Would You Trade the #4 Pick for Justin Fields?

[NFLfan]

5 hours ago, danlhart87 said:

You make this trade 110%

 

I don't think Ballard or Pols would make that trade. Ballard values his draft picks. Pols probably would want a first round pick in return.

 

I wonder what the Bears fans think about this.  @Bearzzz

[Two_pound]

I'm trying to figure out what Fields has shown thus far in his career that someone would even trade a 7th round pick for him??????? Fields is not good, you could have the 2006 Colts team around him and we would have won 3 games. No to Fields, and Ballard knows that, rest easy Colt fans, Fields will not be a Colt.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

13 hours ago, masterlock said:

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.

I don’t agree on mahomes being a dual threat.

[masterlock]

39 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I don’t agree on mahomes being a dual threat.

We can call him mobile if you prefer. I'm not sure there's a clear line between mobile and "dual threat". In my mind, a dual threat is just someone who can make things happen as a runner when the passing game breaks down. But if the standard is that you have to be "dangerous" at both, then I think there are very few dual threats in the league, period. You're basically looking at Hurts, Allen, Jackson, and MAYBE a couple others. Someone like Fields, for example, is a very capable runner, but has just OK passing stats, and is definitely nowhere near the passer that Mahomes is. Does that mean that Fields is not a dual threat because he's not an elite passer? The standard goes both ways. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

44 minutes ago, masterlock said:

We can call him mobile if you prefer. I'm not sure there's a clear line between mobile and "dual threat". In my mind, a dual threat is just someone who can make things happen as a runner when the passing game breaks down. But if the standard is that you have to be "dangerous" at both, then I think there are very few dual threats in the league, period. You're basically looking at Hurts, Allen, Jackson, and MAYBE a couple others. Someone like Fields, for example, is a very capable runner, but has just OK passing stats, and is definitely nowhere near the passer that Mahomes is. Does that mean that Fields is not a dual threat because he's not an elite passer? The standard goes both ways. 

When I think dual threat I think of designed runs. I think mahomes just is more off script and only runs when he had too. But his off script plays are what makes him so good. I don’t think they really design run plays for him,

[Rhodelesstraveled]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:37 AM, philba101 said:

Would you trade the #4 pick for Justin Fields? According to recent reports. Multiple NFL general managers came away from the recent Pro Bowl weekend believing the Bears are open to dealing QB Justin Fields. Fields will be entering his 3rd-year of a 4-year rookie contract that also has a 5th-year option. There is a lot of speculation that none of the QB's at the top of this draft are elite and will likely need a couple years to adjust to the NFL. Fields already has a couple years experience as an NFL player. He could potentially hit the ground running on the Colts and new coach Steichen could utilize and mold him much like he did with Jalen Hurts in Philadelphia. The Colts have already shown that they want to shorten the window of returning to competitive relevancy by convincing their new coach to largely keep the entire defensive staff in place. Would a young explosive QB with a couple years of experience shorten that window even more?

In a minute.

[Mr. Irrelevant]

16 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

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!

Not convinced at all but if he comes cheap, sure why not try? But he won’t come cheap enough IMHO.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

No, I wouldn't.

Though a mobile threat.at QB is very desirable, so is a QB that can pass downfield accurately and have vision and read defenses and have command at the line of scrimmage, in fact more so.

Not sure Fields will ever progress to what I hear Bryce Young already is above the neck.

 

If the colts can't get Young and aren't high on Stroud or Levis than maybe trade a second rounder for him or draft AR15.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Wrong thread 

[richard pallo]

The more I think about it and reading all of the reports about a potential Fields trade I think it becomes more likely we will be trading for Fields.  I just think the Bears are going to be blown away by Young.  I don't think they will be able to convince themselves to stay with Fields especially after his comments about hating to play in the cold weather.  Young makes more sense for them given their current situation.  The clock would start over for them at quarterback.  I think Ballard would have no problem trading our 4th for Fields.  He had no problem trading our 13th for Buckner to fill a major hole.  A 4th for a Fields would make sense to him.  Having Shane as our coach would just embolden him more and make him feel confident the trade would work.  I think he would rather trade a 4th for Fields than a bunch of picks to move up to one.  He just loves those picks too much to do it given the choice between those alternatives.  If Fields truly becomes available I think we are trading for him.  I believe the odds of it happening are very high actually.  Will the Bears get blown away by Young?  I think so.   

[cdgacoltsfan]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

The more I think about it and reading all of the reports about a potential Fields trade I think it becomes more likely we will be trading for Fields.  I just think the Bears are going to be blown away by Young.  I don't think they will be able to convince themselves to stay with Fields especially after his comments about hating to play in the cold weather.  Young makes more sense for them given their current situation.  The clock would start over for them at quarterback.  I think Ballard would have no problem trading our 4th for Fields.  He had no problem trading our 13th for Buckner to fill a major hole.  A 4th for a Fields would make sense to him.  Having Shane as our coach would just embolden him more and make him feel confident the trade would work.  I think he would rather trade a 4th for Fields than a bunch of picks to move up to one.  He just loves those picks too much to do it given the choice between those alternatives.  If Fields truly becomes available I think we are trading for him.  I believe the odds of it happening are very high actually.  Will the Bears get blown away by Young?  I think so.   

I hope we aren't that stupid. Fields is a run first QB with a limited shelf life. So he's not good enough for the Bears but he is good enough for the Colts? I'd rather sign Minshew then trade up to #3 with Arizona and get Stroud or Levis 

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, cdgacoltsfan said:

I hope we aren't that stupid. Fields is a run first QB with a limited shelf life. So he's not good enough for the Bears but he is good enough for the Colts? I'd rather trade up to #3 with Arizona and get Stroud or Levis 

I think Ballard would rather trade for Fields than trade up.  He liked Fields coming out.  I think if Ballard trades up at all it he’s going to 1 and not risk losing his targeted quarterback.  That will cost him plenty.  I think if the Bears decide to take a quarterback Ballard would be very happy to trade for Fields.  

[Mitch Connors]

Somebody check my head on this one but...

 

Let's say high side a rookie #1 pick will make $30M over their 4-year rookie deal. Colts draft a rookie and it would cost the #4 pick and $30M over four years.

 

If you have to pay Fields after year 4 that means you get 2 years of his rookie deal worth $15M (again $30M for a full 4-year rookie deal). Then you have to pay Fields veteran QB money at or above $20M per season. Fields would cost the #4 pick and $55M over four years. 

 

Based on Fields' play after 2 seasons the Bears would have to convince me to make this trade. The Bears can't lean on Fields' potential as an incentive because there are 3 QB's on the draft board with a ton of potential that costs a lot less to get and are in the range of my pick.

 

[richard pallo]

7 minutes ago, Mitch Connors said:

Somebody check my head on this one but...

 

Let's say high side a rookie #1 pick will make $30M over their 4-year rookie deal. Colts draft a rookie and it would cost the #4 pick and $30M over four years.

 

If you have to pay Fields after year 4 that means you get 2 years of his rookie deal worth $15M (again $30M for a full 4-year rookie deal). Then you have to pay Fields veteran QB money at or above $20M per season. Fields would cost the #4 pick and $55M over four years. 

 

Based on Fields' play after 2 seasons the Bears would have to convince me to make this trade. The Bears can't lean on Fields' potential as an incentive because there are 3 QB's on the draft board with a ton of potential that costs a lot less to get and are in the range of my pick.

 

The thing is that all those 3 QB’s have is potential.  Are all three going to be franchise quarterbacks?  History says no.  It’s not considered a great quarterback class.  Do you sit at 4 and hope you get lucky with whoever falls to you?  That costs you nothing.  Otherwise do you pay something maybe a lot to move all the way to 1 and hope the quarterback you pick is the guy.  That comes with risks too.  No guarantee he works out either.  If the Bears decide to draft a quarterback you are now left with the remaining two.  For me Fields for the 4th pick and the remainder of his contract with a 5th year option looks very attractive.  Fields play in his first two years on a last place team with no OL or decent receivers would not stop me from being interested in making a trade for him.  I think he would improve even more playing for the Colts.  JMO though.  It’s a risk either way.  

[Coltsbluefan]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

The more I think about it and reading all of the reports about a potential Fields trade I think it becomes more likely we will be trading for Fields.  I just think the Bears are going to be blown away by Young.  I don't think they will be able to convince themselves to stay with Fields especially after his comments about hating to play in the cold weather.  Young makes more sense for them given their current situation.  The clock would start over for them at quarterback.  I think Ballard would have no problem trading our 4th for Fields.  He had no problem trading our 13th for Buckner to fill a major hole.  A 4th for a Fields would make sense to him.  Having Shane as our coach would just embolden him more and make him feel confident the trade would work.  I think he would rather trade a 4th for Fields than a bunch of picks to move up to one.  He just loves those picks too much to do it given the choice between those alternatives.  If Fields truly becomes available I think we are trading for him.  I believe the odds of it happening are very high actually.  Will the Bears get blown away by Young?  I think so.   

No way I would trade our 4th pick for Fields,maybe our 35th.

[TaylorStillTruckedYou]

42 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

The thing is that all those 3 QB’s have is potential.  Are all three going to be franchise quarterbacks?  History says no.  It’s not considered a great quarterback class.  Do you sit at 4 and hope you get lucky with whoever falls to you?  That costs you nothing.  Otherwise do you pay something maybe a lot to move all the way to 1 and hope the quarterback you pick is the guy.  That comes with risks too.  No guarantee he works out either.  If the Bears decide to draft a quarterback you are now left with the remaining two.  For me Fields for the 4th pick and the remainder of his contract with a 5th year option looks very attractive.  Fields play in his first two years on a last place team with no OL or decent receivers would not stop me from being interested in making a trade for him.  I think he would improve even more playing for the Colts.  JMO though.  It’s a risk either way.  

If we can keep both of our 1st rd picks, I would entertain it.  There isn’t a scenario that I would give 1st rd value to the Bears if they choose to give up on Fields.  At that point I would think there’d be locker room issues amongst the players and front office about that decision.  Also usually a QB asks for a new contract before their rookie contracts are up, so that is what I have to take into account when it comes to Fields as well…At this point, something just tells me that we sit on 4 with the idea of Levi’s being our QB.  In no way am I a Levis Advocate, but it just feels like that’s the decision

[ClaytonC]

I would not trade any picks above a 4th rounder for him.  He is at best a backup QB.

[chad72]

4 hours ago, richard pallo said:

The more I think about it and reading all of the reports about a potential Fields trade I think it becomes more likely we will be trading for Fields.  I just think the Bears are going to be blown away by Young.  I don't think they will be able to convince themselves to stay with Fields especially after his comments about hating to play in the cold weather.  Young makes more sense for them given their current situation.  The clock would start over for them at quarterback.  I think Ballard would have no problem trading our 4th for Fields.  He had no problem trading our 13th for Buckner to fill a major hole.  A 4th for a Fields would make sense to him.  Having Shane as our coach would just embolden him more and make him feel confident the trade would work.  I think he would rather trade a 4th for Fields than a bunch of picks to move up to one.  He just loves those picks too much to do it given the choice between those alternatives.  If Fields truly becomes available I think we are trading for him.  I believe the odds of it happening are very high actually.  Will the Bears get blown away by Young?  I think so.   

 

Weaker arm than Fields in windy weather, yeah, good luck with that if that is Bryce Young. Hope their new stadium has a dome, no matter which QB they keep. Bryce Young has been a California boy most of his life, high school in California and played in Alabama. He needs to go to a warm climate if he is playing outdoors, Panthers or Raiders, or a dome. Chicago is a terrible destination for Bryce Young. 

[ShuteAt168]

Steichen just listed accuracy first when asked what traits he likes in a QB. It would be nonsensical to give up the 4 for Fields, who has completed 59.7 of his career attempts. Plus, he sounds mentally weak, complaining about how hard it is to play in cold weather. Hard pass. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

5 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Steichen just listed accuracy first when asked what traits he likes in a QB. It would be nonsensical to give up the 4 for Fields, who has completed 59.7 of his career attempts. Plus, he sounds mentally weak, complaining about how hard it is to play in cold weather. Hard pass. 

Fields  is not mentally weak. 

Bears are not trading Firlds.

[colts89]

I'd be okay with trading for Fields if we trade down our first for something like a late 20's pick and a bunch of additional picks this year and next year (maybe getting a first next year) and then we trade that 20's pick this year for Fields. I definitely wouldn't do it if we need to give up the 4th pick for him though.

 

 

Fields as a passer progressed this year a good chunk vs where he was at in his rookie season. If he can continue growing in the pass game at the same pace, then him just being a decent passing QB will make him a franchise guy while he still has his legs on him. He's already elite as a runner, and that's simply part of the NFL game now. If he doesn't progress the same in the passing game and is capped, then he'd still be a good weapon that Steichan can utilize while we load our team with more picks.

[BProland85]

Absolutely not trading the 4th overall for Fields. No team is going to give up a high 1st for him. But I’d certainly entertain giving Chicago our 35th overall pick since they don’t have a 2nd for him. Plus I would add Kenny Moore to the deal if needed. Then you have the flexibility to do many things with that 4th overall pick you still have. Plus I think Steichen could do wonders with Fields, who is similar in ways to Hurts, but is more talented, has a stronger arm, and is more of a running threat. 

[BProland85]

12 hours ago, richard pallo said:

The more I think about it and reading all of the reports about a potential Fields trade I think it becomes more likely we will be trading for Fields.  I just think the Bears are going to be blown away by Young.  I don't think they will be able to convince themselves to stay with Fields especially after his comments about hating to play in the cold weather.  Young makes more sense for them given their current situation.  The clock would start over for them at quarterback.  I think Ballard would have no problem trading our 4th for Fields.  He had no problem trading our 13th for Buckner to fill a major hole.  A 4th for a Fields would make sense to him.  Having Shane as our coach would just embolden him more and make him feel confident the trade would work.  I think he would rather trade a 4th for Fields than a bunch of picks to move up to one.  He just loves those picks too much to do it given the choice between those alternatives.  If Fields truly becomes available I think we are trading for him.  I believe the odds of it happening are very high actually.  Will the Bears get blown away by Young?  I think so.   

I agree I could see a trade between Indy and Chicago for Fields. But I have a hard time seeing Indy give up the 4th overall pick straight up for him. Ballard usually gets good deals when if comes to draft trades. I’d rather he get good value by getting him on a discount. 

[ThorstenDenmark]

Fields is not our next QB....

 

He will end up as RGIII who smashed his knee due to the way he played the game.

 

Fields is not great as a passer, and not accurate enough to make shane steichen succesful.

We have the 4th pick in the draft and there are better QB prospects in this years draft, than what we might get in a fields trade. 

[MikeCurtis]

From my perspective, if QB1 and QB2 are gone, you consider

 

4 Seems like too much for Fields.  I would offer 4 and ask for a 2nd or 3rd with Fields

 

 

[philba101]

21 hours ago, richard pallo said:

I think Ballard would rather trade for Fields than trade up.  He liked Fields coming out.  I think if Ballard trades up at all it he’s going to 1 and not risk losing his targeted quarterback.  That will cost him plenty.  I think if the Bears decide to take a quarterback Ballard would be very happy to trade for Fields.  

Despite what Ballard said in the end of the year press conference, I don't think he wants to use a bunch of draft capital to trade up for a rookie QB. If he gets the guy he wants at #4 then he will probably do it. If he can get Fields without giving up this year's #4 pick I think he would do it, just because he has seen that Fields can play on the NFL level. Another factor could be how Steichen feels about Fields or any of the top draft prospects.

[richard pallo]

4 hours ago, MikeCurtis said:

From my perspective, if QB1 and QB2 are gone, you consider

 

4 Seems like too much for Fields.  I would offer 4 and ask for a 2nd or 3rd with Fields

 

 

Knowing Ballard he will definitely try to get another pick back if they have to trade the 4th pick.  But when push comes to shove and if a 4th is what it’s going to take then I think he will do it.  When you think about it if Ballard is right and Fields turns out to be our Franchise quarterback for the next ten years no one is going to care about what it cost to acquire him. If he’s wrong he won’t be working for the Colts regardless.  I would rather have him be wrong if it costs one pick versus being wrong and it costs a number of picks to move up.

[MikeCurtis]

12 hours ago, ThorstenDenmark said:

Fields is not our next QB....

 

He will end up as RGIII who smashed his knee due to the way he played the game.

 

Fields is not great as a passer, and not accurate enough to make shane steichen succesful.

We have the 4th pick in the draft and there are better QB prospects in this years draft, than what we might get in a fields trade. 

Respectfully

 

Fields threw for 70% completion percentage his senior year (67% his junior year)

In his junior year he threw 41 TDS against 3 Ints

 

He needs some work in the pros but the kid has shown he can be accurate 

[krunk]

23 hours ago, ShuteAt168 said:

Steichen just listed accuracy first when asked what traits he likes in a QB. It would be nonsensical to give up the 4 for Fields, who has completed 59.7 of his career attempts. Plus, he sounds mentally weak, complaining about how hard it is to play in cold weather. Hard pass. 

Somehow you missed that he was playing chess with his team who is speaking and putting reports out about trading him. They put info out so he put info out. Im sure he has no real problem with the cold weather. He played at Ohio State. It gets plenty cold in Ohio.

[ShuteAt168]

7 hours ago, krunk said:

Somehow you missed that he was playing chess with his team who is speaking and putting reports out about trading him. They put info out so he put info out. Im sure he has no real problem with the cold weather. He played at Ohio State. It gets plenty cold in Ohio.

I disagree. Here are some stats: Fields is 0-7 in games when the temperature is 40 degrees or below. In those games, Fields has nine touchdowns, six interceptions and an 85.3 passer rating. 

[krunk]

10 minutes ago, ShuteAt168 said:

I disagree. Here are some stats: Fields is 0-7 in games when the temperature is 40 degrees or below. In those games, Fields has nine touchdowns, six interceptions and an 85.3 passer rating. 

Do you really think hes keeping snow game stats? And what about the rest of the team? Do they hate cold weather as well if they have bad stats in the snow?  And does bad play really mean a legitimate hate of cold weather? Or did they just play bad? The man has been playing in cold since Ohio State. Cold weather is not a new problem. You havent heard these comments before they started with the could be trade talk stuff have you?  Has he ever been a problem before? What has he ever done to show he hates playing in Chicago? You assumed you knew and immediately started bashing.

[ShuteAt168]

1 hour ago, krunk said:

Do you really think hes keeping snow game stats? And what about the rest of the team? Do they hate cold weather as well if they have bad stats in the snow?  And does bad play really mean a legitimate hate of cold weather? Or did they just play bad? The man has been playing in cold since Ohio State. Cold weather is not a new problem. You havent heard these comments before they started with the could be trade talk stuff have you?  Has he ever been a problem before? What has he ever done to show he hates playing in Chicago? You assumed you knew and immediately started bashing.

I made two statements: 1 is that he’s not accurate, and he’s not. And 2 was that he didn’t like playing in the cold, and he doesn’t. I know this because HE SAID SO. He says he doesn’t like it while you, knowing more than he does apparently, says it’s, what … chess? Respectfully, I’ll take his word over yours. And I gave stats showing he plays poorly in cold weather in the nfl. You’re twisting yourself into a pretzel to get to the conclusion that … well, I have no clue what point you think you’re making — I guess that Fields enjoys playing chess in the cold weather in Soldier Field? 

[RollerColt]

I think Justin is a good QB with good potential. He's exciting, and contrary to what a few believe I've seen him throw at Soldier Field and he's got the arm for it. The Bears should honestly continue to work with him and keep teaching him. If they let him go I think it would be a big mistake. Get the guy some more weapons, and figure out what to do with Luke Getsy (the offensive coordinator who just so happens to be the least successful coordinator in Bears history...) 

[Semicolt]

No way they should trade for Fields. Stay put at 4 to save draft capital, Steichen is the quarterback whisperer and could be successful with any of the big four.

[RollerColt]

 

[richard pallo]

9 hours ago, krunk said:

Do you really think hes keeping snow game stats? And what about the rest of the team? Do they hate cold weather as well if they have bad stats in the snow?  And does bad play really mean a legitimate hate of cold weather? Or did they just play bad? The man has been playing in cold since Ohio State. Cold weather is not a new problem. You havent heard these comments before they started with the could be trade talk stuff have you?  Has he ever been a problem before? What has he ever done to show he hates playing in Chicago? You assumed you knew and immediately started bashing.

To be fair he never said he hated playing in Chicago.  He said he hopes they build a dome stadium.  That tells me he wants to stay there.  But he did say he hates playing in the cold.  He volunteered that news himself.  Why say that now?  I have no idea.  Only he knows the answer to that question.

[Yoshinator]

I would not trade the no4 pick for Fields. I'd give the no35 pick for Fields and a 6th or 7th rounder. Fields has been exposed as a passer. He's just terrible. Bad weapons aren't even an excuse for how terrible he is. He's an RB who plays QB in the NFL basically. If he could pass the ball better, there would be potential. As of now, he's an elite RB that plays QB and would need lots of work as a passer to become even an average QB. 

 

I'd be intrigued to see what Steichen could do with him though tbh..

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

I would not trade the no4 pick for Fields. I'd give the no35 pick for Fields and a 6th or 7th rounder. Fields has been exposed as a passer. He's just terrible. Bad weapons aren't even an excuse for how terrible he is. He's an RB who plays QB in the NFL basically. If he could pass the ball better, there would be potential. As of now, he's an elite RB that plays QB and would need lots of work as a passer to become even an average QB. 

 

I'd be intrigued to see what Steichen could do with him though tbh..

That would be an ideal trade for us but not enough for the Bears.  There are a lot of teams behind us that would view Fields as an upgrade over what they currently have and would part with a 1st.  Ballard is up against it.  I think he would part with our 1st to get Fields.  I am sure he would try to get a pick back as well but if he can’t I think he would do it.

[Yoshinator]

4 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

That would be an ideal trade for us but not enough for the Bears.  There are a lot of teams behind us that would view Fields as an upgrade over what they currently have and would part with a 1st.  Ballard is up against it.  I think he would part with our 1st to get Fields.  I am sure he would try to get a pick back as well but if he can’t I think he would do it.

Yeah, I think the Bears are actively trying to trade him. It just depends on how much teams like him more or less than QBs on the market like Carr, Rodgers, Jones, Mayfield, Minshew, Brissett etc... 

[gibson981]

No on Fields, for ANY of the Colts picks. They need to use first round pick on drafting a QB. With the rest of their picks, Ballard needs to address the other problems on both side of the ball. O-line, D-line, WR, etc