OT: Bears Talk - Justin Fields era begins

[weneeda2guard]

Great move, wasn't too much given imo we still have our 2nd and 3rd this season so we can still add some quality pieces

And if fields becomes what many expect him to become we could look back and hindsight and feel like we didn't give up enough and got a steal.

[nomorezorro]

i'm all for prioritizing o-line but CB is pretty comfortably the second-most glaring position of need on the bears roster right now

i think they should be able to trade down from 52 (and consolidate a few of those 6th round picks?) to get a solid spread of options from the 3rd-6th rounds. this is the one thing pace has a history of being good at so i'm pretty optimistic about the possibilities on day 2-3.

not gonna pretend i know anything about mid-late round NFL prospects, but from what i've read i feel like we could get good value from the BYU tackle who's seemingly not a heralded prospect solely because he's super old, or the stanford tackle who missed two years due to injury/covid opt out

[ThisGuyFawkes]

i'm all for prioritizing o-line but CB is pretty comfortably the second-most glaring position of need on the bears roster right now

i think they should be able to trade down from 52 (and consolidate a few of those 6th round picks?) to get a solid spread of options from the 3rd-6th rounds. this is the one thing pace has a history of being good at so i'm pretty optimistic about the possibilities on day 2-3.

not gonna pretend i know anything about mid-late round NFL prospects, but from what i've read i feel like we could get good value from the BYU tackle who's seemingly not a heralded prospect solely because he's super old, or the stanford tackle who missed two years due to injury/covid opt out

I like the OT from Texas as well. Samuel Cosmi. He could be available in round 3 if we trade back.

[Susan]

I know he's had injury issues but Moore from Purdue would be filthy here. Mooney is going to roll with Justin, Moore would be even nastier.

[superdave]

I'd also like to see OT in R2, especially if Cosmi is there. There's a big dropoff after the next several OT's get picked. CB in the 3rd round too...

[Michael Jackson]

I said this when the Bears traded up for Trubisky and I’ll say it again. I will always be ok with trading up to get your guy at the QB position. You have to get the right guy of course, but it’s the most important position in sports. I’m good with it.

I’m ok with the trade this time because Fields isn’t the reach that Mitch was. I am fine with the Bulls trading up but not for Doug. I don’t care if Fields isn’t great but this makes sense. The problem is I don’t like trading up for “reaches”. Ends may be worse than Mitch but the logic behind it was better and I like logic lol.

I agree, but I only really apply that logic to the QB position. Again, I wanted Desean from the get go, but I couldn’t crush the trade completely because the Bears understood how valuable the QB position is.

As for the NBA comparison, if I can get a super dynamic playmaker with great size or that player has a generational talent I’m all over it. Otherwise, I’d lean towards more dart throws than just settling for players.

In the NBA one player can change a lot, but it is also near impossible to trade up for that player. No offer would have gotten Zion away from NOP etc...

Mike Ditka disagrees though that it’s only a QB worth trading up for. Ricky Williams! You are correct though QB is the on,y position where it is justifiable in the NFL unless there is some real amazing circumstance and you have a hole at that spot and a generational talent is available and it instantly makes you a favorite. I’m not even sure what that scenario would be so just ignore that I said it.

[Susan]

Read on Twitter

[Chi town]

Love that Fields will be wearing 1.

https://www.bleachernation.com/bears/2021/04/30/on-a-record-breaking-night-new-bears-qb-justin-fields-was-the-2-best-selling-jersey-in-the-country/

[Susan]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Chi town]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

[Leslie Forman]

I really want to like this move but man, I have no faith whatsoever in Pace's QB evaluation abilities. So I will remain skeptically hopeful.

[Ben Wilson25]

I really want to like this move but man, I have no faith whatsoever in Pace's QB evaluation abilities. So I will remain skeptically hopeful.

I’ve been a Bears fan long enough to expect him to roll around in the Bears stink for awhile and turn into JaMarcus Russell but I think he’s easily the best QB prospect they’ve had in my lifetime.

[2018C3]

I was pretty low on the Bears after they signed Andy Dalton. I would have much rather kept Mitch for another year. and picked up another quarterback wherever the draft pick fell in any round.

I would have used some of the picks to beef up the offensive line, to help protect the next new quarterback and give them the best chance to succeed.

But if drafting Fields, or trading up for another new higher pick quarterback was the front office plan all along I now understand why the Dalton move was made.

If they kept Mitch, and traded up to acquire his rookie successor, it would have not been a great environment to try and develop a new offensive leader, under another now team veteran who was still struggling to establish themselves.

I just fear they made this move a year or two early. Chicago has always struggled to put the newly acquired quarterback in a position to succeed. I think the offensive line should have been further developed first before another move like this was made.

I would look into trying to move Mack. The Bears are not going to win with either Dalton, or a inexperienced rookie quarterback in the next season or two.

_______________________________________

Edit: Now that a move has been made, I'd try and move Mach and try to pick up some more additional pieces that might help the new Quarterback develop and be successful.

[Dresden]

I was pretty low on the Bears after they signed Andy Dalton. I would have much rather kept Mitch for another year. and picked up another quarterback wherever the draft pick fell in any round.

I would have used some of the picks to beef up the offensive line, to help protect the next new quarterback and give them the best chance to succeed.

But if drafting Fields, or trading up for another new higher pick quarterback was the front office plan all along I now understand why the Dalton move was made.

If they kept Mitch, and traded up to acquire his rookie successor, it would have not been a great environment to try and develop a new offensive leader, under another now team veteran who was still struggling to establish themselves.

I just fear they made this move a year or two early. Chicago has always struggled to put the newly acquired quarterback in a position to succeed. I think the offensive line should have been further developed first before another move like this was made.

This was a rare opportunity to acquire a franchise level talent at QB. That doesn't happen every year. You can't just sit on your heels and expect it to happen again a year or two from now. They were fortunate the QB class was so deep this year, and that a number of teams passed on Fields and Mac Jones.

And while QB's need good O lines to help them develop, it also helps the O line quite a bit when they have a QB that can stretch the field and keep the defense honest. With Mitch, defenses knew we were going to either run the ball, or throw short passes, making their jobs a lot more difficult.

I liked Eddie Jackson's comment: "finally, we get a real quarterback around here!"

You can't let the whole team be demoralized for another two years waiting for all the pieces to fall into place. Guys are actually excited to be playing behind Fields now. I think this move will be one of the best things the Bears have done since they drafted #34.

[Dresden]

From the mocks of the 2nd round I've seen, a lot of O lineman and WR's will be going around where Bears pick. Including a guard who played with Fields at OSU.

[dice]

I was pretty low on the Bears after they signed Andy Dalton. I would have much rather kept Mitch for another year. and picked up another quarterback wherever the draft pick fell in any round.

I would have used some of the picks to beef up the offensive line, to help protect the next new quarterback and give them the best chance to succeed.

But if drafting Fields, or trading up for another new higher pick quarterback was the front office plan all along I now understand why the Dalton move was made.

If they kept Mitch, and traded up to acquire his rookie successor, it would have not been a great environment to try and develop a new offensive leader, under another now team veteran who was still struggling to establish themselves.

I just fear they made this move a year or two early. Chicago has always struggled to put the newly acquired quarterback in a position to succeed. I think the offensive line should have been further developed first before another move like this was made.

the question is whether they still would have signed dalton if they knew they were going to trade up for a QB. they could have just as easily used foles as a stopgap and spent that extra $10 mil elsewhere

games started at QB (playoffs incl.) for chicago bears:

104 cutler
66 harbaugh
65 mcmahon
64 ed brown

w/ the new 17 game schedule, fields would only have to start every game for 6 seasons w/ at least 3 playoff games to surpass cutler

[2018C3]

I was pretty low on the Bears after they signed Andy Dalton. I would have much rather kept Mitch for another year. and picked up another quarterback wherever the draft pick fell in any round.

I would have used some of the picks to beef up the offensive line, to help protect the next new quarterback and give them the best chance to succeed.

But if drafting Fields, or trading up for another new higher pick quarterback was the front office plan all along I now understand why the Dalton move was made.

If they kept Mitch, and traded up to acquire his rookie successor, it would have not been a great environment to try and develop a new offensive leader, under another now team veteran who was still struggling to establish themselves.

I just fear they made this move a year or two early. Chicago has always struggled to put the newly acquired quarterback in a position to succeed. I think the offensive line should have been further developed first before another move like this was made.

the question is whether they still would have signed dalton if they knew they were going to trade up for a QB. they could have just as easily used foles as a stopgap and spent that extra $10 mil elsewhere

games started at QB (playoffs incl.) for chicago bears:

104 cutler
66 harbaugh
65 mcmahon
64 ed brown

w/ the new 17 game schedule, fields would only have to start every game for 6 seasons w/ at least 3 playoff games to surpass cutler

I would have been completely okay with using Foles as a transition Quarterback. In fact now that you brought it up, that would have been ideal.

[2018C3]

Anyways, I do like the potential Fields has.

He fills a few check marks I like to see at this position.

[dice]

I was pretty low on the Bears after they signed Andy Dalton. I would have much rather kept Mitch for another year. and picked up another quarterback wherever the draft pick fell in any round.

I would have used some of the picks to beef up the offensive line, to help protect the next new quarterback and give them the best chance to succeed.

But if drafting Fields, or trading up for another new higher pick quarterback was the front office plan all along I now understand why the Dalton move was made.

If they kept Mitch, and traded up to acquire his rookie successor, it would have not been a great environment to try and develop a new offensive leader, under another now team veteran who was still struggling to establish themselves.

I just fear they made this move a year or two early. Chicago has always struggled to put the newly acquired quarterback in a position to succeed. I think the offensive line should have been further developed first before another move like this was made.

the question is whether they still would have signed dalton if they knew they were going to trade up for a QB. they could have just as easily used foles as a stopgap and spent that extra $10 mil elsewhere

games started at QB (playoffs incl.) for chicago bears:

104 cutler
66 harbaugh
65 mcmahon
64 ed brown

w/ the new 17 game schedule, fields would only have to start every game for 6 seasons w/ at least 3 playoff games to surpass cutler

I would have been completely okay with using Foles as a transition Quarterback. In fact now that you brought it up, that would have been ideal.

foles would have known full well that he wasn't expected to finish the season as starter. then again, dalton won't have much room to complain assuming that he's replaced mid-season or whatever. what are the chances that fields doesn't start as a rookie?

i'll put the over/under at week 7 that fields gets his first start. and i think i'll take the over 'cause i think the team is more likely to be 3-3 than 2-4 heading into week 7. so week 7 loss and fields starts game 8

[2018C3]

I agree, He will start at least once this next coming season and if things go right or even wrong record wise, He will have a chance to to put a grip on to that position.

I'm much more excited to see him in charge than any other quarterback the team has had in years.