|
|
Post by Shane Falco on Jan 3, 2024 23:28:00 GMT
There is no such thing as a sure fire star. Carolina had to mortgage the future to trade up for Young. Chicago doesn't have to worry about that. They lucked into this situation while being competitive down the stretch. They won't need to sell away anything, instead they can just build up. They need to decide how high of a ceiling Fields gives them compared to Williams as best case scenario you are not in this situation again. Williams talent imo is a higher ceiling specially adding in having to pay Fields much sooner who imo hasn't earned a top pay day yet. The devil they know in Fields is an inconsistent player. Caleb right away likely gives them similar but with a higher ceiling while being cheaper. They should take advantage of this situation they lucked into. And if Caleb Williams is JaMarcus Russell 2.0, the Bears have screwed to pooch. It takes 2-3 years to give up on a 1st round QB. Then 2-3 years to get another one. More if you find out that Caleb sucks in a year without a QB prospect, like 2022. It could cost the Bears five years of development if they fuck this up.
I'm not saying Williams is a guaranteed bust. He could be the next big thing. But I wish he had accomplished more at USC. And his numbers dropped severely this season, always troubling (but so did Dan Marino's)
And what if Fields doesn't get any better? You likely get fired anyways because you stuck with him and likely paid him while passing on Williams. Its a risk no matter what. Nothing is for sure. Fields may continue to get better however he could also regress next season. The biggest thing here is that if you stick with Fields you have to give him an extension which imo he hasn't played well enough to warrant. Let that be the team who trades for him decision. Caleb gives you the higher ceiling. If Caleb sucks in year one you likely keep your job as the GM and fire the head coach (currently thinking Eberflus keeps his job) and bring in an offensive mind to pair with him. If they fail then you're out of a job. That can be said with sticking with Fields and pass on Williams or Maye for that matter. If Fields stays the same and you paid him while Williams and Maye become studs you look like an idiot and get fired. There is no guarantee that the first round picks you get for trading out of #1 arent busts too, look at how the Rams did after trading out of the RG3 spot. You just have to trust your evaluations and I think the upside of Caleb is too good to pass up here while it resets your time frame on paying him. Had this been Fields rookie season I would stick with him but this was his 3rd year and the Bears have to decide to pick up his 5th year option this offseason which won't be cheap. Then its extension time which again, Fields hasn't played well enough consistently to warrant yet. The notion that Williams numbers dropped from last year isn't an issue to me. The whole team didn't live up to expectations. However you have to evaluate his traits and you got to project his future performance and not draft strictly on past performances. That's why scouting QBs is so hard. Its not like Josh Allen lit it up in college. Even so, Caleb's numbers were still pretty damn good last year even if they weren't as good as his Heisman year. Given we have never seen a 2x Heisman winner that should have been expected. Its not like he just turned into a pumpkin this year. He was still really good. If you trade out of #1 for likely 3 first rounds picks it will just as well take you 3 to 4 years to see the full evaluation of your move as those first round picks will likely include 2025 and 2026 drafts. You then also have less money to spend on free agents because of paying Fields. Sticking and drafting Williams while picking up likely a 2nd round pick (if not more) this offseason and pushing off paying your QB gives you immediate impact and you still have more money to spend in free agency to further build this team. That is the smarter decision and what I personally would do. Williams talent is too good to pass up. If he sucks he sucks but thats the risk with anything. Are you trying to win a Super Bowl or are you trying to compete for a wild card soot? Williams upside gives you true Super Bowl expectations during his rookie deal. |
|
Tim05
Sophomore
@tim05
Posts: 216
Likes: 224
|
Post by Tim05 on Jan 4, 2024 15:18:46 GMT
I guess the question really depends. If it's simply, which do you want without considering what you invest? Probably Williams. I wasn't super impressed with him watching probably 3 or 4 USC games this year, but literally every single GM you talk to raves about him. They probably know more than I do. If you're taking into account likely draft positions, I want Daniels or Penix. I subscribe to 2 things when thinking about the NFL draft: - Quarterback is the most important position in football. Get it right, and everything else on your offense looks better
- The NFL draft is a crapshoot. GM's probably know more than I do, but not by that much. Bust rates are high, even for very high draft picks
Given those 2 things, I am always in favor of trading down. Since nothing is a guarantee, I'd rather have more shots at hitting a home run. If the first pick yields me 60% success rate, and I can trade it and turn it into 3 shots at 45% succcess rates, let me play the numbers here and take the 3 picks. So for my Bears, my hope come April is trading the #1 pick way down, maybe to someone like the Raiders, where you can get at least 3 first-rounders back, and then some. If you can pull off the same deal as what landed us DJ Moore, and instead get Max Crosby, you've won the trade, even if Williams or whoever end up being great. Bears still need to take a QB, I don't really care if it's McCarthy, Daniels, Nix, or Penix, but grab someone in the first two rounds. You can even bring Fields back to start next year after you draft one of those guys, and see how it goes. |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 4, 2024 15:26:33 GMT
I guess the question really depends. If it's simply, which do you want without considering what you invest? Probably Williams. I wasn't super impressed with him watching probably 3 or 4 USC games this year, but literally every single GM you talk to raves about him. They probably know more than I do. If you're taking into account likely draft positions, I want Daniels or Penix. I subscribe to 2 things when thinking about the NFL draft: - Quarterback is the most important position in football. Get it right, and everything else on your offense looks better
- The NFL draft is a crapshoot. GM's probably know more than I do, but not by that much. Bust rates are high, even for very high draft picks
Given those 2 things, I am always in favor of trading down. Since nothing is a guarantee, I'd rather have more shots at hitting a home run. If the first pick yields me 60% success rate, and I can trade it and turn it into 3 shots at 45% succcess rates, let me play the numbers here and take the 3 picks. So for my Bears, my hope come April is trading the #1 pick way down, maybe to someone like the Raiders, where you can get at least 3 first-rounders back, and then some. If you can pull off the same deal as what landed us DJ Moore, and instead get Max Crosby, you've won the trade, even if Williams or whoever end up being great. Bears still need to take a QB, I don't really care if it's McCarthy, Daniels, Nix, or Penix, but grab someone in the first two rounds. You can even bring Fields back to start next year after you draft one of those guys, and see how it goes. I kind of agree about trading down, but it's also not quite that simple. 3 picks then translate to 3 roster spots, so you have to think about how that affects your ability to sign any free agents and/or who on the lower end of the roster is replaced by unknown quantities in rookies and what that cost is worth. Obviously you weed people out in training camp, but you're suddenly bringing in multiple people for every 1 that you'd otherwise have to evaluate... and of course that means fewer invitations to camp.. and while rookie salaries are limited high round draft picks are going to make more than someone else who might be just as good but was a lower end guy in his 2nd or 3rd year, so it all ends up affecting the cap as well. Basically, I more or less see your point and think it makes sense, but the way a GM has to look at such things is a lot more complex than we even know. |
|
Tim05
Sophomore
@tim05
Posts: 216
Likes: 224
|
Post by Tim05 on Jan 4, 2024 15:30:26 GMT
I guess the question really depends. If it's simply, which do you want without considering what you invest? Probably Williams. I wasn't super impressed with him watching probably 3 or 4 USC games this year, but literally every single GM you talk to raves about him. They probably know more than I do. If you're taking into account likely draft positions, I want Daniels or Penix. I subscribe to 2 things when thinking about the NFL draft: - Quarterback is the most important position in football. Get it right, and everything else on your offense looks better
- The NFL draft is a crapshoot. GM's probably know more than I do, but not by that much. Bust rates are high, even for very high draft picks
Given those 2 things, I am always in favor of trading down. Since nothing is a guarantee, I'd rather have more shots at hitting a home run. If the first pick yields me 60% success rate, and I can trade it and turn it into 3 shots at 45% succcess rates, let me play the numbers here and take the 3 picks. So for my Bears, my hope come April is trading the #1 pick way down, maybe to someone like the Raiders, where you can get at least 3 first-rounders back, and then some. If you can pull off the same deal as what landed us DJ Moore, and instead get Max Crosby, you've won the trade, even if Williams or whoever end up being great. Bears still need to take a QB, I don't really care if it's McCarthy, Daniels, Nix, or Penix, but grab someone in the first two rounds. You can even bring Fields back to start next year after you draft one of those guys, and see how it goes. I kind of agree about trading down, but it's also not quite that simple. 3 picks then translate to 3 roster spots, so you have to think about how that affects your ability to sign and free agents and/or who on the lower end of the roster is replaced by unknown quantities in rookies and what that cost is worth. Obviously you weed people out in training camp, but your suddenly bringing in multiple people for every 1 that you'd otherwise have to evaluate... and of course that means fewer invitations to camp.. and while rookie salaries are limited high round draft picks are going to make more than someone else who might be just as good but was a lower end guy in his 2nd or 3rd year, so it all ends up affecting the cap as well. Basically, I more or less see your point and think it makes sense, but the way a GM has to look at such things is a lot more complex than we even know. You're right in that my thoughts are a gross over-simplification of the process. You can't acquire 30 draft picks a year and think you're going to have a successful franchise. Just in general terms, I'm usually pretty happy when my team trades down, and I'm usually not very happy when they trade up. Especially when you are talking about the #1 overall pick, what you get back for compensation is just so much that for me, isn't worth the risk of drafting a bust there which seems like it's almost 50/50 |
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 4, 2024 15:36:41 GMT
I kind of agree about trading down, but it's also not quite that simple. 3 picks then translate to 3 roster spots, so you have to think about how that affects your ability to sign and free agents and/or who on the lower end of the roster is replaced by unknown quantities in rookies and what that cost is worth. Obviously you weed people out in training camp, but your suddenly bringing in multiple people for every 1 that you'd otherwise have to evaluate... and of course that means fewer invitations to camp.. and while rookie salaries are limited high round draft picks are going to make more than someone else who might be just as good but was a lower end guy in his 2nd or 3rd year, so it all ends up affecting the cap as well. Basically, I more or less see your point and think it makes sense, but the way a GM has to look at such things is a lot more complex than we even know. You're right in that my thoughts are a gross over-simplification of the process. You can't acquire 30 draft picks a year and think you're going to have a successful franchise. Just in general terms, I'm usually pretty happy when my team trades down, and I'm usually not very happy when they trade up. Especially when you are talking about the #1 overall pick, what you get back for compensation is just so much that for me, isn't worth the risk of drafting a bust there which seems like it's almost 50/50 I'm with you there. I'll say though, that even though some fans still criticized this pick, the Giants took Saquon Barkley 2nd overall and he's kind of the only player for the last few years that can still have pride in his performance and effort. You can score at those top spots, but it's by no means a guarantee. And QBs seem to be harder to figure than most positions. |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jan 9, 2024 15:05:13 GMT
bump
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jan 9, 2024 23:40:54 GMT
Penix Jr. & I'll be here in April when the Patriots don't agree. Well... last night he looked like a broken body, so I'll pass now. |
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Jan 10, 2024 23:14:42 GMT
Some guy on ESPN said he sees Penix as 2nd day, from 31 to 44. Not accurate when he has to move out of the pocket.
|
|
