Fields

[Waterboy]

Had a discussion with some Bears fans.  Would you be spending another pick on a QB?  If you think there’s a guy available at 2 that you think is the guy, you have to go QB correct?   Fields would still have strong trade value at this point for some team.

[Guest]

Nah, they need to just draft Jalen Carter and put another stud DT in the division. It is debatable whether any of those top prospects will be better than Fields.

[Guest]

@kmillard said:
Nah, they need to just draft Jalen Carter and put another stud DT in the division. It is debatable whether any of those top prospects will be better than Fields.

Kinda agree with you, but Fields processes pretty slow and is an injury waiting to happen imho.  He’s really kind of hard to project.  I don’t see him with prolonged success, but that being said, he’s hard to defend.

[Guest]

I didn't want fields in the draft and wouldn't give much for him now.  He is a 500 qb at best imo and has a career that likely only lasts about 4 to 5 years as a starter since he seems to be a 1 look and run guy that is not holding up to that kind of game.

[Guest]

The media (always dependable and never clickbait) seemed to crown him as the QB of the future that had made huge improvements this year.

[Guest]

You always need to explore the possibilities. But I wouldn't really seriously consider it. You have to see Fields with weapons and a better defense. My guess is they try to trade down a bit to collect more assets from a QB needy team and then spend some of their $100M in cap space. That will build a good scaffold around Fields to really evaluate him and likely net some future assets if you need to still add at quarterback. Personal opinion is that they'll stick with Fields long-term. 

[Guest]

i heard that the bears have like 24 rosters spots to fill for next year already,  I am sure they will likely have more between guys the cut and guys that retire so their GM will be extremely busy trying to fill those spots with FAs.

[Guest]

@"Geoff Nichols" said:
You always need to explore the possibilities. But I wouldn't really seriously consider it. You have to see Fields with weapons and a better defense. My guess is they try to trade down a bit to collect more assets from a QB needy team and then spend some of their $100M in cap space. That will build a good scaffold around Fields to really evaluate him and likely net some future assets if you need to still add at quarterback. Personal opinion is that they'll stick with Fields long-term. 

That's exactly it. I said before the season that the biggest problem on the Bears wasn't necessarily Fields. It was that they surrounded him with crap, very likely delaying a definitive decision on the QB. 

Only thing worse than drafting a crap QB is drafting a below average one and having him saddle your team for years until you can get a clear picture of who he really is. 

[Guest]

@MaroonBells said:

@"Geoff Nichols" said:
You always need to explore the possibilities. But I wouldn't really seriously consider it. You have to see Fields with weapons and a better defense. My guess is they try to trade down a bit to collect more assets from a QB needy team and then spend some of their $100M in cap space. That will build a good scaffold around Fields to really evaluate him and likely net some future assets if you need to still add at quarterback. Personal opinion is that they'll stick with Fields long-term. 

That's exactly it. I said before the season that the biggest problem on the Bears wasn't necessarily Fields. It was that they surrounded him with crap, very likely delaying a definitive decision on the QB. 

Only thing worse than drafting a crap QB is drafting a below average one and having him saddle your team for years until you can get a clear picture of who he really is.