Would You Trade the #4 Pick for Justin Fields?

[RollerColt]

31 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.

You'll need to add Irsay to the consideration on all this too. When it comes to QBs, he always has his hand in the decision process. Would he accept a trade for Fields? 

[richard pallo]

28 minutes ago, Jared Cisneros said:

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... 

There is so much that goes on behind closed doors that we as fans will never learn of.  It is odd that Fields would make a comment about hating to play in the cold weather right before the draft with his team having the 1st. pick and having already played two years there.  Maybe it's his way of saying I would rather play in a dome sooner rather than later so If you really like one of the rookies I'm good with it.  

[richard pallo]

6 minutes ago, RollerColt said:

You'll need to add Irsay to the consideration on all this too. When it comes to QBs, he always has his hand in the decision process. Would he accept a trade for Fields? 

No doubt Irsay would have to okay it.  I really doubt he would have a problem with it considering he is so young and still developing.  And he wouldn't have to give up a lot of picks to move up. 

[Moosejawcolt]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

No doubt Irsay would have to okay it.  I really doubt he would have a problem with it considering he is so young and still developing.  And he wouldn't have to give up a lot of picks to move up. 

16 fumbles and 11 interceptions. 55 sacks and all for a very mobile qb.   He didn't push the  ball down field. Now everyone will point to Chicago's lack of talent and still want him. Great players make average players look really good. He had like on game of 200 yards passing and tons under 150. He  is not the answer.  If the Bears r willing to shop him that should tell u enuff.  For a    4th rounder or less I may give it a shot but nothing more.

[SouthsideRyan]

Absolutely I would with next year's first round . He is a true duo threat Q.B..and with right coaches he would be elite and top 3 Q.B

[Stephen]

6 hours ago, SouthsideRyan said:

Absolutely I would with next year's first round . He is a true duo threat Q.B..and with right coaches he would be elite and top 3 Q.B

Id avoid him like the plague. He is not a great passer in the nfl. He was a great passer in college. If you want a duo threat qb draft Anthony Richardson or max Duggan. Though Id prefer Stroud as I believe he will be better than Fields

[chad72]

21 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Id avoid him like the plague. He is not a great passer in the nfl. He was a great passer in college. If you want a duo threat qb draft Anthony Richardson or max Duggan. Though Id prefer Stroud as I believe he will be better than Fields

 

Here is the thing. Whether it is mechanics or supporting cast that is ailing Fields as a passer, the passing abilities from college magically don't go away. One thing Justin Fields is used to is the speed of the NFL, that he has shown he can counter with his legs. 

 

Anthony Richardson has shown NOTHING in the NFL, for the flip side of the argument. Stroud would be coming off as a very good passer in college, so was Fields and Fields is as big as Lamar is. Let us not forget that both Josh Allen and Hurts took the big leap in Year 3, this is Fields' Year 3. From a turnaround point of view, Fields might provide a faster turnaround. However, from a longer rookie contract point of view, allowing us to sign more supporting cast, there is an argument to be made for rookie QBs. Max Duggan, sorry, not hitching my starter wagon to that guy, backup tops. Any GM thinking of him as a starter will be fired soon.

 

I am not a big fan of us getting Fields for the rookie contract part of things and like you, not super convinced of him as a passer. But both Steichen and Ballard would have to be really convinced they don't have to undo any bad habits developed in Chicago, and it would also depend on the price he demands.

 

Pros of getting Justin Fields - he could make the Year 3 jump in passing, help us win faster as a result of already being used to the speed of the NFL.

 

Cons of getting Justin Fields - he may not make the improvement as a passer and end up running more than Lamar Jackson and end up hurt eventually, costs us possible draft picks, keeps us from having a 5 year rookie QB contract reducing the window to sign FA support

 

Cons outnumber the Pros, IMO.

[richard pallo]

19 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Here is the thing. Whether it is mechanics or supporting cast that is ailing Fields as a passer, the passing abilities from college magically don't go away. One thing Justin Fields is used to is the speed of the NFL, that he has shown he can counter with his legs. 

 

Anthony Richardson has shown NOTHING in the NFL, for the flip side of the argument. Stroud would be coming off as a very good passer in college, so was Fields and Fields is as big as Lamar is. Let us not forget that both Josh Allen and Hurts took the big leap in Year 3, this is Fields' Year 3. From a turnaround point of view, Fields might provide a faster turnaround. However, from a longer rookie contract point of view, allowing us to sign more supporting cast, there is an argument to be made for rookie QBs. Max Duggan, sorry, not hitching my starter wagon to that guy, backup tops. Any GM thinking of him as a starter will be fired soon.

 

I am not a big fan of us getting Fields for the rookie contract part of things and like you, not super convinced of him as a passer. But both Steichen and Ballard would have to be really convinced they don't have to undo any bad habits developed in Chicago, and it would also depend on the price he demands.

 

Pros of getting Justin Fields - he could make the Year 3 jump in passing, help us win faster as a result of already being used to the speed of the NFL.

 

Cons of getting Justin Fields - he may not make the improvement as a passer and end up running more than Lamar Jackson and end up hurt eventually, costs us possible draft picks, keeps us from having a 5 year rookie QB contract reducing the window to sign FA support

 

Cons outnumber the Pros, IMO.

Another pro of getting Justin Fields is he would cost less to acquire than trading for the 1st pick and selecting a quarterback like Richardson or any of the quarterbacks who have shown NOTHING in the NFL.  If the Bears do draft a quarterback first then there will most likely be at least two quarterbacks taken before our pick.  What will Ballard do then?   Who would he rather have at quarterback?  Fields or one of the remaining quarterback prospects?  I will say the trajectory that Fields has shown so far is very promising.   I don’t know if we will ever know the answer to that question.  For me the pros outweigh the cons IF the Bears take a quarterback with the 1st pick.

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Another pro of getting Justin Fields is he would cost less to acquire than trading for the 1st pick and selecting a quarterback like Richardson or any of the quarterbacks who have shown NOTHING in the NFL.  If the Bears do draft a quarterback first then there will most likely be at least two quarterbacks taken before our pick.  What will Ballard do then?   Who would he rather have at quarterback?  Fields or one of the remaining quarterback prospects?  I will say the trajectory that Fields has shown so far is very promising.   I don’t know if we will ever know the answer to that question.  For me the pros outweigh the cons IF the Bears take a quarterback with the 1st pick.

It is a chance you take, no matter which direction you go. If they want the No.4 pick and a future 1st rounder for Fields, then all bets are off, IMO. I am afraid the Bears, for any trade (for pick No.1 or for Fields) are dead set on getting a future 1st rounder at least. If that is the case, Fields is off the table to me. Unlike Jordan Love, Fields will cost more.

[richard pallo]

1 hour ago, chad72 said:

It is a chance you take, no matter which direction you go. If they want the No.4 pick and a future 1st rounder for Fields, then all bets are off, IMO. I am afraid the Bears, for any trade (for pick No.1 or for Fields) are dead set on getting a future 1st rounder at least. If that is the case, Fields is off the table to me. Unlike Jordan Love, Fields will cost more.

No one is suggesting two firsts.  You are the first to suggest that.  The question was trading this year’s first for Fields.  A lot of people think that is too much.  I have seen people suggesting two firsts as part of a trade for the 1st pick but not for Fields.  I could see Ballard trading our 1st for Fields if the Bears draft a quarterback.  I think it would definitely be on the table.  Whether we find out or not is a different story.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

I

[Aces101]

1 hour ago, richard pallo said:

Another pro of getting Justin Fields is he would cost less to acquire than trading for the 1st pick and selecting a quarterback like Richardson or any of the quarterbacks who have shown NOTHING in the NFL.  If the Bears do draft a quarterback first then there will most likely be at least two quarterbacks taken before our pick.  What will Ballard do then?   Who would he rather have at quarterback?  Fields or one of the remaining quarterback prospects?  I will say the trajectory that Fields has shown so far is very promising.   I don’t know if we will ever know the answer to that question.  For me the pros outweigh the cons IF the Bears take a quarterback with the 1st pick.

I'd rather stay at 4, trade nothing, and select Richardson

[richard pallo]

Just now, Aces101 said:

I'd rather stay at 4, trade nothing, and select Richardson

Maybe Ballard will do that.  Who knows?

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This would be good for the colts. Have to give up a lot less at 2 for stroud or Levis at 2. Bears are going to get a nice return trading form twice. Or maybe they stay at 2. If bears stay at two colts wouldn’t either be able to stay at 4 and get stroud or Levis or move to 3 to avoid another team trading up.

 

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Some more good stuff. 
 

 

[Myles]

having Fields would be nice.  He improved from year 1 to year 2 on a crappy team.  no reason to think he wouldn't improve again.  

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

What he is missing here is if colts are convinced they want a different QB then the Texans let Texans move up. 
 

 

[2006Coltsbestever]

4 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

Some more good stuff. 
 

 

All they had to do was lose to us and they would have had the #1 pick, now if they want the #1 they have to give up draft capital. I have never seen a dumber franchise in my life.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Just now, 2006Coltsbestever said:

All they had to do was lose to us and they would have had the #1 pick, now if they want the #1 they have to give up draft capital. I have never seen a dumber franchise in my life.

Let them move to one. It will be cheaper to then move to two or 3 and still get stroud or Levis.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

This thread looks too much like the other one and I posted some stuff here in the wrong thread. Sorry about that.

[krunk]

2 hours ago, Stephen said:

Id avoid him like the plague. He is not a great passer in the nfl. He was a great passer in college. If you want a duo threat qb draft Anthony Richardson or max Duggan. Though Id prefer Stroud as I believe he will be better than Fields

Whats the big difference between Fields and Richardson? As far as i understand Fields runs about a 4.4 just like Richardson. Fields was a better College passer. What is making you think based on Richardson low experience level and 50 plus percent passer stats that he is much different than Fields? What does he do better than Fields? They seem like the same guy to me. Only Fields has more proof on the table.

[chad72]

35 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

No one is suggesting two firsts.  You are the first to suggest that.  The question was trading this year’s first for Fields.  A lot of people think that is too much.  I have seen people suggesting two firsts as part of a trade for the 1st pick but not for Fields.  I could see Ballard trading our 1st for Fields if the Bears draft a quarterback.  I think it would definitely be on the table.  Whether we find out or not is a different story.

 

Yeah, I don't think the premise of the thread would be accurate to me then. Bears are not going to give up Fields for just the No.4 pick. Thread closed then. 

[chad72]

17 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

All they had to do was lose to us and they would have had the #1 pick, now if they want the #1 they have to give up draft capital. I have never seen a dumber franchise in my life.

 

Hey, if Orlovsky beats the Jags in the last game of the 2011 season, we don't get Andrew Luck. There is that. We were pretty close to fitting the same profile. Just saying.  

[BProland85]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Yeah, I don't think the premise of the thread would be accurate to me then. Bears are not going to give up Fields for just the No.4 pick. Thread closed then. 

If they really like and want Young or Stroud why wouldn’t they? You act like Fields is considered a top tier QB. 

[chad72]

8 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

If they really like and want Young or Stroud why wouldn’t they? You act like Fields is considered a top tier QB. 

 

 

Bears gave this for Justin Fields to the Giants in 2021:

 

Chicago sent the No. 20 overall pick and a fifth-rounder in 2021 (No. 164 overall) in addition to 2022 first- and fourth-round picks to secure its quarterback of the future.

 

Just like the 49ers didn't give up all that draft equity for Lance to just give him away for JUST ONE first rounder, the same with Justin Fields.

 

That is why they won't give up Justin Fields for just the No.4 pick. Yeah, Ballard can ask about it but if you think Justin Fields has shown enough take a chance on sitting on the outside, then what do you think the Bears think knowing him inside and out seeing him every day in practice and game time? 

 

Don't believe all the smoke screens around this draft time just because it soothes your appetite. I will believe it when I see it.

[BProland85]

38 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

 

Bears gave this for Justin Fields to the Giants in 2021:

 

Chicago sent the No. 20 overall pick and a fifth-rounder in 2021 (No. 164 overall) in addition to 2022 first- and fourth-round picks to secure its quarterback of the future.

 

Just like the 49ers didn't give up all that draft equity for Lance to just give him away for JUST ONE first rounder, the same with Justin Fields.

 

That is why they won't give up Justin Fields for just the No.4 pick. Yeah, Ballard can ask about it but if you think Justin Fields has shown enough take a chance on sitting on the outside, then what do you think the Bears think knowing him inside and out seeing him every day in practice and game time? 

 

Don't believe all the smoke screens around this draft time just because it soothes your appetite. I will believe it when I see it.

And Lance doesn’t have near the trade value as he had when he came out in the draft. Fields doesn’t have a super high value to where he is worth multiple 1sts in a trade until he shows he’s a bonified franchise QB. 

[chad72]

24 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

And Lance doesn’t have near the trade value as he had when he came out in the draft. Fields doesn’t have a super high value to where he is worth multiple 1sts in a trade until he shows he’s a bonified franchise QB. 

That’s why he’s worth more to the Bears than anyone on the outside. Just like we wouldn’t trade JT for a 3rd rounder because to us, he’s worth more or as much as we paid for him. That’s why they wouldn’t trade him for less than what they paid for him, IMO. 

[BProland85]

8 minutes ago, chad72 said:

That’s why he’s worth more to the Bears than anyone on the outside. Just like we wouldn’t trade JT for a 3rd rounder because to us, he’s worth more or as much as we paid for him. That’s why they wouldn’t trade him for less than what they paid for him, IMO. 

The difference in your argument there is that JT is arguably the best RB in the NFL. Fields is far from the best at QB. 

[MikeCurtis]

3 hours ago, richard pallo said:

Another pro of getting Justin Fields is he would cost less to acquire than trading for the 1st pick and selecting a quarterback like Richardson or any of the quarterbacks who have shown NOTHING in the NFL.  If the Bears do draft a quarterback first then there will most likely be at least two quarterbacks taken before our pick.  What will Ballard do then?   Who would he rather have at quarterback?  Fields or one of the remaining quarterback prospects?  I will say the trajectory that Fields has shown so far is very promising.   I don’t know if we will ever know the answer to that question.  For me the pros outweigh the cons IF the Bears take a quarterback with the 1st pick.

Yup

 

QB1 AND QB2 May be taken off the board before we pick .................

 

 

 

 

[Patrick Miller]

2 hours ago, Aces101 said:

I'd rather stay at 4, trade nothing, and select Richardson

Better yet trade back to get more picks and still get Richardson or hooker.

[BProland85]

6 minutes ago, Patrick Miller said:

Better yet trade back to get more picks and still get Richardson or hooker.

Richardson maybe, Hooker no thanks. He is purely a system QB who benefited from the offense he was in.

[Aaron86]

On 2/22/2023 at 1:02 PM, Moosejawcolt said:

16 fumbles and 11 interceptions. 55 sacks and all for a very mobile qb.   He didn't push the  ball down field. Now everyone will point to Chicago's lack of talent and still want him. Great players make average players look really good. He had like on game of 200 yards passing and tons under 150. He  is not the answer.  If the Bears r willing to shop him that should tell u enuff.  For a    4th rounder or less I may give it a shot but nothing more.

Sometimes with players like Brady and Manning. But coaches are responsible for getting the most out of players and putting them in a position to succeeded. Putting all that on Fields is absolutely ridiculous. 

[throwing BBZ]

2 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Richardson maybe, Hooker no thanks. He is purely a system QB who benefited from the offense he was in.

 

 Hooked and Stroud are very similar. Hooker ran more.

You are funny.

 Our HC has a system for whoever we draft, and it will require lots of quick accurate passes. Herdon could be that guy.

[chad72]

36 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

The difference in your argument there is that JT is arguably the best RB in the NFL. Fields is far from the best at QB. 

 

I think you are missing the point. A team that invests a lot in their player generally tends to value them more than a team looking at it from the outside. So if they find a team desperate enough, the price tends to be higher than the team "trading for a player" wants to pay. No way Chase Claypool was worth a 2nd rounder but the Steelers played hard ball because the Bears were desperate enough, and The Steelers got a 2nd rounder (pick No.35) for Claypool from the Bears. That is one example. 

 

 

[crazycolt1]

39 minutes ago, BProland85 said:

Richardson maybe, Hooker no thanks. He is purely a system QB who benefited from the offense he was in.

You don't think Hooker would benefit from Shane's offensive schemes?

[Hoose]

46 minutes ago, MikeCurtis said:

Yup

 

QB1 AND QB2 May be taken off the board before we pick .................

 

 

 

 

I think we should assume that this is the case. The Colts aren’t the only QB desperate team. You sit at 4, you’re praying that you don’t get jumped. No need for that. I can see the Colts moving up in a trade with Arizona after Houston and the Bears swap picks (the price for the Colts: #4 pick and next years’ first).  A lot cheaper and they get the #2 QB. The Bears and Cards each pick up one of the top 2 defensive players that they were going to take anyway. Good deal for everyone. 

[Moosejawcolt]

44 minutes ago, Aaron86 said:

Sometimes with players like Brady and Manning. But coaches are responsible for getting the most out of players and putting them in a position to succeeded. Putting all that on Fields is absolutely ridiculous. 

But I ask again. What has Fields done that gives u any confidence he will develop as a passer???

[sb41champs]

Good question.

 

Maybe.......IF the Bears throw in a couple of draft picks.

 

This is the kind of QB that Steichen has most recently coached.

 

An added plus is that he was MY QB for the majority of the fantasy football season - and - I ended up 2nd!!

[richard pallo]

5 minutes ago, Hoose said:

I think we should assume that this is the case. The Colts aren’t the only QB desperate team. You sit at 4, you’re praying that you don’t get jumped. No need for that. I can see the Colts moving up in a trade with Arizona after Houston and the Bears swap picks (the price for the Colts: #4 pick and next years’ first).  A lot cheaper and they get the #2 QB. The Bears and Cards each pick up one of the top 2 defensive players that they were going to take anyway. Good deal for everyone. 

The reason Qb1 and Qb2 come off the board is the Bears take a quarterback followed by the Texans taking a quarterback.  That was the premise of the back and forth.  If that happens what does Ballard do?  No chance for either of them.  Then trading for Fields becomes an option versus Qb3.