Anything comments

[Stinger226]

2 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

You may be misunderstanding my point.

I'm saying with the market the way it is right now, paying a QB the going rate for a second deal with the same team, i.e. top 10 QB money, automatically puts your team into cap hell. You can have that QB, but you cant afford a full team around him.

Someone could argue that a Pat Mahomes is worth paying that to, because he can take inferior players and make them superstars by being so good, throwing lesser receivers open etc.

Someone else might argue that no QB is worth what that does to your cap, and KC and GB under Rodgers kinda show that to be true. A lot of Mahomes' passes are getting dropped by lesser receivers because they couldnt afford to keep Tyreek Hill.

But either way, whether Mahomes is worth it or not, you cant pay a QB that kind of money if you dont already KNOW they are at that Super Bowl winning level. That's how you end up in cap hell with NO WAY OUT of it for years. Like the Cutler 7 year deal. You think maybe after year 3 or 4, they might have thought "Crap, Jay isnt it" and then they had to roll with him for FOUR MORE YEARS because they had no way out? THis has been our story for decades. Stuck in mediocrity.

Now, if instead you've argued for putting talent around Fields, then that is the other model of cap management. You get a rookie QB on their rookie deal, and you have tons of cap space to add all kinds of talent around them, and try to win a Super Bowl within the first 4 years.

But if you are going into year 4 with a QB on their rookie deal, you have to decide at that point whether you are done with them, or want to roll with them long term. That's when you need to say yes or no to the $25 Mil guaranteed the year after the one coming up now.

Now if you say yes, and then find that he isnt the guy after year 4, then youre STUCK with him for year five because of the option, and then after that you have nothing and youre starting over looking for a QB without a guaranteed high first pick to even get a QB. That's how you end up 7-10 every year with no way out other than mortgaging multiple years drafts to move up for a rookie.

On the other hand, if you dont pick up the option, you know your QB is gone to free agency after that year, and again you have wasted the 4th year for nothing after that. You may think you can sign him then, but then youve missed the $25 Mil option and gone right to $40+ Mil a year early, so even more cap hell! Plus there's no guarantee that player picks your team since you didnt show you believed in them. And to try to franchise tag a QB? THAT is a certain holdout.

On another hand, if you take a rookie and strike out, you probably have a high draft pick again and can take another swing after 2 years, all the while having cap to keep building the roster into a monster.

That's why the 5th year option is there and structured the way it is - so teams will have to sh*t or get off the pot after year 3 with first round QBs. That's why the players union have negotiated it: specifically to force this decision.

Now Poles did a fantastic job of using our #1 pick last year to punt and get us in this position again were we have had this year 3 to evaluate Fields. And here we are at the end of that.

But the question isn't "Did Fields improve? Is he worth riding with one more year to see where he goes?" the question, forced by cap reality is "are you willing to bet your entire cap future right now that Fields is going to be Mahomes level" and another question is "is ANY QB worth that much?"

Now of course lesser QBs sign for lesser deals, but no one is building a plan based on paying inferior QBs $20 Mil a year and having them be franchise QBs for the long haul.

Like it or not, the decision time is May. And I dont see how anyone can say JF is 100% worth mortgaging our entire future for at this point.

Will a rookie be as good as Fields has been? Who knows? But you arent betting the farm on them - THATs the difference.

Also, as a PS, Brady always took $10 Mil less than his value so he could have a team around him.

There's no right or wrong answer when you've expressing opinions, everything is speculation. If your money answer is the right way to do things,  why are QBs getting paid and teams not just drafting new QBs every 4 years? 12 QBs are making over 40 mil a year. Only one wins a SB every year. The best team in the league at this moment has a 7 th rounder starting for them right now. Those teams seem to be making the cap work. Dallas , Philly, Baltimore, KC, and Buf are all competing while paying their QB.

[BearFan PHX]

32 minutes ago, Stinger226 said:

There's no right or wrong answer when you've expressing opinions, everything is speculation. If your money answer is the right way to do things,  why are QBs getting paid and teams not just drafting new QBs every 4 years? 12 QBs are making over 40 mil a year. Only one wins a SB every year. The best team in the league at this moment has a 7 th rounder starting for them right now. Those teams seem to be making the cap work. Dallas , Philly, Baltimore, KC, and Buf are all competing while paying their QB.

They have all identified that their QB is a Super Bowl QB.

You gotta read what i wrote, and not just skim it.

I said IF you think you have a super Bowl QB then there is an argument for going all the way to that contract. If you think that QB makes the players around him better - throwing lesser receivers open etc.

But you've made the opposite argument many times - to put talent around Fields to elevate him. And that's not wrong. But that's not the guy you pay. that's the guy you use the cap money to surround.

The opinion part of this is: if you think Fields is already a sure fire Super Bowl winner, then yes that's an opinion, and going all the way with him is a move that makes sense.

I think that's crazy to say at this point, but if thats what you think youre entitled to it for sure.

But if, instead, you think that youre hoping he'll progress, then paying him is a MISTAKE. an ERROR.

That's the point.

We can disagree on evaluation of Fields, but we cant disagree that going all in on only a hope, when you have the top draft pick, is GM malpractice.

So if youre 100% on Fields, fine, thats a logical position. But if not, then it just isnt.

[Stinger226]

6 hours ago, BearFan PHX said:

They have all identified that their QB is a Super Bowl QB.

You gotta read what i wrote, and not just skim it.

I said IF you think you have a super Bowl QB then there is an argument for going all the way to that contract. If you think that QB makes the players around him better - throwing lesser receivers open etc.

But you've made the opposite argument many times - to put talent around Fields to elevate him. And that's not wrong. But that's not the guy you pay. that's the guy you use the cap money to surround.

The opinion part of this is: if you think Fields is already a sure fire Super Bowl winner, then yes that's an opinion, and going all the way with him is a move that makes sense.

I think that's crazy to say at this point, but if thats what you think youre entitled to it for sure.

But if, instead, you think that youre hoping he'll progress, then paying him is a MISTAKE. an ERROR.

That's the point.

We can disagree on evaluation of Fields, but we cant disagree that going all in on only a hope, when you have the top draft pick, is GM malpractice.

So if youre 100% on Fields, fine, thats a logical position. But if not, then it just isnt.

Prescott is playing well now but Dallas has struggled with the thought he is a Mahomes type and questioned paying him the last time they paid him and have to do it again. No one paid  Daniel Jones, Russel Wilson and Kyle Murray thinking they are their Patrick Mahomes.  People can think that they are good enough to win a SB (building the team around a QB) w/o thinking they got there because of the QB. Its calling winning with a QB not winning because of the QB.  

Here again I have to state I have never said ( IF you think you have a super Bowl QB then there is an argument for going all the way to that contract. If you think that QB makes the players around him better - throwing lesser receivers open etc.) 

Yes I am hoping for progress but Paying him 50 mil a year has nothing to do with having him being the QB in 2024 or and 2025. You think it is just one or the other, its not. That doesnt mean you cant draft a QB and still have Fields our QB in 2024 and or 2025. Its just gives Poles more time to evaluate Justin. KC drafted a QB and still won with Alex Smith and changed QBs the next year. Poles was in KC when that happened. Having the top pick in the draft doesnt mean you have to pick a QB with that pick.  Many people think trading that pick can get us a 2023 draft type of trade haul that has given this team a huge lift in roster building. 

No one ever thought Mahomes would turn out to be who he is, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Montana, Farve,  Warner just pick a name. There might be that QB in this draft but I think trusting Williams to be that guy is a risk. Poles is in a better spot to decide that over our opinions. Here again I will state I trust Poles to figure that out and will be excited for whoever he thinks is our QB of the future even Fields. 

I think the most logical choice is to keep Fields for 2024 and still draft a prospect. He's not going to hold out or the newly drafted QB not play here because his feelings are hurt. 

I am not the only person that thinks the way I do, many former QBs think we should keep Fields and several fans polls that say 70% of fandom think we should run with Justin. 30% agree with you AND they are just opinions.

[Pixote]

1 hour ago, Stinger226 said:

Many people think trading that pick can get us a 2023 draft type of trade haul that has given this team a huge lift in roster building. 

The table is set. The Bears are hungry. If we wind up with the #1 pick in the first round, Poles will have a chance to make the 3rd best draft day trade in NFL history. (The Herschel Walker & Ricky Williams trades were totally insane.) IT WILL BE HUGE!

I believe that the salary cap, although obviously important, cannot be the deciding factor in this decision. Every team has to deal with salary cap issues involving their blue chip players, especially their QBs. The good teams know how to manage the cap to keep their teams core together.

With the draft picks we could have entering this draft, and the money we have to spend in free agency, we can be set for a deep playoff run in 2024.

[Stinger226]

4 minutes ago, Pixote said:

The table is set. The Bears are hungry. If we wind up with the #1 pick in the first round, Poles will have a chance to make the 3rd best draft day trade in NFL history. (The Herschel Walker & Ricky Williams trades were totally insane.) IT WILL BE HUGE!

I believe that the salary cap, although obviously important, cannot be the deciding factor in this decision. Every team has to deal with salary cap issues involving their blue chip players, especially their QBs. The good teams know how to manage the cap to keep their teams core together.

With the draft picks we could have entering this draft, and the money we have to spend in free agency, we can be set for a deep playoff run in 2024.

The salary cap is definitely something to keep in mind but like you said other teams seem to manage, that IF that matters in 2026, I trust Poles to figure it out. 
That's not even saying I think Justin is even here then but for next year it just isnt something you focus on. If everyone thinks Williams is the guy, 3 21st round picks, a second now and in the future or some players back. I dont think he will even want to bring in another big contract (Crosby) but add someone with upside in his first couple of yrs on a rookie contract.  NE, Kyle Duggar/S, Cole Strange/OG ( he played some snaps at OC in college. OR Cardinals- BJ Ojulari-Paris Johnson jr . all of those would be cheap contracts for several yrs. Falcons Drake London- Matt Bergron .

[ASHKUM BEAR]

39 minutes ago, Pixote said:

The table is set. The Bears are hungry. If we wind up with the #1 pick in the first round, Poles will have a chance to make the 3rd best draft day trade in NFL history. (The Herschel Walker & Ricky Williams trades were totally insane.) IT WILL BE HUGE!

I believe that the salary cap, although obviously important, cannot be the deciding factor in this decision. Every team has to deal with salary cap issues involving their blue chip players, especially their QBs. The good teams know how to manage the cap to keep their teams core together.

With the draft picks we could have entering this draft, and the money we have to spend in free agency, we can be set for a deep playoff run in 2024.

Trading the QB you have and drafting an unknown will not sit good with fans that deserve a great product that is starting to show fruit.  The Bears can and should select a QB but there is no reason to reset the team because it might cost 25 million in 2 years.  If they draft a good prospect, then JF1 has to excel to keep his job. That to me seems like a great way to bring the cream to the top and give Chicago something they have never seen in having a QB pipeline.

[BearFan PHX]

11 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Trading the QB you have and drafting an unknown will not sit good with fans that deserve a great product that is starting to show fruit.  The Bears can and should select a QB but there is no reason to reset the team because it might cost 25 million in 2 years.  If they draft a good prospect, then JF1 has to excel to keep his job. That to me seems like a great way to bring the cream to the top and give Chicago something they have never seen in having a QB pipeline.

Im not saying its because it will cost you $25M, Im saying it's because it costs you $25M and then you have nothing after that year. JF will not stay in Chicago if we havent extended him with a $40M+ contract before that year. If he doesnt hold out, then he plays that year for $25M and then is a free agent and leaves because we didnt have his back.

[Pixote]

2 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Im not saying its because it will cost you $25M, Im saying it's because it costs you $25M and then you have nothing after that year. JF will not stay in Chicago if we havent extended him with a $40M+ contract before that year. If he doesnt hold out, then he plays that year for $25M and then is a free agent and leaves because we didnt have his back.

I do not think you can rule out Fields resigning with the Bears if the Bears do not use his fifth year option. Its a business. Fields knows that. There has been many players, some QBs, that did not get their 5th year option signed yet some had a great 4th year and finally came to terms, staying with their team. 

 

[ASHKUM BEAR]

2 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Im not saying its because it will cost you $25M, Im saying it's because it costs you $25M and then you have nothing after that year. JF will not stay in Chicago if we havent extended him with a $40M+ contract before that year. If he doesnt hold out, then he plays that year for $25M and then is a free agent and leaves because we didnt have his back.

If JF holds out, then you have that insurance drafted.  If he walks and signs elsewhere, then the Bears get a 3rd rd compensation pick which is better than nothing. The Bears could trade him in 2025 if they feel good with the drafted qbs progress.  There isn't a set in stone process, there are alway options. Poles might go your route too but he would be betting his future on an unknown being ready to carry the team that is starting to show they can compete.

[BearFan PHX]

5 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

If JF holds out, then you have that insurance drafted.  If he walks and signs elsewhere, then the Bears get a 3rd rd compensation pick which is better than nothing. The Bears could trade him in 2025 if they feel good with the drafted qbs progress.  There isn't a set in stone process, there are alway options. Poles might go your route too but he would be betting his future on an unknown being ready to carry the team that is starting to show they can compete.

the Bears cant trade him if they dont own his rights going forward.

If you mean trade him before thre 2025 season, then yes they could, but the $25 Million is guaranteed, so the money stays on our cap even if we trade him.

[BearFan PHX]

7 minutes ago, Pixote said:

I do not think you can rule out Fields resigning with the Bears if the Bears do not use his fifth year option. Its a business. Fields knows that. There has been many players, some QBs, that did not get their 5th year option signed yet some had a great 4th year and finally came to terms, staying with their team. 

 

If we have shown that we don't have his back and didnt already believe in him, then we would just be one team trying to bid for him, and to sign him then, youd need to pay even more to win the bidding and that means even worse cap hell?

Functionally, this long term decision needs to be made by May of this year.

It is true that you can decide "yes" on Fields, and then go back on it after 2025, but then youve wasted this draft position to get a QB and two years of the contracts of the rest of the team thats coming together now.

To be clear, Im not saying you cant choose to roll with Fields. You can. I just dont see a real scenario where you can wait and see and delay the choice. Right now we control the decision to keep him, or to move on from him.

Waiting for 2025 puts all the cards out of our hands, and into Justin's.

 

[Pixote]

3 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

If we have shown that we don't have his back and didnt already believe in him, then we would just be one team trying to bid for him, and to sign him then, youd need to pay even more to win the bidding and that means even worse cap hell?

Functionally, this long term decision needs to be made by May of this year.

It is true that you can decide "yes" on Fields, and then go back on it after 2025, but then youve wasted this draft position to get a QB and two years of the contracts of the rest of the team thats coming together now.

To be clear, Im not saying you cant choose to roll with Fields. You can. I just dont see a real scenario where you can wait and see and delay the choice. Right now we control the decision to keep him, or to move on from him.

Waiting for 2025 puts all the cards out of our hands, and into Justin's.

 

But then we can use the franchise tag to hold him to play with us or to get another team to trade for his rights. We would pay him less using the tag than what he would get on a new multiyear contract, without any guaranteed money going forward. 

[BearFan PHX]

5 minutes ago, Pixote said:

But then we can use the franchise tag to hold him to play with us or to get another team to trade for his rights. We would pay him less using the tag than what he would get on a new multiyear contract, without any guaranteed money going forward. 

Using a franchise tag on a QB you refused to extend is a guaranteed hold out. You end up having to trade Fields after the draft for less than you would have gotten otherwise, and you have no QB that year.

The lawyers already thought of ALL of this when they put in the May deadline for the 5th year option. This is what it was designed for - to force a decision. You cant tap dance around it. There is no loophole.

The Chargers tried this with Drew Brees for example...

[BearFan PHX]

Also, when Fields threw the ball short to Kmet on 3rd down and we didnt convert, Moore was wide open downfield...

[ASHKUM BEAR]

18 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

the Bears cant trade him if they dont own his rights going forward.

If you mean trade him before thre 2025 season, then yes they could, but the $25 Million is guaranteed, so the money stays on our cap even if we trade him.

And you have a rookie QB contract, so if you feel good with him you can swallow 25 million for the rest of the year. 

The Chiefs had Alex Smith signed for 2 more years and drafted Mahomes in 2017. In 2018, Mahomes started on Smiths last year so his salary was on the bench. Smith walked in 2019 and signed w Washington for 94 mil.  

Let's say the Bears trade out of 1, draft McCarthy or Daniel's at 10.  Role with Fields in 2024 and see what 2025 brings.  If you lose 25 million and get a Mahomes type, then it's OK to let him walk. 

[Pixote]

12 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

Using a franchise tag on a QB you refused to extend is a guaranteed hold out. You end up having to trade Fields after the draft for less than you would have gotten otherwise, and you have no QB that year.

The lawyers already thought of ALL of this when they put in the May deadline for the 5th year option. This is what it was designed for - to force a decision. You cant tap dance around it. There is no loophole.

The Chargers tried this with Drew Brees for example...

I disagree. IMHO, it is a viable option. Been done successfully before. Can be done again. Yes, it may cost you in negotiations, but it also limits your risks going forward. 

[BearFan PHX]

4 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

And you have a rookie QB contract, so if you feel good with him you can swallow 25 million for the rest of the year. 

The Chiefs had Alex Smith signed for 2 more years and drafted Mahomes in 2017. In 2018, Mahomes started on Smiths last year so his salary was on the bench. Smith walked in 2019 and signed w Washington for 94 mil.  

Let's say the Bears trade out of 1, draft McCarthy or Daniel's at 10.  Role with Fields in 2024 and see what 2025 brings.  If you lose 25 million and get a Mahomes type, then it's OK to let him walk. 

so youre saying draft a QB with a top pick this year to sit behind Fields for two years? Or are you saying draft a QB in the future - and if so, unless you have a top pick, youre either trading three years worth of #1 picks to move up for that rookie, or youre talking about taking a rookie later in that draft?

[BearFan PHX]

2 minutes ago, Pixote said:

I disagree. IMHO, it is a viable option. Been done successfully before. Can be done again. Yes, it may cost you in negotiations, but it also limits your risks going forward. 

can you cite an example where its worked before?

They instituted this 5th year option thing as a standard part of the rookie contract specifically to counteract this move.

[Stinger226]

To clear the point on the 5th year option, I just talked to Greg Gabriel on X, according to him, the 5th year option is guaranteed but it is his salary for that year and not a bonus,  so if you trade Justin, you are not responsible for his salary unless you agree to pay it in a trade. Why would we do that?

[ASHKUM BEAR]

7 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

so youre saying draft a QB with a top pick this year to sit behind Fields for two years? Or are you saying draft a QB in the future - and if so, unless you have a top pick, youre either trading three years worth of #1 picks to move up for that rookie, or youre talking about taking a rookie later in that draft?

Trade down this year and still draft a QB. This class has 6 or so that can go round 1.  We traded up for Trubisky all while KC took Mahomes 10th in that class. The top spot does not mean you get the best.  

[BearFan PHX]

Gabriel is wrong.

"the 2020 collective bargaining agreement allows for teams to exercise a fifth-year option for players drafted in the first round as an addition to the standard four-year rookie contract. Upon being exercised, the fifth-year option is fully guaranteed, and any base salary in the player's fourth year that was not fully guaranteed will become so."

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/36402907/fifth-year-option-tracker-nfl-players-2020-first-round

[BearFan PHX]

2 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Trade down this year and still draft a QB. This class has 6 or so that can go round 1.  We traded up for Trubisky all while KC took Mahomes 10th in that class. The top spot does not mean you get the best.  

I agree. If we have a top 10 pick, Ive been saying trade down the #1 and pick your QB with the second top 10 pick is a possible scenario.

So youre saying take the rookie this year, and have him sit behind Fields for 2 guaranteed years.

I think it causes friction, but that IS a viable scenario, as long as you get a first round QB this year.

One issue though is that if Fields is the man after that, you still have to overpay to keep him after 2024 then because hes still a free agent and you didnt believe in him and extend him. And if you did extend him, then hes still a free agent after 2025.

You can do that, for sure.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

2 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

I agree. If we have a top 10 pick, Ive been saying trade down the #1 and pick your QB with the second top 10 pick is a possible scenario.

So youre saying take the rookie this year, and have him sit behind Fields for 2 guaranteed years.

I think it causes friction, but that IS a viable scenario, as long as you get a first round QB this year.

One issue though is that if Fields is the man after that, you still have to overpay to keep him after 2024 then because hes still a free agent and you didnt believe in him and extend him. And if you did extend him, then hes still a free agent after 2025.

You can do that, for sure.

Yes, I think this is what many of us see. If Fields improves with competition and he costs more to extend, then it is a great problem to have.  If not, then in 2025 Fields walks as a FA. All while in 24 you have a prospect cooking. 

[BearFan PHX]

5 minutes ago, ASHKUM BEAR said:

Yes, I think this is what many of us see. If Fields improves with competition and he costs more to extend, then it is a great problem to have.  If not, then in 2025 Fields walks as a FA. All while in 24 you have a prospect cooking. 

so to be clear, youre saying take a QB in the top half of the first round, keep Fields for 2024 and dont extend him?

It does leave doors open, but then why would Fields resign with us after 2024 when we didnt believe in him?

You could over pay for him to get him, but that makes your cap hell even worse going forward that a regular second contract. And again, there is nothing that says Fields has to take it either.

I think that youve successfully mitigated the risk with this scenario if fields isnt the guy, but then you havent set yourself up well for the scenario where Fields works out?

That's why I'm saying the cleanest thing is to firmly decide yes or no on him after this season. And that's what the May deadline is meant to force.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

8 minutes ago, BearFan PHX said:

so to be clear, youre saying take a QB in the top half of the first round, keep Fields for 2024 and dont extend him?

It does leave doors open, but then why would Fields resign with us after 2024 when we didnt believe in him?

You could over pay for him to get him, but that makes your cap hell even worse going forward that a regular second contract. And again, there is nothing that says Fields has to take it either.

I think that youve successfully mitigated the risk with this scenario if fields isnt the guy, but then you havent set yourself up well for the scenario where Fields works out?

That's why I'm saying the cleanest thing is to firmly decide yes or no on him after this season. And that's what the May deadline is meant to force.

I am saying the 25 million 5th year option signed. Still draft a QB, but trade down and gain a future 1st for 2025, and whatever haul they can get.  You have Fields for 2024 and 2025 and a rookie to groom.  If Fields lights it up you have a good problem and hopefully a good backup. When his contract expires after 2025, you are either signing him to a huge contract or he signed elsewhere and the Bears will get a 3rd rd comp pick.  You double down on having that position set.