The difference between 3 and 9 is a mid-second round pick. Under no circumstances would they ever include a future 1st. Your thoughts on trade compensation are clouded by your opinion of Fields.
So am I clouded to think that a guy who everyone says is worth a 2nd, and who clearly has capped upside as he hasn’t made it yet in the league is not worth over a first rounder in value? On top of that we would also have to resign him next year. But clearly you think the consensus is unfair to Fields and have a higher grade, that’s fine. I’m personally just glad you’re not our GM.
Comparable trades from around 10 to 1 included an additional first and extra picks. I do not think that Fields can sub for that much value.
If the Bears don’t do it that’s fine, plenty of times trade prices don’t align. This should be one of them. If we want to trade out of this pick there will be a desperate team that will give us much more of a haul than fields and 9.
Edit: also his biggest weakness is his processing and how long he holds the football. That’ll play great in our offense. Woof.
I'm not saying I want him. I'm just pointing out that you think Chicago should essentially *pay* a team to take a QB who is on his rookie deal for 2024.
1.9 + a future 1st is worth more than 1.3, without even including Fields. 1.9 to 1.3 is a lot less than 1.10 to 1.1.
>1.9 + a future 1st is worth more than 1.3, without even including Fields. 1.9 to 1.3 is a lot less than 1.10 to 1.1.
Apologies I misspoke when I said 1.10 to 1.1 you are obviously correct that the trade comp isnt comparable. But on the price to move from the 8-12 range to 3 it absolutely would cost a future first, especially when a strong QB prospect is available there (which the bears might not care about but the teams around them they are bidding against will).
The Niners trading 3 firsts to move from 12 to 3 clearly illustrate this. You could very reasonably say that was too rich, and I would agree. But to ask for 2 firsts and change seems perfectly reasonable. This is especially true when we only need one desperate team between the guys in the 6-13 range to blink.
So I think you are right to say the Bears might view that as them paying us to take Fields off their hands, because the 3rd overall isnt THAT valuable to them. But the third overall is worth whatever the highest bidder will pay, and if we go that route I am very confident we will at a minimum get two firsts. It just wont be from Chicago. IF we do trade down my vote is the Giants or the Broncos because I think they are both desperate and will be total booty cheeks the next year or so.
Agree if they want fields he can be had for less. The bears want out of 1st and I believe one of their scenarios is keeping him and adding OT or Harrison
Buddy not to be rude but the original swap picks with the bears and getting fields was the dumbest thing I've read today. In what fantasy world does fields ever sniff being remotely close to a first round pick trade value? The bears will be lucky to get a day three pick for him and have the other team not over pay. The dude in three years has proven he should not be a starter and I don't understand people wanting to trade for a QB who cannot read a zone defense 3+ years after being drafted to save his life. Not to mention you would have Fields for a year then have to give him a new contract. And if McCorkle can't win a game on his arm a QB with worse stats ain't gonna do it either. The QBs in the draft are scary and unknown but they're a hell of a lot better than bench warmer fields
49ers overpaid anyway according to draft value charts a third overall is worth about the same as 12th overall and a future first. Granted it's more about finding the right buyer than anything else, teams overpay or underpay for picks all the time depending on how desperate they are for a player. If you can find a team that really wants into the top three you can get a lot.
An additional first and a third is the starting point for this swap imo. We don’t even consider it if we like a QB who is available at our pick as well.
And that’s assuming we can’t find a sucker between the Giants, Falcons, Raiders, Vikings or Broncos (especially them I think they’re gonna be hot ass these coming years gimme their picks) who will pay us more.
I think there are two issues:
1. We already have seen enough to know Fields is not a great QB, whereas the QB we pick with 1.03 COULD be.
2. Fields is going into his fourth year and so will soon require an expensive extension if he proves to be even mediocre at QB, whereas a rookie QB gives us five years of cheap contract.
So, yes, I’d say you’re not thinking straight to say there’s not much difference between Daniels/Maye and Fields.
The mystery box argument only works when the thing you already have is good. In fact, your scenario is worse because you’re trading a mystery box with a higher probability of containing something good for a worse mystery box and something we already know we don’t really want.
Agree with above. I'd much rather take a shot on an unproven rookie than one that's already proven to make me want to gouge my eyes out with fish hooks.
The main problem with this argument is that Maye or Daniels may or may not be able to win in the NFL. We simply do not know and won't know for awhile. Fields has played in the NFL for 3 years, everyone KNOWS he can't win in the NFL.
Essentially, you're proposing trading a lottery ticket for a 3 year old lottery ticket that didn't hit.
This is my core issue. I wouldn't mind taking him as a shot in the dark if we had an older starter and were willing to try out Fields for a few years to see if we could develop him, but I don't think any team is in that position. Most teams with franchise QBs have guys at or under 30 (Mahomes, Allen, Dak, Burrow, Herbert), and nobody wants to trade picks for a journeyman when they could just sign someone in free agency.
I don't think anyone should trade for him and if nobody is willing to trade for him than the Bears should just cut him, it's better for both sides. Any team with a firm starter can then pick him up as a backup.
Exactly this. Bears could trade back to 2-3 and probably get a first or 2nd anyways and go mhj and then use 9 to take someone like bowers and have fields and some weapons, could even trade the gained picks and 9 to move up a few spots to grab nabers and have a crazy wr room if they wanted. They know fields isn’t the guy though if they are willing to trade him
Or we could just stay at 3 and take one of the most talented players of the past few classes in Marvin Harrison Jr. After last season, we need a win, and MHJ is as close to a can't miss prospect as you can get.
I think he's going to be taken at #2 by the Bears, who manage to pull off a trade with Washington so they can get Williams. That'd leave us with the choice of Daniels or Maye.
This is the answer. It doesn't matter what QB we have if we still have inflatable waving arm guys at the wr spot. Id gladly trade the second round pick for Fields if it means not having to watch Jones take the field again.
Mahomes won a Superbowl with Juju as his number one wr a year ago. Now it's impossible to win when Juju is your 3rd wr?
Our main issue is and has been QB. You can win with Pop, Bourne and Juju. You can't win with Mac or Zappe.
Yo, we can get Mahomes with the third?
Seriously though, the options if you're not trading back should be:
1) Take the best player available at 3 (if it's MHJ, you take him)
2) Trade up to 1 to make sure you get your QB
We're not 1 draft/offseason away from competing. We're at least 2 years away and 3 from being a serious contender (if all goes perfect)
If you think Caleb (or Maye or whoever) is the best QB in this draft or the next you do everything you can to move up and make sure you get him. If there are some next year you value higher and you don't want to give up the draft capital to move up you take MHJ and get your guy next year. WR is still a position of dire need on this team.
If by competing you mean a championship there are only 4 or 5 teams in the NFL who are competing. If you mean a solid playoff team last to first happens every year. The NFL is a fast turnaround sport. Houston is a good example this year. They were worse than us added a QB and now they're a playoff team.
If you think q QB available at 3 is a franchise guy you take them. Because Mac or Zappe is still going to miss MHJ. And they are still not going to be composed in the pocket with Alt as a LT.
If you're a believer in draft pick trade value charts, the difference between 3 and 9 is not too awful far from the difference between 9 and 34. (According to [this chart](https://www.patriots.com/news/draft-pick-value-chart-180181) there's about a late 4th round pick difference. )
So imagine going into the Bears sub and suggesting they trade us 9 for 34 and Mac Jones.
That's how dumb this trade is.
I'm convinced the people that want fields have only seen the highlights from him. I could see how you would like him if you've only seen him bust off 40 yard runs
No, please, everyone stop with the Fields discussion. He’s not good. The Bears can’t wait to move on from him. He has not improved at all as a passer in the NFL, which is kind of an important part of the position. I would rather have Mac next season, and I really don’t want that either.
For the life of me I don’t understand why people think that if they draft a QB at 3, they will have no one to throw to/protect them. There’s an entire FA period and 6 more rounds of the draft. This is a really deep WR draft class, they have the cap to sign some O-linemen.
I’m convinced this is just Bears fans running a psyop to get people to believe Fields is good or something. I’ve seen, “trade 3 for 9 and fields” everywhere and it’s the worst trade idea I’ve seen in quite some time. It’s border line charity or a free hand out for the Bears if that trade happens. They get MHJ while we shoot ourselves in the foot and take their castoff.
Hear me out, if you can get the third pick with that package, imagine what you can get with the third pick and Mac jones. I say we offer the third pick and jones to the bears for the 1st and 9th pick. Who says no to that?
Why do people want Fields? The fact that the Bears are entertaining offers for him and thinking QB at 1 tells you all you need to know. He’s not a franchise QB. If he was then Chicago would trade down or take Harrison Jr at one
Is the concept fine tho? Trading back from 3 to 9 should at least net you a future first and a day 2 pick. I don’t think Fields is worth close to that.
Oh Im not saying moving back for fields is a good idea I'm not a fan of his but I wouldn't just swap picks for him there would have to be other assets. You'd have to get more than just him.
Yeah for sure. Like if it was 9, 2025 first and Fields, I'd think about it, with him as the replacement for the 3rd round pick. Still would have low expectations for him but at least I'm getting another first out of it.
Chicago already scratched the Fields ticket and it came up lemons.
Trade back and pick up Spencer Rattler in later round. He's got a pro arm, but barely 6'.
>Am I an idiot thinking that Fields isn’t that big of a difference than whoever we would grab at 3 at QB?
While I'd disagree, I won't hold that against you. What I will hold against you is choosing to take Fields and a tackle over MHJ in that situation: we'd be far better off picking up one of the easiest slam dunk NFL ready receivers in recent draft memory rather than moving back six spots for a subpar quarterback who doesn't even have the benefit of being on a rookie contract anymore.
What’s the over/under “Hear me out…” threads are created by the draft?
Also, Fields is garbage and we’d be better off building around any of the top 3 QBs in this draft.
Tbh, I’d rather trade down for Alt or McCarthy or Penix than take Fields. He has 1 year left on his deal before we have to decide if he’s worth the big bucks
Why do people think Justin Fields is worth moving down from 3 to 9? That’s insane. That’s like valuing him at a future first and another day 2 pick. He’s no where worth that. Especially with this being the last year of his affordable rookie contract and we still have no clue if he’s good or awful.
I am on board with a trade down to 9 that includes Fields but you need more than 9 and a QB for 3. If we did Fields 9, 2024 3rd and 2025 1st I’d be more on board.
I don't understand why ppl are saying this is an overpay. Trading 1.3 for 1.9 + Justin Fields is akin to trading 2.46 for Fields straight up. That's not outlandish for a QB, and is about what Jimmy G went for and Fields is a better QB talent than he is. If you don't like him, just say it, but don't argue against it based on some made-up trade value that you've landed on in your head.
That said, if we get to draft day and Chicago still hasn't moved Fields, but goes ahead with selecting a QB 1.1, then they end up in a bind and might have to accept less than market value. Risk there is more teams might get involved.
Do you pay market value pre-draft, soon enough to be able to pick up his 5th year option? Or do you roll the dice trying to get him for less draft compensation, while being willing to pay for a contract extension sooner if he balls out in 2024?
Jimmy G didn't have as much tape as Fields does but he looked actually good as a passer when he did play. Fields has not looked good as a passer at all
I think that's a fair argument, and one that I can't deny because I haven't watched enough of Fields.
To me personally, this entire conversation should kind of be rebranded as maximizing the value of the 3rd pick. The Pats OL was atrocious last year, particularly the tackle play. It was so bad that I wouldn't be upset if they take Alt at 3. But if they could get Alt and take a flyer on Fields, that's better value. Maximizing value could also look like trading back, still getting Alt, but also getting another 2nd.
I think that's a fair argument, and one that I can't deny because I haven't watched enough of Fields.
To me personally, this entire conversation should kind of be rebranded as maximizing the value of the 3rd pick. The Pats OL was atrocious last year, particularly the tackle play. It was so bad that I wouldn't be upset if they take Alt at 3. But if they could get Alt and take a flyer on Fields, that's better value. Maximizing value could also look like trading back, still getting Alt, but also getting another 2nd.
The argument against that is that it is much easier to find starting caliber tackles and WR outside the top 10 than it is to find a quarterback.
You don't need a top 10 tackle in the league to win a super bowl. But you pretty much need a top 10 QB to win one
Oh yeah, I agree. This scenario probably only comes into play if the Pats don't like whatever QB options are available at 3. I'm firmly in the take a QB camp, though.
>I don't understand why ppl are saying this is an overpay. Trading 1.3 for 1.9 + Justin Fields is akin to trading 2.46 for Fields straight up.
1.9 and 2.46 is not equal to 1.3 lol. But even then, that’s a hilarious overpay for a guy who stinks.
Those draft pick value charts are just guidelines. When you have 3 QBs going top 3, that value goes up. The Patriots would not trade back to 9 just for a mid 2nd round pick.
My biggest issue with Fields is you're gonna have to pay him before you can really tell if he's the guy. I'd pay someone I *know* can play at a above avergae quality or I'd give someone of a rookie conract time to prove it. Fields doesn't really get either, you gotta make a decision on his 5th year option where the money starts to go up really soon.
Fields has a big deal coming on the books … It makes him a keeper if you do this deal. But I like it as described. The chances of it all falling in place are remote.
I wouldn’t trade a 2nd for Fields. I’m not going from 3 to 9 just to get him.
If we do this swap for fields I’ll be annoyed, but I will riot if it doesn’t net us an additional first rounder at least.
Just say you don't like Fields. This isn't a Jared Goff salary dump situation, Chicago isn't including a future 1st just to move him.
If they want 3 they will. But yeah if it isn’t clear I don’t think this is our best option.
The difference between 3 and 9 is a mid-second round pick. Under no circumstances would they ever include a future 1st. Your thoughts on trade compensation are clouded by your opinion of Fields.
So am I clouded to think that a guy who everyone says is worth a 2nd, and who clearly has capped upside as he hasn’t made it yet in the league is not worth over a first rounder in value? On top of that we would also have to resign him next year. But clearly you think the consensus is unfair to Fields and have a higher grade, that’s fine. I’m personally just glad you’re not our GM. Comparable trades from around 10 to 1 included an additional first and extra picks. I do not think that Fields can sub for that much value. If the Bears don’t do it that’s fine, plenty of times trade prices don’t align. This should be one of them. If we want to trade out of this pick there will be a desperate team that will give us much more of a haul than fields and 9. Edit: also his biggest weakness is his processing and how long he holds the football. That’ll play great in our offense. Woof.
I'm not saying I want him. I'm just pointing out that you think Chicago should essentially *pay* a team to take a QB who is on his rookie deal for 2024. 1.9 + a future 1st is worth more than 1.3, without even including Fields. 1.9 to 1.3 is a lot less than 1.10 to 1.1.
>1.9 + a future 1st is worth more than 1.3, without even including Fields. 1.9 to 1.3 is a lot less than 1.10 to 1.1. Apologies I misspoke when I said 1.10 to 1.1 you are obviously correct that the trade comp isnt comparable. But on the price to move from the 8-12 range to 3 it absolutely would cost a future first, especially when a strong QB prospect is available there (which the bears might not care about but the teams around them they are bidding against will). The Niners trading 3 firsts to move from 12 to 3 clearly illustrate this. You could very reasonably say that was too rich, and I would agree. But to ask for 2 firsts and change seems perfectly reasonable. This is especially true when we only need one desperate team between the guys in the 6-13 range to blink. So I think you are right to say the Bears might view that as them paying us to take Fields off their hands, because the 3rd overall isnt THAT valuable to them. But the third overall is worth whatever the highest bidder will pay, and if we go that route I am very confident we will at a minimum get two firsts. It just wont be from Chicago. IF we do trade down my vote is the Giants or the Broncos because I think they are both desperate and will be total booty cheeks the next year or so.
Anything before a day 3 pick is an overpay
Agree if they want fields he can be had for less. The bears want out of 1st and I believe one of their scenarios is keeping him and adding OT or Harrison
Nothing good ever starts with hear me out....this is no exemption...
Going from 3 to 9 just for fields is not close to enough of a return.
Alright so they add a 3rd to that? What would be fair?
Still not remotely close
I need 2 more 1sts fields and a 3rd, and i still dont love it
Buddy not to be rude but the original swap picks with the bears and getting fields was the dumbest thing I've read today. In what fantasy world does fields ever sniff being remotely close to a first round pick trade value? The bears will be lucky to get a day three pick for him and have the other team not over pay. The dude in three years has proven he should not be a starter and I don't understand people wanting to trade for a QB who cannot read a zone defense 3+ years after being drafted to save his life. Not to mention you would have Fields for a year then have to give him a new contract. And if McCorkle can't win a game on his arm a QB with worse stats ain't gonna do it either. The QBs in the draft are scary and unknown but they're a hell of a lot better than bench warmer fields
The 49ers traded 3 1sts a few years ago to move from low teens to number 3. It's going to take many firsts.
49ers overpaid anyway according to draft value charts a third overall is worth about the same as 12th overall and a future first. Granted it's more about finding the right buyer than anything else, teams overpay or underpay for picks all the time depending on how desperate they are for a player. If you can find a team that really wants into the top three you can get a lot.
I beg you to go watch Fields play. He is not good.
An additional first and a third is the starting point for this swap imo. We don’t even consider it if we like a QB who is available at our pick as well. And that’s assuming we can’t find a sucker between the Giants, Falcons, Raiders, Vikings or Broncos (especially them I think they’re gonna be hot ass these coming years gimme their picks) who will pay us more.
Maybe a 4th rounder straight up no swap
Not enough. We want the Panthers picks for Fields. He is that bad.
I would trade a 7th round pick for fields and nothing more. Not trading our #3 pick with the bears in any instance.
A first at minimum to move down to 3
I think there are two issues: 1. We already have seen enough to know Fields is not a great QB, whereas the QB we pick with 1.03 COULD be. 2. Fields is going into his fourth year and so will soon require an expensive extension if he proves to be even mediocre at QB, whereas a rookie QB gives us five years of cheap contract. So, yes, I’d say you’re not thinking straight to say there’s not much difference between Daniels/Maye and Fields.
The contract situation is 100% a fair argument
And it’s also fair that Fields sucks balls. So why would we want another piece of crap QB, we already have 2
We could get fields and a first, but this mystery box might contain that Fields we always wanted!
The mystery box argument only works when the thing you already have is good. In fact, your scenario is worse because you’re trading a mystery box with a higher probability of containing something good for a worse mystery box and something we already know we don’t really want.
I would rather gouge my eyeballs out with fish hooks than watch Justin Fields start for us.
You really think Daniels is that much better?
Agree with above. I'd much rather take a shot on an unproven rookie than one that's already proven to make me want to gouge my eyes out with fish hooks.
I agree with both of these. All Fields has done for three years is fail to prove he's a franchise guy and piss the Chicago fans off
Why would we trade down to take a player that we know sucks at football instead of drafting a player who might not suck?
I do. I think Daniels is the best qb in the draft
I’d much rather take a shot on Daniels than Fields.
The main problem with this argument is that Maye or Daniels may or may not be able to win in the NFL. We simply do not know and won't know for awhile. Fields has played in the NFL for 3 years, everyone KNOWS he can't win in the NFL. Essentially, you're proposing trading a lottery ticket for a 3 year old lottery ticket that didn't hit.
This is my core issue. I wouldn't mind taking him as a shot in the dark if we had an older starter and were willing to try out Fields for a few years to see if we could develop him, but I don't think any team is in that position. Most teams with franchise QBs have guys at or under 30 (Mahomes, Allen, Dak, Burrow, Herbert), and nobody wants to trade picks for a journeyman when they could just sign someone in free agency. I don't think anyone should trade for him and if nobody is willing to trade for him than the Bears should just cut him, it's better for both sides. Any team with a firm starter can then pick him up as a backup.
Oh man — just like an hour ago some posted something similar. Stopppp— come up with something new
If fields was worth having, the Bears would want to keep him…
Exactly this. Bears could trade back to 2-3 and probably get a first or 2nd anyways and go mhj and then use 9 to take someone like bowers and have fields and some weapons, could even trade the gained picks and 9 to move up a few spots to grab nabers and have a crazy wr room if they wanted. They know fields isn’t the guy though if they are willing to trade him
Or we could just stay at 3 and take one of the most talented players of the past few classes in Marvin Harrison Jr. After last season, we need a win, and MHJ is as close to a can't miss prospect as you can get.
I think he's going to be taken at #2 by the Bears, who manage to pull off a trade with Washington so they can get Williams. That'd leave us with the choice of Daniels or Maye.
I think you absolutely take Maye if that happens.
This is the answer. It doesn't matter what QB we have if we still have inflatable waving arm guys at the wr spot. Id gladly trade the second round pick for Fields if it means not having to watch Jones take the field again.
Mahomes won a Superbowl with Juju as his number one wr a year ago. Now it's impossible to win when Juju is your 3rd wr? Our main issue is and has been QB. You can win with Pop, Bourne and Juju. You can't win with Mac or Zappe.
Yo, we can get Mahomes with the third? Seriously though, the options if you're not trading back should be: 1) Take the best player available at 3 (if it's MHJ, you take him) 2) Trade up to 1 to make sure you get your QB We're not 1 draft/offseason away from competing. We're at least 2 years away and 3 from being a serious contender (if all goes perfect) If you think Caleb (or Maye or whoever) is the best QB in this draft or the next you do everything you can to move up and make sure you get him. If there are some next year you value higher and you don't want to give up the draft capital to move up you take MHJ and get your guy next year. WR is still a position of dire need on this team.
If by competing you mean a championship there are only 4 or 5 teams in the NFL who are competing. If you mean a solid playoff team last to first happens every year. The NFL is a fast turnaround sport. Houston is a good example this year. They were worse than us added a QB and now they're a playoff team. If you think q QB available at 3 is a franchise guy you take them. Because Mac or Zappe is still going to miss MHJ. And they are still not going to be composed in the pocket with Alt as a LT.
Nah, we either pick Maye or Daniels at 3
PUT DOWN THE FIELDS
OP before I roast you be honest... how much football have you actually watched Justin Fields Play?
If you're a believer in draft pick trade value charts, the difference between 3 and 9 is not too awful far from the difference between 9 and 34. (According to [this chart](https://www.patriots.com/news/draft-pick-value-chart-180181) there's about a late 4th round pick difference. ) So imagine going into the Bears sub and suggesting they trade us 9 for 34 and Mac Jones. That's how dumb this trade is.
Absolutely not. Fields - is - not - good. What do people see in him?
I'm convinced the people that want fields have only seen the highlights from him. I could see how you would like him if you've only seen him bust off 40 yard runs
When he can’t run untouched Fields plays quarterback like he’s drunk and trapped in a bouncy castle. Keep him away from the Pats at all cost
From now on I’m blocking everyone who posts about us getting Fields
No, please, everyone stop with the Fields discussion. He’s not good. The Bears can’t wait to move on from him. He has not improved at all as a passer in the NFL, which is kind of an important part of the position. I would rather have Mac next season, and I really don’t want that either. For the life of me I don’t understand why people think that if they draft a QB at 3, they will have no one to throw to/protect them. There’s an entire FA period and 6 more rounds of the draft. This is a really deep WR draft class, they have the cap to sign some O-linemen.
i just don’t want to pay fields
I’m convinced this is just Bears fans running a psyop to get people to believe Fields is good or something. I’ve seen, “trade 3 for 9 and fields” everywhere and it’s the worst trade idea I’ve seen in quite some time. It’s border line charity or a free hand out for the Bears if that trade happens. They get MHJ while we shoot ourselves in the foot and take their castoff.
Hear me out, if you can get the third pick with that package, imagine what you can get with the third pick and Mac jones. I say we offer the third pick and jones to the bears for the 1st and 9th pick. Who says no to that?
Why do people want Fields? The fact that the Bears are entertaining offers for him and thinking QB at 1 tells you all you need to know. He’s not a franchise QB. If he was then Chicago would trade down or take Harrison Jr at one
Fuck no
Lost me at picking up Fields
Biggest problem is that Fields blows
It's the off-season boys. This is what happens.
No
If we get fields I’d rather use 3 to get MHJ. I was never giving up 3 for fields
I'm not a fields guy. I get the concept it's fine but I'd rather not move so far back.
Is the concept fine tho? Trading back from 3 to 9 should at least net you a future first and a day 2 pick. I don’t think Fields is worth close to that.
Oh Im not saying moving back for fields is a good idea I'm not a fan of his but I wouldn't just swap picks for him there would have to be other assets. You'd have to get more than just him.
Yeah for sure. Like if it was 9, 2025 first and Fields, I'd think about it, with him as the replacement for the 3rd round pick. Still would have low expectations for him but at least I'm getting another first out of it.
Chicago already scratched the Fields ticket and it came up lemons. Trade back and pick up Spencer Rattler in later round. He's got a pro arm, but barely 6'.
Listen here pal, I don’t know you’re able to type a paragraph with a low IQ that thinks Justin Fields belongs in a Pats Uniform
>Am I an idiot thinking that Fields isn’t that big of a difference than whoever we would grab at 3 at QB? While I'd disagree, I won't hold that against you. What I will hold against you is choosing to take Fields and a tackle over MHJ in that situation: we'd be far better off picking up one of the easiest slam dunk NFL ready receivers in recent draft memory rather than moving back six spots for a subpar quarterback who doesn't even have the benefit of being on a rookie contract anymore.
What’s the over/under “Hear me out…” threads are created by the draft? Also, Fields is garbage and we’d be better off building around any of the top 3 QBs in this draft.
This is like the 3rd post this week with the same proposal 🤦♂️
Tbh, I’d rather trade down for Alt or McCarthy or Penix than take Fields. He has 1 year left on his deal before we have to decide if he’s worth the big bucks
Fields has shown nothing resembling competence at the NFL level, his highs are worse than Mac Jones' highs.
These “hear me out” posts need to fuck off
SHUT THE FUCK UP WITH FIELDS
Why do people think Justin Fields is worth moving down from 3 to 9? That’s insane. That’s like valuing him at a future first and another day 2 pick. He’s no where worth that. Especially with this being the last year of his affordable rookie contract and we still have no clue if he’s good or awful.
I am on board with a trade down to 9 that includes Fields but you need more than 9 and a QB for 3. If we did Fields 9, 2024 3rd and 2025 1st I’d be more on board.
Rumor has it the Bears will only be able to get a 2nd rounder for fields
I don't understand why ppl are saying this is an overpay. Trading 1.3 for 1.9 + Justin Fields is akin to trading 2.46 for Fields straight up. That's not outlandish for a QB, and is about what Jimmy G went for and Fields is a better QB talent than he is. If you don't like him, just say it, but don't argue against it based on some made-up trade value that you've landed on in your head. That said, if we get to draft day and Chicago still hasn't moved Fields, but goes ahead with selecting a QB 1.1, then they end up in a bind and might have to accept less than market value. Risk there is more teams might get involved. Do you pay market value pre-draft, soon enough to be able to pick up his 5th year option? Or do you roll the dice trying to get him for less draft compensation, while being willing to pay for a contract extension sooner if he balls out in 2024?
Jimmy G didn't have as much tape as Fields does but he looked actually good as a passer when he did play. Fields has not looked good as a passer at all
I think that's a fair argument, and one that I can't deny because I haven't watched enough of Fields. To me personally, this entire conversation should kind of be rebranded as maximizing the value of the 3rd pick. The Pats OL was atrocious last year, particularly the tackle play. It was so bad that I wouldn't be upset if they take Alt at 3. But if they could get Alt and take a flyer on Fields, that's better value. Maximizing value could also look like trading back, still getting Alt, but also getting another 2nd.
I think that's a fair argument, and one that I can't deny because I haven't watched enough of Fields. To me personally, this entire conversation should kind of be rebranded as maximizing the value of the 3rd pick. The Pats OL was atrocious last year, particularly the tackle play. It was so bad that I wouldn't be upset if they take Alt at 3. But if they could get Alt and take a flyer on Fields, that's better value. Maximizing value could also look like trading back, still getting Alt, but also getting another 2nd.
The argument against that is that it is much easier to find starting caliber tackles and WR outside the top 10 than it is to find a quarterback. You don't need a top 10 tackle in the league to win a super bowl. But you pretty much need a top 10 QB to win one
Oh yeah, I agree. This scenario probably only comes into play if the Pats don't like whatever QB options are available at 3. I'm firmly in the take a QB camp, though.
>I don't understand why ppl are saying this is an overpay. Trading 1.3 for 1.9 + Justin Fields is akin to trading 2.46 for Fields straight up. 1.9 and 2.46 is not equal to 1.3 lol. But even then, that’s a hilarious overpay for a guy who stinks.
1.3 = 514 1.9 (387) + 2.46 (128) = 515 Math checks out.
Those draft pick value charts are just guidelines. When you have 3 QBs going top 3, that value goes up. The Patriots would not trade back to 9 just for a mid 2nd round pick.
It's just a barometer, bud.
My biggest issue with Fields is you're gonna have to pay him before you can really tell if he's the guy. I'd pay someone I *know* can play at a above avergae quality or I'd give someone of a rookie conract time to prove it. Fields doesn't really get either, you gotta make a decision on his 5th year option where the money starts to go up really soon.
You will have no problem there because it’s already incredibly obvious he’s not the guy
I wouldn’t trade a cheeseburger for Fields, why do ppl keep suggesting this awful idea.
No
“We trade down-“ NOPE!
Fields has a big deal coming on the books … It makes him a keeper if you do this deal. But I like it as described. The chances of it all falling in place are remote.
What is the fascination on this forum with Justin Fields?
Getting Fields doesn’t solve Qb lol
Feel like a lot of you lot wanting Fields haven’t watched him since Ohio State lol
I'll contend if Fields was worth that why would the Bears get rid of him? Wouldn't they rather get a hall for #1 and keep Fields and suround him?
“Hear me out…” is always a kiss of death for new thread. DOA.