree. Mobile QBs cause as many sacks as they are able to escape because the Oline can't hold up and doesn't know where they will be. So the tackle either has to hold or let the rusher go.
I also don't know if Lance is a good indicator. A lot of things went into that failure that we didn't see coming like the injury and emergence of Purdy as a starter. Right now, the Bears are in limbo but have the luxury of likely the 1st and maybe 3rd or 4th pick overall. They will want to get as much as they can for Fields, if they indeed move on. Maybe they get a 3rd or maybe a 4th and a conditional or something like that. I honestly can't see anybody reaching with a 2nd but you never know.

For every Lance on the cheap trade, there is an overpay like the Panthers trade for Darnold. Fields for a 2nd or 3rd (and likely an additional conditional pick) falls between those two.

 

[shopson67]

Darnold looked like a top 20 starter with turnover problems. Fields doesn't look like a starter. Teams have learned the hard way because of Darnold and Mayfield. Teams giving away picks for a contract they wouldn't sign with a FA was foolish. I'm not convinced a lot of teams would be prepared to guarantee Fields $3.23M for 2024 so the trade market for those teams that are interested could be low 5th or high 6th.

Agree to disagree. A potential starting QB for $3M is sofa change. He's 35th among QBs for 2023 at 4.71M, less than Stidham, Mariota, Dalton, Tyrod, Trubisky, Heinicke, Lance, ZWilson, Brissett, etc.

 

[rmilia1]

First im going to need someone to explain to me using actual verifiable facts ( not just opinion and "eye test" ) why Fields ISNT trash?

The premise of this thread is

Fields is pretty decent and in the right scenario he could be good

I don't see any verifiable facts to support that though

So given that, my answer would be that JF should go somewhere with an established NFL starter, sit for a few years, work on his craft and try to learn how to be a legitimate starter

 

[Debbie Does]

A minor league player in a sport that doesn't have a minor league system.

 

[shopson67]

First im going to need someone to explain to me using actual verifiable facts ( not just opinion and "eye test" ) why Fields ISNT trash?

The premise of this thread is

Fields is pretty decent and in the right scenario he could be good

I don't see any verifiable facts to support that though

So given that, my answer would be that JF should go somewhere with an established NFL starter, sit for a few years, work on his craft and try to learn how to be a legitimate starter

Sit for a few years would require him to buy in beyond next year's contract without a 5th year option or market extension. There are NFL teams with starters far worse than Fields (and he has endured terrible coaching in Chicago). He's a better starting QB than what many teams are trotting out there each week in 2023 (and more of a known entity than the rookie QBs beyond the top 2).

Fields: 8 games, 198 py/g, 64.4%, 7.1 ypa, 1.5 pTD/g, .75 INT/g, 50 ry/g, 5.2 ypc, (1 rTD, 2 fum on the year)
Lamar: 12 games, 218 py/g, 68.3%, 7.8 ypa, 1.1 pTD/g, .42 INT/g, 48 ry.g, 5.1 ypc (5 rTD, 5 fum on the year)

Fields' stats aren't different enough from Lamar's to support the idea that he's not good.

 

[Moab]

Sit for a few years would require him to buy in beyond next year's contract without a 5th year option or market extension. There are NFL teams with starters far worse than Fields (and he has endured terrible coaching in Chicago). He's a better starting QB than what many teams are trotting out there each week in 2023 (and more of a known entity than the rookie QBs beyond the top 2).

Fields: 8 games, 198 py/g, 64.4%, 7.1 ypa, 1.5 pTD/g, .75 INT/g, 50 ry/g, 5.2 ypc, (1 rTD, 2 fum on the year)
Lamar: 12 games, 218 py/g, 68.3%, 7.8 ypa, 1.1 pTD/g, .42 INT/g, 48 ry.g, 5.1 ypc (5 rTD, 5 fum on the year)

Fields' stats aren't different enough from Lamar's to support the idea that he's not good.

While those stats are neat, have you seen the difference in their actual play. Maybe 20 ypg passing, 4% completion percentage and .7 yards per attempt are actually huge difference. This is why stats don't always give you the real story, unless of course you're building a fantasy team where the only thing that matters is stats.

 

[shopson67]

While those stats are neat, have you seen the difference in their actual play. Maybe 20 ypg passing, 4% completion percentage and .7 yards per attempt are actually huge difference. This is why stats don't always give you the real story, unless of course you're building a fantasy team where the only thing that matters is stats.

You're ignoring the vast difference between the Ravens' and Bears' coaching staffs and rosters. I'm also not implying that Fields is in any way Lamar's equal (or close), but his production is close enough that he certainly is not a sit and learn candidate at this point in his career. I'm far from all-in on him (and think the Bears should draft Caleb), but he's a midrange starting QB in today's NFL IMO at minimum with remaining upside in a better system.

 

[Clayton]

Sit for a few years would require him to buy in beyond next year's contract without a 5th year option or market extension. There are NFL teams with starters far worse than Fields (and he has endured terrible coaching in Chicago). He's a better starting QB than what many teams are trotting out there each week in 2023 (and more of a known entity than the rookie QBs beyond the top 2).

Fields: 8 games, 198 py/g, 64.4%, 7.1 ypa, 1.5 pTD/g, .75 INT/g, 50 ry/g, 5.2 ypc, (1 rTD, 2 fum on the year)
Lamar: 12 games, 218 py/g, 68.3%, 7.8 ypa, 1.1 pTD/g, .42 INT/g, 48 ry.g, 5.1 ypc (5 rTD, 5 fum on the year)

Fields' stats aren't different enough from Lamar's to support the idea that he's not good.

Within the framework of those stats, Baltimore has the 6th to 9th best offense and Chicago is 16th to 20th in various metrics. There is a fairly notable drop there in performance. Is that Fields or is that coaching? If its the former, not sure how much value Fields has. If its coaching...Bears should keep Fields then, right?

 

[Shanemansj13]

Cleveland or Baltimore. Learn from 2 better qbs similar to his style.

Depends on what they are giving up. 2024 picks Cleveland doesn't have much and they would not want to give up valuable picks for another QB, that will be a backup most certainly for at least 3-4 more years. Same situation in Baltimore.

All depends on what pick that team is giving up. If it's a 2nd I doubt those teams would make the move.

 

[ThereIsNoPlace]

Depends on what they are giving up. 2024 picks Cleveland doesn't have much and they would not want to give up valuable picks for another QB, that will be a backup most certainly for at least 3-4 more years. Same situation in Baltimore.

All depends on what pick that team is giving up. If it's a 2nd I doubt those teams would make the move.

Thanks for the conversation but the question was "Who would be a good fit for Fields" not What is the best return for the Bears in a trade of Fields.

 

[shopson67]

Within the framework of those stats, Baltimore has the 6th to 9th best offense and Chicago is 16th to 20th in various metrics. There is a fairly notable drop there in performance. Is that Fields or is that coaching? If its the former, not sure how much value Fields has. If its coaching...Bears should keep Fields then, right?

I still think Caleb is the better prospect and resets the rookie contract window. Can't see the Bears having the #1 pick two years in a row and don't pick QB while up against the 5th year option decision for Fields. The coaching changes are expected, but also have not occurred yet so....?

 

[Lake Shore Drive]

I still think Caleb is the better prospect and resets the rookie contract window. Can't see the Bears having the #1 pick two years in a row and don't pick QB while up against the 5th year option decision for Fields. The coaching changes are expected, but also have not occurred yet so....?

Probably the biggest debate going on in Chicago with both the fans and the media is what the Bears will do with that Carolina pick, whether it ends up as the very first pick in the draft or likely no lower than the top 3. Will they take a QB? Will they use that pick on a WR like Harrison Jr, assuming he's on the board? Will they do like last year and sell the pick to the highest bidder? Lot of options being discussed. I think it's safe to say that everything is on the table, with the most important factor being where they end up with that pick once the season ends. As you can imagine, we Bears fans are pulling big time for the Panthers to lose out and snag that #1 spot.

 

[nebearsfan70]

I think the Bears will move on, but it’s not like Fields is trash. He’s gotten better as a passer, a new staff might help his decision-making, and with a change in culture he could be a winner.

For the Bears, first you want to look at the AFC, but all I see there is the Raiders and Patriots (two bad ideas - one staff too green and the other too crusty) and a desperation play by the Jets if Rodgers doesn’t come back.

The better fits are in the NFC - the Bucs, Giants, Washington and Rams (if Stafford hangs it up) wouldn’t be crazy, but the best fit IMO is Atlanta. It’s a conservative run-centric offense that’s doing okay with a poor QB right now. I think Fields could thrive there and that team would be much better with him on it. They also have no shot in the short term at having a bad enough record to draft a franchise QB, and trading away pieces to move up in the draft doesn't make a lot of sense for them.

Vikings also wouldn't be crazy, but no way Chicago sends him there.

For a 2nd round pick, any team can have them.

The problem is the Bears lack talent with their coaching staff. Seems to be a chronic condition.

 

[shopson67]

Probably the biggest debate going on in Chicago with both the fans and the media is what the Bears will do with that Carolina pick, whether it ends up as the very first pick in the draft or likely no lower than the top 3. Will they take a QB? Will they use that pick on a WR like Harrison Jr, assuming he's on the board? Will they do like last year and sell the pick to the highest bidder? Lot of options being discussed. I think it's safe to say that everything is on the table, with the most important factor being where they end up with that pick once the season ends. As you can imagine, we Bears fans are pulling big time for the Panthers to lose out and snag that #1 spot.

Panthers have 2 vs the Bucs and 1 vs the Falcons, both teams that would likely prefer to pick higher for a shot at a QB too. Panthers have no reason to tank, but they just are that bad. I wouldn't expect firing Reich to give them a big boost, but who knows? Their trigger-happy owner has the blame for that firing.

 

[shopson67]

For a 2nd round pick, any team can have them.

The problem is the Bears lack talent with their coaching staff. Seems to be a chronic condition.

If they do clean house this spring, they need to get that next hire right (for either Fields or Caleb).

 

[eaglesnut]

You're ignoring the vast difference between the Ravens' and Bears' coaching staffs and rosters. I'm also not implying that Fields is in any way Lamar's equal (or close), but his production is close enough that he certainly is not a sit and learn candidate at this point in his career. I'm far from all-in on him (and think the Bears should draft Caleb), but he's a midrange starting QB in today's NFL IMO at minimum with remaining upside in a better system.

Midrange is 12-20
Lol no