Would You Trade the #4 Pick for Justin Fields?

[csmopar]

Am I the only one fighting the urge to make jokes about this obsession with size? 

[tvturner]

9 hours ago, RollerColt said:

I like Fields, but I'm gonna pass on this. It has nothing to do with Justin but everything to do with getting "our guy".

 

And honestly, I think I'd rather trade back or stay put, bulk up on some 1st round talent and then get Hooker or McKee in the 2nd/3rd round over trading that 4 for Fields. 

Hooker and McKee are not the saviors for the franchise.

 

Take one of the top 4 QBs and roll

[RollerColt]

Just now, tvturner said:

Hooker and McKee are not the saviors for the franchise.

 

Take one of the top 4 QBs and roll

Fine with me. Seriously. If the Bears truthfully think this class is better than Fields, why take him? 

[tvturner]

7 hours ago, Indeee said:

If the Bears were inclined to move off Fields and take a QB at 1 overall, why would we ever give up our 1st for Fields? 

 

If anything, we could get him for pick 35 or a third at that point.

 

Same with Lance, we could get him for pick 35

Fields and Lance are both going to net a high first rounder and late first rounder respectively if they ever get traded

 

We wouldn't get either for #35..

Just now, RollerColt said:

Fine with me. Seriously. If the Bears truthfully think this class is better than Fields, why take him? 

Oh I agree!

 

The Colts should stay away from Fields 

[Moosejawcolt]

4 minutes ago, tvturner said:

Fields and Lance are both going to net a high first rounder and late first rounder respectively if they ever get traded

 

We wouldn't get either for #35..

Oh I agree!

 

The Colts should stay away from Fields 

Disagree on Lance. He has shown nothing and can't stay healthy.  Why do u think they signed Jimmy?  Shannahan saw enuff and went oh my. They couldn't give Lance away.

[danlhart87]

Just now, Moosejawcolt said:

Disagree on Lance. He has shown nothing and can't stay healthy.  Why do u think they signed Jimmy?  Shannahan saw enuff and went oh my. They couldn't give Lance away.

He got hurt after 2 games.  It's not he said screw it you are terrible. 

 

There's a very high chance Lance will be the 49ers starter next year

[Defjamz26]

6 hours ago, philba101 said:

Let's say the Bears load up with Fields and he balls out and takes them to a Super Bowl like Hurts did with the Eagles. Then they wouldn't dream of dealing him for a mere #4 pick. See how things can change so quickly. How many people were predicting before the season started that Hurts would have an MVP-caliber season and take his team to the Super Bowl? Not many, the Eagles would laugh now if someone offered them the #4 pick for Hurts.

Not really. A number 4 overall pick is just as valuable as multiple 1st. Top 4 would be a fair swap depending on the draft class. This year number 4 overall guarantees you Stroud, Young, Levis, or Richardson. Next year it may get you Caleb Williams or Drake Maye. Even if he has a breakout year I wouldn’t trade the number 4 overall pick for him. Because if he’s for sale and the Bears think they can get someone better in the draft, then why not just draft the guy?

[jchandler7]

Not for the #4 pick. But, if they were willing to trade him for the 35th pick I'd be all for it. 

[philba101]

12 hours ago, RollerColt said:

Fine with me. Seriously. If the Bears truthfully think this class is better than Fields, why take him? 

Well, the Bears also thought that it was a good idea in 2017 to trade the #3 pick and three other draft picks so they could move up to #2 and pick Mitch Trubisky. In the process they bypassed Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes. I guess the suggestion is that the Bears don't know how to evaluate or develop QB's and maybe they are doing the same with Fields.

[RollerColt]

3 minutes ago, philba101 said:

Well, the Bears also thought that it was a good idea in 2017 to trade the #3 pick and three other draft picks so they could move up to #2 and pick Mitch Trubisky. In the process they bypassed Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes. I guess the suggestion is that the Bears don't know how to evaluate or develop QB's and maybe they are doing the same with Fields.

... So wait... 

 

If the Bears don't know how to properly evaluate QBs because they passed on Watson (who I still personally think is overrated to be honest) and Mahomes, what does that say about Justin Fields who is yet another QB they themselves chose? 

[philba101]

11 hours ago, Defjamz26 said:

Not really. A number 4 overall pick is just as valuable as multiple 1st. Top 4 would be a fair swap depending on the draft class. This year number 4 overall guarantees you Stroud, Young, Levis, or Richardson. Next year it may get you Caleb Williams or Drake Maye. Even if he has a breakout year I wouldn’t trade the number 4 overall pick for him. Because if he’s for sale and the Bears think they can get someone better in the draft, then why not just draft the guy?

There is no way the Eagles take that deal right now. They are not going to trade the QB who just took them to the Super Bowl, for #4 pick that might get them Stroud, Young, or Levis, all of which have not proven they can play on the NFL level yet. Most analysts are not calling any of those three guys franchise QB's like is suggested for Williams and Maye next year.

[philba101]

7 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

... So wait... 

 

If the Bears don't know how to properly evaluate QBs because they passed on Watson (who I still personally think is overrated to be honest) and Mahomes, what does that say about Justin Fields who is yet another QB they themselves chose? 

It is easy to say that now about Watson since he has looked terrible after all his legal troubles, but a few years ago he was highly regarded as one of the top young QB's. As far as Fields goes, I don't think we know yet just what his ceiling will be and we may or may not get to see it with the Bears. I think it is a fair criticism to say the Bears (like the Colts recently) have not done a good job with their QB's.

[shasta519]

It's an interesting choice. Either they trade up for the QB they want, which will cost far more. Or they stay pat and take whomever is available at #4.

 

So either way that #4 pick is gone to a QB. So it just comes down to whether you Fields or one of the QB prospects better. There are other considerations, such as Fields having only 3 cost-controlled years left vs. a rookie having 5. But he also has begun to take clear strides forward, which is an advantage he has over an unknown rookie. 

 

Plus, the Colts just hired Steichen to be the HC...the guy who helped turn a similar player (Hurts) into a top tier QB. And I would argue that Fields has the same mobility, but better arm strength. He could very well be poised for that year 3 breakout that we have seen with other QBs. And if that happens, getting him with the #4 pick is a steal.

 

Obviously, you would try to get him cheaper than the #4 pick, but it's not a wild idea. 

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, RollerColt said:

... So wait... 

 

If the Bears don't know how to properly evaluate QBs because they passed on Watson (who I still personally think is overrated to be honest) and Mahomes, what does that say about Justin Fields who is yet another QB they themselves chose? 

 

Fields was QB4 off the board that year. So they really only chose him over Mac Jones. Though the people that evaluated Trubisky are the same that evaluated Fields.

 

But it doesn't mean that CHI couldn't luck into a great QB pick. HOU made all kinds of odd moves in recent years, but they managed to get the Watson pick right.

 

I think a big part of their QB woes was Nagy's coaching. And I am confident that Steichen will be a much better fit.

 

But I am also pretty confident they won't trade him. 

 

 

[RollerColt]

2 minutes ago, shasta519 said:

But I am also pretty confident they won't trade him. 

I hope so. Because again I'd rather have someone that we personally drafted.

 

I don't think I can be swayed from this perspective though I respect why others want Fields so badly. 

[masterlock]

He's basically had one good year. Will he continue on that next season? Will he regress? No, I wouldn't take him. He hasn't really established himself on a consistent year-to-year basis. 

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, masterlock said:

He's basically had one good year. Will he continue on that next season? Will he regress? No, I wouldn't take him. He hasn't really established himself on a consistent year-to-year basis. 

If the Bears decide to draft a quarterback with their 1st pick trading Fields to the Colts will most likely happen.  Ballard loved him coming out.  I don't think he has done anything to hurt his upside playing on a last place team. 

[ChuggaBeer]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:18 PM, tvturner said:

Hooker and McKee are not the saviors for the franchise.

 

Take one of the top 4 QBs and roll

I could argue that Will Andersen at 4 and Hooker at 35 would be a better value than trading up or settling for what's left at 4

[crazycolt1]

6 minutes ago, ChuggaBeer said:

I could argue that Will Andersen at 4 and Hooker at 35 would be a better value than trading up or settling for what's left at 4

I kinda agree with picking the best player in the draft (Anderson) at #4 if he is still there. I'm not sure Hooker will be there at 35 with all the QB needy teams.  

[Dark Superman]

I much rather roll with whoever the Colts decide to draft in the first round in April's Draft. I like the idea of having a QB under a rookie contract for at least four years before having to pay him.

[OnePunchHarbaugh]

I think Fields would be really good under Steichen and more of a sure-thing than any QB we could pick up in the draft, but #4 should be off the table.  If we can get Fields and use #4 on Anderson, its an A+ offseason for me.

[ChuggaBeer]

26 minutes ago, Dark Superman said:

I much rather roll with whoever the Colts decide to draft in the first round in April's Draft. I like the idea of having a QB under a rookie contract for at least four years before having to pay him.

Great point!!!  Maybe trade back u into the 1st even if you over pay for that extra yr????

[smittywerb]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:45 PM, philba101 said:

Good points. Any rookie is probably going to take a couple years to get acclimated to the NFL as well. The thinking is to get Fields now and see if you can bypass the 2-years of development you will likely face with a rookie. Yes you will have to pay Fields sooner if he hits, but if the QB you draft doesn't pan out after the first 2-3 years, then you will likely start the QB process all over again in this case as well.

 

if this roster was in a win now mode then I’d be all for this, but we’re not.  We still have to spend some money to get there.  We have to sign one or two studs for pass rushing.  We have to sign our big name WR to pair with our new QB.  We’re hoping Raimann is our future LT and if not, we have to spend money there too.  That’s going to be hard to do in one year so realistically we’d have one year to make that happen before paying fields vs three with our new qb

 

And guess what, if our new qb sucks we’ll be drafting high again anyway and have another chance at getting our qb.

[richard pallo]

11 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

 

if this roster was in a win now mode then I’d be all for this, but we’re not.  We still have to spend some money to get there.  We have to sign one or two studs for pass rushing.  We have to sign our big name WR to pair with our new QB.  We’re hoping Raimann is our future LT and if not, we have to spend money there too.  That’s going to be hard to do in one year so realistically we’d have one year to make that happen before paying fields vs three with our new qb

 

And guess what, if our new qb sucks we’ll be drafting high again anyway and have another chance at getting our qb.

I would rather have Fields who doesn't suck versus a rookie who very well could suck and we start over again.  Fields is young and a proven franchise quarterback.  Our rebuild will be completed much faster with Fields.  If the Bears are crazy enough to trade him we should be all over that opportunity.

[krunk]

16 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

I would rather have Fields who doesn't suck versus a rookie who very well could suck and we start over again.  Fields is young and a proven franchise quarterback.  Our rebuild will be completed much faster with Fields.  If the Bears are crazy enough to trade him we should be all over that opportunity.

Only you think we should be all over literally darn near every trade that occurs. Youre addicted like that. They are not trading Fields. Literally any time a GM used the term "id have to be blown away" 99 percent of the time its a tell that they are just posturing. Its very likely its not going anywhere.  To get rid of Fields it would have to be a package where the other team just sold their soul. Thats what hes looking for. Hes looking for a "bears might draft my guy" so lets see what they want for Fields. Other team asks and Bears GM replies " Make me an offer". Other team says I will give you 10 high draft picks yada yada yada. Something where they sell their soul. Looking for a Mike Ditka.

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, krunk said:

Only you think we should be all over literally darn near every trade that occurs. Youre addicted like that.

If you don't like it do yourself a favor and block me.  I'm not changing.  

[krunk]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

If you don't like it do yourself a favor and block me.  I'm not changing.  

Nah you good with me. Im just telling you i know your nature on these boards bro. Mr. Las Vegas!

[masterlock]

On 2/17/2023 at 11:52 AM, richard pallo said:

If the Bears decide to draft a quarterback with their 1st pick trading Fields to the Colts will most likely happen.  Ballard loved him coming out.  I don't think he has done anything to hurt his upside playing on a last place team. 

When it comes to the franchise quarterback, Irsay is the one who has to really want Fields. My feeling is that Fields' style doesn't map onto the Colts' vision for the future. Maybe I'm wrong, We'll see. 

[Smoke317]

Bears need more picks since they traded a 2nd for Claypool.  I wouldn’t trade pick 4 but I’d definitely trade a 2nd, a couple 3rd’s, and a player or two (Moore &/or Kelly) that Flus likes for Fields.  Then we can use pick 4 on another foundational piece in the trenches.  Like one of the tackles from OSU.  Then we could kick Raimann over to right or slide him or Smith into RG.  Knowing Ballard we could even trade back and recoup some of the picks from the trade.  
 

Food for thought: Fields just broke or was close to breaking the single game and full season rushing records for a QB in a terrible scheme with poor weapons in only his 2nd year in the league.  Also, through the first half of the season the Bears were averaging over 30 points per game. Steichen would work magic with Fields.  With him and JT we’d immediately have one of the top rushing teams in the league. Leaving 1 on 1’s for Pittman & Pierce on the outsides. 
 

So if we can’t get Bryce Young, I’m definitely taking Fields over Stroud, Levis, or Richardson.  The Goat from Michigan has retired.  The OSU NFL QB curse has lifted.  The next Goat will be a dual threat QB and Fields has the pedigree and potential to be the best dual threat QB of all time.  And it’s only fitting that he comes from OSU.  Either Young or Fields on the Colts will put an end to the Reid/Mahomes/Chiefs dynasty and begin our own.

[Smoke317]

47 minutes ago, masterlock said:

When it comes to the franchise quarterback, Irsay is the one who has to really want Fields. My feeling is that Fields' style doesn't map onto the Colts' vision for the future. Maybe I'm wrong, We'll see. 

Irsay mentioned the QB from Alabama (Bryce Young) and then he mentioned how a dual threat QB in Hurts was like playing 12 on 11 with the way he beat us at the end. Fields fits that mold perfectly. 

[smittywerb]

6 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I would rather have Fields who doesn't suck versus a rookie who very well could suck and we start over again.  Fields is young and a proven franchise quarterback.  Our rebuild will be completed much faster with Fields.  If the Bears are crazy enough to trade him we should be all over that opportunity.

Once again, his level of play isn’t the problem, money is.  It’s why the bears are thinking about trading him.  If he was THAT good then why are the bears thinking about trading him?  If we trade for him, pay him, and then we can’t grab those players we want to grab because we’re devoting $35-$45mill to a qb after 2 years, the board will be complaining again about how we aren’t participating in free agency.  
 

We have to look at it from both sides of the coin.  I think people are getting caught up in seeing a shiny new young qb when we still have holes to fill.  Yeah, we’ve had underperforming QB play for the past 2 years but this isn’t a QB away.  The jets are a qb away.  They have young quality CHEAP talent at the positions of need so getting an expensive qb won’t hurt them.  Us getting an EXPENSIVE qb (in 2 years) while needing more EXPENSIVE talent at positions of need (LT, DE, WR) is going to hurt us when it comes to cap.  Now if we can hit in the draft or FA at those positions then yes, I’m all for getting fields.  But the reality is we haven’t.  Only difference with fields is that we would have our QB without the surrounding talent.

 

I think it’s just safer to get that talent first while having a cheap qb.  That has been the model for the past 5-10 years.  We go with fields, we’re giving our front office a 2 year time table to get it done.  This team is maybe 3-5 years away from being a Super Bowl contender.  1-2 if everything goes right.

[richard pallo]

31 minutes ago, smittywerb said:

Once again, his level of play isn’t the problem, money is.  It’s why the bears are thinking about trading him.  If he was THAT good then why are the bears thinking about trading him?  If we trade for him, pay him, and then we can’t grab those players we want to grab because we’re devoting $35-$45mill to a qb after 2 years, the board will be complaining again about how we aren’t participating in free agency.  
 

We have to look at it from both sides of the coin.  I think people are getting caught up in seeing a shiny new young qb when we still have holes to fill.  Yeah, we’ve had underperforming QB play for the past 2 years but this isn’t a QB away.  The jets are a qb away.  They have young quality CHEAP talent at the positions of need so getting an expensive qb won’t hurt them.  Us getting an EXPENSIVE qb (in 2 years) while needing more EXPENSIVE talent at positions of need (LT, DE, WR) is going to hurt us when it comes to cap.  Now if we can hit in the draft or FA at those positions then yes, I’m all for getting fields.  But the reality is we haven’t.  Only difference with fields is that we would have our QB without the surrounding talent.

 

I think it’s just safer to get that talent first while having a cheap qb.  That has been the model for the past 5-10 years.  We go with fields, we’re giving our front office a 2 year time table to get it done.  This team is maybe 3-5 years away from being a Super Bowl contender.  1-2 if everything goes right.

1-2 years away with Fields I agree.  We are much much closer than the Bears.  A rookie quarterback.  Anybody’s guess.   Btw Ballard has never really participated in FA but he has always done a great job managing the cap.

 

[masterlock]

1 hour ago, Smoke317 said:

Irsay mentioned the QB from Alabama (Bryce Young) and then he mentioned how a dual threat QB in Hurts was like playing 12 on 11 with the way he beat us at the end. Fields fits that mold perfectly. 

Not all "dual threats" are created equal. Mahomes, Hurts, Fields (and Young) are all dual threats but very different quarterbacks. Irsay's comments don't preclude him liking some other "dual threat", like Levis. He can admire one QB or another and at the same time not think that QB is the right fit for the Colts.

[Scott Pennock]

On 2/16/2023 at 11:24 AM, Mr. Irrelevant said:

So, he is not good enough for the Bears but good enough for the Colts? Mediocrity is now the ambition? 

It’s more about the fit……the bears current coaching staff inherited Fields and Steichen may like him better than any of the draftees. It’s not about mediocrity at all…..plus it was heavily rumored that Ballard and the rest of the FO really liked him two years ago in the draft!

[Scott Pennock]

If the HC building the offense believes the Fields two years of seasoning and his skill set is better than the top choices in the draft, absolutely - BUT - only the 4th pick, nothing else.

 

Its worth noting our FO had eyes for him in the draft two years ago. 
 

Skillset wise Fields and Hurts are similar so he feasibly could have a fair amount of immediate success in 2023 running a similar offense.

[danlhart87]

You make this trade 110%

[NewColtsFan]

20 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

You make this trade 110%

I don’t think Chicago would trade Fields for this package.   I’d be curious what Steichen thinks of him. 

[OnePunchHarbaugh]

22 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

You make this trade 110%

My God, if Ballard can turn a 2nd and 3rd into Justin Fields then promote immediately him from GM to Supreme Emperor.

[NewColtsFan]

14 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I would rather have Fields who doesn't suck versus a rookie who very well could suck and we start over again.  Fields is young and a proven franchise quarterback.  Our rebuild will be completed much faster with Fields.  If the Bears are crazy enough to trade him we should be all over that opportunity.

Not to be argumentative, but while Fields is young, he’s neither proven nor a franchise quarterback.   He’s a promising young quarterback who most think is capable of being better.  The question is how much better?  
 

Fields is not yet a good passer.   The key word there is: yet.    If the Colts trade for him it’s because Steichen thinks he can turn him into one.   Put another way, if the Colts trade for him, it’s not so he can be the player he already is, it’s to turn him into the player we’d like him to become.   Big difference.   If Steichen wants him and the price is reasonable, I’m on board.  I’m not anti-Fields.  
 

Final thought….   Former GM Mike Tannenbaum said this week that in Fields’ two years he has a total of 140 combined interceptions, fumbles and sacks.  Most of all QBs by far.   That’s a sobering stat.  How much of that is Fields and how much is due to a crappy Bears team around him only the experts know.   But it’s certainly food for thought….

[danlhart87]

12 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I don’t think Chicago would trade Fields for this package.   I’d be curious what Steichen thinks of him. 

Chicago would riot if Colts pulled this off